Select to expand quote

sotired said..

kiterboy said..

What's an impact "creater". Is someone that is not good at spelling somehow good at physics?

How does that person's spelling mistake relate to there being no visual evidence of the surface being disturbed by the descent engine?

How does a rocket engine work? Is it providing propulsion by blowing air onto something or is it the opposite reaction of throwing something out through the nozzle?

Did the lunar lander quickly race down close to the surface and then apply thrusters or did it drop very slowly with minimal thrust?

Why does a capsule need to make an impact crater when a helicopter in our atmosphere doesn't?

Select to expand quote

sotired said..
How does a rocket engine work? Is it providing propulsion by blowing air onto something or is it the opposite reaction of throwing something out through the nozzle?

Did the lunar lander quickly race down close to the surface and then apply thrusters or did it drop very slowly with minimal thrust?

Why does a capsule need to make an impact crater when a helicopter in our atmosphere doesn't?

You read the quote from hilly. The descent engine was engaged until manually shut off just before touch down.

The rocket could be blowing unicorns and rainbows out for all the difference it makes, the fact is, there would have been a downward force and pressure enough to disturb the fine moon dust.

I'm not talking about an impact crater, the person who made the image is obviously wrong about that. I'm questioning why there is no evidence of surface disturbance from the descent engine.

Yeah, helicopters don't disturb the ground below them by their downward force and throw up sand and dust if they land in a sandy or dusty place either, right?

Try again.

Select to expand quote

Why does a capsule need to make an impact crater when a helicopter in our atmosphere doesn't?

Good point . The force is spread over a large area , not a small thrust point . But it does create a lot of turbulence . If a helicopter was to land on a dusty area it would create a huge dust cloud . Especially if the dust is only one quarter weight . Which brings us back to the point of the landing craft being so super shiny . I believe in the landing but am also interested in the no dust thing. Is it because there is no atmosphere to slow it down and the dust is blasted sieways at the thrust speed and will keep going sideways untill it hits the moon four times slower than on earth .?
However , the lander being so light and only having one quarter of its weight i can see you dont need much thrust for a landing .
Discuss , i have popcorn

Select to expand quote

Imax1 said..

Why does a capsule need to make an impact crater when a helicopter in our atmosphere doesn't?

Good point . The force is spread over a large area , not a small thrust point . But it does create a lot of turbulence . If a helicopter was to land on a dusty area it would create a huge dust cloud . Especially if the dust is only one quarter weight . Which brings us back to the point of the landing craft being so super shiny . I believe in the landing but am also interested in the no dust thing. Is it because there is no atmosphere to slow it down and the dust is blasted sieways at the thrust speed and will keep going sideways untill it hits the moon four times slower than on earth .?
However , the lander being so light and only having one quarter of its weight i can see you dont need much thrust for a landing .
Discuss , i have popcorn

I vaguely recalled reading something relevant in "The physics of blown sand and desert dunes" by R.A.Bagnold. He looked at wind required to lift grains of various sizes. There is an upper and lower threshold for movement. Moon dust may be so fine that an airstream can't get under an edge. Particle edges might be well within the viscous sublayer. Here's a quote from Bagnold.

" But the somewhat startling experiment of blowing a steady stream of air over a loosely scattered layer of Portland cement powder proves no particle movement occurs even when V* exceeds 100- i.e. when the wind is strong enough to move pebbles 4.6 mm in diameter "

Don't happen to have a bag of Portland cement. I'm sure some one does and can confirm that you can't blow it around.

Sort of remember the original. Hard to impress a 16 yo.

"The moon is a dirty place...The dust coated spacesuits, instruments, visors and skin...The dust is so frustrating, in part, because its so small. Lunar dust measures in at just 70 micrometers, or 0.07 millimeters, in diameter on average. That's around the size of the very finest grains of sand, or silt. To add to the annoyance, lunar dust carries a slight electric charge, a result of solar radiation stripping electrons away, and that property serves to make the dust even stickier..."
www.discovermagazine.com:443/the-sciences/we-still-dont-know-how-to-deal-with-moon-dust


(spoiler, the descent engine did blow the dust around)

"Now, the dust would be blown away as mentioned in my last point in the direction the astronaut on the photograph is shown (more or less in the direction towards the hatch where the navigation controls and windows were also installed), but if you look a bit more closer and on a photograph of higher resolution (included below), you'll actually notice the dust trail: Buzz standing just beyond the north strut of the Lunar Module (20 July 1969)
Buzz is standing just beyond the north strut. Note the distinctive dust smudges on Buzz's legs. The photo also shows the furrows in the bulk sample area and the area to the left of the footpad that shows unmistakable signs of sweeping by the descent engine exhaust. In a detail Ulli Lotzmann notes a reflected image of the rendezvous radar. Photograph and quote source: Wikimedia Commons, Credit: NASA History Office"
space.stackexchange.com/questions/1691/why-didnt-the-apollo-11-lander-blow-the-dust-away-or-why-does-it-look-like-it

And here is the answer to all this:
"Putting the Pieces Together to Debunk the Claim
At this point, we have two facts.
First, lunar dust will drop straight down if it is released - be it from an astronaut that picks it up or from the force of a rocket engine's exhaust (which, while not strong enough to create a crater was strong enough to suspend lunar dust).

Second, the Apollo engines were shut off before the craft landed.Consequently, as soon as the engines shut off, the source of a temporary atmosphere that surrounded the craft was terminated, and the dust that was suspended in it immediately dropped towards the lunar surface. The craft still had both a horizontal component to its trajectory, and the legs were above the majority of any of the temporary atmosphere that suspended the dust.
Hence, when the craft landed, it landed both to the side of the settled dust, and the dust would have already settled before the craft touched down, preventing any from being deposited on the LM's footpads."
pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/the-apollo-moon-hoax-why-is-there-no-lunar-dust-on-the-landers-footpads/

I'm satisfied with this answer.

^^^^
Me too

Is it possible to see the moon landings from Earth with a telescope or perhaps even a satellite telescope?

Sure it would be possible to fake a feed from a satellite telescope to Earth but if we could see the remains of the Apollo moon landings from with even a satellite telescope, it would be fairly good proof the moon landings happened.

The way I feel is the longer it goes on since the last moon landing and no one going back there, not even a robotic probe to view the Apollo landing sites, the more likely it seems to have been fake. Its becoming like science fiction pretty rapidly and if things keep going the way they are, one day there won't be anyone alive who was alive when the moon landings happened.

Imagine the conspiracy theories that will be happening then, like in 2072 or whenever it is the last time humans went to the moon was 100 years ago and we haven't been back since. That will be very weird.

If Captain Cook travelled around the east coast of Australia in the mid 1770s and no one had been back after the 1870s that too would be very weird unless of course for whatever reason society and the economy had declined in those hundred years. However in our situation the world is much richer and technologically advanced now than what it was in the early 1970s.

Select to expand quote

Mobydisc said..
Is it possible to see the moon landings from Earth with a telescope or perhaps even a satellite telescope?

Sure it would be possible to fake a feed from a satellite telescope to Earth but if we could see the remains of the Apollo moon landings from with even a satellite telescope, it would be fairly good proof the moon landings happened.

The way I feel is the longer it goes on since the last moon landing and no one going back there, not even a robotic probe to view the Apollo landing sites, the more likely it seems to have been fake. Its becoming like science fiction pretty rapidly and if things keep going the way they are, one day there won't be anyone alive who was alive when the moon landings happened.

Imagine the conspiracy theories that will be happening then, like in 2072 or whenever it is the last time humans went to the moon was 100 years ago and we haven't been back since. That will be very weird.

If Captain Cook travelled around the east coast of Australia in the mid 1770s and no one had been back after the 1870s that too would be very weird unless of course for whatever reason society and the economy had declined in those hundred years. However in our situation the world is much richer and technologically advanced now than what it was in the early 1970s.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon

and

science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/21jul_llr

Select to expand quote

Mobydisc said..
The way I feel is the longer it goes on since the last moon landing and no one going back there, not even a robotic probe to view the Apollo landing sites, the more likely it seems to have been fake. Its becoming like science fiction pretty rapidly and if things keep going the way they are, one day there won't be anyone alive who was alive when the moon landings happened.

I think that shows that the race to the moon was just a political stunt. What did they get out of it? They beat the Russians, and that's about it.

Why go back? They probably realised what a waste of money it was the first time. The first time the public would have accepted that it needed their money to fund it, but how would you convince them to go back for no benefit?

Oh look, we landed on a rock. A rock that is a long way away and has no real value to us.

With all the space history programs that seem to be on at the moment, its sobering to see some of the boring ones where they go through testing and failures of equipment, and it reminds me that the equipment they used was relatively low tech and not exactly bullet proof.

Would you risk your life going back to the moon when you knew there was nothing there? Failures would have been quite common, so what were the odds of surviving? 50/50?

This may have been mentioned already, but I'm too lazy to read all thru these posts.
Before the first LEM landed on the moon, we had no idea how deep the lunar dust was, and there was a fear that the LEM may sink into the dust layer beyond its own height, like quick dust. This is why one of the first bits of info radioed back to earth was how deep the dust turned out to be, only a few inches.

The previous moon landing where to collect data. for scientific research. Apollo 17 in 1972 was the longest time spent on the moon, and they collected all the data Americans needed.

Why return if they have all their data? A lot of money to throw down the drain for nothing to go back now. Mars, would be more beneficial as no one has been there.

A moon landing will not happen again because a few people don't believe it happend. There will always be some doubters.
If you say left, they will say right.

Select to expand quote

kiterboy said..

sotired said..
How does a rocket engine work? Is it providing propulsion by blowing air onto something or is it the opposite reaction of throwing something out through the nozzle?

Did the lunar lander quickly race down close to the surface and then apply thrusters or did it drop very slowly with minimal thrust?

Why does a capsule need to make an impact crater when a helicopter in our atmosphere doesn't?

You read the quote from hilly. The descent engine was engaged until manually shut off just before touch down.

The rocket could be blowing unicorns and rainbows out for all the difference it makes, the fact is, there would have been a downward force and pressure enough to disturb the fine moon dust.

I'm not talking about an impact crater, the person who made the image is obviously wrong about that. I'm questioning why there is no evidence of surface disturbance from the descent engine.

Yeah, helicopters don't disturb the ground below them by their downward force and throw up sand and dust if they land in a sandy or dusty place either, right?

Try again.

In the same vein: why would a conspiracy go so far, to such lengths, to such fine detail, and overlook something as obvious as that?

Overlook,you are kidding right.

The masses by definition regurgitate every 'truth' they've been told to believe.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
Overlook,you are kidding right.

The masses gullible by definition regurgitate every 'truth' they've been told on youtube.

There pete, fixed it for you.

augenguy.blogspot.com/2019/07/one-small-step-for-man.html

I had strong reservations but great to see Japie finally waking up to the lies of NASA - at least in part

Now,are others capable of following him?

Slow down Pete!

There is a lot of controversy over the whole episode but I have no idea one way or another. I came across that article and gave it a brief going over. I haven't the time or the inclination to read up on all of the stuff which has been written. I've not even read this thread carefully.

I have to say though that it does strike me as being very odd that there has been no attempt to repeat what they are reputed to have done so long ago. One would have though that it would be ideal training for their aspirations to go further afield.