Is the flight to the moon a giant step for humanity or a worldwide hoax? Crimean scientist analyzes American flights to the Moon

According to NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Agency of the United States, supported by the American government, in 1969, humanity made a qualitative leap in its development: the Apollo 11 space expedition took place, during which astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin became the first earthlings set foot on the surface of the Moon. According to NASA, in 1969 -1972. 12 astronauts visited the Moon during six Apollo missions. Another 15 visited lunar orbit.

Was there a flight to the moon?

The first doubts about the authenticity of the lunar expeditions were expressed even during the period of their implementation by some US citizens, including those who worked at NASA, who pointed out a number of oddities around the lunar project, as well as signs of forgery in films and photographic materials of the expeditions. In subsequent years, the number of arguments put forward by specialists in space technology, photography and filming, and cosmic radiation, questioning or denying NASA's version, has increased. If in the first “post-lunar” years NASA sometimes responded to critics, then such statements were subsequently stopped. A NASA representative gave this “logical” explanation: the volume of criticism is so great that there is not enough time to respond to it. It is not surprising that the arguments of skeptics, presented in a huge number of newspaper and magazine articles, books and during television programs, and the response silence of NASA led to an increase in the number of skeptics who consider the Apollo project a scam. Thus, currently about a quarter of Americans do not believe in the reality of landing a man on the moon. Let's look at some of the oddities that raise doubts about NASA's version.

Couldn't the moon rocket fly to the moon?

To implement the Apollo project, the Saturn 5 rocket was created in 1967, capable, according to NASA, of launching 135 tons of cargo into low-Earth orbit. None of the more recent space systems has such power, including the Shuttle, a reusable system developed in the United States by the mid-80s and capable of placing 30 tons of payload into orbit around the Earth. Nevertheless, the active life of the Saturns turned out to be surprisingly short and was limited to participation in the lunar program. Maybe Saturns are much more expensive than Shuttles? Not at all, especially considering the well-established production of the former and the enormous expenditure of money and time on the development of the latter.

At comparable prices, launching an equal payload into space using the Shuttles turned out to be more expensive than using the Saturns.

Or maybe today there is no need to launch large payloads into space? There is such a need in particular when creating space stations. And there are a lot of interesting things on the Moon, for example, an isotope of helium, which is promising as a source of thermonuclear energy. But maybe the Saturn 5 is an unreliable rocket? On the contrary, if you accept NASA's version, it is extremely reliable. All of its manned launches were successful.

But the Shuttles turned out to be not so trouble-free, despite the fact that near-Earth flights, for which they were used, are an order of magnitude simpler in technical terms than flights to the Moon and back. The disasters that occurred with the Shuttles, which claimed the lives of 14 American astronauts, forced NASA management to abandon their further use. Having abandoned, for unknown reasons, the Saturns in 1973, and then the expensive and unreliable Shuttles, the United States was left, so to speak, with nothing. And today, Americans rent Russian Soyuz spacecraft for flights to the ISS. The same ones that were created in the USSR even before the flights to the Moon. NASA did not put forward any reasonable explanation for the “retirement” of its own rockets, unsurpassed in power and reliability. Skeptics give the following explanation for this strangeness: in reality, Saturn 5 was unable to launch into space even the minimum cargo required for lunar expeditions. In addition, the rocket was extremely unreliable. It could not participate in any flights to the Moon and was used only to simulate lunar launches. Therefore, after the early termination of the Apollo program, the production and use of Saturn rockets was stopped, and the remaining three rockets were sent to museums. At the same time, in 1972, the chief designer of the worthless Saturns, von Braun, stopped working at NASA.

Did the rocket engine fail?

The F1 rocket engine used on the Saturns had, according to NASA, a thrust of 600 tons. The most powerful rocket engine, the RD-180, used in our time and created in the USSR, has less thrust and has worse thrust/weight and thrust/size characteristics compared to the F1. The reliability of the F1 engine, like the Saturn 5 rocket, is the highest: not a single failure during all flights to the Moon and previous manned lunar and near-Earth flights! It would seem that the F1 should have a long life. And if it was modernized, then over the past 45 years after its creation it would have been possible to further increase its power and reliability. However, the best rocket engine of all time, the F1, died at the same time as the best rocket of all time, the Saturn.

“Skeptics” among rocket specialists explain this oddity by the fact that the technical principles inherent in the design of the F1 were initially flawed, which did not make it possible to provide the thrust necessary for flights to the Moon. By the way, the failure of the lunar engine, which was still in the design stage, was predicted by the great Sergei Korolev. The real power of the F1, according to skeptics, could only be enough to lift the half-empty body of the Saturn from the ground, underfilled with fuel, to simulate a lunar launch. The reliability of the weak F1, according to experts, was below average. That's why NASA wisely wrote it off and never used it again after the end of the lunar epic. But what engines do Americans use today on their powerful Atlas rockets? The United States uses RD-180 rocket engines purchased from Russia or manufactured in the United States using Soviet-era technology received from Russia. When in the early 90s, in the ecstasy of unity with the world community on the basis of universal human values, Russia laid out to the Americans its scientific and technical secrets from the times of the “closed” USSR, they were shocked: the Russians, many years ago, were able to bring into reality what American rocket scientists had been unsuccessful in achieving fought for many years and abandoned it, considering it impracticable. For scientific and technical documentation on the RD-180 engine, the United States paid Russia 1 million in green pieces of paper - the current price of a three-room apartment in Moscow.

Strange things with lunar soil

According to NASA, lunar expeditions brought about 400 kg of lunar soil to Earth from different points on the Moon. Compared to 300 grams of regolith, a mixture of lunar dust and rubble, delivered by Soviet automatic machines, the high scientific value of the American samples was determined by the fact that they belonged to the bedrock of the moon. It would seem that the United States should have distributed a significant portion of lunar rocks to the best laboratories in the world so that they could carry out an analysis and confirm: yes, this is soil from the Moon. However, the Americans showed surprising stinginess. Thus, USSR scientists were provided with 29 grams of rock, but not indigenous rock, but in the form of dust, which unmanned vehicles are quite capable of delivering to Earth in small quantities. At the same time, in exchange, out of its 300 g of regolith, the USSR gave the United States one and a half grams more. Other scientists from different countries were even less fortunate: they were given, as a rule, from half a gram to two grams of regolith, and with the condition of return. The results of studies of American samples published in the scientific press either refer to regoliths, or do not allow them to be identified as lunar, or lead to doubts. Thus, geochemists from the University of Tokyo established that the NASA lunar samples presented to them spent a gigantic period of time in the Earth’s atmosphere, which is almost impossible to explain if the samples were formed under lunar conditions. French researchers, studying the reflective characteristics of the American and Soviet samples, concluded that only the latter has light reflection characteristics corresponding to the albedo of the lunar surface. A comedic sensation, which for some reason did not get much attention from “free journalists,” was the recent report by Dutch scientists that a sample of lunar soil, solemnly presented by the US Ambassador to the Prime Minister of Holland in 1969, turned out to be a piece of petrified terrestrial wood. There were no comments from donors. But NASA decided to no longer provide lunar soil to researchers. The explanation is this: we should wait until more advanced research methods appear, and in the meantime preserve the lunar soil for future generations of scientists. NASA doesn't believe that future astronauts will be able to go to the Moon and bring back soil samples?

So, instead of publicly inviting the world's leading laboratories to conduct a comprehensive study of hundreds of kilograms of lunar soil samples using the latest methods and widely publish the results, a taboo has been placed on the study of samples. Strange, isn't it? Skeptics have the following explanation: the United States does not have genuine stones, because they have never been to the Moon, and subterfuges are invented to stop further revelations.

Where did the original lunar filming go?

Without responding to numerous accusations of falsification, NASA nevertheless sometimes reacts to them by silently removing ridiculous pictures or individual fragments from its websites, or even simply correcting details in photographs. Thus, noticed by skeptics in one of the NASA photographs, the distinct letter “C” on the “moon” stone, which is used to mark props in the American film world, suddenly disappeared from the photograph. The photo, in which the shadows of objects intersected, which is impossible in sunlight, was simply cropped. And so on. Let us dwell only on some of the oddities associated with the “lunar movie”.

Probably everyone saw on TV the exit from the lunar module to the surface of the Moon by astronaut N. Armstrong, who uttered the legendary phrase about “a small step for man and a giant step for all mankind,” and drew attention to the extremely low quality of the image, which made it difficult to see a certain figure , going down the stairs. NASA explained: these frames were taken on Earth from a monitor screen in Houston, and the poor quality was because the image was broadcast from the Moon. However, for some reason they were in no hurry to show magnetic tapes with high-quality images directly filmed on the Moon. With each new lunar expedition, the situation repeated itself: NASA did not show the original lunar photographs. To answer perplexed questions - why aren’t they showing high-quality footage? — NASA replied that everything has its time, a special storage facility is being built for the originals of priceless video recordings, after which copies will be made from them and shown to the general public. Years passed. And now, 37 years later, NASA announced that the original recordings of man's first step on the lunar surface were lost, along with the recordings of all other lunar expeditions. The trail of 700 boxes containing more than 10,000 magnetic tapes was lost before 1975, according to NASA. So, it turns out that why high-quality video recordings were not shown - they seemed to disappear into thin air! Well, it happens. It is a pity, however, that it was the recordings made on the Moon and during the flights there and back that were lost, while for some reason the much less valuable terrestrial recordings of the astronauts’ training, their rest, being with their families, ceremonial launches to the Moon, and even more were perfectly preserved. ceremonial meetings upon return. In 2006, NASA created a special commission to search for the missing films. Since then there has been silence. They're probably still looking. Strange, isn't it? Skeptics explain it this way: the film is dynamic, so it is almost impossible without computer technology to pass off filming made on Earth as lunar. Such technologies did not exist during the Apollo era. And photographs are static; it is much more difficult to detect deception from them. This is why, skeptics say, NASA “lost” the “lunar films” but saved high-quality “lunar photographs.” By the way, in the years since the lunar epic, NASA has repeatedly reported about the loss of lunar soil. It seems that the moment is not far off, say skeptics, when NASA will announce that everything has been stolen, so it is impossible to conduct further research on the moon rocks. Just as it is impossible to see the missing original recordings of people on the Moon.

Why is there no independent verification?

Modern technology makes it possible to photograph objects located on it with a resolution of about 0.5 meters from near-Earth orbit from a height of several hundred kilometers from the surface of the planet. When photographing the lunar surface from lunar orbit, the absence of an atmosphere not only improves visibility, but also allows for much higher resolution by reducing the orbital altitude to tens of kilometers. This makes it possible to receive from lunar probes not only a clear image of the Apollo landing modules remaining on the Moon, which are about five meters in size, but also the lunar vehicles left there by lunar expeditions and even traces of astronauts in the lunar dust. In the last decade, several countries have successfully launched lunar probes that have repeatedly flown over NASA's stated landing areas.

Information from Cnews.ru dated May 5, 2005: “The European Space Agency ESA unexpectedly stopped publishing images of the Moon obtained by the SMART-1 research probe. The agency previously said that one of the most important elements of the probe's scientific program is the "inspection" of the Apollo lunar landing sites, as well as other American and Soviet vehicles. This would put an end to the bitter debate and accusations that NASA is lying....

At the same time, it is known that the device continues to actively function... The program for searching for Apollo landing sites is not mentioned at all, despite the fact that this was previously directly stated by the leading scientific specialist of the ESA research program, Bernard Foing... Moreover just now it has become clear that research vehicles, even from Mars orbit, are capable of successfully finding long-lost landing vehicles on the surface, the landing sites of which were only approximately known to scientists. These devices are much smaller in size than the Apollo fragments that were supposed to remain on the Moon, and Martian winds and sandstorms significantly complicate the task.”

During the Kagui lunar probe mission, which ended in the summer of 2009, the Japanese media were lively discussing the Apollo issue. However, hopes of finally receiving independent confirmation of the historical achievement of the United States did not materialize. “Kaguya” was able to film even the previously inaccessible bottom of a lunar crater, saw water on the Moon, and many other interesting things. However, although he flew hundreds of times over the American landing sites, for some reason he did not provide any information about what he saw.

But the Indian Chandrayaan probe seems to have been lucky

Message from Gazeta.ru dated 09/05/09: “Leading researcher Prakash Shauhan reported that the probe photographed an image of the landing site of the American Apollo 15 spacecraft.” While studying the disturbance on the lunar surface, Chandrayaan-1 discovered traces of Apollo 15 being on the Moon... However, Shauhan added that Chandrayaan-1 has a camera whose resolution is not enough to distinguish the traces astronauts, noting that such pictures could be taken by the American LRO apparatus.”

The “disturbance on the lunar surface” looks like a tiny whitish speck in the photo from the probe and for some reason is interpreted as the landing stage of the lunar module. “Tracks of the lunar rover” look like a thin, barely noticeable squiggle.

For many years, NASA did not respond to proposals to film the Apollo landing sites and thereby confirm its lunar theory. And finally, 40 years later, NASA presented space images from the LRO probe of the five Apollo lunar landing sites. Alas, the quality of these photographs turned out to be no better than those of the Indians. Therefore, skeptics, and not only them, exclaim to NASA: damn it! You managed to transmit beautiful photographs from Mars, from the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn. But where are the normal photos from the Moon, which is hundreds of times closer to us?

Skeptics explain the oddities with checking the Apollo landing sites as follows. The devoted allies of the United States - Europe and Japan - having not found any traces of Americans on the Moon, did not disgrace their senior partner by exposing them. NASA's examination of itself for cosmic deception cannot be taken seriously. And for what kind of sins the Hindus took upon themselves - only God knows. It should be noted that they left themselves an escape route, mentioning some kind of “disturbance of the lunar surface.” When the lunar deception is revealed, the Hindus will be able to disown: they say they interpreted the “outrage” incorrectly. Skeptics note that reports of photographs from Chandrayaan and LRO appeared a week after the scandal in the Netherlands with the “moon rock”, which turned out to be a petrified piece of wood.

Decades after the US lunar triumph, American experts concluded that going to the Moon was very dangerous, if not impossible. Thus, experts from the famous Massachusetts Institute of Technology believe that the quality and reliability of information on the surface of the Moon is outrageous and inferior even to the available data on the surface of Mars, which does not allow landing on the Moon with a sufficient level of safety. But forty years ago there were even fewer such maps, yet the Apollos, according to NASA, landed on the Moon many times without any problems. How did they do it? There is nothing to be surprised here, skeptics believe, because no one has ever landed on the Moon.

Is landing on the moon still impossible today?

The head of NASA's Meteoroid Environment Office said the actual number of meteorites falling on the Moon is four times higher than previously predicted by computer models. But these models were created on the basis of observations and measurements carried out by the Apollo crews! Why did they turn out to be so wrong? Because, skeptics believe, no one has made any observations of meteorites on the Moon for the reason that no one has ever been to the Moon.

Several years ago, the United States set out to return to the Moon. However, problems arose. “NASA considers it necessary to carry out missions that fly around the Moon without landing on it and return the landing compartment to Earth to study the features of entering the atmosphere at such high speeds - at present they are “not entirely clear to NASA” (Space News message dated January 31, 2007). Well well! Once everything was clear and presented no difficulties; nine expeditions returned from the Moon or from lunar orbit without a hitch. And after 40 years, it became unclear how to land astronauts returning from the Moon to Earth?

“Bush's lunar program encountered an unexpected obstacle: its creators forgot about the X-ray radiation from the Sun. Suddenly it turned out that it is simply impossible to move on the Moon without heavy radiation “umbrellas”. (“Astronomy, Aviation and Space”, 01/24/07, Wed, 09.27, Moscow time). It turns out that scientists from the Laboratory of Lunar and Interplanetary Research in Arizona have found that the likelihood of cancer for astronauts on the Moon is very high, moreover, staying on the Moon in a spacesuit with the Sun active can be fatal. How so? After all, 27 Americans spent a total of hundreds of hours on the Moon, in its vicinity, on the way to the Moon and back, but none of them suffered from radiation, despite the fact that powerful flares on the Sun occurred more than once during lunar expeditions. The health of some astronauts is enviable. Thus, 72-year-old Edwin Aldrin punched the famous TV presenter when he invited the astronaut to swear on the Bible that he flew to the moon. They refrained from fighting, but the other five astronauts, to whom the TV presenter approached with the same proposal, also refused to swear.

“The 2011 budget draft prepared by the Barack Obama administration essentially closes the Constellation space program by returning the United States to the Moon. So, George Bush’s widely publicized program is being phased out” (“Rossiyskaya Gazeta” - federal issue No. 5100 (21). Here they are! Instead of using the already debugged, proven, extremely reliable Saturn lunar rocket and the Apollo capsule, For some reason, they spent about nine billion dollars on the creation of a new lunar rocket "Ares" and a new capsule for the "Orion" crew. After which they realized that today flights to the Moon are impossible in the same way as 40 years ago?

Was there a “moon conspiracy” between the USA and the USSR?

Supporters of NASA's lunar version ask skeptics the key question: if the lunar epic is a grandiose hoax of the United States, then why was it not exposed by the USSR, which participated in the lunar race of the last century and was the leader in it, and was also in a state of "cold war" with the United States ?
And why are some of the glorious Soviet cosmonauts defending the NASA version if it is false?

Skeptics answer: there was a conspiracy between the leadership of the USSR and the leadership of the United States. Without a guarantee of non-disclosure on the part of the USSR, the United States simply could not commit a scam. The USSR “sold” the Moon to the USA. According to skeptics, a number of events, including strange ones, are connected with this conspiracy.

1) 1967-69 - the beginning of the policy of détente. In 1972, President Nixon, who arrived in Moscow, signed or planned to sign 12 agreements between the USA and the USSR, extremely beneficial for the Soviet Union.

2) Agreements on missile defense and strategic weapons removed a considerable part of the burden of the arms race from the USSR.

3) The embargo on the supply of Soviet oil and gas to Western Europe was lifted, and currency flowed into the USSR.

4) Supplies of large volumes of American feed grain to the USSR began at prices lower than world prices, which allowed the USSR to significantly increase the production of meat and dairy products and caused discontent in the United States itself, as it led to rising food prices.

5) At the expense of the United States, chemical plants were built in exchange for their finished products. The USSR received modern enterprises without investing a penny.

6) The USSR’s refusal in 1970 to prepare a manned flight around the Moon on the Proton rocket with the Soyuz spacecraft.

Skeptics explain this refusal by the fact that if the flyby had taken place, the USSR would have had to answer the question: did the Soviet cosmonauts see the American landing sites on the Moon? The USSR could not limit itself to the silence provided for by the conspiracy. He would have to either withdraw from the conspiracy, or take the path of outright lies, confirming the American version.

7) In 1970, a Soviet ship caught an empty model of the Apollo capsule being lowered to Earth in the Atlantic. There is a photo of the layout on the Internet taken by a Hungarian journalist. The USSR quietly transferred a mock-up of the capsule to the United States, which, according to skeptics, serves as direct confirmation of the existence of collusion.

8) In 1974, despite the objections of specialists and leaders of the space industry, the leadership of the USSR curtailed the Soviet lunar program and the development of the N1 lunar rocket. The explanation is the same as in paragraph 6): as a result of the conspiracy, flights to the Moon for the USSR were, in fact, ordered.

9) In 1975, flights to the Moon and Soviet automatic stations were stopped. Since then, neither the USSR nor present-day Russia have approached the Moon.

Skeptics conclude: Russia, as the successor of the USSR, is fulfilling its obligations under the “lunar conspiracy” of the late 60s of the last century.

10) In 1975, the Helsinki Treaty was concluded, which affirmed the inviolability of borders in Europe after the war. He removed all possible claims against the USSR regarding the “occupation” of Western Ukraine, Bessarabia, East Prussia, and the Baltic states.

The first and only joint orbital flight "Soyuz-Apollo", which took place in the same 1975, was needed by the United States, according to skeptics, as an indirect confirmation on the part of the USSR of the US space victory.

Some skeptics suggest that the United States had serious compromising evidence against the leadership of the USSR, which contributed to the conspiracy. If we accept this assumption, then, in my opinion, such incriminating evidence could have been something connecting the dissolute daughter of the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Galina Brezhneva, a lover of diamonds, wine, men and the “beautiful life,” with American intelligence. Such a connection could be the result of a provocation by American intelligence services. The publication of compromising evidence threatened the USSR with an unprecedented international scandal. In the face of his threat, taking into account US proposals that were also beneficial for the USSR, including the policy of détente, the USSR leadership agreed to a conspiracy.

Regarding the defense of the NASA version by some Soviet cosmonauts, skeptics suggest considering the following:

1) The astronauts limit themselves to the statement that “the Americans were on the Moon,” but do not try to refute the specific arguments of the skeptics. By the way, in view of the obvious forgery of “lunar film materials,” in particular, American flags fluttering in the lunar wind on the atmosphere-less Moon, the cosmonauts are forced to admit that these materials were “filmed” on Earth.

2) Cosmonauts are military people. They swore an oath to keep state secrets known to them. And the collusion between the USSR and the USA is still protected as the greatest secret by both the USA and Russia.

3) Astronauts are people too, there are also selfish individuals among them, not all of them could resist the temptation to support NASA’s lies, not without benefit. One of the former cosmonauts, twice Hero of the Soviet Union, who has visited the United States many times and is friends with American astronauts, now the deputy director of a large bank and one of the richest people in Russia, even expressed his admiration for the oligarch Abramovich, who managed to make a multi-billion dollar fortune out of thin air.

4) Among Russian cosmonauts there are cautious skeptics who do not show off their skepticism for the reason stated in paragraph 2.

NASA's human spaceflight program, established in 1961 with the goal of achieving the first manned landing on the Moon and completed in 1975. President John F. Kennedy formulated this goal in a speech on September 12, 1961, and it was achieved on July 20, 1969 during the Apollo mission. 11 by the landing of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Also, under the Apollo program, 5 more successful landings of astronauts on the Moon were made, the last in 1972. These six flights under the Apollo program are currently the only ones in the history of mankind when people landed on another astronomical object. The Apollo program and the moon landing are often cited as some of the greatest achievements in human history.

The Apollo program was the third human spaceflight program adopted by NASA, the US space agency. This program used the Apollo spacecraft and a series of Saturn launch vehicles, which were later used for the Skylab program and participated in the Soviet-American Soyuz-Apollo program. These later programs are considered part of the overall Apollo program.

There were two major accidents during the program. The first fire during ground tests at the launch complex, as a result of which 3 astronauts V. Grissom, E. White and R. Chaffee died. The second occurred during the flight of Apollo 13, as a result of the explosion of an oxygen tank and the failure of two of the three fuel cell batteries. The landing on the Moon was disrupted, and the astronauts managed to return to Earth at the risk of their lives.

The program made a major contribution to the history of manned space exploration. It remains the only space program that has carried out manned flights beyond low Earth orbit. Apollo 8 was the first manned spacecraft to orbit another astronomical object, and Apollo 17 was the last manned lunar landing to date.

Background

The Apollo program was conceived in early 1960, during the Eisenhower administration, as a continuation of the American Mercury space program. The Mercury spacecraft could only carry one astronaut into low orbit around the Earth. The new Apollo spacecraft was designed to put three astronauts on a trajectory to the Moon and perhaps even land on it. The program was named after Apollo, the Greek god of light and archery, by NASA manager Avram Silverstein. Despite the fact that funding was significantly lower than necessary due to Eisenhower's negative attitude towards manned spaceflight, NASA continued to develop the program. In November 1960, John F. Kennedy was elected president after a campaign in which he promised Americans superiority over the Soviet Union in space exploration and rocket science.

On April 12, 1961, Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space, which only reinforced American fears that the United States was lagging behind the Soviet Union on a technological level.

Spaceship

The Apollo spacecraft consisted of two main parts: the command and service compartments, in which the crew spent most of the flight, and the lunar module, designed for landing and taking off from the Moon by two astronauts.

Command and service compartments

Apollo command and service compartments in lunar orbit.

The command compartment was developed by North American Rockwell and has the shape of a cone with a spherical base, base diameter 3920 mm, cone height 3430 mm, apex angle 60°, nominal weight 5500 kg.

The command compartment is the flight control center. All crew members are in the command compartment during the flight, with the exception of the lunar landing stage. The command compartment in which the crew returns to Earth all that remains of the Saturn 5 Apollo system after the flight to the Moon. The service compartment carries the main propulsion system and support systems for the Apollo spacecraft.

The command compartment has a pressurized cabin with a crew life support system, a control and navigation system, a radio communication system, an emergency rescue system and a heat shield.

Lunar module

The Apollo Lunar Module on the surface of the Moon.

The Apollo lunar module was developed by Grumman and has two stages: landing and takeoff. The landing stage, equipped with an independent propulsion system and landing legs, is used to lower the lunar craft from lunar orbit and softly land on the lunar surface, and also serves as a launch pad for the take-off stage. The take-off stage, with a pressurized crew cabin and its own propulsion system, after completion of research, is launched from the surface of the Moon and docked with the command compartment in orbit. The separation of stages is carried out using pyrotechnic devices.

Launch vehicles

When a team of engineers led by Wernher von Braun began developing the Apollo program, it was not yet clear which flight pattern would be chosen, and, accordingly, the mass of the payload that the launch vehicle would have to put on a trajectory to the Moon was unknown. A flight to the Moon, in which one ship landed on the Moon, took off and returned to Earth, required a much greater payload from the launch vehicle than existing rockets were capable of launching into space. Initially, it was planned to create a Nova launch vehicle. But soon a solution was chosen in which the main ship remains in lunar orbit, and only the lunar module, separated from the main ship, lands on the Moon and takes off from the Moon. To accomplish this task, the Saturn IB and Saturn V launch vehicles were created. Despite the fact that the Saturn V had significantly less power than the Nova.

Saturn V

Diagram of Saturn V

The Saturn V launch vehicle consisted of three stages. The first stage, S-IC, featured five F-1 oxygen-kerosene engines with a total thrust of 33,400 kN. The first stage operated for 2.5 minutes and accelerated the spacecraft to a speed of 2.68? With. The second stage, S-II, used five J-2 oxygen-hydrogen engines with a total thrust of 5115 kN. The second stage operated for approximately 6 minutes, accelerating the spacecraft to a speed of 6.84? s and bringing it to an altitude of 185 km. On the third stage, S-IVB, one J-2 engine with a thrust of 1000 kN was installed. The third stage was switched on twice; after the separation of the second stage, it worked for 2.5 minutes and launched the ship into Earth orbit. After entering orbit, the third stage was turned on again and in 6 minutes put the ship on a flight path to the Moon. The third stage was placed on a trajectory of collision with the Moon to study the geology of the Moon; when the stage collided with the Moon, due to the kinetic energy of its movement, an explosion occurred, the effect of which on the Moon was recorded by equipment left by previous crews.

The Saturn V launch vehicle was capable of delivering a total mass of about 145 tons into low Earth orbit, and about 65 tons into a trajectory to the Moon. A total of 13 rocket launches were made, 9 of them to the Moon.

Saturn IB

Saturn IB two-stage launch vehicle, an upgraded version of the Saturn I launch vehicle. The first stage, SI-B, was equipped with 8 H-1 oxygen-kerosene engines, the total thrust of which was 6,700 kN. The stage operated for 2.5 minutes and turned off at an altitude of 68 kilometers. The second stage of the Saturn IB, S-IVB, the third stage of the Saturn V, operated for about 7 minutes and carried the payload into orbit.

Saturn IB carried 15.3 tons into low Earth orbit. It was used in test launches of the Apollo program and in the Skylab and Soyuz Apollo programs.

Space flights under the Apollo program

Unmanned launches

Manned flights

The first photograph taken by Neil Armstrong after he walked onto the lunar surface.

Apollo 7, launched on October 11, 1968, was the first manned spacecraft of the Apollo program. It was an eleven-day flight in Earth orbit, the purpose of which was comprehensive testing of the command module and command-measuring complex.

Initially, the next manned flight under the Apollo program was supposed to simulate the operating modes and conditions of a flight to the Moon as closely as possible in Earth orbit, and the next launch was supposed to conduct similar tests in lunar orbit, making the first manned flyby of the Moon. But at the same time, the USSR was testing the Zond, a two-seat manned spacecraft Soyuz 7K-L1, which was supposed to be used for a manned flight around the Moon. The threat that the USSR would overtake the United States in a manned flyby of the Moon forced project leaders to rearrange the flights, despite the fact that the lunar module was not yet ready for testing.

Apollo 8 was launched on December 21, 1968, and entered lunar orbit on December 24, making the first manned lunar flyby in human history.

On March 3, 1969, Apollo 9 was launched; during this flight, a flight to the Moon was simulated in Earth orbit.

On May 18, 1969, Apollo 10 was sent into space; during this flight, a “dress rehearsal” for landing on the Moon was carried out. The ship's flight program included all the operations that were to be carried out during the landing, with the exception of the actual landing on the Moon, stay on the Moon and launch from the Moon. Some NASA experts, after the successful flights of Apollo 8 and Apollo 9, recommended using Apollo 10 for the first landing of people on the Moon. NASA management considered it necessary to first conduct another test flight.

A video camera mounted on Apollo 11 captured Neil Armstrong's first steps on the Moon.

Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin salutes the American flag. The illusion of wind is caused by a horizontal rod that is inserted to hold the top edge of the flag unfurled.

On July 16, 1969, Apollo 11 launched. On July 20 at 20:17:42 GMT, the lunar module landed in the Sea of ​​Tranquility. Neil Armstrong descended onto the surface of the Moon on July 21, 1969 at 02:56:20 GMT, making the first lunar landing in human history. Stepping onto the surface of the Moon, he said:

Apollo 12 launched on November 14, 1969, and the second lunar landing took place on November 19. The lunar module landed about two hundred meters from the Surveyor-3 spacecraft, the astronauts photographed the landing site and dismantled some parts of the spacecraft, which were then brought to Earth. 34.4 kg of lunar rocks were collected. The astronauts returned to earth on November 24.

On April 11, 1970, Apollo 13 was launched. On April 14, at a distance of 330,000 kilometers from Earth, an oxygen tank exploded and two of the three fuel cell batteries that provided power to the command module crew compartment failed. As a result, the astronauts could not use the propulsion engine and life support systems of the service module. The astronauts had only the intact lunar module at their disposal. Using its engine, the trajectory was adjusted so that after flying around the Moon the ship returned to Earth, thanks to which the astronauts managed to escape. The astronauts returned to earth on April 17.

On January 31, 1971, Apollo 14 launched. On February 5, 1971, the lunar module landed. The astronauts returned to Earth on February 9, 1971. During the flight, a significantly larger scientific program was carried out than in the Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 expeditions. 42.9 kg of lunar rocks were collected.

Apollo 15 Expedition. Lunar car.

Apollo 15 took off on July 26, 1971. On July 30, the Lunar Module landed. This expedition was the first to use a lunar vehicle, which was also used on the Apollo 16 and Apollo 17 missions. 76.8 kg of lunar rocks were collected. The astronauts returned to Earth on August 7, 1971.

On April 16, 1972, Apollo 16 was launched. On April 21, the lunar module landed. 94.7 kg of lunar rocks were collected. The astronauts returned to Earth on April 27, 1972.

December 7, 1972 Apollo 17 launch. On December 11, the lunar module landed. 110.5 kg of lunar rocks were collected. During this expedition, the last lunar landing to date took place. The astronauts returned to Earth on December 19, 1972.

Manned flights under the American Apollo lunar program

№	Astronauts	Date and time of launch and return to Earth, flight time, h:m:s	Objectives and results of the flight	Date and time of landing and takeoff from the Moon	Time spent on the Moon / total time spent on the lunar surface	Mass of delivered lunar soil, kg
Apollo 7	Walter Schirra, Donn Eisel, Walter Cunningham	11.10.1968 15:02:45 - 22.10.1968 11:11:48 / 260:09:03	First tests of the Apollo spacecraft in low-Earth orbit	-	-	-
Apollo 8	Frank Borman, James Lovell, William Anders	21.12.1968 12:51:00 - 27.12.1968 15:51:42 / 147:00:42	First manned flyby of the Moon, re-entry into the atmosphere at escape velocity	-	-	-
Apollo 9	James McDivitt, David Scott, Russell Schweickart	03.03.1969 16:00:00 - 13.03.1969 17:00:54 / 241:00:54	Testing the main and lunar spacecraft in low-Earth orbit, testing the rebuilding of compartments	-	-	-
Apollo 10	Thomas Stafford, Eugene Cernan, John Young	18.05.1969 16:49:00 - 26.05.1969 16:52:23 / 192:03:23	Testing the main and lunar spacecraft in lunar orbit, testing the restructuring of compartments and maneuvers in lunar orbit	-	-	-
Apollo 11	Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin, Michael Collins	16.07.1969 13:32:00 - 24.07.1969 16:50:35 / 195:18:35	First moon landing	20.07.1969 20:17:40 - 21.07.1969 17:54:01	21 h 36 min / 2 h 32 min	21.7
Apollo 12	Charles Conrad, Alan Bean, Richard Gordon	14.11.1969 16:22:00 - 24.11.1969 20:58:24 / 244:36:24	Second moon landing.	19.11.1969 06:54:35 - 20.11.1969 14:25:47	31 h 31 min / 7 hours 45 minutes	34.4
Apollo 13	James Lovell, John Swigert, Fred Hayes	11.04.1970 19:13:00 - 17.04.1970 18:07:41 / 142:54:41	The landing on the Moon did not take place due to a ship accident. Flying around the Moon and returning to Earth.	-	-	-
Apollo 14	Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell, Stuart Roosa	01.02.1971 21:03:02 - 10.02.1971 21:05:00 / 216:01:58	Third moon landing.	05.02.1971 09:18:11 - 06.02.1971 18:48:42	33 h 31 min / 9 h 23 min	42.9
Apollo 15	David Scott, James Irwin, Alfred Worden	26.07.1971 13:34:00 - 07.08.1971 20:45:53 / 295:11:53	Fourth moon landing	30.07.1971 22:16:29 - 02.08.1971 17:11:22	66 h 55 min / 18 h 35 min	76.8
Apollo 16	John Young, Charles Duke, Thomas Mattingly	16.04.1972 17:54:00 - 27.04.1972 19:45:05 / 265:51:05	Fifth moon landing	21.04.1972 02:23:35 - 24.04.1972 01:25:48	71 h 2 min / 20 h 14 min	94.7
Apollo 17	Eugene Cernan, Harrison Schmitt, Ronald Evans	07.12.1972 05:33:00 - 19.12.1972 19:24:59 / 301:51:59	Sixth moon landing	11.12.1972 19:54:57 - 14.12.1972 22:54:37	75 h 00 min / 22 h 04 min	110.5

Program cost

In March 1966, NASA told Congress that the cost of the thirteen-year Apollo program, which would include six lunar landings between July 1969 and December 1972, would be approximately $22.718 billion.

According to Steve Garber, curator of the NASA history website, the final cost of the Apollo program was between 20 and 25.4 billion 1969 US dollars, or approximately 135 billion in 2005 dollars.

Canceled flights

Initially, 3 more lunar expeditions were planned - Apollo 18, -19 and -20, but NASA cut the budget to redirect funds to the development of the Space Shuttle. The remaining unused Saturn V launch vehicles and Apollo spacecraft were decided to be used for the Skylab and Soyuz-Apollo programs. Of the three Saturn Vs, only one was used to launch the Skylab station, the remaining two became museum exhibits. The Apollo spacecraft, which participated in the Soyuz-Apollo program, was launched by a Saturn-1B launch vehicle.

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

Almost half a century has passed since the Apollo flights, but the debate about whether Americans were on the Moon does not subside, but is becoming increasingly fierce. The piquancy of the situation is that supporters of the “moon conspiracy” theory are trying to challenge not real historical events, but their own, vague and error-ridden idea of ​​them.

Lunar epic

First the facts. On May 25, 1961, six weeks after Yuri Gagarin's triumphant flight, President John F. Kennedy delivered a speech to the Senate and House of Representatives in which he promised that an American would land on the moon before 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 their Soviet colleagues, American specialists studied the experience of German engineers who built the 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, Wernher von Braun's team, taken from Germany, continued to create ballistic missiles in the interests of the army, but they were unsuitable for space flights. When the Redstone rocket, the successor to the German A-4, was modified to launch the first American spacecraft, Mercury, it could only lift it to suborbital altitude.

Nevertheless, resources were found in the United States, so American designers quickly created the necessary “line” of launch vehicles: from Titan-2, which launched the two-seat Gemini maneuvering spacecraft into orbit, to Saturn 5, capable of sending the three-seat Apollo spacecraft "to the Moon.

Redstone
Saturn-1B
Saturn-5
Titan-2

Of course, before sending expeditions, a colossal amount of work was required. Spacecraft of the Lunar Orbiter series carried out detailed mapping of the nearest celestial body - with their help it was possible to identify and study suitable landing sites. The Surveyor series vehicles made soft landings on the Moon and transmitted beautiful images of the surrounding area.

The Lunar Orbiter spacecraft carefully mapped the Moon, determining future landing sites for astronauts.

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

At the same time, the Gemini program developed. After unmanned launches, Gemini 3 launched on March 23, 1965, maneuvering by changing the speed and inclination of its orbit, which was an unprecedented achievement at that time. Soon Gemini 4 flew, on which Edward White made the first spacewalk for Americans. The ship operated in orbit for four days, testing attitude control systems for the Apollo program. Gemini 5, which launched on August 21, 1965, tested electrochemical generators and a docking radar. In addition, the crew set a record for the duration of stay in space - almost eight days (Soviet cosmonauts managed to beat it only in June 1970). By the way, during the Gemini 5 flight, Americans for the first time encountered the negative consequences of weightlessness - a 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, Gemini 6 and Gemini 7 approached each other, simulating a docking. Moreover, the crew of the second ship spent more than thirteen days in orbit (that is, the full time of the lunar expedition), proving that the measures taken to maintain physical fitness are quite effective during such a long flight. The docking procedure was practiced on the ships Gemini 8, Gemini 9 and Gemini 10 (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 a flight through the Earth's radiation belts (the ship rose to a record altitude of 1369 km). On Gemini 12, astronauts tested 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 the “intermediate” two-stage Saturn 1 rocket for testing. During its first launch on October 27, 1961, it surpassed the Vostok rocket in thrust, on which Soviet cosmonauts flew. It was assumed that the same rocket would launch the first Apollo 1 spacecraft into space, but on January 27, 1967, there was a fire at the launch complex in which the crew of the ship died, and many plans had to be revised.

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

On October 11, 1968, the Saturn 1B rocket launched the command and service module of the Apollo 7 spacecraft with its crew into orbit. For ten days, the astronauts tested the ship, conducting complex maneuvers. Theoretically, Apollo was ready for the expedition, but the lunar module was still “raw.” And then a mission was invented that was not initially planned at all - a flight around the Moon.

The flight of Apollo 8 was not planned by NASA: it was an improvisation, but was carried out brilliantly, securing another historical priority for 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 the ship modules in low-Earth orbit, then the Apollo 10 crew did the same, but this time near the Moon . On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong and Edwin (Buzz) Aldrin stepped on the surface of the Moon, thereby proclaiming US leadership in space exploration.

The crew of Apollo 10 conducted a “dress rehearsal”, performing all the operations necessary for landing on the Moon, but without landing itself

The Apollo 11 lunar module, named Eagle, is landing

Astronaut Buzz Aldrin on the Moon

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin's lunar walk was broadcast through the Parkes Observatory radio telescope in Australia; the original recordings of the historical event were also preserved and recently discovered

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

Falsification theory

On the Luna-1 spacecraft, devices were installed to create an artificial sodium comet

It would seem that the reality of expeditions to the Moon should not have been in doubt. NASA regularly published press releases and newsletters, specialists and astronauts gave numerous interviews, many countries and the global scientific community participated in technical support, tens of thousands of people watched the takeoffs of huge rockets, and millions watched live television 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 during that eventful time, people appeared who questioned the facts of the astronaut landing on the Moon. Skepticism towards space achievements appeared back in 1959, and the likely reason for this was the policy of secrecy 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 out in the spirit that the communists were simply fooling the world community. Experts anticipated the questions and placed a device on Luna 1 for evaporating sodium, with the help of which an artificial comet was created, whose brightness was equal 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 appearance of the ship itself and the launch vehicle remained classified.

But the US authorities never expressed doubts about the authenticity of what happened: even during the flight of the first satellites, the National Security Agency (NSA) deployed two surveillance stations in Alaska and Hawaii and installed radio equipment there capable of intercepting telemetry that came from Soviet devices. During Gagarin's flight, the stations were able to receive a television signal with an image of the astronaut, transmitted by an on-board camera. Within an hour, printouts of selected footage from the 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 Scientific Measuring Point No. 10 (NIP-10), located in the village of Shkolnoye near Simferopol, intercepted data coming from the Apollo spacecraft throughout the flights to the Moon and back.

Soviet intelligence did the same. At the NIP-10 station, located in the village of Shkolnoye (Simferopol, Crimea), a set of equipment was assembled that made it possible to intercept all information from the Apollo missions, including live television broadcasts from the Moon. The head of the interception project, Alexey Mikhailovich Gorin, gave the author of this article an exclusive interview, in which, in particular, he said: “For guidance and control of a very narrow beam, a standard drive system in azimuth and elevation was used. Based on information about the location (Cape Canaveral) and 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 occasionally did the beam pointing deviate 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 Apollo landings from the 11th to the 15th... They took fairly clear images of the spacecraft on the Moon, the exit of both astronauts from it and the journey across 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 translations.”

In addition to intercepting data, Soviet intelligence also collected any information on the Saturn-Apollo program, as it could be used for the USSR's own lunar plans. For example, intelligence officers monitored 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 allowed to access official information on the ship and rocket. And, as is known, no complaints were made against the American side.

The Americans themselves had complaints. In 1970, that is, even before the completion of the lunar program, a brochure by a certain James Craney was published, “Has Man Landed on the Moon?” (Did man land on the Moon?). The public ignored the brochure, although it was perhaps 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 “moon conspiracy” theory.

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 outlined the now “traditional” arguments in favor of the conspiracy theory. For example, the author seriously argued that all deaths of participants in the Saturn-Apollo program were associated with the elimination of unwanted witnesses. It must be said that Kaysing is the only author 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 designing 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 any job, and probably did not have warm feelings for his previous employers. In the book, which was reprinted in 1981 and 2002, he argued that the Saturn V rocket was a "technical fake" and could never send astronauts on interplanetary flight, so in reality the Apollos flew around the Earth, and the television broadcast was carried out using unmanned vehicles.

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

At first, they also did not pay attention to Bill Kaysing’s creation. His fame was brought to him by the American conspiracy theorist Ralph Rene, who posed as a scientist, physicist, inventor, engineer and science journalist, but in reality did not graduate from a single 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 loner, but like a skeptic in searching 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 gone 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 Rene managed to make the most of the sudden interest of the public, fortunately he had a well-spoken tongue and did not hesitate to make absurd accusations (for example, he claimed that NASA deliberately damaged his computer and destroyed important files). His book was reprinted many times, each time increasing in volume.

Among the documentaries dedicated to the “lunar conspiracy” theory, there are 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 films appeared with claims to be documentaries: “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: An Investigation into the Authenticity of the Moon Landing” Investigation Into the Authenticity of the Moon Landings, 2004) and the like. By the way, the author of the last two films, film director Bart Sibrel, twice pestered Buzz Aldrin with aggressive demands to admit to deception and was eventually punched 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 the video was faked.

In the 1970s, NASA tried to cooperate with the authors of the “lunar conspiracy” theory and even issued a press release that addressed Bill Kaysing’s claims. However, it soon became clear that they did not want dialogue, but were happy to use any mention of their fabrications for self-PR: for example, Kaysing sued astronaut Jim Lovell in 1996 for calling him a “fool” in one of his interviews.

However, what else can you call the people who believed in the authenticity 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 astronaut landings on the Moon in the Hollywood pavilion? Even in the film itself there are indications that it is a fiction in the mockumentary genre, but this did not stop conspiracy theorists from accepting the version with a bang and quoting it even after the creators of the hoax openly admitted to hooliganism. By the way, another “evidence” of the same degree of reliability recently appeared: this time an interview with a man similar to Stanley Kubrick surfaced, where he allegedly took responsibility for falsifying materials from lunar missions. The new fake was quickly exposed - it was done too clumsily.

Cover-up operation

In 2007, science journalist and popularizer Richard Hoagland co-authored with Michael Bara the book “Dark Mission. 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, hiding from the world community the fact of contact with a more advanced civilization that has mastered the solar system long before humanity.

Within the framework of the new theory, the “lunar conspiracy” is considered as a product of the activities of NASA itself, which deliberately provokes an illiterate discussion of the falsification of the lunar landings so that qualified researchers disdain to study this topic for fear of being branded “marginal”. Hoagland deftly fit all modern conspiracy theories into his theory, from the assassination of President John F. Kennedy to “flying saucers” and the Martian “Sphinx.” For his vigorous activity in exposing the “cover-up operation,” the journalist was even awarded the Ig Nobel Prize, which he received in October 1997.

Believers and non-believers

Supporters of the “moon conspiracy” theory, or, more simply, “anti-Apollo” people, are very fond of accusing their opponents of illiteracy, ignorance, or even blind faith. A strange move, considering that it is the “anti-Apollo” people who believe in a theory that is not supported by any significant evidence. There is a golden rule in science and law: an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. An attempt to accuse space agencies and the global scientific community of falsifying materials of great importance to our understanding of the Universe must be accompanied by something more significant than a couple of self-published books published by an aggrieved writer and a narcissistic pseudo-scientist.

All hours of film footage from the lunar expeditions of the Apollo spacecraft have long been digitized and are available for study.

If we imagine for a moment that in the United States there was a secret parallel space program using unmanned vehicles, then we need to explain where all the participants in this program went: the designers of the “parallel” equipment, its testers and operators, as well as the filmmakers who prepared kilometers of films of the 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 an oath of silence. But there must remain piles of documents, contracts and orders with contractors, corresponding structures and testing grounds. However, apart from quibbles about some public NASA materials, which are indeed often retouched or presented in a deliberately simplified interpretation, there is nothing. Nothing at all.

However, “anti-Apollo” people never think about such “little things” 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, tried to find answers to them themselves, it would not be difficult. Let's look at the most typical claims.

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

For example, “anti-Apollo” people ask: why was the Saturn-Apollo program interrupted and its technology lost and cannot be used today? The answer is obvious to anyone who has even a basic understanding of what was happening in the early 1970s. It was then that one of the most powerful political and economic crises in US history occurred: the dollar lost its gold content and was devalued twice; the protracted war in Vietnam was draining resources; youth were swept by the anti-war movement; Richard Nixon was 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 dollars (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 prohibitive for the shrinking 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 were also largely lost.

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

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

Working box with moon rocks in the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility storage

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 Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility building, which was built in Houston, Texas. Applications for soil studies should also be submitted there, but only organizations that have the necessary equipment can receive them. Every year a special commission reviews applications and approves from forty to fifty of them; On average, up to 400 samples are sent out. In addition, 98 samples with a total weight of 12.46 kg are exhibited in museums around the world, and dozens of scientific publications have been published on each of them.

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

Another question in the same vein: why is there no independent evidence of visiting the Moon? Answer: they are. If we discard the Soviet evidence, which is still far from complete, and the excellent space films of the lunar landing sites, which were made by the American LRO apparatus and which “anti-Apollo” people also consider “fake”, then the materials presented by the Indians (the Chandrayaan-1 apparatus) are quite sufficient for analysis ), the Japanese (Kaguya) and the Chinese (Chang'e-2): all three agencies have officially confirmed that they have discovered traces left by the Apollo spacecraft.

"Moon deception" in Russia

By the end of the 1990s, the “moon conspiracy” theory came to Russia, where it gained ardent supporters. Its wide popularity is obviously 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 beliefs, noted for historical revisionism. In particular, he published the book “The Corrupt Wench of Genetics,” in which he refutes the achievements of genetics in order to prove that repressions against domestic representatives of this science were justified. Mukhin's style is repulsive with its deliberate rudeness, and he builds his conclusions on the basis of rather primitive distortions.

TV cameraman Yuri Elkhov, who participated in the filming of such famous children's films as “The Adventures of Pinocchio” (1975) and “About Little Red Riding Hood” (1977), undertook to analyze the film footage taken by the astronauts and came to the conclusion that they were fabricated. True, for testing he used his own studio and equipment, which has nothing in common with NASA equipment of the late 1960s. Based on the results of the “investigation,” Elkhov wrote the book “Fake Moon,” which was never published due to lack of funds.

Perhaps the most competent of the Russian “anti-Apollo activists” remains Alexander Popov, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, a specialist in lasers. In 2009, he published the book “Americans on the Moon - a great breakthrough or a space scam?”, in which he presents 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 has now agreed that not only the Apollo flights, but also the Mercury and Gemini spacecraft were 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 without extensive previous experience, it is simply impossible to launch such a complex reusable aerospace system as the Space Shuttle the first time.

* * *

The list of questions and answers can be continued indefinitely, but this makes no sense: the views of the “anti-Apollo” are not based on real facts that can be interpreted in one way or another, but on illiterate ideas about them. Unfortunately, ignorance is persistent, and not even Buzz Aldrin's hook can change the situation. We can only hope for time and new flights to the Moon, which will inevitably put everything in its place.

August 15th, 2012

I can’t bring anything new to this topic except the ability to analyze and the ability to see the situation from a certain angle. Perhaps you will find this worthy of your attention.

Background of the Moon Race

The first space satellite of the Earth, the first station to reach the surface of the Moon in September 1959, the first orbit around the Moon of the Luna-3 station in the spring of 1960 and the photographs it took of the reverse side, and finally, the first manned flight into space - all of these steps belonged to Soviet cosmonautics and occurred against the backdrop of a series of failures that plagued the American space program.

Falling behind in the space race dealt a severe blow to America's image as the undisputed world leader and undermined the carefully cultivated image of the socialist system as lacking evolutionary meaning and promise. Only a mega-breakthrough could correct the shaky authority.

That is why, soon after Yuri Gagarin’s flight into space, Kennedy’s famous speech, risky in terms of publicly assumed obligations, appeared, promising the nation that the American lunar expedition would land on the Moon before the end of the 60s.

“If we want to win the battle that is taking place around the world between the two systems, if we want to win the battle for the minds of people, then we cannot afford to allow the Soviet Union to take a leading position in space.”

“We must be leaders [in space exploration] because the eyes of the world are now looking into space, to the Moon and beyond, and we have vowed that we will not see an enemy flag of conquest on the Moon, there will be a banner of freedom and peace.”

Plot inconsistencies

When you begin to become more closely acquainted with the American lunar program, its results, the events that accompanied it and the events that followed later, there is a feeling of breaks in a number of storylines, which naturally gives rise to questions. Unlike, for example, the Soviet lunar program, which looks harmonious and logical, without such breaks.

To make the material clear, let's focus on three storylines:

• organizational and technological
• geopolitical
• detective-humorous.

The latter was generated solely by NASA’s approach to presenting evidence of its astronauts’ presence on the Moon.

Organizational and technological gaps

Let us list the points that can be attributed to breaks in the organizational and technological plots.

1. As part of the full-scale testing program for the Saturn-5 launch vehicle, only two unmanned test launches were performed. The second final test on April 4, 1968 was unsuccessful - the main part of its program in terms of preparing the flight to the Moon was failed. There was a premature shutdown of two of the five engines of the second stage, which did not allow the command module to be launched into orbit with a planned apogee of 517,000 km. Instead, using Apollo 6's own engines, the module was launched into orbit with an apogee of 22,235 km. As a result, it was not possible to check the quality of long-distance radio communications, to practice returning to Earth from the second cosmic speed, and most importantly, the reliability of the propulsion system of the Saturn-5 spacecraft remained unconfirmed. No more unmanned tests were carried out, the next flight immediately became the first manned flight around the Moon in December 1968 with a crew of three people, mind you - not turtles. The level of risk for manned flights is unacceptable. In principle, they don't do that. In Soviet cosmonautics, there was a rule: before a manned flight, two completely successful launches of an automatic analogue of the spacecraft must take place. And this rule was not only fulfilled, but also exceeded. Americans, in general, are also reasonable people.
2. Skipping the testing stage with an unmanned lunar landing and return of the lunar module to lunar orbit. A completely independent stage of full-scale testing of a complex unique apparatus, critical in terms of weight and strength characteristics, is mandatory for such a program. Instead, the Americans got away with undocking, maneuvering and docking the return module in lunar orbit - tests, which in themselves are a separate stage, testing the technology of docking and orbital maneuvering, without eliminating the need for an unmanned landing and lunar launch. Desperate guys.
3. The Americans never got the experience of landing ships on Earth from escape velocity because of the aforementioned problems with the final test launch of the Saturn 5, an experience that they quite wisely planned to get. A complex stage of the flight, requiring the same development as the landing and take-off of the lunar module from the surface of the Moon, as well as the stage of docking with the mother ship.
4. Lack of redundancy during the return phase of the lunar module. If during the first flight such an approach can still be explained by competition, then for subsequent mass and already “non-priority” flights such a disregard for safety is inexplicable and absolutely meaningless. As a comparison, we note that within the framework of the Soviet lunar program, to ensure the reliability of return, it was initially planned to use a backup lunar rover and a backup lunar module. The reserve module guaranteed return from the Moon in the event of a failure of the regular lunar ship, and the reserve lunar rover, equipped with a supply of oxygen, was intended to deliver the astronaut to the reserve module. The approach is quite reasonable, keeping the plot intact.
5. In 1970, at the height of the lunar program, the chief designer of the Saturn 5 rocket, Wernher von Braun, was relieved of his post as director of the Space Research Center. Marshall and was effectively removed from the leadership of missile development. A person was removed from the program who, being the coordinator of all parts of a huge complex project, was obliged to carry out operational duty at the MCC for the entire duration of each expedition in case of emergency situations, while remaining loyal to the program. In addition, from a moral point of view, the winner was robbed of the moment of universal recognition and the highest triumph in life among his comrades. Let us imagine, as an example, that S.P. Korolev in 1963 or in 1964 would be transferred to deputy minister.
6. The technological failure in the creation of launch vehicles and powerful rocket engines is the actual loss by the Americans of advanced technologies developed as part of the Saturn-5 project. The Soviet Union was able to repeat the American success in terms of creating a rocket with approximately the same payload capacity as the Saturn 5, only 20 years later in 1988 with Energia. Unfortunately, the program collapsed along with the Soviet Union. But the technologies remained: on the basis of the Energia RD-170 engine, the RD-171 engine was created, which is used for Zenit launch vehicles, and the RD-180 engine, which is supplied to the USA for heavy Atlas-5 launch vehicles. This is despite the fact that the technologies implemented in the F-1 engines for the Saturn-5 are more advanced than those implemented in the RD-170. With similar power, the F-1 engine is single-chamber, while the RD-170 is four-chamber. All other things being equal, the weight characteristics of single-chamber engines are better, and they are also more compact. However, the larger the combustion chamber, the more difficult it is to ensure stable combustion in it - this is an extremely difficult task. Soviet and then Russian engine designers were never able to create a single-chamber engine similar to the F-1. At the very least, it is surprising that the Americans, who have such advanced technology and have gone through the stage of its successful serial replication and use, have been ignoring it for many years and buying less advanced engines based on Soviet technology.

Summarizing the features of the organizational and technological plot of the American lunar program, we can say the following: a fantastic technological breakthrough, an inexplicable subsequent rollback from the achieved technological level, a fantastic, incomprehensible depth of preliminary engineering study of the problem, fantastic recklessness and fantastic luck. Since December 1968, the organizational and technological plot of the American lunar program has undergone a number of breaks from the “real” category to the “fantastic” category. Some of the generally accepted “rules of the game” in space programs were flagrantly violated without any consequences.

Breaks in the geopolitical plot

However, the main miracles happened in the geopolitical arena.

Beginning in 1969, the harmonious, clear and understandable geopolitical plot of the uncompromising confrontation between irreconcilable opponents breaks in an incomprehensible and radical way: America began to play along, as it were, with the Soviet Union, and this playing along continued for several years.
It all started with a gas pipeline to Germany (link):

“On the cold morning of February 1, 1970, at 12:02 a.m., glasses of champagne clinked in the conference room of the Kaiserhof Hotel Essen. German Economics Minister Professor Karl Schiller and Soviet Foreign Trade Minister Nikolai Patolichev signed an unprecedented agreement to begin supplies of natural gas from the USSR to West Germany.

But just about a year ago, when Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko unexpectedly proposed this project at a fair in Hanover, official Bonn then considered it another bluff of the Soviets.”

This is how direct participants in the process comment on the event.

Andreas Mayer-Landrut, German Ambassador to the USSR in the 80s:

“This deal was, of course, very important for the development of East-West relations. For the first time, Germany acted not as a “tail” of the Americans, but as an independent political player. US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger did not want the Germans to play a special role in the policy of rapprochement between the West and the East, he wanted to keep it under his control. But we are ahead of him with our Eastern policy.”

This comment is clearly intended for German mass consumption - so that the tail, which suffered a lot of humiliation after the 1st and 2nd world wars, thinks that it is wagging the dog.

Nikolai Komarov, first deputy minister of foreign trade in the 70s:

“There was no need to push through this idea, there were no political problems, everyone was interested, and the people at the top agreed quite quickly. There were no political problems."

What is noteworthy in this commentary is the remark about the absence of political problems at the top, while all previous attempts to build pipelines from the USSR to the West were decisively suppressed. For example, under the pretext that in the event of hostilities they could ensure the supply of fuel to the advancing Soviet army. Let us add that this is a time of fierce geopolitical confrontation against the backdrop of a striking event in the world liberal media cult - the Prague spring of 1968. and the indirect clash between the Soviet Union and America in the Vietnam War (1965-1973).

There were Soviet military advisers and specialists in North Vietnam who helped create an air defense system that virtually did not exist at the beginning of the war. The USSR also provided assistance with weapons and fuel. For the Americans, the result was catastrophic: during the war, according to various sources, from 3,500 to 5,000 US Air Force aircraft were shot down. In 1966, the Pentagon, with the approval of the US President and Congress, authorized commanders of carrier strike groups to destroy Soviet submarines detected within a hundred miles of the group. And this is in “peaceful” times. In 1968, the Soviet nuclear submarine K-10 in the South China Sea off the coast of Vietnam for 13 hours, unnoticed at a depth of fifty meters, followed under the bottom of the aircraft carrier Enterprise and practiced simulated attacks on it with torpedoes and cruise missiles, running the risk of destruction (or maybe Perhaps the Americans wisely decided not to notice it). Enterprise was the largest aircraft carrier in the US Navy and flew the most bombing missions against North Vietnam. Such is the American-Soviet friendship.

In September 1967 In Moscow, further agreements were signed on the USSR providing assistance to North Vietnam, and in 1968. The Soviet Union continued to supply free of charge aircraft, anti-aircraft missiles and anti-aircraft artillery weapons, small arms, ammunition and other military equipment.

In such a situation, completely unexpectedly for everyone, America blesses its “younger European brothers” for a deal extremely beneficial for the Soviet Union, overcoming the Vietnamese resentment, the trampling of Czech democracy and the instinctive panicky attitude of the Anglo-Saxons to strengthening infrastructure and trade ties between continental Western Europe and Russia, as undermining the foundations of their world domination. Compare the Soviet gas blitzkrieg with the colossal multi-year efforts of the Russian leadership to lay Streams, the purpose of which is to remove Russian exports from the control of America, which has the ability to manipulate vassal transit countries. And this is in the absence of direct geopolitical confrontation and indirect military conflict between the parties.

Practice does not know and does not tolerate such wonderful and kind breaks in geopolitical plots, such as what happened in 1968, especially on the part of the cruelest pragmatists who lead the global project. These kinds of events always have a hidden motive.

The first time information about the possibility of a gas contract was publicly announced by Andrei Gromyko six months before the Americans landed on the Moon. Naturally, the Germans, taught by the bitter experience of previous bans, were skeptical about it, realizing that decisions on the implementation of such projects are made overseas. However, completely unexpectedly for the Germans, the contract did not meet any resistance from the Americans; they did not seem to notice it.

Any events from the category of “not to notice” are actually thoughtful, pre-prepared and made decisions, and belong to the category of geopolitical exchanges. Since one part of it lies on the surface, and the other is carefully camouflaged from us, let's try to reconstruct it.

By allowing something, the Americans certainly had to get something no less significant in return. Realizing that the chances of losing the lunar race were far from zero, the Americans could decide to insure themselves against an unacceptable development of events and begin to work on the option of an illusory landing on the Moon. The main risk of this scenario was that the Soviet Union had the technological capabilities to disavow the event. Therefore, the wise Americans decided to prepare an option for an exchange - about a year before the planned date of a real or illusory landing, it depends how it goes, through unofficial channels they hinted to the leadership of the Union that they would not object to an extremely profitable deal with a gas pipeline to Germany. Now, if the Soviet Union had doubts about the authenticity of the event, the Americans had at their disposal a serious bargaining item - a large and tasty carrot that could be taken away.

An additional prize that the Soviet Union negotiated for itself in the exchange process was an unprecedented release of pressure in the exhausting arms race.

May 26, 1972 American President Richard Nixon visited Moscow. The event was extraordinary in itself, since it was the first visit of an American President to the USSR since the end of World War II. Before this, only in June 1961. A short working meeting of the Soviet and American leaders Khrushchev and Kennedy took place on neutral territory in Vienna.

The visit resulted in the signing of an open-ended treaty on the limitation of missile defense systems. A delayed consequence of the visit was the conclusion of the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty - SALT-1, which regulated the maximum number of stationary ICBM launchers and ballistic missile launchers on submarines. The agreement legally enshrined the principle equal security in the field of offensive strategic weapons. Let us note that the principle of “equal security” is unacceptable in Anglo-Saxon and then American geopolitics - for a player carrying out global geopolitical projects, following this principle is simply nonsense.

After Nixon visited the USSR, the only and last flight within the framework of the American lunar program was carried out, closing it in December 1972. Apparently, the visit fixed the final terms of the exchange, and the Americans finally managed to bring lunar soil, which we will return to a little later.

There is another option for reconstructing the part of the plot veiled from us with an exchange. Since in that strange period everything looked as if the Americans recognized the USSR as equal to themselves in strength and status, there is an opinion that the Soviet leadership outplayed the Americans then, that the Soviet Union seemed to have deceived everyone. Still, such a reconstruction option looks, at least, naive - the level of mastery of technologies for manipulating an opponent, the level of skill, resource availability and, finally, the traditions of the two sides in the conduct of the geopolitical game are incomparable.

Therefore, only the assumption that the USSR has implicit, weighty arguments for a geopolitical exchange can translate the miracle that happened into the category of reality. Those interested can try looking for others.

One small nuance can be added to what has been said. In 1967 China has already ostentatiously fallen out with the USSR since 1968. began to make active curtsies towards the United States. The American leadership has been slow to respond for several years, despite the consistently professed principle: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Only after a secret visit in July 1971. Kissinger to China, followed by Nixon's visit in 1972, which gave the green light to mutual cooperation. Its main condition was a guarantee from China of complete renunciation of cooperation with the Soviet bloc. Most likely, the American elite, realizing the unequivalence of the exchange with the USSR, decided to delay the beginning of rapprochement with China, so as not to irritate the Soviet leadership once again in a difficult situation and to ensure that the Chinese “gift” was taken beyond the scope of the ongoing bargaining, despite the danger of losing it (change the Chinese leader, his moods or the activation of the USSR).

The inconsistencies of the detective-humorous plot

As already mentioned, such a plot appeared solely due to NASA’s very peculiar attitude towards the issue of confirming the reality of landing American astronauts on the Moon. For NASA, it is beneficial and convenient to move the discussion into a similar plane. Indeed, the positions of the parties are indicated, then why frown seriously, let's have fun and laugh.
It is pointless to discuss perspective, scenery, light and shadow inconsistencies in photo and video materials - this is like playing as amateurs in a professional field, i.e. close to the giveaways. Any serve will be parried or pointedly missed with clown antics. Therefore, it’s better to limit ourselves to the same plot inconsistencies:

• traces of astronauts in lunar dust under the landed module
• circus with moon rocks.

The presence of traces of astronauts in the lunar dust under the module looks more than strange to someone who has read K.E. Tsiolkovsky (first picture). Those who are familiar with his works naturally think that, given the distance of the jet in the absence of an atmosphere, such a photograph is possible only after landing on the Moon with the engine turned off from a height of tens of meters. Otherwise, all the dust within a radius of many meters should have simply been blown away. After all, the thrust of the landing stage engines at the time of landing is about two and a half tons, and the speed of the jet stream relative to the module is 4700 m/sec (link). In this place of logical reasoning, legitimate fear for the life and health of the astronauts creeps in, it even takes your breath away. But familiarization with the transcript of negotiations with the command module relieves anxiety and allows you to breathe out calmly. In their audio communications, the astronauts wisely report the dust mass raised by the engine, which interferes with landing until the surface maneuvering is completed. So, well done - they didn’t turn off the engines after all. But before you have time to come to your senses, the insidious question of the origin of the dust under the lunar module comes up again.

The dust could not settle, since in the absence of an atmosphere it does not swirl, but scatters along parabolic trajectories or flies into space, since the first escape velocity for the Moon is only 1700 m/sec. It remains to admit the incredible - that one of Murphy’s laws, unknown to us, is in effect on the Moon, according to which particles of lunar dust have some unthinkable property of mutual attraction and, not wanting to fly apart, were mutually attracted and settled in the same place from where they were blown away. Then it is surprising that the pillows of the supports remained pristinely clean from the lunar dust that stubbornly settled in its rightful place, which is especially clearly visible in the second photo. It remains to put forward one more hypothesis in addition to the constantly evolving model of the world within the framework of Murphy’s laws: particles of lunar dust are fundamentally not deposited on physical objects of alien origin. One pleasant consequence immediately follows from this law: post-lunar quarantine is not needed, because it is meaningless, contact with the Moon does not seem to occur.

To follow up, we can put forward an alternative hypothesis: the particles of lunar dust have high intelligence, and they were simply interested in looking at aliens from other worlds, so they did not fly away. But they didn’t want to fly into the unknown on the supports of someone else’s ship. If this is so, then it is urgent to create the “Society of Lunar Soil Defenders”, the program goal of which should be to return smart lunar particles imprisoned on Earth back to the Moon. Fulfillment of this condition is the key to the success of the future Contact.

The main evidence of a successful manned flight to the Moon was to be large lunar rocks. Unlike lunar rubble (regolith), they could not be delivered to Earth by an automatic station. At that time, they could only be assembled by human hands.

The circus began with the stones. The Americans have classified all their stones.

It would seem that in the context of the ongoing persecution, present them, and all the questions of spiteful critics will disappear. But no, gentlemen are taken at their word. And from photographs.

“As reported by the Associated Press, Dutch experts analyzed the “moon rock” - an object officially presented through the State Department to the Prime Minister of the Netherlands Willem Dries by the then US Ambassador to the Netherlands William Middendorf during the “goodwill” visit to the country of astronauts Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin Aldrin after their completion of the Apollo 11 mission in 1969.

The date of delivery of the precious gift is known - October 9, 1969. After the death of Mr. Driz, the most valuable relic, insured for $500 thousand, became an exhibit at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam.

And only now studies of the “moon stone” have shown that the gift from the United States, officially exhibited next to Rembrandt’s paintings, turned out to be a simple fake - a piece of petrified wood.

The Rijksmuseum staff plans to keep it in the museum in the future - however, naturally, in a different capacity.

William Middendorf, who is still alive, apparently became an unwitting accomplice in the embarrassment - the most precious relic, symbolizing both the technological power of the United States and the openness of its space program, was handed to him at the US State Department.”

Let us recall that the first automatic delivery of lunar soil (regolith) by the Soviet Luna-16 station took place on September 24, 1970, i.e. a year after the original American “gift” was given. The situation looks as if the Americans did not expect such a dirty trick from the Soviet lunar program they killed and imprudently donated the stone.

Again, the easiest way would be to minimize moral costs and remove suspicion of global fraud by offering a real stone instead of a fake gift. Think about how you would crawl away if you thought of giving your woman jewelry under the guise of a multi-carat diamond, and later the forgery came to light? But no, NASA's lunar program considers standard plot twists trivial and unworthy of itself. Americans choose their favorite path of indirect illusory arguments. A piano turned up in the bushes - the Indian lunar satellite Chandrayaan-1. It turned out that literally a few days after the embarrassment, the satellite on September 3, 2009. without any preliminary announcements accepted in such cases, completely unexpectedly for everyone, he photographed the traces of the American landing on the Moon (if you have trouble with jewelry, show the footage of a street photographer who accidentally photographed the moment when you entered a prestigious jewelry store). As they say, accidentally flying past:

“The Indian lunar probe Chandrayaan-1 photographed traces of the landing of the American spacecraft Apollo 15 on the Moon on Thursday,” the Times of India newspaper cited Prakash Chohan, a specialist at the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO).

Images of the landing site and wheel tracks of the lunar vehicle were obtained by the HySI spectrometer installed on Chandrayaan, operating in a wide range of electromagnetic radiation.”(Link)

Apparently, in order to avoid surprises, the photographs were promised to be published in a few months, after they had been further processed. The result of a long pause was indistinct photographs in which arrows indicate darkening and are accompanied by inscriptions: the landing site of the lunar module, traces of the lunar rover.

However, it is pointless to find fault with the content of footage from the Indian satellite. To confirm the authenticity of the lunar program, photographs of the chains of traces left by the astronauts are needed, since there is no doubt that the American return module visited the Moon - NASA was still able to confirm the presence of regolith. The main question - whether the module was carrying astronauts or whether it landed on the moon in unmanned mode - remained open as usual.

To the above we can add the disappearance of the original footage of the moon landing in NASA archives.

“NASA has recreated footage of the man landing on the moon, reports the Associated Press. It is reported that the original tape of the landing was lost many years ago. The priceless footage was stored in NASA's film vault along with thousands of other films, NASA officials said. In the 1970s, the American aerospace agency experienced a shortage of film stock and periodically took some films from the archive, washed off the old image from them and prepared them for new shooting. As a result of a three-year search for the original, NASA experts came to the conclusion that, most likely, the film with the landing of man on the Moon suffered this fate.

NASA, together with a professional film restoration company, recreated the old film. For these purposes, they used original footage preserved in the US National Archives, the Australian Archives and the CBS Television Archives, as well as modern restoration tools.Experts say that the image quality on modern film is much better than it was on the original.”

Well, poverty has tormented NASA and now claims to the authenticity of one of the main materials are not accepted - it really is not authentic.

Thousands of magnetic films with original recordings of expedition materials have also been lost. NASA cannot yet even determine what materials are lost. Translated into the language of communications, this means that “exactly those materials that you currently need have been lost,” i.e. from the point of view of protection from suspicion - everything.

Each of the interested parties can only sympathize with each other and once again marvel at the originality of the plot.

Lunar soil

A small plot involving the exchange of lunar soil requires special attention.

After their first flights, the Americans categorically refused to provide the USSR with samples of lunar soil, even as confirmation of the reality of their lunar mission, citing the fact that they had nothing to offer in exchange for the most valuable samples.

September 24, 1970 The automatic station Luna-16 returned to Earth with samples of lunar soil. This put NASA in a difficult position - further refusal seemed unmotivated. Finally, in January 1971. an exchange agreement is signed (why an agreement?), after which the exchange was postponed for another year and a half.

Apparently, NASA planned to be able to deliver soil samples in early 1971, which is what the agreement was signed on. But something went wrong with the delivery, and the Americans began to drag their feet with the most basic operation.

In July 1971 The USSR, in good faith, unilaterally transfers 3 g of soil from its 100 g to the United States, without receiving anything in return, although officially NASA already has 96 kg of lunar soil in its storerooms. The Americans continue to drag their feet for another nine months.

Finally, on April 13, 1972 an exchange of samples took place, which were delivered to earth by Luna 16 and Apollo 15, although eight months had already passed since the latter returned to Earth. Of its 173 kg of lunar rocks delivered by that time, NASA presented 29 g of regolith for exchange. Naturally, there was no talk of making sure they had moon rocks and then returning them.

If we consider the plot with the exchange of lunar soil from the standpoint of the reality of the American landing on the Moon, then for some unknown reason it is clearly torn. If we accept the event of the moon landing as illusory, then the plot with the soil becomes consistent and logical.

Why was this possible?

The development of events indicates that there are serious reasons to consider the final stage of the American lunar program, namely the landing of man on the Moon, as an illusory mega-project.
Such a step could have been prompted by real successes in the Soviet lunar program and the unpleasant consequences of a possible loss in the lunar race from the point of view of justifying its geopolitical leadership.

Kennedy's speech showed that the American elite perceived the lunar race as not a competition, but a battle, and promised to win this war without fail. And in war, as we know, all means are good, which made it permissible to use tactics to achieve an illusory victory in a “war” that cannot be lost.

Having a unique industry, having a highly qualified apparatus and extensive practice in creating virtual images, it is quite logical to use them in geopolitical battles, the success of which largely depends on the player’s ability to sculpt his virtual image in the eyes of the world and the enemy. Therefore, it was difficult to resist achieving a guaranteed win.

All confirmations and refutations of the lunar mission are indirect. Although, taken together, the refuting evidence looks depressing.

So far, the situation has been suspended both by the lack of direct evidence and the lack of direct refutations. And the abilities and capabilities of the American elite to control and put pressure on other people’s lunar programs preserve the current status quo.

For the first time, the North American Space Agency (NASA) has posted high-resolution photographs of the Apollo lunar program on the Internet. More than 9,000 high-resolution images, which have never been seen before by anyone except specialists, were recently posted on the photo hosting site Flickr for free use. According to NASA, this is only the first step towards popularizing photographic documents of the Apollo program, and other photographs will be made publicly available in the near future.

The Apollo program operated from 1961 to 1975. During this period, 11 manned expeditions were sent to the Earth’s natural satellite, of which 9 reached the Moon, 6 successfully landed on its surface, and one, due to an accident, was forced to fly around the Moon without landing and return home (the other 2 carried out preparatory tasks and landed on The moon was not provided). The cost of the thirteen-year program was $25 billion (139 billion in 2005 dollars), which is almost 10 times less (!) than the costs of the 9-year war in Iraq.

The six successful expeditions were Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16 and Apollo 17. Apollo 13 almost suffered a tragedy due to an accident on board. It was decided to cancel the landing on the Moon, the crew was ordered to transfer from the service module to the landing module, and were emergency sent back to earth.

Especially for the readers of this blog, I posted all 9,000 photographs and made a selection of photographs from several expeditions of the Apollo lunar program.

02. Apollo 11 Expedition - July 20, 1969 First successful landing on the Moon| The lunar lander carrying Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin has undocked from the service module and is heading towards the surface of the Moon. The third crew member, Michael Collins, remained in the service module.

03. The first photo of the surface of the Moon after landing.

04. Unfortunately, this collection does not contain photographs of the exit of Neil Armstrong, the first man to set foot on the moon. From the porthole, the staircase down which Armstrong was descending was not visible. His exit was recorded only by a television camera mounted on an external stand, through which a live broadcast was made to Earth. A few minutes later, Armstrong moved her to another location. All that Edwin Aldrin could photograph in those minutes was the American flag that Armstrong stuck into the lunar soil and a television camera standing in the distance.

05. If a photojournalist had been on the Moon at that time, Armstrong’s exit he filmed might have looked something like this. Here Armstrong filmed Aldrin's entrance. At this moment it was important not to slam the hatch behind us. There was no handle on the outside of the exit hatch. If the hatch had slammed shut, the astronauts would have been unable to enter the module and return to Earth.

06. As you know, the first words that Neil Armstrong uttered when he first stepped onto the lunar surface were: “One small step for man, but giant leap for mankind.”

07. Footprint of one of the astronauts in the lunar soil.

08. Few people know that the first object that the astronauts threw out of the open door was a bag of garbage (!). Very human, isn't it?

09. Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin walk on the moon. One poses, the other takes photographs.

10. Lunar workdays have begun. Edwin Aldrin installs a solar wind collector screen. It was a sheet of aluminum foil 30 cm wide and 140 cm long and was intended to trap helium, neon and argon ions.

12. Edwin Aldrin deploys a seismometer.

14. Soil samples are taken.

15. Edwin Aldrin poses next to the flag. This photograph has been the subject of heated debate for many years. Conspiracy theorists argued that the supposedly waving flag indicates that the filming was done not on the moon, but on the earth, and here the action of the wind fluttering the flag is evident. Fortunately, anyone can now go into the photo archive of this expedition and view all the photographs that were taken that day. The bend of the flag fabric is the same in all photographs, which eloquently demonstrates the absurdity of conspiracy theorists’ suspicions. When the wind moves the fabric of the flag, its shape will change every second and it is almost impossible to repeat it.

16. It is known that when preparing the first expedition to the Moon, engineers proceeded from the assumption that over the billions of years of the moon’s history, a layer of dust several feet thick had accumulated on its surface. Therefore, the “legs” of the landing module were made long, with the expectation that during landing they would drown in dust. To the surprise of NASA developers and engineers, the layer of dust on the Moon turned out to be no more than 3-5 cm. Does this indicate the young age of the Moon, and therefore the Earth? There's a lot to think about.

17. The astronauts spent 2.5 hours on the lunar surface. When they returned to the lander, they threw away a few more items that they no longer needed - portable life support packs (the same ones they carried with them), lunar outer boots and a camera (the tapes with the footage were, of course, saved ). This was necessary to minimize the take-off weight of the module.

18. Commemorative plaque: “At this place, people from planet Earth first set foot on the Moon in July 1969 AD. We come in peace on behalf of all mankind.” The lower block of the landing module, on the stand of which the sign was attached, remained on the Moon.

19. The road home. The Apollo 11 lunar lander, after taking off from the Moon, approaches the command module that was waiting for it in orbit.

20. Apollo 12 Expedition - November 19, 1969. Second moon landing| Earth rising over the Moon.

21. Another Earthrise. Continuous phrase: "Earthrise."

22. View of the lunar surface from the landing module window.

23. Night on Earth.

24. One of the main tasks of the Apollo 12 crew was to find the robotic Surveyor 3 spacecraft, which landed on the Moon 2.5 years earlier. The crew successfully completed this task and landed the lunar module 200 meters from the Surveyor. In the photo, crew commander Charles Conrad stands next to the Surveyor 3 spacecraft. The astronauts removed some parts from it and took it with them to earth. Scientists were interested in how these objects were affected by their long stay on the Moon. The Apollo 12 lander is in the background.

25. Apollo 15 Expedition - July 30, 1971. Fourth moon landing| This expedition was the first time a lunar vehicle was used.

26. Astronauts David Scott and James Irwin spent almost three days on the Moon. During this time, they made three trips to the surface with a total duration of 18.5 hours.

27. Wheel tracks of a lunar car. The astronauts traveled 28 kilometers on it.

28. One of the astronauts installs scientific equipment.

29. The lunar car was developed by Boeing engineers. The wheels are made of woven steel wire. The car ran on electric batteries and could reach speeds of up to 13 km/h, and even more. However, high speed was undesirable, since under the conditions of the Moon the lunar car weighed 6 times less than on earth, and at high speed it was tossed strongly on uneven surfaces.

30. Relatively weak gravity was the reason that when walking, a lot of lunar dust rose, which settled on clothes. Pay attention to the astronaut's feet, black with dust.

31. Apollo 16 Expedition - April 21, 1972. Fifth moon landing| Unlike previous landings, which were made on more or less flat surfaces, Apollo 16 landed in a mountainous area, on plateaus.

32. Morning jog?))

33. The astronauts have clearly gotten comfortable on the Moon. A lunar car parked near the landing module, scientific equipment, and a working astronaut. There is no longer that wariness and uncertainty that is visible in the photographs of Apollo 11.

34. One of the astronauts got the lens dirty.

35. A beautiful shot of the Earth suspended in space. We humans live somewhere on this planet. We are born, we die, we create something, we fight for some reason.... How petty and insignificant all this seems from afar, from space.

36. The surface of the Moon as the lunar module approaches.

37. Apollo 17 Expedition - December 11, 1972. Sixth and final moon landing| Thanks to the lunarmobile, astronauts were able to move several kilometers away from the landing module and descend to the bottom of huge craters.

38. During the next landing in the lunar vehicle, crew commander Eugene Cernan hooked the wing above one of the wheels with a hammer sticking out of his pocket and tore it off. If on Earth such a breakdown is not considered serious, then on the Moon everything is different. Due to the absence of a wing, dust rose during movement, which settled on the astronauts’ clothes and on the instruments of the lunar vehicle. The black color of the dust attracted heat and created the threat of overheating. The astronauts had to urgently look for a way out of the situation. They managed to attach the wing using duct tape.

39. Collection of soil samples. The astronaut's clothes are stained with lunar dust.

40. Lunomobile against the backdrop of one of the mountains.

41. Lunar relief.

42. Return of the last lunar expedition. Dawn on Earth.

43. Huge ocean spaces. Oh, if only part of these spaces were dry land.

44. Our dear blue ball.

46. ​​The relief surface of the Moon and the rising Earth.

48. The astronauts who visited the Moon were the only people who could look at the lunar craters without a telescope.

49. During the Apollo 17 expedition, the astronauts drilled 8 wells 2.5 meters deep. Explosives weighing from 50 grams to 2.5 kg were placed in the wells. After the astronauts left the Moon, on command from Earth, the explosives were detonated and scientists used instruments to measure the speed of propagation of seismic waves.

50. On his way home, astronaut Ronald Evans performs a routine inspection of his spacecraft.

52. Crew commander Eugene Cernan and astronaut Ronald Evans.

53. What kind of device is so unusual? Looks like someone's brain under glass.

54. Ronald Evans shaves on his way to Earth.

55. The Command and Service Module America awaits docking with the lunar module that last launched from the surface of the Moon. The flight of Apollo 17 became the longest manned flight to the Moon. A record number of lunar rock samples were brought to Earth. Records were set for the duration of astronaut stay on the lunar surface and in lunar orbit. Apollo 17 was the most productive and almost problem-free lunar expedition.

56. More than 40 years have passed since the last time man walked on the moon. Will people return to the moon again? And is there any point in flying to the Moon again if it is now known for certain that there is nothing valuable there?

57. The Apollo lunar program is completed. The last look at the mountain range on the surface of the Moon, which rises above the Earth every night and illuminates our fields with its white light, is reflected as a light path in our seas, and shines through our windows while we sleep.

Photos: NASA

A photo archive of all 9,000 photographs in full resolution can be found on photo hosting