I believe that the maximum temperature was around 2500F

The RCS plume deflectors were designed for a temperature of either 1800 F or 2800 F, I forget exactly which. Same fuel, same combustion.

which drops off after it expands through the engine bell and then into the vacuum.

The nozzle ratio alone on the DPS is something like 40:1. So the temperature at the exit plane, ignoring heat loss through radiation and convection to the nozzle itself, will be only a fraction of the chamber temperature.

I think Phil just used the 2500 lbf force on the surface as not to confuse the average viewer.

That would have to be the case. Phil and I discussed this some months ago, before I made the computations, and never reached a precise conclusion about what was an appropriate method. That's what led me to tackle the problem for real on Clavius. At the time I lacked certain necessary values like the mass flow rate and the density of the exhaust product. But after banging my head suitably on the desk I devised methods for reliably estimating them.

Having made those computations (and still refining them), I have no idea yet how to reduce that to a sound bite for a lay audience. A lay audience could be made to understand the concepts without difficulty, but the devil is in the details -- specifically the quantitative details. How you compute the exhaust pressure is largely irrelevant to the debate if you don't put numbers into the computation. And once you start dealing with numbers you've gone beyond the scope of a sound bite on a television show.

Reluctant as I am to exchange one inaccurate model for another, I can't really see how Phil could have made a physically accurate, quantitative rebuttal in the 30-or-so seconds of the average couch potato's attention span. This is why I quibble rather than object.

Inaccuracies aside, I think he touched on the important elements:

1. The DPS had to be throttled down; 10,000 lbf thrust is not appropriate for touchdown.

2. The force is spread out over a 4+ foot circle.

3. Such a distributed force has quantitative paragons in the lay-familiar world.

4. Even if the hoax believers' model of gas impingement were correct, their argument fails quantitatively. This cannot be overestimated. It's one thing to show that their model is incorrect. It's another thing to show that they can't even competently employ their own model.

We have to recall that the hoax theorists have the burden of proof to demonstrate that their expectation of a crater is based on physics and not sensationalism.

As you can see on Clavius I take a progressive approach. My first stab at quantization is simply to compare the LM engine to other engines the layman might be familiar with -- the Harrier, a 747, etc. This helps the reader evaluate the credibility of Kaysing's purported observations. Then there are the more quantitative arguments culminating in the detailed estimates which I assume most readers won't be interested in.

I know he knows that all of the 2500 pounds of thrust does not impact the surface.

As do I. I just wanted to stress the difference between a 2,500 lbf thrust rating, and pressure from the gas on an underlying surface. The two are not equivalent concepts because one derives from momentum (linear treatment of velocity) and the other derives from kinetic energy (second-order treatment of velocity). Even people on our side get this wrong.

The shape of the crystalline structure is directly related to this heat transfer process.

Hm, a few of these concepts are bubbling up through my memory from studying metallurgy in college. I recall that certain alloys (e.g., zinc and aluminum) cannot be made in gravity because of this and similar phenomena. They must be manufactured in the absence of gravity.

Some one with experience could easily tell a fake moon rock by looking at a cross section of the rock.

This is a key argument. Most of the hoax believers don't know anything about geology. And so they don't know what geologists know or how they know it. And upon that basis they make estimations of how geologists could be fooled.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but it seemed to me that PAX let Kaysing and Siebrel hang themselves with thier whacky claims.

I wouldn't go that far. Clearly the parting shot was in our favor. Any time you hear someone say, "Nothing will change my mind," you probably have a crackpot on your hands.