Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers

Buy Site Supporter Role (remove some ads) | LPF Donations

Links below open in new window

FrozenGate by Avery

Lasers prove we've been to the moon !

I had to change that video out, I had only watched part of it when I posted it, I thought it had a ending which caused it to be worthless to watch. I found another one, appears more legit, but damn, that woman, I can't watch her. My loss, of course. Regarding the moon landing, I do believe we were there, some of the hoax evidence sure is compelling though.... Maybe we did both? Aliens or something scared them away so they covered it up with faked movie shots.... That is so looney toons to think that, I am not convinced part of it is fake, just saying.
 







Well, as a fat man I shouldn't think this, but I couldn't be entertained enough by that fat woman to watch it very far through.
100 quadrillion photons outbound and is considered a success if they get 1 photon back from 20 pulses ! Dang !

Great video !

Here's one more...




Regarding the moon landing, I do believe we were there, some of the hoax evidence sure is compelling though.... Maybe we did both? Aliens or something scared them away so they covered it up with faked movie shots.... That is so looney toons to think that, I am not convinced part of it is fake, just saying.
Oh my ! Please oh please tell me your joking ?




Talk like that is SO insulting to the Astronauts that risked their lives and to the people who knew and worked with the 3 Apollo Astronauts that did give their lives during a test not to mention the family's of those 3 Astronauts, And also to the tens of thousands of men AND women that worked so hard to make it happen !

Whether or not is not a matter of debate!
I don't believe it's even debatable and to do so is taking a step backwards and is a waste of time that could be better spent learning more about the universe and everything it contains IMHO, But that's just me......
 
Last edited:
Moondust: Many folks believe that 'outer space' is a void sterile vacuum. This is not the case, especially within the local heliosphere of our solar system. There are various small solid 'background' particles traversing through the medium. We often refer to the larger of these small particles as Micrometeoroids. When these objects strike orbiting hardware, they have the potential to cause catastrophic damage. And when they are captured by the gravitational pull of our planet, they will simply vaporize as they de-orbit into our atmosphere.

However, since the Moon, lacks atmospheric properties- the micrometeorites simply strike the lunar surface, usually with enough residual velocity to kick up some dust.
This is a perpetual process.
And taking into consideration the electrostatic properties of Moon dust, it will eventually over time coat and cover any item(s) deposited on the Lunar surface.
Actually Moon dust, and the hazards it presents is the main reason why we have not returned to the Moon, or further entertained the notion of establishing a 'Moon Base'.
Until we can devise some process(s) to mitigate the daunting challenges posed by Moon dust,- we will focus our exploration efforts elsewhere for the time being.

For those interested in additional details on this fascinating topic, more can be read here:
NASA's Dirty Secret: Moon Dust
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080924191552.htm
 
Moondust: Many folks believe that 'outer space' is a void sterile vacuum. This is not the case, especially within the local heliosphere of our solar system. There are various small solid 'background' particles traversing through the medium. We often refer to the larger of these small particles as Micrometeoroids. When these objects strike orbiting hardware, they have the potential to cause catastrophic damage. And when they are captured by the gravitational pull of our planet, they will simply vaporize as they de-orbit into our atmosphere.

However, since the Moon, lacks atmospheric properties- the micrometeorites simply strike the lunar surface, usually with enough residual velocity to kick up some dust.
This is a perpetual process.
And taking into consideration the electrostatic properties of Moon dust, it will eventually over time coat and cover any item(s) deposited on the Lunar surface.
Actually Moon dust, and the hazards it presents is the main reason why we have not returned to the Moon, or further entertained the notion of establishing a 'Moon Base'.
Until we can devise some process(s) to mitigate the daunting challenges posed by Moon dust,- we will focus our exploration efforts elsewhere for the time being.

For those interested in additional details on this fascinating topic, more can be read here:
NASA's Dirty Secret: Moon Dust
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080924191552.htm
That's what I thought, Thanks for clarifying that fact !
 
Last edited:
I don't think the moon landing was faked, so yep, joking.... but if any of those photo's and movies were faked, the only reason I think they would do that is they were forbidden to go back to the moon. Do I think that is what happened? Hell, I don't know, could it? Hell, I don't know... It's all strangeness and loony to think such thoughts, but yes, I am capable of going way out on a limb of what if's.
 
With moon dust 1mm thick on the retroreflectors there would be zero laser photon return no matter how much power the laser used has, I believe ?

I don't think the moon landing was faked, so yep, joking.... but if any of those photo's and movies were faked, the only reason I think they would do that is they were forbidden to go back to the moon. Do I think that is what happened? Hell, I don't know, could it? Hell, I don't know... It's all strangeness and loony to think such thoughts, but yes, I am capable of going way out on a limb of what if's.
Oh that's good to know.

As far as I'm concerned this guy got off easy and anyone like him !



Great punch Buzz, Watching it just never gets old !!! That's how a real honorable & stand up man handles a want-to-be getting in his face and talking %&#$ IMHO !
 
Last edited:
I'm glad he did that, guy was getting in his face and calling him a liar.
 
With moon dust 1mm thick on the retroreflectors there would be zero laser photon return no matter how much power the laser used has, I believe ?

First of all, did you miss the 1000 years part? And secondly, these retro reflectors are made of prism like material which doesn't become impeded like a mirror would. So, after 45 years how much dust do you think is on there now? Certainly not enough to slow anything down. These prism like reflectors are not positioned flat against the surface like the dust detectors are.


The guy who got punched by Buzz Aldrin called him a "liar and a coward". I'd have punched him too if he got in my face and said that to me.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad he did that, guy was getting in his face and calling him a liar.

Believe me I know the type !!! lol And I have NO patients for them what so ever.........


First of all, did you miss the 1000 years part? And secondly, these retro reflectors are made of prism like material which doesn't become impeded like a mirror would. So, after 45 years how much dust do you think is on there now? Certainly not enough to slow anything down. These prism like reflectors are not positioned flat against the surface like the dust detectors are.


The guy who got punched by Buzz Aldrin called him a "liar and a coward". I'd have punched him too if he got in my face and said that to me.
I guess there is just no way to know and there is no sense in debating it don't you think ?

Besides the thread isn't about the condition of the reflectors, It's about what it takes to bounce a laser off of them and what doing so tell us !

The guy who got punched by Buzz Aldrin called him a "liar and a coward". I'd have punched him too if he got in my face and said that to me.
I'm really starting to like you ! lol :beer:
 
Last edited:
If you looked at post #4, you would see I believe there are better ways of proving we've been to the moon than these reflectors. What do we learn from the reflectors? Mostly how far the moon is away from the earth at different times of the year.
 
How fast does moon dust build up?

A lunar dust detector left by the Apollo 12 astronauts is helping to answer this question. It would take 1000 years for a layer of dust 1mm thick to accumulate on the surface of anything left there.

https://www.space.com/23694-moon-dust-mystery-apollo-data.html

So, not exactly a dust storm going on there.

IDK, Paul. Later in that same article you linked there was this:
"But that's not enough to account for what we measured," O'Brien said. The concept of a "dust atmosphere" on the moon could explain where the particles come from, the researchers said.

According to this theory, moon dust particles on the daytime side of the moon can build a positive charge when radiation from the sun kicks electrons out of atoms of dust. But on the side of the moon that's dark, dust particles can gain a negative charge when they are bombarded with electrons from the solar wind. Where the dark and light sides meet, electric forces could levitate this charged dust high off the lunar surface, the researchers said.

"Something similar was reported by Apollo astronauts orbiting the Moon who looked out and saw dust glowing on the horizon," Hollick explained.

NASA's latest moon orbiter, the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer, or LADEE, which launched in September, could shed light on this levitating dust. At 155 miles (250 kilometers) above the surface of the moon, the spacecraft is looking for dust in the lunar atmosphere."

So again, there is the electrostatic field effect at play.

In that article they also indicated that the 1000yr estimate was '10 times faster than scientists had believed before'

Since they are working with 40yr old (limited) data to begin with, I feel the actual margins may have an even shorter duration for the dust to accumulate.
Perhaps even another 10 times faster than the 1000yr estimate, and to be clear- that is precisely what that is 'an estimate'.

There is probably only one sure way to find out, and that would be to either send a probe or another manned mission, to measure any accumulations on previous instrumentation left on the surface.

The Chinese, recently landed another probe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang'e_3

And that action was useful for the LADEE, mission as mentioned in the article you linked because-
'the descent of the Chang'e 3 spacecraft was expected to increase the content of lunar dust in the tenuous lunar exosphere, as well as introduce gases from engine firings during landing. Although there is no formal cooperation between NASA and the China National Space Administration, the landing provided an opportunity for NASA's Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) mission to examine possible changes to the baseline readings of the Moon's exosphere, and will allow it to study how dust and spent propellant gases settle around the Moon after a landing.For example, one of the lander's combustion byproducts is water vapor, and LADEE may be able to observe how lunar water is deposited in cold traps near the poles.'

And since the 1000yr. article that you linked derived it's 'estimate' from old data gathered prior* to the launching of the LADEE mission, it would be of interest to know what the results of the LADEE, mission was with regards to the subject at hand.

tl;dr = There is an ongoing dust storm on the Moon.
 
First of all, did you miss the 1000 years part? And secondly, these retro reflectors are made of prism like material which doesn't become impeded like a mirror would. So, after 45 years how much dust do you think is on there now? Certainly not enough to slow anything down. These prism like reflectors are not positioned flat against the surface like the dust detectors are.


The guy who got punched by Buzz Aldrin called him a "liar and a coward". I'd have punched him too if he got in my face and said that to me.

You're incorrect. Read this. Pesky Problems for Lunar Reflectors - Sky & Telescope
 
@CE5

I read the entire article. I saw the l fact that daylight side was causing atoms to lose electrons while the night side was gaining them. It didn't seem as important since the detector used would take that into consideration by "detecting" the dust on it.
 
Last edited:


Back
Top