Submit news tips and press releases to Editor at WeeklyUniverse dot com. All submissions become property of the Weekly Universe and deemed for publication without compensation unless otherwise requested. Name and contact information only withheld upon request.

Home

About Us

Bookstore

Links

Merchandise

Forum

Guest Book

Blog


Archives

Conspiracy Watch

Consumer Watchdog

Girls In Black

Health

Heartwarmers

Paranormal

Quirky & Bizarre

UFOs

Weird Science


Affilates

Hollywood Investigator

Horror Film Aesthetics

Horror Film Festivals

Horror Film Reviews

Tabloid Witch Awards


 


byFreeFind

 

 

 

 

APOLLO MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX!

Submitted by Big Jim and Clavius.org.  [August 24, 2003]


From Big Jim:

 

I would like to point out some serious factual errors in Der Voron's lunar conspiracy article. Quotes from Mr. Voron's article are between quotation marks.

 

 
"For example, one of the most modern Russian carrier rockets, Titan-4, which is approximately equal to the Space Shuttle carrier rocket by its parameters, is able to carry only about 17.5 tons of weight.)"

 

The Titan rockets are American, not Russian.

 

 
" 'Eagle' weighed about 16 tons, or about 5,500 pounds if we mean lunar gravity. To launch satellite of such a mass, at least an Ariane-5 class rocket is needed. But if even it is a Dnepr-1 class rocket, then the mass of rocket for launching 5,500 pound 'Eagle' from the Moon would be about 35 tons (211/6). Before launching 'Eagle' from the Moon, a 35-ton rocket itself needs to be delivered to the Moon."

 

Are we on Earth or on the Moon? There is a difference between the requirements for launching into LEO (Low Earth Orbit) and the requirements for launching into lunar orbit. It's not as if gravity is the only factor; there is no air, and the lunar launching sites were usually near the lunar equator (at least Apollo 11's was, and that's the mission Mr. Voron is using).

And you don't just divide the mass of a rocket by 6 to find out how much less take-off mass you need on the Moon. There are numerous factors that must be taken into consideration for launching objects from the surface of the Moon, including ascent track, the lack of an atmosphere, and the height to which a spacecraft is being boosted.

Also, Mr. Voron fails to note that only the ascent stage lifted off and the ascent engine, with a thrust of 10,000 pounds, was adequate for launching the ascent stage into lunar orbit.

 

 
"Plus, launching satellites even of this mass requires deploying a launching site.  How was such a site deployed on the Moon?"


No such site was required. The descent stage of the lunar module was used as a launch pad by the ascent stage. What, may I ask, would you need a launch site on the Moon for? There is no ground crew, no fueling, no rollout, no erection of the rocket required.

 

 
"(seems this should have been a very hard task for such modules to land on the Moon since the Moon has no atmosphere, which diminishes the speed of similar modules when these land on the Earth)"


We are in one-sixth G! The lack of an atmosphere makes it easier to land -- no air to worry about!  Air resistance would not appreciably slow the LM if it were on Earth; it is not designed to take that into account.

Let me say again: IT IS MUCH EASIER TO LAND IN ONE-SIXTH G THAN IN ONE G. The lunar module was designed to land on the Moon, hence the presence of an atmosphere and one G would render it useless.

 

 
"then how was, for example, the Lunar launching site deployed? On-site by astronauts in spacesuits?

And why was all this praiseworthy process not shown on the photos or videos? Where are photographs of such a praiseworthy achievement like the Lunar launching site?"
 

 

Ugh. There was no "launching site" other than the LM. And there are countless photos of the LM.  There are videos of the lunar launches taken by the Lunar Rover television cameras on Apollos 15, 16, and 17. 

 

"And if somehow no launching site construction was required to take off from the Moon, why are there no photographs or videos of the spacecraft taking off from it?"


There are. For example, here is a movie and images of the Apollo 17 LM liftoff.

 

"Wasn't it possible to take photos or videos of the spacecraft taking off from the Moon, from the 'Columbia' rocket?"


No, because it was in orbit from where the tiny LM could not be easily seen. But the Lunar Rovers were on the surface, and can and did send back pictures of lunar launches.

 

 
"Did the NASA astronauts return to 'Columbia', which remained in lunar orbit, using the rope that was hanging out of it?"


Is this point made in jest? I don't even want to begin to point out the inaccuracies of this statement.

 

 
"And where are the Russian photographs and videos dedicated to their 'Lunar takeoff' preparations?"


The Soviets did not land cosmonauts on the Moon.

 

"This seems more plausible, taking into account that the American flag, and a plaque with inscriptions on it next to the flag, are reported, by many persons who visit observatories, to be clearly seen on the Moon surface."


Really? How interesting, since it is not physically possible to see the LM, much less anything, from any observatory, Earth or space. Can I please see a source for this claim? 

Here are some additional errors in Mr. Voron's conspiracy article. Quotes are again in quotation marks.

 

"Or maybe NASA astronauts did visit the Moon (in the antigrav) and recorded all that which is claimed to be lunar photos and videos, but they were of such a poor quality due to some details of lunar atmosphere and climate that NASA decided to order new 'better looking' photos/videos from Hollywood? Then we may understand why there are such errors in them..."


The Moon does not have an atmosphere. The picture in Mr. Voron's article is a very poor quality photo compared to some of the better ones out there (which number in the thousands). And doesn't Mr. Voron earlier claim the LM couldn't have landed because the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere? The article seems to have internal inconsistencies.

 

"I think Russians, shocked by such a 'challenge' from NASA, in turn invented their own 'success story' about 'flying to the Moon' and 'taking samples of lunar rocks' by their 'unmanned' 'Lunohods'. "


There were Luna (or Lunik) probes and Lunokhods 1 and 2. Lunokhod did not return samples.  "Lunohod" was not a spacecraft.

Is Mr. Voron implying that these robotic spacecraft were manned?
 
 

 

I would also like to point out serious errors in Mr. Voron's other article connecting the Soviet wheat deals with a "lunar hoax".

 

 
"For a period in the early 1990s in Russia (another country claiming to have organized (unmanned) flights to the moon), the moon hoax theory was openly discussed in mass media. But later, the discussions ended."


I don't recall such a period. There's not too much to say about this; it's just wrong.

 

 
"Perhaps because the Russian Airspace agency began collaboration with NASA"


"Russian Airspace agency"? Last time I checked, Russia's space agency was the RSA.

 

 
"No Water for Footprints.

First, a photo of astronaut Armstrong's 'footprint' near the lunar module was circulated worldwide -- but footprints can only form on ground when water is present. Without water, sand particles cannot 'glue' together to form footprints. But there's no water on the moon, especially not near a jet engine that just stopped functioning (after landing)."

 

From the excellent Clavius website (quote in brackets):

 

[Several powdered substances on earth exhibit this behavior. Anything finely powdered, such as cornstarch or flour, will clump when packed. Even earth dust, if sufficiently fine, will receive a print quite well even when dry. 

The secret is in the microscopic structure of the individual soil particles, shown at right.  On earth most soil particles rub against each other as they are acted upon by wind and water.  This rubs off the rough edges. But lunar soil has no wind or water to erode it at the microscopic level, and so it retains those sharp edges that allow each particle to "catch" its neighbor and display the remarkable cohesion we can observe.]

 

Also, the "jet engine" claim is ridiculous. The DPS, which was the engine of the LM descent stage, was not a jet. All jets are air-breathing. It was a rocket. And why would the blast from the DPS blow away water if it were mixed into the surface? Is Mr. Voron claiming that the bone-dry lunar surface is actually moist but the DPS blew away the water?

 

 
"Slow Walking Anomaly 

Second, slow walking on the moon almost doesn't differ from slow walking on Earth. But lunar gravity is six times less than that of Earth. This means that astronauts would have to leap with every step on the moon."
 

 

Obviously Mr. Voron has never reviewed lunar surface videos which show the astronauts in their slow jogs.

 

 
" * Time Speed & Gravity 

Third and main. Gravitation and time are linked, and time depends on gravitation: the more gravitation, the 'faster' time, and vice versa. For example, on the sun, time flows' about 30 times faster than on Earth. On Mars and the moon, time flows slower."
 

 

I don't think so. 30 times faster? Gee. Mr. Voron is all confused with relativity. How does he draw this conclusion?

First, he has it backwards; in stronger gravitational fields time runs slower. He is all mixed up. It is only relative time that is affected by relativity; your personal clock never changes its rate; only relative to nonmoving frames of reference will a moving frame of reference appear to be experiencing slower time.

Voron does not understand the concept of time dilation. Even if on the Moon time "flowed" 100 times slower than it does on Earth, which it does not, the astronauts would still experience normal time flow; only in reference to Earth would it seem slow. Even at .5 c the time dilation factor is only about 2 (2 years on Earth for 1 on the spacecraft). The astronauts, in reality, would age less on the Moon, since stronger gravitational fields or acceleration will cause time dilation.
 
 

 

From Clavius.Org

 

I had a lengthy conversation with Mr. Voron regarding this article. I am a professional engineer and familiar with many of the technical details of rocket propulsion and space travel.

I can say without reservation that Mr. Voron has little if any real understanding of how rockets actually work. It would be difficult to decide where to begin to describe all that is wrong with his conclusions regarding Apollo. Needless to say his method of analysis has absolutely no basis whatsoever in engineering or science.

Mr. Voron steadfastly refused to reveal his professional or educational credentials. He claimed to have an I.Q. exceeding 160 (which, after our lengthy correspondence, I seriously doubt), but admitted having no experience in aerospace science or engineering. Even to the layman this should ring warning bells, especially when Mr. Voron starts soliciting financial support for his anti-gravity propulsion system.

Mr. Voron habitually confuses weight and mass. He also cannot distinguish between payload and booster. Nor does he understand how thrust can be used instead of wings to slow descent. He wasn't even aware that the lunar module operated in two stages: one for descent and one for ascent.

I sent Mr. Voron the Apollo 11 press kit, the printed material NASA handed out to journalists to familiarize them in layman's terms with the basics of an Apollo mission. Mr. Voron declined to read it -- even the one page that answered most of his questions. I find this very suspicious.

In summary, there's not much in Mr. Voron's writings that corresponds to reality.

 

 

Tell Us What YOU Think -- On Our Message Board!

"Weekly Universe" and "WeeklyUniverse.com" and "Mystic Gray Buddha" trademarks are currently unregistered, but pending registration upon need for protection against improper use. The idea of marketing these terms as a commodity is a protected idea under the Lanham Act. 15 U.S.C. s 1114(1) (1994) (defining a trademark infringement claim when the plaintiff has a registered mark); 15 U.S.C. s 1125(a) (1994) (defining an action for unfair competition in the context of trademark infringement when the plaintiff holds an unregistered mark). All articles copyright the author or WeeklyUniverse.com.