The exhaust is not a detonation, no hole would be blown in the surface from that nozzled rocket engine. Harrier jets use the same principle to land, no craters there either, in similar surfaces.
if we were to gather all the top 20 physacists opinions over the last 200 years, i think there would not be any confusion in the basic physics principals.
rock in a vacuum still has the rock properties and expanding
That's exactly what you get when you use Vidicon and Plumbicon tubes for imagers instead of modern solid state imagers.
Myth - BUSTED.
Let's do the math!
Landing weight of LM: 30,000 lbs (4800lbs in the Moon's weaker gravity)
Diameter of engine bell: 59 inches
Area of engine bell: 2800 square inches
Pressure on the ground at hover if the landing bell were flush with the ground (which it isn't) - 1.7psi
That's about the pressure you can create in your mouth when you blow hard.
Try to go outside and "blow a crater" with your mouth. I bet you'll just end up blowing some dust around (which is exactly what happened.)
Myth - BUSTED.
Did you skip high school math?
simple physics dictates the lander must be travelling slower than the gravitation field balance to be able to land at a near zero speed.
the zero speed is actually part of the escape speed opposing the gravitational force, otherwise there would be nothing called gravity(and no ability to move anything to or from anything, on earth or the moon or anywhere else).
what relationship that has to the dust being kicked up as a physics model i am unsure of.
dust being relative to its molecular weight as a relative equation to the gravitational force of the moon.
if there is an underlying change in physics that is being used to try and disprove the gravitational force, then they need to post it.
im sure physicists can calculate the relative amount of dust to the relative gravitational force based on the moon rock that has been recovered.
IF,... (and it then throws the entire debate into the pseudoscience bracket) some are suggesting there is some different type of material that the moon is made of AND there is some different type of Gravitational force...
then those that suggest the landing was a hoax, need to simply post their 2 basic physics principals
1. what is the moon made out of ?
2. what if any is the gravitational force of the moon (and feel free to relate that to the earths consequential lack of gravity or insular gravitational properties)?
