I'm not a "we never went to the moon" guy, but....

[Anonymous No.15984893]

During Apollo 11, while the astronauts were on the moon's surface, the Lunar Command Module was orbiting above the moon at 3,600 miles per hour. To put this into perspective, a typical .223 rifle round fired from a 16 inch barrel travels around 2,000mph. After 21 hours of moonwalking, Buzz and Neil launched from the lunar landing module to meet up with the orbiting command module in order to travel back to earth.

Essentially, you have a giant hunk of metal traveling 1.5 times faster than a rifle round and you launch another hunk of metal to meet up with it. The math is insane. I cannot find any details on the internet that go into detail how the landing module rendezvous with the command module.

[Anonymous No.15984897]

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/14172/how-did-the-apollo-11s-eagle-ascent-stage-find-the-csm-after-leaving-the-moon

Why do people suck at searching for information on the internet?

[Anonymous No.15984982]

>>15984893
you can also play kerbal space program to get an intuitive feel for it.

[Anonymous No.15986407]

>>15984897
I really didn't even search. Making this thread was just an easier way to have get the info i.e. someone (you) do the searching for me. I mean look at this. You had to dig through stack exchange to find this. I just made this thread last night, went to bed, and just now decided to go see if anyone provided an answer and, well, you did. Thanks minion!

[Anonymous No.15986425]

>>15986407
Cunningham's Law. Genius!

[Anonymous No.15986908]

>>15984893
play kerbal space program and get gud

[Anonymous No.15987012]

>>15984893
We never went to the moon.

[Anonymous No.15987373]

>>15984893
I made this thread yesterday: >>15985373

You won't get any good answers cause the scientists, whether they're working with academia or applied sciences, who really did believe it happened are too gullible to realize the things were political events rather than scientific feats.

>>15984897
This is just a bullshit answer and reads like storytelling, just like the Wikipedia articles on the political moon landing faked events.

[Anonymous No.15987403]

>>15984897
>powerful Earth-side computers
Very powerful Earth-side computers! And a trillion abbreviations and pointers to things having tons of different names. There really is no explanation being written here.

>I believe
Sure you do - and nothing more. Many subjective individual assumptions being made here.

>maneuvering was all done under computer control using radar data
Ah yes! Radars and thrusters!

[Anonymous No.15987995]

>>15987403
play ksp and stop coping, bozo. if a brainlet like you can do it, so can nasa.

[Anonymous No.15988044]

>>15984893

Here's a chart of seconds elapsed for each of the major mechanical events of the Apollo missions, allowing comparison of all of them. What you're looking at is number of seconds that each configuration was in flight. The various stages (and configurations) of the rocket are in flight for a few minutes at the start, then other configurations run for several minutes, or hours dependinging on which one you're looking at.

Throughout the Apollo program, Apollo 11 had the shortest LM flight time from the time of undocking until lunar touchdown. They were all business and their main focus was to simply stick their landing, get it done and go home. However, Apollo 11 also had the LONGEST flight time from the surface of the Moon BACK to the CSM hurtling through lunar orbit , at 13260 seconds (you do the conversion). Apollo 14 was like half that for that phase of their mission.

Orloff, "Apollo by the Numbers" is an excellent statistical resource OP.

[Anonymous No.15988528]

>>15987995
Imagine arguing one should play a fucking space simulator, literally a video game, as some kind of evidence we went to the moon - holy shit.

[Anonymous No.15988548]

>>15988528
>some kind of evidence we went to the moon

Oh, so you're an actual idiot and didnt really want to learn anything.

[Anonymous No.15988550]

>>15988528
no the idea is that you are way too retarded to even understand fucking evidence. hence why you should play it, to familiarize yourself with what is actually going on, what are the constraints etc.

[Anonymous No.15988559]

>>15988548
>>15988550
Just listen to these retarded answers yet once again - it's like someone being mad over being forced to explain something, which is lacks in any kind of detail whatsoever. Theoretical calculations aren't proof of anything. I can postulate the space carrier to hold just whatever weight I want it to be and resonate the theoretical energy needed for, let's say a takeoff, and then postulate the vessel carried exactly this much weight of a given fuel type.

Inquiring about docking or a liftoff supposedly being capable of taking off from a bare moon surface, a feat that takes tremendous effort and work from the earth not to mention infrastructure being built, is just answered with "m-muh thrusters and radars!".

Just look at >>15984897 - it's nothing but one long blabbering of assumptions and not cutting to the deal. Anyone in academia knows, if someone isn't able to explain something in layman's terms they don't understand it. And if nobody is able to explain the lack of details surrounding several inquiries regarding the "moon landings", then it simply didn't happen. It shouldn't be this hard to find information on the supposed biggest achievement of humankind in the 20th century and perhaps all of the modern era.

[Anonymous No.15988561]

>>15988559
but you are not asking for a "layman" explanation. you'll deny anything any anon takes time writing to you.

[Anonymous No.15988566]

>>15988561
Nobody is giving anything. Look at the picture posted from the stackexchange - it's full of assumptions: "I believe"- etc.

People are arguing for the position of the ascent module weighing a mere 2200kg. That's 1/4th of the weight of Titan imploding in 2023 made for deep sea exploration.

The curiosity rover had a weight of 900kg according to NASA themselves: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/spacecraft/rover/summary/

Now are we seriously supposed to believe an ascent module made for taking off, landing, lifting off, bringing all instruments and two pilots and keeping them alive for days weighing a mere 2500kg? It supposedly also carried a fucking vehicle, the lunar rover.

How did the docking happen? An extremely delicate process is simply explained with "thrusters and radars".

[Anonymous No.15988568]

>>15988566
>How did the docking happen?
PLAY KSP YOU MORON

[Anonymous No.15988571]

>>15988566
This board isnt interested in converting an idiot.

[Anonymous No.15988575]

>>15988568
>>15988571
Look at the answers. I am seriously being prompted to play a fucking video game.

This "board" turns out to be populated by institutionalized morons believing in anything as long as its' a governmental institution postulating the claims. The nature of a scientist, especially an applied scientist, is being capable of critical thinking and being able to question current paradigms.

And here you guys are doing it yet again.

[Anonymous No.15988577]

The lie has simply gotten too big and out of hand as years went by accumulating governmental material produced on the supposed event now having entered tons of academic books, museums, websites, movies, documentaries et cetera. The list has basically become endless.

[Anonymous No.15988579]

>>15988568
I think it would be too complicated for him. He cant even research information for himself. He has to have others do it for him. No chance.

[Anonymous No.15988582]

>>15988579
Naturally I can - there simply aren't any feasible or detailed enough explanations. Much of the material sounds like a story being told rather than being the product of empiric calculations and actual applied science.

Could you provide me a summarized table of the mass of given components for the ascent module, roughly categorized, totaling the weight of the approximately 2500kg? Including the weigh of astronauts, the supposed "lunar rover", hull etc.? A thing with 60s and 70s tech supposed to land, liftoff, dock and keep astronauts alive for three days.

[Anonymous No.15988585]

>>15988582
if you played it and got familiarized with orbital mechanics and making an orbital randezvous you'd be more prepared to ask even more pertinent questions. jussain

[Anonymous No.15988586]

>>15988582
>Could you provide me
Why? No point in bothering you with facts, your mind is made up.

[Anonymous No.15988594]

>>15988585
You guys just keep on repeating ad infinitum. I ain't going to play a space simulator video game prompted by some moron as an explanation for a supposed event, or set of events, happening.

>>15988586
That's not the reason. The reason is you can't.

[Anonymous No.15988598]

>>15988594
>You guys just keep on repeating ad infinitum.
why do you think we do moron?

[Anonymous No.15988601]

>>15988598
You keep telling people to play a space simulator video game when inquiring about details and calculations surrounding the supposed moon landings?

[Anonymous No.15988602]

>>15988601
yeah, exactly

[Anonymous No.15988605]

>>15988594
Why dont you go down to JPL or Kennedy Space Center? Why would you think /sci/ is going to collect the information you seek? Nobody here cares if you dont believe in the moon landings. Im just replying to you because I got nothing better to do. But im not so bored that I'm going to research the entire apollo space program for you.

[Anonymous No.15988613]

>>15988605
Because I am not American. I am Danish.
Just look at what you're typing. Nobody researches specific events - the whole thing has become a cult propped up by a mix up gullible scientists, people working for the US government and most importantly old die-hard fanboys. The supposed "events" have been diluted with theoretical calculations and specific information is extremely hard to come by.

>>15988602
Marvelous. Great bunch of /sci/entists we're having in here.

[Anonymous No.15988619]

>>15988613
>Marvelous. Great bunch of /sci/entists we're having in here.
bro it's like you are complaining about fucking and we all can tell you are a virgin. maybe fuck a few times then ask about it? that will only help you crystalize your issues with the subject. stop being a retard

[Anonymous No.15988620]

>>15988613
>Because I am not American. I am Danish.
So? Fly to USA. Do you think airplanes are fake too? 90,000kg at takeoff. Is that suspicious? I dont have a blueprint on a 737 Max 8 with component breakdown with weights of each part and manufacture details complete with CAD files to provide you. Is that an issue?

[Anonymous No.15988625]

>>15988620
Logical fallacy - you're extrapolating or likening me not believing in the moon landings, or rather not believing there is sufficient evidence or a feasible explanation, to questioning general aerospace engineering and putting words into my mouth.

Sure, wire me the money for a return plane ticket, transportation costs, hotel stays and food and I'll gladly go. Matter of fact, I'd be ready to hop on a plane within hours.

[Anonymous No.15988628]

>>15988625
you read something someone wrote, didn't you? you didn't really think about it, someone else did for you

[Anonymous No.15988632]

>>15988628
What are you blabbering about now? Stick to the topic or stop responding - you're derailing the thread.

[Anonymous No.15988635]

>>15988625
you dont beleive in the moon landings. You've made it quite clear you don't, otherwise you wouldnt be asking these ridiculous questions such as asking for part list details from a government program from over 60 years ago that happened during a cold war. If you're actually interested in how the moon landings happened, there is more than enough information on the internet to answer reasonable questions. But, you're not going to accept it because in your little mind its all a conspiracy.

When did you start to doubt the legitimacy of the Apollo Space Program? Are there are things that you question the legitamacy of? If so, name them.

[Anonymous No.15988655]

>>15988635
>that happened during a cold war
Spot on - you're even saying it yourself now. I didn't ask for a "specific part list", but rather a categorical breakdown of the different general components and their weight such as the supposed "lunar rover", weight of the astronauts, hull. These things aren't super specific - shouldn't it be easy for NASA to post such information?

There isn't. Everything is based around countless of assumptions, logical or illogical, and the whole thing becomes an informational mush very far from actual applied science.

This isn't some flat earth fringe stupid conspiracy theory post. There is no conspiracy regarding the supposed moon landing events. They simply didn't happen.

>Are there are things that you question the legitimacy of?
Naturally so, the whole thing. Specifically the lack of information and lack of actual scientific methodology when inquiring about details. Detailed explanations are scolded off with "thrusters and radars" and module weights were supposedly much less than modern amateur submarine vessels also supposedly able to withstand liftoff, takeoff and docking. Lack of details regarding the docking mechanism. Or comparing the weight with modern day rovers and vessels seeing the module supposedly weighed approximately only two to three times of the curiosity rover while carrying a lunar rover capable of manned driving and being able to sustain astronauts for three days. Then you have the whole political aspect of it - all the supposed landings happening under one presidential term at the height of the cold war in the backwater of the failed Vietnam War, never having gone back and the stupid "explanations" provided for it ("m-muh it's expensive!") despite millions of times the computing power and advancement in practically all technology sectors. Or the fact no other nation has done it.

[Anonymous No.15988664]

>>15988655
You are asking for specifics. You cant even get that kind of information from SpaceX about their rockets. You're not asking NASA for anything, you asking a 4chan board ffs.

See, you don't beleive in the moon landings. Good for you for admiting it. There is nothing that can be provided to you short of being on the spacecraft during an apollo mission to persuade you. Thats why nobody is answering your questions any more. Its a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.15988666]

>>15984893
You already were btfo'd in /sci/. Maybe try /pol/ next time.

[Anonymous No.15988668]

>>15988664
Of course I am. They should be able to provide such things as credibility for their now supposed defunct and old "moon landings". Who is going to steal tech from the 60s and 70s? Arguments like these are so stupid in nature it hurts.

It's not that I don't believe they happened. They didn't. Just because someone is saying something doesn't mean it's true.

>>15988666
No I wasn't. You just keep saying the same things over and over again.

[Anonymous No.15988673]

>>15988668
In that thread you criticized people for not posting math except there were many posts with math in them and yours didn't have a single equation.
Your original question was about the fuel needed and when people posted the equations you ignored them and began to talk about cold war geopolitics instead.
Many of those things like the weights of the different parts of the craft could be found if you bothered to do research but you basically bait people into doing the research for you, then when they provide you that info you ignore them and begin to talk about something else without doing so much as a single google search.

[Anonymous No.15988675]

>>15988668
Most of the engineers and people that worked on the apollo program are either in nurising homes are dead. When the Apollo program was cancelled, everything was either burned, given away, stolen, lost, locked away in vaults. Your questions are retarded given the context.
Whenever an answer is given to you, you reject it. What is the point in conversing with you? Whats the end goal here?

[Anonymous No.15988679]

>>15988673
>you ignored them and began to talk about
always the same with these retards. not worth the time or effort.

[Anonymous No.15988680]

>>15988655
lets think it through together danebro. im not a stemfag, but i really find these conspiracy theories interesting

>Detailed explanations are scolded off with "thrusters and radars"
i really dont see why this is hard to grasp, you naturally use some kind of sensor to locate the object you are going to dock with, and then you need a propulsor to reach it. the data from the sensor makes you able to calculate how much and in what direction you need to use your propulsor

>module weights were supposedly much less than modern amateur submarine vessels
i dont see why this is so incredible. the titan submarine needed a hull that was supposed to withstand almost 400 atmospheres, while you only need to withstand a pressure of 1 in a vacuum

>never having gone back and the stupid "explanations" provided for it ("m-muh it's expensive!")
thats a plausible explanation though isnt it

[Anonymous No.15988681]

>>15988668
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-3_2UtTMtA

[Anonymous No.15988682]

>>15988673
So what? That was just one of my inquiries. This isn't about me denying theoretical calculations, which you're trying to make it look like.

I am baiting no one. I am simply inquiring cause the information can't clearly be found anywhere and is always diluted by countless of assumptions or mushed together by die-hard fanboys.

>>15988675
Ah yes, we simply went to the moon and then forgot how to to do it all of a sudden either due to losing the information or it being deliberately destroyed. Can't you see for yourself how stupid these things sound?

The end goal is actually self-realization of me looking for any plausible information for it, matter of fact, did happen to question my own beliefs. But nothing can be gathered and an inquiring about anything is met with cult-like resistance just like conspiracy theorists tend to get mad when you ask them to elaborate. I believe this is a remnant of the culture curated in the 90s with X-Files, Area 51 and generally propagated by boomer patriotic Americans

[Anonymous No.15988687]

>>15988682
>I am simply inquiring
you are not tho. you came here to tell us we're retards for believing it was possible because you KNOW it wasn't because you have some ideas. whenever they are challenged you go into other shit.
you are a brainlet anon.

[Anonymous No.15988694]

>>15988680
The Titan submarine was made, looking past the fact it was even amateurish by design, for a couple of hours of deep sea exploration. The ascent module was supposedly made for travelling in space, landing on a bare surface and taking off from it again along with brining a vehicle and designed to keep astronauts alive for three days. All with 60s and 70s tech. The ascent module supposedly weighed 1/4th of Titan.

>i really dont see why this is hard to grasp
I find it extremely hard to believe how the ascent module supposedly could adjust itself to match the orbit of the command module, get close enough without colliding, then manually being steered by thrusters and radars to supposedly dock the module. We're talking about speeds of 1600 m/s - how much thruster force is needed to steer and match the orbit of the command module of a vessel? When was the manual steering done? How was an airtight docking ensured?

[Anonymous No.15988696]

>>15988694
manually being steered by the astronauts* after adjusting, which is the claim

[Anonymous No.15988697]

>>15988694
>then manually being steered by thrusters and radars to supposedly dock the module. We're talking about speeds of 1600 m/s - how much thruster force is needed to steer and match the orbit of the command module of a vessel? When was the manual steering done? How was an airtight docking ensured?
play ksp

[Anonymous No.15988698]

>>15988687
I never claimed to be one. I do have a bachelor in ChemE though

[Anonymous No.15988702]

>>15988698
https://youtu.be/vYXaAyn42pM?list=PLC1yaZz2qeGrhndH7zOnooziqxS09MI33&t=5687

[Anonymous No.15988703]

>>15988694
>The ascent module was supposedly made for travelling in space, landing on a bare surface and taking off from it again along with brining a vehicle and designed to keep astronauts alive for three days
so how much should this weigh, according to you? what would be plausible?

>We're talking about speeds of 1600 m/s - how much thruster force is needed to steer and match the orbit of the command module of a vessel?
not sure what part is implausible here. the relative speeds become smaller as you match the speed of the docking object, and once its relatively still to you, you can slowly maneuver whether by automatic or manual means. the absence of outside forces such as drag makes this even easier compared to say doing the same maneuver between two boats at full speed

[Anonymous No.15988706]

First picture:
Hmm that seem not logical

Second picture:
Never mind

[Anonymous No.15988707]

>>15988682
You can always point at some piece of obscure information that is not available and say "aha, see? how come nasa doesn't tell you that? because it never happened".
You will never be convinced because ultimately short of putting you on a rocket to the moon nothing will convince you. Even if we convince you that it was technically possible you will claim there is no way they'd risk it and everything was faked.
The most solid evidence that they really went is how high the dust goes for how slow the wheels are spinning in the rover. If that doesn't convince you nothing will.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79UAhuN6VPA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cKpzp358F4

[Anonymous No.15988708]

>>15988682
>and then forgot how to to do it all of a sudden
We didn't forget. We know how we got there. What youre asking for is not how we got there but rather specific data pertaining to actual parts that cant be readily given due to fragmentation. Its like digging up a fragment of pottery from 1200 AD and asking where the rest of it is and then denying that a civilization was ever there.

The Apollo 11 Lunar module was 9287lbs dry weight and 33278lbs at lift off. That information is on the internet. But does that satisfy you? No, you want to see an actual document from NASA, fine. I can show you a document, but then you wont accept it because its doesnt have a break down of all the parts that add up to the weight. Well why the fuck would that even be available? Do you think they took a picture of every fucking document just incase a moon landing denier 40 years in the future wanted to know? Your questions are retarded.

[Anonymous No.15988712]

also if you're curious about the randezvous
https://youtu.be/vYXaAyn42pM?t=13928

[Anonymous No.15988715]

>>15988703
>so how much should this weigh, according to you? what would be plausible?
I couldn't tell you, but definitely more than a modern day vessel made for deep sea exploration for a couple of hours. The ascent module supposedly weighed 1/4th the weight of Titan being supposedly designed with tech decades older with multiple functionalities such as landing, taking off, bringing a "lunar rover" and keeping astronauts alive for multiple days. Comparing with modern day space crafts and vessels the weight of both the ascent module and command module are just laughable.

It shouldn't be easier. You're manually navigating three dimensional space, whereas boats can't move vertically. Also the higher velocity makes for a smaller margin of error since just the simplest of mistakes have grave consequences.

>>15988708
You're likening pottery to the feat of taking off from earth, landing on the moon, staying alive for three days, taking off from the moon, docking another module in space and then going back to earth.

My questions certainly aren't retarded. They're all quite valid and should easily be cleared and explained, but they aren't.

[Anonymous No.15988718]

>>15988694
Resisting the pressure from outside is often more difficult than resisting the same pressure from inside due to crumbling.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/503722/which-explodes-first-vacuumed-tank-or-pressurized-tank
Let alone the fact that titan resisted pressures of hundreds of atmospheres while apollo resisted only 1 atmosphere.
A small hole in the hull of Apollo wouldn't necessarily be catastrophic. The ISS had a hole and it was patched up.
Plus you haven't researched how thick is the hull of modern spacecraft. Why not begin there?
Have you ever seen radio vaccum tubes? Those are made of very thin glass and they have to resist the same pressure differential that a spacecraft does. Same as CRT tubes. 1 atmosphere is very little pressure for a material like steel and it has nothing on deep sea pressures which are on a completely different level.

[Anonymous No.15988720]

>>15988715
>taking off from earth, landing on the moon, staying alive for three days, taking off from the moon, docking another module in space and then going back to earth.
yeah here lies the issue, no matter what information you receive you will deny it. you already made up your mind it can't possibly be real no matter of any info you receive. you are not honest this way anon. you do not want to understand how, you want to refute literally anything going against what you BELIEVE
>My questions certainly aren't retarded.
not at all, you are retarded for easily waving away literally any piece of information.

[Anonymous No.15988721]

>>15988694
>We're talking about speeds of 1600 m/s
How can a couple manage to put penis in vagina when they are traveling at 1000 miles per hour due to the rotation of the Earth?

[Anonymous No.15988724]

>>15988715
>I couldn't tell you
so, you have no estimate of how heavy it should be, and therefore you shouldnt really have reason to doubt its supposed weight

>The ascent module supposedly weighed 1/4th the weight of Titan being supposedly designed with tech decades older
this is a really bad example, its a vehicle designed to withstand 400 times the pressure, and travel in a different medium. And how would our modern tech change this, exactly? I suppose the material of the Titan is a bit more modern, but if we compare that to 60s tech, the weight difference should be even greater, which doesnt exactly help your argument

>It shouldn't be easier. You're manually navigating three dimensional space, whereas boats can't move vertically. Also the higher velocity makes for a smaller margin of error since just the simplest of mistakes have grave consequences.
i pilot ships for a living. if you get rid of outside influences like drag, it all comes down to calculations, and becomes much easier. The absolute speeds dont mean anything in this context, only the relative speeds. If I fall over while walking down the aisle of a train I dont ragdoll and die, I just get up again

[Anonymous No.15988729]

>>15988718
It's not just about withstanding pressure - it's about the smallest hull integrity in outer space causing a instantaneous depressurization. You're comparing the pressure of an ocean to the non-pressure of infinite space.

>>15988720
I am not denying anything. I am simply not believing the claim and postulate of human landing on the moon multiple times in the span of 4-5 years.

>>15988721
I didn't humans were manually steering the earth while having intercourse at the same time

>>15988724
Of course I have since we can compare with many modern vessels made for both travel in space or deep sea exploration

Look at my answer above - the challenge lies in designing around a pressure differential. Not around a given amount of pressure.

[Anonymous No.15988735]

>>15988729
>Look at my answer above - the challenge lies in designing around a pressure differential. Not around a given amount of pressure.

so what would the difference in weight be between a sub built to withstand 2 atmospheres and 400? does the amount of pressure not change how thick your hull must be? do you now see why its not unfeasible to think that a submarine would be heavier than a spacecraft?

[Anonymous No.15988741]

>>15988707
>The most solid evidence that they really went is...a bog standard special effect

Grim...

[Anonymous No.15988743]

>>15988735
It's not just about withstanding pressure like I also pointed out - it's also about designing around hull integrity. In deep sea you don't have the risk of space rocks colliding with the hull at high velocities. You're focusing only on one aspect, where I have pointed several out. What about the weight of an added lunar rover? The ability to deploy it? The capability to land and takeoff? It's the summarized weight of these additional things too.

Naturally the hull must be optimized to the pressure, but that's not the only factor at play here, like I have pointed out several times.

No I really don't to be honest. The curiosity rover by itself weighed 900kg, around 1/3rd of the the ascent module with extremely limited capabilities compared to the ascent module. The lunar rover supposedly weighed 210kg, less than 1/4th of the Curiosity rover. Can't you see these things don't add up?

[Anonymous No.15988763]

>>15988743
>The lunar rover supposedly weighed 210kg
34kg on the moon.

[Anonymous No.15988805]

>>15988763
The gravitational force pushing down on the object doesn't matter - comparison of weight is just a ratio.

Curiosity: 3 : 2.7 : 2.2 (LxWxH)
Rover: 3.1 : 2.3 : 1.1 (LxWxH)

So they are dimensioned roughly the same with the curiosity being around a meter higher/taller than the rover. Yet the rover is less than 1/4th the weight along with supposedly having a payload of 490kg. That's more than a Toyota Aygo weighing roughly the same as the Curiosity.

There's something extremely off with the numbers and something doesn't add up. Now these are just for the vehicles - add in all the other things.

[Anonymous No.15988808]

>>15988805
>The gravitational force pushing down on the object doesn't matter
If something weighs less, its easier to move around in space isnt it.

If it doesnt matter why even bring up the mass in the first place? What are you trying to say?

[Anonymous No.15988814]

>>15988808
I ain't comparing the absolute weight, that would be pointless. I am comparing the ratios. How come the lunar rover, designed around the same capabilities as Curiosity having almost the same dimensions, weighs 1/4th the weight and furthermore has a higher payload than a modern day Toyota Aygo?

There are tons of things not adding up. This is just a one detail among many.

[Anonymous No.15988816]

>>15988814
>same capabilities as Curiosity having almost the same dimensions, weighs 1/4th the weight
you are gorilla retarded
>but has rover in the name

[Anonymous No.15988817]

>>15988816
What's retarded here? The one retarded are the ones pointing to a fucking video game space simulator. You guys are absolutely oblivious to comparing designs and supposed functionality

[Anonymous No.15988819]

>>15988817
first of all they don't have the same "capabilities". one is loaded to the brim with science experiments and gear and panels for long term use the other is a platform with wheels a battery made to last for some hours of operations.
>what's heavier a cubic meter of feathers or a cubic meter of lead?
second you shouldn't be coming here if you are not over 18 years of age.

[Anonymous No.15988830]

>>15988814
Why does it matter? I dont get what the ratios have to do with anything?

First its not designed around the same capabilities. One is for the moon, the other is for mars. One is a primary mission, the other is secondard. One has mininal parts, the other is maximized for parts. Curiosity rover has a lot more stuff attached to it than the rover vehicle, thats why Curiosity weighs more. Again, why does it matter?

[Anonymous No.15988833]

>>15988819
Let's take a moment and stop refraining to densities here. Vehicle design is similar and vehicles designed for space travels undoubtedly carry similarities in relation to design. How can the lunar rover supposedly carry a payload of almost 500kg despite weighing 1/4th of a Toyota Aygo?

This is, once again, just one aspect of it. Look at the attached picture from NASA's website - something is off with the size too.

>>15988830
How doesn't it matter? It's an inquiry of details regarding the design of rovers made for exploration of foreign space body surfaces. It just a demonstration how lot's of things aren't adding up. Now we're also just diving into further details.

[Anonymous No.15988834]

>>15988833
>It just a demonstration how lot's of things aren't adding up.
How doesnt it add up? What is your point? I dont understand why youre making this argument that doesnt seem to have a point to it besides "it doesnt add up". Are you high right now?

[Anonymous No.15988835]

>>15988833
you have shit models for understanding reality. I'm not even going to bother. or this is trolling

[Anonymous No.15988841]

>>15988833
The Lunar Roving Vehicles have a mass of 460 pounds (210 kg), and were designed to hold an additional payload of 510 pounds (230 kg).[14] This resulted in weights in the approximately one-sixth g on the lunar surface of 77 pounds-force (35 kgf) empty (curb weight) and 160 pounds-force (73 kgf) fully loaded (gross vehicle weight). -wikipedia

What does it matter? Its on the moon, not Earth, it makes a big difference.

[Anonymous No.15988848]

>>15988834
The vehicle design doesn't add up. - how can the payload be more than that of a Toyota Aygo, while the rover itself weighs less than 1/4th of the weight of a Toyota Aygo?

We're just comparing numbers and design here.

>>15988835
Not really, they're quite realistic and go beyond theoretical calculations as supposed evidence for an event happening.

>>15988841
It matters a whole lot to compare with other modern vehicle designs with either the same or different purposes to see whether something realistically is able to function the way it is proposed.

[Anonymous No.15988849]

>>15988833
>something is off with the size too.

You realize that the rover was folded up and attached to the side of the LM, right?

[Anonymous No.15988856]

>>15988848
>- how can the payload be more than that of a Toyota Aygo,
Because of material strength. Weight changes in different gravities, but material strength doesn't.

[Anonymous No.15988857]

>>15988849
Not according to NASA

[Anonymous No.15988861]

>>15988857
???

[Anonymous No.15988862]

>>15988856
You don't get it - we're not talking about absolute numbers. We're talking about ratios.

The rover supposedly could carry two times the weight of itself while a Toyota Aygo can carry 0.44 times the weight of itself. Thus the lunar rover supposedly is able to carry 4.5 more than an Aygo in relation to the weight of the vehicle itself.

>>15988861
This isn't to the side like you proposed, simply pointing it out. Also does that vehicle look like it can carry almost 500kgs of mass?

[Anonymous No.15988865]

>>15986407
You seriously need to kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.15988867]

>>15988862
I tried to give you a chance, but you dont understand anything. I'm not sure if youre doing it on purpose or not, but i actually have better stuff to do than go around in circles with you.

[Anonymous No.15988873]

>>15988867
What is it I don't understand? Something is seriously off in relation to the claimed design of the supposed vessels and vehicles used for the Apollo missions including both the ascent module, the command module and the "lunar rover"

[Anonymous No.15988880]

he's trolling or incapable of understanding basic shit.

[Anonymous No.15988886]

>>15988873
Hypothetically speaking, If a Toyota Aygo can carry .44 times its own weight on earth, then on the moon it can carry 2.64 times its weight. Ratios have nothing to do with anything.

[Anonymous No.15988890]

A 2023 Ford F-150 weighs 6470lbs and has a payload of 1765lbs according to https://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/2023/features-specs/

Thus the payload ratio is 0.27 for a modern pickup truck compared to the payload of around 2.1 for the "lunar rover" consisting of a thin foldable frame.

[Anonymous No.15988891]

>>15988886
The payload ratio doesn't change due to the gravitational acceleration - that's simply plain out retarded to claim so.

[Anonymous No.15988893]

>>15988891
stop biting, he's clearly trolling lmao

[Anonymous No.15988894]

>>15988848
>how can the payload be more than that of a Toyota Aygo, while the rover itself weighs less than 1/4th of the weight of a Toyota Aygo?

payload doesnt correlate with mass, these are two wildly different vehicles with wildly different specs, you must understand that you cant just compare the ratio of one single capability and conclude that the moon landings "dont add up"

[Anonymous No.15988895]

>>15988893
You're clearly retarded if you think a gravitational constant changes ratios - also we aren't comparing "lunar" payloads. Do I seriously have to explain these things?

The "lunar rover" supposedly, in ratios on earth, is able to carry almost eight times as much as a modern pickup truck in relation to its' weight despite consisting of a thin foldable frame.

[Anonymous No.15988897]

>>15988891
You actual dumb fuck. The moon is 1/6th the gravity of Earth. The ratio doesnt matter in regards to structural integrity. What matters is material strength and weight. Material strength doesnt change in different gravities, but weight does.

[Anonymous No.15988898]

>>15988894
That's not what I am doing either - this is just one detail amongst many. Naturally so they're two different vehicles. A modern pickup truck is designed around the capability of carrying goods yet only has a payload ratio of 0.27 compared to that of the "lunar rover" being 2.1 despite being nothing but a chassis.

This is just a demonstration of some things not adding up.

[Anonymous No.15988899]

>>15988895
you could make a pickup truck much lighter while having the same payload capacity if you make simple adjustments like removing the cabin, getting rid of safety measures and installing a much smaller electrical engine. the two vehicles are not designed for the same environments, thus they cant be compared without this in mind

[Anonymous No.15988901]

>>15988898
you dont add up

[Anonymous No.15988902]

>>15988897
Are you plain out retarded? Yes exactly, so a human person would weigh 1/6th less on the moon, but it wouldn't make him able to lift more or less by ratio due to the fact of everything having a different weigh. You clearly don't understand ratios.

>>15988899
>you could make a pickup truck much lighter while having the same payload capacity
I need a source on this statement. Naturally you could remove redundant things in relation to carrying goods, but it wouldn't be able to increase the payload capacity by 8 times or furthermore realistically make the payload above 100% in relation to its' own weight (the "lunar rover" is in fact supposedly 200%)

[Anonymous No.15988904]

>>15988902
i ratio'd your mom

[Anonymous No.15988908]

sage

[Anonymous No.15988914]

>>15988901
>>15988904
Just look at this shit - here have it. People like these are advocating we landed on the moon several times in the span of a couple of years and then it never happened again up until now decades later. These people are amateurs and shouldn't browse a board like /sci/ and they're clearly nothing but patriotic American boomer morons gobbling up lies propagated by their government. When presented with hard evidence of things not adding up they will simply retort to saying "m-muh your mom!".

This is just further evidence the lies about "moon landings" relies on morons immediately attempting to shut down down anyone questioning the fake paradigm.

[Anonymous No.15988919]

>>15984893
Physics is pretty easy when you aren't moving through a fluid. Launching a rocket from earth a hitting the moon at the right place and right time seems even more improbable than the lunar modules meeting. Then when we send shit to some moon orbiting jupiter, or do a flyby of pluto, it's like hitting a golfball at a hole a billion miles away and getting a hole-in-one.

[Anonymous No.15988927]

>>15984982
Have you played the second early access release? If so, is it worth buying?

[Anonymous No.15988949]

>>15988927
bunch of bugs atm. works but random shit here and there. looks nice tho

[Anonymous No.15989029]

>>15986407
>I really didn't even search. Making this thread was just an easier way to have get the info i.e.
this is why i have flipped my stance on regulation internet use. the amount of retards in the world was something i severley underestimated until my mid 20s. some of you should be forced to upload your ID image to every single thing you do on the internet

[Anonymous No.15989036]

>>15988601
Yes. It dumbstruck it down for people like you to grasp. You're beyond reading or doing the math yourself, so a video game is one of the most basic forms of getting information across your thick head, and you won't even do that. Underachieving like you have a unique ability to create, in your own head, a scenario in which you're right and others are wrong. It's a well defined psychological coping mechanism. Just accept you might be dumb, and move on

[Anonymous No.15989042]

>>15988914
Incoherent ramblings. I could hit you in the head with a hammer and you would deny the pain. People like you are Eddie Bravo tier retarded

[Anonymous No.15989046]

>>15987403
>Very powerful Earth-side computers! And a trillion abbreviations and pointers to things having tons of different names. There really is no explanation being written here.
you cant infer or search what those abreviations mean, you shouldn't express your opinion on anything

[Anonymous No.15989059]

>>15988902
>I need a source on this statement
listen to yourself man. you are deranged

[Anonymous No.15989065]

>>15989059
Come on. Show me a source. Here you have from a scientific journal construction site vehicles like dump trucks having a payload ratio of 100-140%.

[Anonymous No.15989067]

[Anonymous No.15989073]

Dont talk to him

Fucking sage

[Anonymous No.15989082]

>>15989065
The vehicle we are discussing is an example with a higher payload ratio than that, yet you wont accept it as feasible, so why would I bother finding yet another vehicle for you to handwave away? You are unwilling to do the maths, just like when discussing the weight of the lunar lander vs a submarine, and thus you can always say it "doesnt add up" without doinga single calculation yourself. i hate bringing up "burden of proof", but in this case it is YOU who should point out where the math doesnt add up, and you have not done so.

[Anonymous No.15989097]

>>15989065

[Anonymous No.15989101]

>>15989097
https://www.magliner.com/motorized-ht-pneu-xt-infl-1

hmm this doesnt add up at all

[Anonymous No.15989108]

>>15984893
Yep, it's a lot of math and training but it isn't as hard as it sounds, you don't need to intercept the LCM and just need to get into the same orbit as it then use adjustments to close for docking.

[Anonymous No.15989131]

>>15989101
So apparently OP is so retarded we need to explain simple machines to them.

[Anonymous No.15989135]

>>15989097
Ah yes - you got me. This is totally a foldable motorized vehicle capable of driving across supposed "moon" terrain with tech from the 1960s-1970s.

Let's also look aside the fact a trolley, which you linked to, totally doesn't use the work exerted by the one pulling the trolley as the mean force of movement.

Fucking moonies, it's insane how gullible all of you are

[Anonymous No.15989137]

>>15989131
I didn't knew they pulled the "lunar rover" around like a trolley. You guys sure got me.

[Anonymous No.15989143]

>>15989137
Did you know there is this one weird trick invented in the 4th millennium BC that allows the movement of heavy objects with a fraction of the force it would require to resist the friction on the ground?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spYnie1lbZo
Then later we invented the electric motor.

[Anonymous No.15989147]

>>15989143
Are you retarded? You do know you can't put skids under moon dust and moon rocks, right? Have you seen the supposed footage of the "lunar rover"? Are they exerting their own force to pull around the payload? Cause it sure looks to me like they aren't.

Sure you can leverage things on a trolley, but to transport goods around solely by motor you need to use a lot more energy yet alone considering the surfaces on the moon aren't flat ideal concrete surfaces

[Anonymous No.15989157]

>>15989147
Bud, you're malding right now. The point of my post aside from making fun of you is that the weight of those little rollers is a tiny fraction of the 6000 lb box that guy was moving which proves that there doesn't have to be a 1-1 ratio between payload and vehicle weight for rolling friction vehicles. The reason my car weighs 2921 lbs and only has a 937lb carrying capacity is because it's designed around road use and safety. A rover has none of the things you would need for a regular car. No AC no Airbags, NO FUCKING SIDE PANELS. Its just wheels on a frame with a motor which makes it light and strips off a shit ton of weight.

[Anonymous No.15989170]

>>15989157
The things you're posting aren't vehicles. They're fucking trollies. You clearly can't discern between the two - a vehicle doesn't use external force or work when moving a load. Trollies use the work exerted by humans and angling to achieving a higher payload "ratio", which it really isn't per se since the trolley isn't moving the load by itself.

What you're actually saying is akin to saying a chariot has a higher payload totally ignoring it's the horse, which is exerting the force to make the chariot move.

Are you guys really this retarded on this board? This is simple physics. You must be fucking kidding me if you think your truck or car carries less weight due to safety standards. Holy shit.

[Anonymous No.15989197]

>>15989170
Yeah but electric golf carts exist and they can hold up to 1500 lbs so you're just wrong tho.

[Anonymous No.15989219]

>>15989197
>Yes but what you said is wrong because I literally just typed something without backing it up by any specifications tables or data
Let's see where you're getting your numbers, moonie. I'll be patiently waiting.

[Anonymous No.15989224]

>>15988566
>That's 1/4th of the weight of Titan imploding in 2023 made for deep sea exploration.
>weighing a mere 2500kg
without having read any other post, you are thinking about space vehicles in terms of earth mechanics. we can construct vehicles and structures for space to be far lighter than would be needed for earth because there is no atmospheric pressure to speak of.
the heavier something is, the stronger its structure needs to be to accelerate it. spacecraft only need walls sturdy enough to keep any relevant atmosphere contained and to survive whatever acceleration they need to go through.
if we tried sending up a vehicle built for operating on earth it would be substantially heavier and require absurd amounts of thrust to get into orbit.

[Anonymous No.15989229]

>>15989219
Bud...

[Anonymous No.15989231]

>>15989224
>Earth mechanics
>we can construct vehicles and structures for space to be far lighter than would be needed on earth
>the heavier something is, the stronger its structure needs to be to accelerate it
>spacecraft only need walls sturdy enough to keep any relevant atmosphere contained and to survive whatever acceleration they need to go through
>if we tried sending up a vehicle built for operating on earth it would be substantially heavier
This board really is mentally deficient. All of these points having been addressed and here you come postulating absolutely retarded things clearly not having a clue what you're talking about at all. Absolute weight doesn't matter - weight ratios do, which is what we're discussing. And by the way things aren't heavier on the moon. They're lighter, moonie.

Perhaps you should read the thread before spouting all kinds of retarded statements.

[Anonymous No.15989240]

>>15989229
Post the fucking specs. Are you retarded? The gas powered version has the highest ratio being 680.3kg / 450.4kg = 1.5 (or 150%). This is also based on the curb weight, which doesn't include passengers and if a grown adult man of lets say 80kg drove the vehicle the payload ratio would be a little less than 1.3. These numbers perfectly are within the margins of the previous numbers for construction site vehicles shown here: >>15989067

This is far from the payload of the "lunar rover" being 2.1 or 210% even accounting for payloads back then most likely being even lower.

Mentally deficient board I'd say, holy shit.

[Anonymous No.15989243]

>>15989231
>Absolute weight doesn't matter
agreed, that aligns with what i said, though it would be "mass" not weight. Acceleration is what makes weight, and you need to accelerate to take off from the surface of the moon.
the moon's gravity exerts acceleration on you that makes you experience 1/6th weight. when you go to take off from the moon you must accelerate away from it and overcome that gravitational acceleration, which means you would, for a time, experience a greater weight.
notice that ratios never came into play, it is a question of whether the material something is made of can withstand the force being applied to it (which is an absolute value, not something that changes with location).
i hope this lesson in elementary school physics has been helpful.

[Anonymous No.15989245]

>>15989243
You have aboslutely no idea what you're talking about. Acceleration can't be exerted - it's the velocity derived. You can't exert a speed. You exert force. Gravity doesn't exert acceleration. Gravity exerts force.

Bunch of retarded moonies can't even into proper science, holy shit. Position derived is velocity, velocity derived is acceleration or the rate of change of the velocity.

[Anonymous No.15989249]

>>15989240
So what you're saying is that because a golf cart isn't built exactly the same as the moon rover with the exact same specs it's impossible to do?.

[Anonymous No.15989253]

>>15989245
you can be pedantic about the exact language i use as much as you want. we can get into discussing about frames of reference and other shit that are way beyond the necessary scope to understand that space vehicles are less massive because they don't need to withstand lesser forces.

[sage No.15989256]

>>15989249
Hes saying a moon rover that weights 210kg cant carry a load of 500kg because a Toyota Aygo that weighs 1100kg can only carry 484kg.

SAGE IN ALL FIELDS

[Anonymous No.15989258]

>>15989253
word soup, meant to say:
we can get into discussing about frames of reference and other shit that are way beyond the necessary scope but the point is that space vehicles are less massive because they need to withstand less force

[Anonymous No.15989263]

>>15989249
>>15989256
This is futile - this board is simply too retarded. I don't know why it is a surprise to me moonies are mentally deficient.

>>15989253
>>15989258
Once again the moonie clearly demonstrate he doesn't understand anything and thinks it's about absolute weight. THE ABSOLUTE WEIGHT DOESN'T MATTER AND HAS NO RELATION TO THE GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION OR GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT, IT'S ABOUT RATIOS. Holy shit.

[Anonymous No.15989282]

>>15989263
to accelerate an object by a certain amount you need to apply a certain force proportional to its total mass. this is elementary school physics. we know the weight of the vehicle in this case, which means the force, too, is a knowable number.
when constructing a space vehicle, you would presumably be given design constraints like "this needs to be able to achieve X acceleration without falling apart". materials are then selected to minimize mass while meeting that goal.
at this point i just have to assume you are either retarded and are just grasping at every straw you can, or just trolling

[Anonymous No.15989283]

how is this thread still going?

[Anonymous No.15989287]

>>15989256
The weird thing is that the moon rover is so fucking simple as a vehicle 1/4 hp per wheel, a simple steering mechanism box frame. The most advanced part is the custom mesh tires. Other than that you could literally build one with a single trip to the hardware store and a long weekend.

[Anonymous No.15989288]

>>15989282
You don't accelerate a vehicle. You move it. The change in position over time is known as velocity. The velocity derived once more, the rate of change of the velocity, is the acceleration.

You can't accelerate and object, retard.

[Anonymous No.15989290]

>>15989288
This has got to be trolling right? Nobody can be this stupid correct?

[Anonymous No.15989291]

>>15989290
What's stupid you mongoloid? This is beginner level physics.

[Anonymous No.15989302]

>>15989291
This is beginner level language. When a word means a complex thing we use that word as a substitute for the more complicated thing. Because everybody agrees on the definition of acceleration we can use it as shorthand for the 2nd derivative of position with respect to time.

When I press on the gas pedal of my car I am accelerating the car.
No ammount of pedantry can change that fundamental fact.

[Anonymous No.15989309]

>>15989302
Got it, that we agree on then - so what was your argument again? Oh right, it didn't make any sense. Gravitational force applied to a vehicle does not affect the payload in terms of ratios. A car on the earth versus a car on the moon can carry the same amount of mass by relative ratio.

This means a car on the moon weighing 1/6th of what it weighs on earth can also carry 1/6th of a payload.

[Anonymous No.15989318]

>>15989309
The max payload is the downward force that the wheels and suspension can carry without potentially bottoming out and or breaking and damaging the vehicle. On the moon that downward force is 1/6 what it would be on earth so the suspension and tires of a given vehicle would be much less compressed with the same mass payload on the moon vs on earth. To compress the springs and put force on the vehicle equal to earth you would need 6x the mass. The springs and the frame do not get 6x weaker on the moon.

[sage No.15989321]

>>15989318
oop. now you did it... here it comes...

[Anonymous No.15989326]

>>15989321
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fC2oke5MFg

[Anonymous No.15989327]

>>15989318
You can't linearly determine, simply from the gravitational force, that the mass needed to be applied would indeed be 6x higher to produce the same amount of strain on the design - motor mechanics would also be affected. You're basically saying a human weighing 1/6th of the weight he would do on earth would also be able to carry 6x more weight than he would be able to on earth simply due to the gravitational force exerted on him being less. His whole body, joints and the likes, would function differently.

Nevertheless, we're comparing payloads listed from specifications on earth, which are 210kg for the "lunar rover" and a payload of 440kg making the ratio, like I have already said multiple times, 2.1.

[Anonymous No.15989330]

>>15989327
>You're basically saying a human weighing 1/6th of the weight he would do on earth would also be able to carry 6x more weight than he would be able to on earth simply due to the gravitational force exerted on him being less.
See now you are mixing mass and weight. He would be able to carry 6x the mass which would be the same weight(downward force) he could carry on earth. You don't get stronger on the moon but things have less downward force so things you couldn't lift on earth with earth gravity could easily be lifted on the moon with moon gravity.

[sage No.15989334]

See

Fucking sage

[Anonymous No.15989344]

>>15989330
Let's see what NASA actually writes here:
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html

>The Lunar Roving Vehicle had a mass of 210 kg and was designed to hold a payload of an additional 490 kg on the lunar surface

NASA doesn't even clarify whether the given weight is "lunar weight", as they call it, but only clarify the payload is 490kg on the moon's surface. This is the official nasa.gov site.

Now let's assume the given weight is on the weight or mass on earth. On the moon the "lunar rover" would weigh 1/6th of the weight it would have on earth, which would be 35kg. Therefore, the proposed payload would be 490/35 = 14 (or 1400%).

Assuming the weight of 210kg is on the moon's surface we would get a payload ratio of 490/210 = 2.33, even higher than the first estimate I found elsewhere.

Now tell me what you're actually arguing for here with NASA's official numbers given? Why do other vehicles having the same payload not exist? Don't you find NASA's official data and site suspiciously amateurish? It can't be that hard for a governmental institution to use correct terminology and documentation for supposedly one of man's greatest achievements.

[Anonymous No.15989352]

>>15989344
Lets abstract this for a moment. An astronaut wants to work out on the moon. His normal earth routine includes a static heavy hold of 225 lbs this means he is holding the bar stationary above his chest not moving/accelerating the bar. How many more 45lb plates would he need to bring to the moon to get the same workout in moon gravity. Ignore the weight of his arms because they aren't an appreciable fraction of the 225 lbs and he is lying on a bench with a symmetrically loaded bar so there are no balance issues.

[Anonymous No.15989354]

>>15989352
Stick to the subject now here >>15989344

What do you propose the payload is given you have only been reading the information given by NASA?

[Anonymous No.15989380]

>>15984893
They accidentally destroyed the way they did it.
But it totally happened.

[Anonymous No.15989383]

>>15984897
Wow that sounds like just what they do in the movies!

[Anonymous No.15989384]

>>15989354
>The Lunar Roving Vehicle had a mass of 210 kg and was designed to hold a payload of an additional 490 kg on the lunar surface
>Vehicle had a mass of 210kg
They say mass so I'm going to assume mass for both numbers.

210+490kg=700kg
On the moon so gravity is 1.62m/s^2
Total max downward force on the moon is 700x1.62 = 1134N or 1.134kN

The max force is the same wherever so on earth it is still 1134N
So divide by earth gravity 9.8m/s^2
1134/9.8=116kg
Which is less than the mass of the rover itself which means the moon rover wouldn't be able to drive on earth.

now do my math problem.

[Anonymous No.15989385]

>>15989326
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo8TaPVsn9Y

[Anonymous No.15989388]

>>15988865
Hey newfag.
The entire point of these forums is to create a thread that eventually fills up with a maximum amount of good information.
There is an art to building a thread.
You should kys because you are a midwit.

[Anonymous No.15989411]

>>15988729
>It's not just about withstanding pressure - it's about the smallest hull integrity in outer space causing a instantaneous depressurization. You're comparing the pressure of an ocean to the non-pressure of infinite space.
How big space is is irrelevant. You can replicate the conditions in a room sized vacuum chamber. The pressure differential at Titan's max depth is objectively 400 times stronger than the differential in space. And you talk about "hull integrity". What do you mean by that exactly? Holes? Depending on how big the hole is, the depressurization wouldn't be instantaneous. Like I said, the ISS has had a hole before and nobody died.
Sure, there are micrometeorites in space but that's as much of a threat as in LEO. Again, why don't you research how thick the walls of Basedus are?
>I didn't humans were manually steering the earth while having intercourse at the same time
No, but you are traveling at 1000 miles an hour and steering your dick to put it into an object that is also traveling at 1000 miles an hour. Sex should be impossible!

[Anonymous No.15989415]

>>15988741
How do you do that effect in the 70s?

[Anonymous No.15989416]

>>15989384
Mass and weight is the same - why are you differentiating between the terms?

So you calculated the collective weight plus payload capacity to be 116kg on earth. How does this make any sense at all compared to the postulated weight of 210kg from NASA? Shouldn't the numbers be proportionate to a factor six due to the difference in gravity? See how the numbers don't make any sense at all?

The weight should also be heavier on earth compared to the weight on the moon's surface.

[Anonymous No.15989418]

>>15989416
>Mass and weight is the same - why are you differentiating between the terms?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

[Anonymous No.15989420]

>>15989418
Stick to the subject - answer. Shouldn't the weight be proportionate by a factor of six? How come your result is different from what NASA postulates?

[Anonymous No.15989423]

This isn't some attempt at flexing knowledge. I am genuinely asking how your number makes sense according to what is claimed by NASA's official information.

[Anonymous No.15989425]

>>15989420
Since we proved you can google why not google the difference between mass and weight.

[Anonymous No.15989438]

>>15989425
It doesn't interest me to say the least and has no relevance in relation to the question. I hold a bachelors in ChemE, where we do very little work with force. I know F=mg, but have never really used the equation, but this is beyond the scope of the discussion.

Why isn't your answer scalable by a factor of 6? This is after all the difference in the gravitational acceleration.

[Anonymous No.15989440]

>>15989067
Your mistake is assuming payload ratio stays constant with gravity.
Gravity does affect payload ratio.
If a vehicle on Earth is able to carry 100% it's weight, on the moon it will be able to carry 600% its weight. Because it can still carry the same absolute weight but it itselfs weights much less, which changes the ratio.

[Anonymous No.15989447]

>>15989440
Your numbers makes absolutely no sense at all since you're proposing the weight of the rover and its' payload would be less on earth than on the moon. The whole point is NASA numbers not making any sense at all.

[Anonymous No.15989449]

>>15984893
>a typical .223 rifle round fired from a 16 inch barrel travels around 2,000mph
A .223 leaves a 16 inch barrel at 1500mph, you're confusing mpg for fps

Regardless, the same logic can be applied to any spacecraft meeting up with an orbital space station. The surface of the Earth on the equator relative to space is about 1,000 mph, the International Space Station. The International Space Stations orbital velocity is 17,136 miles per hour.

The way this is acheived is simple, orbits are predictible, so you can predict where an orbital space station is going to be in a given time frame. Any margin of error can be corrected with simple station keeping mechanisms

[Anonymous No.15989452]

[Anonymous No.15989455]

>>15989452
Nobody is trolling here

[Anonymous No.15989463]

>>15989449
this post was a mess, I'm high and was too lazy to correct anything, you know what I mean

[Anonymous No.15989473]

>>15989438
>but this is beyond the scope of the discussion
You don't understand this isn't beyond the scope of the discussion it is the fundamental point of misunderstanding that makes you wrong here.

Mass is a fundamental property of matter since you have a Bachelors in chemistry you would know a mole of whatever element has a fixed mass which means if you have some quantity of matter the mass doesn't change on earth in space on the moon wherever.

Weight is the downward force that that mass has in a gravity field. When you put something on a scale even if the scale says grams it isn't a mass measurement device it is a force measurement device. Which is why you can fuck with a microgram scale by having a fan in the room.

The weight of an object is dependent on the gravity but the gravity on earths surface doesn't vary enough to cause problems so grocery stores can still have gram or kilo weights listed because everywhere around the world scales will show the same value.

When you go to the moon the gravity is 1/6 so you can take a mass from earth and a scale from earth and the scale will only show 1/6 what you measured on earth. This is because the scale measures force not mass.

[Anonymous No.15989486]

Here is a spacex docking simulator
https://iss-sim.spacex.com/

[Anonymous No.15989498]

>>15989486
Kino
here's also the Apollo in Realtime project while on the subject of the moon landing
https://apolloinrealtime.org/

[Anonymous No.15989501]

>>15989473
The concept of mass versus weight isn't used at all in chemical engineering, where we usually work with simply the weight and quantity (molar).

I get the correlation between mass and weight and the difference of something having an inherent mass and the force being applied to the object. This still doesn't answer the question in relation to NASA's numbers. We're once again diverting away from the topic of discussion.

NASA proposes a weight of 210kg and they don't state whether it's "lunar weight", a stupid term, or the weight on earth. Let's assume the payload, like you say, isn't linearly scalable - the weight of the vehicle should still weigh six times more on earth than it does on the moon.

That gives the weight (or mass, I am using them interchangeably and know the difference, I am always referring to weight in kg) of the rover supposedly being 1260kg on earth. The gravitational acceleration is always based on a factor six and according to what we previously stated the payload should supposedly be six times higher (as you also wrote earlier) - so what gives NASA's numbers? This is by assumption of linear scaling, but the payload certainly can't decrease. Your calculation does not make any sense whatsoever according to what NASA is proposing

[Anonymous No.15989508]

>>15989501
They stated a mass of 210kg mass is a fixed quantity remember.

If it has a mass of 210kg and you put it on a scale the scale would say 210kg on earth and the same scale would read 35 kg on the moon.

[Anonymous No.15989513]

>>15989498
nice

[Anonymous No.15989521]

>>15989508
And the payload was supposedly designed to hold 490kg on the moon. If we go by the assumptions earlier, which you stated, the payload should be six times as much as on earth due to the gravitational force being 1/6th as on earth. 490kg/35kg = 14 meaning the payload would supposedly be 1400%.

The relation between the payload and the mass on the moon doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous No.15989529]

>>15989521
Let me put this in a way you might understand. You have a small scale that maxes out at 50g that's the max payload of the scale. So if you put 100g the scale doesn't work properly and just shows ERR instead of 100g. If you take that scale to the moon the max value of the scale is still 50g so but to get it to actually show 50g you would have to add 300g of stuff on top of the scale. So the max payload of the scale is 300g on the moon.

[Anonymous No.15989531]

>>15989529

[Anonymous No.15989537]

>>15989529
Let's refrain from theory and stick to the numbers supplied by NASA because I believe I understand the theory perfectly well. How would you make sense of their numbers?

[Anonymous No.15989539]

>>15989531
Don't worry I do one pushup for every reply I'm doing just fine here.

[Anonymous No.15989542]

>>15989537
>I believe I understand the theory perfectly well.
You don't tho.

[Anonymous No.15989543]

>>15989539
I like how you're arguing from a position of thinking I don't understand the theory. I once again propose you make sense of the number provided by NASA.

[Anonymous No.15989546]

>>15989542
I do. Let's, once again, for the millionth time try to make sense of NASA's numbers - could you try to make sense of them for me?

[Anonymous No.15989549]

>>15989546
I can only make sense of them for me, you're apparently hopeless. Maybe a physics 101 lecture on youtube could sort you out.

[Anonymous No.15989556]

>>15989447
>Your numbers makes absolutely no sense at all since you're proposing the weight of the rover and its' payload would be less on earth than on the moon
Where are you getting that?
Suppose on Earth it weights 500kg and can carry 500kg. Payload ratio=100%.
Now suppose it's on the moon. It will weight 83kg but because its structural strength hasn't changed it will still be able to carry 500kg. Payload ratio=602%

[Anonymous No.15989557]

>>15989546
which part of the rover would break under the proposed weight? remember, you still haven't made a single calculation

[Anonymous No.15989561]

>>15989549
>>15989557
What calculation would I do? I can't calculate with numbers making no sense. And what exactly should I calculate? The relation between mass and proposed payload doesn't make sense. But yes, ah I see, it clearly makes sense for you, but you won't explain it. Genius.

>>15989556
Where are you getting 83kg from?

[Anonymous No.15989574]

>>15989486
>>15989498
There's an Orbiter plugin to simulate Apollo.
It has been used to connect it to a real AGC and let it control the LM.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=fhCTS_kdykM
https://youtube.com/watch?v=E301HplyA7A
https://youtube.com/watch?v=r_eBGSe5zEQ

[Anonymous No.15989575]

>>15989561
500×(1/6)

[Anonymous No.15989581]

>>15989575
But this doesn't correspond to the mass provided by NASA. They clearly state the mass is 210kg, without even stating whether it's on the earth or moon - assuming it's on earth this makes the mass of the rover 35kg on the moon. This is exactly what I am inquiring about. According to NASA's numbers, with the "lunar weight" of the rover being 35kg, the payload would be 1400% with a payload of 490kg. Relating this number to the gravitational acceleration makes absolutely no sense at all.

[Anonymous No.15989582]

This is a good thread. Like watching videos of chinks getting delimbed by machinery or clipping through an escalator satisfies my morbid curiosity, so too does this retard struggling to understand basic concepts sates my need for intellectual superiority.
This is the true purpose of /sci/.

[Anonymous No.15989587]

>>15989582
Moonies keep appearing but they can't explain the discrepancy between NASA's numbers and the theoretical calculations. How come the payload is supposedly a whopping 1400% according to NASA's numbers?

Go ahead, explain it for me.

[Anonymous No.15989589]

>>15989581
>But this doesn't correspond to the mass provided by NASA. They clearly state the mass is 210kg, without even stating whether it's on the earth or moon.
Mass is the same everywhere 210KG on earth, 210kg in space 210kg on mars 210kg on the moon. The weight changes.

[Anonymous No.15989593]

>>15989589
Not according to >>15989508

Furthermore, this doesn't even matter, you guys keep derailing the discussion. I want you supposed /sci/entists to make sense of the payload being 1400% according to NASA's numbers and demonstrate how this relates to a factor 6, which accounts for the difference in gravitational acceleration

[Anonymous No.15989596]

>>15989593
Scales don't measure mass they measure weight.

[Anonymous No.15989598]

>>15989596
Can you shut the fuck up about weight and mass for a second and answer the goddamn question at hand for once?

[Anonymous No.15989600]

>>15989587
oh but that's quite simple: the NASA engineers simply traveled to the Vatican, climbed up the stairway to heaven, talked to God and got him to bless the rover so it could carry the entire rocket. Then they simply drove to the moon!
I think this explanation should satisfy you, no pesky numbers to get confused over and you don't even need to open a physics book!

[Anonymous No.15989602]

>>15989598
Can you admit you don't know the fundamental difference in definition between two words and haven't bothered to look them up because you are embarassed?

[Anonymous No.15989605]

>>15989602
I don't fucking care about weight or mass or F=mg, I simply want you moonies to make sense of NASA's numbers. You. Keep. Diverting. It's fucking amazing, I have asked the same thing a million times by now, but you keep on saying the same thing over and over again.

[Anonymous No.15989608]

>>15989605
You don't even know what specific question you want answered anymore you just want to argue.

[Anonymous No.15989609]

>>15989608
HOW COME THE SUPPOSED PAYLOAD OF THE ROVER IS 1400%? HOW DOES THIS MAKE SENSE ACCORDING TO A FACTOR 6 OR 1/6TH RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATIONS ON EARHTH AND ON THE MOON?

[Anonymous No.15989611]

>>15989609
Dude I literally answered your question

[Anonymous No.15989612]

>>15989609
The payload isn't 1400% it's like 230% retard.

[Anonymous No.15989618]

>>15989611
NO YOU DIDN'T, NOWHERE DOES NASA STATE THE WEIGHT IS 83KG LIKE YOU DEDUCTED OUT OF THIN AIR. HOLY SHIT

>>15989612
Holy. Shit. Are you guys even reading the thread? This was what I WAS SAYING not making ANY sense when compared to ANY OTHER VEHICLE

[Anonymous No.15989619]

>>15989600
Stephen Hawking would have liked this webm

[Anonymous No.15989625]

>>15989618
>NO YOU DIDN'T
yes I did, here >>15989600
which part of my explanation do you not understand exactly? you have to help us to help you anon.

[Anonymous No.15989628]

>>15989625
You guys are absolutely retarded, holy shit.

[Anonymous No.15989632]

[Anonymous No.15989634]

>>15989628
you have yet to state which part eludes you. Now how do you expect anyone to give you answers when you don't even propose a question?

[Anonymous No.15989635]

>>15989618
It's on the moon bud. Gravity is 1/6 so a ford f150 could haul 1,500 kg on earth but 9000 kg on the moon. No big deal.

[Anonymous No.15989649]

>>15988575
the video game accurately represents reality in this specific circumstance
you can verify this yourself once you understand what's happening by tracking spacecraft in orbit with your eyeballs but that's a pretty significant time and knowledge investment and also you won't understand what or why is happening

[Anonymous No.15989729]

>>15988664
>>15988668
this info definitely exists somewhere but only autists care about it, you should ask the "NASA Spaceflight Forum" fanforum about it
they'll just ban you but they do have this info somewhere, you might need to paypiggy for it

[Anonymous No.15989832]

>>15989729
They can't have it cause the information doesn't make sense and nobody in here can explain a payload of 1400% or how it relates to the claimed weights by NASA given the gravitational acceleration differs by a magnitude of six.

[Anonymous No.15989834]

>>15989832
>I can't grasp basic concepts so the entirety of NASA must be in a conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.15989842]

>>15984893
Oh its that flatearther again. Didnt eat enough dicks in the previous thread?

[Anonymous No.15989859]

>>15989842
>inquire about details regarding claimed numbers not making sense
>m-muh flatearther conspiracist!
I never claimed for the earth to be flat - that would be fucking stupid and beyond retarded. I simply called out the moon landings as being fake, which they are. Nothing wrong with that.

>>15989834
>inquire about details
>answer something completely different
>"m-muh you don't understand it! just play the kerbal space simulator video game!"

[Anonymous No.15989871]

>>15989859
>unable to understand simple concepts like different words meaning different things.
>ask question where the only way it's a question is if you don't understand the difference between two words.
>gets told the difference between two words.
>That's not relevant to the topic at hand answer my nonsense question.

[Anonymous No.15989879]

>>15984893
This is going to end with two flat-earthers "debunking" the moon landing by firing AR-15s at each other across an empty field and I don't necessarily think we should discourage that outcome.

[Anonymous No.15989881]

>>15989871
>never inquired or asked about the difference between mass and weight
>the concepts not having any fucking relevance to the inquired question being the payload supposedly being 1400% and the claimed data by NASA not making any sense in relation to the gravitational constant and its' factor 6 or 1/6th in relation between the earth and moon
>"m-muh you just don't understand it flat earther!"

[Anonymous No.15989882]

>>15989881
Since you're a chemist what's the chemical equation to turn lead into gold?

[Anonymous No.15989883]

>>15984893
Except as you approach you can raise and lower your speed using thrusters and retrograde thrusters. Additionally you can change the angle of the craft with gimballing thrusters. So from launch you only need to be mostly right then you can make the small adjustment in space.

[Anonymous No.15989884]

>>15989882
>"m-muh you don't understand it! hehe now I will ask le stupid questions!"
>"play the kerbal space simulator, flat earther!"
>"mass and weight bro!"

[Anonymous No.15989886]

>>15989884
You didn't answer a very simple question. What's the chemical equation to turn lead into gold?

[Anonymous No.15989887]

>>15989859
You are denying basic math, doubting spaceflight as a whole, doubting Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, being surprosed that spaceships dont need to survive oceanic depths pressures, its one step away from claiming earth is flat.

[Anonymous No.15989893]

>>15989886
>"m-muh I'll just ask le funny question of something not physically possible, le alchemy, to divert the topic of discussion further cause i can't answer what is being inquired!"
>>15989887
>"you're denying the math bro! a payload of 1400% is totally realistic and the numbers definitely make sense despite not adding up to a factor 6 or 1/6th in relation to any weight calculation whatsoever!"
>"you're doubting the equations bro!"

[Anonymous No.15989896]

lets tone it down a bit. OP, do you feel your original concern about docking in space still seems incredible?

[Anonymous No.15989898]

>>15989893
Not physically possible? Prove it, make it make sense to me come on they're both chemicals right why can't you just mix some things together and make one from the other.

[Anonymous No.15989899]

>>15989893
you havent presented any math, why is this?

[Anonymous No.15989909]

>>15989893
If you think Tsiolkovsky equation is wrong, then you are denying all space travel as it is.

You cant even understand, that relatively to gravity forces, materials on the moon are 6 times strongwer than on earth, and a structure, which on earth can barely hold itself on moon can hold 6 times more mass than its own weight.

[Anonymous No.15989911]

>>15989893
>Not physically possibel
>Cannot even provide a chain of nuclear reactions which could lead from lead to gold
>Calls himself a chemist

[Anonymous No.15989918]

>>15989899
Have you even read the thread? The proposed payload of 490kg on the moon's surface corresponding to the weight of the rover being 35kg (based on NASA's postulated weight of the rover being 210kg) adds up to a payload of 1400%. NASA's numbers make absolutely no sense since the gravitational factor of 6 would result in the payload increasing to 2940kg on earth with a rover weight of 210kg if scaled up by a factor 6.

>>15989909
I HAVE NEVER COMMENTED ON TSIOLKOVSKY*S EQUATION. Holy shit, you guys just keep diverting left and right claiming all sorts of nonsense.

[Anonymous No.15989924]

>>15989918
You aren't even properly quoting your own sources now.
>>15989344
>The Lunar Roving Vehicle had a mass of 210 kg and was designed to hold a payload of an additional 490 kg on the lunar surface

That's 490/210 which is 233% you are just doing random math to get 1400%.

[Anonymous No.15989928]

It's a similar problem to that faced by a golfer who has to pocket a golf ball in a 4-inch hole from a distance of 500 yards. The key is to incrementally reduce your error. If you launch the lunar module in the approximately correct direction at roughly the correct time and you reduce your error by 10% on every subsequent correction, then you WILL eventually hit the target.

[Anonymous No.15989929]

>>15989918
You did in the last thread.

Why 1400% of weight ratio on the moon doesnt make sense? The materials stay as strong as they were on earth, so rover can support the same weight as on earth, which means 6 times more mass

[Anonymous No.15989935]

>>15989924
This has been discussed already. The other anons propose 210kg is the weight on earth making the weight on the moon of the rover 35kg. You're actually using MY assumption in the first place getting to the payload of 230%, which is almost 100% higher than most modern vehicles in construction (being between 100-140%) or magnitudes higher than any other vehicle in existence. Again - did you even read the thread? The payload ratios don't add up no matter how you twist and turn the data furthermore not being scalable by a factor of 6.

There is no "random math" to get to 1400%. This is using the numbers proposed by the other anons. If 210kg was indeed the "lunar weight" it would need to be multiplied by 6 to get the weight on earth being 1260kg not referenced anywhere in relation to the rover's weight.

>>15989929
Even 230% is abnormally high - just try and wrap your head around the number. The car supposedly being able to carry 14 times its' weight? You can't just say "bruh, it's the material!". These payloads are extremely far off any vehicle existing out there even decades later

[Anonymous No.15989939]

The point is NASA's information and claims surrounding the specifications make absolutely no sense whatsoever

[Anonymous No.15989943]

>>15989935
But anon, kg is a measurement of mass not weight, it literally says so.
>had a mass of 210 kg
It also specifies:
>on the lunar surface
So the 490 and the 210 need not be converted to anything.

[Anonymous No.15989950]

>>15989935
Why shouldn't it?

Normal cars are not being built to be as light as possible, disregarding most safety or even a crew cabin. Its litterally just frame on wheels with a battery and a seat.

On moon materials dont get weaker, so they can just support 6 times more "stuff" than on earth, because "stuff" weights less, it presses 6 times less on the springs and the frame. So why ratio shouldnt be ridiculously high on the moon? You seem to have issues with basic logical reasoning.

[Anonymous No.15989951]

>>15989943
Nobody is converting anything? Try to read the thread again instead of just scrolling down - this has been went over several times by now

[Anonymous No.15989956]

>>15989951
If nobody is converting why do you keep saying 14x the weight instead of 2.3x the weight.
>>15989935
>The car supposedly being able to carry 14 times its' weight?

[Anonymous No.15989962]

>>15989950
Because the 1400% payload would be based on a scale up of the supposed 233% payload on earth, which is almost 100% higher than what is cited in literature on payloads for construction site vehicles. A modern pickup truck has a payload of 0.27 or 27% No vehicle whatsoever everywhere anywhere has a payload capacity of 230% - it simply isn't possible. And this is supposed to be a foldable vehicle with nothing but a simple frame and weak foldable joints.

>>15989956
Because that would be the proposed factor you would scale with between being on the earth and on the moon. Read the thread again, man. Everything has been went over already and the moonies just keep on diverting

[Anonymous No.15989967]

>>15989962
So on the one hand you don't believe our math but on the other hand you will completely ignore your own source just so that you can cite 14x instead of 2.3x so it will make things more absurd.

[Anonymous No.15989970]

>>15988566
>>15989224
Not to mention the difference in speed and energy needed to leave the moon gravitational field (way below than earth).

[Anonymous No.15989972]

>>15989967
None of the payloads make any sense. That's my point. Where am I denying "my own source"? I literally posted it here >>15989067 as support for the rover not making sense in any way whatsoever of having a payload of 230%

[Anonymous No.15989974]

>>15989956
But rover can support around 12 times of its own weight on the moon. Math adds up and its not surprising.

[Anonymous No.15989980]

>>15989974
How does it add up? Let me see your calculations - a payload of 1200% would be 200% on earth scalable by a factor 6 from the gravitational acceleration - no modern vehicle designed for heavy loading and construction has payloads above 140%. How is a shitty rover with foldable weak joints supposed to be able to carry 2 times its' own weight furthermore when no other vehicle in existence can do this?

[Anonymous No.15989983]

>>15989962
>No vehicle whatsoever everywhere anywhere has a payload capacity of 230%

Are construction vehicles being built from toppest aeronautical alloys with almost no regard of budgetary or driver safety or homologation constraints, with a tight mass budget?

The comparison is ridicilous and you know it.

[Anonymous No.15989987]

>>15989983
No it isn't - you're proposing 50-60 years later, with million times the advanced in technology and materials science, supposedly still haven't come up with matching payloads for a rover from the 1960s-1970s? You can't just design yourself being able for something to carry two times its' own weight. And let's simply ignore the fact NO OTHER SUCH VEHICLE exist.

[Anonymous No.15989990]

>>15989980
My wooden dining table weights a few kilos and can support my and my wifes weight easily. It has a payload ratio of at least 4000 percent. If I add some light wheels and a motor you would call it incredible.

Actually electeic scooters can be as light as 5 kilos, but support 100 kilogram+ passenger weight, giving payload ratio of around 2000%. You are just stupid and lack imagination

[Anonymous No.15989994]

>>15989980
The common earth vehicle Ford F150 V6 according to the technical specs. (page 7)
https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America/US/product/2021/f150/pdfs/2021-F-150-Technical-Specs.pdf

Has a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 6010 lb with 1985 lb of that being payload so that leaves 4,025 as the vehicle weight.
The payload to vehicle weight ratio is 1985/4025 or 49% we love trucks don't we folks.

On the moon the GVWR is still the same because the vehicle has the same structural strength and the same springs and shocks nothing has changed except the gravity. So if you could ship a ford f150 to moon the GVWR 6010lb but because gravity is 1/6 the weight of an F150 is 4025/6= 670. so the total payload capacity of an F150 is now 6010-670= 5340. This gives us a payload to vehicle weight ratio of 5340/670=790%

[Anonymous No.15990001]

>>15989990
Sure, your "wooden dining table" could support 40 times it's own weight without collapsing and rive around freely. You just gotta add a V6 motor increasing the weight of the dining table by several magnitudes.

Gosh you're retarded.

>>15989994
This has already been discussed here >>15988890
Just look at the payload - 49%. The rover supposedly has a payload four times higher than the Ford F150 V6 being nothing but a shitty frame with weak foldable joints. How does this make sense? It doesn't. You're arguing in favor of my viewpoint right now.

[Anonymous No.15990004]

>>15990001
The payload of an F150 on the moon is 790% that's way better than 230% what are you smoking?

[Anonymous No.15990008]

>>15990004
The payload of 230% is on earth of a foldable metal frame rover with a shitty small motor. This vehicle supposedly has a payload of 1400% on the moon. Please, read the whole thread for fucks sake man. At least you aren't diverting like some of the other retards.

Do you seriously believe a shit rover from the 60s-70s has a payload capacity four times higher than the F150 (on earth that is)?

[Anonymous No.15990010]

>>15990008
>The payload of 230% is on earth of a foldable metal frame rover with a shitty small motor.
The moon rover never drove with people on earth idiot it's a fucking moon rover.

[Anonymous No.15990011]

>>15990001
>Ignores the electric scooter
>It HAS to be a giant motor

[Anonymous No.15990012]

>>15990010
Nobody gives a shit what it's driving with - it is supposedly able to carry four times as much, in relation to its' own weight, than the F150 reaching payloads not achievable by ANY other vehicle whatsoever even now decades later

>>15990011
Ah yes cause we all know electrical motors are very powerful and weighs little to nothing. Let's keep using a dinner table as an example and retarded assumptions pulled out of thin air of a motorized dinner table being able to carry 40 times its own weight

[Anonymous No.15990014]

>>15990012
>we all know electrical motors are very powerful and weighs little to nothing

Yes.

[Anonymous No.15990016]

>>15990012
>Lets ignore a cheap chinesium vehicle - an electric scooter, which has a payload ratio at least 2000% on earth

[Anonymous No.15990018]

>>15990016
Ah yes, please show me the specifications of this claimed supervehicle totally existing because you say so!

[Anonymous No.15990025]

>>15990012
It can carry 4x on the moon what the F150 can do on earth. The F150 can do 16x on the moon what it can on the earth so the F150 is 4x better than the moon rover.

[Anonymous No.15990030]

>>15990018
https://ridereview.com/products/unagi-one

Randomly selected electric scooter:

Weight (kg)
12 kg
Weight Capacity (kg)
125 kg

Over 1000%

[Anonymous No.15990032]

>>15990025
On earth the F150 has a payload of 49%.
On earth the shit rover has a payload of 230%

On the moon the F150 has a payload of 790%
On the moon the shit rover has a payload of 1400%

These are the numbers we came up with so far.

Just look at what NASA is proposing - do you seriously believe this shit rover can carry 230/49 = 4.7 times as much relative to its' own weight on earth? Or almost double on the moon? There's also something off with your calculation by the way, but it doesn't matter.

There is no feasible way to design a vehicle with a payload of 230% on earth. It's simply impossible unless the vehicle would look like a clown mobile with a giant ass V6 motor and the hull to support such a large weight not seen on any other motorized vehicle in human existence.

>>15990030
Again - read the fucking thread. You can't stand still on an electric scooter while it drives you around. You have to exert force to make it move. We already went over this with trollies.- you can't compare things where the force exerted isn't purely done by the motor itself

[Anonymous No.15990033]

>>15990032
>On earth the shit rover has a payload of 230%
The payload is on the moon retard read your own source.
>The Lunar Roving Vehicle had a mass of 210 kg and was designed to hold a payload of an additional 490 kg on the lunar surface

[Anonymous No.15990034]

>>15990032
>You can't stand still on an electric scooter while it drives you around.
holy shit you can't be this braindead what's the point of an electric scooter if you still have to push it.

[Anonymous No.15990035]

[Anonymous No.15990038]

>>15990032
Its an electric scooter. Its not human powered you retard. It has a battery and electric motor, you press a button and it drives forward, with maximum speed of 20 km/h, twice as fast as moon rover.

If you take 4 of the scooters and connect them with a plank, youll get a vehicle which barely weghts 50 kilos and can support 500 kilograms of payload, more than the moon rover, although it will be smaller, and will have less range.

[Anonymous No.15990041]

>>15990033
Please - I inquire you again. Read the thread. This has ALREADY been went over with. NASA's doesn't state whether the mass of 210kg is assumed to be on the moon or on earth, but can be looked up elsewhere and it's on earth making the moon weight 35kg. They specifically state, though, the "lunar payload" is 490kg.

>>15990034
Have you ever driven a fucking electric scooter you dufus? Electrical motorized two wheelers use the electrical motor as support just like an e-bike. It doesn't do the driving for you. You can't just sit on an e-bike without pushing the pedals where it supposedly will drive you around. You have to exert and active continuous force

[Anonymous No.15990044]

>>15990038
Furthermore, an electrical scooter isn't a fucking vehicle. It's a two-wheeler. A payload can't be driven around stably - you have to balance it You're comparing apples to oranges

[Anonymous No.15990046]

>>15990044
2 scooters side by side welded together. You really lack any imagination, dont you?

[Anonymous No.15990050]

>>15990041
>NASA's doesn't state whether the mass of 210kg is assumed to be on the moon or on earth
Mass is the same everywhere retard.

[Anonymous No.15990051]

>>15990046
Ah yes very good steering for such a vehicle, which wouldn't be able to turn due to multiple axis. We're also talking about stable, 4 wheel vehicles with a center axis and steering. Stop diverting the discussion you retard. Sure, you could strap a jet engine to a wooden table. The key aspect is design here and no vehicle has payloads over 100-140% yet alone close to the proposed 230% the rover has

>>15990050
How can you be so stupid? These things have ALREADY been discussed. The rover would weigh 35kg on the moon. Just look up the specifications.

[Anonymous No.15990053]

>>15990051
>The rover would weigh 35kg on the moon. Just look up the specifications.
Then the payload would weigh 81 lbs.

[Anonymous No.15990056]

>>15990053
Holy shit - use NASA's numbers. You are arguing, once again, for my position. NASA's numbers make no sense. They claim a 490kg payload on the moon of a 210kg vehicle on earth (being 35kg on the moon)

[Anonymous No.15990063]

>>15990056
You're the one that keeps converting mass into moon mass whatever the fuck you think that means. 490kg on earth is 490 kg on the moon and 210 kg on earth is 210 kg on the moon.

[Anonymous No.15990064]

>>15990041
>Have you ever driven a fucking electric scooter you dufus? Electrical motorized two wheelers use the electrical motor as support just like an e-bike. It doesn't do the driving for you. You can't just sit on an e-bike without pushing the pedals where it supposedly will drive you around. You have to exert and active continuous force

You are a retard. All the force you need to exert is pressing a button for an electric schooter to accelebrate. E bikes can also be either configured to accelerate on a press of a button or on pedal assist.

If you really want a 4 wherler then here you go:

https://cavendishhealthcare.co.uk/i3-mobility-scooter

Foldable mobility scooter for disabled and elderly

Weight (max user) 21 stone (133.3 kg)
Weight (total) 27.2 kg (59.9 lbs)

Payload ratio 455%

[Anonymous No.15990069]

>>15990041
>Have you ever driven a fucking electric scooter you dufus? Electrical motorized two wheelers use the electrical motor as support just like an e-bike. It doesn't do the driving for you. You can't just sit on an e-bike without pushing the pedals where it supposedly will drive you around. You have to exert and active continuous force

This review for the exact same scooter you are replying about above proves your a fucking idiot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUjkuAclx5w

[Anonymous No.15990071]

>>15984893
you can buy the game kerbal space program. And then you can try landing on the moon using a lander and an orbiting command module. Then you can try rendezvous.

Turns out it's ridiculously easy.
You know where the command module is, so you just get your lander to enter the same orbit.
If the lander is ahead of the command module, you increase the radius of your orbit so that you travel a longer distance, and the command module catches up.
If you are behind, you reduce your radius so that you travel a shorter distance, so you catch up.
It's not intuitive, but it works. You can try it in the game

>$5 has been deposited in my bank account

[Anonymous No.15990073]

This dude, his implications and doubts about apollo, not only deny all spaceflight, but even mobility scooter most obese americans use to move around.

[Anonymous No.15990079]

>>15990073
Don't worry the congress will finally put together a bill to increase how fat you have to be to be considered obese and the problem will go away.

[Anonymous No.15990083]

>>15990063
I am using what NASA is proposing. I am trying to make sense of NASA's numbers and calculations. Try it yourself.

>>15990069
Ah yes he clearly stands completely still and doesn't exert force to start off movement.

>>15990071
I ain't buying your stupid videogame

>>15990073
Yea because if you read the whole thread this is clearly the only point I make. You're once again comparing apples to oranges by comparing small single-user shit vehicles with a vehicle with chassis and tons of other stuff

[Anonymous No.15990092]

>>15990083
Lunar rover is litterally a slightly larger mobility scooter

[Anonymous No.15990095]

>>15990083
>Ah yes he clearly stands completely still and doesn't exert force to start off movement.
So you watched the video but didn't listen to the explanation where he said it is a safety feature?

[Anonymous No.15990102]

>>15990092
Sure it is with a chassis, equipment two seats, foldable shit joints and being made in the 60s and 70s which we all know was the epitome of battery development

>>15990095
Apples to oranges. You're basically comparing a metal dildo with two wheels to a motorized vehicle

[Anonymous No.15990104]

>>15990102
So first it was no vehicle is capable of this payload to weight ratio and now its that the moon rover doesn't look enough like your favorite dildo. Why can't you be happy.

[Anonymous No.15990108]

>>15990104
Cause you're comparing apples to oranges

[Anonymous No.15990110]

>>15990083
All of your points are as retarded. You claim on orbit docking is impossible, but yet it is regularly done.

You claim that small hole in a spaceship will instantly drain it of air, yet you also claim to be a chemist which is ridicilous. Gasses dont escape through tiny holes instantaniously. Mir and ISS stations had holes, were gradually and slowly loosing presure and were patched up. Air doesnt immediately teleport through small holes.

Spaceships are light, they dont need thick steel walls to survive oceanic pressures, they only need to keep at most 1 atmosphere of pressure.

You know that there are inflatable rubber/kevlar space habitats in testing right now? One was on ISS used as storage space. Tin can is adequate container to be a spaceship. Denying apollo like you do, you undoubtedly deny all modern spaceflight too.

[Anonymous No.15990111]

>>15990108
It's an electric motorized vehicle with a greater payload to weight ratio than the moon rover that is functional on earth. What magic happens when you add 2 more wheels that makes it impossible to believe you could do the same thing.

[Anonymous No.15990115]

>>15990110
I never claimed "orbit docking" is impossible. You're putting words into my mouth. I am saying it's unfeasible under the proposed conditions. Straight docking after a liftoff from earth? Sure. Docking after having landed and taking off from a bare moon surface with no launchpads and the likes? Not plausible in any way.

>>15990111
You can't just add wheels infinitely- you need collective steering

[Anonymous No.15990116]

>>15990111
I showed him a 4 wheeled electric, foldable,mobility schooter already with at least twice as much payload ratio. Lunar rover is basically 2 seater version of a foldable mobility schooter, yet he still is unsatisfied.

[Anonymous No.15990119]

>>15990116
I'll admit it - the payload argument might be a fallacy. It still doesn't explain countless of other dubious details.

[Anonymous No.15990121]

>>15990115
>infinitely
It's just two more wheels bud not -1/12 more wheels. literally just link the two steering columns.

[Anonymous No.15990122]

>>15990115
>Docking after having landed and taking off from a bare moon surface with no launchpads and the likes? Not plausible in any way.

The lander and on orbit ship were both tracked and their positions were known for the earth crew. Why do you think they couldnt calculate launch timing and maneuvers for the cree on the moon? There math is the same, independent ehere you launch.

[Anonymous No.15990126]

>>15990083
>I ain't buying your stupid videogame
its not MY video game, you retard

you LITERALLY said in the OP you cant figure out how they did rendezvous
then I told you, its easy and you can play that game to try it out
Now you don't want to learn how to rendezvous???

fucking kill yourself you retarded subhuman

[Anonymous No.15990129]

>>15990119
There is no dubious details, only your stupidity, inability to open NASA pdf from the website, and ridicilous unrealistic assumptions about the spaceflight.

[Anonymous No.15990130]

>>15990119
I count this as a win. Bring me your next foolish assumption so that I may slay it with my sword of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15990132]

>>15990122
Yeah but the conditions for launch aren't the same. A liftoff from earth takes a huge enormous effort along with a plethora of infrastructure and a launchpad. Meanwhile, we're supposed to believe this ascent module simply fizzled off the bare moon surface after having landed, being deployed from the command module, and docked without any trouble whatsoever five times in a row without any errors in the span of five years. Oh, right, and the thing started off with simply astronauts "landing on the moon" and out of fucking nowhere they are able to bring a "lunar rover".

>>15990129
There are plenty and many have been pointed out.

>>15990126
Go play your basedboy kerbal spaceshit game moonie

>>15990130
You seem to know a lot about scooters for morbidly obese people. Sure, you can have this one.

[Anonymous No.15990137]

>>15990083
Then download more realistic simulator - Orbiter. Its free. It even has a module for Apollo, which has all the ships and their cockpits recreated with functionality down to each switch.

Trying out spaceflight is the best way to learn orbital mechanics, I doubt you even understand whats an orbit, or how you transfer between stellar bodies.

KSP is way easier to get into though, but has all the same Newtonian physics, which you need to master if you want to understand spaceflight.

[Anonymous No.15990138]

>>15990132
>Yeah but the conditions for launch aren't the same.
Yeah they are easier: no air resistance, less gravity, no rain or windstorms, escape velocity is much lower no need for transitional nozzles that work in atmospheric pressure and space there's probably more that I'm not thinking of.

[Anonymous No.15990140]

>>15990138
Exactly, it's easy as eating a sweet potato pie. Anybody can do it, heck, if the astronauts jumped hard enough they could exit the gravitational pull and reach a fast enough velocity to synchronize with the command module through thrusters in the spacesuit. Hell, why even need a docking when you can simply directly enter. Launchpads? Who needs those? Thrusters and radars, brother, that's all you need. Never mind a prior deployment from space itself and a hard landing, these things don't matter anyway.

[Anonymous No.15990141]

>303 posts
>32 IPs

[Anonymous No.15990143]

>>15990132
Starting from earth requireds exponentially more fuel than from starting from the moon. Lander doesnt need to care about ecology either, so its using toxic hyperglicolic fuels which are easy to store (compared to cryogenic fuels) and ignite. Hyperglicolic fuels burn extremely efficiently and have basically invisible flame and leave no smoke trail.

Lander and ascent module came in a package. Ascent module used lander as a launch pad. Have you really not even read any basic description of the apollo kission architecture?

[Anonymous No.15990147]

>>15990143
>A trillion buzzwords like anything related to the "Apollo" missions
The way of the moonie. Add moonie buzzwords to something sounding extremely hard to do if not impossible still with current tech decades later, add in some theoretical calculations and voila - you have yourself a moon landing!

[Anonymous No.15990149]

>>15990140
I mean you believe in satellites right. You can snap a photo of the ISS with a relatively cheap telescope. It's easier to get off the moon than that.

[Anonymous No.15990153]

>>15990140
Funny enough there was a backup idea of a small Segway sized vehicle wich astronaut would controll by BALANCING ON IT to get into lunar orbit in emergency, to be theb picked up by an on orbit ship. Basiclaly a small platform eith rocket engine. Yes, you dont need a lot of fuel to get a human in a space suit to a lunar orbit.


>The simplest designs had no attitude control system at all. Instead the pilot would stand during the flight, and simply lean backwards, forwards or side-to-side to move the center of gravity relative to the center of thrust of the fixed engine. As a result, the offset thrust would cause the LESS to rotate until the astronaut returned to a neutral position and the center of gravity was again aligned with the engine thrust. Ultimately, however, this was considered to be less desirable than hardware control, particularly as it imposed significant constraints on vehicle thrust level and inertia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_escape_systems

Thanfully ascent module was reliable enough and these ideas where never realized.

[Anonymous No.15990155]

>>15990147
The fuel calculations were provided in the previous thread and you started to claim that Tsiolkovskys rocket equation - basis for all spaceflight is incorrect.

[Anonymous No.15990156]

>>15990147
What buzzeords? Hyperglicolic fuel is a buzzword to you? And you claim to be a chemist?

[Anonymous No.15990160]

>>15990149
What does satellites have to do with a multiple supposed moon landings?

>>15990153
Of course there was. Just look at the nice drawings!

>>15990155
No I didn't - I never claimed the rocket equation was incorrect.

>>15990156
The whole moonie subculture is filled to the brim with buzzwords, so you can easily dish something out to anyone logically being able to point out or question details regarding the "landings".
>Oh, haven't you heard about the Lunar Crapper? The astronauts would take a shit in the ascent module followed by the Lunar Crapper converting their excrements into delicious moonbaked lunar steaks!

[Anonymous No.15990161]

I'm off moonies, I might make a thread in the near future, it's getting late here in Denmark, nice talking with you

[Anonymous No.15990162]

>>15990160
>What does satellites have to do with a multiple supposed moon landings?
Well they started doing satellites before the whole moon landing thing and then they kept doing them to this day so clearly you can't deny that satellites are a thing that exists and works this is a baseline so that you can't claim later that space isn't real.

[Anonymous No.15990163]

>>15990160
>>15990161

You're retarded

[Anonymous No.15990165]

>>15990160
>What does satellites have to do with a multiple supposed moon landings?

Because the same things apply to both. And your assumptions also make satellites impossible.

[Anonymous No.15990193]

>>15989581
Maybe they mean that it can carry a payload of 490kg *on the moon*.
On Earth that would be a mere 82 kilos, which would lower the payload ratio to a mere 39%.

[Anonymous No.15990229]

>>15990161
I read both your threads, you started off claiming you were just asking questions which is "the basis of science" and 300 posts later were calling everyone moonies. I hope you were properly humiliated by this experience. I learned a ton about space travel. Godspeed OP.

[Anonymous No.15990329]

>>15988625
You know aerospace engineering works exactly the same on the moon as it does on earth, right? The laws of reality don't magically change when you leave the planet.

[Anonymous No.15990514]

>>15989415

For God's sake...

[Anonymous No.15990539]

>>15988682
> forgot how to to do it all
Yes, 50 years is a long time. The capability to do something degrades quickly when you stop doing it.

[Anonymous No.15990572]

>>15990539
This. Humanity cannot even produce crt tvs anymore.

[Anonymous No.15990845]

>>15990572
It's not that we cannot you fucking retard, there are very specialized production lines that exist even today, the customer base is very small.
We aren't producing it for commercial use because it's unprofitable to create the whole production chain of every part.
Even those few factories that exist already saturate this extremely niche market.

[Anonymous No.15990849]

We didn't land on the moon, it was a scam in order to 'win' the space race.
>B-but the Soviets would have called us out on it
The same Soviets who had numerous contracts with the USA for vital supplies?
They got the 'first man in space' victory, they lost nothing.