# Moon Landings: why is there no dust in the lander pads? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 9, 2008, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812 "2008-07-09T08:44:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2008, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812/101 "2008-07-09T14:18:27Z")
Yeah, we’ve got a live one, folks… [QUOTE=where’s the subscription info?] I thought you had to _convince me_? Isn’t that how it works? [/QUOTE] No, that isn’t how it works, for two fundamental reasons. First, in any debate, the party making the new proposition is responsible for bringing the evidence and doing the convincing. The fact (_fact_) of the Apollo moon landing is the accepted version of reality; you are the one who is proposing that it didn’t happen, or that it happened in some other way, or something (it’s not at all clear what exactly you’re proposing, really). It is therefore incumbent _upon you_ to prove that your version has merit, not on _us_ to prove that the stupid hoax story is, in fact, stupid. Second, and this is the part that isn’t really fair to you, but it’s true, so deal with it: We’ve had this argument before, many times, with many people who are better debaters than you are, and we’re pretty goddamn sick of it. It’s not fair to you because (a) you can’t search, so you can’t pull up these previous discussions, and (b) we lump you in with those prior debaters, and roll our eyes in weariness, rather than engaging you as an individual. I can help you with (a) – I’m linking below a sampling of previous threads. Please read all of them. It’ll take a while; there are dozens of pages of sometimes repetitive argumentation. But it’ll be necessary, so you can bring new debate topics (if you can find them), which will help with (b). If you bring the same old bullshit, you will be dismissed and mocked. Again, not fair, but it’s an understandable human reaction when guest after guest appears with the identical wheelbarrowload of horse manure. But if you somehow manage to come up with a new angle on the topic, we will probably engage with you out of sheer novelty. So get reading: “[Yes, it’s another moon hoax thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=88137)” “[Have we really been to the moon or what?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=362123)” “[Moon Mystery](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=424519)” (note that many of these threads have links to other past discussions, though some of them are so old they aren’t available any longer) And the greatest of the lunatic arguers is here: “[Tiny anomalies/artifacts found on the ground in Apollo photos](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=82431)” It’s ten pages long, but the whole thing is a must read. It’s a hoot, though it was head-banging-on-wall frustrating at the time. Also, just to give you an idea of the board’s general viewpoint on the subject: “[Moon Hoax](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=316746)” (about how the hoax proponents can’t seem to come up with anything new and repeat the same tired nonsense over and over) “[Buzz nails an insane moon-moron. Yeah!](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=134945)” (about Buzz Aldrin socking moon hoaxer Bart Sibrel in the kisser) I hope not to see you post on this subject again until you’ve had time to read all of the above, which means tomorrow at the earliest. Otherwise you’re taking your fate into your own hands. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2008, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812/102 "2008-07-09T14:19:43Z")
[QUOTE=where’s the subscription info?] You all have it too tidy and you don’t heed the chaos theory\* and I’m starting to think you all belong to NASA or something, Area 51 employees? Dunno. Definitely some group think going on here. Are you the same guy with 5 or 6 logins? [/QUOTE] Hey, you caught us out. We’ve been hoaxing you the whole time, but you are too smart for the likes of us. What do we know? We’re just stupid NASA empoyees. Since you’ve got it all figured out, perhaps you can tell us what REALLY happened. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2008, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812/103 "2008-07-09T14:23:33Z")
Take a look at the dust thrown up by the wheels of the lunar rover in this clip: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/szrSWJuZcOw/hqdefault.jpg "Apollo 16 Lunar Rover video clip") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szrSWJuZcOw) It describes a very neat parabola, falling quickly (well, given the lower gravity) back down to the surface, with no billowing clouds at all. That’s exactly how dust is expected to behave in a vacuum. ---
**Author:** ![nd\_n8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/439d5e/32.png) [@nd\_n8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nd_n8)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2008, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812/104 "2008-07-09T14:25:24Z")
I’m sorry, did you just use a link to the UK version of the US’s unemployment department as a reference? Did you mean to do that? ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2008, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812/105 "2008-07-09T14:27:36Z")
[QUOTE=nd\_n8] I’m sorry, did you just use a link to the UK version of the US’s unemployment department as a reference? Did you mean to do that? [/QUOTE] I think I’ll need it after NASA fires me for spilling the beans. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2008, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812/106 "2008-07-09T14:28:01Z")
[Lunar friggin lander with some dust on it](http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen3/apollo_lm.jpg) But there are no stars! Oh noes. [Dust covering probe because it behaved exactly like everyone in the world (minus 2) realises](http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/images/flyingmoondust/surveyor3.jpg&imgrefurl=http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/23nov_flyingmoondust.htm&h=494&w=640&sz=70&hl=en&start=150&um=1&tbnid=Z9lO7h91D344PM:&tbnh=106&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpictures%2Bof%2Blunar%2Blander%2Bwith%2Bdust%2Bon%2Bit%26start%3D144%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26sa%3DN) > [@](#): > > This isn’t just theory. In November 1969, the Apollo 12 Lunar Module (LM, pronounced “lem”) landed about 200 meters from Surveyor 3, a robotic probe that had landed on the Moon in April 1967. The Apollo 12 astronauts walked over to Surveyor 3 to photograph it and to retrieve some pieces for return to Earth. Right away, they noticed that most of Surveyor 3, which at launch was pristine white, had darkened to brown–a result of two-and-a-half years’ exposure to extreme lunar conditions. > > But the side of Surveyor 3 facing the LM had been sandblasted back to white. In fact, “every bolt, cable, or bracket blocking the spray of fine grit from Apollo 12 left permanent shadows etched onto Surveyor,” Metzger says. From examining the returned artifacts, scientists later calculated the sandblasting resulted primarily from finest dust particles only 1 to 10 micrometers (0.00004 to 0.0004 inch) across. > > The scoured surfaces were also pocked with hundreds of microscopic impact craters ranging from 30 to 60 micrometers (0.001 to 0.002 inch) across caused by particles of about the same size traveling at high speeds. Moreover, fine grit had been driven into tiny cracks and crevices, including inside Surveyor’s camera. And no - we don’t all work for NASA. We are educated past primary school level. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2008, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812/107 "2008-07-09T14:28:06Z")
[QUOTE=nd\_n8] I’m sorry, did you just use a link to the UK version of the US’s unemployment department as a reference? Did you mean to do that? [/QUOTE] He’s implying that we’re all in on the conspiracy and that if we break it, we’ll become unemployed. ---
**Author:** ![where\_s\_the\_subscription\_info](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8e8cbc/32.png) [@where\_s\_the\_subscription\_info](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/where_s_the_subscription_info)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2008, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812/108 "2008-07-09T14:34:39Z")
[QUOTE=slaphead] I remember seeing a very cool TV documentary on meteors etc. that did simulations of impacts by solid and crumbly objects on various kinds of targets. Can’t remember the show though. One of the things they did was firing a high-speed projectile into fine powder in a chamber, both with and without atmosphere. With atmosphere this produced a big cloud of dust and a small crater with soft outlines. Without atmosphere it basically did what you can see on page 2 of this PDF ([Deep Impact (EPOXI) - NASA Science](http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/deepimpact/designing_craters/7appendices/appendix_c_crater_research.pdf)) - a big inverted-cone scatter with no cloud at all leaving a larger, crisper crater (because virtually nothing came down into the impact site). The two looked radically different. Maybe it would help if you imagine dropping an anvil into a swimming pool full of buckshot - the amount of lead pellets that would go straight up and down would be minimal, because they would be pretty much unaffected by airflow - they’d nearly all go sideways, and all of them would go in ballistic arcs. Scale the particles down and they’d behave pretty much like that on the moon. [/QUOTE] Excuse me, but I my be obtuse and you may be trying to help me but one is a steel ball fired into ‘dust’ while another is a rocket motor lowering somehing down. I appreciate that the above ‘models’ what happens to the ejecta but a rocket won’t have ejecta as such, will it? It’ll have constant ‘thrusting dust’ (amoung the billowing clouds) My arument is one of length. The ball goes splat… the rocket goes rooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrr. If you follow? ---
**Author:** ![nd\_n8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/439d5e/32.png) [@nd\_n8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nd_n8)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2008, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812/109 "2008-07-09T14:35:31Z")
Alright then, but I’ll be damned if I’m driving all the way up to John Adam Street to apply. They either open a branch closer to my house or I ain’t goin’. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2008, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812/110 "2008-07-09T14:38:26Z")
[QUOTE=nd\_n8] Alright then, but I’ll be damned if I’m driving all the way up to John Adam Street to apply. They either open a branch closer to my house or I ain’t goin’. [/QUOTE] It’s your funeral. My boss in the NASA home office told me to tell you to empty out your desk by noon. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2008, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812/111 "2008-07-09T14:41:18Z")
All of the CT arguments in this thread were pretty well addressed on the National Geographics show Conspiracy Moon Landing where they actually gave fairly equal time to the CT nutballs…before having the experts pretty much blow them out of the water and look like the fools they are. I think the dust thing has pretty well been covered at this point…but just as an aside there actually was dust on the landing pads. They showed a couple of pictures of said dust on the NG CML show. The CT folks were of the opinion that the moon lander should have sunk into huge abysses of dust and been completely engulfed. Unlike the CTers here where the disconnect seems to be merely not understanding how dust reacts in a vacuum and in low gravity these guys on the show were REALLY out there. As to the lack of stars they actually did a really good demonstration of this…the short answer is that the lights from both the earth and from the floods in and around the lunar module (you know, they could actually build lights in the 60’s so they didn’t have to mope about in the dark!) washed out the stars…just like happens here on earth. I’m surprised we haven’t had the flag moving and the shadows thingy brought up yet… (give it time, to be sure) -XT ---
**Author:** ![nd\_n8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/439d5e/32.png) [@nd\_n8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nd_n8)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2008, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812/112 "2008-07-09T14:44:44Z")
[QUOTE=where’s the subscription info?] Excuse me, but I my be obtuse and you may be trying to help me but one is a steel ball fired into ‘dust’ while another is a rocket motor lowering somehing down. I appreciate that the above ‘models’ what happens to the ejecta but a rocket won’t have ejecta as such, will it? It’ll have constant ‘thrusting dust’ (amoung the billowing clouds) My arument is one of length. The ball goes splat… the rocket goes rooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrr. If you follow? [/QUOTE] Sure, I get it. The steel ball models the dust cone caused by a single impact. The rocket engine represents a continous impact. Therefore the model presented would be appropriate for a continous effect until a) The rocket stops or b) The layer of debris surrounding the rocket exhaust has been depleted. Please note I said surrounding the rocket exhaust. As there is no air to form currents or eddys or billows or anything only the debris affected by the gas stream is ejected. Please also note that I used the term debris because without air resistance and terminal velocity (neither of which exists on the moon) it is irrelevant as to the size of the debris. A chunk of silicate 5 microns in diameter is the same as a chunk of silicate 5 meters in diameter. Without atmosphere the difference in the force of gravity between these two stones and the surface of the moon is so close to zero as to be irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2008, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812/113 "2008-07-09T14:48:39Z")
[QUOTE=nd\_n8] Sure, I get it. The steel ball models the dust cone caused by a single impact. The rocket engine represents a continous impact. Therefore the model presented would be appropriate for a continous effect until a) The rocket stops or b) The layer of debris surrounding the rocket exhaust has been depleted. Please note I said surrounding the rocket exhaust. As there is no air to form currents or eddys or billows or anything only the debris affected by the gas stream is ejected. Please also note that I used the term debris because without air resistance and terminal velocity (neither of which exists on the moon) it is irrelevant as to the size of the debris. A chunk of silicate 5 microns in diameter is the same as a chunk of silicate 5 meters in diameter. Without atmosphere the difference in the force of gravity between these two stones and the surface of the moon is so close to zero as to be irrelevant. [/QUOTE] Yea - but what about the waving flag? Huh, Huh? ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2008, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812/114 "2008-07-09T14:51:56Z")
[QUOTE=nd\_n8] Please also note that I used the term debris because without air resistance and terminal velocity (neither of which exists on the moon) [/QUOTE] Oh yeah? If there’s no air on the Moon, then how come the dust was billowing, huh? You can’t answer that, can you? And since the dust was billowing, there should be some on the lander pads. But there isn’t. You NASA goons need to get your stories straight. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2008, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812/115 "2008-07-09T14:53:18Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] Because the Nazis keep shooting our ships down from their Moon Base, silly ! Ever since they got up there in the 40’s with _their_ recovered alien space craft. [/QUOTE] [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4KEueJnsu80/hqdefault.jpg "Iron Sky teaser - Space Nazis attack!") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KEueJnsu80) **Ontopic:** Ivan and Where, you’ve been shown that dust doesn’t react like it does on earth, yet you still cling to ignorant notions. [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/z7uWK0Smq4U/hqdefault.jpg "Low pressure experiments") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7uWK0Smq4U) Someone did a crude low pressure experiment on ash in a vacuum, if it will help quell your doubts. It’s not bad to have a peculiar understanding based on ignorance. Everyone is ignorant about something. It’s bad to cling to it when people show you over and over again that you’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2008, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812/116 "2008-07-09T14:53:23Z")
BTW, I heard the Mythbusters are going to do a moon landing hoax episode. I’m sure their results will put this to bed just like the POATM episode finally put THAT one down once and for all… 😛 -XT ---
**Author:** ![nd\_n8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/439d5e/32.png) [@nd\_n8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nd_n8)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2008, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812/117 "2008-07-09T14:54:22Z")
[QUOTE=tagos] Yea - but what about the waving flag? Huh, Huh? [/QUOTE] The flag wasn’t really waving, it was an optical illusion caused by the retinal compensation of the non-parallel shadows on Armstrong’s suit. Gotta love those non parallel shadows. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2008, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812/118 "2008-07-09T15:03:09Z")
[QUOTE=nd\_n8] The flag wasn’t really waving, it was an optical illusion caused by the retinal compensation of the non-parallel shadows on Armstrong’s suit. Gotta love those non parallel shadows. 😛 [/QUOTE] We all know how light refracts in water, leading me to the inevitable conclusion that the Moon is in fact covered with the stuff. They did land, supposedly, in the SEA of Tranquility after all. Refute that you Nasabots. I just can’t believe they’ve hidden that fact from us for so long. Has anyone got an address for Fox’s Head of Factual Programming? (I know, I know - I slay myself, I really do.) ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2008, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812/119 "2008-07-09T15:05:31Z")
[QUOTE=tagos] Has anyone got an address for Fox’s Head of Factual Programming? [/QUOTE] I don’t think they have one of those departments. ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2008, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812/120 "2008-07-09T15:23:49Z")
Does anyone else find it deliciously ironic that the more “anomalies” people come up with in Apollo photographs, the more they demonstrate how the photographs are genuine? By which I mean, if the conspiracy fans were faking the photos, _obviously_ they would make sure they kicked plenty of dust around all over the lander pads, put plenty of brilliantly bright stars in the sky, and so on and so forth. The very fact that the photos show things that appear counterintuitive to the layman (but which in fact tally perfectly with conditions on the actual moon) is pretty good evidence for their not being fakes. Surely if you were going to mock up pictures, you’d mock them up to fool Joe Public without having to explain a whole bunch of physics… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moon-landings-why-is-there-no-dust-in-the-lander-pads/455812.md?page=7)