Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!hou5h!hou5a!hou5d!hogpc!drux3!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!miller From: miller@uiucdcs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Re: moondust & creationism - (nf) Message-ID: <3456@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 27-Oct-83 02:27:36 EDT Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3456 Posted: Thu Oct 27 02:27:36 1983 Date-Received: Fri, 28-Oct-83 08:16:51 EDT Lines: 44 #R:ihuxr:-72300:uiucdcs:12700041:000:2940 uiucdcs!miller Oct 27 00:59:00 1983 I have been asked via mail to provide more information on the lack of lunar dust vs. age of the moon paradox. OK, here goes: First, I sent a letter to Neil Armstrong. Commenting on a videotape I had recently seen of him made a few weeks after the Apollo 11 flight, I wrote "... You made the comment that, shortly before the launch of Apollo 11, some scientists had made the prediction that so much lunar dust should have accumu- lated on the surface that the lunar module (and the astronauts on board) would literally sink into the surface never to be seen again. Is this a correct evaluation of what you said in Vietnam? ..." The reply came back "Your evalua- tion of the statement made in 1969 is correct." The letter then went on to suggest two other places I might look for further information, including the material by Dr. Thomas Gold, already mentioned in the base note. Other material of which I am aware include a comment made by Issac Asimov in 1959 in which he said the lunar dust should have acccumlated to *at least* 50 feet. Also, there was a symposium in 1965 jointly sponsored by NASA and by the Smithsonian Institution. The papers were published in a very long manual called "Meteor Orbits and Dust" NASA-SP-135. I have not had time to completely read the whole thing yet, but one interesting paper in there is by W. G. Elford entitled "Incidence of Meteors on the Earth Derived from Radio Observations". In there, he gives influx rates into the earth's upper atmosphere for various times and locations. It is clear that the rates for the moon and earth should be very similar, given their close proximity on a cosmic scale. So, even though the Soviet Luna and the American Surveyor gave empirical evidence that the amount of dust was minimal, nevertheless, other data was present to cause some concern among some scientists, given the assumed age of the earth/moon system. While we're on the subject of odd data concerning the moon's age, you might want to take a look at NASA-TR-R277 from 1968. It deals with transient lunar phenomena, which should not really occur if the moon is a cold, dead body. For instance, given the radius, material, age, etc. of a body, you can estimate the cooling effect since that body was formed. But Apollo 15's thermal flow experiments gave temperatures outside of the range which could be explained. This data was repeated on Apollo 17 which gave the same results. (They tried to repeat on 16, but one of the astronaut's feet got tangled in a cable, damaging the equipment.) References to this may be found in NASA-MR-12, pp. 5-6 (and I *think* also in NASA-MR-10 and NASA-MR-11). Also see "Planetary Geology", pp. 183-184 by N. M. Short. This is not a complete list, as I have lots of junk on my desk at home I haven't had time to read yet, as well as several references I need to chase down in the library. But, it should get you started.