Some questions I posed on another forum...

[Ong]

Hi -

I just googled up this forum.

I posted these questions on another forum, about the moon landings, particularly the hot rod moon jalopy. Here are a couple of my messages transmogrified over here:

................................








"I'm still not sure about those alleged moon landings. Especially the whole goofy business about the moon jalopy. They don't even like to talk about that. First they tell us that weight was so critical that they had to pare down toothbrushes (toothbrushi?), and then, next thing you know, same rocket propulsion system, and they're strapping on a freakin' moon buggy! And what do they do with it when they allegedly get it to the moon? They go hotrodding around in circles!


Ong the Skeptical (Hey, like when has the governemnt ever told the truth about ANYTHING!?)"


................................






"Well, ___, one thing they never explained was how the astronauts were protected from the solar radiation, particularly the unusually powerful solar flares that were occurring at the time.

There was a lot they never explained - how they developed the moon lander - they told the Collier brothers, who made the film, "Was It Only A Paper Moon" - as well as a film that was way ahead of its time, Votescam, about the fixing of the US elections - that they threw away all the plans (!); a NASA book says that they "accidentally" built the spacee module with the doors opening inwards instead of outwards (!!!) so that the astronauts could not possible have gotten thru them suited up...there were a whole lot of this sort of thing...but the thing that sticks in my craw the worst is the moon buggy, the Lunar Rover, bit. And also the fact that, with all the modern computers and technology, they can't go back any more.


Ong the Merciless

.....................................

-----Which brings up another question that irks me...the LEM: How WAS it developed? The only time it was ever tested on Earth it crashed. Then it performed absolutely flawlessly in the Apollo missions. How was it plannned and developed and tested? Things do not work like that in the real world. Think of the years and effort and danger that was invested into the development of a functioning helicopter (developed by the Germans, by the way), for example. A helicopter would be childs play compared to a vehicle designed to function in a totally alien and unknown element.


...............................


------AND THEN THERE IS THE MOON BUGGY...

Astronaut1: "Come on, let's see what that baby can do! Open her up!"

Astr2, the driver: " No, I don't think so. OK, here goes!"

He then proceeds to drive the moon hot rod in fast circles kicking up dust (dust patterns seem to behave as tho they are hitting air resistance) and doing "wheelies".

Now, this would have been the OFF DUTY behavior patterns of these daredevil astronauts, cutting up like this.

But when they were on duty they were all business. And they were never on duty more than their time on the moon. Every second was invaluable. They were also in mortal danger. The slightest pinprick - from say a rock kicked up by a tire - to their spacesuits could have meant death. There was no hope of rescue. The terrain they were hotrodding over was totally unknown. For all they knew the ground could have been hollow underneath a thin surface. Also, they were using up the buggy's batteries.

No, the whole moon car episode - and it's so "50's", bringng a car to the moon! - makes no sense to me. It sticks in my craw.


Ong


...........................

OK, there they are. So waddya say?



--Ong, Planet Mongo

[Nowhere Man]

Hi, Ong. Most if not all of your questions can be answered by reading the the BA's page itself, and giving Clavius.org a look-over.

If someone else hasn't done so by then, I'll see what I can do to answer you when I get off work.

Fred

[ToSeek]

"I'm still not sure about those alleged moon landings. Especially the whole goofy business about the moon jalopy. They don't even like to talk about that. First they tell us that weight was so critical that they had to pare down toothbrushes (toothbrushi?), and then, next thing you know, same rocket propulsion system, and they're strapping on a freakin' moon buggy!

It wasn't the same system: the Saturn V had to be upgraded in order to launch the J-class missions (the ones with the lunar rover).

And what do they do with it when they allegedly get it to the moon? They go hotrodding around in circles!

Part of the assignments for Apollos 15 and 16 - the first missions with the rover - was to test its capabilities. These guys were test pilots, after all, so it was a very similar assignment.

"Well, ___, one thing they never explained was how the astronauts were protected from the solar radiation, particularly the unusually powerful solar flares that were occurring at the time.

This is well-documented. I'm sure Jay will pop on here with more information.

There was a lot they never explained - how they developed the moon lander

There are entire books written about how they developed the lunar module. I have two of them myself.

- they told the Collier brothers, who made the film, "Was It Only A Paper Moon" - as well as a film that was way ahead of its time, Votescam, about the fixing of the US elections - that they threw away all the plans (!); a NASA book says that they "accidentally" built the spacee module with the doors opening inwards instead of outwards (!!!) so that the astronauts could not possible have gotten thru them suited up

Do you believe everything you see in the movies? There are photos of Aldrin getting through the hatch, so it is clearly possible.

...there were a whole lot of this sort of thing...but the thing that sticks in my craw the worst is the moon buggy, the Lunar Rover, bit. And also the fact that, with all the modern computers and technology, they can't go back any more.

Sure we can go back. Got $150 billion to spare to do something we've done before to impress a government that doesn't exist any more?



-----Which brings up another question that irks me...the LEM: How WAS it developed? The only time it was ever tested on Earth it crashed.

It was never tested on Earth. You are thinking of the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle (LLTV), which did fail when Neil Armstrong was piloting it. But that was one of over a hundred flights, and the LLTV is not the lunar module but a vehicle designed to perform like the lunar module but in Earth's gravity. Not the same thing at all.


Then it performed absolutely flawlessly in the Apollo missions. How was it plannned and developed and tested?

Again, this is all well-documented.


But when they were on duty they were all business. And they were never on duty more than their time on the moon. Every second was invaluable. They were also in mortal danger. The slightest pinprick - from say a rock kicked up by a tire - to their spacesuits could have meant death. There was no hope of rescue. The terrain they were hotrodding over was totally unknown. For all they knew the ground could have been hollow underneath a thin surface. Also, they were using up the buggy's batteries.

Again, they needed to figure out how well it would perform. And they were on duty - the "hot rodding" was actually scheduled in the crew's EVA checklist.

No, the whole moon car episode - and it's so "50's", bringng a car to the moon! - makes no sense to me. It sticks in my craw.

Well, it's a good thing they didn't ask you, then, isn't it? The lunar rover allowed the astronauts to travel much farther and visit many more locations than they could have without it, even under the severe safety restrictions still in place. Without it, they were limited to a range of a few hundred meters from the lunar module. With it, they could go kilometers.

[End of my JayUtah impression. I'd recommend going to his site ( http://www.clavius.org/ ) for more information.]

[Waarthog]

Yet again, I was vainly hoping for something new rather than old tired stuff dragged endlessly through the mud.

[Glom]

Hi -

Hi. Welcome.

"I'm still not sure about those alleged moon landings. Especially the whole goofy business about the moon jalopy. They don't even like to talk about that. First they tell us that weight was so critical that they had to pare down toothbrushes (toothbrushi?), and then, next thing you know, same rocket propulsion system, and they're strapping on a freakin' moon buggy!

Actually, it wasn't the same rocket propulsion system. The LM was significantly upgraded to carry the extra scientific payloads of the J class missions as well as more consumables for longer surface stays.

And what do they do with it when they allegedly get it to the moon? They go hotrodding around in circles!

I always find these kinds of arguments laughable. They convey a total ignorance of the what was actually done on the Lunar surface. The LRV was used to increase range and capabilities. It was used to travel much greater distances than would be possible on foot and carry much more equipment than the astronauts alone could carry. The entire scope of the geological traverse was revolutionised by the LRV.

The average goit will only know of the PR friendly extracts of the missions. The good quotes, the quality portraits, or the funny clips. They may have seen the LRV driving round in circles many times, but they won't know what else happened in the many, many hours not generally seen in unspecific docos or general interest newscasts. To them, all that happened was the astronauts jumped around a bit, took a few tourists shots, picked up some rocks and then left. And on the J missions, went for a drive.

Ong the Skeptical (Hey, like when has the governemnt ever told the truth about ANYTHING!?)"

Guilt by association will not work with us.

"Well, ___, one thing they never explained was how the astronauts were protected from the solar radiation, particularly the unusually powerful solar flares that were occurring at the time.

No major flares occured during any of the missions. A bit of statistical good fortune there. No-one said the mission was safe. Ambient solar radiation poses little threat for the purpose of a two week mission. Conspiracists always employ the radiation boogey man and try to say that any radiation would spell certain doom for the astronauts.

There was a lot they never explained - how they developed the moon lander - they told the Collier brothers, who made the film, "Was It Only A Paper Moon" - as well as a film that was way ahead of its time, Votescam, about the fixing of the US elections - that they threw away all the plans (!);

Collier's research is unbelievably poor. Just because he said they never explained something, chances are he simply hasn't looked it up properly.

a NASA book says that they "accidentally" built the spacee module with the doors opening inwards instead of outwards (!!!) so that the astronauts could not possible have gotten thru them suited up...there were a whole lot of this sort of thing...

The door was meant to open inwards. That way pressure would help to keep it shut. Collier's case about the LM hatch versus the sapce suit size is based on his measurement of some mockup of the LM, not an actual spacecraft. Aldrin can be seen passing through the LM hatch in AS11-40-5862.

but the thing that sticks in my craw the worst is the moon buggy, the Lunar Rover, bit.

As explained, the LM was upgraded to carry the LRV and it was used for much more than just riding round in circles. This will become evident when you actually study the missions.

And also the fact that, with all the modern computers and technology, they can't go back any more.

Trans-Lunar technology is a very specialist kind. While parts of what was developed for the moon program could, as was, developed for use on Earth and by the same token, advancements on Earth could aid in the design of new trans-Lunar technology. However, it is very specialist. When the program was cancelled, there was no need for this technology and so it was scrapped.

-----Which brings up another question that irks me...the LEM: How WAS it developed?

Very well. Why don't you ask Northrop?

The only time it was ever tested on Earth it crashed.

It was never tested on Earth. It was a Lunar Module. The often cited crash was of a Lunar Landing Research Vehicle. Here are the ways in which this incident is misinterpretted.

• The LLRV had made over a hundred successful flights. The statement that this was the only flight and hence the record of the vehicle was seriously bad, is just plain wrong.
• The LLRV was a training vehicle, not any kind of prototype for the LM. The assertion that this crash has any bearing on LM is again just plain wrong.
• The cause of the crash was an misconnected helium line that caused a control thruster to fail meaning Armstrong couldn't control the vehicle. The assertion that this incident was evidence of a design flaw is once more just plain wrong. It crashed because it broke. Just because the ailerons fall off my C172, it doesn't mean I can't fly my PA28.

Then it performed absolutely flawlessly in the Apollo missions.

ROTFLMAO. If you read the reports, you'll find a list of flaws in the operation of the LM.

How was it plannned and developed and tested?

Ask Northrop.

Things do not work like that in the real world. Think of the years and effort and danger that was invested into the development of a functioning helicopter (developed by the Germans, by the way), for example. A helicopter would be childs play compared to a vehicle designed to function in a totally alien and unknown element.

A helicopter took an entirely original approach to flight. The LM was just an extension of already well known rocket technology.

[JayUtah]

First they tell us that weight was so critical that they had to pare down toothbrushes (toothbrushi?), and then, next thing you know, same rocket propulsion system, and they're strapping on a freakin' moon buggy!

It seems silly to go to such critical lengths to reduce the weight for any one particular part. But keep in mind that the same procedure carried out for a million parts can result in substantial weight savings -- many hundreds of pounds. The result was not a craft that was limping along, just barely within its capacity. It was a craft with a substantial enough safety margin that the pilots agreed to fly it.

The LM for Apollos 15, 16, and 17 was not the same as for earlier missions. The Saturn V had been progressively improved from original designs. Weight savings there resulted in a greater payload capacity for the later missions. This allowed the service module to carry more sensors and it allowed the lunar module to carry the rover and more provisions.

The extended-stay LM was provided with consumables to last for 72 hours on the moon instead of 48, and it was provided with more fuel to allow the payload portion of the LM to be heavier. All this was lifted with the improved Saturn V.

And what do they do with it when they allegedly get it to the moon? They go hotrodding around in circles!

The so-called "Grand Prix" was a pre-planned portion of the Apollo 16 mission. The Boeing engineers who built it needed to see if their design was robust. They requested that the astronauts spend a little time testing it to its limits of stability. Although the Grand Prix footage is interesting for layman to watch, and so appears frequently in popular sources, the LRV was typically used for much more mundane duties. There isn't much other film of the LRV in action because the film camera was usually mounted on the LRV in order to record the traverses. And the television camera couldn't be used while the rover was in motion; the antenna was manually aimed.

"Well, ___, one thing they never explained was how the astronauts were protected from the solar radiation, particularly the unusually powerful solar flares that were occurring at the time.

Conspiracy theorists grossly overestimate the danger of solar radiation. First, contrary to popular belief, the Apollo missions that went outside the Van Allen belts did not occur in a solar maximum. The solar max peaked while the Apollo program was still conducting orbital tests. Beginning with Apollo 8 the solar activity dramatically decreased, as it was predicted to.

Second, solar flares strong enough to affect the health of the astronauts are exceedingly rare. Between Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 there were only three solar flares recorded that would have produced skin dosages of more than 10 rem, and only one of them would have produced skin dosages of more than 100 rem. The lethal dose (LD50/30) is 400-450 rem.

Third, Professor James Van Allen -- certainly an eminent expert on cislunar radiation -- has specifically repudiated the claim that space radiation should have killed the Apollo astronauts.

And regardless of what the conspiracy authors tell you, NASA has explained all of this, numerous times. But the conspiracy authors make more money if they force their readers to seek out those explanations themselves, knowing full well most won't.

There was a lot they never explained - how they developed the moon lander - they told the Collier brothers

Jim Collier was an exceptionally sloppy and dishonest researcher.

that they threw away all the plans (!)

They were microfilmed and placed in the National Archives. The paper drawings were mostly destroyed along with ephemeral documentation that has little or no historical value after the individual craft has flown. Collier drew his conclusion after asking one person where the plans were. He made no further attempt to locate LM design documentation.

a NASA book says that they "accidentally" built the spacee module with the doors opening inwards instead of outwards

Which "NASA book?"

The inward-opening forward hatch is no accident. In fact, given the choice, all hatches for pressure vessels open inward. Even those in airliners, if you pay close attention to one being opened. It's far safer for a hatch to be held in place mechanically by being physically unable to pass through its opening to the outside, than to be held in place by latches which can fail or be opened accidentally.

There is no question that the inward-opening hatch was awkward for the astronauts, but there is no evidence whatsoever that it was impossible for the astronauts to get through it. In fact, one only has to ask an astronaut and he'll gladly tell you how it was done. Collier just looked at the situation and concluded -- with no test other than his intuition -- that it was impossible.

The crew stations for the LM put the commander on the left, in the traditional position of the command pilot, and the LMP on the right. The door was hinged on its right edge. After suiting up, the commander moved to the leftmost position to allow for the door to swing. The LMP opened the hatch and then moved as far to the right as possible. The door's outboard edge met the aft raised platform and formed a triangle in which the LMP stood. He held the door open. The commander would then turn around and face the back of the LM, move to the center, get down on his hands and knees, and back out of the door.

The astronauts practiced this manuever many times prior to doing it on the moon.

And also the fact that, with all the modern computers and technology, they can't go back any more.

What about having a fast computer makes it possible to go to the moon?

Do you understand that it costs a very substantial amount of money to maintain an aerospace production line? If there is no market for what's being produced, the line is given over to other projects.

How WAS it developed?

According to well-documented engineering design and test procedures. See Kelly's Moon Lander for a very detailed description of its development.

The only time it was ever tested on Earth it crashed.

Absolutely false. The LM was never tested on earth, nor could it have been, nor did it need to be. The vehicle you see crashing in the conspiracy theorist videos is the LLRV. This was not a prototype for the LM, but rather a vehicle thrown together hastily to train the pilots. The equipment used for pilot training is not guaranteed to bear any resemblance -- under the hood -- to the final vehicle. It is intended only to provide the pilot with a suitable look-and-feel experience. Further, the LLRV and its successors the LLTVs made hundreds of successful flights. The conspiracy theorists talk only about the three flights that crashed.

Then it performed absolutely flawlessly in the Apollo missions.

If you believe the LMs performed flawlessly, you have absolutely no clue how they actually performed. Just because the missions were not aborted due to the failures does not mean they worked perfectly.

Think of the years and effort and danger that was invested into the development of a functioning helicopter...

Apples and oranges. A helicopter is a very complicated machine compared to the lunar module, and is required to do more than just land once and take off again.

A helicopter would be childs play compared to a vehicle designed to function in a totally alien and unknown element.

Utterly false. You're speaking to an engineer.

What is so "totally alien and unknown" about the lunar environment? In terms of flight dynamics the lunar environment is considerably easier to design for than designing helicopters for use on earth.

Now, this would have been the OFF DUTY behavior patterns of these daredevil astronauts, cutting up like this.

Read the Apollo 16 flight plan.

But when they were on duty they were all business.

The Grand Prix was "on-duty" work.

They were also in mortal danger. The slightest pinprick - from say a rock kicked up by a tire - to their spacesuits could have meant death.

By Apollo 16 it was well known that the space suits were quite impervious to anything that would have resulted from stress-testing the lunar rover. You can literally walk up to someone wearing an Apollo space suit and stab him with a dagger and you will not puncture his suit. You could hit his helmet visor with a carpenter's hammer and not crack it. You have a very pessimistic opinion of the suit's survivability.

There was no hope of rescue.

Contingency plans for suit ruptures were well established and practiced prior to Apollo 11.

The terrain they were hotrodding over was totally unknown.

Actually it had been carefully inspected and selected for the task.

For all they knew the ground could have been hollow underneath a thin surface.

Even in that astronomically unlikely situation, how would the Grand Prix have affected that? There was actually very little bouncing. Driving fast over a surface does not increase the static load. In fact, if there were a chasm directly underneath, driving fast over it would lessen the time spent on it.

Also, they were using up the buggy's batteries.

There was a 100% safety margin in the battery provisioning.

No, the whole moon car episode - and it's so "50's", bringng a car to the moon! - makes no sense to me. It sticks in my craw.

Check your craw. It needs to have more facts and less of your personal opinions.

[Bob B.]

First they tell us that weight was so critical that they had to pare down toothbrushes (toothbrushi?), and then, next thing you know, same rocket propulsion system, and they're strapping on a freakin' moon buggy!

Wrong. It was not the same propulsion system. Significant upgrades were made between the earlier H-missions (Apollo 11-14) and the later J-missions (Apollo 15-17).

Well, ___, one thing they never explained was how the astronauts were protected from the solar radiation, particularly the unusually powerful solar flares that were occurring at the time.

Wrong again. It's been explained plenty of times, you're just not listening.

And also the fact that, with all the modern computers and technology, they can't go back any more.

Not quite true. We don't currently have a vehicle to go to the Moon because that hasn't been on NASA's agenda. However, the knowledge and technology does exist, all we need is the cash and a mandate.

Which brings up another question that irks me...the LEM: How WAS it developed? The only time it was ever tested on Earth it crashed.

Wrong again. The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) crashed once, but that was not the LM. The fully configured LM could not be tested on Earth because it was designed to operate in lunar gravity.

Then it performed absolutely flawlessly in the Apollo missions. How was it plannned and developed and tested? Things do not work like that in the real world.

The LM worked because it was well engineered and the components and systems were tested to the greatest extent possible. It was also tested in both Earth and lunar orbit during the Apollo 9 and 10 missions.

[Nowhere Man]

Hoo boy, you guys are fast. =D> Ong, are you listening?

Fred

[die Nullte]

development of a functioning helicopter (developed by the Germans, by the way)

See http://www.copters.com/hist/history_3.html (among other sites) for some info on the early development of the helicopter. Conceded here: there was a German experimental helicopter during the First World War. But there was an even earlier experimental French helicopter in 1907. It's difficult to assign a specific person, nation or date to the "invention" of the helicopter, but the first really practical helicopter was developed by Sikorsky, a Russian immigrant to the U.S.

[sts60]

Hi -

Hello, welcome aboard. Hope you'll hang around - it's a good learning opportunity.

"I'm still not sure about those alleged moon landings. Especially the whole goofy business about the moon jalopy. They don't even like to talk about that.

"don't like to talk about that?" Except for the pictures and documents (such as the LRV operations manual) you can find right on the NASA home page. That's just from a quick search on the NASA web site, not from any actual research - like going to a library or NASA center.

Ong the Skeptical (Hey, like when has the governemnt ever told the truth about ANYTHING!?)"

Quite often, actually; in fact, taxpayers get all sorts of useful information in return for that check we write to the IRS. But in any case, the information about Apollo is open to perusal and scientific investigation. Hundreds of thousands of knowledgeable people could pick out false or misleading information. A few people, with poor or irrelevant knowledge, have claimed to do so, but their arguments (for which they generally want you to pay up front) have all been thoroughly rebutted.

And also the fact that, with all the modern computers and technology, they can't go back any more.

Sure we can. It costs money. If the new initiative gets enough funding, we'll be back there in 10 to 20 years.

Which brings up another question that irks me...the LEM: How WAS it developed?

I guess you didn't bother to Google on "lunar rover". Try it as a start.

The only time it was ever tested on Earth it crashed.

Nope. Already explained above.

Then it performed absolutely flawlessly in the Apollo missions.

Nope. Already explained above.

How was it plannned and developed and tested? Things do not work like that in the real world.

Not in the straw-man world you have proposed. But you don't seem familiar with the program.

Think of the years and effort and danger that was invested into the development of a functioning helicopter (developed by the Germans, by the way), for example.

Frenchman Paul Cornu flew the first helicopter in 1907. His countryman, Etienne Oehmichen, made the first "practical" flight in 1924 (7 minutes and 40 seconds over a closed course.)

A helicopter would be childs play compared to a vehicle designed to function in a totally alien and unknown element.

Upon what experience do you base that judgment? A helicopter has it harder in some ways - higher gravity, wind, economy and reusability... Besides, it is false to claim that the LEM environment was "totally alien and unknown" to its builders. Surveyor had already landed on the Moon in 1966, for example.

He then proceeds to drive the moon hot rod in fast circles kicking up dust (dust patterns seem to behave as tho they are hitting air resistance)

No. The dust arcs look exactly like they should in a vacuum. Can you provide a specific example that makes you think otherwise?

They were also in mortal danger. The slightest pinprick - from say a rock kicked up by a tire - to their spacesuits could have meant death.

Of course not; the suits were designed to be pretty tough. A "pinprick"?

There was no hope of rescue.

"We choose to do these things not because they are easy but because they are hard." - John F. Kennedy

Also, they were using up the buggy's batteries.

For God's sake, stop driving your car! You're using up its gas!

OK, there they are. So waddya say?

Well, we've posted explanations and corrections. Whadda you say?

[die Nullte]

Ong the Skeptical (Hey, like when has the governemnt ever told the truth about ANYTHING!?)"

One thing that sticks in my craw is the frequency with which I see this accusation. Actually, most of the time the US Govt does tell the truth. People still get Social Security checks, mail still gets delivered (usually), rangers still greet you as you enter national parks. Not that there haven't been occasional cover-up conspiracies, but they almost always collapse, usually sooner rather than later. And they collapse for the same reason that the claimed Apollo "conspiracy," if it were real, would fail -- scale. The more people who are "in" on a conspiracy, the more people there are who are willing to sell their story or who are willing to confess to get it off their conscience.

[freddo]

Very well. Why don't you ask Northrop?

I thought the LEM was of Grumman design? :-?

[Sparks]

Ong the Skeptical (Hey, like when has the governemnt ever told the truth about ANYTHING!?)"

One thing that sticks in my craw is the frequency with which I see this accusation. Actually, most of the time the US Govt does tell the truth.

Treading very carefully since this is more running at politics rather than edging around it, I'd point out that that's really only true within the US. Outside the US, that assumption doesn't actually hold, which can lead to the general mistrust of offical government statements.
Plus, we're used to it from our governments too

[ToSeek]

Very well. Why don't you ask Northrop?

I thought the LEM was of Grumman design? :-?

Well, the name of the company these days is Northrop-Grumman....

[Jason Thompson]

And the television camera couldn't be used while the rover was in motion; the antenna was manually aimed.

I'm wondering about this bit, as I'm fairly sure there's some Apollo 15 footage of the first lunar rover taken while the thing was moving. It consists of the view from the front of the rover as it runs across the lunar surface, and includes some very excited sounding astronauts who are obviously enjoying the ride. If I can find it I'll post a link.

Do you know of this footage (you probably do) and can you explain it to me?

[Glom]

Well, the name of the company these days is Northrop-Grumman....

Exumptly. I wasn't even sure if they still retained the Grumman. I thought they'd dropped it to just be Northrop.

[ToSeek]

Well, the name of the company these days is Northrop-Grumman....

Exumptly. I wasn't even sure if they still retained the Grumman. I thought they'd dropped it to just be Northrop.

It's definitely still Northrop-Grumman. I interviewed with them back in November.

[gethen]

And to these responses Ong says................

[Bean Counter]

I do not mean to continue to the pile-on but... what the heck:

Especially the whole goofy business about the moon jalopy. They don't even like to talk about that.

Actually, in the late '90's I was down in Huntsville, Alabama visiting the U.S. Space and Rocket Center there. Ok, I admit it, I was attending Space Camp. Anyway, I had the chance to meet a little, old fellow with a strong German accent. He was Dr. George von Tiesenhausen (I am sure I am butchering the spelling of his name). He was one of the German scientists the U.S... uh... you know... recovered... after WWII.

He said he was on the design team for the lunar rover. He was QUITE proud of that fact and devoted a fair amount of his lecture to the rover. I remember him describing the "piano-wire" mesh wheels and how the whole rover was designed to fold up rather compactly for transport to the moon. The single thing I remember he was MOST proud of was the fact that they would still be operational today with a new set of batteries.

I would bet he could have talked much longer had he been alotted more time.

Anyway, I do not know who this vague "they" are that do not like to talk about the rover. I figure you just have not talked to the right people.

[Glom]

And to these responses Ong says................

To be fair, give him a chance. Not everyone is so obsessed they spend every free hour lurking.

[AGN Fuel]

And the television camera couldn't be used while the rover was in motion; the antenna was manually aimed.

I'm wondering about this bit, as I'm fairly sure there's some Apollo 15 footage of the first lunar rover taken while the thing was moving. It consists of the view from the front of the rover as it runs across the lunar surface, and includes some very excited sounding astronauts who are obviously enjoying the ride. If I can find it I'll post a link.

Do you know of this footage (you probably do) and can you explain it to me?

I'm sure to be corrected here (Jay, where are you?), but I believe that the footage you are talking about was taken with the 16mm Maurer Data Acquisition Camera, not the TV camera.

[JayUtah]

It's Northrup-Grumman. I build computers for them. During Apollo it was just Grumman.

I know of only one bit of live television from a moving rover, and it's a brief clip from Apollo 17 as Cernan drives it out to its final resting place. There was no explicit provision that the television camera wouldn't work with the rover moving. The constraint is that the dish has to stay reasonably pointed at the earth, which doesn't usually happen when the rover is moving. There was no automatic facility for keeping the dish pointed. When the driver stopped he had to manually reorient the dish so that it pointed to earth.

[ajv]

I know of only one bit of live television from a moving rover, and it's a brief clip from Apollo 17 as Cernan drives it out to its final resting place.

There are a few very brief clips from Apollo 15 (around 165:17:03) as they travel away from Station 9.

[freddo]

It's Northrup-Grumman. I build computers for them. During Apollo it was just Grumman.

Thx ToSeek, Glom, Jay... I love how the aerospace industries snap each other up.

Built by Grumman, now Northrop-Grumman.

[Ong]

Wow! Did I walk into the lion's den or what!

Thanks, guys, for addressing my queries with your knowledge and intelligence and (mostly) friendliness.

Let me review my - dare I say it? - Collier brother flick and see what questions I can come up with. It's been a few years since I've seen it.

A couple of things:

"He then proceeds to drive the moon hot rod in fast circles kicking up dust (dust patterns seem to behave as tho they are hitting air resistance)
No. The dust arcs look exactly like they should in a vacuum. Can you provide a specific example that makes you think otherwise?"

-- The dust forms wave patterns. Why would that happen if it wasn't hitting air resistance?

"a NASA book says that they "accidentally" built the space module with the doors opening inwards instead of outwards

Which "NASA book?"

--They actually show the page in the Collier bro. flick. I'll see if I can catch the details when I review the film.


"Actually, most of the time the US Govt does tell the truth."

Gahh! Please, don't get me started! I don't want to reduce your nice celestial forum to pier six brawl. Better I should bring you back to the forum from whence I came.



Later.



---ONG


P.S. You know, if NASA and the feds would have been more forthcoming in addressing the questions about the Apollo missions, much of this worldwide skepticism could have been averted. But they were always so parsimonious with the details. And did they behave suspiciously? Yes they did! Take that feller who ran the NASA museum and look at the way he treated the Colliers! As I recall, he was sweating and his his eyes were bugging out and he looked guiltier than hell. Why, he was one of the guiltiest looking fellers I've ever seen! I would have arraigned him just on general principal, just because he looked like he was hiding something and afraid of people asking questions and poking around. Very bad PR, if nothing else.

[Ong]

Oh yes, German helicopters:

http://m2reviews.cnsi.net/others/books/websterhelos.htm


--Ong

[LunarOrbit]

"He then proceeds to drive the moon hot rod in fast circles kicking up dust (dust patterns seem to behave as tho they are hitting air resistance)
No. The dust arcs look exactly like they should in a vacuum. Can you provide a specific example that makes you think otherwise?"

-- The dust forms wave patterns. Why would that happen if it wasn't hitting air resistance?

Air resistance isn't the only thing that could affect the dust... there is also gravity and the amount of energy put into the dust by the rover's spinning wheels.

If you have ever driven down a dry dirt road here on Earth you would have noticed that the dust forms clouds and hangs in the air long after you have driven away. That did not happen on the Moon... dust was kicked up but it fell back to the ground immediately.

[freddo]

Wow! Did I walk into the lion's den or what!

I've never come across a group that is so learned about Apollo. You'll always get a good answer.

"He then proceeds to drive the moon hot rod in fast circles kicking up dust (dust patterns seem to behave as tho they are hitting air resistance)

No. The dust arcs look exactly like they should in a vacuum. Can you provide a specific example that makes you think otherwise?"

-- The dust forms wave patterns. Why would that happen if it wasn't hitting air resistance?

Still you've not given a specific example. All footage of the LRV I've seen shows the dust travelling in ballistic trajectories - like two rooster tails from the rear of the rover. This is not at all what I would expect from Earth conditions. If you can point us to an example where the dust lingers, or eddies and flows in an unmistakable atmosphere, I want to see it.

"a NASA book says that they "accidentally" built the space module with the doors opening inwards instead of outwards

Which "NASA book?"

--They actually show the page in the Collier bro. flick. I'll see if I can catch the details when I review the film.

In the meantime, understand that this book, or the Collier interpretation of it was wrong. The LEM door was definitely designed to open inward. As has been pointed out, pressurising the interior meant that the door would seal itself. They had a lock on it, but the thing was all but useless.

Gahh! Please, don't get me started! I don't want to reduce your nice celestial forum to pier six brawl. Better I should bring you back to the forum from whence I came.

You are a wise and prudent person. I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates your restraint. Thank you.

P.S. You know, if NASA and the feds would have been more forthcoming in addressing the questions about the Apollo missions, much of this worldwide skepticism could have been averted.

The problem with this assertion is that the Apollo program was (and is) quite possibly the most accessible government program in the history of, well, history. Basically, name a photo from the mission and you can get it, you want transcripts of the mission radio traffic, you can get it. People listened to the missions live. It was broadcast on the tv. You can spend days disseminating information from official sites about Apollo. The list is almost endless.
[edit]What I'm getting at, is that the US government has never hidden information about Apollo, and in essence, any question a skeptic might have can be answered by some (usually sod all) research.

[Bob B.]

"He then proceeds to drive the moon hot rod in fast circles kicking up dust (dust patterns seem to behave as tho they are hitting air resistance)

No. The dust arcs look exactly like they should in a vacuum. Can you provide a specific example that makes you think otherwise?"

-- The dust forms wave patterns. Why would that happen if it wasn't hitting air resistance?

The appearance of the dust is complex because you have a spinning wheel launching dust particles on a mulititude of overlaping trajectories. The "wave patterns" are probably just an illusion. If you study the video very closely I think you will see that the dust particles follow simple parabolic trajectories an fall immediately back to the surface.

[jrkeller]

I got this off the "Was it only a paper Moon?" website.

Next was the National Air and Space Museum in Washington and the Johnson Space Center in Houston where I video taped an actual LM. Here research indicated that the crew compartment and hatches were too small for the astronauts to actually enter and exit.


Now I live in Houston. In fact I live within walking distance of the Johnson Space Center. I have a pass to Space Center Houston, where the LM (It is a trainer unit, not the real thing) is displayed and I'd say I go there at least one a month. There is no way that he could have made any sort of measurements, because the LM hangs from the ceiling. The doorway is probably 25 off the ground.

You can see some pictures here that show it hanging from the ceiling.

http://www.voydanoff.net/gallery/joh...y_lunar_module

Obviously he isn't telling the truth. Also note the astronaut model legs in the doorway. Looks like he could get through.

Finally, I could produce a lot a training photos which show dozens of people helping the astronauts training. Don't you think that someone would notice that these guys didn't fit through the door?