Looks Like OU Senior Member Avalon Has DONE IT! New Video!

[Nink]

We never went to the moon. End of Story.  The ISS is also fake, it is actually an International Submarine Station complete with leaking helmets. Even the Mars rover is faked, it is shot on Devon Island in Canada. NASA is essentially one gigantic tax grab making Disney movies for adults. The model was so successful it was replicated around the world, recognizable by the common Vector symbol within the various space agencies logos.

The sad part is we stopped doing R&D in space travel in exchange for CGI and Zero G planes. This is a huge set back for the scientific community. 

   

[tinman]

Tinman,
 

  Anything rated for human spaceflight operating in the environment of space and on the lunar surface requires a great deal of science, engineering, and testing.  Although there are modern components available to ease the task, you would need a team of engineers just to design your rover, and suitable clean rooms, shake and bake and vacuum facilities to build, test, and certify it.     

The rover was much more than just a glorified Earth bound electric dune buggy or sand rail... 

PW

Apparently you "need" to believe that NASA did not go the moon.

No,i do not need to believe anything that the USA has done--it makes no difference what so ever to my way of living. Im an Australian--why would what the USA did or did not do have any effect on me--or why would i care if the USA put man on the moon or not. You see,i look at it from a neutral position,and like i said before-->i did once believe that man did go to the moon. But now that i am able to look at provided evidence,and make accurate judgement from that evidence,it is clear that !some!-if not all the video and pictures taken from the moon are fake. One then starts to ask--why the need to fake things like this if they really were on the moon.

First it was the radiation,

It's not that the radiation was a key point-it is more of-just 1 point.
I asked you to provide a link to any known data regarding the kind and amount's of radiation within the Van Allen belt's,but i received nothing. As i said--did we just send man through them,and hope for the best? ,or is there/was there accurate data back then about the radiation?-->i dont think we have that even now?.

then it was the absence of rover tracks, then it is why the tracks are there when maneuvering with its 4 wheel steering, going slow, or traversing possibly different soil types,

An extremely valid point,to which no valid answer has been given.

then it was why do the sharper, non-weathered particles of the lunar dust in a vacuum and less gravity clump differently than rounded, weathered dust particles here on Earth with its atmosphere and greater gravity,

I know of many kinds of sharp dust/sand particles here on earth that do not clump together as on the moon. The absence of an atmosphere,and less gravity would only mean less compaction of the particles,and there for less stability.

then it was why do those very fine dust particles clump to possibly lubricant contaminated wheels.

Lubricant contamination?
I will quote you on what you said a little further down
Quote: -- Anything rated for human spaceflight operating in the environment of space and on the lunar surface requires a great deal of science, engineering, and testing.

So they either have built an oil leaking machine--or they built a well engineered and tested vehicle-->which is it?.

The list will just go on and on, it never ends.  It is a silly game I do not wish to play.

This is what we do with every extra ordinary claim here--we look at everything to do with that claim--that is science and research. Those that choose not to look at the evidence provided,are those that choose to believe only in what they want to believe in.
Like i have stated before--the need to believe outweighs the need to know the truth.

Yes, I believe man went to the moon,  I do not "need" to believe man went to the moon, I do so based on the evidence,

As i asked TK--can you provide any solid evidence that is not supplied by NASA ?-->i am yet to see any.

 

It was a tremendous accomplishment that required a huge amount of science, engineering, personnel, and guts to pull off.  The science and engineering required for everything related to human spaceflight was, and is, just amazing.

Why is it amazing?. We have guys build rockets in there back yard that can reach the atmosphere ,and with a simple GoPro camera,can take better pictures than NASA ever did.
Rocket science is nothing special either--just the ejection of mass at high velocities. The calculations required to achieve getting a pay load into earth orbit may be very in depth,but not out of reach for many here. I think exploring the depths of the ocean,where far greater pressures are encountered,is a much higher achievement than space flight.

For you to say that you could build twice the machine on half the budget says a lot about your "beliefs".  I have always enjoyed your experimentation and willingness to share, but do you seriously believe yourself to be qualified to design, engineer, and test a human spaceflight rated lunar rover?

With out a doubt. You do know i am a mechanical engineer by trade-dont you?.
Lets have a look at the spec's on this special vehicle.
Rather than copy and paste the whole lot here,i will just provide the link.
   http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html

Now-the price tag for the four rover's-->and that includes the one used for !!spare parts!!,due to the cancellation of later missions.
Quote: --The original cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to Boeing (with Delco as a major sub-contractor) was for $19 million and called for delivery of the first LRV by 1 April 1971, but cost overruns led to a final cost of $38 million.
So thats 9.5 million dollars each rover<--are you serious This is your tax dollars at work here

I stand by my claim-->for 4.25 million dollars i will build twice the machine using the same materials they did. In fact,i will do it for under $1 000 000-->and i will do it on my own in under six months
Care to take me up on the bet?.

There is absolutely nothing special about the lunar rovers--nothing at all. In fact,like i said,they were really a very poor effort for the money they cost-->there was not $9 500 000 worth of vehicle there. Your average family car is better engineered than the lunar rover's. !!If!! we could get to the moon,you could drive an electric golf cart around on the moon just as well with the right batteries and wheels. In fact,rubber balloon tires would do just fine if you avoid the sharp rocks.

I am at a loss at to why you think the lunar rovers were something out of the ordinary. What they were was a big ripoff from the tax payers--along with the rest of the mission.


Brad

[tinman]

I have made one large error in the previous post.
I was going on the dollar value of 1969,and not present day dollar value due to inflation.

Here is todays cost of 1x lunar rover--> $61,353,174.39,__and that is for 1 lunar rover.
Calculated using this US inflation calculator.
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/


Brad

[MileHigh]

I asked you to provide a link to any known data regarding the kind and amount's of radiation within the Van Allen belt's,but i received nothing.

Do you have some memory problems or is it something else?  I had to deal with the same type of issue with you over and over when debating your pulse motor and it gets very frustrating.

Picowatt is an engineer's engineer.  I have never gotten the vibe that you are an engineer.  You really would not be able to make a lunar rover yourself. It would take something like a team of 50 engineers a few years and an ecosystem of subcontractors and support facilities to make a lunar rover.  Just a wild guess that is most likely in the ballpark.

[MileHigh]

Here are some really cool videos that I have never seen.  I love the way they used to do artist's renditions of scenes that looked so realistic, the full-size physical mock-ups, and the proposed scale models that they made.

Wernher von Braun explains the possibility to reach the Moon. "Man and the Moon", Dec. 28, 1955

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXIDFx74aSY

Wernher von Braun explains the possibility of traveling in space."Man in Space" March 9, 1955

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-phxCxTlzQ

This looks like an awesome YouTube channel for space aficionados.

Dan Beaumont Space Museum

https://www.youtube.com/user/MrDanBeaumont/videos