Proof We Didn't Go To The Moon?

1. In what way would the Earth's mean atmospheric pressure of 101.325 kPa alter the trajectory of the rover?

Earth atmospheric pressure of 1 bar effects the horizontal motion of an object as friction. In a vacuum you dont have the friction of 1 bar. There is not 1 bar atmospheric pressure on the moon.

So there is no friction effecting the rovers horizontal motion, except the wheels touching surface.

2. Would these effects be noticeable at the Moon's atmospheric pressure of 10^-7 Pa?

Yes, because the rover will travel with next to no atmospheric resistance on the moon. There by, the rover is only affected by the moons gravity (down force of 1.662m/sec) and the friction the sand has on the 4 wheels caused by the rovers own weight. The rover will weight 1/6 of what it would on earth.

The friction affecting the rover, is the rovers divided weight on the 4 wheels touching surface. (how much aria of the wheel that is touching surface at all times)

When this rover is in motion the rovers divided weight on the 4 wheels change. The rover will have a larger down force where the motor creates forward force. And the uneven surface will also effect how the weight is divided on the 4 wheels touching surface.

This rover seams to have a rear wheel suspension that creates its horizontal motion. That means less weight is on the two front wheels. But that's not all, because of the uneven surface the rover creates different angles of horizontal force. That means it pushes the rover at different elevated angles as it moves forwards.


Since the rover weighs about 1/6 on the moon compared to earth. You can figure out how much down force each wheel will have if the forward horizontal force is the same. The forward horizontal energy force on the rear wheel suspension will be the same on the moons as it is on earth. And if you compare it to a down force of 1.662m/sec instead of 10m/sec fall, and no atmospheric resistance, you will see this thing do wheelies on the moon with its speed.
Because of the fall speed 1.662m/sec would create, The rover would fall slower as it is being pushed forwards at a different angle compared to a 10m/sec fall at different angles here on earth.

reply to post by spy66


In other words, it would bounce just the way it does in the videos, and the dust would fall exactly the same way as it does in the videos. Incidentally, each of the rover's wheels had its own drive.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by spy66

 

In other words, it would bounce just the way it does in the videos, and the dust would fall exactly the same way as it does in the videos. Incidentally, each of the rover's wheels had its own drive.

Well, if it is filmed here on earth i would agree. This is exactly what i would have expected.

Unless all the videos are playing with a different speed then real time.

reply to post by spy66

Well, if it is filmed here on earth i would agree. This is exactly what i would have expected.

Unless all the videos are playing with a different speed then real time.

The videos are recorded in real time; things fall more slowly on the Moon. The dust arcs without billowing because of the absence of atmosphere and wind resistance. The rover could not go fast enough to achieve the accelerated speed necessary to create the illusion if slowed down.

Edit to add: You still haven't explained what you would expect it to look like if it were really on the Moon.

Its well know the Apollo missions were tracked by the entire civilized world, and none more closely than the Russians themselves. A page that I think is a debunking page. It's in Russian, and the author assures its by the Good Guys. Incidentally, since a Russian posted it, that makes it a bit harder to push the whole angle that this is a NASA conspiracy.


Летали ли американцы на Луну? (roughly translated to ‘Did fly Americans to the Moon?’)

Apollo missions with the rover 15-17 were filmed with the same specs as TV in the day, 30 fps, 525 scan lines lines per frame, at a 4:3 aspect ratio. Earlier missions like Apollo 11 were filmed with as slow of a frame rate as 10 frames per second.

reply to post by manmental


I'm sorry but that photo looks fake IMO

Now if that don’t look photo chopped I don’t know .. Because if that don’t look like that Apollo landing leg or in fact the whole Apollo Lander looks like it was just set into that background .. Its too obvious ..

Well here is a bit of information that will make you wonder ..

Was the Apollo Moon Landing Fake .. first time I ever seen this one!!
www.apfn.org...

NASA exposes their
Apollo moon landing hoax!
www.erichufschmid.net...

I think It self explanatory that some lies some cover-ups will never be exposed but there still is time left ..


Examination of Apollo Moon photographs
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by spy66


You seem to have a good insight to some issues. So I want to bring up the Apollo‘s re-entry to earth
I have seen some photo images which indicates that they had three Parachute's to slow the capsule down from high above earth.

So my question is in regards to descending speed according to the weight of this module or what ever it is called falling from the sky at a great speed and it just don’t seem logical that those parachutes would of provided any support any help at all.

I have tried to find some information based upon a professionals’ point of view on this but would just like to know would three Parachutes really do that much good ?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by spy66

 

Well, if it is filmed here on earth i would agree. This is exactly what i would have expected.

Unless all the videos are playing with a different speed then real time.

The videos are recorded in real time; things fall more slowly on the Moon. The dust arcs without billowing because of the absence of atmosphere and wind resistance. The rover could not go fast enough to achieve the accelerated speed necessary to create the illusion if slowed down.

Edit to add: You still haven't explained what you would expect it to look like if it were really on the Moon.

edit on 1-6-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

The rover would actually move faster on the moon then on earth. Because earth gives the rover more friction.

The horizontal speed should be fast, it shouldn't look slow at all. But all the elevated motions up and down (wobbling) should look a lot slower, because those motion are only effected by gravity.
The speed of the dust spun up behind the rover should be fast, and only slow down equal to the force of 1.662m/sec "g" affecting the mass of the dust particles.

But if you look at the slope which the dust moves after it is spun up. It falls very fast towards the surface after it has peaked up force. The dust falls as if the gravity pooled the sand with a force of 10m/sec^2.

Unless the film is not filming in real time.

reply to post by Logical one


People have real lives and things to do .. just because I dont jump and reply to a post .means I'm avoiding it
now to answer to your post of the graph this has no authenticity to it .. it is just a graph to me if in fact it meant anything it would be in NASA'a web site don't ya think dah??

reply to post by NorthStargal52


How did anybody land before the space Shuttle then? The Russians landed unpowered on solid land. Its called friction, and parachutes are kind of a well known way to slow a decent from the sky. Its not rocket science, oh wait, it is.

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
reply to post by spy66

 

You seem to have a good insight to some issues. So I want to bring up the Apollo‘s re-entry to earth
I have seen some photo images which indicates that they had three Parachute's to slow the capsule down from high above earth.

So my question is in regards to descending speed according to the weight of this module or what ever it is called falling from the sky at a great speed and it just don’t seem logical that those parachutes would of provided any support any help at all.

I have tried to find some information based upon a professionals’ point of view on this but would just like to know would three Parachutes really do that much good ?

The module enters earth atmosphere at a specific speed and angle. The module would start to slow down as soon as it enters our thicker atmosphere compare to the vacuum it was traveling in.
The module doesn't start to speed up when it enters our atmosphere. Because it is already free falling with a down force greater then 10m/sec^2. And for each new layer of atmospheric gasses (pressure) the module enters into, the more its free falling speed will be reduced by friction.

To slow the module down to a acceptable falling speed. They can apply different types of breaking parachutes at different altitudes to reduce the falling speed before the main three breaking chutes are applied.

There is no problem with bringing out three shuts at a high falling speed at a high altatude if the chute, the lines and the people inside are certified for the g forces this might effect them.

The three chutes create a much larger aria of air friction then what the module does alone. So the speed will be reduced greatly with three chutes.

For the module to reach ground it must travel through air (atmosphere). You can use parachutes as air breaks.

reply to post by Illustronic


You fail to explain the decent speed and the altitude all an all yeah its all rocket especialy when its not explined
can you provide any information on this as to how much change in speed the parachutes provided?

heres my opinion..Once the parachutes opened up it was at a very high altitude was it not ????? there is a difference here .. if you look at other parachutes from planes landing those parachutes are way more sophisticated than the Apollo parachutes were ..in fact thre is one photo showing that Apollo 11 only had one parachute ..

the correct term would be called a breaking parachute I have yet to find a percise answer to this but was able to find some information on later Apollo missions I actully .. think they also conveintly mixed up re -entrys to make it look all good ..

reply to post by spy66


Thanks for you reply that makes sense .. Stared
Well according to the Columbia disaster the speeds were enormous as those on vids of Apollo 11 there is a video out I just watched it so to compare re-entry speeds the are all very high .. this is why I bring it up .. I know that they made it all except the ones that failed .. I just wanted a better idea how fast the space module was actually traveling ?? At first I was thinking no that isn’t possible but this I agree in fact was true..

Although I don’t believe they went an landed on the moon I don’t doubt that the missions were all a test drive to orbit the moon and explore outer lunar orbit .

reply to post by NorthStargal52


The entering speed and angle can differ from module to module depending on how the entering module is constructed. The force that a entering module is effected by is the "g" force it encounters when it touches atmosphere. The g force is the reduction of speed/motion at given angle.
If the module is not constructed to touch atmosphere at a given speed and angle, the module might break up, because of the sudden reduction of speed. The reduction of speed will seam like bumps or turbulence. If the surface that touches the atmosphere first is not constructed for this force/reduction of speed, it might break up.

Keep in mind that when the module touches atmosphere its gains weight as well compared to its mass in motion in a vacuum.

reply to post by spy66

The rover would actually move faster on the moon then on earth. Because earth gives the rover more friction.

Air resistance at those low speeds would be negligible. However, the reduced gravity would result in a loss of traction! If anything, the rover would skitter like a car on ice. Look up "traction" and think about it. You are maintaining an indefensible position.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by spy66

 

The rover would actually move faster on the moon then on earth. Because earth gives the rover more friction.

Air resistance at those low speeds would be negligible. However, the reduced gravity would result in a loss of traction! If anything, the rover would skitter like a car on ice. Look up "traction" and think about it. You are maintaining an indefensible position.

On earth the rover would have more friction and more weight because " Earth has 1 bars atmosphere and 10m/sec g. There by, it would have less power to drift the rover at high speeds horizontally.

On the moon the rover would have no air friction and a lot less weight. There by it would have a lot more power to drive forward. ¨

If the moon was absolute flat and solid, the rover would drive with minimal traction on the two front wheels because. It has a back wheel drive. And there will be a center of gravity change to the rover, so it will have more traction on the two rear wheels. That means more weight on the rear. The rovers center of gravity will be located closer to the rear wheels. That means less gravity pool on the front wheels because it has a stiff chassis.

The surface on the moon is not absolute flat or solid. So the two front wheels on this rover will leave the surface. No questions asked. When it drives over these bumps with a gravity force of 1.662 "g" holding it to the ground.

Jesse's these astronauts could pick up this 30lbs ting and move it around like it was a toy.

reply to post by spy66

On earth the rover would have more friction and more weight because " Earth has 1 bars atmosphere and 10m/sec g. There by, it would have less power to drift the rover at high speeds horizontally.

On Earth the rover weighs more, but has the same mass. The weight of the atmosphere is irrelevant. Your conclusion doesn't follow, even given the faulty premise.

On the moon the rover would have no air friction and a lot less weight. There by it would have a lot more power to drive forward. ¨

The air friction is negligible anyway; the reduced weight results in a loss of traction, making the rover less effective.

If the moon was absolute flat and solid, the rover would drive with minimal traction on the two front wheels because. It has a back wheel drive. And there will be a center of gravity change to the rover, so it will have more traction on the two rear wheels. That means more weight on the rear. The rovers center of gravity will be located closer to the rear wheels. That means less gravity pool on the front wheels because it has a stiff chassis.

The rover had four wheel drive; in fact, each of the wheels can go in a different direction, allowing a turning radius of zero. The center of gravity would be in the same place as on Earth.

The surface on the moon is not absolute flat or solid. So the two front wheels on this rover will leave the surface. No questions asked. When it drives over these bumps with a gravity force of 1.662 "g" holding it to the ground.

Are you talking in circles deliberately? Lunar gravity is 0.16 G

Originally posted by spy66
If the moon was absolute flat and solid, the rover would drive with minimal traction on the two front wheels because. It has a back wheel drive.

The LRV has four motors, one for each wheel so it's a four wheel drive. The LRV also had four wheel steering.

They drove slow on the Moon on purpose. Hitting a bump at too high of a speed could be dangerous. They didn't exactly have a roll cage or anything like that.

reply to post by spy66


You're misrepresenting specs on the rover, you state a moon weight less than half the empty weight and that is less than a third of it's operational capacity, it had a drive on each wheel and the fact is you don't know it's center of gravity. You speak about fast speed when in fact it could only approach 7 miles per hour maximum speed. Why does this bother you so much? You also don't see the significance of perfect parabolic projectile curves that don't happen on earth, weight and gravity have nothing to do with that. You can see projectile curves but you aren't going to be able to comment on how it doesn't 'look' like you say it should from lossy Youtube videos. When you demonstrate the numbers and why you think they are wrong then you would have done something substantial to prompt me to finish your homework. I'm not going to offer to do the work for you its all out there. Your argument so far is you don't understand what you are looking at because you offer nothing but a visual opinion so why should people get you the calculations when you have not provided any, its your claim prove it.