Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery

[Derek K Willis]

Not every person on the internet has knowledge about every intricate detail of the inner workings of the universe.

I would have been content if he had just said, "I don't have any relevant qualifications."  At least we would know that in order to refute him, we'd have to go back to first principles and offer some education.  You and many others know I have no problem explaining things to people who admit they don't know them.  But when the response to the question is immediately to complain of being persecuted, that's suspicious.  Experience has shown the wisdom of approaching a debate differently when there is reason to think the other parties are not debating in good faith.

I don't feel persecuted. I am perhaps feeling exasperated. But now you have the opportunity to explain, as I requested in my earlier post.

[JayUtah]

I was asked to give a brief biography at the end of the article. So I kept it brief.

You could have kept it a lot briefer by omitting the stuff you now concede is irrelevant.  Do you have any appreciable education, professional experience, or other expertise that qualifies you to comment on how things behave in space?

And remember, don't throw this back at me by saying it is up to me to defend my claim. I am not making any claim.

Of course you are.  You're claiming that certain observations by the crew should be given pre-eminent authority in determining the source of dust on Surveyor 3.  Tell me why I should disregard all the things I can think of and take their word for it?

If you are claiming they were wrong, then explain why.

I did, and so did onebigmonkey.  Those are items I doubt that Conrad and Bean considered when they offered their opinions, and things I'm sure you didn't consider.  Yes, you are trying to shift the burden of proof, and I'm not going to let you.  You can't imagine how they could be wrong.  Very well, I submit that lack of imagination is directly connected to your lack of appropriate expertise.  You've been given some things to consider.  Since you're championing the cause of Conrad and Bean, tell me how they would have addressed those alternatives.

[Derek K Willis]

I was asked to give a brief biography at the end of the article. So I kept it brief.

You could have kept it a lot briefer by omitting the stuff you now concede is irrelevant.  Do you have any appreciable education, professional experience, or other expertise that qualifies you to comment on how things behave in space?

And remember, don't throw this back at me by saying it is up to me to defend my claim. I am not making any claim.

Of course you are.  You're claiming that certain observations by the crew should be given pre-eminent authority in determining the source of dust on Surveyor 3.  Tell me why I should disregard all the things I can think of and take their word for it?

If you are claiming they were wrong, then explain why.

I did, and so did onebigmonkey.  Those are items I doubt that Conrad and Bean considered when they offered their opinions, and things I'm sure you didn't consider.  Yes, you are trying to shift the burden of proof, and I'm not going to let you.  You can't imagine how they could be wrong.  Very well, I submit that lack of imagination is directly connected to your lack of appropriate expertise.  You've been given some things to consider.  Since you're championing the cause of Conrad and Bean, tell me how they would have addressed those alternatives.

So I can assume I am not going to get a real explanation from you? Just words. No physics? No maths?

[JayUtah]

I don't feel persecuted.

Then do you withdraw the accusation that you're being treated ad hominem?

I am perhaps feeling exasperated.

I wager it's because your rhetorical stunts aren't working here either.

But now you have the opportunity to explain, as I requested in my earlier post.

Yes, I'm sure you'd love to levy a burden on your critics to present an exhaustively researched, properly computed physical model to refute your idle expressions of disbelief.  I'm sure you are banking on the probability that none of your critics will rise to that challenge, and that you can thereafter claim to have been unrefuted.  You're not the first, or even among the rarest claimants to try to shift the burden in that way.  It's not an especially creative way to avoid responsibility.

[JayUtah]

So I can assume I am not going to get a real explanation from you?

You've received several candidate explanations.  Address them.

Just words. No physics? No maths?

You're the one holding up Conrad and Bean as the sine qua non of explanations.  That's the position you have to justify.  I've given you exactly as much physics and math as they've given me.  No, you don't get to demand that the only refutation you will accept for your brief, cherry-picked statement must be a rigorous treatise.  That is the essence of shifting the burden of proof.

[Derek K Willis]

I don't feel persecuted.

The do you withdraw the accusation that you're being treated ad hominem?

I am perhaps feeling exasperated.

I wager it's because your rhetorical stunts aren't working here either.

But now you have the opportunity to explain, as I requested in my earlier post.

Yes, I'm sure you'd love to levy a burden on your critics to present an exhaustively researched, properly computed physical model to refute your idle expressions of disbelief.  I'm sure you are banking on the probability that none of your critics will rise to that challenge, and that you can thereafter claim to have been unrefuted.  You're not the first, or even among the rarest claimants to try to shift the burden in that way.  It's not an especially creative way to avoid responsibility.

No, I am hoping my critics will rise to the challenge because I am happy to be proven wrong. So if you have it in you, prove me wrong. Or rather, prove Conrad and Bean wrong. They said dust wouldn't have been deposited on the Surveyor by the LM. If it wasn't deposited by the LM, where did it come from?

[JayUtah]

No, I am hoping my critics will rise to the challenge because I am happy to be proven wrong. So if you have it in you, prove me wrong.

No, this is classic burden-of-proof shifting.  You've done nothing but express faith in the opinions of two people, and you expect your critics to write academic papers to dispose you of those beliefs.  You've posed a challenge that you hope seems reasonable on its face, but which a reasonable person would be reluctant to accept for the sheer amount of work it requires.

Tell you what.  If you want an academically rigorous refutation of your article, get it published in a mainstream science or history journal.  Then you can demand scholarly-level rebuttals.

Or rather, prove Conrad and Bean wrong. They said dust wouldn't have been deposited on the Surveyor by the LM.

And I've given you examples of factors they likely did not consider when rendering that opinion.  But since we have no way of knowing what they did or did not consider, or what concepts of physics they might have had in mind, this is why we generally consider hearsay evidence to be unsatisfying.  I can't go back and quiz Conrad and Bean to know what they were thinking, or to pose my alternatives to them and see what they think about it.

But since you are advocating them, I can ask you.  Do you have any comment on the alternatives I mentioned?

If it wasn't deposited by the LM, where did it come from?

Did you read the other posts?

[Derek K Willis]

No, I am hoping my critics will rise to the challenge because I am happy to be proven wrong. So if you have it in you, prove me wrong.

No, this is classic burden-of-proof shifting.  You've done nothing but express faith in the opinions of two people, and you expect your critics to write academic papers to dispose you of those beliefs.  You've posed a challenge that you hope seems reasonable on its face, but which a reasonable person would be reluctant to accept for the sheer amount of work it requires.

Tell you what.  If you want an academically rigorous refutation of your article, get it published in a mainstream science or history journal.  Then you can demand scholarly-level rebuttals.

Or rather, prove Conrad and Bean wrong. They said dust wouldn't have been deposited on the Surveyor by the LM.

And I've given you examples of factors they likely did not consider when rendering that opinion.  But since we have no way of knowing what they did or did not consider, or what concepts of physics they might have had in mind, this is why we generally consider hearsay evidence to be unsatisfying.  I can't go back and quiz Conrad and Bean to know what they were thinking, or to pose my alternatives to them and see what they think about it.

But since you are advocating them, I can ask you.  Do you have any comment on the alternatives I mentioned?

If it wasn't deposited by the LM, where did it come from?

Did you read the other posts?

I was under the impression the members of ApolloHoax have the expertise to prove me wrong, by which I mean physics, engineering, maths, and so on. I have given an example of where someone can demonstrate that everything I am saying is c**p. You have passed on that opportunity, so I will have to wait for someone else to give it a go.

Yes, I read the other posts. In my article I give an outline of the other means by which the dust could have been deposited, and a brief explanation of why I don't believe they are tenable. Again, feel free - with some physics and maths - to point out why I am wrong.

I said to Peter B and obviousman that I will pull the aulis article if convincing scientific arguments refuting what I have written are provided. I am happy to wait until they are forthcoming.

[Abaddon]

I was under the impression the members of ApolloHoax have the expertise to prove me wrong, by which I mean physics, engineering, maths, and so on.

We do but that is not how it works. It is up to you to prove yourself correct.

I have given an example of where someone can demonstrate that everything I am saying is c**p.

So you admit you can talk utter crap. Agreed.

You have passed on that opportunity, so I will have to wait for someone else to give it a go.

Why should anyone make that effort? You haven't.

Yes, I read the other posts. In my article I give an outline of the other means by which the dust could have been deposited, and a brief explanation of why I don't believe they are tenable. Again, feel free - with some physics and maths - to point out why I am wrong.

You have been given precisely as much physics and maths as you saw fit to provide.  All you have done is describe what you "believe" or "don't beieve" with nothing to back it up other than your say so. People believe in ghosts. Should we take ghosts as being real because some people believe in them? How about bigfoot? It matters not a whit what you believe. It only matters what you can demonstrate to be correct.

[bknight]

What Derek indicates that it took the astronauts 30 minutes to "discover" that the Surveyor was covered in dust is not correct as I have pointed out to him several times.    From ALSJ:

133:58:32 Bean: Okay. We'll walk real slow. (Pause) Hey, you can see...Look at there where it dug those scoops. You can still see the...Boy, that's going to make some beautiful pictures on the way that's weathered since...Doesn't look like the pictures we saw of this a long time ago. That's going to be good.
[The accompanying illustration shows the locations of the Surveyor III scoop marks. The figure was taken from page 58 of the NASA report SP-284, "Analysis of Material and Photographs returned by Apollo 12" and was digitized by Marv Hein. Jon Hancock has scanned a diagram found in a Hughes Corp. house magazine which presents the pattern of scoop marks in a different format.]
[The Surveyor III scoop was designed by Caltech Professor of Engineering Ronald Scott.]
[Heavy breathing is audible as they make their way over to the Surveyor, but it probably isn't due to exertion but, rather, to them straining forward to see where they're walking. As for the scoop marks, in the days following the Surveyor landing, controllers on Earth used the Surveyor's remotely-controlled scoop to dig trenches for soil mechanics experiments and to look for layering. One of the things of interest about the Apollo 12 visit is the chance to look for any changes in the trenches since they were last examined with the Surveyor TV camera. As mentioned on page 3-36 in the Apollo 12 Mission Report, "Examination of the photographs taken at the Surveyor III site (by the Surveyor TV camera and, later, by the astronauts) suggest that the lunar surface has undergone little change in the past 2-1/2 years. The trenches excavated by the lunar material sampling device on Surveyor, as well as the waffle pattern of the Surveyor footpad imprint, appear much the same as when formed on Surveyor landing." Figure 3-25 compares a Surveyor TV image with an Apollo 12 Hasselblad image.]

134:05:59 Bean: Hey, we got a nice brown Surveyor here, Houston. Even the tanks which were...Well, (if I) raise the visor and it's not so brown, but it's tan. The glass is still on the top. Not a bit of it is fractured. 134:06:12 Conrad: Yeah.
[Al’s mention of ‘glass’ refers to the glass-covered thermal radiator on the top of the larger of two Electronics Compartments - called the Large Box - on the Surveyor. Figure 3-10 from the Final Apollo 12 Lunar Surface Operations Plan. The Large Box is on the righthand (south) side of the diagram. As indicated on pages 2 and 3 in document devoted to post-flight examination of the returned Surveyor III components, Pete and Al were asked to bring back samples of the glass from both the Large Box and the nearby Small Box ‘if feasible’. At this early stage of their work on the Surveyor, they hadn’t had a good look at the Small Box. A detail from AS12-48-7137 shows the top of the Large Box.]

In fact dust is discovered 15 minutes after they arrived at the lander

134:15:03 Bean: It's no longer a mirror.
134:15:05 Conrad: No, it's brown because it's looking at brown, isn't it?
134:15:07 Bean: No, it looks like...
134:15:08 Conrad: Maybe it's got some coating on it. Yeah. It does. Why don't you stay right there, and I'll come in and wipe it?
134:15:15 Bean: Okay. Come on in and wipe it.
134:15:17 Conrad: Look it over close.
134:15:18 Bean: (I can) see the mechanical components down inside it.
134:15:21 Conrad: Yeah. (Pause)
134:15:29 Conrad: It's just got a...
134:15:29 LM Crew: ...fine dust on it.

But this is where Derek has indicated that dust was discovered.

134:29:50 Bean: Hey! Hey, lookit there, Pete!
['Lookit' is a non-standard pronunciation of 'look at that'. Hearing it in Al's excited voice takes your editor 65 years back to his own childhood in the late 1940s and early 1950s.]
134:29:51 Conrad: What?
134:29:54 Bean: We thought this thing had changed color, but I think it's just dust. Look. We rubbed into that battery, and it's good and shiny again. Let me get a shot on it.
134:30:00 Conrad: Okay, go ahead.
[Al's picture of the battery is AS12-48- 7138.]
134:30:01 Bean: I think that's what...Maybe this thing's just collecting all this red dust.

But as onebigmonkey and I have pointed out to Derek, the astronauts were performing tasks that had been orchestrated to them by NASA and practiced for months.  So instead of looking for dust they were doing those tasks, taking pictures noting the landing pads and impressions, noting the trench that the scoop had dug almost three years earlier etc..  But what is fascinating is why does it matter how long it took them to discover there was dust?  It is a form of "if I ran the zoo".   And this "anomaly" is one of Derek's "can only be explained if the mission were faked".  But I guess he can't/won't rewrite the article over 15 minutes, oh well...
There are a lot of other aspects that probably went into his book, but we'll cross that bridge in another post.

[smartcooky]

But as onebigmonkey and I have pointed out to Derek, the astronauts were performing tasks that had been orchestrated to them by NASA and practiced for months.  So instead of looking for dust they were doing those tasks, taking pictures noting the landing pads and impressions, noting the trench that the scoop had dug almost three years earlier etc..  But what is fascinating is why does it matter how long it took them to discover there was dust?  It is a form of "if I ran the zoo".   And this "anomaly" is one of Derek's "can only be explained if the mission were faked".  But I guess he can't/won't rewrite the article over 15 minutes, oh well..

This is yet another aspect of the Apollo missions that the hoax believers fail to understand.

Astronauts on a Lunar Surface were not like a couple of cave explorers let loose in a new cave with their own schedule and unlimited time. Everything was dictated by outside influences such as launch windows, power supplies, breathing air and food supplies. They knew exactly how long each EVA's was going to be - first EVA 3 hours, 56 minutes; second EVA  3 hours, 49 minutes. These guys were on foot (no Lunar Rover until Apollo 15); everything they did was tightly and rigidly scheduled and included travel time between tasks. Additional tasks would likely only be allowed if they got ahead of schedule unless they were deemed to be scientifically important or mission critical.

I find it completely unsurprising that they did not notice the dust on Surveyor the moment they got there.

[Derek K Willis]

I am having trouble with getting the quotes to work.

However, in reply to bknight. If you look at the Surface Journal at 133:58:04 you will see this inserted note:

"At 134:29:54 they realize that the brown color is the product of a fine coating of dust."

134:29:54 is about half an hour after they arrived at Surveyor 3.

Yes, at about fifteen minutes after the astronauts arrived they saw the dust on the camera mirror. But as the Surface Journal clearly points out, it took half an hour before they realized the entire lander was coated in dust.

If you don't believe what is written in the Surface Journal, perhaps you ought to contact them and ask them to change it.

[Derek K Willis]

But as onebigmonkey and I have pointed out to Derek, the astronauts were performing tasks that had been orchestrated to them by NASA and practiced for months.  So instead of looking for dust they were doing those tasks, taking pictures noting the landing pads and impressions, noting the trench that the scoop had dug almost three years earlier etc..  But what is fascinating is why does it matter how long it took them to discover there was dust?  It is a form of "if I ran the zoo".   And this "anomaly" is one of Derek's "can only be explained if the mission were faked".  But I guess he can't/won't rewrite the article over 15 minutes, oh well..

This is yet another aspect of the Apollo missions that the hoax believers fail to understand.

Astronauts on a Lunar Surface were not like a couple of cave explorers let loose in a new cave with their own schedule and unlimited time. Everything was dictated by outside influences such as launch windows, power supplies, breathing air and food supplies. They knew exactly how long each EVA's was going to be - first EVA 3 hours, 56 minutes; second EVA  3 hours, 49 minutes. These guys were on foot (no Lunar Rover until Apollo 15); everything they did was tightly and rigidly scheduled and included travel time between tasks. Additional tasks would likely only be allowed if they got ahead of schedule unless they were deemed to be scientifically important or mission critical.

I find it completely unsurprising that they did not notice the dust on Surveyor the moment they got there.

It wasn't a case of the astronauts simply not noticing the dust on the Surveyor. As they arrived at the Surveyor they were specifically asked by Mission Control to look for any dust deposited by the LM. The astronauts responded by saying that any dust wouldn't have gone down into the crater and would have probably gone right over the top of the Surveyor. They affirm this by pointing out how the Surveyor was discolored by being baked in the Sun. In other words, the discoloring wasn't caused by dust. Only after half an hour - as is clearly pointed out in the Surface Journal - did the astronauts realize the discoloring was after all due to dust. You might not be surprised by that either. In my article I have given an alternative explanation. 

[Derek K Willis]

I was under the impression the members of ApolloHoax have the expertise to prove me wrong, by which I mean physics, engineering, maths, and so on.

We do but that is not how it works. It is up to you to prove yourself correct.

I have given an example of where someone can demonstrate that everything I am saying is c**p.

So you admit you can talk utter crap. Agreed.

You have passed on that opportunity, so I will have to wait for someone else to give it a go.

Why should anyone make that effort? You haven't.

Yes, I read the other posts. In my article I give an outline of the other means by which the dust could have been deposited, and a brief explanation of why I don't believe they are tenable. Again, feel free - with some physics and maths - to point out why I am wrong.

You have been given precisely as much physics and maths as you saw fit to provide.  All you have done is describe what you "believe" or "don't beieve" with nothing to back it up other than your say so. People believe in ghosts. Should we take ghosts as being real because some people believe in them? How about bigfoot? It matters not a whit what you believe. It only matters what you can demonstrate to be correct.

I don't have to prove anything. I have the opinions of two qualified and highly experienced aeronautical engineers. Al Bean said that any dust from the LM would never go down into the crater, and Pete Conrad said that any dust would have probably flown over the top of the Surveyor. Collectively, I would say that the opinions of Bean and Conrad were that they were at least 80% certain the LM wouldn't have deposited dust on the Surveyor. I am happy to take their informed word on that.

No, I do not admit I talk utter c**p.

I would have thought that all you experts would have relished the opportunity to prove me wrong. It seems I am wrong about that.

[gwiz]

I don't have to prove anything. I have the opinions of two qualified and highly experienced aeronautical engineers. Al Bean said that any dust from the LM would never go down into the crater, and Pete Conrad said that any dust would have probably flown over the top of the Surveyor. Collectively, I would say that the opinions of Bean and Conrad were that they were at least 80% certain the LM wouldn't have deposited dust on the Surveyor. I am happy to take their informed word on that.

I'm also a qualified aeronautical engineer and it took me a bit of thought to work out how the landing plume and dust would behave.  As Jay has said, the plume would become an outward moving sheet once it met the surface and would entrain dust particles.  The sheet would expand unrestrainedly upwards and attach to the surface on its lower side, driven by its internal pressure.  On the lower side, the sheet would form a boundary layer where viscous forces would slow it to zero velocity at the surface, rapidly rising with height to the unslowed velocity.  The larger a dust particle on the surface, the higher the average gas velocity impinging on it, so very small particles could bounce slowly along the surface while larger ones could gain nearly the full velocity of the sheet.  This means that as the gas expands upwards and loses pressure, you are left with dust particles moving with a range of different velocities.  High velocity ones could go almost straight on at a crater edge, slower ones would drop with distance into the crater and the slowest follow the surface until they hit something big enough to stop them.