16

Are there any photos of the Apollo LM descent engine bell and the lunar soil beneath it disturbed by the engine exhaust?

Uwe
  • 48,975
  • 4
  • 121
  • 206
  • https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5921.jpg –  Sep 02 '19 at 16:43
  • see also https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1691/why-didnt-the-apollo-11-lander-blow-the-dust-away-or-why-does-it-look-like-it –  Sep 02 '19 at 16:53
  • 3
    Would you accept video of the dust being disturbed? ->Apollo 11 landing showed this. – Hobbes Sep 02 '19 at 18:09
  • 1
    If it were a hoax, they'd present what you'd expect to see, and part of that would be lunar dust flying everywhere. – RonJohn Sep 03 '19 at 16:04

2 Answers2

31

Most of the Apollo photo libraries have a few shots of the surface under the descent engine bell; I think A14 has some interesting ones:

enter image description here

The disturbance of the soil is very subtle; compared with the surface further out, I see more 1-2cm-sized pebbles, suggesting that smaller particles have been blown away from under the engine.

The lack of a massive blast crater under the LM engine is often pointed to as evidence of a hoax, but there are several factors involved, which are not obvious or not intuitive, which minimize the effect of the engine exhaust:

  1. At touchdown, the engine is running at only about 25% throttle (~2500 lb-f or 11kN), as the descent fuel tanks are nearly empty, making the LM fairly light;
  2. The area at the end of the engine bell is about half that of the four LM footpads, so pressure at that point while hovering should be about twice as much as the ground pressure of the footpads with the LM on the surface, which of course displace only a few cm of soil;
  3. As Schwern points out, without atmospheric pressure constraining the exhaust plume, it spreads out more rapidly than the familiar image of a rocket exhaust flame at liftoff, thus is very diffuse. The LM engine is normally shut off while the footpads are still a meter or so above the surface (the contact probes extend about 1.6m below the footpads, but it takes a moment for the crew to react to the contact light) so the exhaust has quite a distance to disperse before reaching the surface soil. (On Apollo 14, however, per the annotated transcript at 108:15:12, Al Shepard left the engine firing all the way to the surface and for a couple of seconds after touchdown, so this doesn't apply to the above picture.)
Russell Borogove
  • 168,364
  • 13
  • 593
  • 699
19

There is a very nice Apollo 14 image, a combination of the two images 9254 and 9255:

enter image description here

enter image description here

From the Apollo 14 lunar surface journal, see.

Another Apollo 12 ALSJ image:

enter image description here

Uwe
  • 48,975
  • 4
  • 121
  • 206
  • 4
    You might add a note that the dramatic crater in the first shot is outside the footprint of the LM, i.e. it is not an exhaust crater. – Russell Borogove Sep 03 '19 at 17:06
  • What do I see on the second picture? Is that one of the "feelers", broken off? – David Tonhofer Sep 03 '19 at 18:16
  • 2
    @DavidTonhofer it is a contact probe, bent upwards, but still fixed to the footpad on the right image border. – Uwe Sep 03 '19 at 20:48
  • @RussellBorogove I am not shure about the first shot, "The area under, and slightly behind the engine bell shows evidence of disturbed soil resulting from the Descent Engine exhaust." But where is the evidence shown? – Uwe Sep 03 '19 at 22:15
  • About halfway between the bottom of the bell and the Réseau cross on the rim of the foreground crater, if I had to guess, where the ground is a little lighter colored. The foreground crater is in front of the nearest footpad, so that definitely isn't it. From the shadows, incidentally, your first picture must be almost 180º from the picture in my answer. – Russell Borogove Sep 03 '19 at 22:19
  • @RussellBorogove sorry for my error about the crater. So we should mark the evidence with a red arrow or I should delete the image. What do you think about it? – Uwe Sep 03 '19 at 22:54