richie_stix Posted March 6, 2009 Report Posted March 6, 2009 why is there no blast crater beneath the moon lander though? if a footprint has an impact on the surface of the moon, why doesnt a rocket thruster? because of the physical properties of the atmosphere of the moon and the material it is made of... the loose particles on the moon would have blown away by the rocket, and the hard rock beneath is to hard to get 'blasted'... The downward traveling exhaust stream would impact the ground and rebound mostly outward and away from the surface. Since there is no atmosphere to interact with, the gas molecules would simply fly off and disperse (see note below). The only dust particles that would be displaced would be those directly impacted by the exhaust gas. Since the exhaust stream was concentrated mostly in the area directly beneath the Lunar Module, this zone would experience the greatest disturbance. The area adjacent to the LM would be largely unaffected by the exhaust stream. NOTE: On Earth, the exhaust gas would impact and displace air molecules that would, in turn, displace other air molecules and so on. This phenomenon would create a large area of disturbance. Since the Moon has no atmosphere this type of widespread disturbance would be nonexistent. but the footprint... "The lunar surface is predominately composed of materials that fall under the general category of silicates. Silica has a natural tendency to bond with other silica, forming large molecular chains. When a meteoroid impacts the Moon, much of the energy goes into fracturing the surrounding structure causing breaks in the molecular bonds. On Earth, these "exposed" bonds quickly fill with oxygen in a process called oxidation or weathering. On the Moon, with a total lack of oxygen, these bonds have nothing to attach to until an event occurs that aligns the molecules. When an object, such as an astronaut's boot, disturbs lunar dust new molecular bonds are created. The new bonds enable the dust to hold its shape, forming an impression of the deforming object. Thus, footprints can form despite the absence of water. " or if ya don't like reading...
escortwithsunroof Posted March 6, 2009 Report Posted March 6, 2009 Mmmm get me a rocket & a packet of jacobs im goin to
emu Posted March 6, 2009 Report Posted March 6, 2009 Ive never really thought about it to be honest. Always just been of the opinion that they must have been because they said they had. Just watched that Mythbusters episode and read Bortafs link which has got me thinking about why people believe it to be a hoax. Im happy enough beleiving that Man did go to the moon though, if only because I like the idea that we can acheive something so impressive and monumental
over_head_cam Posted March 6, 2009 Report Posted March 6, 2009 I am old enough to have watched it at the time on TV. And TV never lies
emu Posted March 7, 2009 Report Posted March 7, 2009 Here you go, another documentary on a trip to the moon. This one is in colour too, so it really must be true
bortaf Posted March 7, 2009 Report Posted March 7, 2009 Here you go, another documentary on a trip to the moon. This one is in colour too, so it really must be true But it's black and white in space everyone knows that from the 60's TV shots, that one must be a fake Oh hang on i think we had a black and white TV back then, that could explain it
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now