How CBS Faked the Apollo 11 Moon Landing Footage

Every industrialised nation has its own "space programme" how about a picture of the Apollo landers on the Moon from anyone other than NASA, that should be easy enough.

 

Every industrialised nation has its own "space programme" how about a picture of the Apollo landers on the Moon from anyone other than NASA, that should be easy enough.

 

I think this link is an excellent overview of why we didn't, couldn't have and still cant go to the moon.

[link to www.checktheevidence.com]

Fairly long read but well written.

That you think that article is good tells me just how ignorant you are of Apollo and spaceflight in general.

Just a couple quick points, at one point he claims that the spacesuits could not have dealt with the temperature extremes on the moon. The spacesuits today use the same basic systems and principles for thermal regulation, and have to deal with temperature extremes just as wide on the exterior of ISS for up to about 6~8 hours at a time. They still use a combination of insulation, high reflectivity, and water ice porous plate sublimators to keep the astronauts at a safe temperature. Space is a better vacuum than anything we can achieve in a lab on earth, and as such it acts as an insulator as well. There is no thermal conduction by convection in space, only by direct contact and irradiation. The spacesuits are well insulated and their porous plate sublimators also carry away excess heat via evaporative cooling (though in space it's really sublimative cooling). By claiming the spacesuits are evidence of a hoax, he is effectively claiming that they're evidence ISS is a hoax as well.

He also flat-out lies in some places. For instance, he claims that the space shuttles had just as much fuel as a Saturn V. Bullshit. The Saturn V had twice as much fuel as a space shuttle, and the mass that returned to earth (which plays into the payload fraction) was much lower than that of a space shuttle. A common saying in orbital mechanics is that low earth orbit is "halfway to anywhere." This saying refers to the fact that once you reach low earth orbit, you have spent about half the delta-V required to reach escape velocity. The Saturn V had enough fuel to boost them to the moon and they had more than enough fuel to get back.

Another lie occurs here where he uses this image to suggest that you should be able to see stars in the images alongside the sun:
[link to davesweb.cnchost.com]
What he doesn't tell you is that this is a composite image. You cannot properly expose the sun, the solar corona, and the stars all at the same time.
"Accurate for the exact time of today's Solstice, this composite image also shows the Sun at the proper scale" - which takes you here:
[link to www.astropix.com]
The links to Jerry's images on his own site are now broken, but the text tells the story.
"This is where the Sun is located in the daytime on the Solstice, although you can't normally see the other stars because of the Sun's overwhelming brilliance!"
"It is the Sun, to correct scale, in its exact location at the moment of the Summer Solstice, superimposed on a nighttime shot of the stars."

Don't trust that fucking liar known as Dave McGowan.

Do you know what the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is? Let's do a real simple calculation with it. The fully fueled Saturn V (with CSM and test mass in the case of Apollo 8) had a mass of about 2940159 kg. The S-IVB stage that would send them to the moon from orbit had a mass of about 120800 kg. The CSM had a mass of about 30332 kg. Let's just keep this really simple for now and do this calculation for Apollo 8, in which case the S-IVB weighed a further 9027 kg in dry mass (already factored into the above total S-V mass). Now the first stage fuel mass was 2169000 kg and had an Isp of about 304.8s, so the total mass minus the fuel mass is the m1 at first stage cutoff. That gets us a delta V of 3997.63 m/s. The second stage had a fuel mass of about 444000kg. Our previous m1-dry mass of first stage(131000) becomes m0 and m0-444000 becomes m1. The J2 engines had an Isp of about 426s. That gives us a stage 2 delta V of about 4937.92 m/s. Third stage, the S-IVB, also had a J2 and had a fuel mass of about 110800kg. Same as before, our m1-dry mass of second stage(36000) becomes m0, m1 is m0-110800. That gives us a 3rd stage delta V of about 4913.94 m/s. The third stage was burned twice, once to complete the parking orbit, and once to send the stack to the moon on TLI. The delta-V we just calculated for the Saturn V up to that point of the mission is 13,849.49 m/s. Traditionally, to go from earth's surface to lunar orbit requires approximately 12,700 m/s delta V ( [link to www.strout.net] ) so as you can see, they had more than enough fuel to send the CSM to the moon. The service module engine on the CSM had an isp of about 314 s and the SPS engine had 18410 kg of fuel. Given a previously mentioned CSM total mass of 30332 kg, the total delta-V for the CSM would have been about 2873.54 m/s. They didn't go back to earth orbit, however, they used that delta-V to put them on a direct re-entry course. Total escape velocity from the moon's surface is only about 2400 m/s, and from lunar orbit it only takes about 1000~1200 m/s to reach a direct reentry trajectory.

So yes, they had more than enough fuel to go to the moon and back.

I think this link is an excellent overview of why we didn't, couldn't have and still cant go to the moon.

[link to www.checktheevidence.com]

Fairly long read but well written.

Already read it years ago. McGowan's dead, so unfortunately he can't answer for his bullshit anymore, but his logic dictates that even modern spacesuits are fake, and he flat out lies as well, including the amount of fuel used by the Saturn V vs the space shuttle.

Here is a few to be getting on with.

Agencia Espacial Brasileira (AEB)
China National Space Administration (CNSA People's Republic of China)
Canadian Space Agency (CSA)
European Space Agency, (ESA Various European Nations)
The German Aerospace Center (DLR)
Iranian Space Agency, (ISA)
Israeli Space Agency, (ISA)
Italian Space Agency, (ASI)
National Aerospace Research Institute, (NADA North Korea)
Korea Aerospace Research Institute, ( KARI South Korea)
Indian Space Research Organization, (ISRO)
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, (JAXA)
National Center of Space Research, (CNES France)
National Space Agency of Ukraine, (NKAU)
Russian Federal Space Agency, (Roscosmos)
The U.K. Space Agency (UKSA)
National Space Research and Development Agency (NASRDA Nigeria)

Eagerly awaiting your pictures.

 

If you are thinking logically about the event, please tell me: What evidence could be presented that would allow you to conclude Apollo was real? Any you can imagine?

Not very classy to slag off a dead guy who has no opportunity to defend himself.

Regardless i implore people to read wagging the moondoggie for themselves, to make their own minds up.

I dont think he says modern spacesuits are fake, he just brings up the fact that the apollo suits were roughly half the weight of a modern space suit.

Which is odd given the improvements to materials in the 50 years since.

The big problem with the Apollo spacesuits was how hot it got on the Moon. People think about the coldness of space or the vacuum or radiation being problems for the spacesuit, they were but the most insurmountable one was the heat on the Moon. 


The Apollo astronauts would have been on the lunar surface that can reach 125 C under a blazing Sun at 6000 C. They had a primitive air-conditioner unit but the problem was there was nowhere cold for unit to dump its heat. Everywhere you looked was hot, to the Sun in the sky or the hot surface. The heat would have built up and up in the suit until very quickly the astronaut would have succumbed to a horrible heat death, nasty way to go.

If you are thinking logically about the event, please tell me: What evidence could be presented that would allow you to conclude Apollo was real? Any you can imagine?

Nothing insurmountable about it. Their soles were extremely well insulated, as was the suit in general. The same temperature extremes are present on the exterior of ISS, thermal cycling is even more frequent (sunrise/sunset every 46 minutes or so), and the spacewalks are generally even longer.

Yes that's exactly my point. If there was an ISS spacewalk the astronaut would be heated and cooled in equal periods during a 90 minute cycle. The average temperature would be like a nice European spring day.

On the Moon its like a furnace. The hot surface is radiating heat at the astronaut at the same time the Sun is scorching him from above. It would be unrelenting for 7 hours or more and there is no cold sink for the air-conditioner to exhaust its heat to, curtains for the Moonwalker.

 

A simple "X" made from black foil large enough to be seen trough a amateur telescope?

Maybe somebody can calculate exactly how large this "X" would need to be to be seen trough a amateur telescope?

I dont think he says modern spacesuits are fake, he just brings up the fact that the apollo suits were roughly half the weight of a modern space suit.

Which is odd given the improvements to materials in the 50 years since.

Yes that's exactly my point. If there was an ISS spacewalk the astronaut would be heated and cooled in equal periods during a 90 minute cycle. The average temperature would be like a nice European spring day.

On the Moon its like a furnace. The hot surface is radiating heat at the astronaut at the same time the Sun is scorching him from above. It would be unrelenting for 7 hours or more and there is no cold sink for the air-conditioner to exhaust its heat to, curtains for the Moonwalker.

The big problem with the Apollo spacesuits was how hot it got on the Moon. People think about the coldness of space or the vacuum or radiation being problems for the spacesuit, they were but the most insurmountable one was the heat on the Moon.

The Apollo astronauts would have been on the lunar surface that can reach 125 C under a blazing Sun at 6000 C. They had a primitive air-conditioner unit but the problem was there was nowhere cold for unit to dump its heat. Everywhere you looked was hot, to the Sun in the sky or the hot surface. The heat would have built up and up in the suit until very quickly the astronaut would have succumbed to a horrible heat death, nasty way to go.

 

The average of being in sunlight or shadow on the moon would be no different.

Speaking for my own scope, the limit of an 8" telescope's resolution is about half an arcsecond at best (actually 0.57" by Dawes' limit), only achieved with tons of image stacking on the very best nights. At that resolution, given an average moon distance of 384,400 km, that corresponds to a spot on the moon of about 1 km in width. An X 1 km wide in size would at best look like a barely perceptible slightly darker pixel when imaging the moon at the very limits of my telescope's capabilities. You wouldn't even be able to tell it was a letter. And my scope is far more powerful than anything you'll find in your local store.

To readily perceive the actual X in a scope like mine, the stripe "width" for the X itself would need to be at least as wide as the limit of the telescope's resolution. Again, that's about 1 km for my telescope. So the width of the strip you use to make the X, not the length, the width would have to be one kilometer. The length would have to be on the order of 4 or 5 km to make a recognizable X, and you'd have to do the whole operation twice, once for each strip. Sorry, but that's not fitting in an Apollo lunar lander. Figure that in total you need 8 square km of black foil to do the job. Let's say you use the lightest, thinnest kapton you can find, the same material that will be used for the delicate James Webb sun shield, and you find a really clever way to fold the whole thing up into a volume less than the James Webb without tearing it.

[link to www.dupont.com]

The above PDF lists the minimum density for really thin Kapton (12.7 micrometer!) at 14 grams per square meter. Let's say you coat this film black without adding any weight to it. You still need a whopping 112,000 kilograms of the stuff to do the job on 8 square km worth of lunar terrain! That's almost 7 times the ENTIRE MASS of the UPGRADED lunar module from the J missions, including the rover it brought with it! That's right, it's more mass than was left on the surface of the moon by all the Apollo lunar landers COMBINED. It's over TWICE the maximum payload mass an ENTIRE SATURN V MOON ROCKET could even put onto a trans-lunar insertion trajectory!

In short, no, it's not reasonable to expect NASA to blanket the moon with anything large enough to be seen by amateur astronomers.

Are you having a laugh? "Neil, this is Houston, we notice you have been in the Sun for 30 minutes now so we would like you to find a fuck off big boulder to crouch behind for half an hour so you can cool down again"

[link to cdn.theatlantic.com (secure)]

"A what now?"

It is completely different. You don't understand. An astronaut on the ISS would be heated by the Sun only, for 45 minutes before cooling again for 45 minutes. An astronaut on the Moon would be heated by the Sun and the hot Moon surface simultaneously and without cooling off, for 7 hours or more. What part of this do you not understand?

How many times do I have to tell you before you get it? They didn't need to go into a shadow to "cool off."[citation needed] Their spacesuits actively dumped heat by sublimation. But guess what? The sun's only striking one side of the spacesuit at any given time...

The big problem with the Apollo spacesuits was how hot it got on the Moon. People think about the coldness of space or the vacuum or radiation being problems for the spacesuit, they were but the most insurmountable one was the heat on the Moon. 

On the ISS. Which is what would make the heat load much more manageable there, the average over 90 minutes like a pleasant spring morning in northern France. On the Moon the Sun is heating one half of the astronaut while at the same time the entire hot surface around him is radiating heat towards him from every direction, 360 degrees around. You don't have that on the ISS.

Nothing insurmountable about it. Their soles were extremely well insulated, as was the suit in general. The same temperature extremes are present on the exterior of ISS, thermal cycling is even more frequent (sunrise/sunset every 46 minutes or so), and the spacewalks are generally even longer.

Excess heat was, and still is, carried away by sublimative cooling using porous plate water ice sublimators and by circulating liquid in tubes around the astronauts bodies.

For a fun science experiment you can do in any high school chemistry lab, fill a vacuum flask about half way with water and place it under vacuum with a thermometer in the water. As the water boils, what happens to its temperature?

It's basically the same principle for spacesuits, only it involves sublimation rather than evaporation.