Fifty years of Apollo conspiracy theories

[Derek Willis]

12 hours ago, Obviousman said:

I think people are possibly missing something here: there is an altitude / speed where dust is visible from the LM, and an altitude where dust is created and could affect the Surveyor.

The altitudes do not have to be the same.

I came across an interesting paper (2008) discussing the complex issue of dust being blown about by Lunar Module engines

http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2931&context=icchge

On page 2 the authors suggest the dust on Surveyor 3 was deposited by the Lunar Module during the final phase of its descent - i.e. not when the Lunar Module flew past the probe earlier on. This other paper (2010) however, suggest the dust was deposited during the earlier fly-by.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120008741.pdf

It seems the question of how the dust got there is more complicated than simply saying, as you suggest, the dust being deposited on the Surveyor wasn't visible from the Lunar Module.   

[Derek Willis]

15 hours ago, Obviousman said:

I think people are possibly missing something here: there is an altitude / speed where dust is visible from the LM, and an altitude where dust is created and could affect the Surveyor.

The altitudes do not have to be the same.

Actually, according to NASA they are the same. In the diagram I provided in #52 the Lunar Module was at an altitude of 67 meters when it flew past Surveyor 3 and supposedly deposited the dust. In the quote from the Apollo 12 Surface Journal I provided in #57, Pete Conrad said he had first seen dust when the Lunar Module was at an altitude of 300 feet (90 meters). This was later adjusted to 220 feet. 220 feet is 67 meters. Conspiracy theorists might say, how convenient ... 

[Peter B]

57 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Actually, according to NASA they are the same. In the diagram I provided in #52 the Lunar Module was at an altitude of 67 meters when it flew past Surveyor 3 and supposedly deposited the dust. In the quote from the Apollo 12 Surface Journal I provided in #57, Pete Conrad said he had first seen dust when the Lunar Module was at an altitude of 300 feet (90 meters). This was later adjusted to 220 feet. 220 feet is 67 meters. Conspiracy theorists might say, how convenient ... 

Ahem, what am I? Chopped liver? ;-)

I provided a link to the diagram in post #19, and mentioned Conrad's discussion of the dust in post #56!

[Derek Willis]

1 hour ago, Peter B said:

Ahem, what am I? Chopped liver? ;-)

I provided a link to the diagram in post #19, and mentioned Conrad's discussion of the dust in post #56!

I know you provided a link to the diagram, but I thought it best to provide the diagram itself.

You also mentioned Conrad's discussion of the dust, but didn't provide the text. The text shows that Conrad's figure of 300 feet was "redrafted" to 220 feet. You had said around 240 feet. This could be seen as splitting hairs, but I wanted to point out how the redrafted altitude matches the altitude the Lunar Module was at when it flew past Surveyor 3. This means the Lunar Module must have been at its closest approach to Surveyor 3 when Conrad first saw the dust. This kind of doesn't make sense because he had said he had essentially stopped the forward motion at that point. But that can't be the case because he carried on forward for another 45 meters.   

Don't worry, if I prove Project Apollo was a gigantic hoax I will give you all the credit you are due!

Edit: I got that calculation wrong. From the diagram you linked to, the Lunar Module traveled forward almost 200 meters, not 45. Moreover, the forward velocity averaged over 2 meters per second. 

Edited January 31, 2019 by Derek Willis

[ChrLzs]

16 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

..how the dust got there is more complicated..

This.  Exactly as I posted quite early in the thread, and am feeling quite vindicated having been silly enough to read the last few pages of musings..  It's simply not solvable given the information we have (and that probably won't change in the foreseeable future).   I would ask you guys to consider this possible scenario...

Imagine there is a small patch of bumpy ground nearby, shaped by past impacts, rocks..

Imagine there is/was a slight funnel shape, coincidentally angled so that an impact near the edge of it would spray lots of dust in the Surveyor's direction.

Imagine there was a small meteoric impact in roughly the right spot, and that funnelly* shaped piece of ground resulted in a larger amount of dust on/around the Surveyor than one might expect.  (That amount, of course, also being added to, in large or small extents by other nearby impacts, the Apollo pass 1 or 2, or perhaps even a moonquake or static electricity hotspots, or.....)

Prove me wrong!

 

In other words, c'mon guys.  Nobody can possibly solve this (although I can think of someone who might throw up a couple equations and claim to have the definitive answer), and I doubt it's gunna go viral and re-invigorate the Apollo-deniers.  I think those folks don't like to talk about moon dust, as it's behavior in all the imagery pretty much proves beyond doubt that it all happened in 1/6 gravity and a full vacuum.  Ie on the Moon...

 

 

* 'funnily' - geddit?.. 

 

 

 

[Derek Willis]

8 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

This.  Exactly as I posted quite early in the thread, and am feeling quite vindicated having been silly enough to read the last few pages of musings..  It's simply not solvable given the information we have (and that probably won't change in the foreseeable future).   I would ask you guys to consider this possible scenario...

Imagine there is a small patch of bumpy ground nearby, shaped by past impacts, rocks..

Imagine there is/was a slight funnel shape, coincidentally angled so that an impact near the edge of it would spray lots of dust in the Surveyor's direction.

Imagine there was a small meteoric impact in roughly the right spot, and that funnelly* shaped piece of ground resulted in a larger amount of dust on/around the Surveyor than one might expect.  (That amount, of course, also being added to, in large or small extents by other nearby impacts, the Apollo pass 1 or 2, or perhaps even a moonquake or static electricity hotspots, or.....)

Prove me wrong!

In other words, c'mon guys.  Nobody can possibly solve this (although I can think of someone who might throw up a couple equations and claim to have the definitive answer), and I doubt it's gunna go viral and re-invigorate the Apollo-deniers.  I think those folks don't like to talk about moon dust, as it's behavior in all the imagery pretty much proves beyond doubt that it all happened in 1/6 gravity and a full vacuum.  Ie on the Moon...

* 'funnily' - geddit?.. 

It is complicated. For instance, in the scenario you give - i.e. an impact of a meteoroid - the impact would have to have occurred in exactly the right spot. Surveyor 3 was covered in fine dust, and there were no signs of impacts by larger fragments of rock. So, the probe must have been at the outer edge of the ejecta disc, where only dust was deposited (the larger fragments having bashed into each other closer to the impact site and lost radial momentum). But also, the dust must have been falling from a high angle because the entire probe was coated. In other words, no parts of the probe were facing away from the origin of the ballistically travelling dust particles. In addition, the dust must have been travelling downwards at a relatively low speed. If it were travelling too fast it would have either bounced off the probe's structures, or become embedded. The astronauts were able to wipe the dust away, to little or no embedding had occurred. There will be a region at a given distance from the impact site where the conditions are right, and I certainly can't prove your scenario isn't what happened.

In my opinion the dust of Surveyor 3 is a so far unexplained mystery (which is surely what this forum is all about!). Scientists - often funded by NASA - have come up with a range of possible solutions - the "difficult" landing, photo-electric induced dust storms - but none so far are definitive. I am happy to accept the dust was deposited by the Apollo 12 Lunar Module. Even then, it is of course complicated. The paper I linked to above http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2931&context=icchge has demonstrated how dust on the Moon is ejected at a shallow angle - usually no more then 3 degrees - from the "edge" of the conical exhaust plume of an engine. I think the flight path of the Lunar Module and the local topography was what caused this dust to coat Surveyor 3. The Lunar Module curved around the probe, and so was spraying dust from multiple directions. However, I think when the dust impinged on the lip of Surveyor Crater, this created what could be described as a "cloud" with particles bouncing upwards and colliding with other particles. This would have reduced/eliminated the radial velocity (centred on wherever the Lunar Module was at any given time) and essentially caused a "cloud" in which the motion of the particles was random. Dust from this "cloud" would then have fallen onto Surveyor 3.

I think the clue to this is in what Pete Conrad and Alan Bean said.

Conrad: "I'll tell you, the way that dust was going it probably went right over the top of it."

Bean: "You know, that's right. Any dust you had on the edge would never go down this crater."

They knew Surveyor 3 was slightly down the slope of Surveyor Crater, and their comments suggest the probe was in a "shadow" caused by the crater.Consequently, they believed the dust would have "... went right over the top ..." of Surveyor 3. However, I think the rise of the outer edge of the crater lip caused the "cloud" I have described. I certainly can't prove this, but it is more plausible than some of the suggestions.

If dust could be seen on the video of the Apollo 12 landing prior to the altitude being below 35 meters, then that would add credence to my hypothesis. Pete Conrad had no reason to make-up what he said about seeing dust at a higher altitude. For instance, at the altitude when he says he saw the dust, it may have been off in the distance at the edge of the exhaust plume, and not visible from the point of view of the camera inside the Lunar Module.

   

[Derek Willis]

9 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I think those folks don't like to talk about moon dust, as it's behavior in all the imagery pretty much proves beyond doubt that it all happened in 1/6 gravity and a full vacuum.  Ie on the Moon...

Or inside a giant plane flying on a reduced gravity trajectory.

[Myles]

3 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

Or inside a giant plane flying on a reduced gravity trajectory.

Why do that when they were on the moon?

[Derek Willis]

27 minutes ago, Myles said:

Why do that when they were on the moon?

I was making a joke.

[ChrLzs]

On 01/02/2019 at 8:25 PM, Derek Willis said:

Or inside a giant plane flying on a reduced gravity trajectory.

Yup.  A really, really, really, really big one - maybe one-o-dem Russian Tupolev thingies, musta been.... the area they filmed where these effects were most obvious, eg the shots of the A16 rover spewing those beautiful perfect parabolas of dust, was clearly enormous.... 

and the original is recorded on film (easily verifiable) so no cgi possible, even if they had it back then (they didn't)....

 

[Derek Willis]

13 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Yup.  A really, really, really, really big one - maybe one-o-dem Russian Tupolev thingies, musta been.... the area they filmed where these effects were most obvious, eg the shots of the A16 rover spewing those beautiful perfect parabolas of dust, was clearly enormous.... 

and the original is recorded on film (easily verifiable) so no cgi possible, even if they had it back then (they didn't)....

 

That is amazing footage! It always seems to me the imagery of Project Apollo is frozen in time. I guess that is because humans haven't yet been back to the Moon, and so the Apollo hardware never seems to look old-fashioned and the astronauts never seem to age. You and I are old enough to remember Project Apollo. I hope the fiftieth anniversary of Apollo 11 is celebrated for what it was - an amazing human adventure which truly was a "giant leap".

[ChrLzs]

On 04/02/2019 at 8:29 PM, Derek Willis said:

That is amazing footage! It always seems to me the imagery of Project Apollo is frozen in time. I guess that is because humans haven't yet been back to the Moon, and so the Apollo hardware never seems to look old-fashioned and the astronauts never seem to age. You and I are old enough to remember Project Apollo. I hope the fiftieth anniversary of Apollo 11 is celebrated for what it was - an amazing human adventure which truly was a "giant leap".

As I've said before, the whole thing gave, and still gives me goosebumps - from the initial horror of the Apollo 1 tragedy, the way NASA regrouped and introduced safety regimes and management practices (that are still used by the best organisations today), the way they progressively tested every technique that was required over the missions through to Apollo 10, the way the missions were all documented so thoroughly, and the enormity of overcoming all the obstacles using the available technology and very limited computing power and the final success with Apollo 11....  There is no other technological achievement by humankind that comes near it.

And as an eager, nerdy 12 year old, I could not get enough information - I still have old newspapers, magazine articles, souvenir publications, and I vividly remember being huddled around a television to watch the first steps - at that moment, the earth was unified in a way that I'd never seen before and I suspect never will again.

 

As for the idiotic conspiracy theories..  I always ask the deniers to state their favourite *first*, so we can look at the 'best' evidence they have in proper detail.  That process of debunking has unfolded so many times at so many forums, and with such an intense level of scrutiny, including citations, original photographs, corroboration from numerous sources, etc, that no person with any reasonable level of knowledge can seriously deny that Apollo took place exactly as advertised.

Usually, nowadays, as soon as you ask the denier to bring their best evidence to the table first, they run for the hills.  Which is a sensible option, as their best will be shown to be utterly uninformed drivel... 

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

Let's keep things civil and constructive please.

[Derek Willis]

17 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

And as an eager, nerdy 12 year old, I could not get enough information - I still have old newspapers, magazine articles, souvenir publications, and I vividly remember being huddled around a television to watch the first steps - at that moment, the earth was unified in a way that I'd never seen before and I suspect never will again.

I missed the first steps, and I think most of the people in the UK also missed them. We all watched the landing, which occurred at about nine in the evening UK time. The BBC then said Neil and Buzz would be having a rest period and a meal before suiting-up and stepping onto the Moon. The "first step" was scheduled for about seven in the morning UK time. So, just about all of the UK - and especially kids like me - went to bed excited at what we would see in the early morning. But then - rather inconsiderately in my opinion - Neil and Buzz decided to go out four hours early. Neil's "small step and giant leap" happened at 3.56 a.m. UK time. I have often wondered how many people of my age and older in the UK have a false memory of having seen the Apollo 11 moonwalk live. 

[ChrLzs]

17 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

I missed the first steps, and I think most of the people in the UK also missed them. We all watched the landing, which occurred at about nine in the evening UK time. The BBC then said Neil and Buzz would be having a rest period and a meal before suiting-up and stepping onto the Moon. The "first step" was scheduled for about seven in the morning UK time. So, just about all of the UK - and especially kids like me - went to bed excited at what we would see in the early morning. But then - rather inconsiderately in my opinion - Neil and Buzz decided to go out four hours early. Neil's "small step and giant leap" happened at 3.56 a.m. UK time. I have often wondered how many people of my age and older in the UK have a false memory of having seen the Apollo 11 moonwalk live. 

We were much luckier in Oz and I think many schools made it an optional holiday - can't remember if mine did or whether I just cajoled my Mum until she gave up.  It was announced on the radio that it would be earlier, iirc it was around 3pm our time that it actually happened.  I can imagine how you would have felt - I would have been pretty miffed had I missed it!

 

I've mentioned this before, so forgive me.. but if anyone wants to know what Australia's role was in the Apollo missions (and I wasn't fully aware of just how important it was, at the time), you need to watch the movie "The Dish".  It's quirky, very funny, very accurately captured the feel of the 60's in Australia, and it's just a lovely feel-good movie.  There were a few historical inaccuracies .. like the power failure which did not happen when it was portrayed, but much of it was true, including the high winds threatening the communications.  Great film.

[Derek Willis]

On 2/9/2019 at 10:15 AM, ChrLzs said:

We were much luckier in Oz and I think many schools made it an optional holiday - can't remember if mine did or whether I just cajoled my Mum until she gave up.  It was announced on the radio that it would be earlier, iirc it was around 3pm our time that it actually happened.  I can imagine how you would have felt - I would have been pretty miffed had I missed it!

 

I've mentioned this before, so forgive me.. but if anyone wants to know what Australia's role was in the Apollo missions (and I wasn't fully aware of just how important it was, at the time), you need to watch the movie "The Dish".  It's quirky, very funny, very accurately captured the feel of the 60's in Australia, and it's just a lovely feel-good movie.  There were a few historical inaccuracies .. like the power failure which did not happen when it was portrayed, but much of it was true, including the high winds threatening the communications.  Great film.

I was devastated. I had to make do with the BBC re-running what have now become the iconic images of the "First Step" (I hate that phase because an icon is an image).

What I do remember even from back then is how disappointed I was in the quality of the TV images. I remember having seen a transmission made from inside the Lunar Module on the way to the Moon. The quality of that color transmission was very good. Yet the black and white transmission from the Moon was poor. Do you know why there was such a difference in quality? 

[Obviousman]

12 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

I was devastated. I had to make do with the BBC re-running what have now become the iconic images of the "First Step" (I hate that phase because an icon is an image).

What I do remember even from back then is how disappointed I was in the quality of the TV images. I remember having seen a transmission made from inside the Lunar Module on the way to the Moon. The quality of that color transmission was very good. Yet the black and white transmission from the Moon was poor. Do you know why there was such a difference in quality? 

The lunar camera had a small bandwidth to use, and so it was Slow Scan TV at 10 frames per second at 320 lines. Despite this, the transmitted images were of good quality. The problem was that those images had to be converted to suit commercial TV (30 frames per second, 525 lines) when received back on Earth. Essentially what they did was to point a regular TV camera at the screen that was displaying the SSTV pictures (not quite correct but good enough to explain what happened).

This meant that the images transmitted on Earth were a picture of a picture.

For a more complete description, see here:

http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/The_Apollo11_SSTV_Tapes_Search.pdf

Edited March 2, 2019 by Obviousman

[Derek Willis]

3 hours ago, Obviousman said:

The lunar camera had a small bandwidth to use, and so it was Slow Scan TV at 10 frames per second at 320 lines. Despite this, the transmitted images were of good quality. The problem was that those images had to be converted to suit commercial TV (30 frames per second, 525 lines) when received back on Earth. Essentially what they did was to point a regular TV camera at the screen that was displaying the SSTV pictures (not quite correct but good enough to explain what happened).

This meant that the images transmitted on Earth were a picture of a picture.

For a more complete description, see here:

http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/The_Apollo11_SSTV_Tapes_Search.pdf

That looks like an interesting document.

I assume there must have been a reason why they couldn't use the same type of color camera on the Moon as they used inside the spacecraft?

[Peter B]

17 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

I was devastated. I had to make do with the BBC re-running what have now become the iconic images of the "First Step" (I hate that phase because an icon is an image).

What I do remember even from back then is how disappointed I was in the quality of the TV images. I remember having seen a transmission made from inside the Lunar Module on the way to the Moon. The quality of that color transmission was very good. Yet the black and white transmission from the Moon was poor. Do you know why there was such a difference in quality? 

Footage broadcast while the three crew were in space was transmitted using the Command Module's communications equipment, which was much more powerful than the Lunar Module's equipment.

[Peter B]

2 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

That looks like an interesting document.

I assume there must have been a reason why they couldn't use the same type of color camera on the Moon as they used inside the spacecraft?

Bandwidth.

Colour TV cameras were used on later missions, but they needed a larger dish to be deployed by the astronauts. On Apollos 12 and 14 the dish was deployed beside the LM. On Apollos 15 to 17 the dish was on the rover. And because the dish needed to be pointed directly at Earth, TV images could only be broadcast from the Moon when the rover was stationary (which was when the astronauts were working anyway).

There's video recorded from when the rovers were in motion, but that was recorded on a small film camera and wasn't available until the astronauts returned to Earth.

[Derek Willis]

48 minutes ago, Peter B said:

Bandwidth.

Colour TV cameras were used on later missions, but they needed a larger dish to be deployed by the astronauts. On Apollos 12 and 14 the dish was deployed beside the LM. On Apollos 15 to 17 the dish was on the rover. And because the dish needed to be pointed directly at Earth, TV images could only be broadcast from the Moon when the rover was stationary (which was when the astronauts were working anyway).

There's video recorded from when the rovers were in motion, but that was recorded on a small film camera and wasn't available until the astronauts returned to Earth.

It is a pity the complications of bandwidth and having to "re-televise" the TV stream couldn't have been sorted out in time for Apollo 11. The issue of the TV images is of course fodder for conspiracy theories. Apollo 11 had terrible TV, Apollo 12 had almost no TV because Alan Bean pointed the camera at the Sun. And of course Apollo 13 never made it to the surface. So the only half-descent TV images had to wait until Apollo 14, which was over 18 months after the first landing.

[Peter B]

35 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

It is a pity the complications of bandwidth and having to "re-televise" the TV stream couldn't have been sorted out in time for Apollo 11. The issue of the TV images is of course fodder for conspiracy theories. Apollo 11 had terrible TV, Apollo 12 had almost no TV because Alan Bean pointed the camera at the Sun. And of course Apollo 13 never made it to the surface. So the only half-descent TV images had to wait until Apollo 14, which was over 18 months after the first landing.

TV at all for Apollo 11 was a late inclusion. IIRC it was simply an issue of rushing to complete the testing for the equipment. Both Armstrong and Aldrin weren't happy with it - one more thing to fiddle with on what was already a pretty tricky mission.

From what I've read it was the public affairs people who pushed it through, saying something along the lines of, "The taxpayers of the USA might like to see where their money has gone."

And while the image quality wasn't great, it added a lot of immediacy to the live broadcast. These days, with all the photos, film and TV footage to look at, it's easy to forget that the only live imagery was those low quality TV pictures: the film and photos didn't become available until later.

[Phaeton80]

On 21-12-2018 at 2:05 AM, GlitterRose said:

In fifty years, I would have hoped we'd have gotten smarter. 

Yeah.. erm.. no.

"I'd go to the Moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again."

NASA Astronaut Don Pettit being interviewed, shares his thoughts on going to the moon. Pretty shocking that we no longer have the technology to go back to the moon - anyone know what happened to it?"
 

 

So, what did happen to that 1960'ies tech we 'arent able to build up again'..

 

Edited March 2, 2019 by Phaeton80

[Derek Willis]

17 minutes ago, Peter B said:

TV at all for Apollo 11 was a late inclusion. IIRC it was simply an issue of rushing to complete the testing for the equipment. Both Armstrong and Aldrin weren't happy with it - one more thing to fiddle with on what was already a pretty tricky mission.

From what I've read it was the public affairs people who pushed it through, saying something along the lines of, "The taxpayers of the USA might like to see where their money has gone."

And while the image quality wasn't great, it added a lot of immediacy to the live broadcast. These days, with all the photos, film and TV footage to look at, it's easy to forget that the only live imagery was those low quality TV pictures: the film and photos didn't become available until later.

I can understand the situation with Apollo 11. The Moonwalk was going to be short and a great deal had to be crammed in. On the other hand, like millions of other people I can remember as a kid being glued to my TV watching the live broadcast from Apollo 8 when they were orbiting the Moon. NASA's PR people must have been a bit slow if they didn't realize how important it would be to people - especially US taxpayers - to have the best view possible of the first landing. I am reminded of when ESA sent the Giotto probe to investigate Halley's Comet in 1986. During the development stage there was some dispute over whether having a camera in the visible range would be justified on scientific grounds.

But strangely you are perhaps right. The low quality ghostly images somehow make Apollo 11 seem more real. They enhance the "other worldly" nature of astronauts a quarter of a million miles away doing something that had never been done before.

[toast]

43 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again."

I think that this statement is one of the most wrong interpreted statements related to space flight. Of course, we do not have some spare Saturn V on stock and the tailor made tools and facilities that were used in the 60s to build it are scrapped meanwhile. Hell, we are capable to put probes on asteroids some hundreds of millions of miles away, with a touch down within a planned 50 meters radius and on schedule. We operate an artificial habitat in the Earth`s orbit for more than 10 years now and without any endangering failures.  So the argument should be: we dont have the equipment anymore to do it today but we still know how we can build it and we can build it much better than in the 60s.

Edited March 2, 2019 by toast