I thought it might be interesting to overlay one of the Apollo 15 orbital images of the landing site on top of the Clementine image turbonium posted earlier. I was curious to see how well the dark spot on the Clementine image matched up with the landing site location shown in the Apollo orbital photos.

For the comparison, I used Apollo 15 Pan Camera image A15-9814, taken by the CSM in lunar orbit in 1971. Here's a reduced-size version of the photo, along with an enlargement showing the details of the landing site. According to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, this photo was taken two revs after the lunar module lifted off, so the ascent stage is gone and the surface has been re-swept by the ascent engine plume:




Here's the Clementine image, taken in 1994:




And here's my overlay of the Apollo image onto the Clementine image:



The first frame shows a cropped portion of the Clementine image. The second frame shows the Apollo image (with a red dot at the landing site) placed on top of the Clementine image. The final frame shows the overlay with a 50% transparency so that the dark spot on the Clementine photo can show through. Looks like a good match to me.

Can you cite references for the claims made in your last sentence above?



Well, I'll give you credit for creative interpretation, but that's about it.

I'd like you to point out exactly where you see these two phenomena in that image.

And it seems you have a somewhat different argument than MID, who claims the area around the LM became darker than the other regions beyond it, not lighter.

Sure:

ANOMALIES OF THE LUNAR REGOLITH STRUCTURE IN THE VICINITY OF APOLLO-15 LANDING SITE: RESULTS FROM PHOTOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF CLEMENTINE UVVIS IMAGES, Kreslavsky M. A. and Shkuratov Yu. G. (2001) LPS 32, #1075

I figure it's always good to go straight to the source.



Look at my enhanced version of AS15-88-11895. The darker areas churned up by the crew are obvious. The areas aft of the LM (photo foreground), and especially just below the flag, are noticeably brighter than the more distant areas. This brighter plume-swept area is especially noticeable in the distant shots and orbital photos of the three LMs I posted.


No, I think I'm in complete agreement with MID. He pointed out that the areas around the LM became darker because the soil was churned up by crew activity and provided photo evidence. I completely agree with this and have shown you additional photo references. I just added a second point that there is also a more diffuse brightening of the areas around the LM which is also visible in photographs.

Besides, the bottom line here is that both MID and I have shown you that there is undeniable photographic evidence of soil disturbances at the Apollo 15 landing site. Whether they show up light or dark in various photos really doesn't matter. I'm just a dumb old engineer, not a lunar geologist, so I really can't tell you exactly why the disturbances appear a certain way under various lighting conditions, viewing angles, or film/sensor types. I just know that they are undeniably visible in the photos taken both on the surface and from orbit and I've shown you a few samples to back up MID's example.

The paper I referenced above claims that the Clementine data shows evidence of lunar soil disturbances precisely at the Apollo 15 landing site. I've shown you that the processed Clementine imagery does indeed show a spot right at the location identified in Apollo orbital photos as the Apollo 15 landing site. How about addressing the main point here -- why do you believe the Clementine analysis is wrong?


Edited to add last two paragraphs

Great work, Pericynthion

That's what I was asking.
You're an HB then, who never believes an Apollo spacecraft left LEO.


.

Sorry. I don't understand what that means. I simply asked you to state your position clearly. I said nothing else.





You cannot compare them. They are two different programs utilizing two different and specifically designed spacecraft for different purposes.



I would answer that I couldn't go to the Moon in a Space Shuttle, nor could I in an Apollo spacecraft. One is not designed for that trip, and the other is not in existence. However, the Apollo spacecraft was quite reliable, and excecuted its function well.




...you say I would be lying if I said I'd rather go to the Moon in an Apollo spacecraft, and then you cite John Glenn saying (allegedly) that the Apollo CM was a more reliable craft than the Shuttle, and that you think he's right???
I wonder if you see the strangeness in such a statement.





That's a pretty skewed reason to "believe" that Apollo didn't leave Earth orbit, and succeed as it did. It's really odd reasoning.
Apollo CSMs flew manned 15 times, all sucessfully, save Apollo 13's, which utilized the LM as a lifeboat.
Now, Apollo 13 would've been a fatal mission if it didn't have a LM attached...only BECAUSE IT WAS IN CIS-LUNAR SPACE AT THE TIME OF THE PROBLEM.

Unless you are capable of proving that Apollo 13 faked it's disaster in LEO (which you cannot, although I think you might try), this rather negates your position at the outset.

Additionally, Apollo CSMs flew to the Moon 9 times, not 7. That tiny detail notwithstanding, I think you are saying that because the Shuttle has resulted in two fatal in-flight disasters, and that Apollo had none, that it's impossible for Apollo to have been a success...something supported by every piece of the tens of thousands of pages of documentation, countless hours of footage and data records, and the thousands of photographs taken on the flights...and those 800 + pounds of authenticated lunar rocks and dirt.

Yes, that is skewed reasoning.


You see, you're comparison is not valid.

Apollo had 15 manned missions, without a fatal occurrance. The Apollo spacecraft was a one time use vehicle, designed for trans-lunar and Earth orbital flight.

The Shuttle has had 120 missions, with two fatal occurrances, and is a re-usable vehicle. I do not think you have any idea of the difference between the two vehicles.

You might say, "Well, the Shuttle has a 98% safety rating," based on it's two disasters.
Then you might say, "Apollo had a 100% safety rating...35 years ago!"

You'd be correct, on a percentage basis, but you'd be neglecting the vast difference in the two vehicles and the problems inherent in one design v. the other, and the fact that a 15 for 15 safety rating for the Apollo CSM, while certainly impressive (we were all delighted beyond delight), cannot be compared to a vehicle with 120 flights under it's belt.
The Shuttle, was 24 for 24 before Challenger, and in the post Challeger sequence leading up to STS-107, we were 87 for 87!

Both of those streaks far and away exceed Apollo's string, which invalidates your argument, statistically. It's impossible to compare Apollo to that.

If Apollo flew even 24 missions...we may have seen a different safety record posted. If it flew 87, I think the probability is that we'd have seen a worse rate that the Shuttle. And if Apollo had a 120 mission schedule...then you'd have something to go on with your argument (something statistically valid).

Besides that, the reasons for the disasters of STS-51L and STS-107 are well understood, and are complex human failings that have much more to do with a paradigm of management than they had to do with technological failure.

Suffice it to say that you don't know what you're talking about, you are making an invalid comparison between two completely different programs, and that your "belief" is just that...a belief, devoid of facts or knowledge.

Perhaps you would kindly cease giving us evidence to the contrary?
Look...



The disasters which occurred on the space shuttle had nothing to do with lack of funds.
You really have no idea what you're talking about.



What...is fake about it?

It is a snippet of an actual Apollo 11 TV transmission from lunar orbit on 19 July 1969. That is in fact Langrenus as they viewed it out their window.

Are you going to be one of those who makes silly declarations without any substantiation? Perhaps, if you have doubts, you'd like to ask questions instead? HB's base their ideas on an abject lack of knowledge about the subject matter. We endeavor to provide that knowledge, or at least the path you can follow to gain it.

That's alot more fun than having to address nonsense...

The LM was not stupid (it was actually the product of a bunch of people who were highly intelligent, well educated, and dedicated to a fault), not fragile, thoroughly adequate for its assigned task, and completely approved and flight tested, manned and un-manned.

Further, the LM never nearly killed Neil Armstrong...but I'm sure that's already been explained to you.

Again, you make simplistic and utterly uninformed statements that reveal you, without anything to substantiate them.
Are you here to inflame, or to learn something?

Like this one.
Kindly substantiate your argument.

I think it's ironic that Peri, as is his modus operandi, has shown the contrary, Turb...in his characteristically excellent fashion.
The photo was of the Apollo 15 landing site, undoubtedly.

This basic comparison, is just that, basic. It is also incorrect in certain respects (lack of detail).
Apollo 10's LM was a test article of course, modified heavily from the AS-9 LM, but not in any way meant to land. It was also not too heavy to land and return to orbit. It was lighter than Eagle was (LM-5).

Actually, there were many mods made to LM-5 in the wake of AS-10.

EASEP was certainly a big one, then there were RCS plume deflectors, removing the +Z gear probe, lengthening the probes on the other 3 pads and providing new insulation for them, a change in the descent stage base heat shield, the addition of the EV antenna, TV camera in the MESA, a variety of G & C modifications based upon AS-10's performance, APS changes, ECS additions to accommodate the PLSSs, landing radar reconfigurations, and many display and control changes too numerous to mention.

Many of these were in work prior to Apollo 10, and some were based upon Apollo 10's performance and test data and were going on as the AS-10 mission returned information.

It was an intense process which wound up making Eagle almost 2600 pounds heavier than AS-10's LM at liftoff, that weight being primarily ascent stage mass.

Apollo 10's LM wasn't too heavy to return to orbit. Apollo 11's LM was heavier!
Apollo 10 didn't have enough APS fuel to return from the surface...by design.


It carried enough fuel for the test objectives, which did not involve descending to the surface and lifting off again.
I guess in a way, you could say it was too heavy to get back into orbit...since it didn't have enough fuel to propel its mass from the surface. Apollo 10, if it could've landed, would've had fuel depletion ~ 4 1/2 minutes or so into ascent, providing the crew with a panoramic view of the surface for a time...as they plummeted back into it

That summarizes the issue pretty well, Peri...
I'd echo Gav in saying, nicely done...


...for a dumb old engineer!

So Peri is an engineer, and your a jet pilot.

In what capacity have you flown jets?

Just joined, interesting discussion. Nice to see many here who indeed know Apollo very well.

Been a fan of spaceflight since I was a kid, saw Shepard's flight in my elementary school lunch room, and many other launches there as well. Spaceflight and rockets...really extreme stuff. When I took some Masters courses in Space engineering, I was surprised at the nonchalance of those involved with it. There are the ultimate extreme machines, and they are about as casual about it in conversation as my bus mechanics. It's just what they do, no big deal. Design and engineering for a purpose. The LM, derided as it has been by some, is a design for the ages. Built very carefully ands specifically for the one mission it needed to do, and little more.
The Saturn V...which required enormous custom designed fabrication and construction facilities, including enormous precision tooling (these aren't screwdrivers and wrenches) for construction and testing, the most powerful liquid engines ever made, and a cutting edge computer (for it's day) that did it's job...a simple, austere number cruncher...no Windows, barely any graphic interface at all...nouns, verbs, and numbers.

The shuttle is amazing as well, but was designed for so many potential LEO missions, with far more complexity. The Apollo Saturn had just one mission. The spacecraft had a launch escape system, and an aerodynamically stable reentry capsule, steerable with it's offset center of gravity giving come controllable lift. By it's design, it was safer if something went amiss during launch or reentry.

In knowing just something about spaceflight, the space environment, and spacecraft design, I just don't understand what's so "unbelievable" about Apollo. Those were agressive and heady days for NASA, not like today's risk averse society. We did daring things once upon a time...I remember them well. The engineering remains a model for students.

Lots of money, political and popular support, and the best technical minds available, that got us there.

as if that would happen around here, and this thread in particular ...

I think perhaps even you can see the pattern here.
When there's nothing else to say, when you get answers, when there's nothing left to the argument, you don't want to research and learn, you want to ask irrelevant questions about people's qualifications, as if that means one jot on a confidential on-line forum.

I'm an M.D. , a D.O., a D.Sci. in Astrophysics, an M.S. in Engineering, an artist, an ascended spiritual master with direct lineage to Guatama Siddhartha, a pilot with 20,000 hours in his logbooks, I invented the concept of orbital rendezvous (and have been battling Buzz Aldrin over the rights to that since about 1964, when he stole my ideas for his doctoral thesis), and I would've been the first man on the Moon save for the fact that Neil Armstrong was prettier than me. I am a modern day Rennaisance man with talent on loan from God.

OK?




Jeez...

I am willing to bet that you'll ask me to prove all that, won't you?
Which will further prove my point.


How about you ask the questions you have and stop with the interrogations of folks are are endeavoring to help you understand that which you don't? Such things are irrelevant to the discussion, and pointless.

About all you're ever really going to know is that some of the people here actually do know what they're talking about. Asking questions about their qualifications is a defense when you know you've encountered actual knowledge about something that bothers you.


p.s.
The capacity in which I flew jets was that of strapping my butt into the business end...throttles in one hand, stick in the other, pushing the throttle forward, and going flying (kinda like prop airplanes, 'cept faster).


...yes, I'm being sarcastic now. Sorry.
Let's get back on topic.

...

Welcome, mrbusdriver. Glad to see you here!



Interesting observation regarding the folks who were involved with those machines, and true. But I can tell you there's alot of pride and energy in those folks as well.

I think the only people who actually have the nerve to deride the LM are some of those here arguing that it couldn't have done its job for many different skewed reasons which belie a certain lack...

I couldn't agree more that it was a design for the ages. The care taken in it's design and construction was astounding. It was indeed built for a specific purpose, exclusively...the first true manned space vehicle, exclusively designed for operation in space alone...a job which it did, plus a bit ( a very significant bit when you consider what she did on Apollo 13), many times, and very well.






Yep...I think you grasp her completely.

.

Also agreed.



I don't understand it either. It's untenability is rather obvious. However, I do understand why the situation exists.
You hint at it in your statement, "...the engineering is a model for students." That's true, of course. The problem is we don't have nearly enough emphasis on science and math in elementary and secondary education these days, and subsequently, engineering and sciences in colleges. There's been a profound paradigm shift in education since those heady days. The heart of the Apollo Hoax lies buried in that shift in emphasis.


Sure, money, popular and political support, and the best minds available got us there...then.
They will again. But the reason it's taken so long is the decided lack in all of those factors (which are all interrelated) since the 1950s and 1960s.



Good observations!

MID, you never cease to amaze me....and I believe every word of it!

Thanks TNT and MID, but the people who really deserve the credit here are the folks who put together and edited the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. I didn't do much more than tweak and repost a few of their photos. I'm continually amazed at the sheer volume of information available there. Anyone here who is interested in understanding the details of Apollo really ought to pay a visit to the ALSJ. You won't regret it.

Well said, mrbusdriver. Welcome to the forum!

Fantastic Turbonium!!! I really didn´t want to start this conversation about the LM because that "spacecraft" has so many weak points and it was so fake and absurd that it would be a waste of time to return to this subject again.

[quote name='Pericynthion' date='Dec 18 2007, 05:22 AM' post='2045088']
The Clementine image isn't an ordinary photograph. It's the result of image processing to enhance and identify areas of disturbed regolith. The dark color isn't necessarily representative of the actual color of the soil.





This can be seen in many Apollo photos, both on the surface and from orbit.

Here we see a long shot of the Apollo 15 lunar module. The brightened swath from the descent engine plume is clearly visible:

AS15-84-11324 Cropped and Enhanced


This is not true! If "The brightened swath from the descent engine plume is clearly visible",so we have another landing site that is empty to the left.

"...because that "spacecraft" has so many weak points and it was so fake and absurd that it would be a waste of time to return to this subject again."

"Fake" and "absurd" are your impressions...but "weak points" sounds like something that can be discussed.

The LM is a pure spaceship, designed for vaccuum, zero to low gravity environments. What appears weak compared to a terrestrial flying machine was actually amply strong for it's mission. During it's design, it went through "weight loss" programs, as they trimmed it's weight to allow more payload. It was thin skinned (but sufficiently strong for the low 100% oxygen mission cabin pressure), and wasn't designed for looks. No aerodynamic issues, just thermal control coverings and 4 spring loaded legs for landing. It's inner structure, benath the outer skins and mylar foil, was plenty sturdy. It didn't need the structure of a fighter jet to do it's job.

What do you see as it's "weak points"? What should a lunar lander look like?

I would like to know why did it had 4 legs instead of 3 ? If we can make a plan with 3 points,that would make this "spacecraft" much more easy to land in a rocky and unknown area,the idea of 4 points to touch instead of 3 is completely unacceptable.

This picture is amazing!!!It was a scenario created by men.I will explain why.... Look inside the craters....They are full of rocks.Look outside the craters...we only can see some isolated stones.It seems like somebody wanted to convince us that " a meteor crashed here and left this big hole on the ground and here are the rests of the impact"But something is wrong with this idea....If a meteor hits the moon surface ,in a very high speed ,in a 1/6 gravity environment,the rests of the impact would not be inside of the crater,but outside of it!!!Looking at this picture,inertia is something that doesn´t exist on the moon.

...

I knew you'd noit miss that one!

Oh, I'll second that...Eric Jones and Ken Glover executed a massive labor of love over there...It is the most amazing compendium of Apollo material I've ever seen. I have probably said before that volumes of my hard copies of this stuff have gone out the window because of these people's efforts. It is truly an award winning effort.

Do you actually read anything that's posted?

Please, tell us all of your aerospace engineering credentials...and while you're at it, please, give us your detailed report on how insufficent the LM was for it's intended task...please.

I cannot wait, and I am certain that none of the rest of us dumb folks here can wait for yuour technical analysis of the lunar module!

How?
How is it unacceptible to have more stability on a potentially uneven surface by virtue of 4 gear supporting 25% each of the mass of the vehicle, with more points of surface contact, than it would be to have three gear supporting 33% of the mass of vehicle with 120 degrees of space between them?


The LM was designed to be stable upon landing, not a topple hazard. 4 legs makes more sense.
How does 3 legs make it easier to land?
Why is it completely unacceptible? Is that a conclusion based upon your engineering degree?

We landed in areas where we could actually see the terrain. We avoided rocky areas. We used orbital imaging, and eyeballs attached to the heads of highly trained pilots to do this thing...land this craft.


Listen,

I've asked that you ask questions.


Let me ask you some to clarify your position:

Why do you think three landing gear legs is better, or more stable than four?
Do you not know that we sometimes landed on uneven terrain, and that 4 gear at 90 degree angles makes for a more stable platform than 3 at 120 degree angles in such situations?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module

There are many documents that talk about the LM early development in uge detail. Apparently they started with a tripod plan, but the lack of redundancy in the event of a single gear failure pretty quickly ruled this out. They considered 5 legs, but settled on 4. A bunch of research and thought went into the final configuration.

http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/lmpdf.htm

There is a lot of documentation on the LM at this link...

Perhaps you'd like to explain that concept to us as well?


Inertia is something that doesn't exist on the Moon?

Already thoroughly discussed.
Please go back a couple pages and read thoroughly.
The issue is dead.

Oh, ditto that, mrbusdriver.
I want to know that as well!

I thought von braun was credited with that one?

Yes you are being sarcastic now.

If you are not prepared to back up your claims with PROOF i.e. either MILITARY RECORDS -PROOF OF SERVICE NUMBER, CAMPAIGNS, COMMENDATIONS, or LOG TIMES OF FLIGHTS ON SOME OTHER BASIS- WHO YOU WERE FLYING JETS FOR AND WHAT PURPOSE

please do not repeat them.

Its unecessary,irrelevant to the discussion, and I tend to suspect somebody is being economical with the truth and disrespectful.

Its also totally dumb.
.

I never said the descent engine plume was the only thing that could create brighter areas on the lunar surface. Take a look at some of the small, bright impact craters in the foreground of that photo. Heck, step outside some night with a telescope or pair of binoculars and look at the moon yourself. It's covered with many, many craters and ray systems that are brighter than their surroundings:

Whilst I do not agree with the way that MID made his point the point is valid. Anyone can claim any qualifications on the internet and there is no way of backing them up.


Sorry cheese, I must have missed your promotion to moderator.


You are correct here, MIDs qualifications are irrelevant to the conversation (or at least as relevant as yours) so why are you demanding that he prove them? Your tactic is as transparent as it is pathetic. It is an age old conspiracy theorist tactic, try to make the opposition look unqualified to express an opinion whilst offering no evidence of their own qualifications. Please stop this. If you are not prepared to offer up proof of any relevant qualifications yourself then you have no right to demand them from others.

As for disrespect... well respect is something that has to be earned. Given that your posts are generally borderline flame-baiting at best I would say that you were given the amount of respect your demands deserved.


The fact that you didn't get the point is hardly MID's fault.

Like Waspie says, qualifications are irrelevant on the internet as they can rarely be proved. I'm doing a Masters degree in Physics, tailored towards Astrophysics. So what? I don't mention it often, because it's irrelevant. My points and arguments can stand on their own, I don't need to back them up with a qualification. I think the fact that you are demanding qualification proof from MID says a lot about your character Cheese. I don't see you posting yours anywhere?

Where does your source mention anything about "crew activity"?

They state that "the damage within the radius of 50 - 150 m around the landing site is probably caused by the lander jet." No other cause(s) are mentioned. So where did you (and MID) come up with the stuff about footprints, etc.?

And even their description of the dark spot would rule out rover tracks, footprints, etc. as relevant factors...

- the radius - describes the disturbance as a circular-shaped area, that could be created by "the lander jet". The footprints and rover tracks hardly remain within one circular area!

- the size of the disturbance (50 - 150 m) further rules out the footprints and rover tracks.

Before I continue, I need to know exactly where you and MID stand on these points....

Do the footprints, etc., that you've claimed to be contributing factors, originate from valid sources, or not?

If not, do you (or will you) concede that there is only one relevant factor - "the lander jet" - which is valid and applicable to this issue?

Actually, MID did not claim "the soil was churned up by crew activity" alone..

From a Dec. 16 post..

"No one ever said that the LM DPS engine stirred up no dust. Quite the contrary, it blasted dust away radially. Further, churned up lunar dust is darker than the undisturbed surface around it, a well known fact.."

And a Dec. 17 post…

”The darkening, caused by the vigorous activiuty all around the LM and a shearing of surface dust beneath the DPS bell, is evident.”

I'm not going to make a big deal out of this, because it isn't relevant to the issue.

But, at least have the backbone to account for your own words, instead of making up some claptrap to avoid it.

If the lunar surface gets turned over by footsteps and tyres, and it is a darker colour underneath, surely this is an indication of moisture upon the lunar surface? I always thought that the surface was moistureless...

Turbs,

I'd quite like your opinion on this. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ExJofca4dFA#cXf_0UUo9t4. No doubt you've heard the "Apollo faked being halfway to the moon" argument. That's not what I want to discuss. You can quite clearly see the Earth being filmed from quite obviously a long distance away. What do you make of this?

TNT sorry to but in, but theres no doubt they was up there, this footage clearly shows that to be the case. And the technology at the time backs this up also, but thats from half way out only. This does not proove they went the distance at all, it just shows that man can get into orbit and venture so far out, 'maybe', even this is under the spotlight, so to speak.

edited - for legal reasons

I disagree.LM was not a high "spacecraft",so its center of gravity is very near the ground.Then,your worry about a "rolling LM" is not important here.And talking about weight suporting,4 legs made that "spacecraft" become heavier...But,contradictory to our expectations, it seems that weight was not a problem to NASA...This is another indication that the LM never went to the moon.And "eyeballs attached to the heads of highly trained pilots" would be much more important to land it than an overweight caused by an extra leg.

MID,you can believe that men went to the moon,but I know that you are an inteligent guy.You understood very well what I am trying to know about that picture.So,instead of giving evasive answers,could you please explain to me how the meteor would behave after hitting the moon surface?

You see Belial, if you Admit they were half way there then you have to admit that there was no radiation problems, which is my reason for asking Turbs.

Ok then Peri...So don´t try to convince us that a brighter area under the LM at that picture was caused by "the descent engine plume" .It seems a bit stupid,but you gave the right answer to your own false afirmation.

Very good point Belial..I hope we have inteligent answers for your question,instead of pathetic and evasive ones.

Hat,
If you look at the links, you'll see that a lot of thought and study went into the design of the LM. And some of the concerns with it's weight were directly responsible for it's odd appearance. Pretty early on, they concluded 4 legs were best. One can argue the point, just as they argued LOR/EOR to death, but at some point, decisions are made and the design presses on. That they chose 4 legs, when you expect 3, is certainly no indication of a hoax. It's just how they chose to build it.
The original design also had big curved windows on the ascent stage (with a round "front door".which originally doubled as the docking hatch), and a round (vs octagon) descent stage. Needless to say, the design changed a lot in the ensuing years, there were a LOT of prople working on the design issues. And weight, particularly in the upper stages and payload, was very important. The LM ended up very light and seemingly "flimsy" by design.
Go through the links, it's interesting to see the reports, studies, drawings, etc.

There had to be a radiation issue, they even admitted to taking risks on all the space missions. I feel they knew the risks and as scientists and people willing to take that chance they did, no one actually understood the depths of the radiation question. The equipment was very basic and full of it's own problems full of risk taking and finger crossing, but none the less a brilliant achievement to do what they did, under the conditions they risked a lot of peoples lives and there own faces, with a lot of luck and human know how.
This does not mean i believe that man as stood on the moons surface - just saying how well humans have done to be in space is all.