A close look at the Apollo 14 Lunar module on the Moon

Just wanted to share this excellent photo of the Apollo 14 Lunar Module on the Moon, with some info that was posted at Apollo Lunar Surface Journal Facebook page.



AS14-66-9254

114:53:38 Frame from Al's 4 o'clock pan. Right side and aft section of the LM, looking south. An excellent picture of the LM with many structural details are visible. The area under, and slightly behind the engine bell shows evidence of disturbed soil resulting from the Descent Engine exhaust. Also visible in the crater next to the rear (-Z) footpad is the track made by the probe as it scraped across the surface. The right (+Y) footpad has dug into the soft rim of a crater, causing the LM to slide slightly. Refer, also, to AS14-66-9269, a view of the left (-Y) footpad to see more evidence of this northward slide.

The lightweight construction of the LM is apparent in this picture. Minor buckling of panels covering the aft equipment bay and right side of the LM are visible. Notice also thermal damage done to the RCS plume deflectors. The extensive use of gold tape to secure the black insulation blankets can be seen.

Hi-resolution image:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Apollo 14 Lunar Surface Journal chapter "Down the Ladder for EVA-1":
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Here's the panorama which I assembled from individual images:


And here's an LRO image of the location, taken at approximately the same time of lunar day, and rotated to match the Apollo panorama. I think you can identify the small crater just in front of the LM:


I remember hearing from Moon hoax believers that there's no evidence of the LM disturbing the lunar soil, well, here it is.

Beautiful pics, never knew HOW flimsy and fragile looking the LEM was
S&F

Pretty amazing indeed, I must admit, I would most certainly not want to fly to and from the moon on that thing. Looks like something I would of made in my play room as a child out of card board boxes, gift wrap tubes and tinfoil. Only thing I dont see is "buttons and switches" drawn on with magic marker. Amazing courage to navigate that thing through a landing etc...

reply to post by wildespace


Im sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation and i do conclude that we did indeed goto the Moon but why is the sky in the pictures not full of stars?

reply to post by andy06shake


You cannot see stars without an atmosphere or similar filter.
2nd

I was a moon hoax believer until I decided being an alien moon base believer was more fun.

reply to post by BlueJacket


Thanks, thought it would be something like that.

andy06shake
but why is the sky in the pictures not full of stars?

Walk outside during the day - oh, no stars either - why is that?

reply to post by BlueJacket


From NASA:The near-absence of a lunar atmosphere means that stellar imaging is possible at many wavelengths which are not visible from Earth.

You are incorrect sir.
The real reason you can't see stars in these (and many other NASA pics) is simply that the camera exposure rates aren't correct for imaging stars in those lighting conditions. (try taking a picture of the stars in a brightly lit parking lot some night)

reply to post by hellobruce


Because the light from our Sun and the fact that we are facing said star duing the day drowns out other light sources would be my guess.

so did children at pre-school build it ? yay for technology

reply to post by hopenotfeariswhatweneed


Buddy its 1960s-1970s technology and to be quite frank we are luck if we could repeat the feat with our current technology or if so we don't seem to be applying ourselves much.

Personally I'm in awe just looking at the thing sitting there on the Moon no less!

andy06shake
reply to post by wildespace

 

Im sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation and i do conclude that we did indeed goto the Moon but why is the sky in the pictures not full of stars?

edit on 11-4-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

The absence of stars is because of the bright sunlit terrain and the LM, which means they used short exposure setting on their cameras. Stars are very dim, and the Sun is very, very bright. It's interesting how many people don't realise that, and think that any picture of space should be filled with stars. I blame the movies and magazine pictures for this.

If you're out on a sunny day, and the blue sky was somehow removed, you would still not see any stars.

Here's a recent picture from a spacewalk on the ISS, you can't see any stars either:

reply to post by abe froman


My mistake, I do remember reading that from Dr. Lloyd. I am familiar with light also alas, I will stick to plants!

The area under, and slightly behind the engine bell shows evidence of disturbed soil resulting from the Descent Engine exhaust - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I see no evidence of any kind regarding the soil.Do you know the power a thruster has?It would make a mess under it if it truely landed there.Regarding the other pic doesnt tell me much it seems like it but i cant take this for evidence

reply to post by tomounitismanassas


If the thruster was going full blast, the LEM wouldn't have been able to land.

hellobruce

andy06shake
but why is the sky in the pictures not full of stars?

Walk outside during the day - oh, no stars either - why is that?

No. Here is a better analogy:

Stand under a lampost in a brightly-lit area at night and then look for stars -- or even try to take a picture of stars

The reason the pictures do not show stars is that the exposure settings on the cameras are set for "daylight" (last shutter speed, small camera aperture) because the sunlight on the moon made the scene bright. Even on Earth, on the darkest, starriest night, a picture from a camera set to daylight exposure settings would not show stars.

Similarly, whether under a brightly lit lamppost on Earth or on a sunlit Moon, a person's eyes would be adjusted to the brightness of the light (whether that be the lampost or the sun on the moon), and their pupils would be smaller, letting in less light. It would be difficult for a person to see stars.

HomerinNC
Beautiful pics, never knew HOW flimsy and fragile looking the LEM was
S&F

Yeah amazing it could even fly.. let alone land... looks in perfect pristine condition for a used vehicle too (one with high milage no less). Looks right out of the vehicle showroom in fact.

That photograph even looks studio quality, much better than I can do on a tripod outside even today with a modern camera, nevermind in a harsh environment such as the moon with BIG GLOVES on.

tomounitismanassas

The area under, and slightly behind the engine bell shows evidence of disturbed soil resulting from the Descent Engine exhaust - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I see no evidence of any kind regarding the soil.Do you know the power a thruster has?It would make a mess under it if it truely landed there.Regarding the other pic doesnt tell me much it seems like it but i cant take this for evidence

I read somewhere that it was a 6 meters? free fall before touch down. That could explain why no to little dusturbance has been left on the soil.

I was raised less than a mile from the Bethpage,Long Island Grumman Aerospace.My grandfather,who had worked there since WWII,had worked on the radar assembly for the first L.E.M.To the moon hoax croud I can tell you that craft was built to fly...in space.