Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery

[Zakalwe]

I don't have to prove anything.

Actually, you do. You are trying to portray the Apollo missions as faked by relying on your interpretation of a couple of quotes. A classic attempt at hoax-believer cherry-picking.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

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.

You do realise that opinions can and do change with increased knowledge and with observation? You are cherry-picking and building a fantasy on a couple of quotations from astronauts in the middle of a very intense and busy schedule. Why are you so adamant that the astronauts are unable to change their minds with further knowledge?

It seems I am wrong about that.

I'm sure that this isn't the firs or last time that you'll be wrong, in keeping with us all.

[Derek K Willis]

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.

Okay, you have provided a qualitative description, which basically amounts to: the engine plume blew out particles and dust at a range of velocities. So can you now provide a quantitative description? What was the range of velocities, and what were the distances traveled beyond the edge of the crater?

Al Bean was of the opinion that all the particles would have been travelling too fast to have come down on the Surveyor, and Pete Conrad was of the opinion that they were probably travelling too fast to come down on the Surveyor. Do you think they were wrong? If so, why?   

[Derek K Willis]

I don't have to prove anything.

Actually, you do. You are trying to portray the Apollo missions as faked by relying on your interpretation of a couple of quotes. A classic attempt at hoax-believer cherry-picking.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

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.

You do realise that opinions can and do change with increased knowledge and with observation? You are cherry-picking and building a fantasy on a couple of quotations from astronauts in the middle of a very intense and busy schedule. Why are you so adamant that the astronauts are unable to change their minds with further knowledge?

It seems I am wrong about that.

I'm sure that this isn't the firs or last time that you'll be wrong, in keeping with us all.

I don't believe all the Apollo missions were faked. Men certainly walked on the Moon. But perhaps not all twelve.

[Jason Thompson]

Al Bean was of the opinion that all the particles would have been travelling too fast to have come down on the Surveyor, and Pete Conrad was of the opinion that they were probably travelling too fast to come down on the Surveyor. Do you think they were wrong? If so, why?

I'm in the process of reading your article and compiling my response to it in more depth, but since you're labouring this point already I'll weigh in and point out that you are falling into a classic trap of assuming the astronauts are the best authority on any and all aspects of the missions. Al Bean and Pete Conrad were experts in operating their spacecraft. That doesn't make them experts in the fluid dynamics and ballistics of dust particles entrained in rocket exhaust on the surface of the Moon. Their first thought was that the dust would have been blown over the top of Surveyor. That doesn't mean that was their expert opinion based on extensive analysis and understanding of the behvaviour of the dust. It was just their intuitive response to a comment from Capcom. It is quite possible, and not at all suspect, for them to be wrong in their initial impression.

[Derek K Willis]

Al Bean was of the opinion that all the particles would have been travelling too fast to have come down on the Surveyor, and Pete Conrad was of the opinion that they were probably travelling too fast to come down on the Surveyor. Do you think they were wrong? If so, why?

I'm in the process of reading your article and compiling my response to it in more depth, but since you're labouring this point already I'll weigh in and point out that you are falling into a classic trap of assuming the astronauts are the best authority on any and all aspects of the missions. Al Bean and Pete Conrad were experts in operating their spacecraft. That doesn't make them experts in the fluid dynamics and ballistics of dust particles entrained in rocket exhaust on the surface of the Moon. Their first thought was that the dust would have been blown over the top of Surveyor. That doesn't mean that was their expert opinion based on extensive analysis and understanding of the behvaviour of the dust. It was just their intuitive response to a comment from Capcom. It is quite possible, and not at all suspect, for them to be wrong in their initial impression.

The first thoughts of the astronauts were that any dust from the LM would have flown over the Surveyor, and that the discoloring of the Surveyor was due to baked paint rather than dust.

I am happy to accept the astronauts could be wrong. In fact, they seem to be wrong about many things. For instance, Conrad first claimed to have seen dust when the LM was at an altitude of 90 meters. However, the compilers of the Surface Journal "redrafted" that to 67 meters.

And that, in fact, is my whole point. Many aspects of the official history of some of the Apollo missions seem to have been changed or "redrafted" after the events. Of course people get things wrong, but oddly enough, astronauts seem to get lots of things wrong. Again in the case of Conrad and Bean, neither men could remember how it was that they realized the Surveyor was covered in dust rather than discolored due to baked paint (i.e. when Bean noticed dust had been rubbed off the battery case).

But I do take your point. So, it might be best if I don't comment again until anyone who is interested in providing a considered reply to my article does so. I can then take a look at them properly and respond fully. 
 

[bknight]

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.

Yes I quoted the timeline entries that pertained to dust.  So verbalization about dust on the downward facing mirror at fifteen minutes leads to the conclusion they knew the lander was covered in part and likely all by dust, but you pick the passage at 134:29:54 as your dust revelation time period.

Secondly you fail to realize/understand another point I made so I'll repeat it again: What difference does "X" minutes after they arrived at the lander for dust realization?  They were busy doing other tasks that did not include dust discovery, even though the guys at Houston requested they observe any dust, as that request was in addition to other mission tasks given to them months before. 

Thirdly you are using data provided by the Apollo program (ALSJ) to prove that the mission was faked, how strange you should do that.

Lastly:

I don't have to prove anything.

Actually, you do. You are trying to portray the Apollo missions as faked by relying on your interpretation of a couple of quotes. A classic attempt at hoax-believer cherry-picking.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

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.

You do realize that opinions can and do change with increased knowledge and with observation? You are cherry-picking and building a fantasy on a couple of quotations from astronauts in the middle of a very intense and busy schedule. Why are you so adamant that the astronauts are unable to change their minds with further knowledge?

It seems I am wrong about that.

I'm sure that this isn't the firs or last time that you'll be wrong, in keeping with us all.

I don't believe all the Apollo missions were faked. Men certainly walked on the Moon. But perhaps not all twelve.

Which missions were faked?  Why do you believe that they were faked?  How where those missions faked?  Enquiring minds want to know.

[gillianren]

Well, I have absolutely no qualifications in physics of any kind, and I haven't read the article.  I do, on the other hand, have one simple question that I'd like answered, please.

What would convince you that you're wrong?

[Derek K Willis]

I just don't seem to be able to get the hang of multiple quotes.

Anyway, this is for bknight.

In your earlier post you wrote: "What Derek indicates is 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 many times."

No, that is how long the Surface Journal says it took the astronauts to "... realize that the brown color is the product of a fine coating of dust." This realization occurred when Al Bean noticed dust had been rubbed off the battery box.

What I said is therefore correct, and is confirmed by the Surface Journal. If you believe how after seeing the dust on the camera mirror and some of its workings the astronauts also realized the whole Surveyor was covered in dust, then you ought to contact the compilers of the Surface Journal and tell them the inserted note is wrong.

In absolute terms is doesn't matter how many minutes it took to realize the Surveyor was covered in dust. What matters, as far as I am concerned, is the complete change from the astronauts' initial certainty that the discoloring was caused by baked paint to the sudden realization that the discoloring was caused by dust.

I'm not going to expand this discussion to beyond the contents of my article. I simply wanted to make it clear that I don't believe all the missions were faked.
 

[Derek K Willis]

Well, I have absolutely no qualifications in physics of any kind, and I haven't read the article.  I do, on the other hand, have one simple question that I'd like answered, please.

What would convince you that you're wrong?

A thorough refutation of all the points I make in my article. But if you haven't read my article then you won't know what those points are.

[bknight]

I just don't seem to be able to get the hang of multiple quotes.

Anyway, this is for bknight.

In your earlier post you wrote: "What Derek indicates is 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 many times."

No, that is how long the Surface Journal says it took the astronauts to "... realize that the brown color is the product of a fine coating of dust." This realization occurred when Al Bean noticed dust had been rubbed off the battery box.

What I said is therefore correct, and is confirmed by the Surface Journal. If you believe how after seeing the dust on the camera mirror and some of its workings the astronauts also realized the whole Surveyor was covered in dust, then you ought to contact the compilers of the Surface Journal and tell them the inserted note is wrong.

In absolute terms is doesn't matter how many minutes it took to realize the Surveyor was covered in dust. What matters, as far as I am concerned, is the complete change from the astronauts' initial certainty that the discoloring was caused by baked paint to the sudden realization that the discoloring was caused by dust.

No I'm not wrong the dust was noticed at fifteen minutes and they both say it and filmed Pete's rubbing over the mirror.  Whether they made a secondary observation is exactly that, secondary.

Now if when it occurred is not important to you, then quit stating it is thirty minutes.

I don't have to prove anything.

Actually, you do. You are trying to portray the Apollo missions as faked by relying on your interpretation of a couple of quotes. A classic attempt at hoax-believer cherry-picking.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

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.

You do realise that opinions can and do change with increased knowledge and with observation? You are cherry-picking and building a fantasy on a couple of quotations from astronauts in the middle of a very intense and busy schedule. Why are you so adamant that the astronauts are unable to change their minds with further knowledge?

It seems I am wrong about that.

I'm sure that this isn't the firs or last time that you'll be wrong, in keeping with us all.

I don't believe all the Apollo missions were faked. Men certainly walked on the Moon. But perhaps not all twelve.

I'm not going to expand this discussion to beyond the contents of my article. I simply wanted to make it clear that I don't believe all the missions were faked.

You opened dialogue in so as lawyers would say it is fair game to discuss.  Now either you present answers to those questions or I will present you beliefs from UM, your choice.

[onebigmonkey]

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.

What is there to dispute? They noticed dust. You are the one making a big deal about them not noticing it for 30 minutes, which is clearly not true. What the ALSJ points out is that they realise the brown colour is dust. Two different things.

[Derek K Willis]

You were wrong, bknight, and the Surface Journal demonstrates you were wrong. The astronauts didn't realize that the entire Surveyor was covered in dust until after 30 minutes.

I would imagine you are keen to move onto other subjects to try to deflect away from you being wrong.

You seem to be making some sort of threat. Is that really how matters are conducted on ApolloHoax? I thought that sort of behavior - along with the insults and ad hominems - was what happened on other forums.

You can present whatever you like. However, the title of this thread is "Apollo 12 and the Surveyor 3 Mystery". Consequently, I will be restricting my answers to questions on that theme.

[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.

What is there to dispute? They noticed dust. You are the one making a big deal about them not noticing it for 30 minutes, which is clearly not true. What the ALSJ points out is that they realise the brown colour is dust. Two different things.

If it isn't true, then why after about thirty minutes did Al Bean say, "Hey! hey. Lookit there Pete. We thought this thing had changed color, but I think it's just dust. We rubbed into that battery, and its good and shiny again."

If they already knew much earlier that the entire Surveyor was covered in dust, why would Bean excitedly describe what he has just discovered?

[gwiz]

Al Bean was of the opinion that all the particles would have been travelling too fast to have come down on the Surveyor, and Pete Conrad was of the opinion that they were probably travelling too fast to come down on the Surveyor. Do you think they were wrong? If so, why?   

While my qualitative description didn't give an upper limit to the velocities, it did give a lower one.  The dust doesn't all travel at the maximum velocity of the gas, but at a range of velocities between that and zero.
 Since the question is whether the dust was going too fast, my description provides the answer.

[Bryanpoprobson]

If it isn't true, then why after about thirty minutes did Al Bean say, "Hey! hey. Lookit there Pete. We thought this thing had changed color, but I think it's just dust. We rubbed into that battery, and its good and shiny again."

If they already knew much earlier that the entire Surveyor was covered in dust, why would Bean excitedly describe what he has just discovered?

Speculation, they may have assumed that the battery cover had changed colour due to heat but on examining it found it was covered in dust as well. All just speculation, but you are focusing on this as some major point, it is meaningless. They spotted the dust at the 15 min mark and commented on it as bknight has said.



edit:- poor use of quote feature