Did We Really Go To The Moon

This image shows that there is too much dust around the lander for not to form a crater. And then USA can be lucky only once not so many times in all their lunar missions not to have a crater in that fluffy soil.
Click to expand...

... You do realise that the middle of the lander is outisde the picture.
Besides is that pure lightinfall or is there something of a street starting yust afther the astronaut going towards the lander. That might be verry tiny dust particles.
Also that astronaut seems to have real dirty boots from the dust but it stops pretty abrupt pretty low the moon dust may be more sticky then believed. Meaning less change on a crater
 
Singularity said:
This image shows that there is too much dust around the lander for not to form a crater. And then USA can be lucky only once not so many times in all their lunar missions not to have a crater in that fluffy soil.
Click to expand...

"The lunar module of the Apollo Missions had a mass of about 14.5 tons.[7] Because the moon's gravitational pull equals one-sixth of the earth's, a mass of 14.5 tons has a weight on the moon like 2.4 tons on the earth's surface. Thus, to guarantee a soft landing on the moon's surface, the module must develop a thrust corresponding to the weight of 2.4 tons on earth (2,400 kp = 23,500 N). The diameter of the lunar module's nozzle was 137 cm,[8] corresponding to an area of 1.47 m². Thus, the pressure from the exhaust gases correlate to 160 g per cm² (circa 1.6 N/cm²), corresponding to roughly 16% of the atmospheric pressure on the earth's surface (1 bar = 100,000 N/m² = 10 N/cm²). This pressure is at most very weak.

Furthermore, one must consider that there is a vacuum on the moon's surface; gases from the propulsion would expand very rapidly in all directions. Hence, when the exhaust gas contacted the lunar surface, its pressure was well under ten percent of the atmospheric pressure on earth. This would suffice to blow up dust, but not to create a large crater where all dust and debris would have been removed."

http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/1/Rudolf75-81.html
 
(Q) said:
"The lunar module of the Apollo Missions had a mass of about 14.5 tons.[7] Because the moon's gravitational pull equals one-sixth of the earth's, a mass of 14.5 tons has a weight on the moon like 2.4 tons on the earth's surface. Thus, to guarantee a soft landing on the moon's surface, the module must develop a thrust corresponding to the weight of 2.4 tons on earth (2,400 kp = 23,500 N). The diameter of the lunar module's nozzle was 137 cm,[8] corresponding to an area of 1.47 m². Thus, the pressure from the exhaust gases correlate to 160 g per cm² (circa 1.6 N/cm²), corresponding to roughly 16% of the atmospheric pressure on the earth's surface (1 bar = 100,000 N/m² = 10 N/cm²). This pressure is at most very weak.

Furthermore, one must consider that there is a vacuum on the moon's surface; gases from the propulsion would expand very rapidly in all directions. Hence, when the exhaust gas contacted the lunar surface, its pressure was well under ten percent of the atmospheric pressure on earth. This would suffice to blow up dust, but not to create a large crater where all dust and debris would have been removed."

http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/1/Rudolf75-81.html
Click to expand...

Oh thank god atlast somebody finally answered the query and now to the real question.

If all that above comment is true then why are the boot impressions so deep ?

They look like being made on earth for sure. If not then they should be six times deep here on earth. :bagpuss:


Aldrin_near_Module_leg.jpg
 
Singularity said:
If all that above comment is true then why are the boot impressions so deep ?

They look like being made on earth for sure. If not then they should be six times deep here on earth.
Click to expand...
Two different scenarios. One is talking about depressions in the regolith by gases, the other by a foot. Gases disperse, a foot does not. Hence a foot exerts more pressure than gases and causes a deeper footprint in the fine regolith.
 
Singularity said:
Oh thank god atlast somebody finally answered the query and now to the real question.

If all that above comment is true then why are the boot impressions so deep ?

They look like being made on earth for sure. If not then they should be six times deep here on earth. :bagpuss:
Click to expand...

Just read the same article:

"Thesis: Right next to the lunar module, one can see the imprint of the astronaut's boots in the dust, further evidence that dust was not removed from the descent engine, as one should expect from an actual lunar landing. The lunar module itself should have been covered with the dust it whirled up.

Antithesis: Reference is made to the antithesis of the previous question, which proves that the thrust of the lunar nozzle is overestimated. One must note that whirling up dust on the moon has a completely different effect than on earth. While dust on earth would be carried through the atmosphere to settle in some remote area, dust on the moon strictly adheres to Newton's law of gravity: it falls back to the surface in form of a parabolic curve. There is no whirling up of dust, as we know it on earth. Because of the relatively low exhaust gas pressure of the module's nozzle, the disturbed dust would actually fall back to the surface in the immediate vicinity of the nozzle. It is indeed plausible that the layer of dust close to the nozzle was indeed thicker than before the landing. Thus, there can be little doubt that pictures of the module must portray imprints from the astronaut's boots."
 
Communist Hamster said:
Two different scenarios. One is talking about depressions in the regolith by gases, the other by a foot. Gases disperse, a foot does not. Hence a foot exerts more pressure than gases and causes a deeper footprint in the fine regolith.
Click to expand...

U mean with no air resistance the thrust cant bore a hole in that untouched by hands for billions of years lunar surface ?
 
this thread is like denial of HIV. people have been on the moon, you can't fabricate transmission from the moon at precise location...transmissions which were recorded by Russian (USSR) space agency at that time. period.
 
I'm not saying your wrong Draqon. People did land on the moon, and lifted of on the moon in occordance to their profesion because all of them where test pilots. However in my dictionairy walking on the moon an huppiling on the moon, wasting your time and shooting a couple of balls in golf doesn't count.
 
(Q) said:
Thus, the pressure from the exhaust gases correlate to 160 g per cm² (circa 1.6 N/cm²), corresponding to roughly 16% of the atmospheric pressure on the earth's surface (1 bar = 100,000 N/m² = 10 N/cm²). This pressure is at most very weak.
Click to expand...
Moreover, immediately before touchdown the engines were throttled back to less than 25% of their full thurst, and possibly less than 10%.
 
orcot said:
I'm not saying your wrong Draqon. People did land on the moon, and lifted of on the moon in occordance to their profesion because all of them where test pilots. However in my dictionairy walking on the moon an huppiling on the moon, wasting your time and shooting a couple of balls in golf doesn't count.
Click to expand...

with the same essence...humans living on Earth wasting time on nothing...also doesn't count. What they were supposed to do on the moon than? pray in silence for hours?
 
To a object of geological intrest it's advisable to send geologist.
To a object of strategical interest it's advisable to send engineers
To a object of scientific interest in general it's advisable to send scientists.

Altough you can have a couple of people doing nothing if you have a constant supply of 6 billion and increasing, it's best to stick with the above tips if you only going to send a dozen.

The work that should have been done. Was first and for all proper baging of lunar stones preferebly by geologist. All the lunar rocks returned to earth with the apollo where chemical altered by the corrosive O2 atmosphere inside the module. The returned surveyor parts even had signs of life becauser of it.
Second they should have explored much more difficult terrain, terrain that couldn't be explored with robots, I'm thinking lava tubes, crater walls, etc.

The only truly good part of the apollo landings where the hardware they left begind that on some level still works today. If they ever bothered to return to the same site twice they could have done experiments for up to a year on the moon, in the sence of leaving stuff in the open and picking them up later. Simple example A small life support pot that holds a couple of seeds whould tell something of genetic damages and perhaps something of growth, etc.

That would all have been good ID's and none of it inpossible I would gues
 
Harrison Schmidt, who was on the last mission, was a geologist. All the lander crews had relevant geological training.
 
Okay Harrison Schmidt was a geologist and did walk on the moon and thereby was proberly the only person quilified to ever walk on the moon. It seems he's also the guy who made the picture the blue marble
200px-The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg


But also do you actually believe that there is such a thing like relevant geological training. It's most lickly the recieved that training during the apollo training meaning the had a couple of years at best and only as a side course.
That won't do?
 
Communist Hamster said:
Do you not understand the explanation that the thruster was throttled down, and that the nozzle spread that thrust out, and that the thrust dissipated in the vacuum? I posted the math too.
Click to expand...

U r wrong, dont u ever try to distort science again for pay Packets from the illuminati.

http://encarta.msn.com/text_761577900___0/Rocket.html


"Some early scientists believed that rocket exhaust needed something to push against (such as the ground or the air) in order to move the rocket. Rockets traveling in the vacuum of space, however, demonstrated that this belief was not true. In fact, rockets produce more thrust in the vacuum of space than on Earth. Air pressure and friction with the air reduce a rocket’s thrust by about 10 percent on Earth as compared to the rocket’s performance in space."
 
Singularity said:
U r wrong, dont u ever try to distort science again for pay Packets from the illuminati.

http://encarta.msn.com/text_761577900___0/Rocket.html


"Some early scientists believed that rocket exhaust needed something to push against (such as the ground or the air) in order to move the rocket. Rockets traveling in the vacuum of space, however, demonstrated that this belief was not true. In fact, rockets produce more thrust in the vacuum of space than on Earth. Air pressure and friction with the air reduce a rocket’s thrust by about 10 percent on Earth as compared to the rocket’s performance in space."
Click to expand...
The thrust by the rocket gases against the ground dissipated. The thrust of the rocket gases against the lander did not.
 
Communist Hamster said:
The thrust by the rocket gases against the ground dissipated. The thrust of the rocket gases against the lander did not.
Click to expand...

Now u r talking Mr.

There should have been a big ditch instead of a crater since the dust is so loose that it will just blow away to sides creating a depression under the lander compared to the rest of the area.
 
Singularity said:
Now u r talking Mr.

There should have been a big ditch instead of a crater since the dust is so loose that it will just blow away to sides creating a depression under the lander compared to the rest of the area.
Click to expand...

Hey, did you read the article linked, it explains your BIG ditch/crater assertion. Can your read?
 
And that's the answer to the theory of evreything... I gues nobody expected it to make actually any sence
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top