The marks on the surface are too sharp to be made on a dehydrated Moon. They most likely walked on damp Hollywood soil.

The fake, according to the theory of falsification, was filmed in Alaska. Anyway. Indeed, in the earth's atmosphere, the flowability of wet substances decreases surface tension wetting liquid - wetted powder particles adhere to each other. But moisture is not the only reason powder or dust particles can stick together. In an oxygen atmosphere, a thin oxide film forms on the surface of most substances, which prevents sticking. But in a deep vacuum there is no such film, and nothing prevents intermolecular forces of adhesion of one particle to another. This causes a lot of trouble for designers of space technology: in a vacuum, the oxide film from the surfaces of bodies evaporates, and because of this, metal parts can weld to each other. For this reason, flow dust on the moon less than the flowability of earth sand. Under pressure, dust particles stick together, and the dust takes the form of an object pressing it. And the humidity has nothing to do with it.

moon dust in its behavior it is completely different from sand, flour, ashes, or crushed bricks. Here is what is written about its properties in the monograph "Lunar Soil from the Sea of ​​Abundance", which presents the results of studies of soil delivered from the Moon:

The loose soil of the lunar seas, regolith, has a very contrasting character compared to the loose soil of the Earth ...

… not like the ashes of terrestrial volcanoes, the volcanic sand of terrestrial volcanoes is a loose uneven-grained dark gray (blackish) material that is easily formed and sticks together into separate loose lumps.

Traces of external influences are clearly imprinted on its surface - touches of tools: the soil easily holds a vertical wall, but when poured freely, it has a vertical slope angle of about 45 degrees ...

Despite noticeable stickiness, the soil is unstable to vibration effects, it is easily sifted through sieves ...

- volumetric weight - 1.2 g / cm, ... easily compacted when shaking to a volumetric weight of 1.9 ...

... has unusual properties - an increased tendency to electrify, anomalous adhesion, low thermal conductivity, high bulk density and an order of magnitude higher than that of sand, the relative compressibility coefficient ...

The properties of lunar dust noted in the monograph, such as good adhesion and compressibility, just explain why the traces of the astronauts' soles on the lunar surface are so clear.

By the way, did you pay attention to the title of the monograph - "Lunar Soil from the Sea of ​​Abundance"? Not one of the Apollos landed in the Sea of ​​Plenty, and all the soil from the Sea of ​​Plenty, which is now on Earth, was delivered by the Soviet automatic station Luna-16. His research was carried out by Soviet specialists, and a book with the results of these studies was published by the Moscow publishing house Nauka in 1974. So Soviet research properties of the lunar soil confirm that the footprints in it will be clear and not crumbling.

If all this is too complicated for you, then look at the pictures of the footprints of the Soviet Lunokhod. What do you think, he also rode on a wet surface? Maybe he also stopped by the set in Hollywood and said hello to Spielberg.

In addition, the astronauts jumped on the surface, while the Lunokhod drove. A brick that has fallen on the head also leaves a much clearer mark there than just placed there.

Photo caption of a man's footprint on the Moon: "Apollo 11 astronaut Edwin Aldrin photographed this footprint on lunar soil as part of an experiment to study the nature of lunar dust and the effects of pressure on soil. Dust, it turned out to compress easily under the weight of an astronaut, leaving a superficial but distinct mark, characteristic of very good, dry material. If we exclude the possibility of a meteorite hitting this place, then, most likely, traces of people on the moon will remain for millions of years. Like this.

And in the encyclopedia "Cosmonautics" (M., Soviet Encyclopedia, 1985, 530 pp.), says: “Analysis of the depth of the footprints of astronauts and Lunokhod-1 established a significant difference in the bearing capacity of the soil for different areas. So, the depth of the astronauts' tracks near the top of the bulk shaft ... the crater ... is about 15-20 cm, and at a distance of 4-5 m on a flat area - about 1 cm. The tracks clearly convey the pattern of the pressing part. The compilers conscientiously "stuffed" the Americans into a solid encyclopedia. In vain: the prints of the footprints of the astronauts' soles can hardly withstand elementary criticism. It is unrealistic to leave such a deep mark with the weight of equipped astronauts, which for the Moon is only about 16-25 kg (the earthly weight of a child or a pood weight); at the same time, the pressure of the protectors on the ground was less than 0.1 kgf/cm2. With such pressure, the lunar soil should have sagged no more than 5 mm, but certainly not 15-20 cm. On the lunar surface, the dust layer is much larger due to the fact that there are no winds there. More dust means a deeper footprint. In addition, do not miss important details: “near the top of the bulk shaft ... the crater ...”, and not anywhere else. And you can’t say how much the lunar soil should have subsided: just guessing is not enough here. It is necessary, in particular, to know its mechanical properties. And, as we saw above, salient feature lunar soil - unusually high compressibility.

There should be a huge funnel under the lunar module. Judging by the film and photographs, neither a pebble, nor sand, nor a speck of dust flew out from under the engine of the lunar platform with a thrust in a vacuum of 4530 kG. But when, at the end of the film, the launch from the moon of the lunar cabin of some next Apollo, starting from its metal platform, is shown, then from the jet of the engine with a thrust of 1590 kG, stones flew up at a tremendous speed, at least 20-50 kg by eye. There is nothing to say - a movie! ”I don’t believe it!” 🙂

In fact, everything was exactly the opposite. Judging by the films, photographs and reports of astronauts, dust when landing the lunar cabin, it flew with might and main, although the thrust of the engine of this cabin, which also worked “at a quarter of its strength”, was clearly not enough to dig a hole in the ground. And no stones flew and could not fly when the lunar cabin was launched from the Moon - if only because these stones had nowhere to come from.

The fact that the engine of the lunar module would kick up dust during landing was assumed long before the Apollo flights. However, the dust flying from under the landing lunar module on Earth became reliably known, again, before the Apollo 11 landing - about half a minute earlier:

102:45:08 Aldrin: 60 feet [height], down 2 and a half [feet per second]. 2 [feet per second] forward. 2 ahead. This is good.

102:45:17 Aldrin: 40 feet down 2 and a half. We kick up the dust.

102:45:21 Aldrin: 30 feet, 2 and a half down. [inaudible] shadow.

102:45:25 Aldrin: 4 ahead. 4 ahead. We move a little to the right. 20 feet down - half [feet per second].

102:45:31 Duke (in Houston): 30 seconds [before "Bingo" - a signal that warns of low fuel].

102:45:32 Aldrin: Moving forward a little; this is good. [Unintelligible] [Pause]

102:45:40 Aldrin: Contact signal. [Probes hanging from the landing legs 170 centimeters down have touched the surface of the moon.]

102:45:43 Armstrong: Turn off the engine.

102:45:44 Aldrin: Okay. Stop, car.

102:45:45 Aldrin: The attitude control stick is not in neutral.

102:45:46 Armstrong: Not in neutral. Auto mode.

102:45:47 Aldrin: Control modes are both "auto". Landing motor control priority - disabled. Engine is off. Address 413 - entered.

102:45:57 Duke (in Houston): We're watching you land, Eagle.

102:45:58 Armstrong: Engine off. [Pause] Houston, Sea of ​​Tranquility speaking. "Eagle" sat down.

102:46:06 Duke (in Houston): [Relief] Understood, Sea Sco... [corrects himself] Calm. I acknowledge receipt of your landing message. You here made many almost turn green with fear. Now you can breathe easy. Thanks a lot!

102:46:16 Aldrin: Thank you.

During the landing, the astronauts had no time to go into details, but after returning to Earth, Armstrong said that dust seriously interfered with the management of the ship:

“I first noticed that we disturbed the dust on the surface when we were below a hundred feet; we started to create a transparent layer of moving dust, which somewhat worsened the visibility. As we descended, visibility continued to deteriorate. I don't think the dust interfered much with the visual height reading; however, I was confused by the fact that it was difficult to determine the horizontal speed and sink rate, since there was a lot of moving dust in front of my eyes, and I had to look through the dust to catch the stationary stones with my eyes as a basis for visual assessments. I found it difficult enough. It took me longer than I could have imagined to cancel out the horizontal speed."

It was necessary to extinguish the horizontal speed of the lunar module before landing: otherwise, it could tip over on its side at the time of landing.

And during the landing of the next spacecraft, Apollo 12, the dust created much more serious difficulties. It worsened visibility so much that within a minute after landing, the commander of the ship, Charles Conrad, transmitted to Earth: “Well, Houston, I will tell you ... It looks like we ended up in a much dustier place than Neil. It’s good that we had a simulator – it was an instrument landing.” After the flight, Konrad said:

“When I canceled the horizontal speed at 300 feet, we kicked up a huge amount of dust - much more than I expected. It looked much worse than the film I saw of Neil's landing. It seemed to me that the dust rose much higher than Neil's. Perhaps this happened because we hovered higher above the surface and descended vertically. I do not know exactly. But we kicked up dust, probably at 300 feet, as I said. I could see large rocks through the dust, but the dust rose in all directions as far as I could see and completely obscured the pits and everything else. All I knew was that there was a hard surface underneath the dust. The dust did not interfere with determining the horizontal (forward or backward) and lateral (left or right) speeds, but I could not see what was under me. I only knew that the area as a whole was not bad, and I could only grit my teeth and sit down, since I could not tell if there was a crater below or not. […] In the end, the dust became so strong that I absolutely could not determine the roll of the device, looking out the window at the lunar horizon. I had to use the gyrohorizon. I banked up to 10 degrees while I looked out the window to make sure the horizontal and lateral speeds were still zero.

Dust also interfered with Apollo 15. Its commander, David Scott, landed the ship almost completely on instruments, not seeing the surface.

jets of dust, flying out from under the engine before landing - a sort of "dancing white needles" - are perfectly visible on film. They can be observed on the episodes of the landing of all the Apollos, when the astronauts filmed the approaching lunar surface through the porthole. The dust is especially visible on the film shot by the Apollo 16 astronauts - dust jets, the blurred outlines of the shadow of the lunar module on the dust layer, and how surface details are hidden under a layer of raised dust are perfectly visible. A fragment of this film is located at history.nasa.gov/40thann/mpeg/ap16_landing.mpg(4 MB).

Now - about the crater, which was supposed to form under the landing stage. And actually, why would there be a crater? Just because a gas jet hits the ground from an apparatus hovering above the ground? It also happens on Earth when a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (for example, the English Harrier or the Soviet Yak-38) lands on the ground or takes off from it. The thrust of the Harrier engine is 10 tons, twice the maximum thrust of the lunar cabin engine. And as we will see now, the actual thrust of the lunar cabin engine at the time of landing is four times less than its maximum thrust, so the thrust of the Harrier engine during a vertical landing is an order of magnitude greater than the thrust of the Apollo landing engine. But the Harrier does not leave noticeable holes in the ground - although dust, of course, stands a pillar

Let's talk about landing stage engine thrust.

Indeed, its maximum thrust is 4530 kgf. But "in full force"This engine only works during the transition from the lunar orbit to the descent trajectory, when it is necessary to change the speed of the lunar ship by a significant amount. And when maneuvering near the surface and during landing, the engine operates in low thrust mode, in which its thrust varies within 10-65% of the maximum.

Immediately before landing, the engine develops thrust several times less than the maximum - it only compensates for the weight of the lander so that it does not fall. The mass of the lander is 15065 kg, its weight on the Moon is 15065 kg * 1.62 m/s = 24405.3 N ~=2440 kgf. And if we take into account that at the moment of approach to the very surface of the Moon, almost all the fuel of the landing stage, which has a mass of 8217 kg, has already been used up, then the thrust is approximately (15065 - 8217) kg * 1.62 m / s = 11093.76 N ~= 1109 kgf - in four s once again less than the maximum.

Let us calculate the pressure on the lunar soil, which is created by the gas jet flowing from the engine. We already know the pressure force - it is equal to the weight of the lunar module at the time of landing, i.e. approximately 1100 kg. The diameter of the engine nozzle was 137 centimeters, and its area was 14775 cm. Let us assume that the gas jet leaving the engine does not expand to the sides, i. the area of ​​its contact with the lunar surface is the same. Dividing 1100 kg by 14775 cm3, we get that the pressure was less than one tenth of an atmosphere - quite enough to blow dust from under the engine, but clearly not enough to dig a crater - especially in the lunar soil. This ground is quite hard: Armstrong and Aldrin failed to properly stick a flagpole into it.

This is NASA photo AS11-40-5921 ( www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5921.jpg) is a view of the lunar surface below the Apollo 11 landing stage. The consequences of the impact of the gas jet on the ground are visible. In full accordance with our calculations, there is no crater under the engine, but the dust directly under the engine has been blown away almost completely, and around - partially.

And here is what, when taking off from Moon stones flew, it seemed to you, and the fact that these stones weighed tens of kilograms was clearly a dream 🙂

At the start, the takeoff stage engine really works at all its 1590 kG - at the start, the engines always work at full power in order to use the fuel as efficiently as possible. This is one and a half times more than the thrust of the landing engine at the time of landing. But there is a much more significant difference between landing and taking off a lunar cabin.

During landing, the gas jet of the engine hits directly on the lunar surface. And during takeoff, the lower part of the lunar module - the landing stage - remains on the moon, and the jet of gas from the engine of the takeoff stage hits it, and not into the ground. So the stones simply have nowhere to come from - the landing stage, after all, is not made of bricks. What really flies in all directions when launching from the Moon are all sorts of rags and tatters that the gas jet of the take-off engine, hitting point-blank at the landing stage, tears off from its thermal insulation. These rags are clearly visible in the video, which was filmed through the porthole of the Apollo 14 takeoff stage during its launch from the moon: history.nasa.gov/40thann/mpeg/ap14_ascent.mpg(2 MB).

The engine is running, and a bunch of scraps and rags rush through the frame. But a particularly large flap flies slowly. This video clip also clearly shows that the flag, standing very close to the lunar module, begins to sway strongly at the start of the lunar cabin, but remains in place. And a gas jet capable of lifting half a centner of stones would surely carry this flag very, very far. Also pay attention to the lunar surface. Such streams of dust, which completely hide its details, which were during landing, are not observed during takeoff.

Okay, but why didn't the dust that flew out from under the engine settle on the handrails and steps of the lunar module during landing?

This is because there is no air there. On Earth, the raised dust, of course, would have risen into the air and a large part of it would have settled on the descending module. BUT on the moon the gas jet, which hit the ground, spread over the lunar surface and carried dust to the sides. These jets of dust are clearly visible on film frames.

But why can't you see the flames from the rocket engines?

Here is an episode from the film - the landing of "Apollo" on the moon. In the porthole - the approaching lunar surface. And on it - no reflections of flame from a running engine, even in the shadow of the lunar module.

Here is television footage of the launch of Apollo 17 from the moon. The take-off stage suddenly begins to rise, and again - no flame. Is it really being lifted on a rope?

And here is the film again - a view from the command compartment to the approaching lunar module in the background Moon. He suddenly starts to turn, then stops the rotation, slows down when approaching the command compartment. And at least a tongue of flame from the orientation engines clearly visible in the frame, with the help of which all these maneuvers are allegedly carried out! Solid combined shooting all of it! In fact, the flame is different. The flame of a candle, for example, is much brighter than the flame of a kitchen gas stove, although the latter is much stronger than that of a candle - try boiling a kettle on a candle somehow and see how long it takes. It all depends on what kind of fuel is burned.

The Apollo lunar modules used the same propellant that the Titan flies on: Aerozine-50 and nitrogen tetroxide. And the thrust of the landing stage engine during landing is a little over a ton. So the flame from the engine should be quite dim, its reflections will not be noticeable on the lunar surface illuminated by the Sun and are unlikely to be able to noticeably highlight the shadow from the lunar module.

The flame of the engine of the ascending lunar stage (thrust - one and a half tons) is really not visible, but at the same time, it must be said that little is seen at all on television shots of its take-off - their quality is very unimportant.

A video clip with the takeoff of the lunar cabin from the Moon (view from the side) can be found here: history.nasa.gov/40thann/mpeg/ap17-ascent.mpg(4 MB).

However, at the end of this video, the cabin rises to a great height (the Nasovites had a long rope, right?) And turns the engine towards the camera. At this time, the TV camera "looks" directly into the engine from a distance, and the flame inside the combustion chamber becomes visible, which has a very high temperature.

And it’s ridiculous to talk about orientation engines: their thrust is only 45 kilograms (fuel is the same). Against the background of the brightly lit moon, their flames are completely invisible. A video showing the maneuvers of the Apollo 11 lunar cabin before docking with the main unit can be viewed here: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/video/apollo/apollo11/mpg/apollo11_onbclip14.mpg(1.7 MB).

And if these were combined shots, then the special effects masters would definitely try with might and main: they would depict the flame at least half the screen.

Yes, and who operated the television camera that filmed the takeoff of Apollo 17 from the moon? The camera moved and turned up, following the departing ship. After all on the moon no one is left. Or did the Americans still have some kind of suicidal cameraman who remained on the moon to film the departure from the side?

The Americans had a cameraman, and not at all some, but quite specific - Ed Fendell. He did not have to become a suicide because he was in Houston and controlled the camera left by the astronauts on the moon by radio. It is not uncommon in TV broadcasts from the Moon that the camera is panning, "approaching" or "moving away" from the subject using a telephoto lens, although both astronauts are in the frame and there seems to be no one to control the camera. The explanation is the same: the cameraman was on Earth.

He became interested in the problem of lunar dust in connection with plans for the extraction of helium-3 on the moon. I typed "moon dust" in a search engine, followed the links, cut out some facts and got what I got. It turns out to be a very interesting substance! My comments are in brackets: (my comments).

(moon dust)

Moon dust is as fine as powder, but it cuts like glass.

Dust doesn't just cover the Moon's surface, it rises nearly a hundred kilometers above it, forming part of its exosphere, where the particles are tethered to the Moon by gravity but are so sparsely spaced that they almost never collide.

Cernan made several sketches, showing how the dust landscape is changing. At first, streams of dust rose from the surface and hovered, and then the resulting cloud became more clearly visible as the spacecraft approached the daylight zone. And since there was no wind to form the cloud, its origin remained a mystery. There is speculation that such clouds are made of dust, but no one understands how they form or why.

(A little history of discovery, expectations vs reality)
The British astronomer R. A. Lyttleton (1956, p. 72) assumed that the lunar dust layer was several kilometers thick! Gould (Gold, 1955, p. 585) also suggested that the flat lunar plains are extremely dusty. Shoemaker (Shoemaker, 1965, p. 75) predicted that the layer of dust on the Moon should be measured in tens of meters. Asimov (1959, p. 36) wrote: "I imagine how the first space station, having chosen a magnificent flat landing site, slowly sets ... and disappears from view, plunging into dust."

However, in 1965 a conference was held on the structure of the lunar surface (see Hess, et al., 1966). In particular, it concluded the following: early photographs Ranger and studies of the optical properties of scattered sunlight reflected by the surface of the Moon show that predictions about the depth of the lunar dust layer did not come true! The question was finally clarified with the appearance of the first space stations on the Moon, and especially when a man's foot first set foot on the lunar surface. It turned out that the layer of dust is incomparably thinner than evolutionary scientists assured - only 6.5 cm! Despite desperate attempts to reconsider ideas about the rate of dust deposition or to find mechanisms for its compaction, the thickness of the dust layer on the Moon remains strong evidence in favor of the young age of the Moon. (The last statement is on the conscience of the author of the statement, but the thought itself seemed interesting to me)

When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin returned from the moon, they had more than 20 kilograms of lunar soil and rocks in their luggage, which were packed in an aluminum container with seals. Thanks to them, low pressure was maintained inside - as on the lunar surface. But when the container reached the scientists at the Houston Space Center, they found that these seals were destroyed by lunar dust. During the six flights of the Apollos, low pressure could not be maintained in any container with lunar rock. (If this information is true, then the purity of the experiments has already been violated)

(Moon dust is very aggressive)
Lunar dust clogged bolt holes, soiled tools, coated the astronauts' helmet faces, and ripped off their gloves. Very often, when working on the lunar surface, they had to stop their work to clean the chambers and equipment with large - and mostly inefficient - brushes.

“The aggressive nature of lunar dust is a bigger problem for engineers and for the health of settlers than radiation,” wrote Apollo 17 astronaut Garrison in 2006 in his book Return to the Moon. Jack" Schmitt (Harrison (Jack) Schmitt). This dust stained suits and peeled off the soles of moon boots in layers. Dust penetrated after the astronauts and inside the spacecraft. According to Schmitt, she smelled like gunpowder and made it hard to breathe. No one knows exactly what effect these microscopic particles have on human lungs.

(Moon dust is magnetic!)
"Only the smallest grains (< 20 микрон) полностью реагируют на магнит", замечает Тейлор, но это не страшно, так как именно эти мелкие крупинки чаще всего и составляют main problem. They most easily penetrate the sealed seams of the spacesuits and clog under the lids of the "sealed" containers for collecting samples. And when the Astronauts entered the lunar module in their dusty boots, the smallest particles of dust were thrown into the air, from where they could be inhaled into the lungs. This caused at least one of the astronauts (Schmitt) to have an attack of "moon dust hay fever". (The ability to penetrate under the lids of sealed containers indicates superfluidity)

In December 1972, the astronauts spaceship Apollo 17 Garrison Smith and Eugene Cernan, while on the lunar surface, needed to repair the wing of the lunar rover to get rid of the "peacock tail" of dust ejected from under their car.

Dust on Earth is not magnetic, so why are moon dust?

(About what moon dust is)
"Moon dust is not a normal substance," explains Taylor. "Each tiny grain of lunar dust is covered with a layer of glass only a few hundred nanometers thick - 1/100 the diameter of a human hair." Taylor and his colleagues examined this coating under a microscope and found "millions of minute iron particles suspended in the glass like stars in the sky." These inclusions of iron serve as a source of magnetic properties.

Studying lunar dust, Australian researchers from University of Technology Queensland found that the microscopic glass bubbles that make up its composition contain a porous substance consisting of nanoparticles.

Many strange properties of the lunar soil are explained by the presence of a large number of nanoparticles in it, the origin of which is still unknown, since such small particles cannot be obtained even by grinding the rocks of the Moon.

Scientists were able to obtain a three-dimensional image of the substance contained in them, and instead of the expected gas, some very porous substance containing a large number of nanoparticles was found there. And this means that space has nothing to do with the origin of nanoparticles - they were "born" before glass bubbles.

The movement of a single dust particle resembles a pendulum or an oscillatory process.
We have established that this new class dust movements. (!!)

Man on the moon? What evidence? Popov Alexander Ivanovich

Why is the dust under the nozzles of the lunar modules untouched?

According to the stories of astronauts, lunar dust looks like powder, graphite powder or talc. And how should a jet of gases escaping from the nozzle of the descending lunar module affect such fine dust? When landing, the landing engine must operate with a force (thrust) of more than one ton. Is it a lot or a little? How can this be visualized?

10 "hurricanes" over a layer of powder

Here is an example taken from the NASA websites. True, it refers to the description of the take-off of the lunar module, and not the landing, which is being discussed here. But the power that the landing engine provides during landing and the take-off engine during take-off are approximately equal. Figure 6 shows the flag, which, judging by the figure of the astronaut, is approximately 8-10 m from the A-11 lunar module.

Fig.6. This flag, according to information from NASA, will be blown away during the launch of the lunar module by the exhaust gas jet of the engine.

This flag, according to NASA, was not destined to remain on the Moon: “it was blown away by the exhaust gas jet of the lunar module engine during its takeoff from the Moon.” This is clearly the power of the take-off engine, and, therefore, such is the power of the landing engine.

Let's compare the power of the engine with such a natural phenomenon as a hurricane. A hurricane is a wind with a speed greater than 35 m/s. Encountering an obstacle on its way, it presses on it with a force of 0.01 atm. (see Attachment). Knowing approximately the area of ​​a human figure, it is easy to calculate that during a hurricane a person is pushed by a force of 50 kg. It is not surprising that a person is looking for shelter at the same time.

The pressure of the landing engine jet on the surface of the landing site is approximately 0.1 atm., that is, it is 10 times greater than the pressure during a hurricane wind. So at the nozzle exit, one might say, 10 hurricanes are raging at once. In this light, the following stories of astronauts are quite reasonable.

Astronaut Armstrong (A-11): "we disturbed the dust on the surface when we were below a hundred feet (30 m) ... there was a lot of moving dust before our eyes."

Astronaut Konrad (A-12): “…we raised a huge amount of dust. The dust rose in all directions as far as I could see, I could not see what was under me” (section 8).

Astronauts A-14: "when landing, a huge cloud of brown dust rose" .

So, for all the astronauts, the dust scatters with might and main. And, if the landing engine starts to disperse dust, being at the height of a ten-story building, then what will “10 hurricanes” do with this “powder or talcum powder” during landing, when the jet blows at point-blank range?

It turns out - nothing. Or practically nothing. It is this unexpected conclusion that follows if you get acquainted with how the lunar modules on the Moon look like in the NASA pictures.

And where are the traces of these "hurricanes"?

Here is a fragment of the NASA image, in which the astronaut is standing near the "Eagle" (Fig. 7). Around lies an even, undisturbed layer of dust. No recess under the nozzle, no traces of dust blowing around the module. Only the footprints of the astronauts' shoes disturb the pristine appearance of the dust cover. It seems that the "Eagle" flew in with the engine turned off, that is, it simply fell on the moon. But after all, it is intact, and the NASA report claims that the Eagle landed with the engine turned on, as the astronauts hesitated a little with turning it off.

Here is an excerpt from the recording of the conversations of the Eagle crew with the Control Center in Houston, which sounded, according to NASA, at the moment of landing. The numbers in front of each phrase mean the hours, minutes and seconds that have passed since the launch of the spacecraft from the cosmodrome:

102:45:40 Aldrin: Contact signal.[Special contact probes hanging from the landing legs down 170 centimeters touched the surface of the moon and "reported" this]

102:45:43 Armstrong: Engine shutdown.

102:45:44 Aldrin: Okay. Stop, car.

(Armstrong later wrote in a report, "In fact, the engine ran until touchdown. The touchdown was very soft. I didn't even feel when it happened. It dropped like a helicopter and landed.")

102:45:47 Aldrin: Control modes are both "auto". Engine - off.

102:45:57 Duke (in Houston): We're watching you land, Eagle.

102:45:58 Armstrong: Engine off. Houston, this is Sea of ​​Tranquility. "Eagle" sat down.

Fig.7. Pristine dust under Lunar Module A-11

Fig.8. Pristine dust under Lunar Module A-14

So, "Eagle" sat down with the engine not yet turned off. From the above record it follows that from the moment the probes touched (102:45:40) until the final landing (102:45:58) 18 seconds passed. This means that all this time the "Eagle" hung over the landing site at a height of 170 cm or less, and its working engine from such a small distance, almost "at close range", blew off and drove moon dust in all directions. But there are no traces of his work. It turns out a discrepancy in the story and in the "show".

Similar inconsistencies can be noted for other "lunar" "Apollo". By watching, for example, the NASA video clip of the A-14 landing on the Moon, [iv17], you can see that after the A-14 module had already landed, its landing engine continued to work for a whole 7 seconds, that is, for 7 seconds it blew dust under yourself. Yes, in the movie. But, look at the picture of the dust cover under the nozzle (Fig. 8). Where are the traces of these 7 seconds of work of the jet directed at one point on it? Where did that “huge cloud of brown dust” that the astronauts talked about come from?