This guy did make some mistakes but the correct explanation for his mistakes don't disprove the hoax theory. He was wrong about the hypergolic fuel not being smokeless but that doesn't mean that the lunar module wasn't lifted by a cable, etc.
I think he's right about the soil encountering atmosphere. It would not have clumped in mid-air if it had been on the moon.
Is there a link that shows just the footage itself? I don't feel like loading one and a half hours of this video just to watch it. I also don't get how dust clumping is a sign of it being in an atmosphere. Now if it were clouding up and staying suspended over the ground for a period of time, then that would be a sign of it being in an atmosphere. But if all the dust that's being kicked up, flies out in an arcing trajectory and does not stay suspended at all (regardless if it's clumping or not) would be a sign of no atmosphere.
I believe that the Lunar soil has a bit of a static charge, so some of it might 'clump' together because of that. But I really don't know. The rover wheels might also be kicking up small rocks as well. I'll have to see the clip in question though.
I think he's right about the soil encountering atmosphere.
Sigh. Just like you handled David Percy and all the others. You whine and moan about bias and trustworthiness, but you continually demonstrate that the only criteria by which you evaluate conspiracy claims is whether they say what you want to hear. So once again you cherry-pick some claim made by someone whom you agree doesn't have it all together.
If you don't trust your source, why should we?
It would not have clumped in mid-air if it had been on the moon.
Ninety percent of all conspiracy claims are based on naive, simplistic expectations of what "should" be the case. Yours is no exception. You have the burden to prove that your "would not have" statement is correct. At least you have that burden if you wish us to believe that your observation is proof of fakery.
I believe that the Lunar soil has a bit of a static charge, so some of it might 'clump' together because of that.
It does, but a more dominant effect in this case is the regolith's behavior under compression. If you were to reach down and grab a handful of it and squeeze, it would form a clot. This is because of its sharp particle edges, but also because of a sort of cementation related to cold-welding. The absence of air leaves raw mineral surfaces exposed, and it takes relatively little energy to form a weak weld between particles that rub against each other, such as what happens when you compress it.
The wheels roll over the material and compress it. Then as they spin in place, that weakly-congregated material is ejected as an initial clot. Or more accurately, as a series of clots, since most break into smaller chunks. The clots disintegrate entirely shortly after separating from the wheels because of rotational motion, but they have embarked on very similar trajectories to start with, so they remain ballistically related as they disperse.
Air, in fact, does not cause material to coalesce or conform as it passes through it. In fact, air decays ballistic trajectories into chaotic paths, reducing any previous semblance of coherence.
I'll have to see the clip in question though.
There's only one source for rover footage: the Grand Prix 16mm footage from Apollo 16.
Post by Grand Lunar on May 19, 2007 23:28:45 GMT -4
Well, welcome back, Rocky. I see you still haven't grown a tounge, and so let videos do the talking for you.
The arguments of the hoax proponants have a quandry; they must show, without a doubt, WHY the Apollo missions would be hoaxed in the first place. What prevented Apollo from going to the moon?
Also, another perspective. The HBers seem to find Apollo impossible to believe for one or more of these reasons: 1- No mission like it has been attempted since the last landing. 2- It was such an incredible feat. 3- The operational hardware is no longer in service.
Now, the perspective I want to give is this: you remember Voyager 2, yes? A robot mission, with technology from the 1970s, including a computer that has only a fraction the memory of a modern PC, made a trip to all four gas giant planets. And it's still going strong. Now, do HBers consider this mission any more believable than Apollo? If not, why not? If so, why? Why should HBers question sending three people to the moon but not a little robot across the outer solar system? It seems to me, that you, like other HBs, single out Apollo because of the one factor Voyager didn't have; a human proxy. With a human going to these far off worlds, Voyager didn't attract the attention that Apollo has.
Care to confirm or deny this, Rocky?
"You're mistaking our universe for someone else's." - Capt. Archer
Rocky, just curious, what antenna would the TV need in oreder to lose signal lock during the LRV park drive? If in a studio can you explain precisely how that would happen in an enclosed location? (Thanks to svector for picking this glaring by-product of TV uplink)
Rocky, what dust does in an atmosphere that it doesn't do in a vacuum is billow about in the vehicle wake and generally hang in the air. The Apollo videos, on the other hand, show dust that falls back to the ground as rapidly as it is thrown up.
The phenomenon you describe as "clumping" is in fact density variations in the dust due to a non-constant wheel speed and non-uniform dust properties. This is a phenomenon that can occur equally in a vacuum or in an atmosphere.
...and why is "clumping" supposedly just an atmosphere thing? Seeing as the world has exactly one experience of a vehicle driving at some speed in vacuum and 1/6g, theres a burden of proof Rocky seems reluctant to accept.
Rocky, what dust does in an atmosphere that it doesn't do in a vacuum is billow about in the vehicle wake and generally hang in the air.
I only got as far as the first semester of calculus in math but I calculated trajectories. When something is thrown in a vacuum, it's forward speed never changes. Its downward speed keeps increasing unitil it hits the surface but the forward speed isn't changed at all. If there is atmospere, the forward speed slows until there is no forward speed. The object finally just falls straight down. Doesn't this aply to what dust does in an atmpsphere and doesn't do in a vacuum too. Wouldn't that be noticable? Wouldn't it be possible to examine footage and determine whether there is an atmospere or a vacuum just by looking at the trajectory of the soil thrown up by the tires? In a vacuum, shouldn't the soil just follow the parabolic trajectory that could be easily calculated? If there is atmosphere, wouldn't it slow down significantly so that it doesn't form a perfect parabola? This seems like something pretty basic to me. The soil in the footage isn't following the trajectory that it should follow in a vacuum. It's being stopped by atmospere and just falling down.
The Apollo videos, on the other hand, show dust that falls back to the ground as rapidly as it is thrown up
The point is that the trajectory of the soil is not what it would be if it were in a vacuum. The effects of the atmospere on the fall rate wouldn't be noticable until the speed got higher.