What We Learned by Putting Cars on the Moon
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 кві 2018
- To support SciShow Space and learn more about Brilliant, go to brilliant.org/scishowspace/
To expand their range on visits to the moon, astronauts needed a way to travel faster, go farther, and carry more than walking provided. Thankfully, they had the Lunar Roving Vehicle.
Hosted by: Reid Reimers
For special, curated artifacts of this universe, check out scishowfinds.com/
----------
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: / scishow
----------
Dooblydoo thanks go to the following Patreon supporters:
Jerry Perez, Lazarus G, Kelly Landrum Jones, Sam Lutfi, Kevin Knupp, Nicholas Smith, D.A. Noe, alexander wadsworth, سلطان الخليفي, Piya Shedden, KatieMarie Magnone, Scott Satovsky Jr, Charles Southerland, Bader AlGhamdi, James Harshaw, Patrick D. Ashmore, Candy, Tim Curwick, charles george, Saul, Mark Terrio-Cameron, Viraansh Bhanushali, Kevin Bealer, Philippe von Bergen, Chris Peters, Justin Lentz
----------
Like SciShow? Want to help support us, and also get things to put on your walls, cover your torso and hold your liquids? Check out our awesome products over at DFTBA Records: dftba.com/scishow
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Tumblr: / scishow
Instagram: / thescishow
----------
Sources:
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary...
gizmodo.com/the-lunar-rover-w...
apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070720.html
www.popsci.com/blog-network/v...
www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missio...
Images:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Al...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:As...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mo...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Al...
www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall...
www.nasa.gov/press/2014/octob...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NA...
www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missio...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
www.thinkstockphotos.com/image...
www.thinkstockphotos.com/image...
www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-vid...
www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/lunar_...
Sounds:
freesound.org/s/198072/
freesound.org/s/71737/
freesound.org/s/88465/
freesound.org/s/18868/
freesound.org/s/219013/
freesound.org/s/133277/
The first 77 to sign up at brilliant.org/scishowspace/ will get 20% off their annual Premium subscription.
SciShow Space What's the deal with weed? I smoke it and it gets me high. What gives??
Jacob Godsmith weed is to make the people happy.
feudiable It's a proven fact that adding text to educational videos helps your audience retain important details. You'll find this in nearly all professionally created educational content on UA-cam. Here's a link: cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/effective-educational-videos/#signal
SciShow Space Does a compass on the moon point towards earth or the sun? 🤔🤷♂️
It's actually the first 777 to sign up! or at least Brilliant says so.
An engineer on the moon buggie project stated that they were so well built, all you need was new batteries and he was confident they would run today. I've always loved this vehicle.
@Etypeman Yes yes, the earth is flat and hallow. Big foot is an interdimensional being. Aliens built the pyramids. The world governments are run by reptilian shape changing aliens. Paul McCartney was replaced with a double. The moon landings were a hoax and what ever else you internet nuts ramble about.
@@bigboreracing356 they did though
@@bigboreracing356 how is it not possible
@@bigboreracing356 really… sure… when, and provide a link or tell me your source
@@bigboreracing356 it must’ve been pretty simple if you of all people found it
I heard that there is already a restaurant on the Moon...food is good, but it has no atmosphere...
👏...👏...👏...👏...👏...👏...👏...
That's as old as the joke about flat earthers all around the globe.
Like every fast food restaurant ever?
dad jokes never get old
you know that's not funny, right?
From Moon Buggies to a Tesla.
History of electric cars in space is beautiful
the difference is only one of them actually served a purpose when sent into space
The Tesla actually did serve a function.
Granted... it's a function that also could have been served by a block of concrete or scientific instruments but we probably wouldn't be talking as much about that so it also made for good publicity.
Baron von Quiply and it was fun to send that thing into space... Something more interesting than a couple of breeze blocks...
The first vehicle ever made had .. electric engine, way over 100 years ago
@@Peppermint1 electric motor*
5:17
A Mc Donald's on the moon
that burn. almost feels like spring '16
Gallia91 o
British McDonalds actually tastes generally better than when we went to an American McDonalds. Was quite surpsing actually. You guys don't even have a "Chicken Legend" which suprised me even more
Radioactive that is the whole point! The joke is all about the stereotype of US being about Quantity > Quality ;)
It also folded into a very tiny triangular space of the lander which was not even originally intended for it. Very neat engineering esp. since this was a design that von Braun originally didn't approve of.
Did it have cup holders tho?
*lifts cup to take a sip*.. *Tink!* "ah man!"
"Houston, we have a problem"
yeah..for rocks
hahaha! That image is such a beautiful thing in our minds!
Tyler H . It's the 60s, probably just ashtrays.
The lunar rover is the best argument for going to the moon! The ejecta from the wheels proves a vacuum. On earth (where there is air) the fine dust mixes with the air and hangs around blocking the view (if it's really fine dust). And the moon dust is supposed to be extremely fine (and lots of it). Neil Armstrong said it was "almost like a powder". I remember him saying that, when it happened in the 'sixties. But there is no fine dust mixing with the "air" and clouding the view, is there.
2:30 is wrong. The TV camera only worked when the rover was parked. They'd stop the rover, align the dish to point it at Earth, do their work while Ed Fendell back in Houston worked the remote controls of the TV camera, then they hopped back on the rover to drive to the next stop. The signal and controls would cut out as soon as they started rolling, because they'd lose dish alignment.
The only video taken from a camera on the rover while it was moving (other than maybe about 1 second as it started rolling) was from the Maurer 16mm film camera, which was mounted directly behind the TV camera. (Yes, there were two video cameras.) But, while it's true that the film camera worked while the rover was moving, mission control couldn't look around while the astronauts were driving the rover. They had to wait until they got home to get the film developed before that footage could be seen.
The idea of humans walking on the moon still blows my mind
πzza yes because it is phantasy.
^Found the tinfoil hat wearer
Chris Cartwright yep😂
What really blows my mind is that humans stopped going there and have yet to go to Mars. I 'm 54 and all the science books I read as soon as I could read were full of artists rendering of Lunar and Martian bases. Now I'm not even sure I'll see a human just going in an orbit around the Moon again before I die.
Another thing I want to know before I die is what is below the ice of Europa and other solar system's worlds with a liquid ocean. I'm wishing for life obviously but just a blurry picture of an extra terrestrial hydrothermal vent would make me extremely happy. That will obviously be done by robotic probes though, not human divers.
Ralf the fact that the
Russians, Americas biggest rivals in the space race, politely golf clapped and said 'Bravo' afterwards is proof enough of America landing on the moon. Had there been ANY foul play or hoaxes involved they would have been all over it like flies on doo doo.
And it beat SpaceX to the "electric car in space" milestone by 47 years.
You guys should make a mega mix of all the bad puns and jokes, and call it 'SighShow'.
I've heard astronauts say the onboard navigyros were kinda pointless, 'cos if they'd got lost they could've just followed their wheel tracks.
It's not like there were anyone else's tracks up there...
It will be interesting to visit one of these in a museum when we do finally make commercial trips to mars viable and they inevitably bring one back.
They will not disturb the Apollo sites in any way. They might fence them off, or build a dome over them, but they will remain untouched. As they should be.
I'd really like to see Doug DeMuro inexplicably on the moon in an Apollo-era spacesuit, with the Apollo Moon Buggy in front of him
"This...is is a 1972 NASA Moon Buggy. It's a very rare and very special car, less than 10 of them were ever made. It's al all-electric off-roader that was designed for the specific purpose of lunar exploration. Today, I've come out here to the Moon to tell you all about the unique quirks and features of this very unusual car from the 70s and then, I'm gonna take it out on the road, or in this case the Lunar Regolith, and I'm gonna give it a Doug Score"
Don't forget a 10 minute long analysis of a cup holder or a gas cap.
A very good video, but you forgot to mention that the rovers had even more smarts and backups. For example, not ONLY were they 4 wheel drive, but they were also 4 wheel steer, necessary in tight lunar environments, where the rover might have to turn around in its own area, without something like a 3 point turn. Also, if there was a malfunction, they weren't necessarily screwed, because the rover could drive and steer in 2 wheel mode, with only its front or rear motors functioning. Absolutely amazing engineering!
This was incredibly cool and interesting, thank you so much!
Agreed! The moon buggie is still such an incredible piece of tech to think and learn about!
What's more American than a car on the moon?
How about an assault rifle on the moon.
that reward actually goes to the soviets, since i believe they did have a turret mounted on one of their space craft in case of any sort of attack from other space craft.
Nnnnooooooooooo lol
Modern sporting rifle
mmm mc donald on the moon ?
A car sent into space for no reason.
It's so amazing what we've been able to accomplish. Electric cars just get cooler and cooler when you look into how they've been used
It's amazing to look at all the stuff they did to get these technologies to work-- like how they /weaved/ code into core memory in the saturn 5, or how the buggy had basically piano wire for wheels over a skeleton to absorb shock. So many things that you look at today and you just have to respect. Also, just kind of as a cool curiosity, those systems were more robust than (most) modern technology. Simply because of how fast modern parts work (in gigahertz), radiation and other stuff can introduce anomalous calculations and stuff.
Really, really interesting stuff and it opens so many fascinating challenges; engineering and otherwise.
Planned obsolescence. How could they make billions if your stuff lasts forever?
So... Your saying the first electric car in space was a Chevy convertible?!!
The COOLEST thing of the buggie is the COOLING battery system: two blocks of wax. NASA such a genius.
What a triumphant mission! All of this was done with incredibly slow computers by today's standards. In NASA's video of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter's images of the moon (ua-cam.com/video/nr5Pj6GQL2o/v-deo.html) you can see tire tracks from one of the Apollo missions. How impressive!
Great video, SciShow Space!
Nice Moon driving, Reid!
One of the primary factors in the ultimate design of the LRV was that in the early '60s initial planning stages for the moon landing missions, planners visualized two Saturn V rockets being used with two landings taking place for each mission. One would transport the astronauts and their lander, the other would carry and land only equipment and supplies. That left a lot more payload for things like a fully enclosed, pressurized moon rover, basically a moon truck. When Congress said "no" to funding double the number of Saturn V rockets, mission planners were forced to find ways to carry the astronauts and everything they needed on one Saturn V. That led to the development of a very light weight, foldable, non-enclosed moon rover that could be carried by the so-called J-Type (class), 3-day stay, "Extended" Lunar Modules that were used on Apollo 15 - 17.
A footnote to the Lunar Rover story - Apollo 15 was originally intended to be an H-type mission (shorter stay, no lunar rover) but was bumped up to a J-type mission after the cancellation of Apollo 18 and 19. The H-type lander that had been built for Apollo 15 (LM-9) could not carry the Lunar Rover and could therefore not be used on a J-type mission, so it never flew. It's the only surviving completed, fully equipped, mission-capable Lunar Module, and is on display at the Kennedy Space Center. All other Lunar Modules still in existence (on Earth) were built to function only as mock-ups or test vehicles and/or were not fully equipped.
My favorite Sci-Show correspondent
I loved that you had to use many units and numbers, and no imperial measurements were said.
Not me, I love SciShow, and I understand the scientific world and most of the world in general uses the metric system, but generally speaking using the metric system alienates me a bit and is my only gripe about SciShow.
Like I said I understand why they only use the metric system, but I do wish they would at least put a caption up on the video so there American audience would feel included. Just a little caption that would pop up on the screen when they say a measurement in the metric system with the imperial conversion would make my day.
Jon A they did this on the video captions though. I'm not sure if they do it with all mentions of metrics, but they do it a lot.
Now you get the feeling that when the rest of the world watch americans talk science on imperial and the globe have no idea what's being said. It's important for general americans to learn metrics, but I agree we have to make this a transition, not a forced "ban" on imperial (although imperialism has kind of been banned since like the 60s :p).
We have to make this transition happen though, we can't just say both all the time in all data, because if so americans will only continue confortable. Some occasional missing imperial may be important, incentive of the american government and schools to get into metric, change in everyday use. But if the US only wants to change on science for now, let's do it on science then.
It's not like billions around the world aren't forced to accept learning english to prosper in life properly.
I watched it again, just to see, and some how I did miss that they converted it, but not in every instance.
We did learn the metric system in one of my high school science classes, it wasnt so hard to learn. That was pretty much the last time I used it. I didnt take any science classes in college, so it was never used there. And you know what they say, use it or loose it. I have long since lost it. The only thing in America I can think of that uses the metric system is pop, and only larger bottles.
It might not be the worst idea if we used the metric system here for somethings, but definitely not temperature. I get uncomfortable if my thermostat is off by even a degree, so unless your thermostats do fractions of a degree I just couldnt live with the metric system running my heater. Outside of that I would be willing to trade feet for meters.
SI measurements are the measurements of science. If you're doing real engineering or Physics, even in the US, you're working in SI, not imperial measurements. Watch any SciShow video and you'll notice that Imperial Measurements are almost non-existent.
The problem in trying to make this exclusive to science is that of course there's not a clear boundary between science and not science, it's more of a spectrum, and every part interacts with its closer neighbours.
Like, science papers - Labs - Engineering companies that support these labs with equipment - science news. After that it becomes less science, but still related. Measurements of products' volume and weight, temperature, they depend on scientific values, to define the number of micrograms needed to make a compound of a remedy.
Bridges exist in the normal world but they can't work with proper uniform science. Same to boats. Or rockets and satellites, and so on.
The somewhat recent probe crash in Mars that crashed because of a conflict of measurements, happened because of that arbitrary definition of science/not science. One company that supplied some equipments used imperial. The place where the boundaries are subjectively defined, there will be conflicts, because the two closest things separated by the boundaries have a lot of contact. The transition must be complete someday. Uniformly.
And the US is too much relevant on the world to get attached to a very outdated system. Because not only in science there are problems, international trade suffers a lot economically, reprinting numbers, and mistakes that can cause disasters as well.
Cool! Leaves me wondering at 1:40, is that "twice its weight" figure for lunar or terrestrial gravity? If it's lunar, I don't have much scale for how miraculous that is. It's definitely stronger with less self-weight too...
Love me some Reid Reimers!
It would have been fun to mention that a rover had an accident, requiring ad hoc repair of a fender.
I want to know what the tires were made with. and if they were gas filled, solid, or just hollow
airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/wheel-lunar-rover
Re comparisons: Lightest Smart Fortwo weights about 800kg. And a modern bicycle of 7kg will carry a load of about 100kg.
2:50 Dont want to point out the obvious, could they not just follow their tracks back?
Can I ask a simple question.. if humans who weight pounds float in zero gravity, why doesn't the moon dirt when it's kicked up by the tires?
"What's more american than a car on the moon?"
That's a dangerous question to ask.
They could have followed the tire tracks back to the module
luis arroyo this is great! You should get the Nobel price! 😂 They shouldn't have to build such an advanced computer to find the way home!🤣
My thought also, waiting for someone to explain why that wouldn't work.
Daniel Jensen i cant think of one reason why that wouldnt work... since apparently power supply was no problem, they could even do that if they went on many courves and all that... for real
One thing is knowing the way back, it's another to know where you are.
If you don't know your position, you don't know how far away from the module you are, eg. are you out of walking distance or not?
Patrick Hansen That's fair. Also knowing your location is useful for adding context to the samples they took. But still, worries about getting lost seem like they're not the reason.
Yeah, but no cup holders....
Where did they put the LRV to get it to the moon? In the lander?
Jeffrey Bernath Each LM descent stage had four externally accessible equipment bays referred to as quads. The main portions of the LRVs on Apollos 15, 16, and 17 folded up very cleverly to fit into Quad 1. Additional LRV equipment was carried on a rack, called a pallet, mounted in Quad 3. Astronauts removed the LRV pallet from Quad 3, carried it to the deployed LRV and mounted the pallet on the LRV’s aft end.
Here is a picture of a folded LRV being either installed in or deployed from (I can’t tell which) an LM on Earth.
www.ninfinger.org/karld/My%20Space%20Museum/lemlrv.jpg
Scroll down on this page to get more information on the quads.
www.ninfinger.org/karld/My%20Space%20Museum/pjlmpics.htm#ds
The Astronauts were very brave to drive 4km.away from the LM. You explain the complicated science of how that the buggy had an onboard Gyroscope and Ondometer which connected to a computerwhich acted as a GPS navigation system. So should the car break down the Astronauts would have no way of returning to the LM. In a vacuum or near zero gravity on the Moon a basic COMPASS would be useless.
Vacuum and gravity don’t have anything at all to do with the function of a compass…
The lack of a magnetic field otoh…
what's more American than a car on the moon -> a McDonald's on the moon
why the need for navigation? couldn't they just follow the track marks in the dust back to the LM??
Wow that ending was cool lol
6:34 Turns right, car goes left. LoL
Why doesnt it suprise me u guys put a bomb on the moon? Lol
While your use of Metric units is appreciated, it’s perplexing in the case of defining the buggy’s carry weight capacity.
Keyword: ‘weight’. Kilograms are a measurement of mass, not weight. On Earth, these can be equated wherever scientific precision isn’t needed…
But the buggy wasn’t on Earth. When talking about something sent to another body, gravity isn’t an assumable constant.
This is one of the rare cases where Imperial Pounds is the better of the two measurements to use.
Yea but how did we get whalers on the moon?
that carried a harpoon
Did they have to get international driving licenses?
so if we ever go back to the moon could they replace the battery’s and drive the same buggy’s?
At 2:25 I couldn't help but notice how streamlined Gene Cernan's suit is on the Apollo 17 mission photos compared to Apollo 11. Probably does kinda show that NASA was still doing small tweaks to ships and equipment in between missions at the time.
Starting with Apollo 15, the Apollo lunar surface spacesuits were updated, from the A7L model, to the A7LB model. I'm not sure what the updates were though.
Did they find any metal on the moon? I heard a lot of meteorites on earth are made of iron so I'm wondering if the moon craters contain iron? Or does it get vaporized or sink too deep to be found?
They didn’t specifically find any, but they weren’t looking in craters or doing any mining. Nickel-iron meteorites are pretty common, though they can be any metal.
Atomic “backpack” bombs designed for the Green Berets where also detonated on the moon.
Atomic “backpack” bombs did not and do not exist, and no nuclear weapons have ever been detonated on the moon. Stop lying.
what sort of battery technology did they use back then? and how big were the batteries to go 24km? Genuine question
Wikepedia infobox: "Battery Two silver-oxide, 121 A·h"
Genuine question why did you need me for that?
Dashcam, the first thing that cross my mind, did the Russian already there so NASA can claim insurance for you know "Car Crash thing"
6:19 great no-context moment.
yeah but if you think about it....they could of just followed their tyre tracks back to the lander. its not like there is wind/sand storms that would of disturbed/distorted or hidden the tracks.....
Okay I get how expensive space technology and engineering costs, but how tf does an aluminum go cart fired off in a rocket towards the moon cost the equivalent of 20 million dollars today? How TF, I could build one of those in my back yard for 10,000 dollars tops
You forgot about Lunokhod the Soviet Luna 17 it's the first vehicle on moon
Good news: you can carry the car back to your lander if it breaks. Doing that should be quite hilarious though.
So, of course, that steering wheel must now find a permanent home on the wall of one of the sets like HFS.
And then there are the people who says the whole programm is fake...
I don't think of conspiracy nuts as people. They are just things that get in the way and have to be forcibly removed.
Cool
Jeff Bezos brought up salvaged engines from Saturn V:s, next step, salvage car from the Moon :-)
hel yah N-Squad is here!!!!!!
PHWOAR 13 KPH!? SLOW DOOOOWN - but for real, nicely done NASA
Aspect Science 13 kph is running speed. Any faster would be risky and dangerous.
it can carry a lot of mass, but not a lot of weight.
Everyone making fun of the moon buggy's low top speed clearly hasn't driven their own overpowered lunar vehicle creations on KSP. Remember, irl, you can't reload, you have to give a somber speech explaining the tragic loss of life.
Those seatbelts weren't amenities. It kept them in the damn thing!
just realized that you're using metric :DDDD
is that new or have you done it all the time? xDD
"What's more American than a car on the Moon?" Well, you've just given Elon an idea.
Seems to me it'd have been much cheaper and easier to just have a cart that the astronauts would push around, where the carts would contain all the necessary equipment needed to conduct the tests, and a lot of storage for moon rocks. They could have then given the astronauts larger oxygen tanks aboard the cart.
NASA did experiment with such an idea, but ultimately decided against it. Amy over at The Vintage Space addresses it in one of her videos. Basically, the astronauts were already overworked, breathing hard etc, and the Apollo spacesuits had limited flexibility/joint dexterity. I recall that the Apollo 15 astronauts came back with vitamin deficiencies and hand injuries from working so hard on the lunar surface.
2:23 moons first dashcam*
The rover is also really good at not leaving track imprints in between the front and rear wheels when you want to park it and take pictures of the rover. I dont know if we did or didnt go to the moon, but check out some of the official pics from nasa on the above mentioned track imprints and its onbvioulsy not all of the pictures but there are some which show what looks like a picture as if the rover has just been placed on the ground by a crane or something of that method. If your getting antzy im sorry, im just saying the pics are there and nasa doesnt explain why or how that type of anomaly works or can be explained. What im refering to is apollo pictures AS15-85-11470 and AS17-137-20979 just for 2 examples. Genuinely interested if anyone knows anything either for or against on the explaination. Cheers
I think you get your answer by looking at the video footage at 4:21. There is so much dust being thrown out it the air when the rover is driving by that when the dust would settle down, it would cover much of the track imprints. Plus the fact that the moon's gravity is really low and that the rover was light, the imprint must not have been really deep and defined to begin with.
edit: also you can see the rover is jumping a lot because of the low gravity, so there must some parts where there is not track imprint at all because well the buggy was in the air.
AtlantideVFX I literally never considered the dust settling as an explaination, but that makes perfect sense. I guess its one of those things that just slipped my mind. I am so on the fence about if we did or didnt go, i have watched all the evidence that we did go i have watched videos with examples and claimed explainations that we didnt go. One of the main things that keeps me on the fence is why we havent been back, they say money and nothing more to learn... but if we "could" do it in the 60's we should be nailing it with current tech, they spend so much on war and other stuff surely its worth the cost for further missions. They should be be using the moon for mars mission simulations, testing of buildings people will be living in on another planets or moon all those things, anyway all that is a whole different discussion in itself. But that definetly clears that up for me on that anyway. Cheers for the response i appreciate it :)
You're welcome. And for the reason why the US didn't go back since then is pretty much because of politics. I think you know it already, the cold war was characterized by this battle between the US and the USSR, the first and the second world, capitalism vs communism. So there was an incentive to make one camp stronger than the other by any means possible; nuclear weapon, economy output and grandiose scientific achievement like putting several people on the moon. But since there is no more that ideological clash and race, well the incentive have pretty much dissipated.
And space travel is not politically winning, so no politicians put that forward. And space agencies with their budgets prefer to send satellites and build telescope to get the more science data out of it compared to a man exploration which do not yield the same quantity of science data by unit of cost. It's why rather than sending humans on mars, NASA prefers rather to send rovers as it's way less expensive, no need to bring it back home, and yield more scientific data for the cost.
Michael Reid Check out "Parallel shadows". They are only really practically possible with a light source as bright as the sun, as far away as the sun.
That sounded like a diss to Tesla..
Guys, talk about the interesting Silver batteries in the lunar cars!
Silver batteries! And not rechargeable! What a mess! 😆
*wow very interesting*
i thought the car was made by elon musk and made from meme infused alloys :(
:-) Another pristine wilderness turned into a parking lot :-)
How would the Canadian Space Agency's square-wheeled vehicles work on the moon?
0:00 I totally thought that was a robot voice at first.
5:15 Was that just a super sly NASA>SpaceX dig I just heard? ;)
What we learned? That fast and furious still have places to go with cars.
cool
Grams are mass, Newtons are weight!
PR Stunt
How long did they stay on the moon is the real question because that vehicle couldn't have e been that easy to put together and then to drive around to demo looked wild to me since it had to have been on the surface for a long time
It was design to fold. I was stowed folded and deployed with springs at the pull of a cord.
2:44 *I don't see how they could have gotten lost as their tire tracks lead right back to the LEM.*
Yes, but not necessarily by the shortest path. If something bad happened they'd need to get back as soon as possible.
@@michaelfuchs Like a leak in a spacesuit for example.
5:16 what's cooler? A car floating aroung in space? Like a TESLA ROADSTER !
5:19 a car floating is space
I wonder what the Triple-A insurance premiums for the moon buggies were like.
GM quality!
they were worried about getting lost? Seems like all they would need to do is retrace the tire tracks back to the start point, the LM
Yes, but not necessarily by the shortest path. If something bad happened they'd need to get back as soon as possible.
MOTORS not ENGINES
GoldSilver (w/ Mike Maloney) The two words can be used synonymously. Especially since he explained immediately afterwards the specifics of the battery and propulsion on the rover.
No they can't, when have you ever heard of an electric engine?
Motors are electric
Engines are internal combustion or steam.
Just because a word is used wrong on a regular basis does not mean it is correct, ie millennials using "litterally" to litterally mean the opposite of litterally.
asasial1977 You're being very pedantic over the use of two synonyms in a non-technical sense. And you misspelled "literally." And you blamed linguistic evolution on millennials. A google search would tell you that not only were the terms interchangeable to begin with, but in casual speech, they are synonyms. This is a general education channel, not a technical one.
English is literally the only language on Earth to make that weird distinction between engines and motors, and even so it's pretty much only people who actually build motors that use the engineering terminology. In a lot of European languages motor (or something similar) is the only word for a machine that transforms some kind of energy into work. Electric motor, petrol motor, hydrogen motor, steam motor, perpetual motor etc. It's all good, and technically correct too, as motor is the hyperonym of engine. Way to be technically correct _and_ piss of pedantic morons at the same time.
Racing is considered 'motorsport' not 'enginesport' isn't it?
How can they get lost in that Moon buggy? Just simply retrace your tracks. It's not like there's anything that would erase them.
Dem animations
i am curious tho, wouldn't it be better to just give lander some wheels, and have the entire thing roll around like a sort of a camper van?
it would require lot less weight, as it wouldn't need separate frame, and all the tools would already be onboard... not to mention that then, there is no concern about coming back, meaning they could go wherever
The lander could only land on a relatively flat plane. Too much, and it was at risk of tipping over, either at landing, or at liftoff. The lunar rover was much more tolerant of a rough terrain.
can the rovers be reused? swap batteries for solar power types. new and more cameras
Yes, they SHOULD still be usable with new batteries, though they wouldn’t be. Those are historical sites. Plus Artemis isn’t landing anywhere near them.
You say that the Rover which was left on the moon weighed 210kg. The rock that was brought back only weighed 11kg.?
Three rovers were left behind and the rocks brought back weigh hundreds of kilos….
no cupholders?
Love watching those burnouts in a vacuum!!
No air to mess up the effect... so nice..
Shame your moon buggy video lacks moon buggy footage... but.. ok..
Moon buggy is almost as much fun as the comments from moon hoaxers repeating old debunked ideas about flags and shadows.. :D
There is plenty of lunar rover footage around. Engineers had the astronauts take extensive film of the rover to verify its operation, and there is also footage from its onboard camera. Search for terms like "lunar rover grand prix" or similar.
Burnouts? You mean dust plume?
@@UpperDarbyDetailing Yea, the dry powder rooster tails...
@@EveryoneWhoUsesThisTV yeah? It’s space. There’s no liquid, so obviously it’s dry.
It’s dust, which is powder.
Of course there are rooster tails in 1/6 g. What’s your point?
@@UpperDarbyDetailing Well it's rocket science so my point may be a little hard to follow but.... the rooster tails... I like them... :D
Gotta get your moon buggy’s steering looked at, that’s way too much play at the steering wheel
Wouldn't they just follow their tracks back? There is no wind to blow them away.