Apollo XIII-inconsistences

[JayUtah]

You must explain...

The explanation is that you haven't looked at the record.  You assert that things aren't there which the rest of us -- and the rest of the world -- knows are there, or can easily determine.  Armstrong spent a substantial portion of Roll 39 photographing the area under the LM, showing discoloration of the regolith due to heat loading, and the various effects of fluid erosion.  I fully expect someone coming here arguing that the record is incomplete to at least have surveyed Roll 39, probably the singular most important roll of film from all the Apollo project.

But you haven't even done that.  So you don't deserve the courtesy that would ordinarily be afforded a conscientious claimant.  You aren't conscientious.  You're ignorant, lazy, and arrogant.  Those well-established properties forbid you from levying burdens of production on your opponents.  Your laziness obligates no one to do your homework for you.

It does not explain why there is no trace of dust in the legs.

You need to explain why you expect there to be.

[raven]

"Small pebble", eh? Look here if you want to see more how much you are just so damn wrong. Some are 'pebbles', sure, but many are not as well.

[ka9q]

Armstrong spent a substantial portion of Roll 39 photographing the area under the LM, showing discoloration of the regolith due to heat loading, and the various effects of fluid erosion.

I think that was roll 40, not roll 39. Roll 39 is a black-and-white magazine used to document the lunar surface from within the LM before and after the EVA. Roll 40 is the color magazine used during the EVA.

[JayUtah]

I think that was roll 40, not roll 39.

Yeah, you're right.  In any case it takes only a few minutes to look at any of the rolls at the LPI atlas.

[Zakalwe]

<snip>

Thank you for finally making an attempt to answer

2) Those traces would surface, lunar samples are only small pebbles, enough to break a lunar meteorite.

Incorrect. Big Muley is nearly 12kg in mass.

3) idem

I do not understand. What are you trying to say here?

4) For that traveled to Antarctica Von Braun & Co years before Apollo 11.

I do not understand. What are you trying to say here?

5) Yes.

Why do you think that a Moon meteorite would be the same as an Apollo sample? Can you point out a single, qualified source that backs up your claim?

Again, thanks for answering.

[onebigmonkey]

Armstrong spent a substantial portion of Roll 39 photographing the area under the LM, showing discoloration of the regolith due to heat loading, and the various effects of fluid erosion.

I think that was roll 40, not roll 39. Roll 39 is a black-and-white magazine used to document the lunar surface from within the LM before and after the EVA. Roll 40 is the color magazine used during the EVA.

Do we still have the t-shirts?

[bknight]

Apollo 14, and still on the floor but it keeps blowing and blowing ...

The answers are all out there; you only have to find it and read it. Quoting from the Pilot's Report in the Apollo 14 Mission Report:

To provide a soft landing, a delay of about 2 seconds was allowed between acquisition of the contact lights and activation of the engine stop button. Touchdown occurred at shutdown with some small dust-blowing action continuing during engine thrust tailoff or decay. 

So there you have it. The descent engine was shut off relatively late, and even after it was shut down it took a few moments for all the hot gas to leave the engine; it can't get out instantly. This is quite normal and expected with this type of rocket engine.

Then you need to explain the absence of dust in the legs, the absence of visible marks on the floor and the absence of radial dispersion of dust under the LM.

Why would you think there should be dust on the legs?  Now IF you are speaking of the landing pads, try this one to debunk that thought.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9234HR.jpg

[onebigmonkey]

3) idem

I do not understand. What are you trying to say here?

He's effectively saying "I answered that in my reply to the previous question".

idem
ˈʌɪdɛm,ˈɪdɛm/Submit
adverb
adverb: idem
used in citations to indicate an author or word that has just been mentioned.
"Marianne Elliott, Partners in Revolution, 1982; idem, Wolfe Tone, 1989"

[Zakalwe]

... the absence of radial dispersion of dust under the LM.

What? You mean like this:




http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5921

Full Resolution:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/40/5921.jpg

[bknight]

Tarkus,

You have made a number of posts since I asked you these direct questions. Could you please answer them?
Thank you in advance.

1. What quantity of Martian meteorites do we posses?
2. What traces of a high-speed transition through Earth's atmosphere would be left on a rock that originated from the Moon or Mars?
3. Do you think that these traces are present or absent in the Apollo samples?
4. Do you know if we are in possession of "Moon meteorites" (that is, rocks that originated from the Moon and have been found on Earth)?
5. Do you think that those Moon meteorites will be the same as the Apollo samples?

1) I do not know
2) Those traces would surface, lunar samples are only small pebbles, enough to break a lunar meteorite.
3) idem
4) For that traveled to Antarctica Von Braun & Co years before Apollo 11.
5) Yes.

Why do you think NASA would send a rocket scientist to pick up rocks, it would have been better to send one of the geologists.
This trip was two fold neither of which in involved gathering rocks. get the rocket team from Huntsville together with the MCC personnel from Houston  kind of like a gathering of the minds in the "field" not in an office environment.

[raven]

... the absence of radial dispersion of dust under the LM.

What? You mean like this:




http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5921

Full Resolution:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/40/5921.jpg

And remember, if this was fake, every single detail you see there would have had to have been crafted by someone, the surface sculpted and painted to get that effect. Why do I bring it up?  Because if the above is not enough, as conspiracy theorists claim, then why didn't NASA and the alleged set makers add more? Even whistle blowers are not enough to explain this, as why would NASA release such a picture? Surely they would have had people going over the pictures to check for alleged errors like this before releasing such photos.

[Apollo 957]

It does not explain why there is no trace of dust in the legs.

There ARE photographs with 'dust in the legs', but the majority of it was driven out toward the horizon and ended up far, far away from the landing craft.

You do understand why, don't you?

[JayUtah]

No, he probably doesn't.  The exhaust gas velocity is thousands of meters per second.  The dust scoured from the surface is entrained in that flow, and so impacts the surface of the struts, footpads, etc. at tremendous velocity, with tremendous kinetic energy (at that scale).  It is far more likely simply to bounce off than to somehow stick to it.  Tarkus' mistaken expectation no doubt derives from assumptions that it would billow up in clouds, aerosolized as it is on Earth in an ambient atmosphere, and then settle gently back down on all the nearby surfaces.

[frenat]

No, he probably doesn't.  The exhaust gas velocity is thousands of meters per second.  The dust scoured from the surface is entrained in that flow, and so impacts the surface of the struts, footpads, etc. at tremendous velocity, with tremendous kinetic energy (at that scale).  It is far more likely simply to bounce off than to somehow stick to it.  Tarkus' mistaken expectation no doubt derives from assumptions that it would billow up in clouds, aerosolized as it is on Earth in an ambient atmosphere, and then settle gently back down on all the nearby surfaces.

I doubt he's even put that much thought into it.  I'm betting he's just copied the claim from one of many ignorant hoaxie sites.

[bknight]

No, he probably doesn't.  The exhaust gas velocity is thousands of meters per second.  The dust scoured from the surface is entrained in that flow, and so impacts the surface of the struts, footpads, etc. at tremendous velocity, with tremendous kinetic energy (at that scale).  It is far more likely simply to bounce off than to somehow stick to it.  Tarkus' mistaken expectation no doubt derives from assumptions that it would billow up in clouds, aerosolized as it is on Earth in an ambient atmosphere, and then settle gently back down on all the nearby surfaces.

I doubt he's even put that much thought into it.  I'm betting he's just copied the claim from one of many ignorant hoaxie sites.

I'll second that thought