So there you are, miserable lying-eyed denialist hoax nuts, more conclusive visual proof for you that the moon landings were real. What more do you want?
That is very cool the way the dirt just flies off with little effort. And this video is even clearer than when I would have seen it the first time in the 70's. Brings back fond memories. Thanks!
Instead of digging, they should have one of those sweeper things that pick out metal objects. I think I left a watch on the moon previously. I am being a smart ass. Just ignore me please. :)
Actually, the one thing I notice that stands out in my mind, and I remember because I was a kid when all this took place, but the one thing that stands out in my mind is the communication they have with each other. Not much technical lingo. It was man with man in exploration of the unknown. Fascinating. TY
Simple answer is that in the vacuum of the moon a shovel is better at moving dust than the LM descent engine.
In the vacuum the exhaust gas expands too quickly and the engine not on long enough to move much regolith.
There are other things to note, such as that the lunar regolith becomes very compacted bellow the surface. And as you would note in this clip he complains of how hard it is at the bottom of his trench.
Yep, 3000 lbs of thrust spread out over the ~2300 in² area of the engine bell comes out to about 1.3 PSI at the plane of the engine bell rim, which means it'll be even less at the surface.
A Harrier produces more thrust at landing and doesn't dig a crater when landing on unimproved surfaces.
Mind numbing, indeed. The mathematical modeling is beyond my grasp of the basic principals involved but I can say that rocket exhaust in a vacuum loses both pressure and temperature very rapidly. The Clavius (dot-org) website is an excellent source of information that challenges the hoax theories. The "techcrater.html" page addresses this very subject.
@ytmoog no you are wrong bro watch mythbusters in discovery channel and you will see
ugurkaaneksi 7 months ago
@ugurkaaneksi
What am I wrong about exactly?
ytmoog 7 months ago
We should send all those hoax nuts to the moon.
Alexc3217 1 year ago
So there you are, miserable lying-eyed denialist hoax nuts, more conclusive visual proof for you that the moon landings were real. What more do you want?
davewatcher 2 years ago 4
Who's operating the camera in this footage?
OscarDuggan 2 years ago
The camera was attached to the rover and was remotely controlled from earth.
The camera operator on earth was called Ed Fendell.
ytmoog 2 years ago
I can't believe Jarrah could be dumb enough and deceptive enough to tell people the soil is beach sand. Straydog says it's "slightly moistened" sand.
TremorHellborn 2 years ago
That is very cool the way the dirt just flies off with little effort. And this video is even clearer than when I would have seen it the first time in the 70's. Brings back fond memories. Thanks!
Learjet66 2 years ago 7
Instead of digging, they should have one of those sweeper things that pick out metal objects. I think I left a watch on the moon previously. I am being a smart ass. Just ignore me please. :)
Actually, the one thing I notice that stands out in my mind, and I remember because I was a kid when all this took place, but the one thing that stands out in my mind is the communication they have with each other. Not much technical lingo. It was man with man in exploration of the unknown. Fascinating. TY
YouSpamTard 2 years ago
You know, that may have been a great idea :)
It certainly may have given some insight into the composition of the deeper layers.
I do see what you mean about the way they speak.
It certainly must have been very odd to be that remote.
ytmoog 2 years ago
350 degrees is just too hot to be out digging a trench!
lutherheggs 2 years ago
Yes, that might have been a bit hot.
Fortunately the Moon never reaches those temperatures.
The maximum lunar surface temperature reaches about 250F or 120 Centigrade.
Although the Apollo missions landed during the lunar morning when the ground was cooler.
They also had lots of insulation and a personal cooling system. So it was never a big issue.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Heh...believe me, I've seen that and more over at the Bad Astronomy & Universe Today forum.
PetersCreek907 2 years ago
It did make an impression and that is clear from the photographs Armstrong took of the underside.
Check out the image AS11-40-5921, it shows the erosion marks and the darker material uncovered.
As for the engine, yes at that point it had about 3000 lbs of thrust. But the engine bell was very large giving a low pressure.
And that would drop very rapidly even over a few feet.
Then the engine was cut as soon as the probes touched.
Enough to make an impression, not enough to blast a huge crater.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Simple answer is that in the vacuum of the moon a shovel is better at moving dust than the LM descent engine.
In the vacuum the exhaust gas expands too quickly and the engine not on long enough to move much regolith.
There are other things to note, such as that the lunar regolith becomes very compacted bellow the surface. And as you would note in this clip he complains of how hard it is at the bottom of his trench.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Yep, 3000 lbs of thrust spread out over the ~2300 in² area of the engine bell comes out to about 1.3 PSI at the plane of the engine bell rim, which means it'll be even less at the surface.
A Harrier produces more thrust at landing and doesn't dig a crater when landing on unimproved surfaces.
PetersCreek907 2 years ago 5
Hey Mr Creek,
Thanks for the figures.
It would be interesting to know how the exhaust behaves in a vacuum, but I would expect the math involved in modelling that would be mind numbing.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Mind numbing, indeed. The mathematical modeling is beyond my grasp of the basic principals involved but I can say that rocket exhaust in a vacuum loses both pressure and temperature very rapidly. The Clavius (dot-org) website is an excellent source of information that challenges the hoax theories. The "techcrater.html" page addresses this very subject.
PetersCreek907 2 years ago
I thought it was a good one.
My original plan was to use the motion of some of the dust arcs to calculate the lunar gravity.
The gnomon would make a fairly descent reference for height.
I will get round to it at some point.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Great video! Definitely shows the difference gravity and negligible atmosphere makes!
Boy75402 2 years ago
Thank you, that's really beautiful.
amontaiyagala 2 years ago