Will man return to the moon??

[Kryten]

The Russians have effectively ruled out transferring any more NK-33s because they're preparing their own launcher using them (Soyuz-2.1v); any use with SLS would require production being restarted, which isn't terribly likely when there are plenty of in-production rocket engines avaiable.

[check]

It will likely be China by the early-mid 2020s. The Chinese space program has been chugging along at a very measured and methodical pace. While the focus of their manned program this decade is space station construction in low Earth orbit, which likely has many military applications, that will probably shift or branch off by the end of the decade to manned lunar missions. This has military and economic value to the Chinese, not from mining operations, but to establish itself firmly as a modern superpower on par with the United States. Only the US has sent people to the moon, and granted, while that was more than 40 years ago, it's still a technological achievement that's gone unrivalled.

But it's not just for reasons of international recognition or prestige that China will want to send people to the moon. China is facing a very serious case of 'brain drain', where their best and brightest are leaving to other countries to make more money and/or work at the leading edge of their field. Having a manned lunar project might entice some of them to stay. It would likely be worth the investment for that reason alone.

Edited October 11, 2013 by check

[asmi]

OSC is already using refurbished NK-33s on their Antares rockets. I thought SLS was supposed to use R-25's (SSMEs).

These engines are for different things - SSME is for sustainer (core stage), while NK-33s are for LRBs (liquid rocket boosters, essentially SRB replacement).

The Russians have effectively ruled out transferring any more NK-33s because they're preparing their own launcher using them (Soyuz-2.1v); any use with SLS would require production being restarted, which isn't terribly likely when there are plenty of in-production rocket engines avaiable.

It's all is still up in the air - there are rumors that NK-33 production will be restarted for both Antares and Soyuz-2.1v. This engine is the best choice for SLS LRBs due to its efficiency.

Edited October 11, 2013 by asmi

[LunaTrick]

There was no radiation shielding for the command module.

There was no radiation shielding in the space suits.

They launched during a solar peak.

There is no blast crater under any of the LM shots you can find at NASA's website. Not for Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, or 17. I believe the thrust was said to be 10,000lbs. The engine nozzle looks to be ~18" off the ground. No crater?

There is an abundance of flour-fine moon-dust all around the LM (as evidenced by the footprints) yet there should have been a dust cloud from the landing that would have lingered in the low gravity. This would have covered the landing leg pods with dust. There is none.

If you listen to the audio that is found at NASA, Neil Armstrong says just before touchdown "kicking up some dust".

He also says "touchdown" then a moment later "engine off". The engines were on for a moment while the LM sat on the surface. Yet no blast craters can be found from any of the missions.

No other human beings have ever crossed the Van Allen radiation belts.

A space shuttle mission went out to about a 300 mile orbit (if memory serves) and their eyebrows started glowing green from radiation. NASA instructed them to lower their orbit. (this was reported on CNN)

And I won't even go into the photographic and shadow anomalies from the moon photos, as that is not my forte'.

Something is fishy about the American moon landings.

Our photographic record does not add up. The audio does not jive with the photographs.

I don't think Neil ever walked on the moon. Someone who died of cancer may have, but I don't think Neil did.

Something I am still looking into is....was there a double door airlock? If there wasn't, the pressurized ascent module would have evacuated it's air every time there was a EVA. So my question there is, was there a double doored airlock? And, did they carry enough 02 to allow for several repressurizations of the ascent module?

I watched Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Pioneer, Voyager, the Space Shuttle, you name it. I wanted to be an astronaut.

But I do not believe the photographic evidence given to us is in any way real. Those LM's look like a crane has set them in place.

And Stanley Kubric had the studio to film it all in, in 1968. Who also happens to be the only guy who ever was allowed to borrow a one of a kind camera from NASA for the filming of Barry Lyndon.

Don't believe anything I say. You can look into all this yourself. I'd like to believe that our American heroes did what they said they did, but that claim looks dubious to me.

[Bioman222]

-snip-

Run.

Run as fast as you can, as far as you can, before everyone else comes.

Save yourself.

[Kryten]

Can whatever mod responds to this please split the gibbering rather than lock the entire thread? It was doing well until our drive-by conspiracist showed up.

[Spica]

There was no radiation shielding for the command module.

There was no radiation shielding in the space suits.

They launched during a solar peak.

There is no blast crater under any of the LM shots you can find at NASA's website. Not for Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, or 17. I believe the thrust was said to be 10,000lbs. The engine nozzle looks to be ~18" off the ground. No crater?

There is an abundance of flour-fine moon-dust all around the LM (as evidenced by the footprints) yet there should have been a dust cloud from the landing that would have lingered in the low gravity. This would have covered the landing leg pods with dust. There is none.

If you listen to the audio that is found at NASA, Neil Armstrong says just before touchdown "kicking up some dust".

He also says "touchdown" then a moment later "engine off". The engines were on for a moment while the LM sat on the surface. Yet no blast craters can be found from any of the missions.

No other human beings have ever crossed the Van Allen radiation belts.

A space shuttle mission went out to about a 300 mile orbit (if memory serves) and their eyebrows started glowing green from radiation. NASA instructed them to lower their orbit. (this was reported on CNN)

And I won't even go into the photographic and shadow anomalies from the moon photos, as that is not my forte'.

Something is fishy about the American moon landings.

Our photographic record does not add up. The audio does not jive with the photographs.

I don't think Neil ever walked on the moon. Someone who died of cancer may have, but I don't think Neil did.

Something I am still looking into is....was there a double door airlock? If there wasn't, the pressurized ascent module would have evacuated it's air every time there was a EVA. So my question there is, was there a double doored airlock? And, did they carry enough 02 to allow for several repressurizations of the ascent module?

I watched Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Pioneer, Voyager, the Space Shuttle, you name it. I wanted to be an astronaut.

But I do not believe the photographic evidence given to us is in any way real. Those LM's look like a crane has set them in place.

And Stanley Kubric had the studio to film it all in, in 1968. Who also happens to be the only guy who ever was allowed to borrow a one of a kind camera from NASA for the filming of Barry Lyndon.

Don't believe anything I say. You can look into all this yourself. I'd like to believe that our American heroes did what they said they did, but that claim looks dubious to me.

Well, lots of this can be explained with SCIENCE, and just plain old common sense...

1. They were only in space for about 1 week, and the amount of radiation picked up would not increase the chances for cancer by too much (<10%).

2. They spent an even smaller time out on EVA than they did inside their lander, and command module, so this doesn't matter that much.

3. In order for this to matter significantly, there would have to be a solar flare or CME, and I don't think America would wait 5 years for solar minimum when the soviets were less than 5 years behind them.

4. This is the only one I am confused about, there should be a crater, but a shallow one or a VERY gently sloping one. Due to the lack of atmosphere.

5. There was no dust cloud because since there is no air of any sort on the moon, brownian motion would not be there to suspend any dust. It would all fall down to the lunar surface a few hundred feet away.

6. Dust was easily visible being kicked up WELL before the first words on the moon were said, those words being Contact Light.

7. That was either a radio confirmation of engine cutoff, or he was in the process of throttling down the main engine. But was no longer generating enough thrust to be off the ground.

8. You're right on that, however, this was a risk that had to be taken to get to the moon first.

9. I see absolutely NOTHING on this topic after some research (10 seconds on google), doubt I would find anything else.

10. That may have been caused by the weird solar illumination angles present (5-7 degrees) and that fact that lunar dust is highly reflective (no wonder that you can read by moonlight?!)

Finally, why would NASA spend over 40,000,000,000 dollars on a HOAX, and why is there no real evidence that could support that claim.

From now on I will never look at this thread again.

Spica

[K^2]

Might as well throw in a few pointers. Maybe someone will learn something, even if this does end up getting locked/split.

There was no radiation shielding for the command module.

There was no radiation shielding in the space suits.

They launched during a solar peak.

Most of Solar radiation is in slow ions and UV. That stuff is easily blocked by thick foil, which, incidentally, what these ships were built out of. The remainder, fast ionized particles and hard X-Rays, are unaffected by Earth's magnetic field, meaning astronauts on ISS are exposed to the same levels. If you believe any man was ever in space, you should not be questioning radiation shielding of Apollo missions.

There is no blast crater under any of the LM shots you can find at NASA's website. Not for Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, or 17. I believe the thrust was said to be 10,000lbs. The engine nozzle looks to be ~18" off the ground. No crater?

Yeah, no crater. That's 10,000 lb (45kN) over 1.5m bell. 25kPa, or 1/4 of atmospheric pressure. You can blow out air as hard as the LM's landing engine. Can you blow out a crater? Moving on.

There is an abundance of flour-fine moon-dust all around the LM (as evidenced by the footprints) yet there should have been a dust cloud from the landing that would have lingered in the low gravity. This would have covered the landing leg pods with dust. There is none.

If you listen to the audio that is found at NASA, Neil Armstrong says just before touchdown "kicking up some dust".

There is no air on the Moon. That means dust free-falls. Yes, gravity is low, about 1/6th, but that's still free-falling at nearly 2m/s². That dust would drop like a rock. In fact, there are a few video shots where you can see just that happening. Find anything with the lunar rover on it. You'll see dust being lifted up and dropping right back down. You can't even film that anywhere but the Moon.

He also says "touchdown" then a moment later "engine off". The engines were on for a moment while the LM sat on the surface. Yet no blast craters can be found from any of the missions.

I've mostly covered that already, but keep in mind that the engine thrust would have been brought down to less than 10% once the LM touched down.

No other human beings have ever crossed the Van Allen radiation belts.

No other human beings even left LEO.

A space shuttle mission went out to about a 300 mile orbit (if memory serves) and their eyebrows started glowing green from radiation. NASA instructed them to lower their orbit. (this was reported on CNN)

And as a nuclear physicist I can tell you that any human being exposed to enough radiation for any part of their anatomy to glow is already dead. I don't know where you got this one from, but this never happened and never could have happened.

And I won't even go into the photographic and shadow anomalies from the moon photos, as that is not my forte'.

None of this is. I'd encourage you to give it a shot, but I think it would be more productive if you try actually reading some of the information that's already out there. Every single complaint about the photographs has been addressed. If there is something wrong with these pictures, not a single soul has been able to demonstrate that.

Something is fishy about the American moon landings.

Our photographic record does not add up. The audio does not jive with the photographs.

Have you ever seen footage recorded with 60's equipment that didn't go through extensive restoration? That's what it is supposed to look like. Some of the stuff from back then got restored to fix these problems, but that's just benefit of living in the digital age.

Something I am still looking into is....was there a double door airlock? If there wasn't, the pressurized ascent module would have evacuated it's air every time there was a EVA. So my question there is, was there a double doored airlock? And, did they carry enough 02 to allow for several repressurizations of the ascent module?

Single hatch and enough LOX to fill the compartment several times. At 33kPa and 6.7m³ of space you don't need much. About five minutes of research would have told you that. About an hour of research would have cleared all of your other misconceptions.

Don't you think that rather than repeating things people said who do not understand anything about space, space exploration, or technology available at the time, you should have spent some time reading up on what people who actually have done related research have written? Yes, there is plenty of (mis)information out there about Lunar Landing Hoax. Once you start digging, it's all written by people with very questionable credibility. And if you keep reading, you will find all of the "problems" addressed by credible people. As well as tons and tons of other information. People who have participated in the program are still around, and they are not hiding anything. They happily tell you about how the thing was built down to the last bolt and the last wire.

[LunaTrick]

First of all, I thank those who had a thoughtful reply.

I am talking about science. I am trying to understand. I am not talking conspiracy.

The Van Allen belt is the radiation that concerns me the most. I know that time is a factor in the radiation dosage calculations. So if you could travel through the belt fast enough, little harm would be done. But there is one important factor in that calculation. What is the actual radiation level? I read recently that they have discovered that the radiation is so high in the belt, that inches of aluminum would not block it. That is info they did not have in the 60s.

As to "experts" telling me what's up....I have heard NASA debunkers say things like "in the vacuum of space the thrust from the engines would go in all directions, so that is why no dust is moved." I moved on.

Also, 10% of 10000 is 1000. That's still a lot of pressure.

As to dust settling. I know there is no air to offer resistance, but with little gravity to pull it back downward, I still do not see how the dust could settle "fast".

Have a good day!

[mdatspace]

There was no radiation shielding for the command module.

snip

Then why is the lander in images of the moon? Why are there reflectors on the moon? Also, the Astronauts did not receive so much radiation, less than the United States Atomic Energy Commissions' standards. Edited October 12, 2013 by mdatspace

[Ralathon]

There was no radiation shielding for the command module.

There was no radiation shielding in the space suits.

They launched during a solar peak.

There is no blast crater under any of the LM shots you can find at NASA's website. Not for Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, or 17. I believe the thrust was said to be 10,000lbs. The engine nozzle looks to be ~18" off the ground. No crater?

There is an abundance of flour-fine moon-dust all around the LM (as evidenced by the footprints) yet there should have been a dust cloud from the landing that would have lingered in the low gravity. This would have covered the landing leg pods with dust. There is none.

If you listen to the audio that is found at NASA, Neil Armstrong says just before touchdown "kicking up some dust".

He also says "touchdown" then a moment later "engine off". The engines were on for a moment while the LM sat on the surface. Yet no blast craters can be found from any of the missions.

No other human beings have ever crossed the Van Allen radiation belts.

A space shuttle mission went out to about a 300 mile orbit (if memory serves) and their eyebrows started glowing green from radiation. NASA instructed them to lower their orbit. (this was reported on CNN)

And I won't even go into the photographic and shadow anomalies from the moon photos, as that is not my forte'.

Something is fishy about the American moon landings.

Our photographic record does not add up. The audio does not jive with the photographs.

I don't think Neil ever walked on the moon. Someone who died of cancer may have, but I don't think Neil did.

Something I am still looking into is....was there a double door airlock? If there wasn't, the pressurized ascent module would have evacuated it's air every time there was a EVA. So my question there is, was there a double doored airlock? And, did they carry enough 02 to allow for several repressurizations of the ascent module?

I watched Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Pioneer, Voyager, the Space Shuttle, you name it. I wanted to be an astronaut.

But I do not believe the photographic evidence given to us is in any way real. Those LM's look like a crane has set them in place.

And Stanley Kubric had the studio to film it all in, in 1968. Who also happens to be the only guy who ever was allowed to borrow a one of a kind camera from NASA for the filming of Barry Lyndon.

Don't believe anything I say. You can look into all this yourself. I'd like to believe that our American heroes did what they said they did, but that claim looks dubious to me.

All of these 'issues' have eloquently been dealt with by posters above me. So I'll just analyze the alternative scenario: It was a hoax.

This would mean that the USA government was competent enough to deceive the entire world and pay off/kill everyone in on it. Yet at the same time they also had to be so sloppy that uneducated people can point out the mistakes. Not to mention that they still had to build all the Saturn V rockets, meaning they saved almost no money in the process. They couldn't even save money on the upper stages since everyone with a radio antenna and knowledge of orbital mechanics would be screaming bloody murder if the craft wasn't in a free return trajectory. So in the end they would have wasted billions developing a rocket that could go to the moon, yet they don't bother actually going...

This Mitchell and Webb sketch sums it up pretty well:

[Kryten]

What is the actual radiation level? I read recently that they have discovered that the radiation is so high in the belt, that inches of aluminum would not block it. That is info they did not have in the 60s.

The potential for particle radiation to penetrate however much material is based on the energy of individual particles, not the overall level of radidation. It has been found that there are particles within the Van Allen belts that are high-energy enough to have that kind of penetrating power, but there simply aren't enough of them to make a lot of difference to overall dosage.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Kryten

[SargeRho]

@LunaTrick: Go away.

Also:

1: Wrong.

2: Wrong.

3: So? Only Apollo 12 encountered a major solar event, and no radiation increase was detected inside. Plastic is an amazing shield against energetic protons:

4: The thrust was around 1800-2300, and the engine was shut off 2m or so off the ground. There is a minor blast crater directly under the LM's engine. One shouldn't expect there to be much of one, considering the engine only exerted around 2psi of pressure average.

5: Dust does not linger in vacuum. It moves in a ballistic trajectory. There is no air for it to linger:

6: No, the engines weren't on when they touched down. They shut off when the surface probes touched the ground.

7: Because no other human being has been sent there. The ISS crosses into them on every orbit.

8: Glowing eyebrows? Citation needed.

9: What photographic and shadow anomalies? The C-Rock? That was a hair. The C wasn't there on the original photo. Non-paralel shadows? The surface is uneven. Geez, do you people EVER leave the house? Did you ever see shadows on an uneven surface? THEY AREN'T PARALEL.

10: No, nothing is fishy about the moon landings.

11: The photographic record adds up and so does the audio.

12: Then you are wrong.

13: They had no airlock. The cabin was depressurized for EVA, and repressurized later.

14: If you think the photographic evidence is fake, prove it. So far you have only proven a gross lack of knowledge as far as space goes.

15: No they don't, and the technology to fake the landings did NOT exist at the time. The technology to go to the moon DID exist, for the most part because it was being developed specifically do do that.

[K^2]

I read recently that they have discovered that the radiation is so high in the belt, that inches of aluminum would not block it. That is info they did not have in the 60s.

There are occasional bursts of radiation, related to Solar activity. These things come and go. And nobody's arguing that Apollo missions got lucky on this. But typical radiation levels were well established by the time Apollo 10 ventured to the Moon.

As to "experts" telling me what's up....I have heard NASA debunkers say things like "in the vacuum of space the thrust from the engines would go in all directions, so that is why no dust is moved." I moved on.

Thrust from the engine is distributed over larger solid angle. It's not "all directions" by any measure, but it is somewhat spread out. Keep in mind that half of the things you read from "NASA" are mis-quoted by reporters or similar. Even NASA's official statements go through PR people who don't know anything about rocket science. No, look up things that are direct quotes from actual researchers for NASA.

Also, 10% of 10000 is 1000. That's still a lot of pressure.

You need to learn the difference between force and pressure. 1,000lb over 1.8m² is NOT a lot of pressure. In fact, it is very, very little pressure.

As to dust settling. I know there is no air to offer resistance, but with little gravity to pull it back downward, I still do not see how the dust could settle "fast".

Again, it falls like a rock. There is nothing to prevent it from free-falling down. No air. Again, look at the videos of lunar rovers. You'll actually see, with your own two eyes, the way the dust simply drops. There is no settling. Just falling.

[Bioman222]

The Van Allen belt is the radiation that concerns me the most. I know that time is a factor in the radiation dosage calculations. So if you could travel through the belt fast enough, little harm would be done. But there is one important factor in that calculation. What is the actual radiation level? I read recently that they have discovered that the radiation is so high in the belt, that inches of aluminum would not block it. That is info they did not have in the 60s.

In fact, the astronauts' overall exposure was dominated by solar particles once outside the Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.[24]

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

Edited October 12, 2013 by Bioman222

[sal_vager]

I don't think we would need to worry much about the radiation to be honest, there was something I read recently about how well some plastics could block harmful radiation, and they had the advantage of being light weight

[3_bit]

Yes. Guaranteed. Chances are some private company will go, and if not due to us being wiped out from nuclear war, I'm sure some of the molecules that were a part of us would make it.

[LunaTrick]

I worded my position carefully. I never said no man has walked on the moon. I said someone probably did, but I didn't think it was Neil. They/we needed a hero - not one rotting from radiation poisoning. And after all the money spent, and with all the publicity - they just couldn't fail in full public view.

And in the history of aviation, things working perfectly the first time, would be a very rare event. And the LM was said to be the most complex machine ever devised at the time. And it worked first time out of the box - save for a few alarms. (I refer to the lander). That is kind of surprising.

[LunaTrick]

We have one person saying that the dust will fall like a rock, and another says it goes ballistic. Seems like there is a little room for discussion there.

I tend to agree with the ballistic view. That makes sense to me. But, the dust beneath the LMs is pretty much untouched. I don't see any bedrock exposed, for example. Wouldn't you expect to see some radial pattern form in the remaining dust from the ejecta? I have the NASA photos on my hard drive. It honestly looks undisturbed.

I am also thinking back to a science project IN THOSE DAYS where I used a very fine gray dust that simulated what is on the surface of the moon. We dropped ball bearings coming in at various speeds and angles. We looked at the spray across the dust, the depth of the craters, etc. It was a crude experiment, but it showed me some things. And I know terrestrial experiments like this have a heavy gravity component compared to the same experiment on the moon. But it seems to me that if the pressure is great enough to make dust go ballistic, an immediate pattern of some kind could be expected.

I wish you all weren't so touchy. I figured this was the perfect place to discuss these space science issues. There are a lot of smart people here. Real people. Just like me. What's wrong with questions and answers? The questions fit the original posting - moon landings. Actual history. And we are touching on photographic interpretations. This seems like valid grounds to be discussing these things. I have not been rude.

Cheers!

[DaveofDefeat]

Edited October 13, 2013 by DaveofDefeat

[Mr Shifty]

I worded my position carefully. I never said no man has walked on the moon. I said someone probably did, but I didn't think it was Neil. They/we needed a hero - not one rotting from radiation poisoning. And after all the money spent, and with all the publicity - they just couldn't fail in full public view.

And in the history of aviation, things working perfectly the first time, would be a very rare event. And the LM was said to be the most complex machine ever devised at the time. And it worked first time out of the box - save for a few alarms. (I refer to the lander). That is kind of surprising.

I suppose the images taken by the LRO of the landing sites, including Apollo 11, were faked too? Or maybe NASA sent a secret mission to space (launching a Saturn V under cover of darkness) to put a LM descent module precisely where Armstrong was supposed to have landed on the Sea of Tranquility, complete with footprints and scientific equipment in order to <ahem> cover their tracks.

And contrary to what you've said, I think if you actually do the research, you'll find that catastrophic first flights are pretty rare. Lots of testing and careful design goes into making sure that test pilots don't die. The Space Shuttle's first flight was successful. The X-15 flew a successful first flight. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo all had successful first flights. The LM was flown twice before in space, tested rigorously for many years, had its design qualified line by line, etc etc. During Apollo 10, the astronauts flew the LM to within 8 miles of the lunar surface using the descent engine, jettisoned the descent stage and returned to the CM: a full dress rehearsal of the landing.

Before you return with further fabulism you should read this page:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

Some samples:

To reach the Moon astronauts would have to travel through the Van Allen Radiation Belts, resulting in lethal doses of radiation.

This is a claim the hoax advocates often make, but it is a gross exaggeration and simply not supported by the data. Radiation was a definite concern for NASA before the first space flights, but they invested a great deal of research into it and determined the hazard was minimal. It took Apollo only about an hour to pass through the worst part of the radiation belts - once on the outbound trip and once again on the return trip. The total radiation dose received by the astronauts was about one rem. A person will experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem, and death with a dose of 300+ rem. Clearly the doses received fall well below anything that could be considered a significant risk. Despite claims that "lead shielding meters thick would have been needed", NASA found it unnecessary to provide any special radiation shielding.

The hoax advocates also make the mistake of limiting themselves to two-dimensional thinking. The Van Allen Radiation Belts consist of a doughnut-shaped region centered on Earth's magnetic equator. The translunar trajectories followed by the Apollo spacecraft were typically inclined about 30 degrees to Earth's equator, therefore Apollo bypassed all but the edges of the radiation belts, greatly reducing the exposure.

How could the untested Lunar Module land flawlessly six times on the Moon when its prototype crashed on Earth during training.

The "prototype" to which the hoax advocates refer was not a prototype at all, but two classes of training vehicles known as the Lunar Landing Research Vehicles (LLRV) and the more advanced Lunar Landing Training Vehicles (LLTV). These vehicles included a jet engine to support five-sixths of their airborne weight, a pair of rocket engines that simulated the LM's descent engine, and small jets that mimicked the LM's attitude control thrusters. The Apollo astronauts trained in the LLRV and LLTV to learn the skills necessary to maneuver the actual LM. During one test flight, Neil Armstrong was forced to eject when the LLRV's helium pressurization system for the steering jets failed, causing the LLRV to become unstable and crash. Despite this incident, the LLRV and LLTV flew hundreds of successful flights.

The LLRV and LLTV were very different from the LM and the "untested" LM was far from untested. Every component of the LM was tested over and over again during its development. Furthermore, the LM was tested in space unmanned during the Apollo 5 mission and manned during the Apollo 9 mission. Apollo 10 tested the LM in lunar orbit and performed everything but the landing itself. The next test flight, Apollo 11, performed the first lunar landing. Testing continued during Apollo 12 as the ability of the LM to make a pinpoint landing was demonstrated. The LM flew successfully to the moon because of the hard work of thousands of workers over many years during the design, development and construction of the spacecraft.

The powerful engine of the Lunar Module should have produced a blast crater, yet there is no evidence of a blast crater in any of the Apollo photographs.

Let's consider several facts: (1) Although the Lunar Module descent engine was capable of 10,000 lbs of thrust (the usual hoax advocate's claim), it was throttled down to below 3,000 lbs as it neared the lunar surface. While still several feet above the ground, the descent engine was shut down as probes, extending 5 feet below the footpads, sensed contact with the surface. (2) The LM descended at an angle, moving laterally across the ground. When the astronauts identified a suitable landing site, the LM leveled off and dropped to the surface. The LM did not hover over its final landing site for any significant length of time. (3) The Moon's surface is covered by a rocky material called lunar regolith, which consists of fine dust particles, glass spheres and a jumble of large boulders and rocky debris. Lunar regolith has many unique properties, the most obvious being that the particles are very jagged, which causes them to interlock. When subjected to pressure, the regolith will resist, almost like solid rock. (4) In a vacuum exhaust gases expand rapidly once exiting the engine nozzle.

When one considers these facts the truth becomes obvious - The exhaust stream was not powerful enough or centralized enough to displace the regolith and blast out a crater. In this Apollo 11 photograph [see photo] one can see some discoloration and a general lack of dust, which was mostly blown away. After the dust was removed a hard surface was exposed.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Mr Shifty

[LunaTrick]

NASA is closed but look at these photos. Maybe Space.com?

LM shots from Apollo 11, 12, 14, etc

AS11-40-5864

AS12-47-6907HR

AS14-66-9261HR

AS15-87-11840HR

AS16-107-17435HR

AS17-140-21370HR

EDIT: The patterns I see in those photos under the nozzle, is the same thing I see around the outside of the edge of the LM. Yet there is enough dust for great footprints not far from the craft. The author above says it was blown away. And also says there wasn't enough pressure to blow it away. But you can see in the photos that it isn't blown away. I am looking at photos. Not repeating things. I have the audio. It's been a while since I have listened to Armstrong. But I could have sworn he says touchdown....then engine off. That audio is on the NASA site too. I have done the research on this matter.

So, a 5' probe, plus I estimate another 18" above that where the bell ends is our distance from the ground. The engines were shut off less than 6 1/2 feet from the surface. The author says this is why the dust isn't blown away, then in the closing paragraph he says it was mostly blown away. Armstrong says "touchdown" then "engine off". The engine turned off *after* touchdown (probes?), by a moment, according to Armstrong.

I repeat, there is no sign I can detect of any interaction of the engine pressure with the surface dust, on any mission. There should be. Either the dust was blown away, or it wasn't. If it was blown away, I should be able to see that. I don't. That has always been my position. You guys don't agree with each other. The author above contradicts himself. There is room for discussion.

Edited October 13, 2013 by LunaTrick

[Mr Shifty]

NASA is closed but look at these photos. Maybe Space.com?

apollo 11, 12, 14, etc

AS11-40-5864

What are we supposed to be looking for? There's pretty clearly a discolored, dust free patch just below the descent module engine and extending out along a line that probably corresponds to the approach vector of the LM. Here's another image beneath the engine:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/pics/hoax/photo17.jpg

[LunaTrick]

I've seen that. The discoloration is only under one half of the bell, so I see that as possibly exposed bedrock, but not a color change from the engine because the "stain" wouldn't be asymmetrical. Again, either it affected the surface, or it didn't. And it has to work for all the missions. If it burnt here, it should have burnt on each mission. They are all said to be perfect landings, right? Things should be consistent.

[dharak1]

It would be asymmetrical. From what I understand these thrust lines extend as much as 10 meters from the craft. Long lines. Maybe even more. They probably did a small lateral burn before touchdown. This would be the spike you see to the left in the photo. The reason the center is risen is because the gasses flow outward more than inward because they are in vacuum. Not an official stance just what I think of it. I would gladly have someone correct me.