• We hope all of you have a great holiday season and an incredible New Year. Thanks so much for being part of the Space community!

Moon landing hoax, they never convinced me but....

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

killium

Guest
All the argument for a moon landing hoax have been easily answered and i don't think it was a hoax.<br /><br />But looking at the photo, there is one thing that still doesn't jive for me. There is no crater under the LEM. The engine was running up until touchdown right ? So why no dust has been displaced ?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kelle

Guest
Well, the dust on the moon is kind of sticky, so I guess it wouldn't fly around a lot, and I also think they didn't use the engine for the last metres, though I'm not sure. I'm sure though there's some natural explanation for it.
 
K

killium

Guest
I agree with you that there is certainly a natural explanation for it, i just want to know it. Remember those film where you see dust flying behind the jeep ? I think that an engine blowing enough gas to keep the LEM in the air (doh!) would blow away that dust, though i can be wrong on that....<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

jcdenton

Guest
That hoax theory has been debunked on this site:<br /><br />The Ten Wildest Theories Against The Moon Landings<br /><br /><i>4. No crater under the LEM -<br /><br />The Claim: When the LEM landed, its powerful engine didn't burrow a deep crater in the "dusty surface."<br /><br />The Science: Beneath the layer of dust, the Moon is made of fairly densely-packed rock. What dust and loose dirt there was though, was "kicked up" as referenced by the astronauts and captured in their landing films.</i><br /><br />You can also read about it on badastronomy.com. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But looking at the photo, there is one thing that still doesn't jive for me. There is no crater under the LEM. The engine was running up until touchdown right ? So why no dust has been displaced ? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Basically, it *was* displaced -- just not the way you're expecting.<br /><br />The top layer of dust is very light, but get down a little ways and it's packed so hard it's practically solid. The astronauts actually had a tough time planting the flag because of that. With the engine throttled waaaaay back for landing, it easily blew the loose dust away from the surface, but didn't really make much of an impression on the hard-packed stuff beneath. You can actually see the dust being blown away in a radial pattern if you watch the footage of the landings.<br /><br />So the answer is twofold -- the engine was not on full blast at touchdown, but throttled back gently during the course of the final descent to cushion their touchdown, and no crater is visible because while it was easy to blow away the dust, digging into the packed regolith would've taken a lot more power. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
K

killium

Guest
Thank you for the link, i had read it when it was first published (as i read almost everything on space.com since several years).<br /><br />What didn't convince me is that, while they agree that dust was kicked up, i can't see any trace of disturbance (while i can see other details) ....? <br /><br />Maybe it's just a question of photo quality ?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

jcdenton

Guest
Well the layer of dust on the moon is a lot thinner than you're imagining, so what little dust was kicked up during landing would clear way in a few minutes, when they got out of the LEM. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
I

iron_sun_254

Guest
It was once common belief that the Moon was covered with a very thinck layer of dust. This isn't the case. There's no disturbance of dust to the amount expected because there's a lot less dust than was xpected.
 
K

killium

Guest
With a very thin layer of dust and a solid ground under it, that cosmetically ressemble the look of the dust, i can see that's possible it doesn't shows up on the photo. Thanks to all, you reassured me <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts