LANDING NOT A
Submitted by Big Jim and Clavius.org.
[August 24, 2003]
From Big Jim:
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
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?"
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)"
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?"
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?"
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?"
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?"
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?"
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?
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'.
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?
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."
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"
Airspace agency"? Last time I checked, Russia's space agency was
excellent Clavius website (quote in
"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
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
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.]
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."
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
there's not much in Mr. Voron's writings that corresponds to reality.
Tell Us What YOU Think -- On Our Message