1970 lunar rover

I was thinking about some of the more unusual cars made in the The lunar rover would be about the most unusual if it did indeed get driven on the moon. I am an engineer and from an engineering standpoint it is an interesting vehicle for sure.

I was also curios about how many people on this forum think we were ever really on the moon?

I never questioned the idea myself until two years ago when I was involved with a physics problem that was unsolvable due to certain laws of physics. That’s when I realized that there is more to this subject than what I thought I saw on TV.

I am not saying I know we did or did not land on the moon LOL.

I was thinking about some of the more unusual cars made in the The lunar rover would be about the most unusual if it did indeed get driven on the moon. I am an engineer and from an engineering standpoint it is an interesting vehicle for sure.

I was also curios about how many people on this forum think we were ever really on the moon?

I never questioned the idea myself until two years ago when I was involved with a physics problem that was unsolvable due to certain laws of physics. That’s when I realized that there is more to this subject than what I thought I saw on TV.

I am not saying I know we did or did not land on the moon LOL.

My first comment: Stop watching Fox Network.

Second comment, as an aerospace engineer, I can say that in 1969 it was easier to go to the moon than to fake it. People who grew up with Star Wars special effects and subsequent SGI just don't understand how crappy those special effects looked in the 1960s. The movie 2001: A Space Odyssey was the "Star Wars" of it's day in regard to the zero-g special effects, and it doesn't come close to the real-live video from the moon.

I really hope your post is a joke.

I sure hope the moon landing was real. Watching it at 4 in the morning with 200 or so other folk on a 14" black and white TV in the wilds of the Middle East and hearing the cheer that spontaneously arose from the Americans in the crowd still sends chills down my spine when I think about it.

I don't know where the fake moon landing story started, but it may predate the actual moon landings. Somewhere around here I have a Popular Science magazine from 1967 in which an expert analyses Soviet pictures supposedly taken in space, and declares them fakes.

Regarding the American moon missions, 2 statements made by NASA bother me. A few years ago someone was talking about another moon mission and a NASA expert said you would have to solve the problem of shielding the astronauts from radiation once they got outside the atmosphere which NASA did not know how to do. They said, why don't you do it the same way they did in the sixties? And NASA said, we don't have those records, we threw all that stuff away years ago. Including the original tapes of the moon missions.

Seriously? We still have every episode of Gilligan's Island but NASA threw away the original records of the moon missions? Are you shitting me?

Yes, Lunar Rovers are a radical development of what's still an automobile, traceable to the first gasoline car of Austrian Siegfried Marcus of the 1870s and the Nicolas Cugnot steam carriage of 1769. As you know, the only ones that were ever driven off-planet are still off-planet. I think space museums like the Cosmosphere in Hutchinson have replicas, or ones used in training.

Although they're more than 25 years old, I'm not sure where you'd stick a Lunar Rover at an AACA Meet. Anyone know what class?

I don't know where the fake moon landing story started, but it may predate the actual moon landings. Somewhere around here I have a Popular Science magazine from 1967 in which an expert analyses Soviet pictures supposedly taken in space, and declares them fakes.

Regarding the American moon missions, 2 statements made by NASA bother me. A few years ago someone was talking about another moon mission and a NASA expert said you would have to solve the problem of shielding the astronauts from radiation once they got outside the atmosphere which NASA did not know how to do. They said, why don't you do it the same way they did in the sixties? And NASA said, we don't have those records, we threw all that stuff away years ago. Including the original tapes of the moon missions.

Seriously? We still have every episode of Gilligan's Island but NASA threw away the original records of the moon missions? Are you shitting me?

That's all BS. The radiation issue is one of long-term exposure. Even on the later Apollo missions with the rover, EVAs were limited to under 8 hrs at a time due to the amount of oxygen carried in the suit backpacks. There were three EVAs on Apollo 17 for a total of about 24 hrs on the surface of the moon.

As for the data not existing, here's a NASA report from 1973 that discusses radiation exposure on the Apollo missions. The spacecraft design and techniques to protect the astronauts are VERY WELL documented and understood. The issue is for long-duration missions (two years to Mars vs. two weeks to the moon).

Here's the Apollo Hoax FAQ that might answer some of these questions. I really hope that the folks posting here don't believe this hoax BS.

I also hope the hoax issue is a joke. I know the people on the north side of the 49 parallel were sure proud of our southern neighbors. Whether it was a hoax does not deserve the dignity of a reply.

Still your proud northern neighbor.

Wayne

Regarding the American moon missions, 2 statements made by NASA bother me. A few years ago someone was talking about another moon mission and a NASA expert said you would have to solve the problem of shielding the astronauts from radiation once they got outside the atmosphere which NASA did not know how to do. They said, why don't you do it the same way they did in the sixties? And NASA said, we don't have those records, we threw all that stuff away years ago. Including the original tapes of the moon missions.

NASA who? Sounds like classic urban legend to me.

NASA who? Sounds like classic urban legend to me.

I deal with NASA on almost a daily basis. Sadly, there is so much conservatism in the agency since the Challenger accident (and so much process that is only geared at assuring no one person can be held responsible for anything) that I am not surprised that we have been unable to return to the moon in 45 years. Kinda like what happened to GM (to bring this back to an automotive-related thread...)

I deal with NASA on almost a daily basis. Sadly, there is so much conservatism in the agency since the Challenger accident (and so much process that is only geared at assuring no one person can be held responsible for anything) that I am not surprised that we have been unable to return to the moon in 45 years. Kinda like what happened to GM (to bring this back to an automotive-related thread...)

Hey Joe - I see you have a case of the Oldsmobiles too. My topic isn't really a joke, it's more of a curiosity. I work with a lot of young engineers and this forum has a lot of older gentlemen like myself. I was curious about thoughts on the lunar rover and if anyone wanted to share thoughts on the Apollo moon missions. I have worked with engineers from Lockheed Martin, Boeing and NASA and have found this to be a fun topic. Occasionally, people get angry and we have to exclude them from the discussion or they exclude themselves from the discussion. Most people in the general public think that the space station and the shuttle program have something to do with outer space. Most people in the general public do not understand that it is a mathematical sniper shot to hit another body in space because we cannot adjust course easily once we are out of earth's atmosphere. I have seen the Apollo capsules and they truly are an engineering masterpiece for 1969. You mentioned the Challenger disaster. The Columbia disaster was due to heat shield failure on re-entry into our lower atmosphere proving that we still have a long way to go. We should be able to slow down and not just free-fall back to a landing. The resources for formulating what NASA did with the Apollo capsules will not be fully shared it appears from what I have seen. NASA does not seem to want to go into great detail on this subject. Well, this is a fun topic but it's my bedtime. Thanks for your response.

I sure hope the moon landing was real. Watching it at 4 in the morning with 200 or so other folk on a 14" black and white TV in the wilds of the Middle East and hearing the cheer that spontaneously arose from the Americans in the crowd still sends chills down my spine when I think about it.

It was real. So was this (I'll spare the extended build-up harangue that led an 83 year old Buzz Aldrin to this last summer).

I like how the courts handled it: http://www.yourdailymedia.com/post/classic-buzz-aldrin-punches-man-in-the-face/

:cool:

What about NASA throwing away the original tapes and records of the moon missions?

What about NASA throwing away the original tapes and records of the moon missions?

They were back-up tapes in case the live TV didn't work. Never needed. Erased and re-used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

Check those moon rocks. If there's no cheese in them I'm suspicious.

Seriously, if there was any validity to these theories, and all manner of other theories, don't you think the truth would have come out by now? with Russian capabilities for tracking spacecraft, wouldn't they have exposed it? Didn't Story Musgrave go outside to fix the Hubble telescope?

We were on the moon ...

I cut the cheese ....

Jim

The Columbia disaster was due to heat shield failure on re-entry into our lower atmosphere proving that we still have a long way to go.

No, Columbia was due to damage to the thermal protection system on the way up that was ignored by overconfident management at NASA. This is the same arrogance that caused Challenger - NASA got lucky when recurring small issues (O-ring leaks prior to Challenger and TPS damage during ascent prior to Columbia) did not cause a mission loss, so they gradually got comfortable with accepting these issues, until one day they crossed the line. We have understood the reentry process since the late 1950s, and frankly using aerodynamic drag to slow you down instead of carrying propellant makes MUCH more sense. Your comments tell my that despite your "working with engineers", you apparently aren't one. Sorry, but most of this is physics 101.

What about NASA throwing away the original tapes and records of the moon missions?

Do I have some reason to believe this actually happened?

Check those moon rocks. If there's no cheese in them I'm suspicious.

Seriously, if there was any validity to these theories, and all manner of other theories, don't you think the truth would have come out by now? with Russian capabilities for tracking spacecraft, wouldn't they have exposed it? Didn't Story Musgrave go outside to fix the Hubble telescope?

God bless America -- where wrestling is real and the moon landings were staged.

No, Columbia was due to damage to the thermal protection system on the way up that was ignored by overconfident management at NASA. This is the same arrogance that caused Challenger - NASA got lucky when recurring small issues (O-ring leaks prior to Challenger and TPS damage during ascent prior to Columbia) did not cause a mission loss, so they gradually got comfortable with accepting these issues, until one day they crossed the line. We have understood the reentry process since the late 1950s, and frankly using aerodynamic drag to slow you down instead of carrying propellant makes MUCH more sense. Your comments tell my that despite your "working with engineers", you apparently aren't one. Sorry, but most of this is physics 101.

Thermal protection system is just saying heat shield in different words. You can change all the words you want it will not change the facts. We don’t carry propellant to slow down because we can’t. Any real aerospace engineer would know that.

Thermal protection system is just saying heat shield in different words. You can change all the words you want it will not change the facts. We don’t carry propellant to slow down because we can’t. Any real aerospace engineer would know that.

Sorry, but I am completely confused by this statement. There are different kinds of TPS. The capsules, like Apollo, used an ablative heat shield that was single-use-only. It ablated during the reentry - sublimating to gas and carrying the heat away through that process. The shuttle was intended to have permanent, reusable TPS, the tiles and the RCC on the leading edges. Unfortunately, there was a lot of optimism about the durability of these two products, which resulted in a lot of cost per flight to inspect and repair the surfaces. The RCC used on the leading edges is a very brittle carbon-based material (similar to what is used in solid rocket motor nozzles). This is what caused the Columbia accident.

As for carrying propellant, it is certainly possible, but definitely not an effective method of return. I frankly don't understand your earlier comment about doing something other than a "free fall" return. That's like saying that airplanes should fly without wings. This is the same reason why Mars missions use aerobraking instead of propulsive braking. The aerodynamic drag is free. Carrying propellant to slow down requires a much larger booster to get there. Again, physics 101.