I recently stumbled across an interview with the co-hosts of the Discovery Channel's TV program "Mythbusters" on slashdot.com

Linky

In one question, they were asked which myth they would like to "bust" if they had an unlimited budget. The question included the suggestion of landing a man on the moon using 1960's technology.

Their response was an emphatic "yes!" Adam Savage replied, "Jamie and I have done the research, and figured that the only way to end the debate about the "myth" of the Apollo moon landing is to go there, and bring back something that was left there during one of the Apollo moon landings."

There is a fairly lengthy reader discussion on the topic near the bottom of the interview's page, including the obvious statement that even that kind of evidence wouldn't convince the hard-core hoax believers.

IMHO, the rest of the interview is also pretty interesting if you follow the show.

__________________
I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. -- Jimmy Hoffa

Of course nothing would convince the woowoos. After all, NASA has had over 30 years to plant all the evidence on the moon since the hoaxed "landings". In their reasoning.

I am ready to launch a new theory claiming the far side of the moon is hoaxed. The moon has no far side, it has only one hemisphere. Prove me wrong. Photo's, measurements and the like don't count as they can all be framed. Orbital mechanics around the moon say nothing. The gravity field is the same as for a round standard moon. And besides the claimed orbital mechanics are framed.

It's obvious to the layman: you only ever see one side of the moon because it only has one side!

Do pay me 6$ by the way if you have read this.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I once had a person tell me that the far side of the moon was "different" from the near side - and no-one knows why...

He also told me that no-one could explain why the moon doesn't rotate

__________________
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Don't you mean 60$

Nono, that's saved for my blurry videoCD documentary (that has 9/11 and JFK footage at random points, just to let you see the big picture) that will be spread via Ebay.

Also the complete 13p document explaining everything will be 60$.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

His name wasn't Grant by any chance?

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Good analogy with the hammer battering one side. Let him hold a ball in front of his face and then let others throw stones at him, and ask afterwards which side of his head hurts most .

IIRC the main reason for the differences though, is that the crust is thicker on the far side, and that prevents the smooth areas to be formed by the hot interior material (does the moon still have a hot interior these days?) I thought that was only a hypothesis, but a very plausible one.

That is, if there should be another hemisphere on the moon

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

The reason we only see one side is that the moon is flat! That is the big conspiracy NASA is trying to cover up.

__________________
"If they put me on a postage stamp tell them to use the young Bender"
--Bender

Flat moon theory is so Dark Ages. SHT or Single Hemisphere Theory is the way to go.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

But this was known back in the fifties and was expressed in this forumulation by the eminent researcher Dr. Dean Martin:

"When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie...."

Well, it is somewhatdifferent (fewer maria and more craters), but it's not a huge mystery.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Am I right with the "thicker crust => less hot material to form maria" + "more direct hits due to no earth ahead (though the FOV part taken by the Earth is rather small, it won't stop many things from hitting the moon on that side)" theory or what is the correct explanation?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

The Single Hemisphere Theory does not hold water, have you ever tried to stand a bowl on it edge, it just falls over. So the moon would keep falling over and wobbling. `;]

__________________
"If they put me on a postage stamp tell them to use the young Bender"
--Bender

Which perfectly fits with the mainstream notion that the moon is constantly falling. My theory has been proven.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Bet you didn't know that later, after he had become a marine biologist, Dr. Martin changed the lyrics to

When the eel hits your eye
Like a big pizza pie,
That's a moray!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

We had alternate lyrics when I lived in Hawaii:

When it sits in the reef
with those bright, shiny teeth,
That's a moray

Stick your hand in the crack
and you don't get it back,
That's a moraaay...

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

Jellies sting
ting-a-ling-a-ling

The B.C. comic strip once had it as:

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

So anyway . . . .

While I was on the MythBusters board--about a year ago--there was discussion about how to do an Apollo episode with a limited budget. I think they felt it wasn't going to work, but we live in hope.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Not exactly the same, of course, but only approximately the same very far away from the moon.As you allude to in your later post, the Earth would not provide much "protection". It would be as if someone were throwing stones at his face, and you were protecting him by holding a beach ball fifty meters away.I think that is only a hypothesis, and one far from certain, IIFC. That may have been what they meant by "no one really knows"

I am planning on asking them about this at The Amaz!ng Meeting this week.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

I prefer thin crust... with mushrooms please. Yumm, but if you can't deliver by 1pm then...

Wrote Trout: p. 132 " When the tupelo, goes poop-a-lo, I'll come back to youp-a-lo. TimeQuake 1997

Mythbusters is brutally and entertainingly empirical, which limits what can be done. You couldn't necessarily test the whole gamut of hoax claims, but you could test some of the subordinate claims such as whether stars would show up on film. But even that falls short of their standard formula, which involves an apparatus going up (or down) in flames and/or Adam getting hurt.

They could test the impressibility of particulates. It's often claimed that you can't get a sharp footprint in dry particulates. There might be some opportunity to build an apparatus there to ensure dryness.

They could test the scouring potential of a jet or rocket exhaust on a compacted regolith. Since that would involve powerful machinery and the chance for destruction, that might be quite entertaining.

They could investigate LM stability by building a rocket-powered model with identical mass distributions and comparing it to models with other mass distributions.

Does NASA Ames have a vacuum chamber? Maybe they could demonstrate diffuse light reflection in the absence of air, to debunk fill lighting arguments. Or arrange to drop a hammer and a feather.

They could demonstrate scatter, parallel shadows, and other photographic effects, but that wouldn't be as exciting as blowing up something.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

About your first comment: that was me jokingly explaining my "moon has only one hemisphere" theory, not to be taken seriously. You're right however that any shape's field will closer resemble that of a round object the further away (point source effect). You owe me 6] for reading my theory though .

The rest: I'm interested in explanations of why the far side of the moon looks different. The earth indeed won't do a very good job at protecting the near side, though it might help just a little bit. A quick Google didn't turn up explanations that were presented as being more than more or less uncertain hypotheses.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

The current theory is that the moon got completely walloped on the near side by one or more very large impacts. These impacts later became the maria, and consequently that side of the moon was less massive. Or rather, its geometric center and its center of mass did not coincide.

Now any moon will become tidally locked over time. But when there's such a difference in density between one side and the other, it will lock with the "heavy" side facing away.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Can I ask why that is, Jay?

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Heh, if you asked then I'd have to correct my first statement; the heavy part of the moon faces toward Earth.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I'd better not ask, then.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Well, you know, I did recommend your book/website as a good starting place, should they choose to do the episode!

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Any chance for a BA cameo? Heck, any chance we could get Adam or Jamie to post here?

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?