Talk:Lunar Roving Vehicle

message: Who invented the lunar rover? 
 LRV Deployment procedure diagram is referenced in the text however the diagram is not included in the entry.  The detail of the text is excellent and informative. 
 Did the astronauts take critical components from the rovers back with them or deactive them before they left? i.e. If a future mission were to land near the Apollo sites would it be possible they'd still work and someone could just "hop on" and drive them again? 
The Rover was developed by Boeing with help from Delco and GM (the automobile mfg.)  If the batteries were replaced, it is possible they would still continue to work. 67.142.130.32 05:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: old talk

message: Can someone add a bit about other versions of the LR considered? Also, are rovers concepts being worked on yet for Constellation? CFLeon 04:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The general article is at Rover (space exploration). (sdsds - talk) 03:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Saw that, it doesn't add anything other than unmanned rovers. What I'm talking about is the various manned rovers proposed for Apollo (that weren't flown because they lost bidding, or were too heavy/dangerous), and the many manned lunar rovers proposed since then. (For example, from Apollo: Grumman Aircraft's "MOLAB", TRW's "Mooncopter", I'm sure there were more.) -- PaulxSA (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bit of googling found this at astronautix, there were more designs than you can shake a stick at, yet nothing here (not even a reference to how competitive the competition for the Apollo rover was.) -- PaulxSA (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion / Other Rovers

message: I propose moving this article to Lunar rover (Apollo), and then making the article with this name a disambiguation page. There needs to also be coverage of the missions shown on . (sdsds - talk) 14:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move (2007)

message: One anonymous user seems to feel it neccessary to specify the land rover picture is "supposedly" on the moon. Am I wrong in assuming this view probably doesn't reflect the general consensus here, or am I way off base? - Vianello (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your understanding is correct: use of the word "supposedly" is not appropriate in that caption. (sdsds - talk) 02:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: There are many credible people claiming that the moon landing is a hoax (see the article "Apollo Moon Landing Hoax").  How do we KNOW for certain that it wasn't set up at a movie studio sound stage?  We don't.  that's why it's "supposedly" taken on the moon.  If we state it as a fact, then we do a disservice to the readers of Wikipedia on not being unbiased.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.217.40 (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, and those views are well covered at Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories. It doesn't make sense to rehash here a discussion of those views, but you might want to also look at the article on the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment, which allows scientists on Earth (lots of them, not just a conspiratorial few) to use retroreflectors placed on the Moon's surface to exactly determine the distance to the Moon. Retroreflectors don't exist naturally on the Moon's surface; something placed them there! (sdsds - talk) 03:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment doesn't prove anything.  1) If the moon landing was faked, couldn't the LLRE have been faked too?  2) if LLRE is real, it could've been placed there by a robot or just dropped on the moon without man actually landing there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.217.40 (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The problem is, we DON'T state anything as fact. It's just a picture of the lunar rover. The picture's caption said nothing about where it is, or what it's doing. Why bother adding that it's a picture on the moon for the pure purpose of then immediately disputing that claim? It would be like adding to a caption of a photo of John F. Kennedy, "Supposedly assassinated by a lone gunman." Yes, it's true, and yes, it's supposed, but what purpose does it serve to say that? It's not really fair, appropriate, productive, or necessary to assert a fact just purely to cast aspersions on it when that's not even the topic of the page. I probably sound way more hostile than I intend to when I say this, but it really seems like this attempt to make the picture "objective" is just an attempt to smuggle in a POV comment. It corrects a subjectivity problem that didn't exist before the 'correction' was made. - Vianello (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, and just outright accusing it of being on a sound stage has all the exact same problems. It's just more honest about the angle. Which is a small improvement, I guess? - Vianello (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that a caption to a photo is not the forum to bring up the controversy. CFLeon (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

text: One does not mention the controversy if OJ Simpson was guilty in every picture of him; or whether Jesus really lived or not, let alone if he was the Son of God, in every picture of him. CFLeon (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Any concensus on this?

message: Pardon my ignorance--but why are no stars visible in any of the photos/videos on this page? I'd imagine the negligible atmosphere on the moon should allow a clearer view of celestial bodies than on Earth. What's up with that?   -VM
It was daytime!
That sounds condescending, but it is the actual answer. Because there is no atmosphere, the sky is dark, so it's very deceptive. But the sun is above the horizon, so the ground and everything else is lit up like your backyard in full sunlight (In fact, without atmosphere, the sunlight is slightly brighter, and isn't dimmed when low in the sky.) Cameras have to be "stopped" down to avoid over-exposure. Even your eye would be fully light-adapted, you wouldn't see the stars unless you stood in a shadow for awhile (The next clear night, shine a torch into your face for a few minutes, then look up. See how long you have to wait before your eyes adjust. And torches are nowhere near as bright as reflected sunlight.) If you go hunting around for shuttle/space-station missions, you see the same effect. That make sense? -- PaulxSA (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Stars in lunar photos

message: If there are still Lunar Rovers on the moon - why were they not reused - the team would only have to take replacement batteries and reuse? has any pictures ever been published showing an old Lunar landing site?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.44.215 (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Each Apollo landing was at a different site, up to hundreds of miles apart, and the rovers were not able to be driven unmanned from Earth. CFLeon (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reuse?

message: I recall reading MANY (30ish) years ago that Boeing based the rover on the chassis of a lightweight mechanical harvester designed for use on wet sloping ground. Can anybody confirm this? 203.7.140.3 (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rover design

message: Looking at Lyons' claims for a  trip (p.78), I wonder if he didn't confuse mi & km, & turn 57km into 57mi... Anybody able to confirm & correct it?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  10:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Power converter

message: The article states 'The Lunar Roving Vehicle had a mass of 463 lbs (210 kg)[5]', reference 5 states that this mass would be lower (77 lbs or 35kg) on the moon. This is incorrect - the mass of the Rover is the same wherever it is but its weight varies. The reference should be removed.
Butterfish41 (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass of Rover

message: :Note that I didn't add the maintenance tag. I am merely copying the edit summary of the anonymous user who did so that it doesn't get lost in the edit history. —howcheng  {chat} 05:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too confusing 

message: The Moon Buggy was created in the Philippines. Curious why it's not mentioned in the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Presidentbalut (talk • contribs) 12:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because no reliable sources happen to mention this. Do you have one? What do you mean by "created"? Was perhaps some part made there? The article does say it was made by a company in Alabama, USA. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

text: This issue has been dealt with in the Eduardo San Juan thread, see above. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why doesn't the article mention where it was created? 

message: The LEM is finely balanced on a single rocket motor, the addition of 210kg on one side would be catastrophic to the LEM control, so the article needs to address how the counterbalancing was done by NASA before the flight.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.219.175 (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  LEM center of gravity 

message: Here and here it is said that Georg von Tiesenhausen was a primary designer of the LRV -- is there any reliable reference? Should he be mentioned in the article? Sincerely, 93.224.109.104 (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the first I've heard of that.  The name I've always heard as the developer is Ferenc Pavlics, who apparently still has the remote control scale model for his design that he built and then drove into von Braun's office to show him how it worked.Almostfm (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Georg von Tiesenhausen 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lunar Roving Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111012091139/http://astronautix.com/craft/molab.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/molab.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110808161124/http://web.mac.com/jimgerard/AFGAS/pages/rovers/index.html to http://web.mac.com/jimgerard/AFGAS/pages/rovers/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: n-grams show most uses were lowercase during the time of the Apollo program.  The gradual increase in capitalized usage is due mostly to titles, headings, and citations to titles that have it in title case.  E.g. in a book search of 21st century books, I find 10 that use it lowercase in sentences, and only 8 5 uppercase (see #Discussion below), even though Google find lots of uppercase titles and citations (which are influencing the n-grams count). Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *'the' clarifies the common name. And yes, adding 'the' to n-grams is supposed to help narrow the search for the common name, and in this case it, along with the n-gram you provided, upholds the full upper-case name. The examples you give above are quite interesting, and taken as a unit, do support upper-casing. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *:But as I showed you, what it narrows to still includes many title-cased citations.  It doesn't do much to narrow to a sentence context (sometimes a little). And finding title-cased uses certainly does not contribute evidence of sources treating it as a proper name (you're not thinking that it shows that "Mobility Performance" is a proper name are you?  or "Wheels" or "Terrestrial Studies"?).  Please go back and read WP:NCCAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence

message: * Not all the evidence links seem to show that the Apollo vehicle is the one being described in the lower case instead of the general class of vehicles. Indeed, some of those evidence links used to show the lower case form seem to be describing future vehicles, which is clearly not Apollo vehicles. Thus any lower case evidence that is not clearly Apollo vehicles are not acceptable. Thus any pure usage stats of caps v nocaps is not reliable evidence without specific evidence it is about Apollo. Therefor Google NGRAMS is not acceptable nor reliable since the general vehicle class can also use this terminology. -- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad evidence

message: *Strong Oppose, per common name, search engine results (page after page of upper-casing), NASA's use of the upper casing as it celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first Moon landings, and the n-grams that show the common name took over in the mid-1970s while the lower-cased name dropped like a stone. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Land Rover. You say "A proper name cannot be pluralized". Some people drive a Land Rover. Others drive a Lunar Roving Vehicle. Land Rover is now the company's name but it wasn't for a long time. It was a product of the Rover Company. And yet it is also descriptive, both then and now. As are thousands of other proper nouns which can be pluralized. The upper case Lunar Roving Vehicle identifies it among the many other lunar rovers. The trend of the ngrams favors capping Lunar Roving Vehicle, as you point out. A search engine survey shows the same thing. Ngrams and search engines show what the common name is, and this common name is capitalized. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Trademarks (such as Land Rover) are conventionally capitalized (both in WP per MOS:TM and outside in general); that doesn't make them proper names. I don't think this would apply to lunar roving vehicle. Dicklyon (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Which lunar roving vehicle? There are a lot of them, from many countries. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This again?  Show me even one outside the US Apollo program that has been referred to as a lunar roving vehicle.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an article about the Lunokhod program which intermixes lunar, vehicle, and roving to describe the machine. They didn't hit on the exact combination that would mimic the NASA car because...it had already been used. As a proper noun. So could it be that nobody else was going to use that exact combination, even though that's what the lower-case lunar roving vehicle means: it's on the Moon, it's a vehicle, and it roams? NASA's, on the other hand, proper nouns it in one electric car. If they had made it on an assembly-line and sold it at WalMart it would be a popular upper-cased brand name. But they only made four of them, so on Earth they lost out to, of all things, the Land Rover. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, once more you fail to find a single instance of "lunar roving vehicle" referring to anything other than the US Apollo lunar roving vehicle. Dicklyon (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Not all words or phrases that are capitalised are proper names. Capitalising proper names in English is an orthographic convention. Per Land Rover, it is an overwhelmingly and universally practiced convention to capitalise brands, registered names and trademarks, regardless of whether they are proper names - and often not. The analogy with Land Rover falls to false analogy fallacy, in that, the generalisation (the crux of the analogy) being made actually falls at the point of critical difference between the two instances - ie, it is comparing apples and oranges. A registered name is conferred by a legal process. There is no evidence presented that "lunar roving vehicle" is a registered name. The analogy to WalMart also fails at the point of making it a registered name. You have stated that I am incorrect on matters of onomastics but offers no authorities. My authority (in the first instance - for reasons of accessibility) is proper noun but see also here). Your statements in rebuttal are inconsistent with onomastics per the authorities I have given. Finally, you have misrepresented my comment wrt the n-gram evidence. My comment wrt the n-grams was very much qualified - including the much-less-than-categorical "may". Misrepresenting statements (ie without appropriate context) might be construed as uncivil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinderella157 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Re: "An appeal to NASA's "authority" is a logical fallacy. It also falls to specialized-style fallacy." – Another issue with it is that it isn't an independent source. It's the same as arguing that WP "must" move Sony to SONY to match the company's marketing logo stylization. Further, we also know from the two previous RMs on other Apollo vehicles that NASA does not come anywhere near to consistently capitalizing these things, and the majority of their own materials actually go lower-case. The capitalization is mostly found in recent marketing materials for anniversaries, and other things written by PR flacks, not in their technical material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: please, let's discuss your revert. As clearly shown in the lead and in the article content, the proper name "Lunar Roving Vehicle" applies only to three specific and specifically described lunar rovers, those used on missions 15,16 and 17. In addition, it is incorrect to precede a proper name with an article, whether definite or indefinite, so "A Lunar Roving Vehicle..." is incorrect. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  06:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised you're willing to jump in and claim that this is a proper name, or that it applies to only those specific vehicles, after that god-awful close and explanation you did.  Where do you find evidence that the proper name status, if any, was applied to those three that went to the moon in particular? Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I "jumped in", and the only reason, is to dispel confusion among general readers. To refer to these three vehicles by the proper name is presently the status quo, and until that is officially changed by a RM or a MRV, then it is incorrect to apply the indefinite article "a" as if it is not a proper name. Now I realize that you disagree with its proper-name status; however, I refuse to believe that you are willing to allow confusion of our readers to persist while the proper-name question is "up in the air". Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  06:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what confusion you mean, or how this reduces it.  Confusion about why the capital letters?  Certainly nobody has argued that the term applies to only the three that went to the moon.  That's your own invention, which I find confusing and a bit amazing. Dicklyon (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Read the first ref at Lunar_Roving_Vehicle#Locations for the details on 4 flight-ready LRVs and quite a few training and testing variations that were also LRVs.  It also notes that "Three LRVs were driven on the Moon"; not "all three" or something like that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not here to reargue the debate with you. The status quo is clearly stated in the lead of this article except for the indefinite article "a". I'm trying very hard to AGF your intent; however, that is beginning to get a little difficult. If you don't want to confuse our readers, then please let my changes stand at least until the MRV has been closed. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  07:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

text:  recent edits appear to make the lead clearer for readers, so thank you for your help in this! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  13:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome.  I hope it's clear now that nobody is trying to "confuse our readers" for the sake of making a point or otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper name 

message: The article mentions the present locations of non-flight hardware but not that of the unflown Apollo 18 rover. Grassynoel (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of fourth flight-ready LRV 

message: Are the coordinates for the current locations of the LRVs correct?  In each case (Apollo 15, 16, and 17), the LRV is located just over 6/10s of a mile from the landing site.  Would the astronauts really have parked them that far away?  Elsquared (talk) 07:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's about right. They parked that far away so they had a shot at using the TV camera (which stayed on the LRV) to get television of the LM taking off from the surface. Almostfm (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  are current coords accurate? 

message: The article states the 'Curb Weight' of the Lunar Rover as follows:
Curb weight	
    460 pounds (210 kg) on Earth
    76 pounds (34 kg) on the Moon
The mass of the object remains the same regardless of location.  210kg on Earth is 210kg on the moon.  Weight is the perceived reaction to the local gravitational field.  So an object of mass 210kg will display a weight of 460 pounds on the Earth but only 76 pounds on the moon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelchummel (talk • contribs) 02:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass of the Lunar Rover 

message: Their are insiders that told me that the only Apollo Program which made it to the Moon was this Roving Vehicle carried by the Lunar Module. Their are no human crew along with this. The reasons are the Oxygen etc. Supply *Air for Human Breathing" are so huge that even the Module cannot carry it even when compressed for that length of Time. The Lunar Module serves as a Garage of the Roving Vehicle (maybe recharging, audio/video transfer) from SOLAR rechargeable Module. The Rover Radio Frequency for the Remote Controller over in Houston passes to the Module and then to Earth vice versa, video and audio coverage are also including with this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.185.84 (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Lunar Roving Vehicle and the Lunar Module 

message: What is the correct payload? The ability to carry things won´t be in pounds the way it is on Earth. 2604:3D09:757F:EC30:0:0:0:52A (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't know what the hell you are talking about. The fact that the Moon only has one-sixth of Earth's gravity doesn't determine how much mass it can carry. The figures given in the article are presumed correct because they come from a cited NASA source, and are translated into mass (same as Earth weight) and lunar weight. JustinTime55 (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Payload 

message: I copied from the german wiki Varta as battery supplier. That was changed to Eagle Picher by @Kittell. Also w/o proper reference.
My research:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/A17_LunarRover2.pdf
Magnesium casing
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html
two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries with a capacity of 121 amp-hr.
https://www.designnews.com/aerospace/batteries-powered-lunar-module
The battery supplier for the LM was Eagle Picher. 
 titanium. They would take a small number of recharges— 25 times
 ==> Rover not mentioned
Reference:
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/tech-zukunft/mondautos-rekorde-50-jahre-mondlandung-2019/
several quotes for varta providing the battery for the camera
Result: The Lunar Module had rechargeable batteries by Eagle Picher with a titanium casing.
The rover had non-rechargable batteries by Varta with a Magnesium casing. Schrauber5 (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 96 of the Apollo 15 Press Kit (https://www.nasa.gov/specials/apollo50th/pdf/A15_PressKit.pdf) states: "Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., Joplin, Missouri builds the LRV batteries, and the United Shoe Machinery Corp., Wakefield, Massachusetts provides the harmonic drive unit." —kirk (user page | talk page) 18:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  battery supplier 

message: yes from our School....a size that can be carried by the Space Shutlle at a small volume and space to bring with.. 103.224.94.24 (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Remote Controlled Battery Operated Rover