Were Americans on the moon the opinion of astronauts. Were Americans on the Moon? All pros and cons. Lunar landing filmed in the pavilion

The well-known arguments that the Americans did not land on the moon received a new refutation. The Japanese Space Exploration Agency (JAXA) reported the discovery of a "halo" left from the exhaust jets of the Apollo 15 lunar module engine, which was detected in the image of the stereoscopic Terrain Camera (TC).

Recall that the Apollo 15 lunar module ("Falcon") landed on the moon on July 30, 1971 near Hadley Rille, at the foot of the Apennine mountains surrounding Mare Imbrium. Hadley Rill is a winding canyon 80 km long and 300 m deep. One of the objectives of the Apollo 15 mission was to study the origin of this canyon. High mountains near the lunar canyon make this place unusually beautiful.

The vantage point shows Hadley Rill from the west, at an altitude of 15 km (this three-dimensional (3D) image was recreated from the stereo data of the Landscape Camera (TC)).

1. Confirmation of the "halo"

This image (Fig. 3), provided by the SELENE mission team (KAGUYA), is derived from processed data while observing the Apollo 15 landing pad on the moon. In fact, this is the first message in the world since the end of the Apollo program about the detection of a "halo". Images 1 and 2 show the change in the reflectivity of the lunar surface before and after the Apollo 15 landing.

Figure: 1. Before lunar landing:

Pre-lunar Apollo 15 area (NASA Photo: AS15-87-11719)

Figure: 2. After landing:

The white area in the photo is the halo from the jets of Apollo 15 (NASA photo: AS15-9430)

The photographs show changes in surface reflectivity before and after the Apollo 15 landing. The top image (Fig. 1) was obtained indirectly from the descending lunar module. The bottom image (Fig. 2) was taken from the command service module from an altitude of 110 km in the second Moon orbit after landing.

The enlarged image below (fig. 3) by the Japanese shows the white area of \u200b\u200bthe existing "halo" (image below: at 1 square kilometre... The red circle outlines the "halo").

Figure: 3. The image of the "halo"

Apollo 15 halo area. Photography of the Landscape Camera (TC). JAXA Photo

The reflectivity of the "halo" area has become brighter than in the original photo from the Apollo 15 lunar module, and the likelihood of a "halo" existence has been confirmed.

2. Comparison of images from Apollo and TS

Photo from the Apollo 15 crew

Three-dimensional (3D) model from processed Kaguya data

The viewpoint of the 3D image is obtained by processing stereo data from the Landscape Camera (TC) and can be freely changed. The 3D images from the TS data show a completely similar landscape (left picture) compared to the image taken by the Apollo 15 crew (right image from NASA: AS15-82-11122HR). Despite the fact that small objects (for example, rocks and stones) cannot be shown in this TS-image, because their respective dimensions are less than the spatial resolution of the TS (10 m / pixel), the shapes of mountains and hills are practically identical and the same.

3. Analysis of the Apollo landing site on the Moon

The 3D image of the Hadley Reill area was captured after processing TC data. During the Apollo 15 mission, astronauts also collected basalt samples near Hadley Ryll. Their research confirmed that Mare Imbrium is composed of many layers of lava flows, ranging from a few to ten meters deep. The TC 3D view looks southeast from the northwest and clearly shows the layers of lava flows on top of the Ryll Wall. These layers were probably formed about 3.2 billion years ago.

So, from an independent source, more evidence was obtained in favor of the fact that the Americans were on the moon. All attempts at refutation are questioned. Let us recall that the discussion about the real landing of the Americans has been going on for several years in a row. I would also like to note that in the near future space enthusiasts expect to receive even more solid evidence and evidence that the Americans flew to the moon - the LRO probe equipped with powerful optical cameras is heading to the moon, the program of which may include photographing the Apollo sites. Let's look forward to it!)

Tags

Read also

17 comments on “ Were Americans on the Moon? New evidence from JAXA”

1. tttttt

   Maybe it looks like a trace, or maybe not very much, let's wait for the promised probe.

2. agasi

   Yes, show me at last their equipment, their traces, where they are, or some kind of halos, the area before the flight, after the flight, what kind of kindergarten, your rovers are already sending color photographs from Mars, and here we are "halos". Ridiculous right word, well, you were not there and say so.

3. Ivan

   Since in a vacuum the feather and the hammer fall at the same speed, I conclude that landing and takeoff in a vacuum on the moon are impossible !!!

   And in zero gravity in a vacuum, the rocket flies by itself and requires insignificant energy to advance, but there is no weightlessness and atmosphere on the moon, and there is nothing to push it off!

4. Nikki

   Yes, the "proof" leaves a miserable impression. Just "Ponyakovsky's triangle" from the "golden calf".
   Blur stains and pseudoscientific comments.

5. VLAD

   I will not be rude to all malicious and aggressively rude: I was not brought up so, I am a polite person. It is not necessary to be angry, but to think with your head! All over the world, it is customary to defend any scientific and technical achievements before experts. The Americans with their achievements (and flights to the moon are great achievements) did not do this! Whatever achievements they are, they are worthless without a decision of experts! This is the first thing. And secondly, NASA and all its defenders are worthless because you are simply illiterate (apparently, you did not study well at school and do not know what the objective law of nature is: the moon's gravity is 6 times weaker than that of the Earth. placed on the Moon, then your step further or higher, for example, on Earth 30-40 cm on the Moon will turn 6 times further or higher, ie 1.8 - 2.4 meters. You will not walk on the Moon , but literally fly over the heads of other people. And you will jump into the distance generally 8-10 meters and further! And this is an objective law of nature, from which you can not get away, whether you like it or not. So think with your head, jumped , did the Americans fly at such distances or dust from under their feet or from under the wheels of rovers or did not jump, or did not fly? It's up to you whether the Americans were on the Moon! And read more on the Internet: everything is written there, including smart ones things!

6. Paul

   on the moon, the attraction is less and the astronaut weighs less, which means he will jump much higher than naked on the ground. 60 cm I will freely jump from the spot, and they are trained. And this spot appears on other objects too, which halo. A hammer with a feather, even I can make them fall equally. It's all bullshit. Maybe they were there, the films lit up, or maybe they weren't. does not play a role, the USSR was the first on the moon. And everywhere in space the USSR was the first. Now there is no USSR, so the Americans can reap laurels that did not deserve it in general. To fly to the moon when everything else is the first satellite, the first man in space, the first spacewalk reached the moon, Venus, and so on, this flight to the moon is not that important. It's just that the United States fanned its only success, as if it had won. And all these disputes were not meant to confirm this success. the rest seems to have been forgotten, but they argue about the moon. and it seems like this flight (s) is almost the main and central event. One percent of success from the entire space epic.

   • Peter

     From a place, with an outfit weighing almost a centner, on Earth, can you jump 60 cm?
     What do you think “fell equally”?
     And what does the hammer and the feather have to do with it?

   • Alexander

     Paul, why are you comparing an astronaut on the moon with a _naked_ man on Earth? I will not repeat myself - everything is well described in Alexey's previous answer. About the discussed halo - it just appears due to the operation of the lander's engine.
     Landing a man on the moon is a very complex technical task, far exceeding the delivery of the Lunokhod there. In total, 6 expeditions have visited the moon!
     Also, for example, one of the American spacecraft is located at a distance of more than 15 billion kilometers. from the Sun - in working order. Flying through half of the SS and transferring unique photographs. So about one percent of success - it's you in vain.
     PS: And if you make such a hammer, then I publicly confess my ignorance of elementary physics and undertake never to go online again.

7. Vladimir

   PUNCHES
   A lot of them. Too many for one space program. Moreover, there are no questions about all other NASA programs, starting with the launch of monkeys into space (none survived even eight days after the flight - everything died like flies from the radiation) and ending with space shuttles.
   "NASA deceived America" \u200b\u200bis the title of the book by the scientist and inventor Rene, one of many on the subject. He expressed many doubts about the reliability of the landing of American astronauts on the moon. The main ones can be summarized as follows:
   1. Gravity
   A quick scan of the astronauts' jumps on the Moon shows that their movements correspond to those on Earth, and the jump heights do not exceed the jump heights under terrestrial gravity, although the gravity on the Moon is one-sixth that of the Earth. The pebbles falling from under the wheels of the American lunar rover in flights after Apollo 13 behave in an earthly manner during accelerated viewing and does not rise to a height corresponding to the force of gravity on the Moon.
   2. Wind
   When the US flag was planted on the moon, the flag fluttered under the influence of air currents. Armstrong adjusted the flag and took a few steps back. However, the flag did not stop waving. This cannot be explained by any "internal vibrations of the flag" or its "internal energy".
   3. Pictures
   Moon images have specific subtle crosses due to the operation of the equipment. Without these crosses, no picture of the lunar expedition should exist. However, contrary to all other images taken in the course of other space programs, in many lunar photographs the crosses are either missing or located under the image, which raises doubts that the images were actually taken by lunar equipment.
   A number of photographs allegedly taken on the Moon are presented in various NASA publications with cuts and corrections: in some places, shadows have been removed, retouching has been applied. The same images that NASA made available to the public at different times look different and provide irrefutable evidence of a montage.
   4. Stars
   In the vast majority of space images of NASA's lunar program, stars are not visible, although they are abundant in Soviet space images. The black empty background of all photographs is explained by the difficulty of modeling the starry sky: the forgery would be obvious to any astronomer.
   5. Radiation
   Near-Earth spacecraft are much less susceptible to the destructive effects of solar radiation than a ship far from Earth. According to American experts, walls with 80 centimeters of lead are needed to protect the spacecraft flying to the moon. Otherwise, the astronauts will not survive even a week and will die, as all American astronaut monkeys died from radiation. However, NASA spacecraft in the 60s had sides made of aluminum foil several millimeters thick.
   6. Spacesuits
   When the daytime lunar surface is heated to 120 degrees, the spacesuit needs to be cooled, which, according to modern American space flight experts, requires 4.5 liters of water. The Apollo suits had 1 liter of water and were practically not designed to work in lunar conditions.
   The suits were made of rubberized fabric without any significant protection from cosmic radiation. The Apollo spacesuits of the 1960s are much smaller than the Soviet and American spacesuits used today for short-term spacewalks. Even with the current level of technology development, such spacesuits cannot fit a supply of oxygen for 4 hours, a radio station, a life support system, a thermoregulation system, etc., which, according to the legend of the 60s, Apollo astronauts had more than modern astronauts.
   7. Fuel
   In 1969, Armstrong and Aldrin, literally on the last drop of fuel, heroically landed an Apollo 11 weighing 102 kg on the moon. Apollo 17, weighing 514 kg, landed on the moon without any problems with exactly the same fuel supply. This blatant discrepancy is not explained by anything, and, in fact, it is impossible to explain it by "saving on maneuvers" or "finding a shorter path to the Moon", which will be confirmed by any expert in this field.
   8. Landing
   The jet stream, beating from the nozzle of the spacecraft descending to the Moon, should have completely scattered all the dust - practically weightless - from the surface within a radius of at least hundreds of meters under conditions of low gravity. In airless space, this dust should rise high above the surface of the Moon and fly away in a whirlwind kilometers from the place of descent of the ship, which was observed during all landings of Soviet lunar modules. However, in American photographs - contrary to all science and common sense - we see how a newly arrived astronaut cheerfully jumps from a landing craft into dust untouched by any impact and tramples in the dust under the supposedly nozzle itself, leaving its historical traces everywhere.
   9. Information leak
   In astronaut Aldrin's memoir, there is a description of a party in a narrow circle of astronauts, where those present watched a film showing the adventures of Fred Hayes on the moon. Hayes did all sorts of steps, then tried to stand on the step of the lunar rover, but the step crumbled as soon as he stepped on it. However, Fred Hayes has never been to the moon. He is a member of the infamous Apollo 13 flight, which did not land on the lunar surface.
   Either all Apollo flights were falsifications, or for each flight a fictitious landing variant was created that could be triggered at the right time.
   There are many other facts as well. During the "live broadcasts from the moon" viewers several times came across strange things, such as the frank letter S, written with paint on one of the "untouched" moon rocks and accidentally caught in the frame in one of the "lunar" reports.
   Falsification is such a pearl from all the holes in the lunar project that tens of thousands of Americans - not Russians at all - filled up TV, NASA and the White House with bags of indignant letters.
   This has never happened before or after the lunar epic. No reply was given to any letter.
   10. Confidentiality
   In 1967, 11 astronauts died under dubious circumstances. Seven were killed in plane crashes, three were burned to death in a test capsule. According to American researchers of the issue, they were "dissenting". The highest mortality rate in the camp of American cosmonauts corresponds exactly to the most dubious NASA program.
   all of the above once again confirms that HOLLYWOOD is really a great "DREAM FACTORY" !!!

14:54 01/05/2016

0 👁 3 789

The skeptic's argument: The photographs and video footage of the establishment of the US flag on the moon by the Apollo 11 crew show "ripples" on the surface of the canvas. Supporters of the "lunar conspiracy" believe that this ripple arose due to a gust of wind, which is impossible in an airless space on the surface of the moon.

Supporters' counter-arguments: The movement of the flag could have been caused not by the wind, but by damped vibrations that arose when the flag was installed. The flag was fixed on the flagpole and on a horizontal telescopic bar, pressed against the pole during transportation. The astronauts were unable to extend the telescopic tube of the horizontal bar to its full length. Because of this, ripples remained on the cloth, which created the illusion of a flag waving in the wind.

Gravity on the Moon

The skeptic's argument: One of the arguments of the proponents of the conspiracy theory is that astronauts do not jump too high. In their opinion, if the filming had been made on the Moon, then they would have captured jumps up to several meters in height, due to the fact that the force of gravity on the Moon is 6 times lower than on.

Supporters' counter-argument: In contrast to the changed weight of the astronauts, their mass has even increased (thanks to the spacesuit and the life support system) so that the effort required to jump has not decreased. An additional problem is created by the inflation of the spacesuit: the fast movements necessary to make a high jump in the spacesuit are difficult, since significant efforts are spent on overcoming the internal pressure. In addition, with high jumps, the astronaut lost control of balance; high jumps were more likely to lead to falls. Falls from a height were a potential hazard, as they could damage the spacesuit, helmet or backpack of the support system. The danger of such a jump can be represented as follows. As you know, any body can perform translational motion and rotational motion. At the moment of the jump, for example, due to the unevenness of the efforts made by the leg muscles, the astronaut's body could receive a rotational moment, as a result of which it would start spinning in flight, and the consequences of a lunar landing after such a jump would be difficult to predict. An astronaut could, for example, fall headlong onto the lunar surface. Naturally, the astronauts understood this and tried to avoid high jumps.

Booster rocket

Some conspiracy theorists believe that the Saturn 5 rocket was never ready to launch and argue as follows:

• After a partially unsuccessful test launch of the Saturn-5 rocket on April 4, 1968, a manned flight followed, which, according to N. P. Kamanin, was a “pure gamble” in terms of safety.
• In 1968, 700 employees of the Marshall Space Research Center in Huntsville, Alabama, where the Saturn 5 was being developed, were fired.
• In 1970, in the midst of the lunar program, the chief designer of the Saturn-5 rocket, Wernher von Braun, was relieved of his post as director of the Center and removed from the leadership of rocket development.
• After the end of the lunar program and the launch of the Skylab into orbit, the remaining two rockets were not used for their intended purpose, but were sent to the museum.
• There are no foreign cosmonauts who would fly on Saturn-5 or work on the super-heavy object Skylab launched by this rocket into orbit.
• The lack of further use of the F-1 engines or its descendants on subsequent missiles, in particular, the use of Russian RD-180 instead of them on a powerful rocket.

The version about NASA's failures in the creation of hydrogen-oxygen engines is also considered. Proponents of this version claim that the second and third stages of Saturn-5 had kerosene-oxygen engines, like the first stage. The characteristics of such a rocket would not be enough to launch Apollo into a circumlunar orbit with a full-fledged lunar module, but it would be enough to fly around the Moon and drop a greatly reduced model of the lunar module to the Moon.

Unmanned lunar module versions

Some supporters of the theory of the "lunar conspiracy" suggest that under the guise of manned ships, unmanned ships were delivered to the lunar surface that could simulate (for example, by relaying) telemetry and negotiations with the Earth to falsify the current or subsequent expeditions. The same unmanned spacecraft could carry autonomous scientific instruments, for example, corner reflectors, which are still used in scientific work on the location of the moon.

Many supporters of such versions proceed from the assumption that the Americans failed to create, and therefore were forced to develop instead an unmanned simulator to perform (at least partially) the declared tasks of the lunar program (placing scientific instruments on the Moon, spaced a considerable distance from each other; collection and delivery to Earth of a much larger volume of different types of lunar soil from significant areas, etc.).

Some theories suggest that the Saturn 5 rocket had insufficient power to deliver a manned lunar module to the moon, so the heavy manned lunar module was replaced by a lighter unmanned simulator. The exclusion of manned landings from lunar expeditions would neutralize the politically unacceptable, according to some conspiracy theorists, risk of losing two crew members and the risk of losing the lunar race to the Soviet Union. This thesis about the political unacceptability of the loss of the crew is not confirmed by practice: despite all the negative consequences, including political ones, the death of people did not lead either in the USA or in the USSR to the closure of large-scale space programs, either before or after the Apollo program.

This version requires either the secret creation of a separate unmanned simulator, or a secret continuation of the Surveyor program, which was closed in January 1968, or a significant modification of the manned lunar module created as part of the lunar program (its equipping with an automatic soil extraction system, mechanisms for bringing scientific instruments into working order). It would also require falsification of all photographs and videos on the moon. Using Surveyor would also require falsification of the brought lunar soil.

Passage of radiation belts

One of the common arguments of supporters of the lunar conspiracy theory is the discovery of the Van Allen radiation belts made back in 1958. The streams of solar radiation, fatal to humans, are constrained by the Earth's magnetosphere, and in the Van Allen belts themselves, the radiation level is highest. However, flying through the radiation belts is not dangerous if the ship has adequate radiation protection. During the flight of the radiation belts, the Apollo crew was inside the command module, the walls of which were thick enough to provide the necessary level of protection. In addition, the passage of the belts occurred fairly quickly, and the trajectory lay outside the region of the most intense radiation.

It is also argued that the films in cameras inevitably had to be overexposed due to radiation. It is curious that the same fears were expressed before the flight of the Luna-3 station - nevertheless, the Soviet apparatus transmitted normal photographs. Filming of the Moon was also successfully carried out by several devices of the Probe series.

"Dark side of the Moon"

The mock-documentary Dark Side of the Moon, released in 2002, featured an interview with Christian Kubrick, the widow of director Stanley Kubrick. In that film, she mentions that President Nixon, inspired by Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), encouraged the director and other Hollywood professionals to work together to fix the US image on the lunar program. The film was shown in particular on November 16, 2003 by CBS Newsworld. Some major Russian news outlets presented the show as genuine research proving the reality of the lunar conspiracy, and Christiane Kubrick's interview was seen by the theorists as confirmation that Stanley Kubrick filmed the American moon landing in Hollywood. However, already during the credits scrolling at the end of the film, it is shown that the interviews in the film are fake and are composed of phrases taken out of context or played out by the actors. Subsequently, the filmmaker also confirmed that the film was a well-staged hoax.

The role of the USSR

One aspect of the "lunar conspiracy" theory is also attempts to explain the recognition by the Soviet Union of the American landing on the moon. Proponents of the lunar conspiracy theory believe that the USSR did not have convincing evidence of NASA falsification, other than incomplete intelligence information (or that the evidence did not appear immediately). The possibility of collusion between the USSR and the United States to cover up the alleged scam is assumed. The following versions of the reasons are named that could induce the USSR to enter into a "lunar conspiracy" with the United States and stop its lunar flyby and lunar landing manned lunar programs at the last stages of implementation:

1. The USSR did not immediately recognize the scam.
2. The USSR leadership refused to publicly disclose for the sake of political pressure on the United States (threats of exposure).
3. In exchange for silence, the USSR could receive economic concessions and privileges, such as the supply of wheat at low prices and access to the Western European oil and gas market. Among possible assumptions are also personal gifts to the Soviet leadership.
4. The United States had political dirt on the leadership of the USSR.

Opponents express doubts on all points:

1. The USSR was closely monitoring the US lunar program, both according to open sources and through a wide network of agents. Since the falsification (if it were) would require the participation of thousands of people, among them there would be a very high probability an agent of the Soviet special services. In addition, the lunar mission was followed by continuous radio and optical observation from various points in the USSR, from ships in the World Ocean and, possibly, from aircraft, and the information received was immediately verified by specialists. In such conditions, it is almost impossible not to notice anomalies in the propagation of radio signals. In addition, there were six missions. Therefore, even if the deception was not detected immediately, it would easily be revealed later.
2. This, probably, would have been possible in the 1980s, but not in the conditions of the "Moon Race" and the Cold War. In the USSR and in the world in those years there was euphoria from the successes of Soviet cosmonautics, which supported the thesis, fundamental for the USSR and all Marxist movements, about the "superiority of the socialist system over the capitalist system." For the USSR, the defeat in the "Moon Race" had significant negative ideological consequences both inside the country and in the world, but the proof of the failure of the United States and falsification (if it really took place) was a very strong trump card in the propagation of the ideas of Marxism in the world, which would give a new breath to the communist movements in the West, which by that time had begun to lose popularity. Against this background, the possible bonuses from "collusion" with the United States would not look very tempting for the USSR. It should not be forgotten that the late 1960s - early 1970s in the United States were marked by a fierce internal political struggle and, if there was falsification, it could have been exposed by American politicians themselves during the struggle. In this case, the USSR would have gained nothing from its silence.
3. The principle of "Occam's razor" works here. The reasons for the USSR's entry into the West European oil and gas market have been well researched, and to explain them, there is no need to involve a possible collusion between the USA and the USSR. The price for the supply of wheat to the USSR was, although somewhat lower than the exchange price, but this is due to the huge volumes of supplies, the self-delivery of products by the Soviet merchant fleet and a payment system that is beneficial for the West. The version about personal gifts is completely doubtful, since in such a vital issue for the superpowers, these gifts, obviously, should have been very valuable. It is even difficult to imagine their content here. In addition, after the collapse of the USSR, information about them would certainly have become publicly available.
4. Both before the start of the "Moon Race" and after it, the United States conducted a continuous and tough information campaign to discredit the leadership of the USSR, using both real incriminating materials and fakes created by the special services. Among the leaders of states, a kind of "information immunity" to this kind of propaganda has developed, and it is unlikely that in such a situation any new materials would be taken seriously with political consequences for the USSR.

The attitude of experts to the theory of the "lunar conspiracy"

An animated comparison of two photos showing that the flag is not moving.

Experts consider the lunar conspiracy theory to be frivolous. For example, cosmonaut Alexei Leonov has repeatedly denied in interviews with newspapers and on television the existence of a "lunar conspiracy." At the same time, Leonov claimed that some of the footage of the landings was made in the pavilion (“ so that the viewer can see the development of what is happening from beginning to end on the cinema screen, elements of filming are used in any [popular science] cinema»).

The Soviet designer of space technology Boris Chertok, one of the most informed people about the events of the "lunar race" in the USSR, in his memoirs after the collapse of the USSR, categorically rejected the very possibility of falsification: it was asserted that there was no flight to the Moon ... The author and the publisher made good money on the deliberate lie. "

Pilot-cosmonaut Georgy Grechko also repeatedly expressed confidence in the reality of lunar expeditions ("we know this for sure"), calling the rumor about the existence of a "lunar conspiracy" "ridiculous." At the same time, Grechko admitted that they could “print a couple of photographs on Earth”, citing a similar example from the history of Soviet cosmonautics. Other cosmonauts also spoke out against the possibility of a conspiracy.

Cosmonaut and spacecraft designer KP Feoktistov spoke out in his book “The Trajectory of Life. Between yesterday and tomorrow "about a possible imitation of flights:" Our receiving radio equipment received signals from the Apollo 11 board, conversations, a television picture about the exit to the lunar surface. Arranging such a hoax is probably no less difficult than a real expedition. To do this, it would be necessary to land a television repeater on the lunar surface in advance and check its operation (with transmission to Earth), again in advance. And on the days of the imitation of the expedition, it was necessary to send a radio relay to the moon to simulate the Apollo radio communication with the Earth on the flight path to the Moon. Too hard and too funny».

Other leaders of the Russian space industry, as well as designers of space technology, also denied the possibility of a conspiracy.

Photos of landing sites taken by spacecraft

Apollo 17 expedition landing site. Visible: the descent module, ALSEP research equipment, car wheel tracks and a chain of astronaut tracks. LRO satellite image, September 4, 2011.

In 2009, on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 flight, LRO performed a special task - it surveyed the landing areas of the lunar modules of the terrestrial expeditions. In the period from July 11 to July 15, LRO made a survey and transmitted to Earth the first ever detailed images of the lunar modules themselves, landing sites, elements of equipment left by expeditions on the surface and even traces of the earthlings themselves from the cart and rover. During this time, 5 of 6 landing sites were filmed: expeditions Apollo 11, 14, 15, 16, 17.

Later, the LRO spacecraft performed even more detailed images of the surface, where it is possible to clearly decipher not only the landing modules and equipment with the tracks of the lunar vehicle, but also the chains of tracks of the astronauts themselves.

On July 17, 2009, high-resolution images of the Apollo landing sites, taken by the LRO automatic interplanetary station, were published. These images show lunar modules and traces left by earthlings as they move along the Moon.

On August 11, 2009, in the vicinity of the Apollo 14 landing site, the automatic interplanetary station LRO captured images of the lunar surface at a position 24 degrees above the horizon, which more clearly showed soil changes from astronaut operations after lunar landing.

According to the Japanese space agency JAXA, the Japanese Kaguya also detected possible traces of the Apollo 15 lander.

Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) chief officer Prakash Chauhan said that the Indian Chandrayan-1 received images of the American lander and the tracks left by the wheels of the rover used by astronauts to navigate the moon. In his opinion, even a preliminary analysis of the images gives grounds for dispelling all the versions that have been expressed that the expedition was allegedly staged.

The head of China's lunar exploration program, Yan Jun, said the Chang'e 2 probe had captured the tracks of the Apollo missions in the images.

P.S. There is a huge amount of materials on this topic. And if you spend a few weeks, you can write a serious scientific work. I have neither time nor patience for this, so I tried to choose the main arguments, both of one and the other side. Hopefully I was able to answer the question of people, “Were there Americans on the moon?” Who were really interested in this. Followers of cults “The Americans were not on the Moon, because (they are Americans, the Reptilian-Masons were not allowed, the level of scientific and technological progress did not allow - emphasize the necessary), it is still not interesting.

Dear friends! Do you want to always be aware of the latest events in the Universe? Subscribe to the newsletter for new articles by clicking on the bell button in the lower right corner of the screen ➤ ➤ ➤

Questions, questions ...

My friends from Kiev sent me an American film from the Island World studio "For all mankind"("For all mankind "- with a polyphonic translation into Russian), directed by Al Reinert (Al Reinert), released in 1989 for the 20th anniversary of the landing of the first people on the moon - American astronauts N. Armstrong and E. Aldrin. The film raises a lot of questions, even without watching it.

"For All Mankind", full NASA movie (1989)

(without translation into Russian - in English)

For example, why is the Soviet audience not familiar with him? Why has this and the next anniversary films never been shown on our television? For example, in the USSR it was not shown for ideological reasons, but after all, already under Gorbachev, we opened the doors for the propaganda of our older pale-faced brother. Why did the US agitprop never insist that its main achievement - landing on the moon - be promoted in the captured country?

Long road

A few general figures. This supposedly documentary about the first people on the moon runs for 75 minutes. In about half an hour, you will surely begin to swear: when will the moon finally be? The fact is that the landing on the Moon and everything else about the astronauts' stay on the Moon (everyone, not only Armstrong and Aldrin) takes only about 25 minutes in the film, and the shooting on the Moon takes about 20.5 minutes, and the astronauts themselves take less than 19 minutes. minutes. Agree that this is not much, considering that, according to legend, the astronauts of all expeditions spent about 400 hours on the moon.

You ask: what is shown in the film for the first 50 minutes? Anything!

How astronauts dress before launch, how they are examined, how they walk, how they are lifted onto a ship, how they start, how they admire the view of the Canary Islands from space, how they change clothes, how they eat, how they shave with an electric razor, how they are thrown by objects suspended in zero gravity, as they sleep, again as they eat, again as they shave, however, now with a safety razor. How they listen to the music of an audio player, what kind of music it is, what the musicians said when they recorded it, etc. etc. Since there is nowhere to rush, they show how astronauts jokingly shoot a video about themselves, how they draw screensavers for it, these screensavers (4 or 5), of course, are necessarily shown to the audience. As astronauts conduct a comic television report on sports news from space, basketball league scores are broadcast. Etc. etc. And all this with sparkling American humor. For example, they joke merrily, showing how the astronauts are recovering (it is explained in detail that the bags with excrement must be tightly closed with lids, otherwise the excrement will stick around the whole cabin). When one goes to recover, the rest, making faces, put on oxygen masks, letting the audience know that they stink a lot. It's funny. In general, there is an abyss of humor in the abyss of space. American.

To prevent the audience from getting too bored, an accident is arranged: "a leak of liquid oxygen in the maintenance compartment, where oxygen is stored for the breathing of the crew." This liquid oxygen is shown as a fountain. For some reason, the MCC looks at something that looks like a storage battery and gives a cheerful command: "Try plans No. 4 and No. 3". At this command, the astronaut grabs a roll of duct tape and quickly glues something with it, brilliantly saving the life of the crew.

Spectators are not deprived of original views, but first, a few words about the structure of the Apollo spacecraft. It is launched into Earth's orbit by two stages of the Saturn rocket, the third stage accelerates it to the Moon. Apollo itself consists of a main unit, which houses the cockpit and engine. In this cabin, astronauts fly to the moon and return to Earth. The engine of the main unit brakes the Apollo near the Moon and accelerates it for return to Earth. A lunar cabin is docked to the engines of the main unit, in which two astronauts descend to the moon and return to the main unit. A landing platform is docked to the lunar cabin from the side of its engine, the engine of which puts the platform and the lunar cabin on the lunar surface. (The lunar cabin is then launched from this platform).

Launch vehicle "Saturn-5"

1. Emergency rescue system (SAS).
2. Compartment of the Apollo crew
3. The engine compartment of the Apollo spacecraft.
4. Lunar cockpit of the Apollo spacecraft.
5. Lunar platform.
6. Equipment compartment.
7. Third stage (S-4B missile).
8. J-2 engine.
9. Second stage (rocket S-).
10. Five J-2 engines.
11. First stage (S-1C rocket.
12. Five F-1 engines.

The crew compartment is not large: it is a cone with a diameter at the base of 3.9 m and a height of 3.2 m.The lower, widest part of the cone is filled with supplies and equipment, in the upper there are seats for three crew members, at the top of the cone there is a hatch for access to the lunar cabin ... There are no gateways.

Nevertheless, 2 hours after the launch from the cosmodrome, when Apollo with the third stage of Saturn was supposed to be still in Earth orbit, someone from Armstrong's crew decided to urgently walk through space: he opened the hatch and went outside. There were enough TV cameras inside the crew compartment, but at that time they did not shoot, and this is not surprising: after all, oxygen should be deflated from the Apollo into the open hatch, and the two remaining crew members would also have to put on spacesuits. The astronaut who went into outer space did it solely to hang in airless space and say: "Hallelujah, Houston." Soon Houston demanded that he return to the compartment, as in a few minutes the Apollo's acceleration to the Moon began. By the way, the absence of the third stage of "Saturn" was clearly visible.

In the film, the Mission Control Center (MCC) looms annoyingly. Since there is nothing to show in it - the consoles and people behind them, the poor director crawled out of his skin to diversify the picture: he showed how they are worried in the MCC, and how they rejoice, and how they laugh at the endless jokes of astronauts, and how they yawn and how they drink coffee, how they eat, how they smoke. The flight director's trousers and boots are shown three times in the film, and the fact that the trousers are short and the boots are brightly polished should be remembered by everyone. With such a technique, at the very least, the director stretched the frames of the MCC for 9 minutes of the total time of the film.

Be that as it may, but in the end, with jokes, jokes, music and songs, the astronauts finally flew to the moon.

My tech-savvy acquaintances argued that the Americans could not land on the moon due to the fact that they had no experience in docking spacecraft. Really. According to legend, on the way to the Moon, the astronauts had to undock the main Apollo block from the third stage of Saturn, turn it 180 degrees and again dock to the lunar cabin so that the upper hatch of the main block was aligned with the upper hatch of the lunar cabin, otherwise Armstrong and it was impossible for Aldrin to go into it.

So, not a word is said about this most complicated operation in the film! There are no shots of the farewell of the astronaut remaining in the main unit with those passing into the lunar cabin, no shots of their return. But this is not a scene of the departure of small and large needs by astronauts and not a scene of their shaving, these were supposed to be the most powerful shots in terms of drama. But they are not for any lunar expedition! Moreover, after approaching the moon, the crew compartment cameras were no longer turned on, and there is not a single frame of its interior. The main unit was shown outside all the time. If I am right and the Americans dropped lunar cabins on the moon without astronauts, then it should be so, because all three astronauts were in the crew compartment and it was impossible to show it, just as it was impossible at that time to shoot scenes of no goodbyes and meetings without real weightlessness ...

On the moon

Anyway. And so they finally sit down. A television camera located somewhere outside (neither she nor the portholes on the lunar cockpit were found by me in its drawings) is filming the landing on the moon. Approximately a few meters from the surface, as seen by the shadow on the surface of the Moon, something like jets of gas from the engine flashes in front of the lens and then the camera jerks from the landing push. Neither a pebble, nor sand, nor a speck of dust flew out from under the engine of the lunar platform with a thrust of 4530 kgf in an airless space. But when at the end of the film the launch from the moon of the lunar cabin of some next "Apollo" is shown, starting from its metal platform, then stones from the jet of the engine with a thrust of 1590 kgf flew upwards at a tremendous speed, by eye not less than 20-50 kg. Nothing to say - cinema! Hollywood. By the last series, they guessed that the engine jet must somehow act on the ground.

A couple of words about the fact that people who are confident that the Americans were on the moon consider the lighting spotlights of the shooting pavilion caught in numerous photographs as lens flares. The spotlights were also included in the frames of this film and they are well distinguished from glare. (When you rotate the camera, the highlights change shape and follow the camera, while the spotlights remain stationary.)

For the first time, the Americans installed corner reflectors of a laser signal on the lunar surface. Since then, the photon signal reflected from them has been repeatedly recorded in sessions of laser ranging of the Moon at observatories in different countries, including the USSR. This is considered reliable evidence of the American presence on the moon. True, opponents immediately admit that “later similar devices were delivered to the Moon in Soviet experiments with Lunokhod and are used for the same purposes along with American ones”, i.e. to install them, it is not necessary to land a person; this can also be done by an automatic station. The USSR also delivered a corner reflector to the moon and took soil samples, but it does not boast that its cosmonauts were on the moon. So this is absolutely circumstantial evidence. And direct evidence of the stay of American astronauts on the moon is genuine film and photography. You can't make them anywhere.

The most touching, of course, are the shots of the installation of the American flag. "On the Moon" one astronaut drove a peg into the ground, another planted a flagpole on it. According to legend, the flag was made of a rigid fabric with a wire frame, i.e. the flagpole looked like the letter "G". So the flag had only one free corner, and this corner showed that it was really free. It fluttered so merrily in the wind of the "airless" space of the "Moon" that the astronaut had to pull it back. Angle sagged. But as soon as the astronaut departed, the flag fluttered merrily again. (Probably some damn black man kept opening and closing the gates in the set, creating a draft).

Since the too obvious absurdity of these shots began to catch the eye of any more or less reasonable person, America's fans tried to get out of the situation, offering some explanations for this fact. It is worth dwelling on them in more detail. To date, all pro-American scientists adhere to one of two mutually exclusive hypotheses. The first asserts that “these are just natural vibrations of the elastic flagpole-flag system”. But one must not only know these clever words, but also figuratively imagine what it is. Take something elastic, for example, a ruler, pinch one end of it, pull back and release the free one. These are elastic vibrations in their purest form. Their peculiarity, like any oscillations, is that the oscillating part of the system always deviates from the zero position - the one in which the oscillations will subside.

So, in the film there is not even a hint of these very "elastic vibrations". The flag is blown away by the wind in one direction from the zero position, and the ribbon stretching behind the "going out into space" astronaut is blown in one direction. She covers him all the time only on one side and trembles in the draft. Those. and "spacewalk" is also a Hollywood fake. By the way, with this "exit", cumulus clouds are visible as close as they are seen from an airplane, and not from a space station. (By the way, the American journalists themselves caught NASA by giving the press photos of the "spacewalk" that were clearly falsified). By giving this fake, the Americans show that they are sorely lacking material for the movie about the flight to the moon. For the sake of fairness, it should be noted that in the scene of the spacewalk there are a number of frames of clearly cosmic origin: in particular, the inclusion of the propulsion engine in the earth's orbit - the jet from the engine is exactly what it should be when it flows into vacuum (strongly underexpanded), visible its structure in the form of shock waves. So they still flew into space. And installation is a matter of technology.

The second hypothesis is the assumption that the flag had a motor, which created the oscillations. But, in addition to the fact that it is rather difficult to imagine such a thing, it should also be noted that the oscillations created by the motor must, firstly, be strictly periodic, and secondly, have a wave profile constant in time. We see nothing of the kind in the pictures. Of course, enthusiasts can assume that there, inside the flag, there was also a Pentium II or even III (why not? Near the motor!), Which tugs the flag at random intervals in a random direction with a random effort, but still we do not consider the field of science fiction.

In addition, an essential caveat should be made: Truth is always specific, and therefore it is impossible to realize both mutually exclusive hypotheses. If it's about free vibrations, then why use the motor hypothesis? It's just stupid! If there was a motor, then who does one need to be to believe in the hypothesis of free oscillations? As you wish, but even if one of these hypotheses were true, then the supporters of the other are simply extremely stupid. Sometimes there are instances that try to combine these two hypotheses and talk about free vibrations with a motor, but this stems from an elementary ignorance of physics, and, apart from advice to read school textbooks, such people simply have nothing to say.

Another psychologically very interesting episode. Astronauts, like O. Bender, have shown the world proof that they are indeed in the airless space of the moon. One astronaut took a hammer in one hand, a bird's feather in the other (!), Lifted them to shoulder height and at the same time released them. The hammer and feather fell to the ground at the same time. But, first of all, it is not this cheap trick that is important to us, but the fact that the American children of Lieutenant Schmidt planned this on Earth in order to prove their stay on the Moon, for which the astronauts carried the "feather" with them. If they really were on the moon, then why is it necessary? Secondly, Hollywood did not have enough intelligence to understand that they had conducted a physical experiment, by which one can calculate the acceleration of gravity, and by its value to understand whether this is happening on the Moon or not. I think that if they understood this, they would have stuck a feather in the ass of the one who came up with this trick. But more on that below.

All "lunar" shots are frankly game: astronauts play their stay on the Moon, and this is striking. For example, an episode: between the TV camera and two astronauts about 20 m of sandy surface. A stone 10 centimeters in diameter and 20 centimeters in height vertically sticks out 2 meters from the camera. There are no other more or less large stones anywhere else. In theory, the astronauts themselves should have installed the television camera and, moving away from it, were obliged to trip over this stone. The episode began. The astronaut from afar moves back to the camera and joyfully exclaims: "Look what a stone!" And in the center of the frame begins to pick it up. Those. this is the "lunar" version of the joke about the piano in the bushes.

In these filming "on the moon" there is not a single documentary, natural episode. Here is an astronaut demonstrating a useful activity - hammering a small pin into the ground. There are no wires coming from the pin, there are no instruments - a bare metal pin. He hammered, hid the hammer in his pocket, turned and ran, singing a song. Why did he take him to the moon and why did he score?

Lunar episodes with astronauts are clearly replayed in slow motion in order to create the appearance of the astronauts' movement, "like on the moon." As they run and jump, astronauts slowly lift off the surface and slowly descend. For several minutes of the film, they purposely fall to show that the fall is slow. Considering the risk involved in a real and very cautious stay on the Moon, the behavior of the astronauts with their pampering and falling clearly suggests that if they and MCC are not completely kamikaze, then this is not the Moon.

Let's get back to running. Aside from the slow-motion shooting, it is clear that astronauts in spacesuits are very hard. But they are on the moon, where the weight is six times less than on earth, despite the fact that the strength of the muscles remains the same. For example, astronaut Aldrin in a spacesuit (about 11 kgs) and with a life support knapsack (45 kgs) weighs 161 kgs on Earth, and 27 kgs on the Moon. Let's remember school and do some math.

Running on the moon

When walking and running, the leg lifts us off the ground and throws us up to a certain height h... The energy of this throw is equal to our weight times this height. On the moon, our weight will be 6 times less, therefore, with the same usual muscular effort, the leg will throw us to a height h 6 times higher than on Earth.

From high h we are returned to the earth by the force of its attraction for the time tcalculated by the formula

(It seems to me doubtful that such a decrease in speed was noticeable by eye, I am afraid that I cannot determine by eye whether a person is walking at a speed of 5 km / h or 4.1 km / h, whether a car is traveling at a speed of 10 km / h or 8 km / h).

Suppose that on Earth, Aldrin, in his underpants, does above the surface in 0.14 seconds we calculated. step 0.9 m long.On the Moon in a spacesuit, his speed will decrease by 1.22 times, but the time before lowering to the surface will increase by 0.71 / 0.14 \u003d 5.1 times, therefore, Aldrin's step width will increase by 5 , 1 / 1.22 \u003d 4.2 times, or up to 0.9 x 4.2 \u003d 3.8 m. The spacesuit makes it difficult to move and, let's say, for this reason, its step will decrease by 0.5 m on Earth. On the moon, it will also decrease by this distance and will be 3.8 - 0.5 \u003d 3.3 m.

Consequently, on the Moon in a spacesuit, the pace of the astronauts' movement above the surface should be slightly slower than on Earth, but the height of ascent at each step should be 4 times higher than on Earth, and the step width should be 4 times wider.

In the film, astronauts run and jump, but the height of their jumps and the width of their steps are much less than on Earth. This is not surprising, because when they were filmed in Hollywood, they still had at least an imitation of a spacesuit and a life support backpack, they were heavily loaded and it was hard for them. And playback of filming in slow motion cannot hide this severity. Astronauts kick their feet very hard while running, kilograms of sand fly out from under their feet, they barely raise their legs, their socks are constantly rowing on the surface. But slowly ...

Such an episode. Aldrin jokes and jokes, jumps from the last step of the lunar module to the "Moon". Height about 0.8 m, he holds the stairs with his hands. Since his weight in the suit is 27 kg, i.e. is four times lighter than in some shorts on Earth, then for his trained muscles this jump is equivalent to jumping on Earth from a height of 0.2 m, i.e. from one step. Let each of you jump from such a height, without even holding on to anything with your hands, and look at your condition. Aldrin, when jumping from a step, slowly sank to the surface, then his knees began to bend and he bent at the lower back, i.e. he hit so hard during the "lunar landing" that his trained muscles did not keep his body upright in the suit.

Ground pressure

A little preface to the next calculation. My opponent brought me a thick book "Lunar soil from the Sea of \u200b\u200bAbundance" Nauka, Moscow, 1974 so that I could read it myself and make sure that the lunar soil delivered by the Soviet automatic station "Luna-16" corresponds to the soil taken by the astronauts ... Yes, the book says so. But how is this established? Our scientists told the Americans the results of their studies of the lunar soil, and the Americans told us that they have the same. Out of 400 kg of American "lunar soil" not a single gram was sent to the USSR for research, and, as it seems to me, until now. Yes, a certain amount of lunar soil can be obtained using automatic stations. But since these samples were taken in the absence of people - meaninglessly, just as they were taken by Soviet automatic stations - the scientific result from the study of these samples should not have been very different from zero.

The American Lunar-Planetary Institute holds 2 conferences a year devoted to the Moon, and a lot of lectures have been read there. And yet - we know little about the composition of the moon. And where does this knowledge come from? Two or three spot samples from the most uninteresting and uninformative points of the Moon - from flat areas? It is possible to analyze these samples for at least a hundred years using any new methods of analysis, but all the same, these analyzes will not say anything about the Moon, since on the surface of the Moon, as well as on Earth, there may be god knows what, which is not related to either the crust or the structure of the planet ... But there is not the slightest hint that the Americans on the moon made even the smallest attempts at geological exploration! The USSR could not carry out any geological prospecting with the help of then imperfect automatic stations, but why did they not try to do it with people and cars? Why did they not take samples of soil, bedrock and ore deposits meaningfully?

The fact is that with the help of their lunar soil, the Americans were ahead of the USSR only in one issue - in proving the existence of paranormal phenomena.

A. Kartashkin, a specialist in this matter, in his book "Poltergeist" (M., "Santax-Press", 1997) reports this:

"Alexander Kuzovkin wrote an article" Some aspects of the manifestation of the UFO phenomenon and poltergeist ".

It tells (with reference to the newspaper "Moskovskaya Pravda" of October 6, 1979) about an absolutely incredible case. Recall that by that time, American astronauts had already visited the moon and brought lunar soil samples to Earth. Of course, this soil was immediately placed in a special, sophisticatedly encrypted storage. Suffice it to say that it cost $ 2.2 million to design and build this storage facility. It goes without saying that the room with the lunar soil was guarded with special partiality. It is all the more striking that a significant number of lunar soil samples soon ... disappeared without a trace" . (Highlighted by me - author's article)

And the Americans lament that we know very little about the Moon. And how can you find out more if Barabashka stole the most valuable samples from the unfortunate Americans. How do you like this American Barabashka? No patriotism!

Concerning the footprints of the soles of astronauts "on the Moon", such data from the above-mentioned book on the lunar soil are interesting. Researchers write (p. 38) that the lunar soil "is easily formed and crumpled into separate loose lumps. Traces of external influences are clearly imprinted on its surface - the touch of an instrument. The soil easily holds the vertical wall ..." From this formally it follows that the protectors of the shoes astronauts, squeezing the soil from above and from the sides, could leave a clear mark. (Although it is difficult for me to understand how the researchers could estimate the formability of the soil with a sample less than a stack at their disposal). But the researchers write that the soil "... with free filling has an angle of repose of 45 degrees (and they give a photo). That is, the soil without pressing does not" hold the wall. "If we pour wet sand into a glass on the beach, and then turn the glass over and remove it, then the sand will retain the inner shape of the glass, it will hold the wall without pressing, with free pouring. And if we pour dry sand into the glass and turn it over, the sand will spread out, forming a cone with an angle of natural slope, that is, it does not hold the wall.

From this it follows that the tread mark of the soles of the American astronauts should be clear only in the center, and along the edges of the shoe, where the soil is not pressed, it should crumble at an angle of 45 degrees. Such a trail - with crumbling edges - and our "Lunokhod" left on the Moon. In American photos, the soil holds the wall on the prints of the tracks, both in the center and at the edges. Those. this is not lunar soil, it is wet sand.

Further from this book you can find out the compressibility of the lunar soil. But first, let's count. There is the famous full-length profile shot of Aldrin. It is unlikely that he is less than 190 cm tall, taking into account the soles and his helmet. In relation to his height, the length of his shoes is about 40 cm. From the photographs of individual footprints of the astronauts it is clear that the width of the footprint is almost equal to half of its length, i.e. the area of \u200b\u200bthe sole is about 800 sq. cm, to take into account the rounding of the sole, we will reduce this value by a quarter - to 600 sq. cm. The track has 10 transverse treads, and given the approximately equal-sized depressions, these treads are 2 cm wide and 2 cm high. The tread surface area is estimated at half the total sole area, i.e. 300 sq. cm. Aldrin's weight on the Moon is well known - 27 kg. Hence, the pressure on the ground only by the protectors is less than 0.1 kgf / cm2.

From diagram 7 on page 579 in the aforementioned book it follows that at this pressure the lunar soil will be compressed (settled) by less than 5 mm. Those. even the protectors of the sole of an astronaut could not completely immerse themselves in real lunar soil on the Moon. But on all the photos, the prints of the soles are imprinted so that the side surfaces of the shoes form vertical walls even above the sole! If these footprints were indeed on the moon, then we would not have seen the entire footprints of astronauts, but only shallow strips of protectors. No, this is not the Moon, it is all 161 kgf of Aldrin's earth weight pressing on wet sand!

Acceleration of gravity

Now let's get back to the experiment with the fall of the hammer and "feather". In this trick, it was important for the Americans that the hammer and the "feather" fell at the same time, but they didn’t realize that it was also important the time it took for them to fall. The astronaut dropped them from a height of not less than 1.4 m. The average fall time over several measurements gave the result 0.83 sec. Hence, according to the formula a \u003d 2h / t squared, the acceleration of gravity is easily calculated. It was 2 x 1.4 / 0.832 \u003d 4.1 m / s. squared. And on the Moon, this value should be 1.6 m / s. squared, so it's not the moon! Have you experimented, smart guys ?!

There is another episode in the film. An astronaut is running with a bag full of samples on his shoulder. One rock falls on the run and falls to the ground in 0.63 seconds. Even if the astronaut very strongly bent his knees while running, the height from which the stone fell could not be less than 1.3 m. According to the above formula, this gives the acceleration due to gravity of 6.6 m / s. squared. The result is even worse!

The question before me was - is this difference my mistake in timing? I made seven measurements of the time of the fall of the stone and received (sec.): 0.65; 0.62; 0.61; 0.65; 0.71; 0.55; 0.61. On average - 0.63, we will not count the standard deviation, since even the maximum error in both directions turned out to be 0.08 sec. If it were on the Moon, then the time of the fall of the stone would be

The difference between 1.27 and 0.63 is much larger than my 0.08 second error. So this is not a mistake, and therefore not the Moon!

The launch of the lunar cabin from its platform from the Moon was also shown. Firstly, the flame of the engine was not visible at the starting cabin. Nevertheless, several dozen stones flew out from under the platform very quickly. One stone had an upper zero point, after which it began to decline until it went off the screen. Based on the size of the cabin, I roughly estimated that while the stone was visible, it dropped 10 meters. But the time of the fall could not be determined. I could not press the button on the stopwatch at the required speed: the minimum that I could squeeze out of the stopwatch and myself was 0.25 seconds. But the speed of falling of the stone was even greater, he was hiding before he had time to squeak the stopwatch under my finger. Therefore, let us assume that the stone descended by 10 m precisely during these 0.25 seconds. Then the acceleration due to gravity is 2 x 10 / 0.252 \u003d 320 m / s2. This, you see, is slightly more than 1.6 m / s squared on the Moon and 9.8 m / s. squared on earth. Was it not the Sun?

I think this is the point. The lunar cabin "at the start" was lifted up by a winch, and the winch cable cannot be fixed so that it exactly passes through the center of gravity, and the winch itself is difficult to set strictly in the center of gravity, and if you raise the cabin quickly, pull it, then it will begin to swing ( hang out). I had to pull slowly, and then scroll the tape very quickly. As a result, the stones, which were simultaneously lifting upward with an expelling charge, acquired incredible speed.

Battle for the moon

But why did the Americans need it - to take a huge risk in order to deceive the entire population of the Earth? Why risk your career so much? Besides, having lost to the Soviet Union in the moon race, they lost everything - 30 billion from the federal budget, prestige, conceit, careers, jobs. No one in America would need this Moon for nothing, and no one could convince the American taxpayer to allocate money to an organization that is unable to defend America's prestige. So the motive is there. NASA knew how to send three people to the moon and FLY AROUND the moon, but had no technical experience with landing on the moon. How to undock from the "mother" ship (in lunar orbit) and lower in a smaller, autonomous "shuttle" (lunar module), launch a lunar rocket pushing the module with a force of 10,000 pounds, bring the module to the place of the planned lunar landing, land, put on spacesuits, go to the surface, tinker, act out a scene on the surface, ride on the moon, return to the module, take off, meet and dock with the mother ship, and finally return to Earth.

So they faked everything. Considering that Stanley Kubrick's 2001 Space Odyssey blockbuster was filmed at the same time, the necessary special effects technology already existed. And for a tidy sum of $ 20 billion, you can make a very long movie.

In a video released on VHS cassette titled "It's just a paper moon"American research journalist Jim Collier points out a few minor inconsistencies, listed below:

1. Two fully dressed Apollo astronauts simply physically could not fit in the module and, in addition, open the door, because the door opened INSIDE, not outward. They would not have been able to leave the unit wearing their spacesuits. He (DK) measured distances with a film.

2. The Apollo astronaut was physically unable to squeeze through the tunnel connecting the mother ship and the module. It's too narrow. Collier went to the NASA museum and measured it. The ends of the tunnel contained a ring of docking devices. The NASA "in flight" footage we talked about was allegedly taken while flying to the moon and shows astronauts flying freely through the tunnel, which in itself says a lot, apart from the fact that no devices for docking. Plus, the tunnel hatch opened in the wrong direction. So these shots were taken ON EARTH.

3. The footage taken during the flight to the Moon shows BLUE light pouring through the windows of the spacecraft. But since there is no atmosphere in open space capable of decomposing light into a spectrum, space is CHEREN. These shots were taken ON THE GROUND, most likely in the cargo hold of a supersonic aircraft entering a deep dive to create a zero gravity effect.

4. Photos taken by the astronauts who landed on the moon show the module standing on a flat, smooth, undisturbed surface. This would not have been possible if they had actually landed with jet engines that were 10,000 psi. The entire surface of the landing site would be seriously damaged. These pictures were taken ON EARTH.

5. None of the Apollo astronauts have stars. None. It can't be. Astronauts, if they were on the moon, would be surrounded by shining white light stars, which would not be hindered by the presence of the atmosphere to their fullest potential. These pictures were taken here ON EARTH. (Usually they object to this that due to the different brightness it is impossible to capture the surface of the Moon and the starry sky at the same time and with high quality. Opponents probably do not know that the Moon is a very dark object, its albedo is only about 10%. Now I am holding it in my hands the book “Course of General Astronomy” by Bakulin, Kononovich and Moroz, where on page 322 there is a photograph of the lunar landscape transmitted by the Luna-9 station. A piece of the sky is visible on it - and there are stars on it!)

6. Each astronaut and objects standing on the lunar surface cast many shadows, shadows of different lengths. It can't be. There is no other source of light on the moon besides the SUN, and it is quite obvious that the light must fall in one direction. So these pictures were taken ON EARTH.

7. Considering that the lunar gravity is 1/6 of the Earth's gravity, a "rooster's tail" of dust raised by the wheels of a "dune carriage" (lunar rover) would have to rise SIX TIMES higher than it would on Earth when riding with the same speed. But this is not the case. In addition, the dust is deposited in layers - IN PLANTS! Which is impossible where there is no atmosphere. The dust would have to fall in the same smooth arch as it rose.

8. Even when collapsed, the lunar rover could not physically fit on the lunar module. Collier went and measured everything. Several feet are missing. The images taken "on the moon" show the astronauts WALKING toward the module to remove the rover. Then the shooting is cut off. When the moon panorama reappears, the rover has already been disassembled. How uooooooooooooooo!

9. The lunar module crashed - CRASHED - during its only test on Earth. So why was his next test trying to land ON THE MOON? If you were the wife of an astronaut, would you allow him to participate in such a suicidal attempt?

10. None of the Apollo astronauts have ever written a book on the topic "How I Was On The Moon" or any other memoir on the same topic.

11. But that's not all - far, far, far from everything. You can also talk about the placement of pilot motors, smoke from burning rocket fuel, and so on and so forth ...

Two great discoveries

In 1982, 10 years after the complete completion of the lunar program, a beautifully illustrated book "Space Technology" was published by a team of American, Soviet and other authors. The chapter "Man on the Moon" was written by the American R. Lewis.

I'll give the section in this chapter, "Some Conclusions" in full, so that no one thinks that I have hidden any of the outstanding American achievements. But I draw your attention to the fact that in this chapter there should be only that knowledge about the Moon that is obtained due to the presence of a person on this satellite of the Earth, and not general la-la. Therefore, evaluate what exactly R. Lewis wrote in this section to make it longer than three lines.

So: "The Apollo 17 expedition was the last mission to the moon. During the six visits to the moon, 384.2 kg of rock and soil samples were collected. In the course of the research program, a number of discoveries were made, but the following two are the most important. First, it was found that the Moon was sterile, no life forms were found on it. After the flight of the Apollo 14 spacecraft, the previously introduced three-week quarantine for the crew was canceled. "

Amazing discovery! In the "Small Soviet Encyclopedia" for 1931 (I did not find anything earlier) it is stated: "The moon is devoid of atmosphere and water, and therefore life" ... For this "important" discovery it was necessary to send people to the moon ?! And most importantly, what exactly did the astronauts do to discover this discovery? Quarantine passed, did you work as experimental mice?

“Secondly, it was found that the Moon, like the Earth, went through a series of periods of internal heating. It has a surface layer - a crust, quite thick compared to the radius of the Moon, a mantle and a core, which, according to some researchers, consists of iron sulfide ".

And what exactly did the astronauts do for this conclusion? Indeed, in their soil samples (as in Soviet ones) sulfur is completely absent! How did the Americans determine that the core is composed of iron sulfide?

“Although the chemical composition of the Moon and the Earth is quite similar, they differ significantly in other respects, which confirms the point of view of scientists who deny the assumption that the Moon separated from the Earth during the formation of planets.

The conclusion that no life forms have ever existed on the Moon is confirmed by the complete absence of water here, at least on the lunar surface or near it "...

According to limited data of seismic exploration, the crust of the nearest part of the Moon has a thickness of 60-65 km. On the part of the Moon distant from us, the crust may be somewhat thicker - about 150 km. The mantle is located under the crust to a depth of about 1000 km, and even deeper is the core.

Thirty years later, the Americans began to send automatic stations to the moon in order to find out what their astronauts had allegedly already "discovered".

The results are reported, for example, in the article (Feldman W., Maurice S., Binder B., Barraclough B., Elphic R., Lawrence D. Fluxes of fast and epithermal neutrons from Lunar Prospector: evidence for water ice at the lunar poles // Science. 1998. V. 281. P. 1496 - 1500.) Read.

The American spacecraft Lunar Prospector worked in lunar orbit for eighteen months.

Throughout its mission, this apparatus weighing 295 kg and the size of a little more than a home washing machine has constantly puzzled scientists with amazing discoveries. For the first time in early 1998, Lunar Prospector stunned the scientific community with the discovery of a huge amount of ice in the shaded regions of the lunar poles!

When orbiting our natural satellite, the device experienced slight changes in its speed. Calculations based on these indicators revealed the presence of a core on the moon. Assuming that it, like on Earth, mainly consists of iron, experts calculated its size. In their opinion, the radius of the lunar core should be from 220 to 450 km (the radius of the moon is 1738 km).

Magnitometers "Lunar Prospector" recorded a weak magnetic field near our natural satellite. The size of the nucleus was specified using this field. Its radius was found to be 300-425 km. With this size, the mass of the core should be about 2% of the mass of the Moon. We emphasize that the core of the Earth with a radius of about 3400 km accounts for a whole third of the planet's mass.

so ... The valiant American astronauts "found out" that the moon's core has a radius of 1738-1000 \u003d 738 km. And the automatic station found out that it is equal to 300-425 km, two times less! The valiant astronauts "found out" that the core of the Moon consists of iron sulfide. And Lunar Prospector found out that there is little iron in the core. The valiant astronauts "found out" that there is no ice on the Moon. And Lunar Prospector found out that there are many!

So how do the results of the American landing on the moon differ from idle chatter?

I think I have already answered the question indicated at the beginning of the article - why the Americans do not demand that Russian TV show these films about their "most outstanding victory in the 20th century." We, the generation that received a normal education, have not yet died out, we have not yet been completely replaced by those who have chosen "Pepsi" and safe sex. How can we show such nonsense? And looking at this American propaganda fake about landing on the moon, we have to state: no guys, you weren't there!

So, this is the hero of our article - the Moon.

And these are the traces of Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmidt, people who have visited the moon.

Here is Schmidt plowing the lunar soil:

But Cernan is testing the rover:

Or maybe it's staged shooting?

Lunar conspiracy and the Americans weren't really on the Moon?

So, it's time to figure it out. If the Americans were on the moon, then they should have left their footprints there, right? Undoubtedly yes! There should still be a lunar module, a rover, backpacks on the surface, and most importantly, traces of people, which will remain intact for thousands of years. We just have to consider them. But how to do that? We can see Pluto, distant galaxies and even exoplanets, but why is it so difficult for us to see a lunar module 10 meters in size, it is roughly like a wagon. We need eyes to see the Americans on the Moon, but in fact they won't help us much either, because the resolution of the human eye is only one arc-minute.

What is one arc-minute and how does it help us see footprints on the moon?

Our firmament is a hemisphere, and in order to navigate in space, the distance between objects is measured in degrees, arc minutes and arc seconds. The entire space around us is 360 degrees. One degree is approximately equal to the little finger on an outstretched hand, that is, 360 little fingers can be counted around us. One degree is also divided into 60 parts, each of which is called one arc minute (1 '). They, in turn, are divisible by 60 arc seconds. We will not see anything less than 1/60 of the little finger on an outstretched hand, because, as you remember, the resolution of the human eye is only one arc minute (1 ').

The telescope is another matter, its resolution is much higher. The larger the diameter of the primary mirror, the higher the resolution. So, in order to see the same lunar module, we need a telescope with a resolution of 0.005 '' (five thousandths of an arc second). And to see the tracks - 0.0001 ''. This is 36 million times smaller than the little finger on an outstretched hand.

In the Chilean Andes, there is a Very Large Telescope with an 8 meter mirror. If we use the formula for calculating the resolution (120 / mirror diameter in mm), we get 0.015 ''. That is, he will not distinguish objects on the Moon less than 28 meters. So how do we know if the Americans were on the moon?

Obviously, we need to get closer!

Over the past couple of decades, satellites from the USA, China, India, Japan and Europe have flown near the moon. What could they see?

Here is a snapshot of the Apollo 15 site of the Chandrayan satellite. You can certainly try to consider something, but nothing will come of it.

But the Japanese Kaguya could do something else. Thanks to his stereo photography, it was possible to restore the lunar landscapes in 3D and compare them with those that astronauts filmed from the surface. And it all came together!

The only interplanetary station equipped with the largest telescope of all is the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which has a resolution of 0.6 '' like a conventional amateur telescope. From a height of 40 kilometers, he was able to take the best footage from the Apollo landing site.

This is the Apollo 11 landing site where Buzz Aldrin's famous moon footprint was filmed.

As you can see, the astronauts did not go far from the lunar module, because there was no lunar rover.

These are the tracks after Apollo 12. Here the astronauts roamed.

This is after Apollo 14.

This is Apollo 15. Then the astronauts first flew in with the rover, and therefore the tracks changed significantly. Immediately, it was fun to ride the rover.

And this is the last mission of Apollo 17, individual traces cannot be seen, but you can see the details of the lunar module, the traces of the rover and the paths trodden by astronauts:

So the Americans were on the moon!

We remind you that in our journal Science and Technology you will find many interesting original articles on the development of aviation, shipbuilding, armored vehicles, communications, astronautics, exact, natural and social sciences. On the site you can purchase an electronic version of the magazine for a symbolic 60 rubles / 15 UAH

In our online store you will also find posters, magnets, calendars with aircraft, ships, tanks.

Found a typo? Select the fragment and press Ctrl + Enter.

Sp-force-hide (display: none;). Sp-form (display: block; background: #ffffff; padding: 15px; width: 960px; max-width: 100%; border-radius: 5px; -moz-border -radius: 5px; -webkit-border-radius: 5px; border-color: #dddddd; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; font-family: Arial, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; background- repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center; background-size: auto;). sp-form input (display: inline-block; opacity: 1; visibility: visible;). sp-form .sp-form-fields -wrapper (margin: 0 auto; width: 930px;). sp-form .sp-form-control (background: #ffffff; border-color: #cccccc; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; font- size: 15px; padding-left: 8.75px; padding-right: 8.75px; border-radius: 4px; -moz-border-radius: 4px; -webkit-border-radius: 4px; height: 35px; width: 100% ;). sp-form .sp-field label (color: # 444444; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold;). sp-form .sp-button (border-radius: 4px ; -moz-border-radius: 4px; -webkit-border-radius: 4px; b ackground-color: # 0089bf; color: #ffffff; width: auto; font-weight: 700; font-style: normal; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;). sp-form .sp-button-container (text-align: left;)

This article casts doubt on the Apollo mission to the Moon.

Most of the official illustrations of Apollo's flight path to the moon show only the main elements of the mission. Such schemes are not geometrically accurate, and the scale is rough. Example from NASA report:

Obviously, a different approach is important for the correct representation of the Apollo flights to the Moon, namely, the exact determination of the position of the spacecraft from time to time. This allows us to consider the trajectory of Apollo when passing through the Earth's radiation belt, which is dangerous for humans, as well as to develop trajectory elements for a safe flight to the Moon.

In 2009, Robert A. Braeunig presented the orbital elements of the Apollo 11 translunnion trajectory with the calculation of the spacecraft position depending on time and orientation relative to the Earth. The work is featured on the Global Network - Apollo 11 "s Translunar Trajectory and how they avoided the radiation belts. This work is highly praised by NASA advocates, for them it is a gospel to worship, write" Bravo ", and is often referred to during discussions with opponents about radiation exposure and the impossibility of the Apollo mission.

Fig. 1. Trajectory of Apollo 11 (blue curve with red dots) through the electron radiation belt as calculated by Robert A. Braeunig.

The calculations have been verified and indicate the following errors by Robert A. Braeunig:

1) Robert used the values \u200b\u200bof the gravitational constant and the mass of the Earth from the 60s of the last century.

In these calculations, modern data were used. The gravitational constant is 6.67384E-11; the mass of the Earth is 5.9736E + 24. Calculations of the speed and distance from the Earth Apollo 11 began to differ slightly from the calculation of Robert, but they turned out to be more accurate than the data published in 2009 by NASA PAO (NASA's public relations service).

2) Robert A. Braeunig states that the rest of the Apollo trajectories are typical Apollo 11 trajectories.

Let's take a look at the points of Apollo's entry into the translunar orbit (abbr. - TLI) according to NASA documents. We see and have a different position relative to the geographic (geomagnetic) equator and have a different - ascending or descending trajectory relative to the equator. This is illustrated below.

Fig. 2. Projection of the Apollo waiting orbit onto the surface of the Earth: yellow dots indicate the exits to the flight path to the Moon TLI for Apollo 8, Apollo 10, Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 13, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16 and Apollo 17, red line the trajectory of the waiting orbit is indicated, red arrows indicate the direction of motion.

Fig. 2 shows that the exit to the translunar trajectory is different on a flat map of the Earth:

• for Apollo 14 below the geographic equator, approaching it at an angle of about 20 degrees,
• for Apollo 11 above the geographic equator with a distance from it at an angle of about 15 degrees,
• for Apollo 15 above the geographic equator at an angle of about zero degrees,
• for Apollo 17 above the geographic equator, approaching it at an angle of about -30 degrees.

This means that on the translunar trajectory, some Apollo will pass above the geographic equator, others below. Obviously, this position is true for the geomagnetic equator.

Calculations were made for all Apollo according to Robert's steps. Indeed, Apollo 11 passes above the proton radiation belt and flies through the electronic ERB. But Apollo 14 and Apollo 17 pass through the proton core of the radiation belt.

Below is an illustration of the trajectory for Apollo 11, Apollo 14, Apollo 15 and Apollo 17 relative to the geomagnetic equator.

Fig. 3. Trajectories of motion of Apollo 11, Apollo 14, Apollo 15 and Apollo 17 relative to the geomagnetic equator, the inner proton radiation belt is also indicated. The stars indicate the official data for Apollo 14.

Fig. 3 shows that Apollo 14 and Apollo 17 (also the Apollo 10 and Apollo 16 missions, due to the close TLI parameters to A-14), pass through the radiation proton belt, which is dangerous for humans, on the translunar trajectory.
Apollo 8, Apollo 12, Apollo 15, and Apollo 17 pass through the core of the electronic radiation belt.
Apollo 11 also passes through the Earth's electronic radiation belt, but to a lesser extent than Apollo 8, Apollo 12, and Apollo 15.
Apollo 13 is least in the Earth's radiation belt.

Robert A. Braeunig could calculate the trajectories for other Apollo, as it should be for a man with a scientific school. However, in his article he limited himself to Apollo 11 and called the rest of the Apollo trajectories typical! Videos were posted on the popular YouTube:

For history, this means deception and deliberate deception of users of the Global Network.

In addition, it was possible to open the NASA archives and search for reports on the trajectory of the Apollo. Even if there are only a few coordinates.

Fig. 6. Return of Apollo (first point, 180 km above the Earth) and splashdown on Earth (second point). For Apollo 12 and Apollo 15, the first point is at an altitude of 3.6 thousand km. The red curve marks the geomagnetic equator.

From Fig. 6, it is important to note that Apollo 12 and Apollo 15 will pass through the inner Van Alen radiation belt on their return to Earth.

7) Robert does not discuss the peculiarities and state of the Sun before the flight and during the flight of the Apollo.

During solar-proton events, coronal ejections of protons and electrons, solar flares, magnetic storms, and seasonal variation, the fluences of ERB particles increase by several orders of magnitude and can persist for more than six months.

Fig. 10 shows the radial profiles of the radiation belts for protons with Ep \u003d 20-80 MeV and electrons with Ee\u003e 15 MeV, plotted from the data of measurements on the CRRES satellite before a sudden pulse of the geomagnetic field on March 24, 1991 (day 80), six days after the formation new belt (day 86) and after 177 days (day 257).

It can be seen that the proton fluxes more than doubled, and the fluxes of electrons with Ee\u003e 15 MeV exceeded the quiet level by more than two orders of magnitude. Subsequently, they were registered until mid-1993.

For the spacecraft crew during a flight to the Moon, this means an increase in the passage of the proton ERP by 3-4 times and an increase in the radiation dose from electrons by 10-100 times.

The first flyby of the Moon with a man on board, the Apollo 8 mission, was preceded by a powerful magnetic storm for two months, October 30-31, 1968. Apollo 8 passes the extended radiation belt of the Earth. This is tantamount to a multiple increase in the radiation dose, especially in comparison with the doses of spacecraft crews in the reference orbit of the Earth. NASA announced a dose of 0.026 rad / day for Apollo 8, which is five times less than the dose at the Skylab orbital station 1973-1974, corresponding to the years of decline in solar activity.

On January 27, 1971, a few days before the start of Apollo 14, a moderate magnetic storm began, which turned into a small storm on January 31, which was caused by a solar flare towards the Earth on January 24, 1971. ... When flying to the moon, an increase in radiation levels could be expected 10 to 100 times the average. Apollo 14 passes through the proton radiation belt. The doses will be huge! NASA announced a dose of 0.127 rad / day for Apollo 14, which is less than the dose at the Skylab 4 orbital station (1973-1974).

Apollo 15 spent several days in the tail of the Earth's magnetosphere during its mission to the Moon. There was no magnetic shield against electrons. Electron fluxes are several hundred joules per square meter per day. Colliding with the spacecraft skin, they generate hard X-ray radiation. Due to the electron X-ray component, the radiation doses will amount to tens of rad (taking into account high-energy electrons, the data of which are still lacking, the doses are increased). On returning to Earth, Apollo 15 passes through the inner radiation belt. The total dose of radiation is enormous. NASA claims 0.024 rad / day.

Apollo 17 (the last landing on the moon) was preceded by three powerful magnetic storms before the launch: 1) June 17-19, 2) August 4-8 after a powerful solar-proton event, 3) from October 31 to November 1, 1972. Apollo trajectory 17 passes through the proton radiation belt. It is deadly for humans! NASA declares a radiation dose of 0.044 rad / day, which is three times less than the dose at the Skylab 4 orbital station (1973-1974).

8) To estimate the radiation dose, Robert A. Braeunig neglects the dangerous for humans the proton contribution of the Van Alen radiation belt and uses incomplete data from the electronic radiation belt.

Robert uses incomplete VARB data to estimate radiation dose, Fig. nine.

Fig. 11. Doses of radiation in the Van Alen belt and the trajectory of Apollo 11 according to Robert A. Braeunig.

From Fig. 11 that part of the Apollo 11 trajectory passes above the missing EPR data, the radiation dose error is almost an order of magnitude. Such a picture cannot be used to estimate the radiation dose!

In addition, this illustration only applies to the electronic radiation belt. This can be seen from Fig. 12.

Fig. 12. Doses of radiation in the Van Alen belt from the electronic component (1990-1991).

It should be noted that Figures 11 and 12 are analogous to the 1 MeV electron fluence in NASA's Van Allen Belts.

Fig. 13. Profile of electrons relative to the geomagnetic equator according to NASA.

Then, on the basis of this illustration, it is possible to reconstruct the picture of the radiation dose for the electronic RPZ.

Fig. 14. Doses of radiation in the electronic radiation belt of the Earth and the trajectory of Apollo 11, Apollo 14, Apollo 15 and Apollo 17.

Fig. 14 similar ill. 12, the difference in the complete data of the electronic RPZ.

According to Fig. 14, Apollo 11 passes a radiation level of 7.00E-3 rad / s in 50 minutes. The total dose will be D \u003d 7.00E-3 * 50 * 60 \u003d 21.0 rad. This is almost 1.8 times more than stated in Robert's article. In this case, we only consider the dose on the translune trajectory and do not take into account the reverse passage of the electronic ERP.

Taking into account the contribution of the proton radiation belt is neglected in the article by Robert A. Braeunig. No radiation hazard data! But the contribution of the proton ERP to the absorbed dose of radiation can be an order of magnitude greater and dangerous for humans.

For what reason does the author, who calculates the translunar trajectory of Apollo 11 and is an authority, not notice the main thing? For one reason - for the ignorant reader, because the layman trusts an authoritative source and it does not matter that the author is cheating in favor of a scam.

9) Robert incorrectly discusses the radiation protection of Apollo.

PROTON COMPONENT OF THE EARTH'S RADIATION BELT

According to radiation physics, 100-MeV protons pierce through the Apollo command module. To reduce the flow by half, not completely, but only 1/2, you need a thickness of 3.63 cm of aluminum. For clarity, 3.63 cm is the height of the entire selected paragraph! In astronautics there is a scientific term - the thickness of the spacecraft protection. If we assume that the entire body is aluminum, then the Apollo CM thickness was 2.78 cm (excluding the last two lines). This means that more than half of the protons penetrate the spacecraft and cause radiation exposure to humans. In fact, the thickness of the Al shell of the command module is less, mainly 80% rubber and heat insulator. The thickness of the protection of these materials is ~ 7.5 g / cm 2, the same as that of Al. The difference lies in the fact that the proton path length increases many times ...

We consider that the case is aluminum with a thickness of 2.78 cm.

Fig. 15. A graph of the dependences of the absorbed dose on the path length of a proton with an energy of 100 MeV, taking into account the Bragg peak for protons through an external shield of 7.5 g / cm2 and biological tissue. The dose is given per particle.

In addition to protons, electron beams collide with the SC metal and give off in the form of highly penetrating hard X-rays.

To completely extinguish proton and X-ray radiation, lead screens with a thickness of 2 centimeters are needed. Apollo did not have such screens. The only object on board the spacecraft that almost completely absorbs 100-MeV protons and X-rays is a man.

Instead of this discussion, Robert A. Braeunig gives an illustration for the ignorant layman - 1 MeV fluence of protons (Fig. 16).

Fig. 16. Fluence of 1 MeV proton in the Van Allen belt according to NASA. Click to enlarge.

From the point of view of radiation physics, 1 MeV and 10 MeV protons for a spacecraft are the same as scratching an elephant with a match. This is shown in table. 1.

Table 1.

Runs of protons in aluminum.
Energy: protons, MeV					20	40	100	1000
Mileage, cm					2.7*10 -1	7.0*10 -1	3.6	148
Mileage, mg / cm 2	3.45	21	50	170	560	1.9*10 3	9.8*10 3	400*10 3

From the table we see that the range of 1 MeV protons in Al is 0.013 mm. 13 microns, that's four times thinner than a human hair! For a person without clothes, such flows have no danger.

The main contribution to the radiation exposure of the ERB is made by protons with an energy of 40-400 MeV. Accordingly, it is correct to provide data on these profiles.

Fig. 17. Time-averaged profiles of the flux density of protons and electrons in the plane of the geomagnetic equator according to the AP2005 model (the numbers on the curves correspond to the lower limit of the particle energy in MeV).

On the fingers so. For protons with an energy of 100 MeV, the flux intensity is 5 · 10 4 cm -2 s -1. This corresponds to a radiation energy flux of 0.0064 J / m 2 s 1.

The absorbed dose (D) is the main dosimetric quantity, equal to the ratio of the transferred energy E by ionizing radiation to a substance with mass m:

D \u003d E / m, unit Gray \u003d J / kg,

through ionization losses of radiation, the absorbed dose per unit time is equal to:

D \u003d n / p dE / dx \u003d n E / L, unit Gray \u003d J / (kg s),

where n is the radiation flux density (particles / m2 s 1); p is the density of the substance; dE / dx - ionization losses; L is the path length of a particle with energy E in biological tissue (kg / m 2).

For a person, we obtain the absorbed dose rate is:

D \u003d (1/2) (6) (5 10 4 cm -2 s -1) (45 MeV / (1.843 g / cm 2)), Gy / s

Multiplier 1/2 - decrease in intensity by half after passing the protection of the Apollo command module;
factor 6 - degrees of freedom of protons in RPZ - movement up, down, left, forward, backward and rotation around the axes;
factor 1.843 g / cm 2 - the range of 45 MeV protons in biological tissue after energy loss in the body of the command module.

We convert all units to SI, we get

D \u003d 0.00059 Gray / sec or 0.059 rad / sec, (here 1 Gray \u003d 100 rad).

The same calculation is carried out for protons with energies of 40, 60, 80, 200 and 400 MeV. The rest of the proton fluxes make a small contribution. And add up. The absorbed dose of radiation will increase several times and is equal to 0.31 rad / sec.

For comparison: for 1 second of stay in the proton RPZ, the Apollo crew receives a radiation dose of 0.31 rad. For 10 seconds - 3.1 glad, for 100 seconds - 31 glad ... NASA declared for the Apollo crews for the entire flight and return to Earth an average radiation dose of 0.46 glad.

To assess the risk of radiation to human health, an equivalent radiation dose H is introduced, which is equal to the product of the absorbed dose D r created by irradiation - r by the weight factor w r (called the radiation quality factor).

The unit for equivalent dose is Joule per kilogram. It has the special name Sievert (Sv) and rem (1 Sv \u003d 100 rem).

For electrons and X-ray radiation, the quality factor is equal to unity, for protons with an energy of 10-400 MeV, 2-14 is taken (determined on thin films of biological tissue). This coefficient is due to the fact that the proton transfers a different part of the energy to the electrons of the substance, the lower the proton energy, the higher the energy transfer and the higher the quality factor. We take the average w \u003d 5, since a person completely absorbs radiation and the main energy transfer occurs at the Bragg peak, with the exception of the high-energy part of the protons.

As a result, we get the power of the equivalent radiation dose for protons with an energy of 40-400 MeV in the RPZ

H \u003d 1.55 rem / sec.

A more accurate calculation of the power of the equivalent dose of radiation gives a lower value:

Н \u003d 0.2∑w r n r E r exp (-L z / L zr - L p / L pr), Sv / s,

Where w r is the radiation quality factor; n r is the radiation flux density (particles / m 2 s 1); E r - energy of radiation particles (J); L z - protection thickness (g / cm 2); L zr is the path length of a particle with energy E r in the protective material z (g / cm 2); L p - depth of human internal organs (g / cm 2); L pr is the path length of a particle with energy E r in biological tissue (g / cm 2). This formula gives the average value of the radiation dose with an error of 25% (a more accurate Monte Carlo calculation by many orders of magnitude energy-intellectually costly will give an error of ¹10%, which is associated with the distribution of proton paths according to Gaussian).
The factor 0.2 in front of the summation sign has the dimension m2 / kg and is the reciprocal of the average effective thickness of the biological protection of a person in the RPZ. Roughly, this factor is equal to the surface area of \u200b\u200ba biological object divided by a sixth of the mass.
The summation sign means that the equivalent dose of radiation is the sum of radiation effects for all types of radiation to which a person is exposed.
The flux density n r and the particle energy E r are taken from the radiation data.
The path lengths of particles with energy E r in the protective material L zr (g / cm 2) are taken from GOST RD 50-25645.206-84.

• for protons with an energy of 40 MeV - 0.011 rem / sec;
• for protons with an energy of 60 MeV - 0.097 rem / sec;
• for protons with an energy of 80 MeV - 0.21 rem / sec;
• for protons with an energy of 100 MeV - 0.26 rem / sec;
• for protons with an energy of 200 MeV - 0.37 rem / sec;
• for protons with an energy of 400 MeV - 0.18 rem / sec.

The radiation doses are added up. TOTAL: H \u003d 1.12 rem / sec.

By comparison, 1.12 rem / sec is 56 chest x-rays or five head CT scans that are compressed in one second; corresponds to a zone of very dangerous contamination in a nuclear explosion and an order of magnitude more than the natural background on the Earth's surface in one year.

Apollo 10 on a translunnion trajectory passes through the internal RPZ in 60 seconds. The radiation dose is equal to H \u003d 1.12 * 60 \u003d 67.2 rem.
Apollo 12, when returning to Earth, passes through the internal RPZ in 340 seconds. H \u003d 1.12 * 340 \u003d 380.8 rem.
Apollo 14 on a translunnary trajectory passes through the internal RPZ in 7 minutes. H \u003d 1.12 7 60 \u003d 470.4 rem.
Apollo 15, when returning to Earth, passes through the internal RPZ in 320 seconds. H \u003d 1.12 × 320 \u003d 358.4 rem.
Apollo 16 on a translunnion trajectory passes through the internal RPZ in 60 seconds. H \u003d 1.12 60 \u003d 67.2 rem.
Apollo 17 travels through the internal RPZ in 9 minutes. H \u003d 1.12 9 60 \u003d 641.1 rem.

The radiation dose data was obtained from the averaged value of the proton profiles in the ERP. For Apollo 14, a moderate magnetic storm preceded a few days, for Apollo 17, three months before launch, preceded by three magnetic storms. Accordingly, the radiation doses are increased, for Apollo 14 by 3-4 times, for Apollo 17 by 1.5-2 times.

ELECTRONIC COMPONENT OF THE EARTH RADIATION BELT

Tab. 2. Characteristics of the electronic component of the ERB, the effective range of electrons in Al, the time of flight of the ERB by Apollo to the Moon and when returning to the Earth, the ratio of specific radiation and ionization energy losses, X-ray absorption coefficients for Al and water, the equivalent and absorbed radiation dose *.

Data on electron fluxes in the ERF and Apollo flight times						Radiation dose for Apollo from the electronic component of the RPZ
	samples in Al, cm	flow, / cm 2 sec 1	J / m 2 sec	flight time, * 10 3 sec	Ener, J / m 2	share of X-rays,%	coefficient weakened in Al, cm -1	odds weakened in org, cm -1	Apollo command module	Apollo Lunar Module
									Total: 0.194 Sv	Total: 0.345 Sv
									Total: 19.38 glad	Total: 34.55 glad

* Approx. - integral calculation will increase the final radiation dose by 50-75%.
** Approx. - in the calculation, as for protons, six degrees of freedom of radiation are taken.

For Apollo, which undergoes a double-electronic RPZ, the average radiation dose will be 20-35 rem.

Apollo 13 and Apollo 16 perform their missions in spring and autumn, when the electron fluences in the RPZ are increased by 2-3 times from average (5-6 times from winter). Thus, for Apollo 13, the radiation dose will be ~ 55 rem. For Apollo 16 it will be ~ 40 rem.

Fig. 18. Time variation of electron fluxes with an energy of 0.8-1.2 MeV (fluences) integrated over the passage of the GLONASS satellite through the radiation belt for the period from June 1994 to July 1996. The indices of geomagnetic activity are also given: daily Kp-index and Dst-variation. Bold lines - smoothed values \u200b\u200bof fluences and Kp-index.

Apollo 8, Apollo 14, and Apollo 17 were preceded by magnetic storms before their missions. The electronic component of the RPZ will expand 5-20 times. For these missions, the radiation dose from ERP electrons will increase by 4, 10, and 7 times, respectively.

Fig. 19. Changes in the intensity profiles of electrons with an energy of 290-690 keV before and after a magnetic storm for different times on the shells of the Earth's radiation belt from 1.5 to 2.5. The numbers next to the curves indicate the time in days after the injection of electrons.

And only for Apollo 11 can we note a decrease in the radiation dose due to the summer mission by 2-3 times or 10 rem.

TOTAL EQUIVALENT RADIATION DOSES WHEN FLYING TO THE MOON ACCORDING TO NASA

The radiation doses of the proton and electronic ERP are added. Table 3 shows the total radiation doses for Apollo, taking into account the features of the RPZ.

Tab. 3. The Apollo mission, RPZ features and equivalent radiation doses *.

Apollo mission Features of the Earth's radiation belt for a mission Equivalent radiation doses, rem Apollo 8 Magnetic storm in two months; double passage of the external RPZ; winter mission ~ 60 Apollo 10 Passage on the TLI trajectory of the proton ERP in 60 sec; double passage of the external RPZ; late spring ~97 Apollo 11 Double passage of the external RPZ; summer mission ~ 10 Apollo 12 Passage of the proton RPZ when returning to Earth in 340 sec; double passage of the external RPZ; winter mission ~ 390 Apollo 13 Double passage of the external RPZ; spring mission ~ 55 Apollo 14 In a few days, a solar flare in the direction of the Earth; two magnetic storms; passage on the TLI trajectory of the proton ERP in 7 min; double passage of the external RPZ; winter mission ~ 1510-1980 Apollo 15 Passage of the proton RPZ on return to Earth in 320 sec; double passage of the external RPZ; stay in the tail of the Earth's magnetosphere for several days; summer mission ~ 408 Apollo 16 Passage on the TLI trajectory of the proton ERP in 60 sec; double passage of the external RPZ; autumn mission ~ 107 Apollo 17 Three powerful magnetic storms preceded the launch: 1) June 17-19, 2) August 4-8 after a powerful solar-proton event, 3) October 31 to November 1, 1972. Passage on the TLI trajectory of the proton ERP in 9 min; double passage of the external RPZ; winter mission ~ 1040-1350

* Approx. - the dose of radiation from the solar wind (0.2-0.9 rem / day), X-ray radiation (in the Apollo spacesuit 1.1-1.5 rem / day) and GCR (0.1-0.2 rem / day) are neglected ...

Table 4 lists the values \u200b\u200bof the equivalent dose of radiation leading to the occurrence of certain radiation effects.

Table 4. Table of radiation risks for a single exposure:

Dose, rem *	Likely effects
0,01-0,1	Low hazard to humans according to the IAEA. 0.02 rem corresponds to a single chest radiograph of a person.
0,1-1	Normal situation for a person according to the IAEA.
1-10	Great danger to humans according to the IAEA. Influence at nervous system and psyche. 5% increased risk of blood leukemia.
10-30	A very serious danger to humans according to the IAEA. Moderate changes in the blood. Mental retardation in the descendants of the parents.
30-100	Radiation diseases from 5-10% of exposed people. Vomiting, temporary suppression of hematopoiesis and oligospermia, changes in the thyroid gland. Mortality under 17 years of age in the descendants of parents.
100-150	Radiation diseases in ~ 25% of exposed people. 10-fold increase in risk of leukemia and cancer mortality.
150-200	Radiation diseases in ~ 50% of exposed people. Lung cancer.
200-350	Radiation diseases in almost all people, ~ 20% fatal. 100% skin burn. Survivors have cataracts and persistent testicular sterility.
	50% of deaths. The survivors have total baldness and X-ray pneumonia.
	~ 100% deaths.

Thus, the passage of the Earth's radiation belt according to the scheme and official NASA reports, taking into account magnetic storms and seasonal variations in the RPZ, leads to radiation diseases with a fatal outcome for the crews of Apollo 14 and Apollo 17. For the astronauts Apollo 12 and Apollo 15, a skin burn of 100% is noted in further development of cataracts and sterility of the testes. For other Apollo missions, the radiation effect leads to cancer. In general, the radiation doses are 56-2000 times higher than those declared in the official NASA report!

Fig. 20. The result of exposure to radiation. Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This is contrary to NASA, in particular, the results of the Apollo 14 flight were:

1. demonstrated excellent physical fitness and high qualifications of astronauts, in particular - the physical endurance of Shepard, who at the time of the flight was 47 years old;
2. no painful phenomena were observed in the astronauts;
3. Shepard put on half a kilogram in weight (the first time in the history of American manned astronautics);
4. during the flight, the astronauts never took medication ...

CONCLUSION

NASA with someone else's hands Robert A. Braeunig creates its positive image - they say the Apollo circled the radiation belt of the Earth, like Apollo 11, using a substitution or Jelsomino in the land of liars. A close examination of the work of Robert A. Braeunig found errors that cannot be called anything but deliberate distortion of facts. Even for Apollo 11, the radiation dose is 56 times higher than officially announced.

Table 5 shows the total and daily radiation doses from manned space flights and data from orbital stations.

Table 5. Total and daily radiation doses of manned flights
on spaceships and orbital stations.

	duration	orbital elements	sum. radiation dose, glad [source]	the average per day, rad / day
Apollo 7	10 d 20 h 09m 03 s	orbital flight, orbital altitude 231-297 km
Apollo 8	6 d 03 h 00 m
Apollo 9	10 d 01 h 00 m 54 s	orbital flight, orbital altitude 189-192 km, on the third day - 229-239 km
Apollo 10	8 d 00 h 03 m 23 s	flight to the moon and return to Earth according to NASA
Apollo 11	8 d 03 h 18 m 00 s	flight to the moon and return to Earth according to NASA
Apollo 12	10 d 04 h 25 m 24 s	flight to the moon and return to Earth according to NASA
Apollo 13	5 d 22 h 54 m 41 s	flight to the moon and return to Earth according to NASA
Apollo 14	9 d 00 h 05 m 04 s	flight to the moon and return to Earth according to NASA
Apollo 15	12 d 07 h 11 m 53 s	flight to the moon and return to Earth according to NASA
Apollo 16	11 d 01 h 51 m 05 s	flight to the moon and return to Earth according to NASA
Apollo 17	12 d 13 h 51 m 59 s	flight to the moon and return to Earth according to NASA
Skylab 2	28 d 00 h 49 m 49 s	orbital flight, orbital altitude 428-438 km
Skylab 3	59 d 11 h 09 m 01 s	orbital flight, orbital altitude 423- 441 km
Skylab 4	84 d 01 h 15 m 30 s	orbital flight, orbital altitude 422-437 km	10,88-12,83
Shuttle Mission 41-C	6 d 23 h 40 m 07 s	orbital flight, perigee: 222 km apogee: 468 km
		orbital flight, orbital altitude 385-393 km
		orbital flight, orbital altitude 337-351 km		0,010-0,020

It can be noted that the Apollo radiation doses of 0.022-0.114 rad / day received by astronauts allegedly during a flight to the moon do not differ from radiation doses of 0.010-0.153 rad / day during orbital flights. The influence of the Earth's radiation belt (its seasonal nature, magnetic storms and solar activity features) is equal to zero. While in a real flight to the moon according to the NASA scheme, radiation doses cause 50-500 times more effect than in Earth's orbit.

It can also be noted that the lowest radiation effect of 0.010-0.020 rad / day is observed for the ISS orbital station, which has an effective protection twice as high as Apollo - 15 g / cm 2 and is in a low reference orbit of the Earth. The highest radiation doses of 0.099-0.153 rad / day were noted for the Skylab OS, which has the same protection as the Apollo - 7.5 g / cm 2, and flew in a high reference orbit of 480 km near the Van Allen radiation belt.

Thus, the Apollo did not fly to the Moon, they circled in a low reference orbit, being protected by the Earth's magnetosphere, simulating a flight to the Moon, and received doses of radiation from a conventional orbital flight.

NASA's mistake in the late 60s of the last century is a new modern understanding of the Earth's radiation belt, which

1. increases its radiation hazard to humans by two orders of magnitude,
2. introduces seasonal dependence and
3. introduces a high dependence on magnetic storms and solar activity.

The work is useful for determining safe conditions and the trajectory of a person's flight to the Moon.