The previous part.
I came across a video parsing images of the LRO apparatus. It turns out that with a camera similar in characteristics (like satellites that take pictures of the Earth (on the basis of which google maps are made)), the resolution of the images is worse for the LRO. Although LRO is in a much lower orbit and there is no distortion of the atmosphere. I suggest watching this video:
Also, the length of the shadow from the lunar modules does not fit with the shadows in the craters. And the LRO photos themselves are a copy of the frames from the video, allegedly taken during takeoff from the Moon (from the lunar module).
On the channel, the author, in his other videos, touches on a number of oddities: the speed of the Rovers, their wheels and braking distance. Under lunar gravity, Rovers should have a longer stopping distance and behave like Earth cars on ice. But this is not observed.
Although, in defense of the existence of the lunar program, this analysis of photographs says:
Promotional video:
Photos 3 and 4 are footage from Apollo 16 and 17 and comparison with LRO images. If everything was filmed in pavilions by director Kubrick, how did he know such detailed details of the moon's surface? I could have known. In the period 1966-67. The United States sent five Lunar Orbiter spacecraft to the Moon for detailed surface surveys and selection of landing sites. The far side of the Moon was filmed in detail with a resolution of up to 60m and better. How much better? Perhaps with the characteristics that are shown to us now.
But what would the article look like with a certain set of arguments, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with such oddities in the Apollo program:
1. Accuracy of splashdown of Apollo into the oceans
The accuracy is approximately ± 2 km. To be even more detailed, these data are as follows:
Apollo Nos 8.10-17 splashed down with deviations from the calculated points by 2.5; 2.4; 3; 3.6; 1.8; 1; 1.8; 5.4; and 1.8 km, respectively. That is why we are immediately shown on the footage of the filming of that time the moment of descent of the vehicles on the parachute system. This is just phenomenal accuracy. And not only for that time, but also now. Our Unions are landing with a running start of exactly hundreds of kilometers. And the devices of the first descents were looking for a very long time.
Unions descend from the Earth's orbit with an initial velocity equal to the first cosmic velocity. But the fact is that Apollo flew up to the Earth at a speed almost equal to the second cosmic one: 11 km / s. From this the question follows - how to slow it down, so that not only to deliver the astronauts alive, but also to ensure such accuracy?
Single-water splashdown scheme.
2. Splashdown schemes
Based on the accuracy of the splashdown voiced by NASA and the film footage (observation of splashdown from destroyers at a given point), the scheme of a single-hole entry into the Earth's atmosphere was applied. I repeat: this is at almost second cosmic speed! Overloads during braking in the atmosphere should be prohibitive for a common person - up to 10g. But nothing, all the astronauts were cheerful after this and jumped on the deck of the Navy ship and smiled at the cameras.
There is a double-diving scheme for splashdown or landing on Earth. On it - how it will turn out and where it will turn out to land is unknown. The takeoff run to the landing point becomes unpredictable - thousands of kilometers. This scheme allows you to transfer quite admissible overloads up to 6g. But even for this, one must be able to enter the Earth's atmosphere at a strictly defined angle. Otherwise, the descent vehicle can either detach from the atmosphere, or enter it according to a one-hole scheme and undergo unplanned overloads.
More information about the calculations of overloads and splashdown accuracy can be found here. I recommend this journal for study, it is devoted to this topic of the lunar program. Rather, all the oddities and non-docking in the Apollo program.
Commentary on this information from one of the books devoted to exposing the US lunar program. And these two facts: the incredible accuracy of the splashdown, the calculations of overloads do not fit in any way. The following fact also looks strange:
Apollo-11 and Apollo-13 descent capsules. Only the foil on the skin snapped. I hope everyone saw the kind of capsules after the descent of our Unions - metal in oxides from high temperature:
This is the view after descents at the first space velocity. Apollo descended almost from the second space and their view should be much worse.
3. Takeoff from the Moon of the Apollo 17 lunar module
There is a video of the takeoff of the lunar module, made from the side of a camera left on the moon. If we disassemble it in frames, we will see that there is no torch from the operation of the engines after the first impulse and separation:
The initial impulse is visible, starting the engine. Then debris flew from the bottom of the lunar module. And, apparently, the torch beat on the platform. This is a very unwise and dangerous design decision.
The rejected stream of gases and debris must have burned through and pierced the lunar module where the astronauts are located. It was necessary to leave a hole in the lower platform and bring the nozzle into it. But before that, the descent module engine would have to be dismantled. Difficult task. Did the designers take a risk? And the accident hasn't happened six times in a row? Phenomenal luck! Or was there really no systemic design thought there?
But that is not all. Please note that the camera left on the surface of the Moon raises the lens following the takeoff of the module! She, it turns out, was also controlled remotely! It was officially ruled from Earth. Even the name of this specialist in Houston is known: his name was Ed Fendell. Imagine, without a time delay, the operator from the Earth moved the camera! Our operators who operated the lunar rovers never dreamed of this. There was a delay of up to 10 seconds:
Low-frame signal transmission was used when controlling the lunar rovers: 1 frame every 3-20 sec. Those. it is clear that in real time they could not turn the camera from the Earth after the taking off lunar module.
Apollo 17 and Rover.
4. Total mathematical probability of a successful flight
There is never a 100% successful probability of a complex event. There is always a share for some mistake. And since the entire mission, the flight from the launch of the rocket to the splashdown is a sequence of certain subroutines and operations, then the total probability is the derivative of all the particulars. The result is a disappointing figure for the program of only one flight:
5% chance of successful flight and return to Earth. And so six times! Apollo 13 is not counted.
This list of at least oddities in the US lunar program goes on. But they are all described in books and multi-page articles and blogs. They are ignored, there is no official explanation or comments. Even, as you can see, the LRO device cannot show the landing sites with 100% evidentiary clarity. Although, according to the characteristics of his camera, he can do it. There are explanations from supporters of the existence of the lunar program. Some also look like noteworthy explanations. Therefore, the debate on this topic continues …
Continuation: "Radiation and the flights of Americans to the Moon. Interesting facts"
Author: sibved
