How long would a footprint stay visible on the surface of the moon?

reply to post by liejunkie01


Perhaps you missed the part where I said I would be more receptive to being asked and not being told?
And I think you've taken it rather out of context - it was in response to a post where someone had stated that 'america had made the apollo site a no fly zone'.
And I stick by that - but they haven't so it's irrelevant.

Upon further reading I quickly acknowledged that these are recommendations and proposals.

Perhaps you should read the whole thread and take everything into consideration before posting......however it is a free and open forum and I for one have no problem with anyone chirping in with their opinion / thoughts etc as long as they are done in a courteous manner.

reply to post by Freeborn

Perhaps you should read the whole thread and take everything into consideration before posting

I did happen to read all three pages of the thread.

I really like Phages take on things.

I often feel that people should get all of the facts before taking such a hardline stance on a subject.

reply to post by Freeborn


I have read the entire thread, up here to page 4. I saw, and shuddered, at some of your earlier posts --- at the misinformation that had (unfortunately) been sent in your direction. Glad to see it appears that by actually reading the real NASA suggestions, in re: preserving the historical significance of all six Apollo landing sites, you have finally come to better understand those proposals, and the intent behind them.

I'm surprised that no-one has yet, in this thread, referenced a terrestrial analogy to "preserving" significant historical (and archaeological) sites. Since I see you're from Great Britain, I immediately thought of Stonehenge as an example. Have you ever visited? I have.....and, in a similar fashion to the proposals by NASA to preclude "tramping" and disturbing the Apollo sites, Stonehenge has its own prohibitions, to the general public (aka, 'tourists').

N'est pas?

reply to post by PluPerfect

I have read the entire thread, up here to page 4. I saw, and shuddered, at some of your earlier posts

For the last time, my first post in this thread was in response to this post?
www.abovetopsecret.com... and was directed more at the at the alleged arrogance of NASA and the USA telling people what to do rather than asking.

An easy misunderstanding given their history - but still an incorrect one nonetheless.

As this has been cleared up there's really no need to continue rattling on about it, is there?

And regardless of anything that has been posted here I think it's still fair and reasonable to suspect NASA's motives about anything they do or say - and no, I don't believe the moon landings were a hoax, they were real and they happened

Yes, I've been to Stonehenge and whilst I understand you likening it to the Apollo landing sites etc I think the big difference is that no-one is suggesting that Stonehenge is some sort of fake or that anyone is witholding information about it or misleading people as to it's purpose or history etc.

Stonehenge has its own prohibitions, to the general public (aka, 'tourists').

Much to the disgust of many.

reply to post by Freeborn


Well, I toyed with claiming otherwise, in the previous post, just to take the piss:

....no-one is suggesting that Stonehenge is some sort of fake or that anyone is witholding information about it or misleading people as to it's purpose or history etc.

I was going to cement my tongue to my cheek, and take up the mantle of a "typical" Moon landing "hoax" believer, as witnessed often here and elsewhere on the Internet, and state that despite having seen Stonehenge with my own eyes, I still "believe" it is entirely fake, and was a Steven Spielberg/George Lucas collaboration (along with the dead spirit of Stanley Kubrick urging them on) and nothing will "ever change my mind"....(that somewhat caricatures the usual clap-trap I read from the Apollo "hoax" believers).....

Stonehenge has its own prohibitions, to the general public (aka, 'tourists').

Much to the disgust of many.

Yes, perhaps.....though, "disgust" was not my emotion when there. However, had I done some research before my visit (which did not occur to me, then), I would have found this site about 'private' close-up visits:

Stone Circle Access visits.


I foresee, when technology has progressed sufficiently, a commercial business possibility of active tourism to the Moon, and especially to those historic Apollo sites (and surely to others, to all events where Human spacecraft have either landed, or been crashed intentionally, on the surface).

The time-frame is likely well beyond my own lifetime, but should there be a profit potential existing, then it will happen eventually.......

reply to post by PluPerfect


Stonehenge is a place of particular interest to me, I actually authored a thread about it here on ATS quite some time ago, as with all of the handful of threads I've started it was alarmingly unsuccesful

I've never managed to visit during the Summer Solstice when special access is granted, albeit with some restrictions and a relatively large police presence.

But we digress.

Some of the moon hoaxers are disturbingly set in their opinions and refuse to accept even the possibility of anything other than their hard held views etc.....but I guess the same can be said for many here on ATS.
Being open to new opinions and evidence appears to be a rare commodity indeed.

reply to post by wewillnotcomply666


When the Lunar Module took off, it probably blew enough moon dust around to obliterate most of the footprints.

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by wewillnotcomply666

 

When the Lunar Module took off, it probably blew enough moon dust around to obliterate most of the footprints.

You can still see the trails left by the footprints, so I suspect the footprints themselves are still there.

farm3.static.flickr.com...
img.ibtimes.com...
airandspace.si.edu...
www.unexplained-mysteries.com...

The layer of loose dust was only about 1 or 2 inches thick, under which was hard a compacted surface. The descent engine probably blew that relatively minimal amount of dust away from under the engine bell, anyway. Plus, the descent stage would have been blocking the direct thrust of the ascent engine from the moon's surface; the thrust was mostly directed outward, and at the height of the descent stage.

en.wikipedia.org...:LM_illustration_02.jpg
upload.wikimedia.org...

Originally posted by wewillnotcomply666
simple question , probably obvious answer but im gonna ask anyway . How long would the footprints of the first men on the moon last? We all know how close commercial and private companies are to landing on the moon, and in another article posted earlier (will link soon) NASA is encouraging people to staty away from certain areas of the moon(the US landing areas).. Basically what im asking is if someone was to check out the exact site the first foot was set on the moon ? should or would the footprint still be there to prove/disprove the MANNED moon landings ?

Well these are 40 yrs old almost and counting!!!
You can see the tracks left by the Astronauts also both match





Top half from Apollo 17 DAC camera as they left the Moon, bottom from LRO.

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by wewillnotcomply666

 

When the Lunar Module took off, it probably blew enough moon dust around to obliterate most of the footprints.

Guess what the blast would hit the BASE of the lander DOH!



See post above prints still there

Originally posted by davethebear
Would the US flag still be there from the first moon landing, or did they take it back home with them? Just a thought...................

no the flag wont be there only the flag pole will remain. They used an ordinary nylon flag which will disintigrate after a while due to the conditions there.

reply to post by yeti101


Please excuse my ignorance, but what conditions?

reply to post by yeti101

no the flag wont be there only the flag pole will remain. They used an ordinary nylon flag which will disintigrate after a while due to the conditions there.

Allow me to clarify....

Apollo 11, the first landing. The intent of the "planting" of the "flag" was meant to be filmed by the Maurer Data Acquisition Camera, mounted in the LM, and pointing out the right-side window of the LM.

Here, the details about THAT camera: HERE

Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin noted, during the Apollo 11 Ascent Engine firing that the pole, and the flag, might have been affected by the exhaust vectors, of the LM Ascent engine......subsequent Apollo landing missions used this info, from the de-brief, to locate any flag position FARTHER away, so as to not have it be affected,\


This is IN the historical records, and besides......is just common sense!!

Now....after over forty years? The nylon material that the six flags were composed of?? THAT is a valid 'question'....the aluminum tubes that supported the flags, will still be there.....the nylon, under such duress, for these last four decades (+)? We will see, very soon.....

....within the next decade. There will....WILL BE.....commercial endeavors to the Moon, and thusly, photos to be conveyed, to ascertain the REALITY of Apollo, and the six landing sites......and the (somewhat silly) "question" about the nylon flags planted there, so many decades ago.......

reply to post by wewillnotcomply666


I have seen the moving bolders on the moon threads, SO IT MAY BE SLIGHTLY COVERED. also magnatisim in the electric atmosphere may cause static electricity movements of the soil of LUNA to move. I think it would be a partial visible. Its whats inside the LUNA that many should seek observation equipment about. On Ea*rth MANY ARE SOOO RESTRICTED / HIDDEN FROM THE TRUTH IT MAKES 1 FEEL LIKE A BABY SOMETIMES HOW THINGS ARE HANDLED.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


Very good point.

Also note,any other county who does go to the moon, may try and pick another more interesting area.

Im myself know and beleive we went to the moon.
Other countries are on the band wagon to do so and will be going as well.

There is danger to it and also VERY EXPENSIVE $$$$.

The US does need another kick in the butt to get going again, and back to the moon and make a base there.

Be cool BIG TIME if it was the private sector/people/companies who did a joint venture to do so
Like Zuckerberg,paul Mccartney,buffet and other rich dudes/women and like Mcdonalds/Apple,,etc and made a base up there,,with several video online cams to see UFO's and stuff and do studies.
They'd make a fortune in advertising.
Even if sattlelites to.

I myself would be to afraid to go,kinda scared of rocket fueled ships,LOL.

Sorry if my reply was to long and went in a few directions.

reply to post by wewillnotcomply666


Interesting thread and gave you a flag.

Now others who go there are pretty much useing the same tech?
Are they not?

Yes,,we have better rockets that fire up more safely,and some more higher tech but its very dangerous still and very expensive. $$$$$$$
There were close calls many times and problems.
Russia/soviet union out right quit.
The one main reasons also was beacuse of there rocket system,
Probly the reason why they built bigger nuke bombs,,articles were written on this also as for that reason.
There rockets lacked precision and were just a few percent off.
Bad luck also...

As for tours going on there???(on foot in suits)
That will take some time.LOL

Note also,,Russia/soviet unioun loves propaganda,,they didnt even touch this,they knew and just became observers then, and doubled the amount of nukes they were buliding.

Obvious the US gained alot of tech,,,so has Russia,,,higher tech,,space shuttles and the space station and hubble and many other sattlelites for study and spy games.

Russia could have gone there in the 80s,90s,2000 and now..
Why dont they or did not???
ITS SPENDY. $$$$$$$

A good thread would also be how much it cost to send a few men to the moon vs.a rover like we sent to Mars there?

Highly doubt also,unless its tourist who go see the moon buggy or our flag planted there,,,many more interesting places to explore there.

My opinion and hey,,we all in the dark whats really out there.

M

Neil Armstrong claims he left a camera on the surface of the moon.

Originally posted by The_Zomar
Neil Armstrong claims he left a camera on the surface of the moon.

A few items were left on the surface on purpose in order to save weight (more Apollo hardware items left behind meant more Moon rocks they could bring back). Each astronaut left their cameras and their space suit backpacks on the Moon. Also they left their waste urine bags, hammers and other rock-collecting tools, and other pieces of equipment.

Here's a list of what Apollo 11 left behind: spacegrant.nmsu.edu...


By the way, the backpacks (known as a Portable Life Support System, or PLSS) from Apollo 17 could in fact be seen in pictures taken recently by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, or LRO:



Image Source

reply to post by Freeborn


well if you left a nylon flag out during the summer all day everyday it would fade badly due to the minimal uv we get on earth. On the moon UV is much higher and the temp ranges from -150C to +100C. Years of that will really degrade the nylon flag. I doubt there will be anything left by now

(Post Moved)