It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Moon rover sped up vs Moon rover as is released by NASA

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

What you said is the answer I was looking for.




posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Darkmadness
Glad to help.
But, like I said, an understanding of some basic physics would have given you the answer.



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darkmadness

originally posted by: howmuch4another

originally posted by: Darkmadness

originally posted by: howmuch4another

originally posted by: Saint Exupery

wheels cannot throw fine powder around without it getting suspended in the air - therefore this had to have been filmed in a vacuum.


and those screen wheels really threw the powder too...


Apparently it's more likely to be suspend in the air in Earth's atmosphere which has 5x the amount of gravity. I would think that with less gravity more suspension is likely.


is was sarcasm... they designed them with screen to keep the dust DOWN.

please keep up


It would be easier to keep the dust down with moisture.


But we're not seeing the dust get "kept down". We're seeing it get thrown all over the place, including several feet off the ground in a fine spray. Moistened soil doesn't do that. It forms clumps & clods.



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut




The Moon's gravity is 1/3 of Earth's.

False. You're about double the actual figure.



OK, six times the speed. Would look even more unnatural as far as acceleration and cornering of the vehicle.

Thanx Phage.
edit on 15/9/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Darkmadness
a reply to: chr0naut

Who says that NASA?

Where did you learn that fact???


Calculating a body's gravity is very simple maths, (even though Chr0naut got it slightly wrong this time). So, no you dont have to take Nasa's (as everyone knows, the ONLY space agency in the world) word for it, but feel free to thank Newton et al if you like.



Yeah, I got lazy.

Thanx to Phage for fact-check.



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Yezz.....sped- up is false...I'm a razor driver.....left a plastic fender on Iron Chest Mtn. in Colorado......

I promise the slow mo is correct for the dust action and did you see the bumps the quad took there gowing away.....can't do that any faster so slow mo is actual, I promise......those longitudinal gyrations when traveling away on the second vid.....think about those any faster...??
edit on 15-9-2016 by GBP/JPY because: our new King.....He comes right after a nicely done fake one



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Firstly, in vaccum everything falls at the same speed (including the fine dust). I thought it was common knowledge.

But for everyone's benefit, here's the experiment done in a vacuum chamber on earth: www.youtube.com...


And on the Moon: www.youtube.com...



Secondly, this is what racing in a desert looks like: www.youtube.com...


It's a really messy business.

The dust in the lunar rover footage behaves exactly as it should in vacuum and 1/6th of earth's gravity.

Here's another one of my favourite moon videos: www.youtube.com...


There's no way you could speed it up and make it look like natural movement. Ergo, these astronauts were in vaccum and in 1/6th of earth's gravity - on the Moon.

The Moon hoax is the oldest, deadest, and most thoroughly beaten horse.
edit on 15-9-2016 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   
People have analysed the trajectory of the particles:

www.popsci.com...




posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Those who have a PS3 and Gran Turismo can learn to drive the Rover in a simulation.

It's tricky, pretty enjoyable to experience too.




posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 02:32 AM
link   
The one thing that gets me is the camera movement. There are some very sharp movements that have no place in being there unless you are speeding up a piece of film that is naturally of a slow moving object.

I'm sorry. I think there is something up with the Apollo missions for sure. Not that they were faked. But there was more than just collecting rocks. Just my opinion though.

Either way a good discussion point








posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: brace22

It was a hand held camera with no viewfinder, what do you expect? Does the movement look right when it's speeded up?



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Saint Exupery




Instead it all falls right back to the surface, just like it should in a vacuum.


really ???

so stuff thrown with force in a vacuum should fall right back...in a reduced gravity environment ?

My elementary grade physics knowledge says you might be mistaken.



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

he is implying that it is not suspended in the air (ie. dust clouds) as it would on earth due to being in a vacuum.



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: choos




he is implying that it is not suspended in the air (ie. dust clouds) as it would on earth due to being in a vacuum.


And that is logical to you...why ?

let's recap:

1. reduced gravity, meaning less pull from the surface
2. vacuum, meaning no air resistance

...and according to you lot...stuff should fall right down...and not be suspended in mid air...or at least improved "hang time" ?

I realize now the Mandela effect is real...in my time line...this would be against the laws of physics.



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Reduced gravity yes, but still gravity.



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

so if I grab a hand of sand on both environments...and throw it in the air...the one on the Moon will fall right back on the surface as opposed to one on Earth where it...apparently just "suspends in midair" ?

Well...one learns something new every day.



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

once any object has reached its apex it will fall down in a vacuum. reduced gravity will just mean it will take longer to fall down than in a higher gravity environment.

but a vacuum is a vacuum fine particles like this will not be suspended in the "air"



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Do you think the rover had a v8?? It ran on batteries even today we would have a hard time making an electric dune buggy torq wasn't there. Luckily on th moon that wasn't that important. But even today making an electric car act like a v8 engine would be difficult and the weight would have been more than a typical car. And as we know two astronauts could easily pick it up and move it.

But this has been reported multiple times on ATS and yes math has been done and video comparisons. Bottom line is the rover had to be somewhere with no atmosphere. Not to mention thr fact it can still be found on the moon. I guess they could have put it up there later but I think that's kind if stupid don't you??



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Unless you're trying hard not to.

Particles will fall back to the ground under gravity unless something prevents them from doing so. One of those things is air resistance. Air resistance''s impact depends on particle size. And also there being air present. Pretty basic stuff.



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo




unless something prevents them from doing so.


yes...things like inertia coupled with the lower gravity and none air resistance...should actually make things hang in there...much longer, not vice versa.

Simple point being...whatever you want to make it...objects with mass propelled with force should linger longer on a Moon environment then on Eartly one.

No amount of scientific "wizardry" should make it opposite of that.


edit:

to end it...


Facts for Rock Throwers The moon is about one-quarter the size of our planet, but its gravity is only 1/6 as much. This means that a person weighing 150 pounds on Earth would only weigh 25 pounds there. Because of the reduced force of gravity, objects thrown in the air, besides going farther, fall to the ground more slowly.


classroom.synonym.com...
edit on 16-9-2016 by MarioOnTheFly because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join