Huh? No heavy hitters? Come on Steve, help me out here.
Actually Galu, I fail to see your solution for denying there should be some kind of significant disturbance given those boot prints are as sharp as if set in cigarette ash. There are much better shots of the Eagle "under" much better light where you can see there's not a spec of anything on those pods. No drag marks on the ground and completely undisturbed underneath. The LRV in vids shows it kicking up rooster tails so plenty of turf to disturb
Actually Galu, I fail to see your solution for denying there should be some kind of significant disturbance given those boot prints are as sharp as if set in cigarette ash. There are much better shots of the Eagle "under" much better light where you can see there's not a spec of anything on those pods. No drag marks on the ground and completely undisturbed underneath. The LRV in vids shows it kicking up rooster tails so plenty of turf to disturb
The boot prints are sharp because the boot treads themselves were sharp.
The marks made by the rocket exhaust are diffuse streaks because the rocket exhaust iself was diffuse.
Just give me some scientific evidence why there should be a blast crater!
The marks made by the rocket exhaust are diffuse streaks because the rocket exhaust iself was diffuse.
Just give me some scientific evidence why there should be a blast crater!
How much thrust was needed to land it? It was big even when you consider the gravitational difference from Earth. Still in the 'thousands' of lbs, no? How could there not be a blast crater? Those NASA scientists, two who were being grilled with questions, did not deny there 'would have' been one had it come straight down. They simply denied it did come straight down, again verbatim, "swooped in sideways". They didn't diminish the fact significant thrust was employed. So where's the evidence? In my field of employ, I quite often need to point out to customers who've done their own framing, poorly, that once it's crooked, all you can do to mitigate the deficiency is 'shift' it somewhere else. But you can't make it disappear.😉
Attached is a comparison of the Apollo 17 landing site between the original 16 mm footage shot from the Lunar Module window during ascent in 1972, and the 2011 lunar reconnaissance orbiter (LRO) image of the Apollo 17 landing site.
Note the almost exact match of the lunar rover tracks.
OK, the LRO was launched by NASA, but the camera and the interpretation of the images are under the control of non-affiliated academic groups which are not located in the US and are not funded by the US government, such as the German Aerospace Center, Berlin.
You don't supply scientific evidence that there should have been a blast crater, just an unsubstantiated opinion. 🙁
Note the almost exact match of the lunar rover tracks.
OK, the LRO was launched by NASA, but the camera and the interpretation of the images are under the control of non-affiliated academic groups which are not located in the US and are not funded by the US government, such as the German Aerospace Center, Berlin.
You don't supply scientific evidence that there should have been a blast crater, just an unsubstantiated opinion. 🙁
Attachments
You woudn't catch me going to the Moon.
What a dump! 😱
Not many people know this, but Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin hated each other. But somehow got down to the Moon on Apollo 11 with very little fuel left.
The story I like is about Jim Lovell. He and his wife would in later years often gaze up to the Moon. Jim used to say "I have been there!"
Impressive claim to Fame IMO. 😀
What a dump! 😱
Not many people know this, but Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin hated each other. But somehow got down to the Moon on Apollo 11 with very little fuel left.
The story I like is about Jim Lovell. He and his wife would in later years often gaze up to the Moon. Jim used to say "I have been there!"
Impressive claim to Fame IMO. 😀
Last edited:
No, I'm saying there has to be some evidence to it's landing as described and animated albeit by video. It should be self evident and it simply is not. Although those pics are similar, there was a motive for the subsequent exercise. What? We've sent unmanned rovers to Mars. NASA has recently announced a renewal of the lunar exploration program. Why not until now? Look at the catastrophic failure of the Shuttle program. Relative to the sophistication needed for a successful Moon Exploration Program it was a country bumpkin hay ride. A bit regressive in comparison to 1969 don't you think? The reason (I believe) they won't dare attempt a future Moon landing is simply because surveillance technology is so high they'd never get away with a second snow job and they know it. And if they do attempt it it'll still be a snow job with a doomed crew of poor dupes just to make a statement.
The descent engine of the Lunar Module, when fully on, was capable of developing 18,000 lb of thrust.
However, unlike the ascent engine, the descent engine could be throttled down and gimballed as required.
Slowed to a hover, the module could be steered by tilting it like a helicopter to make any necessary corrections.
In that way, Neil Armstrong was able to negotiate a boulder field by moving horizontally until it was safe to drop to the lunar surface.
Full thrust was not used at the point of landing, so no blast crater was formed!
Okay, a certain time frame of that "hover" consisted close to the ground, no? Show me any level of disturbance, ANY. Again, not a spec of anything on those pods! The pics are just too good🙁
That reminds me of Buzz Aldrin's appearance on 'The Big Bang Theory' 😀
The Big Bang Theory - Buzz Aldrin Guest Stars--Subtitled - YouTube
I could be wrong on this, but there is something significantly different about the Dark Side of the Moon. Not what we see on Earth. And nothing to do with Pink Floyd.
The Moon has a dismally low Albedo, IIRC. About 5%. Mostly dull grey granite and dust. Surprising we see at all. 😀
Anybody got a clue? 😕
The Moon has a dismally low Albedo, IIRC. About 5%. Mostly dull grey granite and dust. Surprising we see at all. 😀
Anybody got a clue? 😕
Because there is no atmosphere on the moon, I would imagine the exhaust gas diffuses very rapidly once it exits the rocket engine nozzle - much more so than say at sea level on earth. So perhaps this might explain why the blast pattern is more diffuse than some expect, or their is less of a crater.
Here is the Apollo 17 module lifting off from the moon. Surprisingly little flame or ‘rocket blast’
Apollo 17 Liftoff from Moon - December 14, 1972 - YouTube
(For the record, I do believe men landed on the moon and I don’t believe in Santa Klaus 😉. )
Here is the Apollo 17 module lifting off from the moon. Surprisingly little flame or ‘rocket blast’
Apollo 17 Liftoff from Moon - December 14, 1972 - YouTube
(For the record, I do believe men landed on the moon and I don’t believe in Santa Klaus 😉. )
Last edited:
And just for ref, there is no such thing as the dark side of the moon... There's the far side, of which we see bits due to libration, despite the synchronous rotation....
There was some discussion on the difference between the far and near sides of the Moon earlier in the thread.
To start again may simply be raking over old regolith! 😉
Here is one of my earlier contributions, courtesy of interweb research:
If SpaceX had ever offered me job, I probably would have agreed. Always enjoyed bombs and fireworks. 😀
Superb technology IMO.
For various commercial and military reasons you don't get the whole picture here. Only the Inner Circle knows what the second stage did. 🙄
But an excellent mission, IMO.
SpaceX - Launches
Superb technology IMO.
For various commercial and military reasons you don't get the whole picture here. Only the Inner Circle knows what the second stage did. 🙄
But an excellent mission, IMO.
SpaceX - Launches
The thrust is happening at the throat of the nozzle. As soon as the gas exits it diffuses rapidly in a vacuum. At sea level on Earth, the effect of the atmospheric pressure it to somewhat constrain the escaping gases, so it’s much more focused.
But, I won’t convince you if finer minds here have not that there were people on the moon.
I recall that Aldrin got into fisticuffs decades ago because someone ventured to suggest he was in a studio somewhere in Area 51 where the whole thing had been filmed.
Peace 🙂
The giant 50ft Lovell radio telescope at the Jodrell Bank Observatory in England, although not formally involved in tracking the Apollo 11 mission, still listened in to its progress.
The attached image (courtesy of The University of Manchester) shows the trace from the observatory's chart recorder as the telescope tracked the Eagle lander on its descent to the surface of the Moon. The smooth peaks are the computer-controlled descent, the bumpy section towards the end is the point at which Armstrong took manual control, when he realised the planned landing site was in fact a boulder field and they needed to come down elsewhere.
At the same time, the team at Jodrell were using the Lovell telescope to track the Soviet’s Luna 15 mission. This unmanned mission, little known by the public at the time, aimed to collect lunar soil samples. The Soviets hoped to beat the Americans by being the first to return lunar rock samples to Earth. The team tracked Luna 15 orbiting and, ultimately, crash-landing on the Moon whilst the Apollo astronauts were still on the Moon’s surface.
Recording of Russia's lunar gatecrash attempt released | Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics
If the Apollo 11 landing had never taken place, one can be sure that the Soviets would have debunked it at the time because they, like the radio astronomers at Jodrell bank, had the facilities to track the mission.
The fact that the Soviets never denied the American Moon landings speaks volumes as to the authenticity of the missions.
The attached image (courtesy of The University of Manchester) shows the trace from the observatory's chart recorder as the telescope tracked the Eagle lander on its descent to the surface of the Moon. The smooth peaks are the computer-controlled descent, the bumpy section towards the end is the point at which Armstrong took manual control, when he realised the planned landing site was in fact a boulder field and they needed to come down elsewhere.
At the same time, the team at Jodrell were using the Lovell telescope to track the Soviet’s Luna 15 mission. This unmanned mission, little known by the public at the time, aimed to collect lunar soil samples. The Soviets hoped to beat the Americans by being the first to return lunar rock samples to Earth. The team tracked Luna 15 orbiting and, ultimately, crash-landing on the Moon whilst the Apollo astronauts were still on the Moon’s surface.
Recording of Russia's lunar gatecrash attempt released | Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics
If the Apollo 11 landing had never taken place, one can be sure that the Soviets would have debunked it at the time because they, like the radio astronomers at Jodrell bank, had the facilities to track the mission.
The fact that the Soviets never denied the American Moon landings speaks volumes as to the authenticity of the missions.
Attachments
Re the moon, do we know when it became tidally locked with the earth? I would have expected (guessing here of course) it would have taken half a billion yrs or more. If so, would the earth have been radiating enough heat after this time to keep the near side of the moon molten? The moon of course was a lot closer back then, so perphaps that the answer.
(I think there is a calculating for this - I recall in the dim distant past seeing an equation where you could calculate time to tidal locking)
(I think there is a calculating for this - I recall in the dim distant past seeing an equation where you could calculate time to tidal locking)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.