I knews it!
Yer one a them aeronutical guys!!!


Yes, of course, Swanny, it certainly was tested throughout it's throttling range, and all other systems...explosive bolts, G & N, rendezvous radar, etc., etc....(beaten to death, I like to call it).

You just can't go any farther without getting in and flying the thing!

I suppose the question I have about this whole notion is....how could we have possibly tested it any more...without testing it any more!?!?!?

...you just gotta go fly it!

That's what the program was about...

Nice job Posty!
It is so nice to have such acumen and ability hanging around here...!
That's pretty darn good stuff!

I learnt a lot about astronomical interferometry that I didn't know previously researching that post.

Always learning!

Never gets boring , does it!

No. But that may stem from my failure to re-post the response I received from the ESO back in 2005 - specifically about the VLT imaging the landing sites. So, here it is again, in full...


Dr. West forwarded me your email.

It is correct that ESO's VLT is technically able to produce extremely sharp "images" by means of the interferometric technique when several telescopes are coupled together. It has in fact already produced a great number of outstanding results that you can see in some ESO Press Releases. Whether the resulting resolution (image sharpness) is sufficient to see "artificial" objects on the Moon remains still to be seen. I am afraid therefore that no "image" exist yet.

In fact, in its interferometric mode, the VLT has indeed a resolution equivalent to about 2m at the distance of the Moon. Thus it could barely distinguish the lunar modules - in principle. However, this cannot be achieved by just taking an image but requires a long and painstaking process where an "image" could be reconstructed.

Kind regards,

Henri Boffin, PhD
ESO Public Affairs Dept

This is the ESO's own position on the issue, and it continues to serve as the basis for my own argument.

And that's why I said that the VLT could image the landing sites in sufficient detail.

I think perhaps you have misinterpreted "in principal" to mean "in practice".

The following quote about the capabilities of the VLT in interferometric mode clearly states that it is not possible to produce images of the Moon.

From Wikipedia - VLT




Cz

Fantastic Job Turbonium!!! Congratulations!

I prefer to accept a doctor´s answer instead of this wikipedia unknown comment.

Wikipedia is a very interesting instrument for apollo believers.You write there whatever you want and it instantly becomes a truth!!! This will not be that easy for you to convince me that men went to the moon.All the proves indicate the contrary.Apollo 15 moving flag is my best.

What do you mean .y "sufficient detail"? With 2m resolution, they state they could "barely" resolve the landing sites. You'd see a pixel or two. for the lander, maybe a pixel for an LRV. Sufficient for what?

Sufficient for him to deny it as well, wave his hands and move on to his next misinterpretation.

No, I'm well aware of what the term "in principle" means. Again, Dr. Boffin noted...

"In fact, in its interferometric mode, the VLT has indeed a resolution equivalent to about 2m at the distance of the Moon. Thus it could barely distinguish the lunar modules - in principle."

But, perhaps you have misinterpreted what Dr. Boffin said immediately following that, (or simply dismissed it as irrelevant, etc.)...

"However, this cannot be achieved by just taking an image but requires a long and painstaking process where an "image" could be reconstructed."

In other words, an image can be "achieved" or "reconstructed" - in practice.

That it "requires a long and painstaking process" to achieve that goal "in practice" is not relevant. All that matters is that it can be achieved.

In principle. And in practice.

Thanks, UTH!

So, in practice, the 2m/pixel picture they reconstruct will convince you of the landings? There won't be much detail...just a couple/few pixels...

They're not talking a detailed picture here, the 2m/pixel resolution is AFTER reconstruction. Methinks you are expecting more than they can deliver.

I notice that "image" is always in quotes in the email as well. I think it probably wouldn't look like what you want it to look like. It sounds like it would be a construction based on interferometric data that is not going to look like anything like an LM anyway. Perfect for HBs to handwave away.

His actual words were that "..it could barely distinguish the lunar modules.."

Replacing the term "distinguish" with "resolve" is fine with me, in this case. But he is specifically referring to the LM's alone - not to the entire landing sites.

So, why should that matter?

Because it's much more significant that they are capable of distinguishing (resolving) specific items or features associated with the landing sites.

That means if a LM may have been "barely distinguished", they may be able to find something else to confirm it - like a Rover, or maybe even its tracks.

??

If you think that it "is not going to look like anything like an LM anyway", then it "wouldn't look like what" anybody would "want it to look like", correct??

Why would I be the only one who wouldn't want the LM to look nothing at all like the LM?

Are you saying that you don't want it to look "anything like an LM"??


This one really has me baffled.

I noticed that as well and have sent an email to Dr. Boffin asking for further clarification on this issue.

When I get a response, I will post it here.



Cz

This issue - imaging of landing sites - reminded me about some unresolved issues I have regarding Clementine's supposed image of the Apollo 15 landing site.

To recap, this is the image, and a link to the article in question...



http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missi...tos_010427.html

To begin, I'd like to ask MID - and possibly Peri - to help settle a couple of points for me...

Peri thinks the dark spot is, in reality, a light / bright spot, while it seems MID contends that the dark spot is actually a dark spot. I also find Peri and MID appear to have 2 different views on the cause(s) of this anomaly...





MID - All I ask from you is clarification on these points, so if it does differ from Peri's view, then I can address it properly for each case.


Anyway, to continue...

The research scientists' rough estimate for size and shape of the anomaly...

"The anomaly is within a 165-foot (50-meter) to 490-foot (150-meter) radius around the landing site"

And what they consider the most likely cause of this anomaly...

"The disruption in the structure of the lunar regolith is caused by the landing, Kreslavsky said. He contends that the alteration has been created by the lunar modules engine during touchdown"

Peri agrees with the above points, so I'll recap the rest of his argument....






Peri's argument (as I see it) all boils down to these basic points:

- Clementine took 52 photos of the same region of the lunar surface. Each photo was taken from a slightly different position / angle, as Clementine passed above the region.

- The surface brightness of one specific region - a 50-150 meter radius - remained the same (or nearly the same) in all 52 photos, unlike any other areas captured in the images.

The cause of this anomaly, as you see it...

- The LM descent engine plume 'blasted' the loose top layers of dust from the lunar surface.

- This exposed a 50-150 meter radius of smooth (or smoother) and lighter (brighter) surface area, around the LM landing (center) point, compared to the surface outside this radius. The area was the same brightness, in all 52 angles of the 52 photos.


There are huge problems with this argument.

The most obvious problem is that it's totally contradicted by NASA's entire archive of Apollo 15 photos and videos.

There is not even one photo to support Peri's argument.

I contend that the Clementine images actually supports my argument, that Apollo was a hoax, rather than being any sort of evidence proving Apollo as genuine.

I've always assumed he used quotation marks to distinguish it as a reconstructed image, as opposed to a 'true', or conventional image.?.. .

Here's the email that I sent to Dr. Boffin earlier this evening:



Again, I will post whatever response I get here in this thread.



Cz

I think your mention of the hi-res pictures from Apollos 15 to 17 is incorrect. Their best resolution is about 0.5 metres, so better than the claimed VTLI capability. Even then, the LMs only show up as bright dots casting shadows.

Thank you for trying to twist around my words. By "want to look like", I mean that with a 2 meter resolution and a reconstruction based on data as opposed to a real image, I doubt there will be anything one could point to and say "That's an LM". It may also just be a series of interference patterns representing the data and not a "image" based on the data. It depends on how much post processing they subject the data to and how much it "can" be subjected to. There will be data showing that something is there but at that resolution it will still be able to be handwaved away.

Yes, I realise the resolution of the A15 - A17 pictures is higher than the approximate 2-meter resolution that the VLTI could produce in principle. My question asks what a picture produced by the VLTI would look like compared to the pictures taken by Clementine or A15 - A17. Would it look like a "standard" picture of the Lunar surface ("Would an image of the surface of the Moon produced by the VTLI be recognizable or comparable to currently existing imagery of the lunar surface taken by conventional optical means?") or would it look significantly different because the image was created by interferometry?



Cz

Hello again, turb. The above image is not a photograph, so the spot is neither "light" nor "dark." Darker shades in that image represent lower values of the photometric function used by the authors. The photometric anomaly at the Apollo 15 landing site does correspond very closely to a brightened area around the LM visible in Apollo photos. As I posted previously, the Apollo photographs show a diffuse brightening of the region around the LM likely due to the descent engine plume. Crew activity (footprints and rover tracks) churns up the regolith and leaves areas which appear darker. I don't see that MID and I are at all in disagreement here. Besides, it's completely irrelevant to the analysis conducted by Kreslavsky and Shkuratov.



First of all, these are not my arguments. They are points presented by Dr. Mikhail Kreslavsky of Kharkov National University, Ukraine, and Prof. Yurij Shkuratov, Director of the Astronomical Observatory at Kharkov National University. They present their data in ANOMALIES OF THE LUNAR REGOLITH STRUCTURE IN THE VICINITY OF APOLLO-15 LANDING SITE: RESULTS FROM PHOTOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF CLEMENTINE UVVIS IMAGES.

Second, you're misinterpreting their statements:
- The photometric anomaly at the Apollo 15 landing site is NOT unique. Other similar anomalies exist in that image and in other areas analyzed by the authors. Their hypothesis is that the areas correspond to recently disturbed areas of lunar regolith.
- The brightness of the anomalous areas is not necessarily identical in all images -- it just changes less rapidly with phase angle than the surrounding, undisturbed, regions.
- The authors do not claim that the photometric anomaly is due to the descent engine plume "blasting the loose top layers of dust from the lunar surface." They only hypothesize that the engine plume has altered the small-scale structure of the surface regolith:

QUOTE

There is a negative anomaly at the Apollo 15 landing site [1]. We interpret it as an area of an "openwork" regolith structure damaged by the lander jets. Some brightening of the surface at the landing site attributed to the regolith disturbance by the jets had been observed in images taken from the orbit by Apollo 15 astronauts [6]. Study of microphotographs of the regolith at the landing sites [7] has shown a difference in mm-scale topographic characteristics between locations close and far from the landers.

For further details, you may want read some of the authors' related publications:

PHOTOMETRIC ANOMALIES OF THE LUNAR SURFACE: NEW RESULTS FROM CLEMENTINE DATA ANALYSIS, Kreslavsky M. A. and Shkuratov Yu. G. (2002) LPS 33, #1161
AN EMPIRICAL PHOTOMETRIC FUNCTION IN ANALYSIS OF CLEMENTINE DATA, Kreslavsky M. A., et al. (1999) LPS 30, #1039
A MODEL OF LUNAR PHOTOMETRIC FUNCTION, Shkuratov Yu. G. and Kreslavsky M. A. (1998) LPS 29, #1117



Two points:
1) The photometric analysis presented by Kreslavsky and Shkuratov is not a photograph. It's a data plot based on analysis of images made at various specific wavelengths. The anomalies in the analysis may or may not correspond to readily-visible features in Apollo photography. Their analysis can be completely valid even if nothing at all shows up in ordinary photography of the region.
2) It just so happens that the Apollo photo record does indeed show visible disturbances at the LM landing sites. Your statement that there is not even one single photo to support the Clementine analysis is completely, utterly wrong. Have you not looked at my previous posts? I've already shown you several Apollo photographs that clearly show disturbances surrounding the LM landing sites:





I also previously showed you that the anomaly in the Clementine analysis lines up very nicely with the visible disturbance at the Apollo 15 landing site as photographed by the orbiting CSM:




Ok, please explain why the analysis by Kreslavsky and Shkuratov is wrong.

Edited to correct typo.

This statement says that they could not image the sites in sufficient detail.
2 m is not sufficient detail to satisfy yours, or any other HB's requirements in this matter. The smallest spot in the picture would be an obscure shape consisting of the body of a LM descent stage. You wouldn't even be able to distinguish its landing gear, and would hardly be convinced....

I think Peri handled it adequately.
No further comment required on my part!

It appears that Peri has indeed clarified the fact that there are no conflicts or disagreements in what we have said concerning the matter.

Perhaps, Hat, you might want to understand what the "doctor" actually said in his statement?

I just wanted to say that Pericynthion "pulled out all the stops" on this topic, in that last reply. It has been altogether very interesting. However, I would never have thought someone would suggest existing interferometric means could be used on the lunar surface, especially for any such purpose.

Kudos to all for dealing with the idea, nonetheless. It probably was inevitable.

Ditto...a really nice piece of work there!




...I just don't know how much more can be done to illustrate this imagery business...we will not be getting any imagery, on orbit, or from any telescope here on earth, that equals what we've already gotten from the Apollo astronauts themselves...I also don't understand why it's so difficult to understand the facts of this matter, and to learn about them...

If you cannot learn from what Peri has posted here, well...it's probably a lost cause.

You know what really confuses me...there are people willing to believe in the reality of various things (UFOs as ET space ships, Bigfoot as a real animal etc.) with very, very little tangible evidence. Then here, regarding the Apollo missions, one has available tons and tons of really good/solid evidence, and some folks simply can't believe it's true!

Yep, confuses the heck out of me.

It's the HB mindset (and my opinion about it would violate this boards rules). anything the government says must be a lie.

That is indeed confusing, Lil...and that's probably an understatement!

?? Didn't you read your own links? The paper specifically states that there is an "..absence of similar spots in the scene...!!



First of all - I agree with you, that they do not/did not make that claim. Second - I never said that they did make that claim.

If you re-read my post, you'll see it was my take on your argument. In this case, based on your previous comments, such as...

"The LM descent engine plume would tend to smooth out the surface as it shifted dust around and erased the micrometeorite roughness."

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify the point.



"Altered" is your own description, and not that of the authors, I presume?

They actually describe this region (of the lunar surface) as damaged. In the first paper, they mention it twice...

Anomalies in η mean relatively recent local damage of the regolith structure. For Apollo 15 landing site, the damage within the radius of 50-150 m around the landing site is probably caused by the lander jet.

And once again, in the second paper linked, they describe the surface as "damaged"...

There is a negative anomaly at the Apollo 15 landing site [1]. We interpret it as an area of an "openwork" regolith structure damaged by the lander jets. Some brightening of the surface at the landing site attributed to the regolith disturbance by the jets had been observed in images taken from the orbit by Apollo 15 astronauts [6]. Study of microphotographs of the regolith at the landing sites [7] has shown a difference in mm-scale topographic characteristics between locations close and far from the landers.

Other than "disturbance", noted one time in reference to Apollo 15 astronaut observations, they repeatedly describe the surface as "damaged".

Obviously, the term "altered" is hardly synonymous with the term "damaged". So why do they keep describing the region as "damaged"?



Agreed, it's not a photo. Btw, it's described as a 'map' in the paper, so I'll start calling it a 'map', going forward...



To start with, I'm still puzzled about this...

They point out that 52 Clementine photographs were the "source data" for their studies. But AFAIK, they've only posted one of those 52 photos (Fig.1, in the first paper linked). I can't find any references for the 52 photos they used in the study. They don't even have a reference # for the one photo they do include in the paper!! I'm baffled, since it would have been easy for them to include ref.#'s for those photos in their paper.

So, Peri - do you, or does anyone else, know where to find reference #s for the 52 photos?

I need to look at the source photos first, before I add comments.



Sure, I've looked at your previous posts. But with all due respect, I find your photos "clearly show" nothing that supports your argument.

I'll address that - next post....

Peri...The first photo you posted was AS15-84-11324 (cropped and enhanced).

You also made these comments...

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

I've edited the photo, as shown here...



Am I correct in saying that the red arrow points to - what you claim to be - a "brightened swath from the descent engine plume"?

If so, then what caused the "brightened swath" that the green arrow points to?

I also see several other "brightened swaths" in the photo, of varying size. What caused all of them?


You claim that the LM descent engine plume created a "brightened swath", and hold up this photo as evidence. But the photo shows there is another "brightened swath", which appears to be almost identical to the one you claim was caused by the LM descent engine plume! (Along with several other "brightened swaths")

Where is the "brightened swath" in this photo?...



(AS15-87-11839)

Or in this photo?...



(AS15-92-12451)

Or in this photo?....



(AS15-92-12430)

I'd post more photos, but since none of them show a "brightened swath" around the LM, what would be the point?


The authors of the paper describe the "dark spot"....

- It's a region of "damage within the radius of 50-150 m around the landing site", which "is probably caused by the lander jet."

- They are "sure that this is a real feature."

If the 'map' really does show a real feature, a region of damaged lunar surface (measuring ~50-150m radius), then it was most definitely NOT caused by the Apollo 15 "lander jet"!

The Apollo 15 photos clearly show no evidence of a 50-150m region of surface damage around the LM. Or a "brightened swath".

Then why didn't you just say that to begin with?

Well, I have to admit it. I do indeed want the LM to actually look like the LM.

Since you're already convinced, I guess you'd be just as happy to see a shapeless blob?

I tried to. Is it my fault that you tried to twist my words around instead? Others understood what I was getting at.

When did I say I would be happy with a shapeless blob? Thanks for twisting my words around again. The question here was whether or not this telesope would be able to see the artifacts left there. You have been insisting that they said they could but your own evidence shows that what they would see is not up to your own standards (as if anything would be).

Relax, it was only meant in jest - the smiley face should've clued you in.

Anyway, I stand by ESO's reply on the VLT. It's able to 'image' the landing sites. To what degree, that is something we don't know yet. Or maybe they do know, but they won't tell us (for some reason....hmm)

I don't think there's any question about the brightened swath visible in this picture about the LM.
I also have a difficult time wondering what relevance other brightened areas have to do with the issue.
Brightening is caused by disruption and spreading of surface layers---typical around the rims of craters, rays and things like that---and of course uniform shearing of dust layers as happens when the DPS exhaust strike the surface.

It's already been explained that this phenomenon is generally observable from a distance and what one sees in general photographically depends on lighting angles and distance from the area, as well as exposure quality and settings.

This photo is taken from a vantage point ~300 feet above the plain and about 2.9 SM to the south of the LM. The lightened area is obviously visible from that distance. Right up on the LM you'll see the much more vigorous disruptions of churned up ground by footprints, digging around, rover movements, etc...but not the subtle lightening caused by uniform disruption of surface dust.


I thought this would've already been clear from previous discussions.

Photos taken immediately in the vicinity don't distinguish that subtle variation.

I'm thinking the altered/damaged/impinged/swept surface change in brightness differs in the photos due to view angle, perhaps exposure setting, light angle. It's clearly evedent in many photos (not so much in some) that the astronaut's shuffling around created darker areas as they disturbed things. The whole light/dark doesn't really prove or disprove anything, just that the surface seemed to be altered by the landing LM and very noticably by the astronauts activity.

Absolutely Mr. B.
I think that's a good synopsis of the situation.

QUOTE (Pericynthion @ Feb 7 2008, 11:48 AM)

QUOTE (turbonium @ Feb 7 2008, 01:17 AM)

- The surface brightness of one specific region - a 50-150 meter radius - remained the same (or nearly the same) in all 52 photos, unlike any other areas captured in the images.

- The photometric anomaly at the Apollo 15 landing site is NOT unique. Other similar anomalies exist in that image and in other areas analyzed by the authors. Their hypothesis is that the areas correspond to recently disturbed areas of lunar regolith.

Of course I read the paper. You're quoting the authors out of context. Here's the relevant passage (my bolding):

QUOTE

The map of the parameter <eta> of the phase dependence of brightness (Fig. 3) shows several distinctive diffuse features in the flat surface. The most pronounced feature is a diffuse halo shown with the left arrow in Fig. 3. It is associated with an impact crater shown with the arrow in Fig. 4 (taken from Lunar Orbiter V frame 105M). The well-expressed inner part of the diffuse halo has a radius of 0.7 km; a faint extension of the halo can be traced up to 2 km from the center. Smaller and less pronounced halo (the upper arrow in Fig. 3) is also associated with an impact crater (the arrow in Fig. 5; the same LO frame). Both craters are fresh, because they have sharp slope breaks (Fig. 4, 5) and are bright (Fig. 1) due to the regolith immaturity. The haloes extend much farther from the crater centers than the increased albedo (immature soil). There are some other fresh craters of comparable size in the scene, which do not have any halo in Fig. 3, for example, the crater in the upper left part of Fig. 4.

A small dark spot (lower right arrow in Fig. 3) is not associated with any fresh crater but exactly coincides with Apollo 15 landing site. This object is very small, and we cannot prove with absolute reliability that the dark spot is not an occasional result of some superposition of noise realizations in the images used, however our screening of all the images, absence of similar spots in the scene and exact coincidence of the spot with the landing site made us sure that this is a real feature.

You claimed that there were no other areas in the image which showed a low brightness dependence on phase angle. I disagreed with that statement. As the authors noted, there are several other diffuse anomalies in the processed map. The comment about "absence of similar spots in the scene" is in regard to ruling out image processing artifacts as a possible explanation. The anomaly at the landing site may have some unique characteristics (not being tied to a resolvable crater, for example), but it is NOT the only negative photometric anomaly in the image map.


I'm not interested in playing word games with you, turbonium. "Damaged," "altered," and "disturbed" are indeed all synonyms in this case. The authors clearly state that they believe the photometric anomalies they're observing are due to millimeter-scale changes in the surface regolith structure. Feel free to describe it using whatever term you're most comfortable with. Your choice of words has no effect at all on the results of the Clementine image analysis.


The authors state that they used UVVIS imagery from Clementine orbit 299. The area in question is the Apollo 15 landing site located at 26.13222° N latitude, 3.63386° E. longitude. That should be sufficient information to allow you to make a request for the appropriate raw images.

Note: I've removed the actual images from the quote below to save bandwidth

Sigh ...

I see you're conveniently ignoring the orbital images. The photos you posted above are too close to the LM and show mostly the areas churned up by the crew. The brightened area is large, diffuse, and subtle. To see it clearly, you need to look at images showing a larger area around the LM:

AS15-88-11895 -- Enhanced levels


AS15-82-11192 -- Enhanced levels


AS15-87-11852 -- Enhanced levels


AS15-85-11485 -- Enhanced levels & cropped


AS15-85-11509 -- Enhanced levels & cropped




I really don't know where to go from here, turb. In your earlier post here, you were able to identify the brightened area around the LM and mark it with a big red arrow, yet you don't believe it exists. How can I possibly respond to that?

First of all, if the area is "large, diffuse, and subtle", then why do they keep describing it as "damaged"?

And if the area is an actual physical feature, so distinctly different than the surrounding area, then it would be more visibly prominent at closer range.

What you are describing - a "brightened area" that is "large, diffuse, and subtle" - is simply a lighting effect, not an actual physical feature. It's exactly like seeing a bright swath on a mountain when the Sun is hitting it a a certain angle. It's not an actual physical feature.



I just did - it's a lighting effect. This effect is also seen in several other areas in that photo - such as the region I've indicated with the green arrow.

If this was an actual physical feature, it would be seen in many photos - not just one photo from far away, that shows the very same effect in several other areas!

Where do you see the "brightened area" in this photo?

Turb, the diffuse brightness behind the LM, which is where such areas were located, since that's where DPS exhust made contact with the surface and spread thin layers of dust, is obvious in this photo, as well as in the other photos that peri posted. For that matter, you can clearly see lightened areas surrounding the LRV tire track in the foreground...where a thin layer of dust has been deposited around the tire track after having been kicked up by the tire. You see them in this photo most likely because you're looking essentially down sun. You probably wouldn't see it at all if you looked cross sun at it...

I too have no idea where to go from here, or where we're going at all, since this is a known effect. It's the same effect that makes the rays of young impact craters show up as light colored from a distance. You could be standing in one of them, and you'd likely never notice it, but from a distance, they're prominently visible...


Is there some evidence you perceive of a hoax in this rather understood phenomenon?

Peri has bent over backwards with some exceptional work to explain this to you. Indeed, I should assume his back hurts from the bending.
I think perhaps it's time for you to do a little bending and explain what you're getting at...

If the DPS exhaust only "spread thin layers of dust", why do they always describe the region as being "damaged"?

It is obviously not an accurate description, from the photos and videos, it's one thing we both agree on. (even if it's the only thing!)

It seems odd to keep describing it incorrectly....maybe I'll try asking them to find out.

Out of time, I'll have more to say on this asap

Yes, there is most definitely a lighting effect (shadow hiding) involved. This is precisely what Kreslavsky and Shkuratov are detecting in their analysis of the Clementine imagery (see below). I believe there may also be some actual, subtle exposure of brighter, immature regolith. Young impact craters are typically brighter than the surrounding, undisturbed regolith. These brighter areas are fairly common, as you noted in the photo. The lighting effects detected by Kreslavsky and Shkuratov are completely independent of any actual physical brightening of the surface.



And I think I've shown you pretty clearly that the brightened area is shown in quite a few photos, not just one.



I really don't understand why you're so hung up on the word "damaged" here. The authors aren't describing ANYTHING incorrectly. That's your personal bias showing through. They are very, very clear that the regolith "damage" they are discussing is a small-scale change in the structure of the very top layers of the lunar soil. Millions of years of micrometeorite bombardment has etched a delicate, roughened pattern into the top layer of lunar soil particles at the millimeter-scale level. Shaking the soil, dropping a layer of dust on it, or sweeping it with the tenuous DPS engine plume can disturb this delicate structure and change the small-scale roughness of the soil.

Here are relevant quotes from some of the papers presented by Kreslavsky, Shkuratov, and their colleagues. The document titles are links to the originals. I've highlighted some of the most important passages:

ANOMALIES OF THE LUNAR REGOLITH STRUCTURE IN THE VICINITY OF APOLLO-15 LANDING SITE
At the phase angle range in effect, the steepness of phase dependence of brightness is thought to be controlled predominantly by the shadow-hiding mechanism. In the frame of this mechanism, for the same albedo the lower values of n; (darker shades in Fig. 3) correspond to a regolith surface, which is flatter at scales of 0.1 – 10 mm [e.g., 4]. At these scales, the regolith structure is controlled by microimpacts. The uniform value of η corresponds to a saturation of the microimpact effect. Anomalies in n; mean relatively recent local damage of the regolith structure.


PHOTOMETRIC ANOMALIES OF THE LUNAR SURFACE: NEW RESULTS FROM CLEMENTINE DATA ANALYSIS
Some small (~100m) fresh craters have halos of negative anomaly [1]. Old craters never have such halos. Many morphologically fresh craters, exhibiting bright ejecta zones, do not have the anomalous halos. The halo is usually 0.5-5 km in diameter, several times wider than the bright ejecta area of the associated crater. The latter proves that we do observe a structure anomaly. The halos have less steep phase curves than the background; this means that the uppermost layer of the regolith has smoother microtopography and/or higher packing density. We interpret this in the following way. The uppermost regolith layer has a specific porous openwork, "fairycastle" millimeter-scale structure, which is created by the space weathering factors, primarily, due to the micrometeoritic bombardment. The impact damages this structure in some vicinity of the impact site. Particular mechanism of this damage may be shaking of the regolith by the impact-induced shock/seismic wave. Alternatively, a shower of fine-grain distal ejecta could be powerful enough to damage the structure, but not enough to overturn the regolith and expose the brighter immature material.


PHOTOMETRIC CHARACTERIZATION OF SELECTED LUNAR SITES BY SMART-1 AMIE DATA
The negative anomaly for distal ejecta areas may be explained by disturbing the “fairy-castle” microstructure of the regolith by the impact event. The local modification can produce a less porous layer with suppressed shadow-hiding effect [6]. We interpret the positive anomaly for craters 1 as an increase of mesoscale roughness in the proximal ejecta zone, making the phase function steeper. This roughness can be due to the presence of an anomalously large number of boulders and blocks. Such photometric anomalies were not observed in areas studied in [6]. Large-scale subtle variations of η over the mare surface (Fig.1b) may be explained by the presence of more fine-grained pyroclastic material in the vicinity of volcanic domes.


PHOTOMETRY OF THE MOON WITH AMIE/SMART-1: PHOTOMETRIC PARAMETER AS ROUGHNESS INDEX.
The average structure of the lunar surface consists in a porous upper layer with various small fragments. Reflecting properties of this layer gives the uniform shape of photometric function. The average integrated lunar indicatrix [1] was used as a background photometric model. Taken as a reference, it permits to intercompare in a uniform system the shape of the phase function of different areas located at different longitude and latitude on the Moon. The Saari and Shorthill catalogue [2] data were used as observed phase functions. If the observed surface is represented by significant fields of ejecta materials, with many fragments of rocks, a shadow-hiding mechanism is involved, showing up at low phase angles.

Note that in the passage I've highlighted in red, the authors indicate that the photometric anomalies they've detected around young craters is independent from the bright ejecta areas. Some craters with bright ejecta show the photometric anomaly, many don't. The anomaly itself tends to be "several times wider than the bright ejecta area of the associated crater."

The bottom line here, turb, is that Kreslavsky and Shkuratov have developed a photo analysis technique which they believe can detect recent disturbances of the lunar regolith. They have used Clementine and SMART-1 data to detect these disturbances around fresh craters and other lunar features. They have also detected a similar disturbance precisely at the Apollo 15 landing site. This finding is completely independent of anything in the Apollo photo record. If you want to discount their findings, then you need to show us precisely why their photometric analysis technique is wrong.

It may be odd to you, Turb, but it's just a word. Like peri, I can't understand the attachment to the word "damaged".
It is likely used to mean "disrupted". But what the heck, ask them, I say!