It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Apollo 15, Jim Irwin's historical narrative in review

page: 17
8
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:45 AM
Apollo Flight Nos.: 15, 16, 17
Discipline: rovers
FROM HERE --> ares.jsc.nasa.gov...

Empty - the weight of the LRV would have been 455 lbs empty.

Please bear with me while we attempt another - perhaps more reasonable - calculation for the weight of the Apollo 15 LRV as it stood on the surface of the moon.

Based on the information given (see stats at end of posting) it would seem plausable to assume that the (total) standard weight of the operational LRV (15) as it traversed the surface of the moon would have been approx. 1535 pounds. Let us then assume that if the LRV had at any time been 'lifted' into place or likewise moved from one place to another that the two astronauts would not have been in the vehicle.

The following assumes that the equipment, and payload would have remained intact with respect to the LRV.
So, lets calculate thusly - MINUS the weight of both astronauts. Their respective body weight(s) plus the spacesuits = 360 lbs X 2 = 720 lbs - Subtracting 720 lbs from 1535 pounds = 815 lbs. 1/6th of 815 = 136 lbsas opposed to a 72 pounds as previously calculated by someone else, which according to the present calculations might be seen as a mistaken figure.

These seem to be fair calculations - right? Notwithstanding all that I am following my usual dictum of applying common sense to this situation, and will say that it seems to me highly improbable that either of the astronauts "lifted" or otherwise carried the LRV around the surface of the moon as an accounting for the lack of TIRE MARKS in the area of the LRV - Please see photo and original posting ref. HERE ---> .www.abovetopsecret.com...

Description/Purpose:
This rover was used to extend the range of the astronauts so that a greater variety of terrain could be visited. It had a 90 inch wheelbase, was 81 inches wide, and weighed 455 lbs empty. Its gross operational weight was 1535 pounds with crew, equipment, and payload.

Weight: 200 kg; Could carry 490 kg of payload, including 2 astronauts, PLSS's, tools, equip't, & 27 kg of lunar samples each trip
Dimensions:
3.1 m long, 1.83 m wide, 1.14 m high; 2.3 m wheelbase
Manufacturer: Boeing
edit on 30-6-2012 by Vitruvian because: edit

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:12 PM

You presented the total weight including everything as 1080pounds correct. then you
asked me to calculate the weight with the 1/6 gravity factor to which i replied correctly
180 .So you ought to make up your mind as you have changed your view again vitruvian.

Also i answered correctly the weight of just the moon buggy you gave 460pounds
i replied correctly as 76.6666667

From the figures you gave me i answered correctly.

edit on 30-6-2012 by denver22 because: calculations added correctly to the decimal

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:29 PM

remember those photos i showed you in this post??

i dont think i was very clear.. those photos were taken almost immediately before the the photo you say there is no tyre tracks.. there are tyre tracks its just in front of the rover.. so its possible it could have been reversed into position.
this photo was taken just before as well, although rotated to the left more and the LRV is out of picture but note the discarded pallet on the left and the tyre tracks hopefully it will give you the orientation. so that you know where to look for the tyre tracks, they are there just on the other side of the rover.

also weight distribution plays a part in it too..

lets take a fully loaded LRV that weighs 1535lbs (256lbs on the moon).. it has 4 wheels so thats 383.75lbs (64lbs on the moon) each wheel.. an astronaut that weighs say 180lbs with a 180lbs backpack, total weight 360lbs (60lbs) each foot.. and that is not a smooth transition like the rolling of a wheel.. with each step there is kinetic and potential energy.

so when fully loaded it should make nice marks but not as prominant and obvious as a foot step, as the wheel is rotating and not being stamped (so to speak).
edit on 30-6-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:42 PM

Originally posted by choos

lets take a fully loaded LRV that weighs 1535lbs (256lbs on the moon).

so when fully loaded it should make nice marks but not as prominant and obvious as a foot step, as the wheel is rotating and not being stamped (so to speak).
edit on 30-6-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)

Your weight is good yes divide it by 6 equals 255.88888 but who cares about the difference.
When that buggy is empty unpacked etc one could easily move it even the astronauts admit
they could move it , but some seem to fantasies about swinging it around in the air on there finger
lol.I could move it so could you once loaded is different etc but not impossible.

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Vitruvian

1/6th of 815 = 136 lbs

Wrong- it is 135.833333.

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Vitruvian
very sorry error - accidental partial deletion while copying my own quote
edit on 29-6-2012 by Vitruvian because: spell

"Weighing in at approximately 460 pounds (209 kg)

(You originaly had 462 posted) i answered then you changed it to 460 then tried to make
me look the fool but funny how your latest attempt you change it again this time
everyone can see what you have done.Whats the next weight going to be make up your
mind son which is it 462 before you changed it 460 . perhaps you might change this figure
again once someone gives you the correct answer in order to make them look small

For crying out loud first you had 462 then changed it to 460 now its flippin 455.

Im going to need a note pad to keep track of your figure changing .

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:10 PM

This is my correspondence with Eric Jones, Editor of the Apollo Surface Journal in an edited form. I have removed my personal information and any thing not pertinent to the editing of the cover of SP-368.

On 22/11/2011, __ wrote:
I am looking for information concerning an anomolie which . . .appears to be an added mountain behind Mons Hadley taken from the LM looking to the N.E. found on the cover of SP-368 - Biomedical Results of Apollo, when compared to the original scan AS15-86-11603.
AS15-86-11603
SP-368
I have done some exestenive digging on the Apollo 15 Map and Image Library page at but have yet to find anything that shows this extra mount. It has been difficult to precisely pinpoint which mount it may be due to the lack of material showing the exact spot the camera was and what direction it was actually pointing. Any help or information you can give will be greatly appreciated.

From: Eric Jones November 21, 2011 7:30 PM
I presume that you're referring to the "graphic designer's mountain" to the left of Mt. Hadley on the cover of SP-368. The artistic person who designed the cover obviously added it. Could be that he or she was clueless about where the Sun was and thought the shadowing on Mt. Hadley would look better with it there. Who knows? I also note that he or she also removed the real mountains on the right . I'm guessing that made a better space for the title. If you'll take a look at the EVA-3 photos taken, for example, from Stations 9, 9a, and 10 when the sun is high enough that Mt. Hadley is fully illuminated, you'll see that there really is no mountain on the right.

Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
Working on the Moon: Lessons from Apollo
Alan Bean Gallery
48 Huon Creek Road, Wodonga, Victoria 3690, Australia 61-2-6056-8373
honais@gmail.com

22/11/2011, __ wrote:
Thankyou for your input. That is exactly what I thought it would be. Do you have any info on who the designer was for that cover? Or where I would find that kind of info?

From: Eric Jones
November 22, 2011 12:17 AM
I just grab my copy of the original edition of NASA SP-350, "Apollo Expeditions to the Moon". Ah-ha. On page 313, I see that SP-350 editor Edgar Cortright, who was the Director at Langley at the time, worked with "Frank Rowsome, NASA's Technical Publications chief" on SP-350. Cortright also mentions that the "art director" was Harry Samuels and that "Harold Pryor of NASA's Scientific and Technical Information Office lent us people, facilities, and support. Perhaps their successors could provide some info relevant to the process, if not SP-368. Let me write to the Journal's host in the HQ History Office.

22/11/2011, __ wrote:
Wow, that would be great! And the info you have sent is an excellent starting point. My hat off to you sir, and thanks again.

From: Eric Jones
November 22, 2011 1:39 AM
The example I know best is, of course the full-length portrait Neil took of Buzz. If Neil had aimed just a bit higher we would have seen the top of Buzz's OPS and the PLSS antenna, but both are cut off in the original image. However, other than places like the Journal, you never see the image without a bunch of black sky added above Buzz to give better vertical centering. My understanding is that was done by people in NASA public affairs before the image was released to the media. Not surprisingly, relatively few people notice that there isn't an antenna.

A few years ago, Grant Heiken and I did a book for Springer-Praxis and, after some discussion, we and they agreed on a picture Jack Schmitt took of Gene Cernan taking a pan at Van Serg Crater. Some while later, we got a draft of the cover and were annoyed to see that Earth had been added in the sky above Gene. Fortunately, we were able to talk them into removing Earth.

In the case of SP-368, the authors were medicos and wouldn't have noticed the artistic license taken in adding that extra summit. So it survived.

20/12/2011, __ wrote:
I want to express my thanks for taking time to correspond with a complete stranger. The reason for this correspondence is to seek your permission to quote you, and or use these correspondences. You may make what ever stipulations.

From: Eric Jones December 19, 2011 3:55 PM
Hi __, Feel free to quote from our correspondence. The folks at NASA History have seen so many instances of such artistic license that they didn't think it was worth the effort to dig into the who and when.

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:16 PM

SayonaraJupiter, there is no conspiracy concerning the SP-368 publication. It is simply a graphic editor trying to produce a product that would be appealing to the consumer. And before you say it again, a consumer is anyone that uses someone else's product.

"Magic Mountain" is not a covert communication of any kind and does not signify anything but an "artistic license".

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:16 PM

Go you crazy son of a bitch well done gibborium!

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:25 PM

I wanted to post this a bit back in the "Young Aussie" but the mods closed it down before I could get it done. So here it is

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:47 PM

These charlatans sure like to mislead the masses with stuff like sayonara posted.
Good job buddy .

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 05:23 PM

Originally posted by denver22

Originally posted by Vitruvian

1/6th of 815 = 136 lbs

Wrong- it is 135.833333.

Please go here for instructions on - cstl.syr.edu... titled -->
Rounding Off Decimals – Objectives

For Example
Round 135.833333 to the tenths place.
The number 135.833333 should be rounded up to 136.

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 05:36 PM

That is the accurate math even though it goes to that of 136 however
question why keep changing the weight of the buggy you have changed it a few times

Mods have noticed and so have others..

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:01 PM
The weight(s) of the LRV's are not written in stone. There were several variations in the weights between missions 15, 16, 17. Please do the proper research and report back to the forum with the correct results - Thank you...............And you would be wise to go back to a refresher course on your basic grammar school arithmetic lessons.

There are several "official" examples that give different figures - but most of them are in the same ball park - give or take several lbs in some instances. The second example I gave was intended to demonstrate that fact. It was presented merely as one of those several variations.

As for the Mods noticing things?? What they noticed was your extreme behavior as indicated in the warning you were given for dirty speech and bad manners towards another member. HERE --> www.abovetopsecret.com...

You were also admonished by the Mods HERE  www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please pay attention to the Mods and stay on topic and refrain from your constant harangue of other members of the Forum. If not I will send in another ALERT

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Mod-Note:

The personal attacks stop now. Get back on topic without the insults.

edit on 30-6-2012 by Vitruvian because: edit

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:20 PM

I had posted a question to you at the end of page 15, but it may have been missed due to the all the posts between you and Denver that came shortly after.

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:21 PM

We are dealing with at least 1,080 pounds (490 kg) at (1 / 6) * 1080

That is a big difference from your new different figure is it not.

Its gross operational weight was 1535 pounds with crew, equipment

pmsl you cant even make up your mind on the total weight of the buggy when full
let alone on its own.Hey look what i found

denver22 YOU STATED - They weighed 462 pounds therefor on the moon it would i say weigh 77 pounds correct me if i am wrong

Your not wrong and i am right, as you asked me this before you changed your post and the buggy
on its own would weigh that on the moon.Hey i found more, this is your post asking me about the
weight of the buggy at 460 funny i cannot find it as you changed it however it comes to 460 divided by 6 is equivalent to 76 and 2/3 (seventy six and two thirds).

Empty - the weight of the LRV would have been 455 lbs empty.
136 lbsas opposed to a 72 pounds as previously calculated by someone else

You changed it again
I never calculated such a weight at 455lbs from what you asked a few pages back.
thats what the mods see and everyone else.

but most of them are in the same ball park - give or take several lbs in some instances.

You got to be kidding me, trying to say that for instance 1080pounds
is not much difference from 1535pounds.lmfao.

edit on 30-6-2012 by denver22 because: correct calculation by adding two thirds to be precise to shut someone up* sigh*

edit on 30-6-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:48 PM

136 pounds = 9.71428571 stone
136 pounds = 61.6885623 kilograms
136 pounds = 61 688.5623 grams

Astronauts could lift that no sweat at least enough to turn the buggy etc.
edit on 30-6-2012 by denver22 because: Added buggy to post

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:49 PM

From Wikipedia on the LRV

The Lunar Roving Vehicle had a mass of 463 lb (210 kg), which resulted in a lunar weight of 77.2 lbf (35.0 kgf) - and was designed to hold a payload of an additional 1,080 lb (490 kg) on the lunar surface.

The LRV is approximately 463lbs and it can hold an extra 1080lbs, which equals a total mass of 1543lbs (or 257.2lbs on the Moon).

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 08:04 PM

Jra mate i am aware of the total weight
1543 / 6 = 257.166667 thats not what this guy is asking me to begin with before the post
was changed by him, he asked the buggy weight with no flaming load on it.
And kept changing the weight of it i wanna know what it is next as there now seems
to be 4 different weights

edit on 30-6-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 08:29 PM

when deployed on the Moon, the LRV carried a total payload weight of about 1,080 pounds

it would seem plausable to assume that the (total) standard weight of the operational LRV (15) as it traversed the surface of the moon would have been approx. 1535 pounds.

All this fuss and your changing things you change your mind more times than my mrs changes
her shoes.

Which one are you picking you cant have both at the total weight

top topics

8