Moon Landings: why is there no dust in the lander pads?

Great Debates
181

[QUOTE=Wendell Wagner]
Voyager writes:

> I saw Apollo XVII take off.

Hey, I was there too. Remember me? 4’11", red hair, glasses? I was in the parking lot of the Holiday Inn just across the Indian River from the launch. I don’t remember you though. I guess you’ve changed a lot since then.

[/QUOTE]

We were on the beach in tents. I went with my girl friend (now wife) and a friend, all the way from Cambridge. Took my GREs when I came back, and even got into grad school. :slight_smile: Crazy thing to do, but it was worth it. Remember the lightning out over the water, before the launch?

182

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I’m not sure what the point would be to photograph some of the stuff still left up there (I assume this is what you are getting at). However, one of the things that was left on the moon is a laser reflector (it’s used to get accurate measurements of the distance between the moon and Earth IIRC), and that is still working perfectly. If any ‘proof’ was needed that would be it as it’s pretty well documented that they set the thing up…and that it’s still in use.

[/QUOTE]

I heard a debunker say that those reflectors could have been sent up by probes.

183

[QUOTE=nd_n8]
Not to mention the effects of the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.
[/QUOTE]

And the dust-licking Moon Lizards, of course. And Seethruart’s tiny giant alien shuttles.

184

[QUOTE=Musicat]
To physics, being on the moon is no different from being on the sun or any planet in any solar system anywhere. Do you have any knowledge that the laws of physics as we know them operate differently anywhere else? (No, just because something doesn’t “look right” to you doesn’t mean Newton, Einstein et al were wrong.)

The laws of physics don’t tell us that a dust cloud on Earth looks just like a dust cloud on the Moon, but if you take into account all factors, both dust clouds are identical. The principal differences are gravity and atmosphere. Them’s some pretty big diffs, Son, but they follow the same rules there as here.

And for anyone who says there isn’t enough dust on the landing pads, I offer these possible explanations:[ul][li]How much dust can you see? Are you seeing accurately? Can you measure it and quantify it?[]How much dust do you expect? Based on what calculations? Within what range?[]Is there any possibility that the camera angle, harsh lighting, film characteristics and reflections distort the image? If so, how much distortion is there? Could it account for what you want to see, but can’t?[/ul]If you can definitely discard all these considerations and can think of no more, then maybe we can talk about what it means. Until then, man went to the moon, you betcha.[/li]
Aside: Good choice of moniker.
[/QUOTE]

Um, I’m afraid you haven’t really read my posts very carefully – I’ve been arguing against the hoax bullshit all the time. Actually, the very post you quoted went on to make the same points you just repeated.
I’m also well aware that physics on earth are exactly the same as they are on the moon, but the apparent effects are different, and hence, our everyday understanding – our intuition, gained through years of earthbound experience – is sometimes off, which is what I meant in my comment.

185

He dissed your username, too.

(as a side note, I first saw “Half Man, Half Wit” as a punchline in a one-page four-panel strip in an Archie Comics digest some 30 years ago)

186

[QUOTE=Saint Cad]
I heard a debunker say that those reflectors could have been sent up by probes.
[/QUOTE]
Did you punch him in the cock? Please tell me you punched him in the cock.

187

[QUOTE=Saint Cad]
I heard a debunker say that those reflectors could have been sent up by probes.
[/QUOTE]

I have heard that many, many, times.

Thing is, I’m not sure what the problem is with that.

What procedure was physically performed to calibrate them?

188

[QUOTE=RedFury]
As a long time disciple of Sagan I think we owe it to ourselves to explore the Universe. But what I don’t quite get is, as you’ve said so yourself, if we haven’t yet finished exploring the Moon and whatever possibilities it holds (or not. we simply don’t know for sure do we?) why place so many resources in exploring Mars? STM the allocation of resources for these endeavors should be based on solid science and not upsmanship.

Seriously, though I very much doubt I’ll see the day when the Moon appears as an option to Nuclear Holocaust, it is – or at least for as long as science tells us not – the closest scape route for those who can make it.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I think that there is a sense of Been there Done that wrt the moon in much of the US publics/politicians minds. Also, Mars is an entire world with atmosphere, weather, and lots of interesting puzzles and such. The moon has no atmosphere and is much more geologically boring.

That said, the moon is also much easier to reach…which is why NASA is currently planning several unmanned and later manned missions back to the moon, both for exploration and for studies in logistics and extra-terrestrial engineering and habitat stuff. Of course, those programs will most likely get whacked by the next administration, so it’s hard to say. From other countries perspectives I think there is a sense that the US has already been to the moon, and following now would just be following in our foot steps (even if they did more and better science if they went), while going to Mars would be forging ahead. That’s why China plans (currently) to shoot for Mars sometime in the 20-teens IIRC…and why the European space agency and Japan are also looking at possible manned missions to Mars.

Myself, I think the moon is important as a next step to exploration of the solar system. It’s close. It’s (relatively) easier and less risky to get to. If it has water it will have all the elements needed to sustain human life, at least in the short term. It can be re-supplied from Earth relatively easy. There are still things to explore there, still interesting things to find and discover. It also makes a great stepping stone for further exploration…much less of a gravity well to launch from, rocket fuel can be made locally, would be easier to build and launch space ships from there (lower gravity but not zero gravity, so less stress on the humans). It would also help us learn how to build the structures we’d need to go to places like Mars and live there.

Lastly I think it would make a hell of a place to put something like the various stations we have in Antarctica for scientific research. Besides…the coolness factor for having a moon base is really off the scale. :slight_smile:

What I wish is that the US, Japan, the EU and perhaps Russia could get together to plan out and fund such an effort together, instead of having separate programs. Once a base on the moon is established I’d like to see them carry through with another unified program for manned and unmanned missions to Mars, Europa, etc etc…again, instead of everyone doing their own thing. Not going to hold my breath though…

-XT

189

[QUOTE=Saint Cad]
I heard a debunker say that those reflectors could have been sent up by probes.
[/QUOTE]

Sure…but then you have to acknowledge that we COULD go to the moon in 1969 (or it may have been one of the follow on shots when they put up the laser reflector) which begs the question…if we COULD go to the moon to put down a probe why go to all the trouble and expense to cover up that we couldn’t send men there? It would actually cost you more in the long run to stage a fake mission and keep it from leaking out (well, it would be impossible but that’s beside the point), so why not just do a manned mission?

Of course, a lot of the Lunar landing CTers don’t acknowledge that the thing is there at all…since a lot of the one’s I’ve seen are skeptical that we EVER got to the moon, or even into LEO for that matter. One guy on the NG show I mentioned earlier said it was impossible as the radiation would fry any equipment (or humans), even in orbit, let alone on the trip to the moon.

-XT

190

The Moon has a surface area the size of Africa; we’ve explored the area of a small town. I can’t wait for us to go back. We’re still learning stuff from Apollo; just recently water was found inside the miniscule glass globules in the orangeish soil seen in some spots; this suggests that the Moon somehow retained a fair amount of water in its formation, which is hard to figure into the Big Giant Collision model.

ETA: what do the “hoax” idiots say about the Moon rocks?

For that matter, what do they say about Apollo 13?

191

[QUOTE=xtisme]

Of course, a lot of the Lunar landing CTers don’t acknowledge that the thing is there at all…since a lot of the one’s I’ve seen are skeptical that we EVER got to the moon, or even into LEO for that matter. One guy on the NG show I mentioned earlier said it was impossible as the radiation would fry any equipment (or humans), even in orbit, let alone on the trip to the moon.

-XT
[/QUOTE]

I wonder if this clown found the site of the meeting with a GPS system, and if he checked the weather using the satellite pictures from the Weather Channel, via DishNetwork.

192

Probably handwaves that away…like the Flat Earthers do, I expect.

Not only was the guy a total nutball, but he had really bad ‘old man’ teeth to! The thing with the glove though was classic…I encourage anyone who hasn’t watched the program to go on NG’s website and check to see when it’s next on and give it a watch. They actually did a really good, balanced job, giving the CT nutters their chance to make their case and prove their points…before letting the other side tear them to absolute bloody shreds.

-XT

193

[QUOTE=Baldwin]
ETA: what do the “hoax” idiots say about the Moon rocks?
[/QUOTE]

The only thing from the NG show I remember about the rocks was a supposed picture with a letter ‘C’ on it…proving that the rock in the photo was a movie prop (because, according to the CTer, that’s how Hollywood does it).

My guess though is they either try and ignore the rocks completely or believe NASA somehow created the rocks…or just went out and grabbed a bunch of rocks from somewhere and said they were moon rocks.

(A really canny CTer might say that NASA got the rocks from Antarctica…which would actually be plausible as I know they have found material from both the moon and Mars there. Of course, there would be some other glaring problems if scientists examined said rocks, but it would be better than 90% of their other theories on the plausibility scale)

-XT

194

Have you ever seen these “moon rocks”? The government keeps them locked up tighter than a very tightly locked thing. They could be anything, from cement to styrofoam to just normal rocks.

The “Moon Rocks” are the easiest part of the conspiracy…

195

You are kidding, right?

-XT

196

Interestingly, I seem to recall that NASA really did manufacture a large quantity of bogus moon rocks. Since there was a finite amount of genuine material available for study, they concocted an artificial substitute, as close to the original as possible, for distribution to scientists and engineers researching its physical properties.

I wouldn’t be surprised if some folks have already voiced suspicion about NASA’s synthetic moon rock program.

197

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I’d seen the trailer before. I just wasn’t going to follow a obfuscated youtube link to something that came up in a discussion about Space Nazis, you never know where it might go…

…next thing you know, “Jews in Space”
[/QUOTE]

Meh. Mel Brooks has already done that (Spaceballs, 1987).

One thing to add to the UFO discussion: why do we think all the landings/crashes have happened only in the US? Or are all of the worlds governments in on the conspiracy?

198

[QUOTE=xtisme]
You are kidding, right?

-XT
[/QUOTE]

No, as usual DrF is completely right. One needn’t “explain” the moon rocks because there’s nothing to explain. They’re rocks, that’s all. The only reason anyone thinks they’re from the moon is because NASA says so.
.

199

[QUOTE=andros]
No, as usual DrF is completely right. One needn’t “explain” the moon rocks because there’s nothing to explain. They’re rocks, that’s all. The only reason anyone thinks they’re from the moon is because NASA says so.
[/QUOTE]
Besides, if they were real Moon rocks surely they’d have triggered off a few werewolf plagues ? After all, if the full Moon so far away triggers werewolf transformations, just think what it must do when it’s in town !

200

deleted