Were they faked part 4
And there's another possible and far simpler explanation. Above is a scene of an Apollo landing, with the crosshairs in red for visibility. They would be invisible at that picture scale without the emphasis. Now let's examine a couple in detail.
There's No Blast Crater
If you visit the Web pages for the Apollo missions, it's easy to find photographs specifically showing the LEM engine nozzle and the ground beneath. Now why would NASA deliberately take pictures that failed to show a blast crater?
Because there is no fluffy, easily mobilized dust on the Moon. There never was, except in the imaginations of a few fiction science writers. Certainly since the Surveyor missions of the late 1960's, it was known for certain that the Moon's surface was fairly firm, well-packed material. Pictures of the blast effects would be useful from both an engineering and scientific standpoint, but nobody was surprised by the absence of a blast crater.
The film shows an artist's (Norman Rockwell's) conception with a blast crater visible under the LEM, but a public relations artist is not a scientist.
Dust on the Moon
A lot of the confusion about lunar dust seems to arise from people thinking of household dust. Household dust is mostly organic (a lot of it is you - hair and dead skin). It has a low density and floats easily in the air. Lunar dust is powdered rock, much higher in density and with no air to support it. There are no dust bunnies on the moon.
Kick any dry, bare ground surface on earth and you will kick up rock dust. Kick the moon and you will kick up lunar dust. Both kinds of dust are powdered rock, different origins but with somewhat similar properties. Rock dust is pretty cohesive once it packs down. One reader sent in a picture of the Lunar Rover churning up dust and asked how this could happen if there is no dust on the moon. Same way an ATV in a gravel pit kicks up dust. Nobody ever said there is "no dust" on the moon, just no fluffy, easily mobilized dust.
Once the lunar lander rockets blew away the near-surface dust, what's left? Larger particles too big to move easily.
The Radiation Belts
Supposedly, travel to the moon is impossible because of the Van Allen radiation belts. So who better than Van Allen himself to describe the hazards (of course, he's part of the plot too!)
The Van Allen Belts are zones where particles from the sun are trapped by the earth's magnetic field. In a 1960 paper, On the Radiation Hazards of Space Flight, Van Allen describes the belts and their hazards. The belts vary greatly in extent and radiation depending on solar activity, but generally there is an inner, energetic belt mostly at low latitudes between about 2000 and 4000 kilometers and an outer, less energetic belt between about 13,000 and 20,000 kilometers above the earth. The belts carry a radiation dose of about 20 roentgens (grays in modern units) per hour and the gap in between about one. These figures are for spacecraft shielded by about 4 mm of aluminum (one gram per square centimeter).
(Note: dosimetry is a complex issue and there are several types of units - roentgens, rems, rads, and SI units like grays and sieverts - that measure different things, but roentgens, rems and rads turn out to be roughly equivalent when applied to human exposure. On the other hand, if you know enough about dosimetry to care, then you should know enough to refute the Van Allen Belt argument. If you still believe the conspiracy theory, shame on you.)
Assuming, then, that we shoot the Apollo capsule straight through the belts at escape velocity (40,000 km/hour), we're talking 0.05 hours in the inner belt, 0.225 hours in the gap and 0.175 hours in the outer belt. That means a total dose of (20 x 0.05) + (.225 x 1) + (20 x 0.175) = 4.7 roentgens, or about 1% of the fatal radiation dose. Double this figure for the round trip. Once beyond the belts the radiation hazard becomes small.
Although ten roentgens is far below the lethal dose, it poses significant long-term health hazards and nowadays is considered a wholly unacceptable dosage. There are two ways to reduce the risk. First, since the inner belt is largely confined to within 30 degrees of the equator, launch into an orbit inclined at least 30 degrees to the equator and then launch into a lunar trajectory above or below the inner belt.
Second, the energy distribution of the particles in the inner and outer belt is quite different. Changing our 4 mm of aluminum to lead would have only marginal effects in reducing dosage in the inner belt, but it cuts the dosage in the outer belt by a factor of 500. Also, the outer belt is still most intense at low latitudes and the spacecraft trajectory can be aimed to minimize radiation exposure in the outer belt.
According to NASA, none of the Apollo missions exceeded one roentgen of total dosage.
Loading...
10:00
The Moon Landings Fact or Fiction 5of12by moonhoax2k912,765 views
i like the part of the capsule glided down on what its fucking wings it would have fallen like a brick in 1/6 gravtiy with out an exaust that was equal to its wieght there fore producin a crater no matter how big or small a crater of some sort would have been there at least the dust blown away like it shows in the landing video dust blowing across the surface
haydenmossop 1 week ago
Dude, the moon is a reflective surface. flat white is the most reflective surface there is, I learned this in studying hydroponics. Thanks for your comment.
timothywiesner 3 months ago
@timothywiesner Dude, there is already a mirror on the moon they use lasers to measure its distance and that's how we know it is moving away from the earth very slowly. Google "Lunar Laser Ranging experiment"
bamboo4tameshigiri 3 months ago
@rickylain Wow. Please tell me why something moving at a constant 1mph won't move at 1mph, because that's all I'm saying. Escape velocity is for unpowered craft, not powered ones. Yes, rockets are needed as mankind doesn't know how to build something that can move at a given speed for the distance required to reach orbit. Your reading comprehension seems as lacking as your science education.
blehblehbleh90 3 months ago
@blehblehbleh90 what don't you do 1 mph and leave earth. its seems like all scientists around the world are obviously stupid and don't know anything. the massive rockets are just for TV shows. look, i'm just telling you the technical difficulties to make everything work. if you insist that everything is easy, there's nothing more i need to say. if people want to believe that reindeers start to fly when christmas comes, so be it.
rickylain 3 months ago
@rickylain Clearly you haven't looked it up, as escape velocity has nothing to do with powered craft, yet you claim it does. The wiki page even has a section titled "misconception", which explains how you are wrong. You can leave Earth travelling at 1 MPH if you could just maintain it. Escape velocity is the speed something needs to travel to leave a gravitational field *without further propulsion*. You clearly know nothing about this. Why you think you do is beyond me. Thanks for playing.
blehblehbleh90 4 months ago
Snapping pictures of the sky in the same kind of location as the HOAX, with artificial lighting will give the same fucking results. They only told on themselves that the shit was done on earth, it looks exactly the same, WTF, LMAO!!!! It doesn't prove shit, but those fucking clowns are str8 liars. The moon has no atmosphere that is the whole point why people with some fucking sense is disputing on about the stars. NASA has proven that they can photograph and video stars, case closed, HOAX...
GUARDIANtrooper 4 months ago
@blehblehbleh90 have you actually look up escape velocity from wikipedia? the escape velocity has little to do with air drag. the escape velocity from the earth is 11.2 km/s, and the escape velocity from the moon is 2.4 km/s, about 1/6 that of the earth. you just claim yourself to be a dumb ass.
rickylain 4 months ago
@rickylain We need massive rockets mainly because the craft have to power through lots of dense atmosphere. Please just think for a second, then speak, otherwise you end up looking really foolish, as you just have.
blehblehbleh90 4 months ago
@yaluobud No, "glide" means to "move with a smooth, continuous motion". It doesn't require atmosphere, wings, or anything else. Please at least try to understand the words you use before showing everyone you are so ignorant.
blehblehbleh90 4 months ago