Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apollo 15 Commander Talks About Developing and Driving Lunar Buggy

Posted by samzenpus on from the more-fun-than-moon-patrol dept.

szczys writes: Greg Charvat recently sat in on an MIT course called "Engineering Apollo". For this set of sessions, David Scott recounted his experience as an astronaut. David was the commander of the Apollo 15 mission, flew several others, and took part in the development of much of the equipment used in the moon missions. The class is basically him hanging around with a bunch of engineers talking in a level of detail rarely heard. From the Hackaday article: "As if you had any doubts, but David confirms the lunar rover was really fun to drive. The vehicle had a wide wheel base, a low center of gravity, and each wheel had its own motor. But there was one occasion that caused a stir when the rover nearly slid down a mountain."

49 comments

  1. hey, y'all, watch this! by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    if you almost slid off a moon mountain...you might be a redneck

    1. Re:hey, y'all, watch this! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      If they did slide completely, what's the best speculation of what would happen? How far down was the bottom of the slope? I imagine they'd bail out of the buggy to save their skin, sliding a bit themselves for a while, and then walk down later to get the buggy. Did they train for such sliding? (The lander was probably a good long walk away. I'm still trying to google a good map.)

      Incidentally, one of the most iconic Apollo photos came from mission 15:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:hey, y'all, watch this! by towermac · · Score: 1

      No, I think getting out of the buggy and it being empty is why it slid. That is why he's standing there holding onto it, holding a wheel up in the air. With one hand.

      I got 2 epiphanies out of it.

      The rover is light as shit. I had this thought, I think, of heavy 70s hardware. Of course it was light, they had to get it there on that most rickety looking lunar lander.

      One-sixth gravity is lighter than I thought it was. Hollywood slo-mo has ruined me; I didn't get what Neil hopping around all slo-mo looking really meant.

      So this guy could have picked up the rover and thrown it like a Frisbee I bet. (It would have been a duff due to spacesuit interference)

    3. Re:hey, y'all, watch this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rover missions were carefully planned so that in the event of a rover failure the astronauts could always walk back to the LM. I think by the later missions this was relaxed a bit (this was A15 after all) but I'd bet they could have walked it if necessary. Not sure how damaged the rover would have been anyway after sliding down. Even if it rolls, its only 1/6th gravity so I don't think its going to do too much damage to the actual structure.

    4. Re:hey, y'all, watch this! by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Even if it rolls, its only 1/6th gravity so I don't think its going to do too much damage to the actual structure.

      If momentum builds up, then gravity doesn't matter much. A collision with a boulder at 30 mph is going to do almost the same damage on the moon as on Earth.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    5. Re:hey, y'all, watch this! by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      The LR weighed 210 kg on Earth, 35 kg on the Moon.

      I don't think he's putting so much force on it he'd lift one wheel though: he's standing downhill from the vehicle and he's holding on to it above its CoG. He'd have to be pulling the vehicle to lift that wheel, but he should be pushing it to prevent it sliding down the hillside.
      More likely the rover is sitting on uneven ground and the right front suspension has bottomed out.

    6. Re:hey, y'all, watch this! by daedalus2097 · · Score: 1

      True, though it would take roughly a six times longer slide down a slope to build up the same amount of momentum as it would on Earth.

    7. Re:hey, y'all, watch this! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. The lack of "weight" may be the reason the rover was sliding because it doesn't dig in.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  2. GT6 by rwa2 · · Score: 1

    Grr, thanks for reminding me that I'm still trying to save up for a used PS3 so I can http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-...

    1. Re:GT6 by oddtodd · · Score: 1

      The moon driving in GT6 is totally worth it, it was a stupendous evening when I completed that level.

      --
      I have plenty of common sense, I just choose to ignore it. -- Calvin
  3. "Wide" wheelbase, huh? by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whoever came up with that choice phrase ought to stick to using words and phrases that they actually know the meaning of...

    1. Re:"Wide" wheelbase, huh? by geekmux · · Score: 2

      Whoever came up with that choice phrase ought to stick to using words and phrases that they actually know the meaning of...

      Quite true.

      Me personally though? I couldn't stop laughing over the low center of gravity comment, as if we're gonna measure the damn thing on a skidpad.

    2. Re:"Wide" wheelbase, huh? by towermac · · Score: 2

      You guys need to stop.

      You would have had some tall rickety tricycle thing.

      "Hey look, higher lunar speed!"

    3. Re:"Wide" wheelbase, huh? by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      Whoever came up with that choice phrase ought to stick to using words and phrases that they actually know the meaning of...

      well, it could have been worse. it could have been a "Buggy Lunar"

    4. Re:"Wide" wheelbase, huh? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well you would measure it on a skidpad..

      you know, rolling it over in the moon is a lot easier than on earth.

      anyhow, check out the moon machines documentary.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  4. Apollo 16 Rover Awesomeness by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Image stabilized video from Apollo 16 detailing the awesomeness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cKpzp358F4

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Apollo 16 Rover Awesomeness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10x the awesomeness if you have the spacecraft films boxset of the Apollo 15 mission. They even did the Apollo 16 and 17 missions if I'm not mistaken. All original NASA footage, not edited by broadcast tv. Right from the mouth of the horse so to speak.

    2. Re:Apollo 16 Rover Awesomeness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is there no audio?! Video sucks.

    3. Re:Apollo 16 Rover Awesomeness by k6mfw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      it's not video, it's film. And the camera had no audio input which many movie cameras back in days had no audio. Oh, there's no air to propagate sound waves. What's amazing is showing the Moon as a place where people actually were decades before most of you were born.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    4. Re:Apollo 16 Rover Awesomeness by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Stabilized, huh. Is that why the Earth crescent bobs up and down like a cork? Or was that just the boom mic.?

      --
      I come here for the love
    5. Re:Apollo 16 Rover Awesomeness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That bright semi-circle at the top is clearly not the moon. It could have been an artifact from post processing, but a lens flare seems to come off it at some point, so it's probably something that was actually in front of the lens or some sort of artifact of the lens.

    6. Re:Apollo 16 Rover Awesomeness by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Decades? You think most of the people on here are under 25? This ain't Reddit. I'm in the original reader group and I'm 40... but plenty of guys here up into their 60s and 70s. Anyone over 80 in the audience?

    7. Re:Apollo 16 Rover Awesomeness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no, you see, there are two groups, "young", and "old". "Young" people are self-involved pretentious jerks... zero exceptions. "Old" people were around for silent films and the wild west and dinosaurs.... zero exceptions. What's this "40" thing you're talking about?

  5. Remember... by sycodon · · Score: 1

    They did all this essentially with pencils, rulers, and slide rules.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know the most common slide rules you could use as rulers, right?

    2. Re: Remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are slide rules? You mean, like, don't slide off mountains?

    3. Re:Remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They had computers everywhere too.

      http://www.lib.utah.edu/img/ar...
      https://design.osu.edu/carlson...

      There were enough of them to create things like this

      http://ursispaltenstein.ch/blo...

      And the military was already using computers by the roomful to control even bigger rooms of CNC machines:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    4. Re:Remember... by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      And something like half the integrated circuit output of the entire world at the time.

  6. Moon? Lunar buggy? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    Obligatory.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  7. Center of Gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The vehicle had a wide wheel base, a low center of gravity,

    But since this was on the moon, the vehicle's center of gravity was 6 times higher.

    1. Re:Center of Gravity by daedalus2097 · · Score: 1

      Why would the centre of gravity move just because the rover is on the moon? Is the heavy end of a hammer still heavier than the light end on the moon? Of course it is. The overall weight may have changed, but it hasn't changed shape and the matter hasn't somehow shifted around.

  8. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apollo 15 Commander Talks About Developing and Driving Lunar Buggy

    Did the headline writer use the term "Lunar Buggy" to avoid the inevitable lame "That's no moon buggy" jokes?

    Because it obviously didn't work.

  9. Effect of Lunar gravity on blood alcohol level by bradrum · · Score: 1

    Even less well known... They almost slid off a mountain because they were testing Tang based margarita mix.

  10. Is this why they always fix things in Star Trek? by MikeTheGreat · · Score: 0

    I always wondered why 'Star Trek' characters seemed to spend a good fraction of the episodes rebuilding critical parts of their spaceship/gun/etc on the fly, under duress, and with a limited amount of time. I mean yes, obviously, some of it was just good (suspenseful) TV, but it's interesting to hear that there was actually an era when the person doing the engineering work would later be the one to actually go on the mission. Maybe they modeled Star Trek off people like this guy.

  11. Re:Is this why they always fix things in Star Trek by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Trek predates actual Apollo missions. I believe I've seen some pre-Sputnik Buck Rogers clips where they did in situ repairs. I wonder who the original Space MacGyver is?

    By the way, Apollo 17 fixed a broken buggy fender with a map and duct tape: http://science.nasa.gov/scienc...

    If Trek were realistic, you'd also see some failures . "I hope using Spock's head as an R-wave conductor can restart the warp engine; the Klingons are nearing. Let's go: 3...2...1... AAAUU!!UUGG g g aak k k.....k."

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  12. Re:Is this why they always fix things in Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it's off naval ships, especially sailboats. There's always something breaking, and you gotta fix it yourself, because there's no help coming for hours/days.

    I've done this for a living for a short time and it's very fun (and fairly back breaking).

  13. Ugly Lander [Re:hey, y'all, watch this!] by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The rover is light...they had to get it there on that most rickety looking lunar lander.

    It's kind of funny that they once envisioned this:

    http://public.media.smithsonia...

    But instead we got this:

    https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def...

    To be frank, it looks like a 2nd grade science project using cardboard, aluminum foil, and brass-colored duct-tape.

    If somebody brought a model of that to school in the 50's as a lunar lander project, it would be laughed at, smashed, and given an "F", not necessarily in that order.

    I remember seeing some aerospace contractor sketches of the early 60's. It started out a bit cleaner, but over time became more and more skeletal. No politically-conscious manager would approve a contract with something that ugly, so they dressed it up a bit.

    I would note that Von Braun sketched up spindly looking designs in the early 50's: http://www.astronautix.com/cra...

    Ahead of his time.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:Ugly Lander [Re:hey, y'all, watch this!] by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      "If somebody brought a model of that to school in the 50's as a lunar lander project, it would be laughed at, smashed, and given an "F", not necessarily in that order."

      Yeah, pretty much. I guess it was in the 60's when people in general started realizing that "no air in space" means "no aerodynamics needed".

      Of course if SpaceX et. al. have their way, perhaps we'll dust off ol' Bonestells blueprints in the future.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    2. Re:Ugly Lander [Re:hey, y'all, watch this!] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      They also thought that the lander would have to carry all the fuel necessary to get back to Earth, instead of the rendezvous plan Apollo eventually used. Earlier, they generally assumed the top third of the launch rocket would carry a smaller rocket/lander combo as a more or less complete unit. It's a reasonable assumption, for rendezvousing was an untested concept, and did indeed require cutting edge technology of the 60's to pull off.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re: Ugly Lander [Re:hey, y'all, watch this!] by jim_deane · · Score: 1

      They were working on a more streamlined design until someone pointed out that aerodynamics means exactly jack squat once you leave atmo.

      Form follows function, the designers had to take a back seat to efficiency.

  14. How low we've sunk by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    ...sat in on an MIT course called "Engineering Apollo"

    Even MIT is teaching courses that are nothing but rehashes of history? Seriously? I mean in theory, there's something to be learned from how it was done before, but from the description, this is just an excuse to rub elbows with an astronaut for bragging rights.

    1. Re:How low we've sunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know MIT has a history department, right? https://history.mit.edu/

      This is part of the program on science, technology, and society, which has such courses as the history of science... http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/science-technology-and-society/

  15. Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    From rumors it is said that the moon bugys were built so well that all you have to do is bring a new battery and it will go again. True False Other?

    1. Re:Power by camperdave · · Score: 0

      By now all of the air would have leaked out of the tires.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There never was any air in the "tires". Ever. How'd you get modded up?

      http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-120508a.html

    3. Re:Power by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      By now all of the air would have leaked out of the tires.

      Done be silly. In the neighborhood they parked it, it's probably sitting on blocks because someone stole the rims. Just think how cool those 32's look on a BMW 325.

    4. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a joke, son! Everyone knows the rover had wire mesh tires.

      But if you think about it, the tires would have had air "in them" when they were made. That air would have leaked away while the Saturn V was climbing into space. Any transient molecules bouncing around inside have had 40+ years of hard vacuum to escape.