Re: moon dust info - clarification

Robert L. Miller (
Wed, 04 Nov 1998 23:44:59 -0800

My memory is that the origin of the dust story was from Harold Urey who
calculated the moon would be covered with 50 feet of dust. His speculation was
some years prior to the space program

Bob Miller

Joel Duff wrote:

> >>Now, in regards to the "Moon Dust" debate, First, some historical
> >>perspective.
> >>I don't know where you were in 1969 when the Apollo Lander made it's
> >>historic
> >>touch down. But like the Kennedy Assassination and other life defining
> >>moments, I remember watching avidly the entire event, glued to my
> >>TV. I grew up when "mountains of dust" was widely accepted,
> >>and taught in science classes in school because it was a necessary
> >>implication from the basic presupposition that the solar system was
> >>billions of years old. I remember commentators talking to engineers and
> >>scientists at NASA about this very problem AND I remember distinctly
> >>that the amount of dust the Apollo astronauts were expected to encounter
> >>was a real concern.
> >>
> >>Now it may well be that since 1969, there is new information, that the
> >>old mechanism and assumptions proved faulty. But it is sheer historical
> >>revisionism to say that this was NOT a wide-spread assumption in
> >>the 1950's and 60's. Therefore, Whitcomb, Morris, et. al., who pointed out
> >>the fallacy in later books were not being deceptive, or selective in use
> >>of evidence, but simply responding to a strain of thought that proved
> >>fallacious on direct investigation.
> Regarding my previous e-mail, I have gotten some very very informative
> private e-mails that have been very helpful. I am well aware of the
> general claims and have read most of the pertinent stuff (Talk.origin FAQ
> etc..) some time ago but it is this above comment that I am wishing to get
> some specific comments on. Is Abshire's claim that, at least publically,
> it was widely accepted and taught in classes that there was mountains of
> dust and were there actually NASA scientists claiming this was a problem
> right up to the moment that the astronauts landed? I understand that
> scientists knew it wasn't likely a problem but what was the actual public
> perception of the situation. Do some of you have personal recollections of
> what Walter Conkrite (sp?) might have actually been saying those days on
> the evening news?
> Joel Duff