- Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 - Part 6 - Part 7 - Part 8 -
28. Chapter XXVIII Could an astronaut climb through the lunar module hatch?
PART 1
According to NASA legend, from 1969 to 1972, astronauts landed on the moon 6 times. They repeatedly opened and closed the hatch of the lunar module in order to get to the surface of the moon, return back and after a while again go outside. But here's what's strange: such an important moment as the exit from the hatch itself has never been filmed. In history, such an important historical moment did not remain, as the astronaut leaves the spacecraft and goes into open space through the hatch.
When in the USSR in 1965 Alexei Leonov first went into open space, the moment of exit was recorded by two television cameras at once - one from the inside of the exit gateway, the second from outside, and there was also a 16 mm movie camera, which was turned on after leaving the gateway. It was very important for engineers, designers and doctors to see all the details of a man's spacewalk. On the recording, you can see how A. Leonov gradually emerges from the airlock into open space: at first only his head appears from the airlock, then he crawls out halfway and removes the cover from the lens of a 16-mm film camera (Fig. XXVIII-1, right).
Fig. XXVIII-1. Alexei Leonov's exit into outer space was filmed with two television cameras simultaneously, from the inside and outside.
And what do we see in the Apollo missions?
Here is the very first time to reach the lunar surface, the Apollo 11 mission. We begin to see the astronaut at the moment when he is already descending the ladder (Fig. XXVIII-2).
Promotional video:
Fig. XXVIII-2. Apollo 11, an astronaut descending a ladder.
And what has been shown live up to this point? Millions of viewers saw only animation, models of space stations and actors in fake simulators for an hour. The beginning of the exit through the hatch was portrayed by the actors in the studio. One actor went downstairs, and the other with the help of a belt, as it were, secured him - as the exit through the hatch was shown live on CBS, one of the three largest broadcast television networks in the United States (Figure XXVIII-3).
Fig. XXVIII-3. The actors in the simulator depict the exit through the hatch.
Then the lunar module, standing in the pavilion, was shown from a different angle (Fig. XXVIII-4):
Fig. XXVIII-4. The actor in the pavilion shows how the astronaut should go down the stairs.
At this moment, the actor portrayed the descent down the stairs. But they were all actors, and the shooting in the pavilion was accompanied by the inscription "SIMULATION".
When, as it were, real astronauts appeared, they were practically not visible. Instead, there are some faded, barely distinguishable silhouettes. This was not only the case in the Apollo 11 mission. In the Apollo 12 mission, we saw all the same muddy spots, and if it were not for the inscription “Astronaut CHARLES CONRAD”, no one would have guessed that there was an astronaut in the frame (Fig. XXVIII-5).
Fig. XXVIII-5. The astronaut descends the ladder. Apollo 12 mission.
In the Apollo 14 mission, the exit is shown in a general plan, but the astronaut is practically invisible - as if by chance a parabolic antenna appears in the foreground, which illuminates the entire frame (Fig. XXVIII-6).
Fig. XXVIII-6. Apollo 14. The astronaut's exit from the hatch * accidentally * gets caught in the light.
The illumination stops only after a minute, when the astronaut is already below (Fig. XXVIII-7).
Fig. XXVIII-7. The light of the frame stopped only when the astronaut had already descended.
Those who allegedly landed on the moon in the Apollo 14 mission, Alan Shepard and Edgar Mitchell, were tall, 180 cm, like Neil Armstrong (Fig. XXVIII-8).
Fig. XXVIII-8. Because of the helmet and moon boots, the height of the astronaut 180 cm becomes 195 cm.
And the top of the helmet should divide the ladder in a ratio of 1/3 to 2/3 (Figure XXVIII-9).
Fig. XXVIII-9. Astronaut height compared to the lunar module ladder.
And in the frame "from the moon" we see (Fig. XXVIII-7) that the top of the helmet falls somewhere in the middle of the ladder. Again, short actors are in the frame! But even in this case, we did not see the exit from the hatch; it came under powerful illumination.
One gets the feeling that the footage of the lunar epic was filmed in this way not in order to show, but, on the contrary, to hide such a moment as leaving the hatch. We are sure that this was done deliberately, since in fact it was impossible to squeeze through the hatch.
And we want to prove it to you now.
First, we will demonstrate on models that the width of the astronaut's shoulders was greater than the width of the hatch, and it was impossible to climb through it (part 1), and then we will compare all the dimensions of the hatch and the astronaut in numerical terms (part 2 will be devoted to this).
There is a 1:20 scale model of an astronaut on sale (Fig. XXVIII-10):
It was taken from the famous "lunar" photograph of astronaut Aldrin from the Apollo 11 mission (Fig. XXVIII-11).
Fig. XXVIII-11. Puppet astronaut and astronaut * Aldrin *.
But it turned out that the scale of the proportions of the puppet astronaut does not correspond to the proportions of the real Aldrin (his height is 178 cm). In our opinion, an astronaut with a height of about 15-20 cm lower was taken as a starting point for making a doll. This is how we defined it. Height is different for all astronauts, but there is one constant - this is the life support backpack behind.
This satchel is in two parts. The height of the upper part is 26 cm, the lower part is 66 cm, between them there is a loose fit, the indent is about 1 cm. The total height of the backpack is 92-93 cm.
If 92 cm is divided by 20, then we get the height of the backpack on a scale of 1:20, i.e. 4.6 cm. But the knapsack in reality turned out to be 4.4 cm, it is quite possible that the doll was made a little smaller in size. (Figure XXVII-12).
To understand how high the Aldrin doll should be on a scale of 1:20, let's determine the height of the astronaut Aldrin in a spacesuit. To his real height (178 cm) we add the height of the helmet above his head, the thickness of the sole of the waterproof suit and the thickness of the moon boots. In the previous, 27th chapter, we made these calculations and got 195 cm. If we subtract from the obtained value the decrease in height by about 4-5 cm due to a slight bend in the knees and 5-6 cm due to the tilt of the body, we get that the doll the model "Aldrin" on a scale of 1:20 should be at least (195-10) / 20 = 92.5 mm high, but we have only 86 mm (Fig. XXVIII-13).
Mismatch. This is possible in two cases: either in reality the scale of the doll is not 1:20, but 1:21, or an astronaut in a spacesuit with a different height was taken as a prototype. The fact is that the height of the doll 86 mm, when multiplied by 20, gives the height of an astronaut with a spacesuit 172 cm. Then, without a spacesuit, the height of such an astronaut will be 158-160 cm. This is someone else who is about 20 cm shorter than Aldrin. Maybe for the prototype for making the doll was taken by a short astronaut?
We know that in the Soviet Union, the group of cosmonauts recruited pilots no higher than 175 cm (in the first group of cosmonauts - up to 170 cm). Such requirements were presented due to the lack of space in the descent vehicle (Fig. XXVIII-14).
Fig. XXVIII-14. Soviet descent vehicle. A. Leonov and P. Belyaev during training for the flight.
So, Alexei Leonov, the first man in the world to walk into outer space, has a height of 163 cm. This is how Leonov would look next to Armstrong, whose height is 180 cm (Fig. XXVIII-15).
Fig. XXVIII-15. Collage. Comparison of the height of Neil Armstrong (left, 180 cm) and Alexei Leonov (next to him, 163 cm). Next - Pavel Belyaev (164 cm) and David Scott (183 cm).
The growth of the world's first cosmonaut, Yuri Gagarin, was 165cm. Therefore, we not only admit the idea, but even put it as a priority, that a short astronaut was taken for the prototype of the astronaut for the doll. The fact is that the "lunar" photographs show "actors" of really short stature. Apollo 11's lunar photographs show neither Aldrin nor Armstrong. There are no tall astronauts at all, instead of them short actors and sometimes even dwarfs appear.
Could real astronauts get through the lunar module hatch? To understand this issue, we made a mock-up of the lunar module on the same scale as the astronaut pupa, at a scale of 1:20 (Fig. XXVIII-16-XXVIII-18).
Fig. XXVIII-17.
Fig. XXVIII-18.
Knowing how the lunar module looks from the inside (Fig. XXVIII-19) and how cramped it is, we immediately had a question: could there, somewhere inside, accommodate two astronauts in spacesuits?
Fig. XXVIII-19. Sectional view of the lunar module.
According to NASA, the astronauts were at the top of the lunar module - this is the take-off stage. It is here that the hatch is located through which the astronauts went to the surface of the moon and returned back (Fig. XXVIII-20).
Fig. XXVIII-20. Lunar module take-off stage and astronauts exit hatch.
In our model, we cut out a door. We looked at the photograph from the Apollo 11 mission (Fig. XXVIII-21) - and made approximately the same indent to the left of the hinges - this is the thickness of the open door (Fig. XXVIII-22).
Fig. XXVIII-21. The lunar module hatch is open.
Fig. XXVIII-22. Close up of the lunar module hatch, inside view.
Here's how we got it (Figure XXVIII-23):
Fig. XXVIII-23. Model of the lunar module with an open hatch.
And then we tried to squeeze our astronaut into this hatch. We tried different options, but something the astronaut got stuck all the time, like Winnie the Pooh in a rabbit hole (in the famous cartoon).
The most unpleasant thing is that the astronaut got stuck in his shoulders (Figure XXVIII-24):
Fig. XXVIII-24. The astronaut doll does not go through the hatch.
We have already tried in every way, and shove it sideways there (Fig. XXVIII-25):
Fig. XXVIII-25.
And diagonally (Fig. XXVIII-26):
Fig. XXVIII-26.
And they even tried with a knapsack down (Fig. XXVIII-27):
Fig. XXVIII-27.
But the shoulders did not pass.
I can imagine how the Hollywood photographers swore and tormented themselves when the lunar module was brought to the set. Apparently, the props did something wrong with the dimensions, or when they made the hatch, they completely forgot that an astronaut in a spacesuit should crawl through it.
We, of course, checked another version - maybe something is wrong with our LM layout? Maybe it's not drawn to scale? From the handbook of the manufacturer (and this is Grumman Corporation) it is known that the distance between the extreme bowls of the lunar module supports is 9.5 meters (31 feet) - Fig. XXVIII-28.29.
Fig. XXVIII-28. Grumman's Handbook.
Fig. XXVIII-29. Dimensions of the Apollo lunar module, according to Grumman's 1971 handbook.
On a scale of 1:20, the distance between the outermost cups of the supports should be 9.5 m / 20 = 47.5 cm on the model (Fig. XXVIII-30).
Fig. XXVIII-30. Distance between the bowls of the supports on the model.
It all fits together.
Now let's look at the take-off stage. Let's take data from the book:
Ivan Shuneiko. Manned missions to the Moon, 1973 Issue Results of Science and Technology from the Rocket Engineering series, volume 3, "Manned missions to the Moon, design and characteristics of the Saturn V Apollo"
So, the cylindrical compartment of the crew, in which the astronauts were located before leaving through the hatch, is 2.35 meters. On a scale of 1:20, it should be more than 11 cm in diameter (235 cm / 20 = 11.75), but less than 12 cm.
We impose a ruler and photograph the frontal layout of the crew compartment (Fig. XXVIII-31).
Fig. XXVIII-31. Crew compartment diameter.
Everything is all right again! The lunar module is made on a scale of 1:20.
Moreover, let's compare our models with the exposition of the National Museum of Aeronautics and Astronautics in Washington.
Here is the lunar module, when two "astronauts" are clearly visible in the museum. Here's the one on the stairs with his knees slightly bent. It can be seen that its height - from the boots to the top of the spacesuit helmet - is slightly more than the length of the ladder (Fig. XXVIII-32).
Fig. XXVIII-32. Exposition of the National Museum in Washington.
And here is our astronaut on the stairs, his legs at his knees are almost not bent, but in height he is also slightly more than the length of the stairs (Fig. XXVIII-33):
Fig. XXVIII-33. Two astronauts at the lunar module (layout).
The transverse element of the landing gear (the horizontal beam on the LM leg) rests against the raised arm of the astronaut standing below (Fig. XXVIII-34), and this beam is approximately at the height of the camera.
Fig. XXVIII-34.
Now let's see that in our photo is the same height (Fig. XXVIII-35):
Fig. XXVIII-35. The height of the astronaut in relation to the horizontal beam.
We conclude that our model and the astronaut correlate with each other in the same way as in the museum in Washington. Therefore, we can objectively judge the ratio of the hatch and knapsack behind the astronaut using our models and mock-ups. But at the same time, one must understand that the astronaut dolls (on that scale) and astronaut mannequins in the museum are about 20 cm shorter than the real astronauts.
If the astronaut doll is placed on the other side of the hatch, inside the lunar module (the model is collapsible), then the ratio of the width of the hatch and life support backpack looks on the model (Fig. XXVIII-36) not at all the same as in the NASA image in the Apollo 11 mission …
Fig. XXVIII-36. Astronaut inside. The knapsack is near the hatch.
For ease of comparison, we combined two photographs - a fragment of our layout and a photograph from NASA - so that the hatch in the two photographs was the same size along the upper edge (in width). And this is what happened (Fig. XXVIII-37):
Fig. XXVIII-37. The hatches are equal in width, but the satchels are very different.
When the hatches are the same size (meaning the width of the hatch on the model and in the NASA photo), life support backpacks differ in width by 1.4 times! This means that the person inside the Apollo 11 takeoff stage is about 1.4 times smaller than the real astronaut, something about 140 cm in height. The inadequate reduction in the size of the astronaut and the knapsack in the NASA photograph cannot be attributed to the perspective removal, firstly, there is nowhere to retreat inside, and secondly, we see that one edge of the knapsack almost touches the top of the hatch. Those. the astronaut figurine is located directly next to the exit.
There is no doubt that the figure near the hatch is some kind of dwarf. The question is different: in this photo, the role of the astronaut was entrusted to play a dwarf, whose height is about 140 cm in a spacesuit (about 130 cm without a spacesuit), or is there a lifeless dummy, such as a doll, behind the hatch door? Here we are not talking - "Aldrin or not Aldrin." No Aldrin was even close there!
However, the oddities do not end there, but only begin. When the "astronaut" began to descend the stairs, and this is literally the next photograph, its size suddenly increased. Now its size is commensurate with the length of the ladder (Fig. XXVII-38), and the length of the ladder is 1.7 meters.
Fig. XXVIII-38. Descent of the astronaut on the ladder.
These inconsistencies (change in the size of the astronaut in adjacent frames) drew attention back in 2005-2010. professional photographer Jack White, as soon as they began to publish photos in high (large) resolution on the Internet (Fig. XXVII-39). Jack White, born in 1927, has been a professional photographer for over fifty years. He became one of the leading experts on photography related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, as a photographic consultant to a special committee of the US House of Representatives.
www.aulis.com/jackstudies_3.htm
Fig. XXVIII-39. Two consecutive photographs from the Apollo 11 mission. A small man is a big door, a big man is a small door.
In this small series of 6 frames - "Aldrin is going down the ladder" - there are so many "bloopers" allowed that we are not talking - was it filmed on the Moon or not on the Moon? It is clear that all this was filmed in the pavilion, and filmed carelessly. But didn't the props, props, photographers and employees of the technical control department noticed such a large number of inconsistencies and oversights? The black windows suddenly turn blue, the width of the letters changes, the relief of the foil changes (Fig. XXVIII-40), the door changes from one color to two colors, the direction of light changes, its intensity, etc.
Fig. XXVIII-40. Noticed inconsistencies in two adjacent frames.
But that is not all!
Looking at two photographs from the Apollo 11 collection, a question of this nature arises: one astronaut is going down the stairs, the second astronaut is supposedly photographing him at this moment. Who then closed the hatch as the astronaut descended the stairs? Indeed, in the previous photo, the hatch was open - (Fig. XXVIII-41)!
Fig. XXVIII-41. Apollo 11. Images AS11-40-5862, AS11-40-5863, AS11-40-5866.
Surprise is caused by the straps with which the astronaut is tied to the steps of the stairs. You probably did not notice them, here, in the 1st and 2nd photographs from above - Fig. XXVIII-42?
Fig. XXVIII-42. Apollo 11. Images AS11-40-5867, AS11-40-5868, AS11-40-5869.
You will not find any logical explanation for why the astronaut tied himself with a knot of a belt to the rung of the stairs. In this picture (AS11-40-5867), the astronaut stands with his right foot on the second from the bottom step, and the belt is tied to the 6th step (Fig. XXVIII-43).
Fig. XXVIII-43. The astronaut is strapped to the 6th stage.
And in the next picture (AS11-40-5868), the astronaut seems to have descended a step lower, now his right leg is already on the first step, and this time he is tied to the 4th step with a belt (Fig. XXVIII-44).
Fig. XXVIII-44. The astronaut is now tied to Stage 4.
You will not find a reasonable explanation for why an astronaut ties himself with a belt to different steps, until you allow an incredible thing - in these frames, instead of a real astronaut, there is a doll, and so that it does not fall during a photo session, it is tied with a thin strap to a ladder. Yes, yes, this entire episode around the lunar module is most likely filmed using dolls. So far, this is the priority version. And these dolls have nothing to do with the really tall stature of Aldrin and Armstrong. These are just some kind of dolls depicting astronauts of average height. When the doll is in an unstable position on the ladder, it can jump off and fall on the "lunar soil", prematurely making unnecessary and unnecessary prints. Therefore, the doll has to be tied with a strap in order to photograph it. The dolls are small in size, 25-30 cm in height,they have to be removed not from 3-4 meters, as if they were real astronauts, but from a distance of less than a meter. Those who have shot close-ups know that a shallow depth of field is created when focusing very close. And we immediately guess that in front of us is a model, a reduced copy (Fig. XXVIII-45).
Fig. XXVIII-45. The shallow depth of field gives us a layout.
To get a great depth of field when shooting mockups, the lens is apertured to the limit. Little light passes through the small aperture, therefore, in order to correctly (equivalently) expose the frame, the exposure time is increased. For example, we shoot a frame at a fast shutter speed of 1/250 s with an aperture of f2 (see Fig. XXVIII-46, right side). Having zapped the lens to f32, we will have to increase the shutter speed to 1 second (Fig. XXVIII-46, left side).
Fig. XXVII-46. By reducing the diaphragm diameter, it is necessary to increase the exposure time.
Yes, a shutter speed of 1 second is very slow, but by aperture of the lens we achieve the most important thing - a significant increase in the depth of field (pay attention to the colored icons in Fig. XXVII-46). Of course, you have to shoot with a tripod at such a long exposure. Therefore, I understand the surprise of Jack White, who suddenly came to the conclusion that two adjacent frames in the Apollo 11 mission were taken as if from a tripod (Fig. XXVIII-47). So they filmed from a tripod, and the effect “as if shooting from hands” was achieved by tilting the camera on the tripod up and down.
www.aulis.com/jackstudies_2.htm
Fig. XXVIII-47. It seems that two shots were taken not with hands, but with a tripod.
So that with such a long exposure the doll does not move or fall, it is attached to the stairs with a strap. The image should be clear and not smeared, because according to NASA legend, the shooting is made on the Moon on a sunny day at a shutter speed of 1/250 s. With such a short shutter speed, there should be no blurring of the image. Therefore, in all these lunar photographs, the dolls stand rooted to the spot, frozen for a long time with their arms outstretched, and firmly resting on all the soles so as not to lose their balance (Fig. XXVIII-48).
Fig. XXVIII-48. To prevent the doll from falling, it rests on the entire area of the soles.
These dolls never have a vector of movement, they are completely static all the time (Fig. XXVIII-49).
Fig. XXVIII-49. The dolls always stand still, motionless.
And in the foreground, they deliberately make clear traces of the soles.
So far, most of the facts indicate that in front of us, in the photographs of the Apollo 11 mission, there may be not living people, but dolls. We are leaning towards this version. But even those who believe they have photographed living people will agree with us that these people are about 20 cm shorter than Armstrong and Aldrin. They are just completely different actors. And in one frame, so in general - a dwarf appeared, whose height is 130 cm, i.e. half a meter below the named astronauts.
But the most interesting thing is that even these undersized actors-astronauts cannot get through the hatch of the lunar module. Because of this circumstance, the film crew is forced to worsen the quality of the "lunar" TV reports (to make highlights, blurring, blurring) so that no one would guess that short men and dwarfs are scurrying around in the frame instead of tall astronauts.
Author: Leonid Konovalov