On July 21, 1969, American astronaut Neil Amstrong set foot on the moon. However, to this day one can hear the opinion that the American landing on the moon is a great hoax.

Lunar conspiracy theory

In 1974, the book by American Bill Keyzing "We Never Fled to the Moon" was published. It was the beginning of the spread of the "lunar conspiracy" theory. Keyzing had reason to raise this topic, as he worked for Rocketdyne, which built rocket engines for the Apollo program.

As arguments confirming the staging of flights to the Moon, the author draws attention to the incidents of "lunar photographs" - uneven shadows, the absence of stars, the small size of the Earth. Keysing also refers to the lack of technological equipment at NASA at the time of the implementation of the lunar program.

The number of supporters of the "lunar conspiracy" grew rapidly, as did the number of revelations of a manned flight to the moon. So David Percy - a member of the British Royal Photographic Society - has already made a more detailed analysis of the photographs provided by NASA. He argued that in the absence of an atmosphere, the shadows on the moon should be absolutely black, and the multidirectionality of these shadows gave him reason to assume the presence of several sources of illumination.

Skeptics noted other strange details - the waving of the American flag in an airless space, the absence of deep craters that should have formed during the landing of the lunar module. Engineer Rene Ralph brought up an even more compelling argument for discussion - to prevent astronauts from being exposed to radiation, the spacesuits had to be covered with at least 80 cm of lead!
In 2003, the widow of American director Stanley Kubrick, Christian, added fuel to the fire, claiming that the scenes of the American landing on the moon were filmed by her husband in Hollywood pavilions.

On the "lunar conspiracy" in Russia

Oddly enough, but in the USSR no one seriously questioned the Apollo flights to the moon. In particular, in the Soviet press after the first landing of the Americans on the moon, materials appeared confirming this fact. Many Russian cosmonauts also spoke about the success of the American lunar program. Among them are Alexei Leonov and Georgy Grechko.

Alexey Leonov said the following: “Only absolutely ignorant people can seriously believe that the Americans were not on the moon. And, unfortunately, this whole ridiculous epic about the allegedly fabricated Hollywood footage began with the Americans themselves. "

True, the Soviet cosmonaut did not deny the fact that some scenes of the Americans' stay on the Moon were filmed on Earth in order to give the video report a certain sequence: “It was impossible, for example, to film the real opening by Neil Armstrong of the hatch of the descent spacecraft on the Moon - there is simply no one from the surface was removed! "

The confidence of domestic experts in the success of the lunar mission is primarily due to the fact that the process of Apollo flights to the Moon was recorded by Soviet equipment. These are signals from the ships, and negotiations with the crew, and a television picture about the exit of astronauts to the lunar surface.

In case the signals were coming from the Earth, it would be immediately exposed.
Pilot-cosmonaut and designer Konstantin Feoktistov in his book “The trajectory of life. Between yesterday and tomorrow "writes that in order to reliably simulate the flight, it would be necessary" to land a television repeater on the surface of the Moon in advance and check its operation (with transmission to Earth). 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's radio communication with the Earth on the flight path to the Moon. " To arrange such a hoax, according to Feoktistov, is no less difficult than a real expedition.

Russian President Vladimir Putin also spoke about the "lunar conspiracy", calling in one of his interviews "complete nonsense" the version that the United States had falsified the landing on the moon.
Nevertheless, in modern Russia, exposing articles, books, films about the impossibility of technically carrying out such a flight continue to be published, they are also scrupulously analyzed and criticized by the photo and video materials of the "lunar expedition".

Counter-arguments

NASA admits that they are bombarded with so many letters with one or another argument proving flight falsification that they are not able to parry all attacks. However, some of the objections can be discarded knowing the elementary laws of physics.

It is known that the location of shadows depends on the shape of the object casting them and on the surface relief - this explains the unevenness of shadows in lunar photographs. The shadows converging at the far point are nothing more than a manifestation of the law of perspective. The idea of \u200b\u200bseveral sources of illumination (spotlights) is untenable in itself, since in this case each of the illuminated objects would cast at least two shadows.

The visibility of the banner waving in the wind is explained by the fact that the flag was installed on a flexible aluminum base, which was in motion, while the upper crossbar was not fully extended, which created the effect of crumpled cloth. On Earth, air resistance quickly dampens oscillatory movements, but in an airless environment, these movements are much longer.

According to NASA engineer Jim Oberg, the most convincing proof that the flag was planted on the moon is the following fact: when astronauts passed next to the flag, it remained absolutely motionless, which would not be in the conditions of the earth's atmosphere.

Astronomer Patrick Moore knew before the flight that the stars would not be visible on the Moon during the daytime. He explains that the human eye, like a camera lens, simply cannot adapt simultaneously to the illuminated surface of the moon and the dim sky.
It is more difficult to explain why the lander did not leave behind craters on the lunar surface or, at least, did not disperse the dust, although NASA experts motivate this by the fact that during landing, the device significantly slowed down and landed along a sliding trajectory.
Probably the most compelling argument of the conspiracy theorists is that the ship's crew simply would not have been able to overcome the Van Allen radiation belt surrounding the Earth and would have been burned alive. However, Van Allen himself was not inclined to exaggerate his theory, explaining that the passage of the belt at high speed does not threaten astronauts.
However, it remains a mystery how astronauts escaped the powerful radiation on the lunar surface in light enough spacesuits.

Peering into the moon

In heated debates, it was a little forgotten that the astronauts, after each successful descent, installed laser rangefinders on the moon. At the Texas MacDonald Observatory, for several decades directing a laser beam to the corner reflector of lunar installations, specialists received a response signal in the form of flashes, which was recorded by highly sensitive equipment.
For the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 flight, the LRO automatic interplanetary station took a whole series of images at the lunar module landing sites, presumably fixing the remains of the equipment of the American crews. Later, higher-resolution photographs were taken on which you can see the tracks from the rover and even, according to NASA, the chains of tracks of the astronauts themselves.
However, pictures taken by uninterested parties inspire more confidence. Thus, the Japanese space agency JAXA reported that the Kaguya spacecraft had detected possible traces of Apollo 15's presence. And an employee of the Indian Space Research Organization Prakash Chauhan said that the Chandrayan-1 apparatus received an image of a fragment of the lander.
However, only a new manned flight to the Moon can finally dot the "and".

MOSCOW, July 20 - RIA Novosti. The renowned cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, who personally prepared to participate in the Soviet lunar exploration program, denied long-standing rumors that American astronauts were not on the moon, and that the footage broadcast on television around the world was allegedly edited in Hollywood.

He told about this in an interview with RIA Novosti on the eve of the 40th anniversary of the first in the history of mankind landing of US astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin on the surface of an Earth satellite.

So were the Americans on the moon or were they not?

“Only absolutely ignorant people can seriously believe that the Americans have not been on the moon. And, unfortunately, this whole ridiculous epic about frames allegedly fabricated in Hollywood began with the Americans themselves. By the way, the first person who began to spread these rumors, he was imprisoned for libel, "Alexei Leonov noted in this regard.

Where did the rumors come from?

"It all began when, at the celebration of the 80th birthday of the famous American film director Stanley Kubrick, who created his brilliant film" The Odyssey of 2001 "based on the book of science fiction writer Arthur Clarke, the journalists who met with Kubrick's wife asked to talk about her husband's work on the film in And she honestly said that there are only two real lunar modules on Earth - one is in a museum where no filming has ever been conducted, and it is even forbidden to walk with a camera, and the other is in Hollywood, where, to develop the logic of what is happening on the screen and additional filming of the American landing on the moon was carried out, "the Soviet cosmonaut specified.

Why was studio filming used?

Aleksey Leonov explained that in order for the viewer to see the development of what is happening from beginning to end on the movie screen, elements of additional filming are used in any cinema.

"It was impossible, for example, to film the real opening by Neil Armstrong of the hatch of the descent ship on the Moon - there was simply no one to remove it from the surface! For the same reason, it was impossible to film the descent of Armstrong to the Moon along the ladder from the ship. These are the moments that were really filmed. Kubrick in Hollywood studios to develop the logic of what was happening, and laid the foundation for numerous gossip that the entire landing was allegedly simulated on the set, "explained Alexey Leonov.

Where truth begins and editing ends

"The real filming began when Armstrong, who first set foot on the moon, got used to it a little, installed a highly directional antenna through which the transmission to Earth was carried out. His partner Buzz Aldrin then also came out of the ship to the surface and began to shoot Armstrong, who in turn filmed its movement on the lunar surface ", - the astronaut specified.

Why did the American flag fly in the airless space of the moon?

“The argument is that the American flag was waving on the moon, but it shouldn't. The flag really should not be fluttering - the fabric was used with a rather rigid reinforced mesh, the cloth was twisted into a tube and tucked into a cover. The astronauts took a nest with them, which they first inserted into the lunar soil, and then stuck the flag pole into it, and only then took off the cover. And when the cover was removed, the flag cloth began to unfold in conditions of low gravity, and the residual deformation of the springy reinforced mesh created the impression that the flag was flapping like in the wind. " , - explained the "phenomenon" Alexey Leonov.

"To argue that the entire film was filmed on Earth is simply ridiculous and ridiculous. The United States had all the necessary systems that tracked the launch of the launch vehicle itself, acceleration, correction of the flight orbit, orbiting the moon by the descent capsule and its landing." concluded by the famous Soviet cosmonaut.

Where did the "moon race" lead two space superpowers

"In my opinion, this is the best competition in space that mankind has ever carried out. The" moon race "between the USSR and the USA is the achievement of the highest peaks of science and technology," Alexei Leonov believes.

According to him, after the flight of Yuri Gagarin, US President Kennedy, speaking in Congress, said that the Americans were simply too late to think about the triumph that could be achieved by launching a man into space, and therefore the Russians triumphantly became the first. Kennedy's message was clearly stated: within ten years, land a man on the moon and safely return him back to Earth.

"It was a very correct step of the great politician - he united and rallied the American nation to achieve this goal. Huge funds at that time were also involved - $ 25 billion, today, this is, perhaps, all fifty billion. The program provided for a circumnavigation of the Moon, then Tom Stafford's flight to the hovering point and selection of a landing site for Apollo-10. The Apollo-11 dispatch provided for the direct landing of Neil Armstrong and Bazz Aldrin on the Moon. Michael Collins remained in orbit and waited for his comrades to return, " - said Alexei Leonov.

Eighteen Apollo-class ships were made to prepare for the landing on the moon - the whole program was implemented perfectly, except for Apollo-13 - from the engineering point of view, nothing special happened there, it just went out of order, or rather, one of the fuel cells exploded , the energy weakened, and therefore it was decided not to land on the surface, but to fly around the moon and return to Earth.

Alexei Leonov noted that only Frank Borman's first flyby of the moon, then the landing of Armstrong and Aldrin on the moon and the story of Apollo 13, remained in the memory of the Americans. These accomplishments have brought the American nation together and made everyone empathize, walk with fingers crossed, and pray for their heroes. The last flight of the Apollo series was also extremely interesting: American astronauts no longer just walked on the Moon, but rode on its surface in a special lunomobile and made interesting footage.

In fact, it was the peak of the Cold War, and in this situation, after the success of Yuri Gagarin, the Americans simply had to win the "moon race." The USSR then had its own lunar program, and we also implemented it. By 1968, it had already existed for two years, and even the crews of our cosmonauts were formed for the flight to the Moon.

On censorship of human achievements

"The launches of the Americans in the framework of the lunar program were broadcast on television, and only two countries in the world - the USSR and communist China - did not broadcast these historical footage to their peoples. I thought then, and now I think - in vain, we just robbed our people , the flight to the moon is the property and achievement of all mankind. The Americans watched the launch of Gagarin, Leonov's spacewalk - why the Soviet people could not see it ?! ", Alexei Leonov laments.

According to him, a limited group of Soviet space specialists watched these launches on a closed channel.

“We had military unit 32103 on Komsomolsky Prospekt, which provided space broadcasting, since there was no MCC in Korolev at that time. The Americans set up a television antenna on the surface of the Moon, and everything they did there was transmitted through a TV camera to Earth, several replays of these TV broadcasts were also made.When Armstrong stood on the surface of the Moon, and everyone in the USA clapped, we are here in the USSR , Soviet cosmonauts, also crossed their fingers for luck, and sincerely wished the guys success, "recalls the Soviet cosmonaut.

How was the implementation of the Soviet lunar program

"In 1962, a decree was issued, signed personally by Nikita Khrushchev, on the creation of a spacecraft for flying around the Moon and the use of a Proton carrier rocket with an upper stage for this launch. In 1964, Khrushchev signed a program for the USSR to fly around the Moon in 1967. , and in 1968 - landing on the moon and returning to Earth. And in 1966 there was already a decree on the formation of lunar crews - a group was immediately recruited to land on the moon, "Aleksey Leonov recalled.

The first stage of the flyby of the Earth satellite was to be carried out by launching the L-1 lunar module by the Proton carrier rocket, and the second stage - landing and returning back - on the giant and most powerful N-1 rocket equipped with thirty engines with a total thrust of 4.5 thousand tons with the weight of the rocket itself about 2 thousand tons. However, even after four test launches, this super-heavy rocket did not fly normally, so it eventually had to be abandoned.

Korolev and Glushko: antipathy of two geniuses

“There were other options, for example, using a 600-ton engine developed by the brilliant designer Valentin Glushko, but Sergei Korolev rejected it, as he worked on highly toxic heptyl. Although, in my opinion, this was not the reason - just two leaders , Korolev and Glushko - could not and did not want to work together.Their relations had their own problems of a purely personal nature: Sergei Korolev, for example, knew that Valentin Glushko once wrote a denunciation on him, as a result of which he was sentenced to ten years When he was released, Korolev found out about this, but Glushko did not know that he knew about it, "Alexei Leonov said.

A small step for man, but a giant leap for all mankind

NASA's Apollo 11 spacecraft on July 20, 1969, with a crew of three astronauts: Commander Neil Armstrong, Lunar Module Pilot Edwin Aldrin and Command Module Pilot Michael Collins, became the first to reach the Moon in the USSR and USA space race. The Americans did not pursue research tasks on this expedition, its purpose was simple: to land on an Earth satellite and return successfully.

The spacecraft consisted of a lunar module and a command module, which remained in orbit during the mission. Thus, of the three astronauts, only two visited the moon: Armstrong and Aldrin. They had to land on the moon, collect samples of lunar soil, take pictures on a satellite of the Earth and install several instruments. However, the main ideological component of the trip was still hoisting the American flag on the moon and conducting a video communication session with the Earth.

US President Richard Nixon and German rocket scientist Hermann Obert watched the launch of the spacecraft. A total of about a million people watched the launch at the cosmodrome and mounted observation platforms, and the TV broadcast, according to the Americans, was watched by more than a billion people all over the world.

Apollo 11 launched towards the moon on July 16, 1969 at 13.32 GMT and entered lunar orbit 76 hours later. The command and lunar modules were undocked approximately 100 hours after launch. Despite the fact that NASA intended to land on the lunar surface in an automatic mode, Armstrong, as the leader of the expedition, decided to land the lunar module in a semi-automatic mode.

The lunar module landed in the Sea of \u200b\u200bTranquility on July 20 at 20 hours 17 minutes 42 seconds GMT. Armstrong descended to the lunar surface on July 21, 1969 at 02 hours 56 minutes 20 seconds GMT. Everyone knows the phrase he uttered when he set foot on the moon: "This is one small step for man, but a giant leap for all mankind."

After 15 minutes, Aldrin went to the moon. The astronauts collected the required amount of materials, placed instruments and installed a television camera. After that, they planted an American flag in the field of view of the camera and held a communication session with President Nixon. Astronauts left a commemorative plaque on the Moon with the words: "Here people from planet Earth first set foot on the Moon. July 1969 AD. We came in peace on behalf of all Humanity."

Aldrin stayed on the moon for about an hour and a half, Armstrong for two hours and ten minutes. At the 125th hour of the mission and the 22nd hour of stay on the Moon, the lunar module was launched from the surface of the Earth satellite. The crew splashed down on the blue planet about 195 hours after the start of the mission, soon the astronauts were picked up by the arriving aircraft carrier.

The moon is not a bad place. Definitely deserves a short visit.
Neil Armstrong

Almost half a century has passed since the Apollo flights, but the debate about whether the Americans were on the Moon does not subside, but becomes more and more fierce. The piquancy of the situation is that the supporters of the theory of the "lunar conspiracy" are trying to dispute not real historical events, but their own, vague and error-ridden idea of \u200b\u200bthem.

Moon epic

Facts first. On May 25, 1961, six weeks after Yuri Gagarin's triumphant flight, President John F. Kennedy made a speech before the Senate and House of Representatives, in which he promised that the American would land on the moon by the end of the decade. Having suffered defeat at the first stage of the space "race", the United States set out not only to catch up, but also to overtake the Soviet Union.

The main reason for the lag at that time was that the Americans underestimated the importance of heavy ballistic missiles. Like Soviet colleagues, American specialists studied the experience of German engineers who built A-4 (V-2) missiles during the war, but did not give these projects serious development, believing that in a global war, long-range bombers would be sufficient. Of course, the team of Wernher von Braun, taken out of Germany, continued to create ballistic missiles in the interests of the army, but they were not suitable for space flights. When the Redstone rocket, the successor to the German A-4, was refined to launch the first American ship, the Mercury, it was only able to lift it to suborbital altitude.

Nevertheless, resources were found in the United States, so American designers quickly created the necessary "line" of carriers: from "Titan-2", which launched a two-seater maneuvering ship "Gemini" into orbit, to "Saturn-5", capable of sending a three-man ship "Apollo" "To the moon.

Redstone
Saturn-1B
Saturn-5
Titan-2

Of course, a colossal amount of work was required before sending expeditions. The Lunar Orbiter series spacecraft carried out a detailed mapping of the nearest celestial body - with their help it was possible to outline and study suitable landing sites. The Surveyor series made soft lunar landings and provided excellent images of the surrounding area.

Lunar Orbiter spacecraft have carefully mapped the moon, determining the location of future astronaut landings

The Surveyor spacecraft studied the moon directly on its surface; the parts of the Surveyor-3 were picked up and delivered to Earth by the Apollo 12 crew

The Gemini program developed in parallel. After unmanned launches on March 23, 1965, the Gemini 3 spacecraft was launched, which maneuvered by changing the speed and inclination of the orbit, which was an unprecedented achievement at that time. Gemini 4 flew shortly thereafter, in which Edward White performed the first spacewalk for the Americans. The spacecraft worked in orbit for four days, testing orientation systems for the Apollo program. The Gemini 5, launched on August 21, 1965, tested electrochemical generators and a docking radar. In addition, the crew set a record for the duration of their stay in space - almost eight days (the Soviet cosmonauts managed to beat it only in June 1970). By the way, during the flight of Gemini-5, the Americans for the first time faced the negative consequences of weightlessness - the weakening of the musculoskeletal system. Therefore, measures have been developed to prevent such effects: a special diet, drug therapy and a series of physical exercises.

In December 1965, the ships Gemini 6 and Gemini 7 approached each other to simulate docking. Moreover, the crew of the second ship spent more than thirteen days in orbit (that is, the total time of the lunar expedition), proving that the measures taken to maintain physical fitness are quite effective during such a long flight. On the ships Gemini-8, Gemini-9 and Gemini-10, they practiced the docking procedure (by the way, the commander of Gemini-8 was Neil Armstrong). On Gemini 11 in September 1966, they tested the possibility of an emergency launch from the Moon, as well as flying through the Earth's radiation belts (the ship climbed to a record altitude of 1369 km). On Gemini 12, the astronauts tried out a series of manipulations in outer space.

During the flight of the Gemini 12 spacecraft, astronaut Buzz Aldrin proved the possibility of complex manipulations in outer space

At the same time, the designers were preparing for testing the "intermediate" two-stage rocket "Saturn-1". During its first launch on October 27, 1961, it surpassed the Vostok rocket in thrust, which was used by Soviet cosmonauts. It was assumed that the same rocket would launch the first Apollo-1 into space, but on January 27, 1967, a fire broke out at the launch complex, in which the crew of the ship died, and many plans had to be revised.

In November 1967, tests began on the huge three-stage Saturn-5 rocket. During the first flight, it lifted into orbit the Apollo-4 command and service module with a lunar module model. In January 1968, the Apollo-5 lunar module was tested in orbit, and the unmanned Apollo-6 went there in April. The last launch due to the failure of the second stage almost ended in disaster, but the rocket pulled the ship out, demonstrating good "survivability".

On October 11, 1968, the Saturn-1B rocket launched the Apollo-7 command and service module with a crew into orbit. For ten days, the astronauts tested the ship, conducting complex maneuvers. Apollo was theoretically ready for the expedition, but the lunar module was still raw. And then a mission was invented, which was not originally planned at all - a flight around the moon.

The flight of the Apollo 8 spacecraft was not planned by NASA: it became an improvisation, but it was carried out brilliantly, securing another historical priority for the American astronautics

On December 21, 1968, the Apollo 8 spacecraft without a lunar module, but with a crew of three astronauts, set off for a neighboring celestial body. The flight went relatively smoothly, but before the historic landing on the Moon, two more launches were needed: the Apollo 9 crew worked out the procedure for docking and undocking of the spacecraft modules in near-earth orbit, then the Apollo 10 crew did the same, but already close to the Moon ... On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong and Edwin (Buzz) Aldrin stepped onto the lunar surface, thereby proclaiming US leadership in space exploration.

The Apollo 10 crew performed a “dress rehearsal”, completing all the operations required to land on the moon, but without landing itself

Lunar module of the spacecraft "Apollo-11", named "Eagle" ("Eagle") leaves for landing

Astronaut Buzz Aldrin on the Moon

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin's moon ascension was broadcast via the Parkes Observatory radio telescope in Australia; the originals of the recording of the historical event were also preserved and recently discovered there

Then new successful missions followed: "Apollo-12", "Apollo-14", "Apollo-15", "Apollo-16", "Apollo-17". As a result, twelve astronauts visited the moon, conducted reconnaissance of the area, installed scientific equipment, collected soil samples, and tested rovers. Only the crew of Apollo 13 was unlucky: on the way to the moon, a tank of liquid oxygen exploded, and NASA specialists had to work hard to return the astronauts to Earth.

Falsification theory

Devices for creating an artificial sodium comet were installed on the Luna-1 spacecraft

It would seem that the reality of expeditions to the moon should not have been in doubt. NASA regularly published press releases and bulletins, experts and astronauts gave numerous interviews, many countries and the world scientific community participated in the technical support, tens of thousands of people watched the takeoffs of huge rockets, and millions watched live TV broadcasts from space. Lunar soil was brought to Earth, which many selenologists were able to study. International scientific conferences were held to understand the data that came from instruments left on the moon.

But even in that eventful time, people appeared who questioned the facts of the landing of astronauts on the moon. A skeptical attitude towards space achievements manifested itself back in 1959, and the likely reason for this was the secrecy policy pursued by the Soviet Union: for decades it even hid the location of its cosmodrome!

Therefore, when Soviet scientists announced that they had launched the Luna-1 research apparatus, some Western experts spoke in the spirit that the communists were simply fooling the world community. The specialists foresaw the questions and placed a device for vaporizing sodium on Luna-1, with the help of which an artificial comet was created, equal in brightness to the sixth magnitude.

Conspiracy theorists even dispute the reality of Yuri Gagarin's flight

Claims arose later: for example, some Western journalists doubted the reality of Yuri Gagarin's flight, because the Soviet Union refused to provide any documentary evidence. There was no camera on board the Vostok ship; the external appearance of the ship itself and the launch vehicle remained classified.

But the US authorities have never expressed doubts about the reliability of what happened: even during the flight of the first satellites, the National Security Agency (NSA) deployed two observation stations in Alaska and Hawaii and installed radio equipment there capable of intercepting telemetry that came from Soviet vehicles. During Gagarin's flight, the stations were able to receive a TV signal with an image of an astronaut transmitted by an onboard camera. Within an hour, the printouts of individual footage from this broadcast were in the hands of government officials, and President John F. Kennedy congratulated the Soviet people on their outstanding achievement.

Soviet military specialists working at the Scientific Measuring Station No. 10 (NIP-10), located in the Shkolnoye village near Simferopol, intercepted data coming from the Apollo spacecraft throughout the entire flight to the Moon and back.

Soviet intelligence did the same. At the station NIP-10, located in the village of Shkolnoe (Simferopol, Crimea), a set of equipment was assembled that allows intercepting all information from the Apollo, including live TV broadcasts from the Moon. The head of the interception project, Aleksey Mikhailovich Gorin, gave the author of this article an exclusive interview, in which, in particular, he said: “For the guidance and control of a very narrow beam, a standard drive system in azimuth and elevation was used. Based on the information about the location (Cape Canaveral) and the launch time, the flight trajectory of the spacecraft was calculated in all areas.

It should be noted that during about three days of flight, only sometimes there was a deviation of the beam guidance from the calculated trajectory, which was easily corrected manually. We started with Apollo 10, which made a test flight around the moon without landing. This was followed by flights with the landing of "Apollo" from the 11th to the 15th ... They took rather clear images of a spacecraft on the Moon, the exit of both astronauts from it and travel on the surface of the Moon. Video from the Moon, speech and telemetry were recorded on appropriate tape recorders and transmitted to Moscow for processing and translation. "

In addition to intercepting data, Soviet intelligence also collected any information on the Saturn-Apollo program, since it could be used for the USSR's own lunar plans. For example, the scouts followed the missile launches from the Atlantic Ocean. Moreover, when preparations began for the joint flight of the Soyuz-19 and Apollo CSM-111 spacecraft (ASTP mission), which took place in July 1975, Soviet specialists were admitted to the official information on the ship and the rocket. And, as you know, no complaints were made against the American side.

The Americans themselves had complaints. In 1970, that is, even before the end of the lunar program, a brochure was published by a certain James Kraeney "Did a man land on the moon?" (Did man land on the Moon?). The public ignored the brochure, although it, perhaps, was the first to formulate the main thesis of the "conspiracy theory": an expedition to the nearest celestial body is technically impossible.

Technical writer Bill Kaysing can rightfully be called the founder of the theory of the "lunar conspiracy"

The topic began to gain popularity a little later, after the release of Bill Kaysing's self-published book We Never Went to the Moon (1976), which lays out the now “traditional” arguments for conspiracy theory. For example, the author seriously argued that all the deaths of participants in the Saturn-Apollo program are associated with the elimination of unwanted bystanders. I must say that Kaysing is the only one of the authors of books on this topic who was directly related to the space program: from 1956 to 1963 he worked as a technical writer at the Rocketdyne company, which was engaged in the design of the super-powerful F-1 engine for the rocket. Saturn-5 ".

However, after being fired "of his own free will," Kaysing became a beggar, grabbed hold of any job, and probably had no warm feelings for his former employers. In the book, which was reprinted in 1981 and 2002, he argued that the Saturn-5 rocket was a "technical fake" and could never send astronauts on an interplanetary flight, so in fact the Apollo flew around the Earth, and the TV broadcast was carried out using unmanned vehicles.

Ralph René made a name for himself by accusing the US government of rigging flights to the moon and organizing the September 11, 2001 attacks

Bill Kaysing's creation was also ignored at first. Fame was brought to him by the American conspiracy theorist Ralph Rene, who posed as a scientist, physicist, inventor, engineer and scientific journalist, but in reality did not graduate from any higher educational institution. Like his predecessors, Rene published the book "How NASA showed America the Moon" (NASA Mooned America !, 1992) at his own expense, but at the same time he could already refer to other people's "research", that is, he looked not like a lonely psycho, but like a skeptic in search for truth.

Probably, the book, the lion's share of which is devoted to the analysis of certain photographs taken by astronauts, would also have remained unnoticed if the era of television shows had not come, when it became fashionable to invite all kinds of freaks and outcasts to the studio. Ralph René managed to get the most out of the sudden public interest, since he had a well-hung tongue and did not hesitate to make absurd accusations (for example, he claimed that NASA had deliberately damaged his computer and destroyed important files). His book was reprinted many times, and each time increasing in volume.

Among the documentaries devoted to the theory of the "lunar conspiracy" come across outright hoaxes: for example, the pseudo-documentary French film "The Dark Side of the Moon" (Opération lune, 2002)

The topic itself also begged for film adaptation, and soon there were films with a claim to documentary: "Was it just a paper moon?" (Was It Only a Paper Moon ?, 1997), "What Happened on the Moon?" (What Happened on the Moon ?, 2000), "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" (2001), "Astronauts Gone Wild: Investigation Into the Authenticity of the Moon Landings, 2004) and the like. By the way, the author of the last two films, filmmaker Bart Seabrell, twice harassed Buzz Aldrin with aggressive demands to confess to deception and was eventually hit in the face by an elderly astronaut. Video footage of this incident can be found on YouTube. The police, by the way, refused to open a case against Aldrin. Apparently, she thought that the video was faked.

In the 1970s, NASA tried to collaborate with the authors of the lunar conspiracy theory and even issued a press release, which analyzed the claims of Bill Kaysing. However, it soon became clear that they did not want dialogue, but they were happy to use any mention of their fabrications for self-promotion: for example, Kaysing was suing astronaut Jim Lovell in 1996 for calling him a "fool" in an interview.

However, what else can you call the people who believed in the credibility of the film "The Dark Side of the Moon" (Opération lune, 2002), where the famous director Stanley Kubrick was directly accused of filming all the astronauts on the moon in the Hollywood pavilion? Even in the film itself there are indications that it is a fictional fiction in the mocumentari genre, but this did not prevent the conspiracy theorists from accepting the version with a bang and quoting it even after the creators of the hoax openly admitted hooliganism. By the way, another "proof" of the same degree of reliability has recently appeared: this time an interview with a man similar to Stanley Kubrick surfaced, where he allegedly took responsibility for falsifying the materials of lunar missions. The new fake was exposed quickly - it was made too clumsy.

Concealment operation

In 2007, science journalist and popularizer Richard Hoagland co-authored the book Dark Mission. The Secret History of NASA ”(Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA), which immediately became a bestseller. In this weighty volume, Hoagland summarized his research on the "cover-up operation" - it is allegedly carried out by US government agencies, concealing from the world community the fact of contact with a more advanced civilization that mastered the solar system long before humanity.

In the framework of the new theory, the "lunar conspiracy" is viewed as a product of the activities of NASA itself, which deliberately provokes an illiterate discussion of the falsification of landing on the moon so that qualified researchers disdain to deal with this topic for fear of being branded as "marginalized." Hoagland deftly tailored all modern conspiracy theories to fit his theory, from the assassination of President John F. Kennedy to "flying saucers" and the Martian "Sphinx". The journalist was even awarded the Shnobel Prize, which he received in October 1997, for his vigorous activity in exposing the cover-up operation.

Believers and unbelievers

The supporters of the theory of the "lunar conspiracy", or, more simply, the "anti-Apollo", are very fond of accusing their opponents of illiteracy, ignorance, or even blind faith. A strange move, given that it is the "anti-Apollo people" who believe in a theory that is not supported by any significant evidence. The golden rule applies in science and jurisprudence: an extraordinary statement requires extraordinary proof. An attempt to accuse space agencies and the world scientific community of falsifying materials that are of great importance to our understanding of the universe must be accompanied by something more weighty than a couple of self-published books published by an offended writer and a narcissistic pseudo-scientist.

All hours of film footage of the Apollo lunar expeditions has long been digitized and available for study

If we imagine for a moment that a secret parallel space program existed in the United States using unmanned vehicles, then we need to explain where all the participants in this program have gone: the designers of the “parallel” technology, its testers and operators, as well as filmmakers who prepared kilometers of films of lunar missions. We are talking about thousands (or even tens of thousands) of people who needed to be involved in the "lunar conspiracy." Where are they and where are their confessions? Let's say they all, including foreigners, swore to remain silent. But there should be piles of documents, contracts-orders with contractors, corresponding structures and landfills. However, apart from nit-picking some public NASA materials, which are indeed often retouched or presented in a deliberately simplified interpretation, there is nothing. Nothing at all.

However, the "anti-Apollo people" never think about such "trifles" and persistently (often in an aggressive form) demand more and more evidence from the opposite side. The paradox is that if they, asking "tricky" questions, themselves tried to find answers to them, it would not be difficult. Let's consider the most typical claims.

During the preparation and implementation of the joint flight of the Soyuz and Apollo spacecraft, Soviet specialists were admitted to the official information of the American space program

For example, anti-Apollo people ask: why was the Saturn-Apollo program interrupted, and its technologies were lost and cannot be used today? The answer is obvious to anyone with even a general idea of \u200b\u200bwhat happened in the early 1970s. It was then that one of the most powerful political and economic crises in the history of the United States occurred: the dollar lost its gold content and was devalued twice; the protracted war in Vietnam drained resources; the youth was engulfed in the anti-war movement; Richard Nixon is on the verge of impeachment in connection with the Watergate scandal.

At the same time, the total costs of the Saturn-Apollo program amounted to $ 24 billion (in terms of current prices, we can talk about $ 100 billion), and each new launch cost $ 300 million (1.3 billion in modern prices) - it is clear that further funding became exorbitant for the meager American budget. The Soviet Union experienced something similar in the late 1980s, which led to the inglorious closure of the Energia-Buran program, the technologies of which are also largely lost.

In 2013, an expedition led by Jeff Bezos, founder of the Internet company Amazon, lifted from the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean fragments of one of the F-1 engines of the Saturn 5 rocket that brought Apollo 11 into orbit

Nevertheless, despite the problems, the Americans tried to squeeze a little more out of the lunar program: the Saturn-5 rocket launched the Skylab heavy orbital station (it was visited by three expeditions in 1973-1974), a joint Soviet-American flight took place. Soyuz-Apollo "(ASTP). In addition, the Space Shuttle program, which replaced the Apollo, used the Saturn launch facilities, and some of the technological solutions obtained during their operation are used today in the design of the promising American SLS launch vehicle.

Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility Moonstone Work Crate

Another popular question: where did the lunar soil, brought by astronauts, go? Why isn't it being studied? Answer: it has not gone anywhere, but is stored where it was planned - in the two-story building of the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility, which was built in Houston (Texas). Applications for the study of the soil should also be applied there, but only organizations that have the necessary equipment can receive them. Each year, a special commission reviews applications and satisfies from forty to fifty of them; on average, up to 400 samples are sent. In addition, 98 samples with a total weight of 12.46 kg are exhibited in museums around the world, and dozens of scientific publications were published on each of them.

Images of the landing sites of the ships Apollo 11, Apollo 12 and Apollo 17, taken by the main optical camera of the LRO: the lunar modules, scientific equipment and the "paths" left by the astronauts are clearly visible

Another question in the same vein: why is there no independent evidence of a visit to the moon? Answer: they are. If we discard the Soviet evidence, which is still far from complete, and the excellent space photographs of the lunar landing sites, which were made by the American LRO apparatus and which the "anti-Apollo people" also consider "fake", then the materials provided by the Indians (Chandrayaan-1 ), the Japanese (the Kaguya apparatus) and the Chinese (the Chang'e-2 apparatus): all three agencies officially confirmed that they had found the tracks left by the Apollo ships.

"Moon Deception" in Russia

By the late 1990s, the theory of the "lunar conspiracy" came to Russia, where it gained ardent supporters. Its wide popularity, obviously, is facilitated by the sad fact that very few historical books on the American space program are published in Russian, so an inexperienced reader may get the impression that there is nothing to study there.

The most ardent and talkative adherent of the theory was Yuri Mukhin, a former engineer-inventor and publicist with radical pro-Stalinist convictions, noticed in historical revisionism. In particular, he published the book "The Corrupt Girl Genetics", in which he refutes the achievements of genetics in order to prove that the repressions against the domestic representatives of this science were justified. Mukhin's style repels with deliberate rudeness, and he builds his conclusions on the basis of rather primitive distortions.

The cameraman Yuri Elkhov, who participated in the filming of such famous children's films as "The Adventures of Buratino" (1975) and "About Little Red Riding Hood" (1977), undertook to analyze the footage made by astronauts, and came to the conclusion that they were fabricated. True, for testing he used his own studio and equipment, which has nothing to do with NASA equipment of the late 1960s. As a result of the "investigation," Elkhov wrote the book "Fake Moon", which never came out on paper due to lack of funds.

Perhaps the most competent of the Russian "antiapollo men" remains Alexander Popov, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, a specialist in lasers. In 2009, he published the book "Americans on the Moon - a great breakthrough or a space scam?", In which he gives almost all the arguments of the "conspiracy" theory, supplementing them with his own interpretations. For many years he has been running a special website dedicated to the topic, and at present he has agreed that not only the flights of the Apollo, but also the ships of Mercury and Gemini are falsified. Thus, Popov claims that the Americans made their first flight into orbit only in April 1981 - on the Columbia shuttle. Apparently, the respected physicist does not understand that it is simply impossible to launch such a complex reusable aerospace system like the Space Shuttle without a great previous experience.

* * *

The list of questions and answers can be continued indefinitely, but this does not make any sense: the views of the "anti-Apollonites" are based not on real facts that can be interpreted in one way or another, but on illiterate ideas about them. Unfortunately, ignorance persists, and not even Buzz Aldrin's hook can make a difference. It remains to rely on time and new flights to the Moon, which will inevitably put everything in its place.

On the moon. Chapter 13

Leaving the moon

It's time to think about going home. Here's an opportunity: the astronauts of the last "lunar" "Apollo" (A-17) are just going back. Finally, we will admire the hills and plains with the blue Earth in the black sky, captured in the NASA film "On the Shoulders of Giants". One of the final frames of this film, signed by NASA, is shown in Figure 1. Yes, only on the Moon was this picture taken? Judge for yourself.

"Drawn" Earth

Fig. 1. Landscape with "painted" Earth,

allegedly filmed on the moon by astronauts A-17

It is known from the school astronomy course that the Moon in its movement around the Earth is always facing it with one side. And this leads to the fact that the Earth in the lunar sky stands almost motionless near a certain middle position. Ya.I. described this phenomenon very colorfully. Perelman :

“In our sky, a month rises and sets, describing its path along with the stellar dome. In the lunar sky, the Earth does not make such a movement. It hangs almost motionlessly in the sky, occupying a well-defined position for each point on the Moon, while the stars glide slowly behind it. If the Earth stands at the zenith of some lunar crater, then it never leaves its zenith position. If from any point it is visible on the horizon, it always remains on the horizon of this place ... ”.

In the area that NASA has named the home of astronauts A-17, the Earth constantly hovers at an altitude of about 54 o above the lunar horizon. The angular size of the Earth in the sky of the Moon is known - 2 o. Having counted the "diameters of the Earth" to the lunar horizon, it is easy to determine that the Earth is at an altitude of 15 o, that is, almost 4 times lower than it should be. A skeptic drew attention to this fact, who concluded that this lunar landscape of NASA - an earthly forgery.

To somehow brighten up the unpleasant sensation of the Earth, painted on a black sky, defender V. Pustynsky tried to protect NASA as follows: “This montage is not malicious and does not distort reality. The film is visual, demonstration, the picture is in the title, the frames from which it is made are well known. The earth was painted "to make it more beautiful." In principle, no "unscrupulous" goals can be achieved with this picture. "

Interesting idea. For example, if some esthete draws on a photograph of the terrestrial evening sky instead of the Moon Mars of an equally impressive diameter, he also will not distort reality? And, if the Americans in the interests of beauty so freely "draw" the Earth, then what can prevent a completely terrestrial landscape for a lunar one?

Taking off from the moon?

Where is the takeoff engine torch?

Fig. 2.Takeoff of the "lunar" module:

nASA footage:

and) moment of command "ignition", b)takeoff without a torch from the engine,

in)this is how the NASA artist presented the takeoff from the Moon

According to the description of the lunar module, its upper part of the module, the so-called take-off stage, starts from the lunar surface. The lower part (landing stage) remains on the moon and serves as a launch platform for the takeoff part. According to NASA, astronauts A-15, A-16 and A-17 installed radio-controlled automatic television cameras away from the module before taking off from the moon. Let's study the episode of the takeoff of the lunar module A-17, as if transmitted from the Moon by such a television camera .

Fig. 2a shows the instant of start immediately after the “ignition” command. Some rags are flying in all directions. Defenders V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov explain that these are scraps from the thermal insulation layer that covered the landing stage. They are throwna jet of gases escaping from the take-off engine nozzle. But here's what is interesting: just the jet emanating from the nozzle of the taking-off module is not visible (ill.2b). A fact that was unexpected for many. Probably, it was not foreseen by NASA specialists, who advised their artist on how to depict a launch from the Moon (Fig. 2c).

“No wonder,” defenders say, and give a photograph of the Proton rocket, taking off in the afternoon (ill. 3a). The flame of her torch is barely visible. On the Apollo lunar modules, the defenders write, it was used similar fuel, which is why the torch under the take-off module is not visible.

But, apparently, the defenders did not notice that in Fig. 3b the sky is not bright - blue, but thick - black. Therefore, a more appropriate analogy would be a photograph of the launch of the Proton at night. And at night there is no need to look for a torch near the Proton (ill. 3b). Of course, the engine of the take-off stage of the lunar module is much weaker than the engine of the Proton. But in the dark we will not only see the torch from the rocket engine, but also the light of a pocket flashlight from a kilometer away.

Fig. 3.You can't hide a torch in the dark.

Start "Proton" during the day (a) and at night (b)

As noted in Section 8, the attitude control engines of the Soyuz and Apollo spacecraft run on the same fuel as the engine of the lunar module. Moreover, they are about 30 times weaker than the take-off stage engine. And, nevertheless, the flame from these engines is clearly visible against the background of the blackness of outer space (Fig. 10, Section 8), while nothing is visible under the "lunar" module taking off (Fig. 2b).

Recently, on the Internet, defenders have brought new counterarguments in defense of the invisible torch.... The author prefers not to dive into technical details in which he does not consider himself a specialist, neither himself nor the authors of speeches like ... Let the rocket experts have their say. But it is useful to pay attention to the fact that somehow entered the system, that we can not in any way be able to see traces of the operation of its engines of the American lunar rocket technology:

Then the command and service modules show themselves in a variety of poses, but without visible traces of the operation of the attitude control engines (Fig. 10, Section 8);

Then the dust is not blown off under the nozzles of the landed ships (Section 9),

As it is now, the torch is not visible under the taking off lunar module (Fig. 2);

Below we will see another example, when a lunar module that has already taken off makes maneuvers in a circumlunar orbit (Fig. 7), also without visible traces of the operation of the orientation engines.

Many explanations can be given for each individual fact, but all together it looks very strange. So it begs such a simple explanation , what the launching lunar module, which is shown in Fig. 2, has no engine. But, if so, then towhat force scatters the flaps of so-called thermal insulation, and what force lifts it at all? The author believes that in the episode under consideration, only a certain model of the take-off stage "starts", and it is lifted on a rope. What will confirm the version of the charge and cable?

Explosion under the take-off module

The reader himself can see the explosion under the take-off stage. To do this, when watching an episode, look not at the take-off stage, but at the remaining landing stage. Then he will see how a mysterious glow “swells” on the platform and then instantly “falls” back onto the platform. The freeze frame technique makes it possible to analyze this phenomenon.

Figure 4 shows 4 freeze frames from the takeoff episode of A-17, showing what happens on the platform in the first second after the “ignition” command. The time elapsed from the moment when the “ignition” command is issued is indicated under each frame.

Fig. 4. A charge exploded on the lower platform

For about 0.7 s, something shines brightly on the platform, and then, in just 0.1 s, this glow breaks off abruptly. What can explain both the glow itself and its rapid disappearance?

It can be assumed that incandescent parts are glowing.the landing platform, on which an invisible (according to the defenders) and incandescent jet of gases beats at close range from the nozzle of the taking off stage. But then it cannot be explained why, in the interval between the frames "0.72s" and "0.84s", in just 0.12s, this heating suddenly stopped? Indeed, during this time, the nozzle did not even have time to noticeably leave.

Therefore, we see not the glow of heated objects, but the flame from the rapid (in 0.72 s) combustion of some substance located on the platform. As soon as the substance burns out, the glow stops. That is, by all indications, the moment of "start" on the landing platform, a charge exploded.

Can the winch provide the lifting speed that we see in the video? Yes, it is quite. You can set this speed from the still frames of the clip. In this case, the scale for determining the climbed height is the vertical size of the take-off module - 2.8 m .

It is easy to establish that in 3 seconds the model rises to a height of about 13m, which corresponds to an average lifting speed~ 4 m / s. The passenger elevator rises even at a higher speed . So the winch can cope with such a "start from the moon".

Thus, the revealed circumstances (the absence of a torch, an explosion of a charge under the model and a completely "lift" speed of climb found under the "module" indicate thatthe shooting of the A-17 takeoff episode was most likely done on Earth like this and the author believes . At the command “ignition”, a charge explodes on the platform, which provides scattering of the thermal insulation flaps and thus simulates the start of the takeoff engine. There is actually no take-off engine, so there is no torch. The model rises on a cable.So that the thin cable is not visible, the image in the movie episode is deliberately blurred.A simpler option is not excluded, which consists in the fact that we are shown just a cartoon.

Lunar orbit meeting

After we have watched the mock takeoff of the lunar module mock-up, it will probably be somewhat strange to consider the meeting of such a module with a command and service module (KSM) awaiting it in circumlunar orbit. And, nevertheless, we will be patient and watch such an episode, since we have decided to mentally follow the astronauts throughout their journey.

MEPhI graduate A. Kudryavets drew the author's attention to a movie episode from the NASA film "Apollo 16: The Most Secret". It shows the maneuvers of the takeoff stage of the Orion lunar module, allegedly filmed in circumlunar orbit from the KSM window. Figure 5 shows stills from this episode. They show that the lunar module unfolds as if by itself: not a single flash from the exhaust of the orientation engines is visible. Not a single start of the engine would have escaped the "watchful" gaze of the movie camera. But they are not visible, these inclusions.

Fig. 5. Maneuvers without an engine?

The maneuvers of the Orion lunar module, allegedly filmed in a circumlunar orbit, occur in such a way that not a single flash from the orientation engines is visible.

Commenting on this and other episodes he watched, A. Kudryavets writes to the author of the book:

“In all frames of module re-docking in the lunar space during their movements, flashing torches from the attitude control engines are not visible - they seem to be absent at all, and the modules tumble under the influence of an unknown force.

In addition, the modules, when turning and moving, make sharp movements, leaving the impression of animation or their very low weight. But real ships are multi-ton colossus, and such massive structures of the lunar module cannot make such sharp movements even when the orientation engines are turned on, the thrust of which, as is known, does not exceed several tens of kilograms. Yes, such jerks during real maneuvers of ships are simply unacceptable, because smoothness of movements during mutual maneuvers is the main requirement for the success and safety of docking and undocking. "

And here is an interesting letter from a colleague V.P. Kobzeva:

“I found that episode in the Apollo 16 movie. All the most secret ”, about which A. Kudryavets writes. It looks really very strange - the module first rotates in one direction (albeit by inertia), but then instantly stops (no motor impulses are visible) and begins to rotate in the other direction. With a takeoff cabin weighing several tons, the mobility is incredible. Several tons is the weight of a small truck. "

So, most likely, A. Kudryavets is right - before us is not a real lunar module, maneuvering in a circumlunar orbit, but its mock-up shot in the studio.

On the way home

Fig. 6. Footage of astronaut Ken Mattingly exiting the ship, allegedly filmed on the way from the Moon to Earth.

As NASA claims, during the return from the Moon to Earth, astronautsAl Warden (A-15), Ken Mattingly (A-16) and Ron Evans (A-17) went into outer space 320 thousand km from Earth. Short episodes on this topic are shown in NASA films . They are of the same type, and therefore you can limit yourself to acquaintance with the highest quality of them. For this, the episode with the release of Ken Mattingly from A-16 was chosen (NASA film "Nothing so hidden "), Because it has a more decent quality. Figure 6 shows typical footage from this episode.

Here we are shown an astronaut outside the ship (Fig. 6a), around which there is only blackness. This blackness can belong to space, but it can also belong to a black screen if the shooting of the episode is filmed in the studio. To avoid such doubts, in the following frames the image of the Earth appears on the screen. At first it is weak (Fig. 6b), but then it becomes brighter and brighter, and, finally, completely supplants the image of the astronaut (Fig. 6c). The episode is over. The viewer, inexperienced in the techniques of cinema, has the impression that he has just seen an astronaut's exit into open space far from Earth.

We actually saw a simple film trick. The images of the astronaut in front of the ship (Fig. 6a) and the image of the Earth (Fig. 6c) were taken separately. The former is easy to do in the studio, and the latter is done with an Earth satellite in high orbit (Chapter 4). Then, by superimposing these two completely independent views, the view of the astronaut was obtained against the background of a distant Earth (Fig. 6b). That is why the image of the Earth in the frame of Fig. 6b, as it were, appears through the image of the astronaut and mixes with its details. And this kind of editing is used in all three mentioned clips. So these movie episodes on the subject of an astronaut going into outer space on the way to Earth is a simple movie trick.

***

Let's summarize what we saw in this section:

1) We admired the Earth, "painted" in the black sky (ill. 1a).

2) We looked at the lunar module, starting with an invisible torch (ill.2b).

3) We saw a charge that exploded under this "module" at the time of launch (Fig. 4).

4) We watched the maneuvers of this "module", allegedly filmed in a circumlunar orbit, which occur as if by themselves, without a single flash from the orientation engines (Fig. 5).

5) We watched an episode with an astronaut supposedly walking into outer space, made using two simple film tricks (ill. 6).

Thus, before us once again passed a series of films and photo tricks. This concludes our mental journey to the moon and back.

Application. New Arrivals "Pink Elephants"

Fig. 7. Cloudy cross, as evidence of take-off from the moon

(frame from the "improved" NASA clip about the launch of module A-17)

The public first got acquainted with the episode "start from the moon" after the release of the film "For all mankind" , that is, in 1989. In this movie, the entire episode is only 6 seconds long. Then the first questions were raised about the lack of a torch. In response to this after 9 years (1998 year ) NASA publishes "improved" clip , "Length" as much as 36 s. One frame from it is shown in Fig. 7.

In connection with the development of computer technologies for image processing, the documentary value of such "improvements" is very doubtful, as already mentioned in the introduction. The same defenders V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov on page 20 of their article noted that “with modern means of image processing, anyone can put even a pink elephant on a picture from the Moon.” Unfortunately, after 17 pages of the same article, they forgot about their buzzwords and on page 37 enthusiastically appeal to the "improved" clip of NASA:

"The flame of the engine of the taking off lunar stage is really not visible - their quality is very unimportant. However, at the end of this video, the cabin rises to a great height (the Nazis had a long rope, right?) And turns the engine towards the camera. At this time, the TV camera from a distance." looks "directly into the engine, and a very high temperature flame inside the combustion chamber becomes visible."

Curious logic involving directly controlled “poor quality of frames”: this quality does not allow to see the flame of a torch when a stage takes off near the TV camera, but allows to see the hot belly of the combustion chamber from a long distance.

So, in the "refined" clip, NASA lengthened the airing time sixfold to refute the rope theory. She depicted a certain glow in the form of a dull cross (Fig. 7) to refute the accusations of an invisible torch. True, NASA specialists did not have time to work out the criticism about the explosion under the model and the wrong law of its rise. But it does not matter: there is no limit to the improvement of "lunar" materials - they will work out. NASA's archive of "new" evidence is bottomless.

: // http://www.skeptik.net/conspir/moonhoax.htm

13. f8-10, iv40 "Links-2"

14. NASA f8, "Links-2": f8-11, f8-10, f8-4, iv41, iv42, iv43 "Links-2"

Fig. 1. , author's inscription

Fig. 2. a, b), f7 "Links-2", in)http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS11/10075186.jpg

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.f8-10 and iv40 "Links-2"

Fig. 6. f8-10 and iv42 "Links-2"

Fig. 7.

How American astronauts were able to fly back to Earth from the Moon and got a better answer

Reply from User deleted [guru]
Men, are you kidding me or what? Have you heard of landing aircraft? There was fuel. Preparing for the flight to the moon.
Lunar module
Apollo Lunar Module The Apollo Lunar Module was developed by Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. (USA) and has two stages: landing and takeoff. The landing stage, equipped with an independent propulsion system and landing gear, is used to lower the lunar craft from the orbit of the moon and soft land on the lunar surface, and also serves as a launch pad for the takeoff stage. The take-off stage, with a pressurized cockpit for the crew and an independent propulsion system, after completion of the research, starts from the surface of the Moon and in orbit docks with the command compartment. The separation of the steps is carried out using pyrotechnic devices.
Takeoff stage
The takeoff stage of the lunar module has three main compartments: the crew compartment, the central compartment and the rear equipment compartment. Only the crew compartment and the central compartment are sealed, all other compartments of the lunar ship are unsealed. The volume of the pressurized cabin is 6.7 m3, the pressure in the cabin is 0.337 kg / cm2. The height of the take-off stage is 3.76 m, the diameter is 4.3 m. Structurally, the take-off stage consists of six units: the crew compartment, the central compartment, the rear equipment compartment, the rocket engine mount, the antenna mount, the thermal and micrometeor shield. The cylindrical crew compartment with a diameter of 2.35 m, a length of 1.07 m (volume of 4.6 m3) of a semi-monocoque structure made of well-weldable aluminum alloys.
Two workstations for astronauts are equipped with control panels and instrument panels, an astronaut tethered system, two forward-looking windows, an overhead window for observing the docking process, and a telescope in the center between the astronauts.
Landing stage
The landing stage of the lunar module in the form of a cruciform frame made of aluminum alloy carries in the central compartment a propulsion system with a landing liquid-propellant rocket engine from STL.
The four compartments formed by the frame around the central compartment contain fuel tanks, an oxygen tank, a water tank, a helium tank, electronic equipment, a navigation and control subsystem, a landing radar and batteries.
The four-legged retractable landing gear, mounted on the landing stage, absorbs the impact energy during the landing of the ship on the surface of the Moon with crumbling honeycomb cartridges installed in the telescopic legs of the landing gear; the impact is additionally mitigated by the deformation of the honeycomb liners in the centers of the landing heels. Each heel is equipped with a probe signaling the crew when the rocket engine is switched off when it contacts the lunar surface. The landing gear is folded until the lunar craft separates from the command compartment; after separation at the command of the crew of the lunar ship, the squibs cut the checks at each leg and, under the action of the springs, the landing gear is released and locks. Just like the take-off stage, the landing stage is surrounded by a thermal and micrometeor shield made of multilayer mylar and aluminum. Landing stage height 3.22 m, diameter 4.3 m
Source: Read! Everything is painted here!

Answer from 2 answers[guru]

Hey! Here is a selection of topics with answers to your question: How did American astronauts fly back to Earth from the Moon?

Answer from Andrey Pokhlebaev[newbie]
This is all very interesting, especially in theory. I, however, are tormented by vague doubts - why the fuck are they NOW our RD-180? In theory, we should learn space from them, visit their orbital stations, however ...

Answer from Yergey Familiev[newbie]
oh I don’t know how you can breathe and at the same time work mentally with an air pressure of 0.337 kilograms !!! it's only a third of the atmosphere!

Answer from Alina Dubinina[newbie]
Takeoff from any surface of the planet is carried out using a jet engine, the thrust of which must be sufficient to overcome the planet's gravity and lift the weight of the aircraft. A simple school formula is known to all: force is equal to mass times acceleration. " The force with which the spacecraft presses on the surface of the Earth (is attracted to it) is the weight of the spacecraft. It is equal to the mass of the craft multiplied by the acceleration of gravity on a particular planet. Mass is the value that is indicated in the passport for each device.
The force of a running engine to lift the machine is called "thrust". For the spacecraft to take off, the thrust must be greater than the weight of the spacecraft on a particular planet. In addition, a margin is needed that will provide the acceleration required for the aircraft to reach the so-called first space velocity - the speed at which the vehicle can enter the near-planetary orbit. The lunar module also had to reach this speed in order to be picked up by the reentry vehicle in the lunar orbit.
For Earth conditions, the thrust of the engine can exceed the mass of the rocket ten times, as, for example, the engine of the first stage of the Saturn V launch vehicle that took part in that American space flight. A rocket weighing 3 million kilograms (3 thousand tons), overcoming the acceleration of gravity of 9.8 m / s2, accelerated the engine with a thrust of 34 million newtons to the first cosmic speed. That is, the engine thrust of 34,000,000 Newtons is equal to: 3,000,000 kg multiplied by 9.8 m / s2 plus a margin of 10-15 percent.
According to the published tactical and technical characteristics, the lunar module (USA) has a total mass of 16.5 thousand kilograms, the mass of the landing compartment is 11.7 thousand kilograms, and the mass of the take-off compartment is about 4.5 thousand kilograms; the take-off stage engine has a thrust of 1590 Newtons. According to the above formula, such a thrust can lift on the Moon, where the acceleration of gravity is 1.62 m / s2, an apparatus weighing only 980 kilograms.
Thus, the take-off compartment of the Lunar mission with a mass of 4599 kilograms cannot be lifted from the Moon by an engine with a thrust of 1590 Newtons. Moreover, the same module all the more could not fly in terrestrial conditions, because the lack of engine thrust on Earth here was aggravated five times more.
Therefore, no Americans flew to any moon, or at least never returned from it.

Answer from E C[guru]
they gave in together and flew back ... To the Earth.

Answer from Vasily Selyunin[master]
Miraculously 🙂

Answer from User deleted[guru]
We jumped up and flew away. 🙂
Updated after 18 hours.
But as? - to work in a compartment with a length of 1, 07 meters? - like astronauts are not dwarfs at all ...
I will listen with extreme curiosity to the stories of anyone who has spent half a day, for example, in an empty case of a washing machine 1.07 meters long - and: unmistakable! - solving at the same time the most difficult ballistic problems, firmly knowing that for every mistake he will receive, well, at least, very definitely! - a painful electric shock, and not inevitable death, as it was in the case of astronauts who allegedly landed on the moon ... Ha.
In addition, with an unbiased, even unprofessional, analysis of supposedly "moon" photographs, it is obvious that two or three of any randomly selected five are fakes.
And if we also recall the panic behavior and extremely unprofessional actions of the American crew members in emergency situations that took place in joint expeditions to the Russian orbital station Mir, and compare them with them: program, then everything becomes crystal clear. Especially considering the "loss" of their lunar archives. Ha.

Answer from Daimon[guru]
Hitchhiking with the Russians.

Answer from Maksim:)[guru]
They just did not fly to the moon in fact, there is such a concept as a "radiation barrier", it is impossible for an ordinary person to overcome it without consequences. And still all the films of their flight and documents disappeared without a trace from their archive.

Answer from Dee[guru]
Does it take a lot of fuel for lunar gravity and its lack of atmosphere? ... But for the operation of rocket engines, air is not needed at all! \u003d))

Answer from Elg Zamitter[guru]
it's good to laugh at the poor. it's a sin.

Answer from Aloprort Dorpaolrvip[newbie]
well, after all, it has long been known that this is all a production, the Americans officially admitted that they had not been on the moon, they filmed Armstrong in the studio. now they are preparing a flight to the moon to rehabilitate and prove to everyone that they really are the first to land on the moon

Answer from Novoe[guru]
They pedaled 🙂

Answer from E.[guru]
they had everything. ... you have never heard of liquid oxygen ?? ? 😉