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

Great Debates
101

Yeah, we’ve got a live one, folks…

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”

“Have we really been to the moon or what?”

“Moon Mystery”

(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”

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” (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!” (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.

102

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.

103

Take a look at the dust thrown up by the wheels of the lunar rover in this clip:

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.

104

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?

105

I think I’ll need it after NASA fires me for spilling the beans.

106

Lunar friggin lander with some dust on it

But there are no stars! Oh noes.

Dust covering probe because it behaved exactly like everyone in the world (minus 2) realises

And no - we don’t all work for NASA. We are educated past primary school level.

107

He’s implying that we’re all in on the conspiracy and that if we break it, we’ll become unemployed.

108

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?

109

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’.

110

It’s your funeral. My boss in the NASA home office told me to tell you to empty out your desk by noon.

111

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

112

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.

113

Yea - but what about the waving flag? Huh, Huh?

114

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.

115

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.

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.

116

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…

:stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

117

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. :stuck_out_tongue:

118

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.)

119

I don’t think they have one of those departments.

120

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…