A refutation

[Aarontg]

Hey Guys,I have some questions for you:FTR,I firmly believe that the United States landed on the moon six times between 1969 and 1972.MY cousin the conspiracy theorist does not believe that they landed.And he tried to bring out some points such as when one astronaut said said that he felt radiation when he got near the Van Allen belts.Also another one,that nasa needed a much bigger rocket than the Saturn V,but that it was too heavy to lift.Also that when the LEM began it's ascent it would kick up alot of dust.Your well informed answers please.
P.S. the moon landings were some of my favorite events in history.And I believe they happened and I am sick and tired of hearing people say they were faked.

[darren r]

I believe you'll find a lot of the answers you need at Clavius.org.

But I also think you need to ask your friend to be more specific in his claims. Which astronaut? How much bigger a rocket? How much dust?

[Chew]

He is probably conflating astronauts see flashes of light when cosmic rays hit their optical nerve.

Von Braun's estimate for the size of a moon rocket was based on the Direct Ascent plan. The size required was greatly reduced by the advent of the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous plan.

The LM (the E was dropped in the early 60's) was a two module craft. The Ascent Stage used the Descent Stage was a launch pad. Very little of the exhaust would impinge the lunar surface.

[Glom]

The LM (the E was dropped in the early 60's) was a two module craft. The Ascent Stage used the Descent Stage was a launch pad. Very little of the exhaust would impinge the lunar surface.

Plus by that point, the ascent stage had the weight of a bowling ball.

[Nowhere Man]

Welcome, Aarontg.  Let me second the recommendation to visit clavius.org.

Also, please put at least one space after each punctuation mark (period, comma, question mark, etc.)  It will make your posts much easier to read.  (I'll nag you about "its" vs. "it's" later )

Fred

[gillianren]

Tell him that, without the numbers, "it needed to be bigger" is meaningless.  How much bigger?  Why does it need to be bigger?  And so forth.  And if he can't provide the numbers, how does he know?

[ka9q]

The ascent stages *did* raise a lot of dust. See the videos of the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 lunar ascents. A very noticeable "fog" forms in the entire scene that persists for several seconds until the LM is out of the area and the dust has had a chance to fall.

[Echnaton]

The ascent stages *did* raise a lot of dust. See the videos of the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 lunar ascents. A very noticeable "fog" forms in the entire scene that persists for several seconds until the LM is out of the area and the dust has had a chance to fall.

A15 is a particularly good view for this because the camera did not attempt to track the LM after liftoff. 

Lift off occurs at 1:33 minutes and the dust obscures the view for a few seconds then quickly settles.  Probably just after pitchover. 

[qt]

Lift off occurs at 1:33 minutes and the dust obscures the view for a few seconds then quickly settles.  Probably just after pitchover.

Probably it wouldn't have gone so well without the music.

Any word on what it is we see over the horizon off to the right a bit?

[darren r]

Any word on what it is we see over the horizon off to the right a bit?

I was wondering that. They look like stars. Or are they just dust specks?

I also noticed that the covering on the LM billows for quite a long time after the dust clears. And then it just stops. As you would expect.

[Trebor]

Any word on what it is we see over the horizon off to the right a bit?

I was wondering that. They look like stars. Or are they just dust specks?

They seem to be in the camera, possibly dust.

[Mag40]

Any word on what it is we see over the horizon off to the right a bit?

I was wondering that. They look like stars. Or are they just dust specks?

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/a15v.1675046.mpg

They are dust marks on the camera lens.

[Count Zero]

No, dust on the lens would not show-up as points (it would be so out-of-focus it wouldn't even show up as a blob).  The white dots are "hot pixels", a type of electronic camera artifact.  One of the pros here can define it for you. 

[ka9q]

These were analog video tubes, not digital image sensors, so technically they're not hot pixels. Probably bad spots on the image target in the tube, that's the photoconductive screen on which the image is focused and that the electron beam scans to read out the image as an analog voltage.

[Aarontg]

Thank you.Most of these answers are for my own self edification.Trying to convince conspiracy theorists that they're wrong is futile.They're more hard headed than Mount Everest.