Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Lunar surface question

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Ok, here's my two pence worth!
    Now my knowledge of lunar geology is perhaps not what it should be, but i would assume that any large meteor impact would generate very significant heat as well as throwing up a lot of debris, the impact site would then be extremely hot, in the order of thousands of degrees. With the moon being in a vaccum the only way for this heat to disperse is through the ground, which depending on its thermal conductivity could take quite a while, allowing ample time to fuse the area around the impact site into a more solid material (similar to a lightening strike on a beach). Thus each impact blows off only the loose "dust" some of which then resettles over time on the more solid "ground" beneath.
    Could be well wide of the mark, but it sounds plausible to me??
    (famous last words ha ha)


  • Options
    #63
    stoneill
    Registered Users Posts: 3,610 ✭✭✭stoneill


    Only saw this thread now so apologies if the OP's question is already answered.

    Yep Lunar surface - not exposed to any erosion due to lack of atmosphere, so what lies there pretty much stays there (Unless a stray rock careers into the surface and throws up ejecta). But millions of tiny micrometeorites have been bombarding the surface for billions of years, each one contributing the the overall compaction of the surface. On Earth they just burn up in the atmosphere and we call them shooting stars.
    It is notable that before the first landings ever took place that some scientists were concerned that lunar probes and eventual manned missions might end up being swallowed by a dusty lunar surface.
    The compaction of the lunar surface was demonstrated during the Apollo missions when drilling core samples, the drill core would go down 30-40cm with relative ease but then get stuck if trying to drill deeper.


  • Options
    #64
    stoneill
    Registered Users Posts: 3,610 ✭✭✭stoneill


    Oh and I just read the posts about using the shuttle to go to the moon.

    It can't - doesn't have the required thrust to reach escape velocity, and besides, once the external tank is jettisoned it doesn't have the required fuel to do anything much except maneuverer and de-orbit.


  • Options
    #65
    quasar2010
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭quasar2010


    It is notable that before the first landings ever took place that some scientists were concerned that lunar probes and eventual manned missions might end up being swallowed by a dusty lunar surface.
    How did they determine it was safe to land?


  • Options
    #66
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,144 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    quasar2010 wrote: »
    How did they determine it was safe to land?

    Because they soft-landed 5 unmanned probes on the Moon as part of the Surveyor Program in the years before Apollo. None of those sunk into the dust so they made a reasonable assumption that the Apollo spacecraft would survive. The Surveyors were landed in approximately the same places where the Apollos would go.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    quasar2010
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭quasar2010


    The Recliner wrote: »
    If you chuckle one more time at the end of a post I think I will have to ban you out of pure annoyance

    Argue your point but there is no need to go out of your way to antagonise people, to be honest it comes across as trolling and the forum can do without that

    OK


Advertisement