First, let me say that I don't think the moon landing was faked. If it had been faked, scientists all over the world would have figured it out immediately and would have been screaming about it ever since!
But there's one thing I can't seem to understand.
In the photo linked below, you can see the astronaut's footprints in the dust in the lower right, it also appears the lunar lander's "legs" have sunk down into the dist a little, and you can see the lunar lander's jet almost touching the surface of the moon, but there's no bowl or crater under it where dust would have been blown away from the rocket exhaust.
The lunar lander weighed tons and even in the moon's 1/6th G, that rocket would have to have been blasting really hard to bring that thing down softly. You would expect it to have blown away a lot of dust and sand, forming a bowl or some sort of obvious mark.
I would like someone to explain this, please!
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&…
But there's one thing I can't seem to understand.
In the photo linked below, you can see the astronaut's footprints in the dust in the lower right, it also appears the lunar lander's "legs" have sunk down into the dist a little, and you can see the lunar lander's jet almost touching the surface of the moon, but there's no bowl or crater under it where dust would have been blown away from the rocket exhaust.
The lunar lander weighed tons and even in the moon's 1/6th G, that rocket would have to have been blasting really hard to bring that thing down softly. You would expect it to have blown away a lot of dust and sand, forming a bowl or some sort of obvious mark.
I would like someone to explain this, please!
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&…
-
I appreciate your intellectual honesty in not leaping to the conclusion that because you can't understand how this is, that it must be a fake.
The explanation, while non-obvious, is fairly simple. That engine nozzle wasn't firing (or at least not with much thrust at all) during the final several seconds of landing approach. That terminal stage of a lunar landing was basically a dead-drop. Further, when that motor was in use, it typically wasn't in use at full-thrust. That was reserved for abort scenarios, in case the LM found (at the last minute) that it could not land and had to return to lunar orbit.
Indeed, actually descending with a fully loaded module into lunar gravity would require that the throttle be set at no greater than 25%. Otherwise the LM would be climbing rather than descending.
That said, see my source... particularly the bottom photo, which is the Apollo 11 lander viewed from a different angle.. You will see linear erosive features just below that nozzle. It's not a crater, but some soil was moved... either from a throttled down motor, or from a harder blast at higher altitude.
The explanation, while non-obvious, is fairly simple. That engine nozzle wasn't firing (or at least not with much thrust at all) during the final several seconds of landing approach. That terminal stage of a lunar landing was basically a dead-drop. Further, when that motor was in use, it typically wasn't in use at full-thrust. That was reserved for abort scenarios, in case the LM found (at the last minute) that it could not land and had to return to lunar orbit.
Indeed, actually descending with a fully loaded module into lunar gravity would require that the throttle be set at no greater than 25%. Otherwise the LM would be climbing rather than descending.
That said, see my source... particularly the bottom photo, which is the Apollo 11 lander viewed from a different angle.. You will see linear erosive features just below that nozzle. It's not a crater, but some soil was moved... either from a throttled down motor, or from a harder blast at higher altitude.