Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Derek Willis

Fifty years of Apollo conspiracy theories

119 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Derek Willis
On 12/27/2018 at 1:37 AM, ChrLzs said:

Maybe I've missed something (skim reading, too much other stuff to do today), but I am not seeing the/a problem.

As you already said, no dust on landing pads is because of ballistic dust movement, as there is no air to make the dust 'billow' or hang about.  Most of the dust blown by the exhaust travelled very low, and only a few particles would have bounced up or had a parabolic path that would land in the pad.  Also, we are talking about a period of just a few days, so no real time for deposition by other sources.

For Surveyor, much longer times are involved, plus by the random nature of meteor strikes there may have simply been a small or large local event.  Or electrostatic differences, either anomalies in that region, or perhaps due to the space craft design, materials, electronics... It's an extremely complex topic, and no way to easily guess at what combinations / what balance of factors was involved.

And to Derek (you devil's avocado you!), can you show me the maths for ... oh say a Harrier landing's dust deposition, or anything earthly but similar?  That is surely a much easier question .. as we could be there to measure it and then run the numbers....

And yes, if that sounds silly (and it is) that's my point.  No-one could (or more to the point, would) possibly do 'the maths' on such a complex problem with so many variables, and with so little reason to bother.

The point of my OP was to demonstrate how when there is something potentially inexplicable regarding an aspect of Project Apollo, that allows the Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory to fill the vacuum. So in this case, the claim was that there ought to be dust on the Lunar Module landing pads, but there isn't. Ergo, the Apollo missions were faked. Basic physics shows that it is unlikely there would be any dust on the pads, for the reasons described above. However, the dust covering Surveyor 3 could lead to the legitimate question, "If physics demonstrates why there isn't dust on the Lunar Modules, then why is there dust on Surveyor 3?" In the absence of a definitive answer, that could open up a can of worms as far as the conspiracy theorists are concerned. Of course, it is only because Apollo 12 landed on the Moon that we know Surveyor 3 is covered in dust. But that is not a problem to the conspiracy theorists because of the "Whistle-blower Hypothesis". According to this, what happened is that one or more whistle-blowers working in the studio where the Apollo missions were faked coated Surveyor 3 with dust as a "clue" that "something is not right with Project Apollo".

As for the physics and maths regarding the Harrier, as you well know that is an extremely difficult problem. Initially, conservation of momentum can explain what is happening - i.e. some or all of the momentum of the exhaust gasses is transferred to the dust/particles on the ground, and they fly off rapidly. But almost immediately, all hell breaks loose. The dust/particles impinge on the atmosphere, and what follows can only be described by fiendishly complex differential equations with god knows how many variables. I would say it is impossible to solve those equations - especially when convection currents and other dynamics are taken into account. An iterative algorithm might produce an approximation, but I doubt anyone has ever bothered to try. So, I will pass on your challenge.

Fortunately, the Surveyor probes landed on the Moon, so it is possible to make a reasonable stab at what went on with Surveyor 3. The first thing to note is that the imprints of the foot pad in the image provided by Toast in #34 were not caused by the "bouncing" during the difficult landing. They were caused by what could be called "micro-bounces" as the craft finally settled on the surface. I will return to this later.

The landing procedure of the Surveyors was supposed to be straightforward. The probes were intended to be slowed to zero velocity at an altitude of 3.4 meters. At that point the three engines were shut-down, and the probe fell to the surface and impacted at 3 m/s. The force of landing was absorbed by the shock absorbers, and so no bouncing would occur.

Unfortunately for Surveyor 3, spurious reflections from the surface confused the Doppler radar and so neither the altitude nor velocity were known. The probe continued down to the surface at about 1 m/s, but without the engines switching off. This link describes what happened next.

https://honeysucklecreek.net/other_stations/tidbinbilla/Surveyor_3_hl.html

Basically, Surveyor 3 lifted-off again and "hopped" a distance of twenty meters, landed again, and then hopped another eleven meters before finally settling on the surface. The only reason this hopping stopped was because 34 seconds after the initial touchdown a signal sent from Earth switched off the engines. 

I believe very little - if any - of the dust deposited on Surveyor 3 was put there by this unorthodox landing. Firstly, the force of the engines impacting on the surface was too low to raise much dust. At the time of the landing, each engine had been throttled down to a thrust of 30 kg (the minimum level). The exit area of an engine nozzle was about 200 cm2 , so that meant the exit pressure was about 0.15kg/cm2. That is pretty low. By comparison, a human can blow at a pressure of about 0.1kg/cm2 . And bear in mind, in a vacuum the gasses rapidly expand as they exit a rocket nozzle, and so rapidly reducing the pressure. I estimate the pressure from the engines hitting the surface during each "landing and take-off" was about a tenth of the nozzle exit pressure, i.e. about 0.015kg/cm2 . That really is very gentle, and so wouldn't have blown up hardly any dust at all.

As the landing pads impacted the surface they would have kicked up some dust. But the probe was descending at only 1 m/s so there wouldn't have been much dust. And, during its first "hop", Surveyor 3 reached a height of 10 meters and a distance of 20 meters, so I doubt any of the dust kicked up would have come to rest on the craft. The same would be the case for the second hop.

When the Surveyor 3 finally came to a rest there were three "micro-bounces", and a slight sliding. This was because the probe came down on a 12 degree slope on the inside of a crater. The extra "drop" of the pad furthest down the slope, and then the sliding, caused the probe's frame to "judder" and flex, and one of the pads bounced gently twice. The pad lowest down the slope became partially dug-in due to the slow sliding motion caused by the Moon's gravity. Any dust disturbed as the pad dug-in would have been thrown away from the probe, so it seems unlikely any would have reached the top of the solar panel/antenna mast.

Toast initially mentioned that the small clump of dust on one of the pads looked like it had been kicked there by one of the astronauts. It turns out it was! According to the Apollo 12 Surface Journal, one of the astronauts was asked to kick the soil near the pad.

The best answer to why Surveyor 3 was covered in dust is that it was blown there as Apollo 12 flew past, and then partially blown off when the Lunar Module landed. At the time the astronauts - Pete Conrad and Alan Bean - did not believe the dust could have been deposited by their Lunar Module. But a chemical analysis seems to confirm that is the case. 

Anyway, I am sure few people are interested in my analysis, but it has whiled away a couple hours before New Year. My point is that the "bald facts" - Lunar Modules aren't covered in dust, Surveyor 3 is covered in dust - could be made to fit the Moon Landing Conspiracy theory, especially when the full facts are missed out.

Now, wait until I get onto my next pet subject. Along with the famous "makeshift" fender, Gene Cernan brought part of each of the fenders from their Apollo 17 Lunar Rover back home from the Moon. Said fender parts are now in American museums. Apparently, however, Cernan's co-astronaut Jack Schmitt had no idea about that. During the 1990s the astronauts were being interviewed for the compilation of their Surface Journal, and were shown the last photograph Cernan had taken of the Rover after he'd parked it up for the famous film of the Lunar Module lift-off. Schmitt had asked: "Where are the other fenders?" Now there's a mystery. How could those fender parts have been brought all the way home without Schmitt knowing ...        

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis

Here is something I didn't notice earlier. According to the conclusions of the paper linked to below (which was funded by NASA), Surveyor 3 was coated in dust when the Apollo 12 Lunar Module flew past on its way to the landing site. Then, as the Lunar Module landed, the engine exhaust propelled particles horizontally and these "sandblasted" some of the dust off Surveyor 3.

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

This seems to make sense when you look at the diagram below (provided by NASA). As the Lunar Module came in to land, it's closest approach to Surveyor 3 was 109 meters. This would have been to point where the dust was being blown onto Surveyor 3. Then, when the Lunar module landed at a distance of 155 meters, the parts of Surveyor 3 facing the Lunar Module were "sandblasted".

landpath.jpg

The problem is, when the Lunar Module was at its closest approach to Surveyor 3, it was at an altitude of 67 meters. According to the diagram, dust only began to be seen by the astronauts when the Lunar Module was at an altitude of 30 to 35 meters. This accords with what Alan Bean said during the descent: "130 feet (39 meters). Going to get some dust before long."

So, if no dust could be seen blowing from the surface until the Lunar Module was at an altitude of 30 to 35 meters, how when the Lunar Module was at twice that altitude - i.e. 67 meters - was enough dust blown up to cover Surveyor 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan

Simplest explanation is that the dust began moving at a higher altitude than the one at which the crew first observed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
1 hour ago, Derek Willis said:

So, if no dust could be seen blowing from the surface until the Lunar Module was at an altitude of 30 to 35 meters, how when the Lunar Module was at twice that altitude - i.e. 67 meters - was enough dust blown up to cover Surveyor 3

While approaching its landing site, the LM had to manage at least 2 speeds: the sink rate and the vertical speed. To reduce both, the LM had to tilt to point its exhaust cone at a ?-angle in flight direction, maybe in the direction of Surveyor 3 (I dont know yet). In addition, the propulsive force at various steps during approach may vary, means, a big boost at around 67 meters of altitude may whirl up more material than the trust level short before touchdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis
38 minutes ago, toast said:

While approaching its landing site, the LM had to manage at least 2 speeds: the sink rate and the vertical speed. To reduce both, the LM had to tilt to point its exhaust cone at a ?-angle in flight direction, maybe in the direction of Surveyor 3 (I dont know yet). In addition, the propulsive force at various steps during approach may vary, means, a big boost at around 67 meters of altitude may whirl up more material than the trust level short before touchdown.

The video of the LM landing shows how dust only becomes visible after Alan Bean made his comment about "going to get some dust before long". So whatever the thrust of the engine was, or the angle of the exhaust cone, no dust was blowing about until this point. I would say the dust first becomes visible when Bean mentions the altitude is 120 feet (35 meters). Below that point the dust increases. What you have to bear in mind is that the large amount of dust created as the LM lands is what supposedly blew off some of the dust previously deposited on Surveyor 3. But there doesn't appear to have been any dust beforehand to have been deposited.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-adk-adk_sbnt&hsimp=yhs-adk_sbnt&hspart=adk&p=apollo+12+landing+video#id=3&vid=77e290e80a59bc226051d031ab3865dd&action=click 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B
54 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

The video of the LM landing shows how dust only becomes visible after Alan Bean made his comment about "going to get some dust before long". So whatever the thrust of the engine was, or the angle of the exhaust cone, no dust was blowing about until this point. I would say the dust first becomes visible when Bean mentions the altitude is 120 feet (35 meters). Below that point the dust increases. What you have to bear in mind is that the large amount of dust created as the LM lands is what supposedly blew off some of the dust previously deposited on Surveyor 3. But there doesn't appear to have been any dust beforehand to have been deposited.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-adk-adk_sbnt&hsimp=yhs-adk_sbnt&hspart=adk&p=apollo+12+landing+video#id=3&vid=77e290e80a59bc226051d031ab3865dd&action=click 

The dust on Apollo 12's landing is discussed in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. It quotes the post-mission briefing back in 1969 where Conrad reckons he started seeing dust around the time he stopped the LM's forward motion. In the briefing he reckoned he did that at an altitude of around 300 feet/90 metres, but the data shows forward motion stopped at around 240 feet/75 metres. Either way, if dust was visible at that altitude, it could well have been in motion at a higher altitude.

I still don't see any reason for it to be a problem for dust to be blown around at that sort of altitude - there was nothing to stop the exhaust gases hitting the ground at the speed they left the combustion chamber. The only issue would be whether they'd spread out so far they didn't have the dynamic pressure to disturb the dust, and I wouldn't know how to calculate that.

I wouldn't not pay much attention to what Bean had to say about the dust during the landing. As the Lunar Module Pilot he was responsible for monitoring data and informing Conrad. He therefore had little time to look out the window and offer useful commentary about the dust. By contrast, Conrad was pretty much looking out the window all the time, but was concentrating too much on flying the LM to describe what he could see in much detail; but based on the post-mission briefing he appears to have seen dust long before Bean warned him about it.

Here is a pretty awesome video which synchs the camera view out the window with the voices of the astronauts and Mission Control, and also adding in commentary and other data such as altitude and which computer program was running: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFSa6vUix70

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis
1 hour ago, Peter B said:

The dust on Apollo 12's landing is discussed in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. It quotes the post-mission briefing back in 1969 where Conrad reckons he started seeing dust around the time he stopped the LM's forward motion. In the briefing he reckoned he did that at an altitude of around 300 feet/90 metres, but the data shows forward motion stopped at around 240 feet/75 metres. Either way, if dust was visible at that altitude, it could well have been in motion at a higher altitude.

I still don't see any reason for it to be a problem for dust to be blown around at that sort of altitude - there was nothing to stop the exhaust gases hitting the ground at the speed they left the combustion chamber. The only issue would be whether they'd spread out so far they didn't have the dynamic pressure to disturb the dust, and I wouldn't know how to calculate that.

I wouldn't not pay much attention to what Bean had to say about the dust during the landing. As the Lunar Module Pilot he was responsible for monitoring data and informing Conrad. He therefore had little time to look out the window and offer useful commentary about the dust. By contrast, Conrad was pretty much looking out the window all the time, but was concentrating too much on flying the LM to describe what he could see in much detail; but based on the post-mission briefing he appears to have seen dust long before Bean warned him about it.

Here is a pretty awesome video which synchs the camera view out the window with the voices of the astronauts and Mission Control, and also adding in commentary and other data such as altitude and which computer program was running: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFSa6vUix70

Can you tell me where in the Surface Journal I can find the reference to the post-mission briefing. That would save me a lot of time.

The molecules of gas would hit the ground at essentially the same speed they left the engine nozzle. But as you indicate, it is the pressure that matters. The exhaust expands rapidly in a vacuum, so the pressure would be very low when the gasses hit the surface from an altitude of 75/90 meters.

I guess we should also not pay much attention to when Buzz Aldrin said they were "picking up some dust" at 40 feet.

The video is the same one I linked to. Perhaps the astronauts could see the dust much earlier than the video indicates.

For the record, I am not claiming anything I have said demonstrates the Moon landings were faked - far from it. I am simply curious to know where the dust on Surveyor 3 came from.

Edit: I found the reference to the dust:

Conrad, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "As soon as I got the vehicle stopped in horizontal velocity at 300 feet (figure 4-12 (redrafted by Thomas Schwagmeier) from the Apollo 12 Mission Report indicates that he stopped almost all of his forward motion at about 220 feet), we picked up a tremendous amount of dust - much more than I had expected. It looked a lot worse than it did in the movies I saw of Neil's landing. It seemed to me that we got the dust much higher than Neil indicated. It could be because we were in a hover, higher up, coming down. I don't know. But we had dust from - I think I called it around 300 feet. I could see the boulders through the dust, but the dust went as far as I could see in any direction and completely obliterated craters and anything else. All I knew was (that) there was ground underneath that dust. I had no problem with the dust, determining horizontal (fore and aft) and lateral (left and right) velocities, but I couldn't tell what was underneath me. I knew I was in a generally good area and I was just going to have to bite the bullet and land, because I couldn't tell whether there was a crater down there or not."]

Who am I to question someone who went to the Moon! However, looking at the video, at an altitude of 300 or even 240 feet the "craters and anything else" don't appear to be "completely obliterated". But I wasn't there!

 

 

Edited by Derek Willis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman

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.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Derek Willis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?..  :D

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?..  :D

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.

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis
27 minutes ago, Myles said:

Why do that when they were on the moon?

I was making a joke.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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)....

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

Thread cleaned

Let's keep things civil and constructive please.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
Posted (edited)
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 by Obviousman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.