Why was there light dust on the moon to leave a footprint in, when the capsule used rockets to land?
537189
Jesus would probably say something like, "There's not enough atmosphere on the moon to blow the dust around".  Or, then again, He might not.  He might also say, "You need to pay more attention in Science class".  Who knows what he would say.
668715
There are 6 flags there, one for each of the Apollo landings. But no, the Moon is too far away for even the largest telescope to see something so small. Lots of objects were left on the Moon by the Apollo landings, the largest being the LM decent stage. But as others have pointed out, there were special reflectors left that will bounce any light you shine on them back in exactly the same direction it came from. If a sufficiently bright laser is aimed toward the places where the landings occurred, you can see a bright spot where the reflectors are. You need a big telescope and powerful laser though, I never heard of an amateur doing it.
999749
nothing... your car nowadays have a more complicated computer system then that lunar module.  I hope your asking about the first one that land on the moon
263691
There are a lot of unanswered questions surrounding the moon landings. Like why, after 40yrs, and with highly advanced computers etc, do we not have some sort of permanent lab up there or a large telescope of some sorts. These would benefit scientific research no end. Check out this for an interesting read.  http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
278952
The space shuttle went to the Moon???? Har, har, har.....! Right off the bat, your lack of knowledge about the manned lunar landings is glaringly evident.\n\n"...no way we could have past through the suns radiation belt..."\nGee whiz, with your vast education and expertise as an astrophysicist you must surely be right. Actually, you don't have the first clue about this subject. Get your head out of the sand and get the facts from genuine scientific experts at these sites -->\nhttp://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad19.html\nhttp://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s2ch3.htm\n\nThe only flight hardware that returned to the surface of Earth were the command modules. Where are they? See this website --> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apolloloc.html\n\nFinally, before persisting with this idiotic notion about the lunar landings all being faked, just ask yourself a couple of questions --\n(1)rock and soil samples returned from the Moon were passed out to research groups around the world. After examination and scientific testing, all confirmed that the material was non-terrestrial (that means not of Earth) and met all the pre-conceived theories of what lunar material would be like;\n(2)of the thousands upon thousands of personnel directly involved in the manned lunar missions, not one has come forward with a word about the whole thing being faked\n\nInstead of running around hollering that everything was faked, take a look at some genuine information that quickly buries the "facts" proving a scam occurred at this website -->http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html\n\nThe only thing more incredible than the actual lunar landings is that so many numbskulls have been duped by the blather about it all being faked.
280881
There isn't gravity "on the moon"; gravity is a property of objects. And the self-congratulatory tone of the guy who says you must have realized that your premise is wrong betrays the fact that his answer is a tautology. The only reason the moon exerts a gravitational pull is BECAUSE of its mass. If there were no mass, there would be no gravity in the first place. One can overcome the force of gravity, but saying that the moon would fly apart without it doesn't make any sense. Gravity will be there no matter what. Other forces can overcome it (otherwise the Apollo astronauts who landed there wouldn't have been able to leave its surface), but gravity can't be turned on and off.  In a less dramatic way, one could see the astronauts picking up rocks, or kicking up dust. The kinetic energy of their movements was enough to overcome the force of gravity on the moon until the dust settled (which it does much more quickly than it would on earth, since the dust doesn't encounter friction with air).\n\nNo one knows exactly what gravity IS, by the way. Some physicists believe that it results from the warping of space-time; others continue to seek out a particle (the "graviton") that is the conduit of the force (kind of like "photons" are particles of light).
862840
Building in space meant shuttles only had to go into an orbit.\n\nShuttles can only go into space and return and it would be impossible for them to land there.   The cargo bay is only big enough for the structure they take up and any form of lander would be too big to be carried.\n\nTo have built it on the moon therefore would have meant building an entirely new fleet of specialist rockets carrying a lander and another carrying a payload which would have to be small and light.   Journey time would be significantly longer and the technical problems much greater.  Meaning that it would have been prohibitively expensive in comparison.
1029403
because the moon doesn't have an atmosphere like the earth to burn up meteors. they collide into the moon with little resistance. on earth the friction of the meteor going through out atmosphere burns up most small meteors that would otherwise crash into the earth
375187
they peformed his experiement when we went to the moon...\n\nthere is video of an astronaut dropping a feather and a bowling ball at the same time and guess what when gravity is absent they both fall at the same rate...
1044689
There are stars in some, but not all of the photos.\nStrong lighting causes the stars to get underexposed, and that is why you can't see them.\n\nIf you have any reason to doubt our landing on the moon ask the Russians (Who had their own lunar program) if they believe it.  They had many spies, and would have benefited greatly if the moon landing was in fact a hoax.
357358
yeah men, pointing itself, no dust over the legs on landing, no proves at all, and we already know that with the tecnology of the 60 it will be a surprise if they could be able just to hit the moon with the rocket, actually, many years later still Nasa was proving materials to suport speed over MATCH, and plus the space clothes...for God sake...really...the most expensive and bad movie ever...
379763
“Buzz” Aldrin\n\n\nSix hours after landing at 4:17 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (with less than 30 seconds of fuel remaining), Neil A. Armstrong took the “Small Step” into our greater future when he stepped off the Lunar Module, named “Eagle,” onto the surface of the Moon, from which he could look up and see Earth in the heavens as no one had done before him.\n\nHe was shortly joined by “Buzz” Aldrin, and the two astronauts spent 21 hours on the lunar surface and returned 46 pounds of lunar rocks. After their historic walks on the Moon, they successfully docked with the Command Module “Columbia,” in which Michael Collins was patiently orbiting the cold but no longer lifeless Moon.
552042
No, it's the stuff of the lunatic (no pun intended) fringe.\n\nHowever, if you want to see some evidence, go to www.badastronomy.com\n\nAll the supposed "evidence" is flawed.\n\nI think subsequent, unmanned trips have inadvertently photographed the space junk left behind on the lunar surface.  It couldn't be there if we hadn't left it.\n\nThe only piece of proof you'd need is for an unmanned probe to photograph the flag we left.
155089
no...they didnt land on the moon at all and lot of evidence points that the moon landings were faked\n1,,to reach moon the astonauts had to pass beyond the van allen belt.which is a protective barrier of charged particles cosmic rays etc..beyond which they wud b exposed to intense harmful cosmic rays...thir aircraft apollo 11 had only a thin lining of lead for protection which is not at all sufficient...so it is suggested dat apollo 11 just cirled up before reachuing the van allen belt\n2,,moreover the photographic film wud hav been clearly damaged while passing thru the belt as it does it if its passeed thru an ordinary xray machine\n3,,the camera that the astros used i.e. hasselblad wree old fashioned and changing their photographic plates is a very tricky process requiring handling of delicate plates n nimble fingers...this task was impossible 4 the astros as they wore thick rubber gloves\n4,,one of their pics shows the terrain behind aldrin fading away into the horizon while there is no atmosphere on moon to cause such an effect\n4,,more over in one of the pics some suspiciuos equipments reflection can be seen on aldrins visor..it can cl4early be seen againt the darkness of the horizonwhere one might expectto glimpse a piece of film equipment if it had been shot in a film studio\n5,,moreover the absence of stars in the pics,lack of scortch marksand a crater under the lunar module which wud hav been formed by its landing are suspiciously missing\n\nhence too much to prove that the landings were faked
1110927
The environment which astronauts perform their spacewalks is not a total vacuum. The Space Station or Space Shuttle vent small amounts of propellants to adjust their orbits and attitude. Astronauts have probably encountered this type of debris during a walk. But these gases are relatively low velocity and I think you were getting at high velocity debris. As others have mentioned, debris from exploded satellites are tracked down to a few centimeters in size. But contrary to one answer, once you know the orbit of a piece of debris, you don't have to constantly monitor it because it's going to stay in that orbit for a long time. And yes, from what I understand, every effort is made to avoid putting astronauts in harm's way. The wild-card is natural space debris. Those too small to see pieces of rock the size of a grain of rice traveling at tens of thousands of mph (relative) we see enter the atmosphere and call a meteor or shooting-star. To some extent we can plan for these. Meteors are often found in swarms and astronauts don't spacewalk during those times (about a dozens days of the year). But there is no planning for the rogue meteor. Having said *all* this, to my knowledge no astronaut has ever been hit by high-velocity space debris.
1029928
Several people have written books trying to disprove our landing on the moon.  I have not actually researched this, but for one thing, supposedly there is no dust on the moon like the ton of dust our astraunats walked through that day.  The photos have been disputed as made up and I believe our corupt government is capable of pulling this off.....)(
643921
Sean is right but it was manufactured that way as a perfect observation post from the aliens inside it observing us.\n\nthe moon is an artificial satellite and is hollow.