Since this section is open to geology questions, it seemed like a good place for me to ask this. If sand is sifted and washed until it's dust-free and then dried, will simply transporting and placing it cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust-cloud when the sand is driven over? I've been told that it would be impossible to transport and place dust-free sand without causing enough erosion to create that much dust. The people on these threads said it it could be done and they seem to be geologists. http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-geology&tid=628 This person who says he's an engineer disagreed with those geologists. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990 Can anyone with experience in geology opine on this? Thanks.
In most cases it would create dust. The individual sand particles would bump against each other and the abrasion would result in the formation of dust. I have the horrible feeling this is only leading to some new improbable reason that you think that landing on the moon was a hoax.
But would it be true in all cases? Would it be totally impossible to transport and place dust-free sand without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust-cloud when the sand is driven over? That's what this guy contends. http://www.clavius.org/about.html Is he right? Is it impossible, or would it be possible if great care were taken?
Could you provide more detail about the transport? I think if I scooped up a bucket of cleaned sand and carried it next door and dumped it out, there would not be enough new dust created to be noticed. If it's a matter of scale, maybe, but I would personally doubt it. I would think the sand would need to be handled many times to produce any amount of noticeable dust.
Oh I see where you are going with this. You mean can you transport enough sand to fill up a gigantic sound stage so that you could drive a moon rover over the sand and not have dust stay suspended in the air. Holy jumping Jesus, you've convinced me - convinced me that you are hopelessly obsessed with a fantasy.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Go away...
I only want to talk about the dust-free sand issue here. The Apollo hoax theory can be discussed on this other thread. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113292 Just tell me what you think about whether it would be impossible to transport and place dust-free sand without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. Any method that could transport about ten dump truck loads. I think it could be done carefully enough so that there wouldn't be any dust. Is there anyone who disagrees?
Yes there would be dust. Even the rover itself running over the sand and having it grind against each other would create dust - especially when it spun it's tires. So I guess you are convinced and will now turn your attention to something more productive.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Edit: I forgot to add - go away
Wouldn't even larger particles of sand thrown up be measurably affected in their trajectory by the presence of an atmosphere?
Sure - the trajectory of the dust from the rover tires is a great examble of a parabolic arc in a vacuum but fat freddy seems to be ok with ignoring that and is instead having problems with the dust only. :shrug:
1. I'm not sure what this question has to do with Geology, or even Earth Science. It strikes me as a materials science question, or maybe something more related to rheology. 2. As has been pointed out to you, even by the people who agree with you, it depends as much on the nature of the sand you're dealing with as it does anything else. Other influencing factors being the quality of water used, the washing method used, the roundness of the grains involved, the method of transport used, and the distance transported. 3. Sand is, at best, a poor analogy for lunar soil, and will lack most of the characteristics observed in the photographs, this would be more so for a graded and washed sand. Lunar Soil generally contains a mixture of a range of particle sizes from >5mm to <1 Micron. Consider, for example, this source: Micro-Morphology And Toxicological Effects Of Lunar Dust. If we examine Figure two, and compare it to the Texture triangle: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We would come to the conlusion that Apollo 17 sample 77051 is, at least in terms of grain size, a clay. Indeed, if we consider Geotechnical Properties of Lunar Soil and examine figure 1, then we find that the 'Average' composition of the samples that we have, which are claimed to be lunar soil samples, we find that they are 49% sand (most of which is fine sand), and 51% Silt - IE, according to our texture triangle, a Silt Loam. All of which, it would seem, is supported, it would seem, by Figure 5 which is a closeup of a bootprint taken on Apollo 12. So asking about the dust free transport of sands is at best misleading, and at worst misdirection.
I am amazed that this guy thinks a few dump trucks will cover the hundreds of acres we see in the footage. He definitely hasn't even seen the hours long recordings. What is even more stupid is that the pictures taken during this, tie up exactly with the video. That means we would need two duplicate sets, with exactly replicated footprints, tyre tracks and positioning. I tend to agree with Jay Windley that for the volume needed and to be able to see the really fine particles, clearly visible being scattered across the surface when kicked, it is completely impossible to create an environment where dust would not be suspended whilst simultaneously showing this. Here is a one hour continuous clip from Apollo 17, I have picked out a truly vast open area, with numerous really long camera zooms, slow lunar gravitational movements, fast horizontally kicked regolith, obviously very fine particles and clear prints being made in the surface. The whole area is evenly lit with one light source, single dark shadows and hell, they even have the Earth in shot and zoomed in. Even just watching a few minutes from here, it is obvious to anybody with a braincell that is on the Moon......... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N57sijRs4WA&feature=player_detailpage#t=2974s
Why do the shadows change side? If they were up there a month that would happen, but not in one hour! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Really? The shadows "change side" because the astronauts are first of all working on one side of the rover, then later, on the opposite side. There is also such a thing as terrain changes which alter the direction and length. If you have an issue with that answer, show the timeframes you specifically have a problem with.
Good point, but in the video footage as well, we can see in almost every scene with astronauts on the Moon, there is clearly visible finer material scattering low across the surface. Sand will simply not do this. Only sand that is moist/wet will be able to take anything other than smudged prints such as these..... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But if it is dry, it won't take prints such as these.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If it is dry it will react like the Apollo kicked soil, if fine enough, but to duplicate the really fine stuff in an atmosphere will form suspended molecules. If it is wet, it will clog together, will never show what Apollo does, and the fine dust seen flying low across the surface will not possibly occur. In short, whilst I believe it is possible to create an area that is dust free fairly small in size(certainly not as big as the Apollo large open areas we see), it wouldn't make any difference anyway, because you could never make the two situations above happen. Now FF88's standard cut and paste comeback on this, is that he has never seen any prints made, at the same time as clearly fine dust kicked. He was given the Apollo 15/17 flag ceremonies as examples and denied this was occuring(see second picture above)! But the video in my post above shows zoomed in clear prints being made. It is irrelevant whether they are detailed. the fact that they are made and have any definition is proof enough(see first picture above) Nothing anybody says will make any difference to FF88, all he cares about is creating this side issue as something of significance, when it has no bearing at all on the fact that Apollo landed on the Moon as the evidence records.
(from post #9) I addressed this over on the moon hoax thread... http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2933074&postcount=95 ...in order to stay within the rules of this forum; I suppose the moderator doesn't want the Apollo hoax issue to be discussed in this section.
Here's a video about the sand issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc I'm just posting that for the part about making sand dust-free and transporting and placing it. The issue of the detailed boot prints that were made in fine dust but never actually seen being made can be discussed on this other thread. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113292
Hey FF88, you want to stay within the "rules", why didn't you take my post to the other threadPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Better idea is to ignore it huh?
I am an engineer and a geologist but that does not mean much in the grand scheme of things. There can be all different types of minerals in sand. A silica rich sand SiO2 (quartz) might be less dusty than say a feldspar based sand, for example. But what is it that you are trying to achieve....
