rover dust

[hyundisonata]

Hi guys, I have two problems with the moon landings, first is the Lander and its exhaust emissions but I am still looking into that. The main problem that makes it all fake is the rover, the dirt from the wheels falls directly to the ground as it would here on earth, now how is that happening as you would expect the dirt due to the propulsion of the wheel to throw it a fair distance unlike here on earth where it has to contend with friction from our atmosphere and a stronger gravity, the golf ball experiment explains that force = velocity in a vacuum = a longer distance than you would achieve here on earth yet the rovers wheels dropping dirt directly to the ground contradicts the astronauts experiment .

[Ian Pearse]

Actually, dust from the wheels would not fall straight to the ground if the rover was on earth, as the presence of the atmosphere would produce dust clouds. The lack of dust clouds that hang in the air is one of the major visual indications that there is a vacuum present. Dust will simply follow a parabolic (or close enough) trajectory to the ground with nothing to impede it.

[gwiz]

Jul 16, 2009 15:14:33 GMT -4 hyundisonata said:

The main problem that makes it all fake is the rover, the dirt from the wheels falls directly to the ground as it would here on earth, now how is that happening as you would expect the dirt due to the propulsion of the wheel to throw it a fair distance unlike here on earth where it has to contend with friction from our atmosphere and a stronger gravity, the golf ball experiment explains that force = velocity in a vacuum = a longer distance than you would achieve here on earth yet the rovers wheels dropping dirt directly to the ground contradicts the astronauts experiment .

If you are going to make this sort of argument stick, you are going to have to provide numbers: how fast does the rover travel? what is the rim speed of the wheels? how high should dust go from a wheel at that speed in lunar gravity? Unless you provide such numbers and show that they conflict with the Apollo visual record, you have not made your case.

Hint, there is plenty of video showing dust being flung up several metres.

[hyundisonata]

The first reply is nit picking, ok I was not clear enough by dust I was referring to the NASA footage of the rover kicking up material via its wheels. As for dust in the atmosphere dampen the ground eliminates this problem so lack of dust in the so called vacuum is no defence.the second reply was more helpful , so what you are saying is that say a wheel revolving at lets say 200 revs would throw a stone weighing lets say half an ounce two yards on earth then the same speed and stone would at least travel twice the distance in a vacuum , so if we can work out the true speed of the rover and roughly guess the distance it throws the gravel or whatever then repeat the same speed and ground conditions here on earth the results should be like chalk and cheese and if not then this would be solid proof that it was all fake.

[Ian Pearse]

Jul 16, 2009 16:27:16 GMT -4 hyundisonata said:

As for dust in the atmosphere dampen the ground eliminates this problem so lack of dust in the so called vacuum is no defence

I would disagree and say that the way dust behaves in a vacuum and in an atmosphere is very significantly different and would look very different on video. I was not nit-picking, I was trying to point out there IS a difference.

[Bob B.]

Jul 16, 2009 16:27:16 GMT -4 hyundisonata said:

... a wheel revolving at lets say 200 revs would throw a stone weighing lets say half an ounce two yards on earth then the same speed and stone would at least travel twice the distance in a vacuum

Incorrect; the atmosphere has almost no visible effect on a pebble sized object traveling at that speed.

[PhantomWolf]

Jul 16, 2009 16:27:16 GMT -4 hyundisonata said:

As for dust in the atmosphere dampen the ground eliminates this problem so lack of dust in the so called vacuum is no defence.

However this would be very noticable visually. Using water to prevent dust works by clumping the dust together, thus when, and this is obverved with damp soils on Earth, the wheel spins it would throw off clumps of soil, not the fine grain particles that we see in the footage. This is where you have a problem. The footage clearly shows that the lunar dust is very fine grain particles, which in an atmosphere would cloud. Dampening them might stop them from forming a cloud, but it'd stop us seeing them as fine grains too, thus since they are seen as fine grains in the footage, they can't be dampened and they should have formed a cloud was it in air and not vacuum.

[Jason Thompson]

This came up before, and the same arguments apply here.

First, how do you know what trajectory the dust grains are following? What you see is not individual grains but regions where they are gathered in sufficient concentrations to be visible on the film. That doesn't mean they're all travelling together by any means, so you can't actually see what individual dust grains are doing.

Secondly, the lack of aerosolisation is a big problem if you want to argue that it was shot in a studio rather than in the lunar vacuum.

[PeterB]

Jul 16, 2009 15:14:33 GMT -4 hyundisonata said:

The main problem that makes it all fake is the rover, the dirt from the wheels falls directly to the ground as it would here on earth, now how is that happening as you would expect the dirt due to the propulsion of the wheel to throw it a fair distance unlike here on earth where it has to contend with friction from our atmosphere and a stronger gravity...

G'day Hyundisonata, and welcome to the Apollohoax board.

I just watched a segment of footage from the Apollo 16 Lunar Rover Grand Prix at www.apolloarchive.com and I could clearly see dust spraying as high as 2 metres above the ground.

On what basis do you say the dirt falls straight to the ground?

[hplasm]

Exhaust emissions? I can hardly wait...

*popcorn*

[hyundisonata]

Hi guys, ok we are getting in a bit deep to quick lol. Let’s take the golf shot, it was reported by Shepard as traveling miles I think it was about one and a half miles will check later or no doubt people here will quote the correct distance, the average similar shot here on earth is about two hundred and fifty yards. As you can see there is a huge marked distance between the two shots and this is Nasas own statement, now you can all go on about size and aerosols ect but according to Nasa an object will travel a greater distance on the moon than it would here on earth now a golf ball is mass same as a stone or group of stones and should show similar results on the moon as it would here on earth so my example of a stone propelled by a wheel according to Nasa would have to be correct and show a large difference that should be easy to measure.

[PhantomWolf]

Jul 18, 2009 8:09:49 GMT -4 hyundisonata said:

Hi guys, ok we are getting in a bit deep to quick lol. Let’s take the golf shot, it was reported by Shepard as traveling miles I think it was about one and a half miles will check later or no doubt people here will quote the correct distance, the average similar shot here on earth is about two hundred and fifty yards. As you can see there is a huge marked distance between the two shots and this is Nasas own statement, now you can all go on about size and aerosols ect but according to Nasa an object will travel a greater distance on the moon than it would here on earth now a golf ball is mass same as a stone or group of stones and should show similar results on the moon as it would here on earth so my example of a stone propelled by a wheel according to Nasa would have to be correct and show a large difference that should be easy to measure.

Have you never heard of Hyperbole? If not I suggest you look it up.

By the way. ****NEWSFLASH**** The LRO returned photos of the Apollo 11, 14, 15, and 17 descent stages and even showed the rover tracks in 17 and footprint trail and ALSEP for 14. Hoax claims are over and done.

[scooter]

OMG I can't believe I have to write this...lol!! <chat mode off..ugh>

He was joking, you know, kidding around. Just like the controller talking to him saying "I think that was a slice, Al" after his second attempt...they were having a light, somewhat relaxed moment.

You really need to study the subjects you choose to argue here, hyundi. It's hard to tell if you're just kidding, or simply woefully uninformed.

[Ian Pearse]

Jul 18, 2009 8:09:49 GMT -4 hyundisonata said:

Hi guys, ok we are getting in a bit deep to quick lol. Let’s take the golf shot, it was reported by Shepard as traveling miles I think it was about one and a half miles will check later or no doubt people here will quote the correct distance, the average similar shot here on earth is about two hundred and fifty yards. As you can see there is a huge marked distance between the two shots and this is Nasas own statement, now you can all go on about size and aerosols ect but according to Nasa an object will travel a greater distance on the moon than it would here on earth now a golf ball is mass same as a stone or group of stones and should show similar results on the moon as it would here on earth so my example of a stone propelled by a wheel according to Nasa would have to be correct and show a large difference that should be easy to measure.

Actually, it was reported as going about 60 feet.

[drewid]

Jul 18, 2009 8:09:49 GMT -4 hyundisonata said:

Hi guys, ok we are getting in a bit deep to quick lol. Let’s take the golf shot, it was reported by Shepard as traveling miles I think it was about one and a half miles will check later or no doubt people here will quote the correct distance, the average similar shot here on earth is about two hundred and fifty yards. As you can see there is a huge marked distance between the two shots and this is Nasas own statement, now you can all go on about size and aerosols ect but according to Nasa an object will travel a greater distance on the moon than it would here on earth now a golf ball is mass same as a stone or group of stones and should show similar results on the moon as it would here on earth so my example of a stone propelled by a wheel according to Nasa would have to be correct and show a large difference that should be easy to measure.

When control said "looks like a slice" Shepard had fluffed the shot and it had gone a few inches. IT WAS A JOKE!!!!!.

ALSO golf balls travel much further than rocks when hit with the same force. There is a measure called the coefficient of restitution which measures how much energy is preserved through a collision between two objects, such as a clubhead and a golf ball.

You can measure the CoR of a single object by bouncing it on a flat solid surface and measuring the rebound, (This is known as normalising the measurement). Golf balls are limited to a CoR of .8 by the rules of golf, basalt rocks have a CoR of about .2

0.8 means the golf ball absorbs then releases quite a lot of the impact energy, so if hit by a clubhead travelling at 100mph the ball will store the energy by deforming, release it back against the clubhead moments later, and will end up travelling somewhere in the region of 140mph.

A rock will not. Rocks don't store energy so well.