Americans on the moon. Where does fiction begin? How the Americans took off from the Moon: scientific explanation and facts

Each nation individually and all of humanity as a whole strives only forward to conquer new horizons in the field of economic development, medicine, sports, science, new technologies, including the study of astronomy and space exploration. We hear about big breakthroughs in space exploration, but did they really happen? Did the Americans land on the moon or was it just one big show?

Spacesuits

Having visited the “US National Air and Space Museum” in Washington, anyone can verify that the American spacesuit is a very simple robe, hastily sewn. NASA states that the spacesuits were sewn at a factory for the production of bras and underwear, that is, their spacesuits were made from the fabric of underpants and they supposedly protect from the aggressive space environment, from radiation that is deadly to humans. However, maybe NASA really has developed ultra-reliable suits that protect against radiation. But why then was this ultra-light material not used anywhere else? Not for military purposes, not for peaceful purposes. Why was no assistance provided with Chernobyl, albeit for money, as American presidents like to do? Okay, let’s say perestroika hasn’t started yet and they didn’t want to help the Soviet Union. But, for example, in 1979 in the USA, a terrible reactor unit accident occurred at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. So why didn’t they use durable spacesuits developed using NASA technology to eliminate radiation contamination - a time bomb on their territory?

Radiation from the sun is harmful to humans. Radiation is one of the main obstacles in space exploration. For this reason, even today all manned flights take place no further than 500 kilometers from the surface of our planet. But the Moon has no atmosphere and the level of radiation is comparable to outer space. For this reason, both in a manned spacecraft and in a spacesuit on the surface of the Moon, astronauts had to receive a lethal dose of radiation. However, they are all alive.

Neil Armstrong and the other 11 astronauts lived an average of 80 years, and some are still living, like Buzz Aldrin. By the way, back in 2015, he honestly admitted that he had not been to the moon.

It is interesting to know how they were able to survive so well when a small dose of radiation is enough to develop leukemia - blood cancer. As we know, none of the astronauts died from cancer, which raises only questions. Theoretically, it is possible to protect yourself from radiation. The question is, what protection can be sufficient for such a flight. Engineers' calculations show that to protect astronauts from cosmic radiation, the walls of the ship and spacesuit needed to be at least 80 cm thick and made of lead, which, naturally, was not the case. Not a single rocket can lift such a weight.

The suits were not just hastily riveted together, but they lacked simple things necessary for life support. Thus, the spacesuits used in the Apollo program completely lack a system for removing waste products. The Americans either endured it with plugs in different places throughout the entire flight, without peeing or pooping. Or everything that came out of them they immediately processed. Otherwise, they would simply suffocate on their excrement. This does not mean that the system for removing waste products was bad - it was simply absent.

Astronauts walked on the moon in rubber boots, but it is interesting to know how they did it when the temperature on the moon ranges from +120 to -150 degrees Celsius. How did they obtain the information and technology to make shoes that could withstand wide ranges of temperatures? After all, the only material that has the necessary properties was discovered after the flights and began to be used in production only 20 years after the first landing on the Moon.

Official chronicle

The vast majority of space images from NASA's lunar program do not show stars, although Soviet space images have an abundance of them. The black empty background in all the photographs is explained by the fact that there were difficulties with modeling the starry sky and NASA decided to completely abandon the sky in its photographs. When the US flag was planted on the moon, the flag fluttered under the influence of air currents. Armstrong adjusted the flag and took a few steps back. However, the flag did not stop waving. The American flag fluttered with the wind, although we know that in the absence of an atmosphere and in the absence of wind as such, a flag cannot flutter on the Moon. How could astronauts move so quickly on the Moon if gravity is 6 times lower than on Earth? An accelerated view of astronauts jumping on the Moon shows that their movements correspond to movements on Earth, and the height of the jumps does not exceed the height of jumps in Earth's gravity. You can also find fault with the pictures themselves for a long time regarding the differences in colors and minor mistakes.

Lunar soil

During the lunar missions under the Apollo program, a total of 382 kg of lunar soil was delivered to Earth, and samples of the soil were presented by the American government to leaders of different countries. True, without exception, all regolith turned out to be a fake of terrestrial origin. Part of the soil mysteriously simply disappeared from museums; another part of the soil, after chemical analysis, turned out to be terrestrial basalt or meteorite fragments. Thus, BBC News reported that a fragment of lunar soil stored in the Dutch museum Rijskmuseulm turned out to be a piece of petrified wood. The exhibit was given to Dutch Prime Minister Willem Dries and after his death the regolith went to the museum. Experts doubted the authenticity of the stone back in 2006. This suspicion was finally confirmed by an analysis of lunar soil carried out by specialists from the Free University of Amsterdam; the expert conclusion was not reassuring: the piece of stone is a fake. The American government decided not to comment on this situation in any way and simply hushed up the matter. Similar cases also occurred in the countries of Japan, Switzerland, China and Norway. And such embarrassments were resolved in the same way, the regoliths mysteriously either disappeared or were destroyed by fire or the destruction of museums.

One of the main arguments of opponents of the lunar conspiracy is the recognition by the Soviet Union of the fact of the Americans landing on the moon. Let's analyze this fact in more detail. The United States understood perfectly well that it would not be difficult for the Soviet Union to make a refutation and provide evidence that the Americans never landed on the moon. And there was plenty of evidence, including material. This is the analysis of lunar soil, which was transferred by the American side, and this is the Apollo-13 apparatus caught in the Bay of Biscay in 1970 with full telemetry of the launch of the Saturn-5 launch vehicles, in which there was not a single living soul, there was not a single astronaut. On the night of April 11-12, the Soviet fleet lifted the Apollo 13 capsule. In fact, the capsule turned out to be an empty zinc bucket, there was no thermal protection at all, and its weight was no more than one ton. The rocket was launched on April 11 and a few hours later on the same day, the Soviet military found the capsule in the Bay of Biscay.

And according to the official chronicle, the American spacecraft circled the Moon and returned to Earth supposedly on April 17, as if nothing had happened. At that time, the Soviet Union received irrefutable evidence that the Americans had faked the moon landing, and it had a fat ace up its sleeve.

But then amazing things began to happen. At the height of the Cold War, when a bloody war was going on in Vietnam, Brezhnev and Nixon, as if nothing had happened, met like good old friends, smiled, clinked glasses, and drank champagne together. History remembers this as the Brezhnev thaw. How can we explain the completely unexpected friendship between Nixon and Brezhnev? Apart from the fact that the Brezhnev thaw began quite unexpectedly, behind the scenes, there were gorgeous gifts that President Nixon personally gave to Ilyich Brezhnev. So, on his first visit to Moscow, the American president brings Brezhnev a generous gift - a Cadillac Eldorado, hand-assembled by special order. I wonder for what merits at the highest level Nixon gives an expensive Cadillac at the first meeting? Or maybe the Americans were indebted to Brezhnev? And then - more. At subsequent meetings, Brezhnev is given a Lincoln limousine, and then a sporty Chevrolet Monte Carlo. At the same time, the silence of the Soviet Union about the American lunar scam could hardly be bought with a luxury car. The USSR demanded to pay big. Can it be considered a coincidence that in the early 70s, when the Americans allegedly landed on the moon, the construction of the largest giant, the KAMAZ automobile plant, began in the Soviet Union. It is interesting that the West allocated billions of dollars in loans for this construction, and several hundred American and European automobile companies took part in the construction. There were dozens of other projects in which the West, for such inexplicable reasons, invested in the economy of the Soviet Union. Thus, an agreement was concluded on the supply of American grain to the USSR at prices below the world average, which negatively affected the well-being of the Americans themselves.

The embargo on Soviet oil supplies to Western Europe was also lifted, and we began to penetrate their gas market, where we are still successfully operating to this day. Apart from the fact that the United States allowed such profitable business with Europe, the West, in fact, built these pipelines itself. Germany provided a loan of more than 1 billion marks to the Soviet Union and supplied large-diameter pipes, which at that time were not produced in our country. Moreover, the nature of warming demonstrates a clear one-sidedness. The US is doing favors to the Soviet Union while getting nothing in return. Amazing generosity, which can easily be explained by the price of silence about the fake moon landing.

By the way, recently the famous Soviet cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, who everywhere defends the Americans in their version of the flight to the Moon, confirmed that the landing was filmed in the studio. Indeed, who will film the epoch-making opening of the hatch by the first man on the moon if there is no one on the moon?

Busting the myth that Americans walked on the moon is not just an insignificant fact. No. The element of this illusion is interconnected with all world deceptions. And when one illusion begins to collapse, the rest of the illusions begin to collapse after it, like a domino principle. Not only are delusions about the greatness of the United States of America crumbling. Added to this is the misconception about the confrontation of states. Would the USSR play along with its irreconcilable enemy in the lunar scam? It's hard to believe, but, unfortunately, the Soviet Union played the same game with the United States. And if this is so, then it now becomes clear to us that there are forces that control all these processes that are above the states.

Massive hype around the American lunar program appeared relatively recently. The first person to raise this sensitive issue was Ralph Rene, who noticed, in his opinion, inaccuracies and “blunders” in photographs taken on the Moon.

I don’t want to question the level of education of some researchers and skeptics, but often the questions that they ask and try to classify as irrefutable evidence of the falsification of the flight to the Moon are simply ridiculous and, according to a number of astrophysicists, are not even worthy of comment due to their stupidity.

Next, we will present the most common arguments of skeptics and try to popularly explain why certain photographs, films and phenomena seem strange or unnatural in outer space.

Further, for convenience of description, we will call those who do not believe in the American flight to the Moon skeptics, and those who claim the opposite - experts. Since all materials for this article are taken from the official chronicle, the authenticity of which is beyond doubt, and the arguments of famous scientists and astronauts, whose professionalism is not questioned, are presented as evidence.

1 Argument: Neil Armstrong's trail

Skeptics' opinion

The photograph shows a clear, sharp trace left by the boot of the spacesuit, although it is known that there is no water in any form on the Moon. Consequently, it is not possible to leave a trace of such a clear and regular shape. This is what those who do not believe whether the Americans flew to the Moon say.

Expert opinion

The behavior of lunar soil is no different from the behavior of wet sand on Earth, but this is due to completely different physical reasons. Earth's sand consists of grains of sand, polished to a round shape by the winds, so such a clear trace cannot remain on dry sand.

There is an electronic wind on the Moon, the protons of which turn particles of lunar dust into stars that do not slide over each other like grains of sand, but, clinging to each other, form a cast - in this case, a clear trace, the structure of which is enhanced by the molecular penetration of particles into each other due to vacuum . Such a trace could remain on the Moon for millions of years.

As proof of the above, there is a photograph taken from the Soviet lunar rover, which clearly shows that the footprints have the same distinct shapes as the print of an American astronaut's boot.

2 Argument: Shadows

Skeptics' opinion

There is only one source of light on the Moon - the Sun. Therefore, the shadows of the astronauts and their equipment must fall in the same direction. In the above photograph, two astronauts are standing side by side, therefore, the angle of incidence of the Sun is the same, but the shadows they cast are of different lengths and directions.

It turns out that they were illuminated from above by a spotlight. That is why one shadow is 1.5 measures larger than the other, since, as everyone knows, the farther a person stands from a street lamp, the longer the shadow. And who took the picture anyway, since both astronauts are in the frame. This is what those who do not believe whether the Americans flew to the Moon say.

Expert opinion

As for the photo. It is not a photograph. This is a fragment of a video recording from a camera installed in the lunar module and operating autonomously without astronauts on board.

As for the shadow, the point is the uneven surface creating the effect of a certain elongation. The clarity of the shadows is given by the absence of an atmosphere that should diffuse the light.

Skeptics' opinion

In the above photographs, something incomprehensible is happening with the shadows. In the photo on the left, the sun is shining in the photographer’s back, and the shadow from the module falls to the left. In the right photo, the shadow from the stones falls to the right as if the illumination is coming from the left, and closer to the left edge of the photo this strange effect loses its strength. This unusual behavior of shadows cannot be attributed to surface unevenness.

Expert opinion

Correctly noted. Irregularities alone cannot create such an effect, but coupled with perspective it is possible. The photo on the right is specially superimposed with an image of rails which, by analogy with the stones on the Moon, also “suffer from left deviation”, although we know for sure that the rails run parallel to each other, otherwise how would trains run on them. The same optical illusion of connecting rails closer to the horizon is known; a similar illusion is also present in lunar photographs.

3 Argument: Glare

Skeptics' opinion

In the above photograph you can clearly see that the sun is behind the astronaut, which means that the part facing the camera should be in the shadow, but in fact it is illuminated by some kind of device.

Expert opinion

It's all about the lunar surface, which, due to the lack of an atmosphere, receives 100% of the light and scatters it much stronger than on Earth, so much stronger that on a moonlit night we on Earth can read a book without additional lighting. This photograph shows that a significant part of the reflected light hit the astronaut’s spacesuit and was even reflected again on the surface, creating the effect of a shadow being illuminated.

Skeptics' opinion

In many photographs you can see incomprehensible white spots, similar to the light of spotlights. This is what those who do not believe whether the Americans flew to the Moon say.

Expert opinion

The fact is that direct sunlight hits the lens, creating glare. In the above photo you can clearly see that the Sun is above the frame, and, therefore, the reflection of the glare will be in a straight line from the center of the frame. Which is exactly what we are observing.

4 Argument: Background

Skeptics' opinion

Different photos have the same background. In the two photos above, the background is the same. What is this? Scenery?

Expert opinion

This feeling occurs due to the lack of atmosphere on the Moon. Objects, and in this case high-altitude mountains, seem to be located closely, although they are at least 10 kilometers away. If you look closely, the mountains on the right photo are different from those on the left. Since the right photo was taken 2 kilometers from the lunar module.

Skeptics' opinion

In many photographs there is a clear boundary between the foreground and the background of the mountains. What is this if not decoration?

Expert opinion

This effect arises from the fact that the size of the Moon is four times smaller than that of Earth. Because of this, the horizon (surface curvature) is only a couple of kilometers from the observer, so it seems that the high mountains are as if separated by an even line from the lunar surface.

5 Argument: Lack of stars

Skeptics' opinion

The absence of stars in the sky proves that the photographs are fake. This is what those who do not believe whether the Americans flew to the Moon say.

Expert opinion

Each camera has a sensitivity threshold. There are no cameras that could simultaneously capture the bright surface of the Moon and the dim stars in comparison. If you photograph the surface of the Moon, then no stars will be visible, but if you photograph the stars, then the surface of the Moon will look like a single white spot.

6 Argument: It is impossible to shoot on the Moon

Skeptics' opinion

As far as is known, there are very strong temperature changes on the surface of the Moon in the range of 200 degrees. How did the film not melt during shooting?

Expert opinion

1. The landing site for the lunar module was chosen so that a short time would pass after sunrise and the surface would not become hot.
2. The Americans' film was made on a special heat-resistant base that softens only at a temperature of 90 degrees and melts at 260.
3. In a vacuum, heat can be transferred only in one way, radiation. Therefore, the chambers were covered with a reflective layer that removes the main heat.
4. The Americans flew to the Moon in 1969, and back in 1959, the domestic automatic station was already transmitting photographs of the lunar surface without any obstacles.

7 Argument: Flag

Skeptics' opinion

During the installation of the flag, it can be seen that it wrinkles and sways in the wind, although it is known that there is no atmosphere on the Moon.

Expert opinion

Actually, there were two flags planted on the moon. The first is the national flag of the USA, and the second is the NATO flag, emphasizing the international nature of the expedition. The US flag was made of nylon and mounted on telescopic consoles.

During installation, the horizontal crossbar did not extend all the way, as a result of which the flag was not fully stretched, so the astronaut even had to pull it to straighten it. As a result of the lack of full tension at temperature, the nylon began to warp until it warmed up to a certain temperature, and due to the pulling of the flag, its oscillations did not die out like terrestrial ones in calm weather, since in a vacuum the pendulum swings much longer in the absence of air friction. This is where the myth of the flag fluttering in the wind was born.

8 Argument: Funnel and engine flame

Skeptics' opinion

At the time of landing and launch, a crater should have formed under the lunar module, and during the launch, the engine flames were not visible. This is what those who do not believe whether the Americans flew to the Moon say.

Expert opinion

As for the funnel. The bearing capacity of a 10-centimeter layer of the lunar surface is about 0.3-0.7 newtons per square meter. see. When landing and maneuvering on the surface, the module engine operates in low thrust mode. That is, the gas pressure on the surface is not significant. At landing it is generally less than 0.1 atmosphere. During takeoff, a little more, but given the hardness of the Moon’s soil, this pressure is only enough to blow away the dust.

Since the calculated pressure from the starting stage nozzle to the surface is 0.6 newtons per square meter. cm. The soil completely compensated for the takeoff of the lunar module, leaving only a light spot of crushed soil. As for the engine flames, we repeat, the thrust during takeoff is very small and amounts to no more than a ton.

The fuel used in Apollo, aerosin-50 and nitrogen tetroxide, is practically transparent when burning, so with the highly refreshed surface of the Moon, its glow would hardly be enough to significantly illuminate the shadow of the module or to capture it with a camera.

10 Argument: Lunomobile

Skeptics' opinion

When astronauts move on the surface, the sound of the lunarmobile engine is clearly audible, but, as is known, sound cannot be transmitted in airless space. Another interesting fact is that the soil from under the wheels in a vacuum should rise up several meters, and it behaves in the same way as when driving on sand on Earth.

Expert opinion

Sound can be transmitted not only through air, but also through hard substances. In this case, vibration from the engine is transmitted along the frame of the lunar vehicle to the spacesuit, and from the spacesuit to the astronaut’s microphone.

As for the ejection of soil from under the wheels of the lunar vehicle, on the Moon, contrary to expectations, it does not rise in the form of a dust cloud due to the slight acceleration of the dust particles tending to zero at the moment of contact of the wheels with the lunar soil. The same dust particles that are accelerated by the parts of the wheels that are not in contact with the surface are extinguished by the wings installed on the lunar vehicle.

Moreover, under earthly conditions, dust from the same trip would swirl behind the car for a long time. In airless space, it falls as quickly as it takes off. This is clearly visible in the moments when the wheels of the lunar vehicle “slip”.

11 Argument: Protection from radiation and solar flares

Skeptics' opinion

I wonder how the Americans managed to protect themselves from radiation and solar flares on the Moon? And in general, how did they manage to bypass the famous Van Allen belt, where radiation reaches 1000 roentgens? After all, to protect against such radiation, meter-high lead walls of the shuttle are required. And how did ordinary rubberized American spacesuits protect astronauts from radiation and solar flares on the Moon? This is what those who do not believe whether the Americans flew to the Moon say.

Expert opinion

Indeed, when launching automatic stations in near-Earth orbit, belts with a large accumulation of radioactive particles attracted by the Earth’s magnetic field were discovered. They were later called the Van Allen Belt. Such a large radiation background was not detected on the Moon due to the absence of an atmosphere and the small size of the Moon.

Before launching Apollo, automatic reconnaissance aircraft with radiation sensors were sent multiple times along the intended flight paths in order to determine the optimal course. It turned out that the maximum background radiation is only above the Earth's equator; closer to the poles it is many times lower. Therefore, the Apollo trajectories were chosen as close as possible to the poles. Since the astronauts passed them in just a few hours, this level of radiation could not cause damage to human health and was equal to approximately 1 rad.

Regarding American spacesuits, to say that they had no protection means making a grave mistake. American spacesuits of that time consisted of 25 layers of various materials to protect the astronaut. Such a suit weighed about 80 kg on Earth and 13 on the Moon and was quite capable of protecting the astronaut from falls, micrometeorites, vacuum, solar radiation and radiation within reasonable limits.

As for solar flares with a huge release of radiation, this was a truly dangerous phenomenon, but predictable. NASA conducted careful observations of the Sun and forecast solar flares and storms.

Moreover, during a flare, the Sun does not emit radiation in all directions, but in a narrow beam, the direction of which can also be predicted. Of course, there was some risk for the astronauts in this regard. Perhaps the forecast is not correct, but the degree of this risk was very small. In general, in the entire history of Apollo flights from December 1968 to December 1972, only 3 flares occurred on August 2, 4 and 7, 1972, and only those that were predicted. As we know from history, no one flew to the moon at that time.

12 Argument: Interview with Stanley Kubrick's widow

Skeptics' opinion

In 2003, the widow of director Stanley Kubrick said that her husband filmed the lunar footage on behalf of the US government. Moreover, there is a video on the Internet where, during filming on the Moon, a lighting device falls on an astronaut and suddenly, out of nowhere, personnel appear and help the astronaut. This is irrefutable evidence of falsification.

Expert opinion

Indeed, in 2003, the film "Dark Side of the Moon" was released, in which there were a lot of interviews with prominent people of that time who told how the lunar program was filmed in the pavilions of film companies. Among everyone, the widow of Stanley Kubrick spoke and said that the film was directed personally by her husband at the request of President Nixon.

This movie was actually filmed in 2002 using real lunar footage taken by astronauts during the first flight to the moon. Much was added to this film from the chronicle of the astronauts' training on Earth, and other soundtracks were superimposed on many frames, and some of the interviews were compiled using phrases taken from the content of previously recorded interviews.

The creators of this film do not hide its falsity at all. It was filmed only to shake up the public and show that you shouldn’t believe everything you see. It was released in Canada and France. Many yellow media from different countries, without really understanding what was what, presented all this in the form of a loud sensation revealing the falsification of flights to the Moon.

To be fair, it should be said that in the event of the failure of the mission, a story was indeed created, but not in the Hollywood pavilions with the successful completion of the expedition, but on ordinary television with Nixon’s funeral speech about the dead astronauts.

The famous video of the astronaut being hit by the spotlight first appeared on the website www.moontruth.com in late 2002. The site's authors claimed to have received this recording from an anonymous person who feared for his life. These shots completely reveal the truth about the most expensive show of the 20th century. Many believed this video and still do. Although after a few months the site owners stated that this was nothing more than an advertising video for their film company.

An additional page with the interesting title “Here you can read why everything said above is bullshit”, which appeared on the same site, detailed how this small English film company filmed this video as a promotion for their company.

13 Argument: Lack of evidence received from Earth

Skeptics' opinion

Why don't the Americans, as evidence that they were on the Moon, photograph the remaining equipment on the Moon using a telescope directly from Earth? This is what those who do not believe whether the Americans flew to the Moon say.

Expert opinion

Today there is simply no telescope powerful enough to photograph the American lunar modules. By astronomical standards they are very small. The distance to the Moon is 350 thousand kilometers. The Earth's atmosphere is a serious obstacle to high-quality photographs.

If we assume that there is a telescope on Earth with a lens radius of 50 meters in diameter (and today the largest telescope is only 10.8 meters), then the surface that it will be able to photograph relatively clearly will be much larger than the size of the lunar modules. That is, we won’t see them anyway.

There is a second reason why NASA will not engage in such nonsense. There are many instruments left on the Moon, the operation of which is recorded, and data is received from the Moon to Earth, which in itself is irrefutable evidence that the Americans were on the Moon and installed there Laser reflectors, a seismometer, an ion detector and an ionization pressure gauge.

As we can see from all of the above, only an amateur can ask the question: “Did the Americans fly to the moon?” All the hype related to falsification is nothing more than rumors fueled by pseudo-experts whose knowledge in this area is clearly small.

Here we consider only those questions that have at least some intelligible justification, but we decided not to even consider the other part of the absurd arguments posed by people who are clearly far from understanding physics, optics and astrophysics in the format of this article since there is a 100% probability of their scientific explanation .

As for some oddities in photographs that are not related to physical laws, but rather to exposure, we will fully answer this question in the article “

Is the flight to the moon a giant step for humanity or a worldwide hoax? Crimean scientist analyzes American flights to the Moon

According to NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Agency of the United States, supported by the American government, in 1969, humanity made a qualitative leap in its development: the Apollo 11 space expedition took place, during which astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin became the first earthlings set foot on the surface of the Moon. According to NASA, in 1969-1972. 12 astronauts visited the Moon during six Apollo missions. Another 15 visited lunar orbit.

Was there a flight to the moon

The first doubts about the authenticity of the lunar expeditions were expressed even during the period of their implementation by some US citizens, including those who worked at NASA, who pointed out a number of oddities around the lunar project, as well as signs of forgery in films and photographic materials of the expeditions. In subsequent years, the number of arguments put forward by specialists in space technology, photography and filming, and cosmic radiation, questioning or denying NASA's version, has increased. If in the first “post-lunar” years NASA sometimes responded to critics, then such statements were subsequently stopped. A NASA representative gave this “logical” explanation: the volume of criticism is so great that there is not enough time to respond to it. It is not surprising that the arguments of skeptics, presented in a huge number of newspaper and magazine articles, books and during television programs, and the response silence of NASA led to an increase in the number of skeptics who consider the Apollo project a scam. Thus, currently about a quarter of Americans do not believe in the reality of landing a man on the Moon. Let's look at some of the oddities that raise doubts about NASA's version.

Couldn't the moon rocket fly to the moon?

To implement the Apollo project, the Saturn 5 rocket was created in 1967, capable, according to NASA, of launching 135 tons of cargo into low-Earth orbit. None of the more recent space systems has such power, including the Shuttle, a reusable system developed in the United States by the mid-80s and capable of placing 30 tons of payload into orbit around the Earth. Nevertheless, the active life of the Saturns turned out to be surprisingly short and was limited to participation in the lunar program. Maybe Saturns are much more expensive than Shuttles? Not at all, especially considering the well-established production of the former and the enormous expenditure of money and time on the development of the latter.

At comparable prices, launching an equal payload into space using the Shuttles turned out to be more expensive than using the Saturns.

Or maybe today there is no need to launch large payloads into space? There is such a need in particular when creating space stations. And there are a lot of interesting things on the Moon, for example, an isotope of helium, which is promising as a source of thermonuclear energy. But maybe the Saturn 5 is an unreliable rocket? On the contrary, if you accept NASA's version, it is extremely reliable. All of its manned launches were successful.

But the Shuttles turned out to be not so trouble-free, despite the fact that near-Earth flights, for which they were used, are an order of magnitude simpler in technical terms than flights to the Moon and back. The disasters that occurred with the Shuttles, which claimed the lives of 14 American astronauts, forced NASA management to abandon their further use. Having abandoned, for unknown reasons, the Saturns in 1973, and then the expensive and unreliable Shuttles, the United States was left, so to speak, with nothing. And today, Americans rent Russian Soyuz spacecraft for flights to the ISS. The same ones that were created in the USSR even before the flights to the Moon. NASA did not put forward any reasonable explanation for the “retirement” of its own rockets, unsurpassed in power and reliability. Skeptics give the following explanation for this strangeness: in reality, Saturn 5 was unable to launch into space even the minimum cargo required for lunar expeditions. In addition, the rocket was extremely unreliable. It could not participate in any flights to the Moon and was used only to simulate lunar launches. Therefore, after the early termination of the Apollo program, the production and use of Saturn rockets was stopped, and the remaining three rockets were sent to museums. At the same time, in 1972, the chief designer of the worthless Saturns, von Braun, stopped working at NASA.

Did the rocket engine fail?

The F1 rocket engine used on the Saturns had, according to NASA, a thrust of 600 tons. The most powerful rocket engine, the RD-180, used in our time and created in the USSR, has less thrust and has worse thrust/weight and thrust/size characteristics compared to the F1. The reliability of the F1 engine, like the Saturn 5 rocket, is the highest: not a single failure during all flights to the Moon and previous manned lunar and near-Earth flights! It would seem that the F1 should have a long life. And if it was modernized, then over the past 45 years after its creation it would have been possible to further increase its power and reliability. However, the best rocket engine of all time, the F1, died at the same time as the best rocket of all time, the Saturn.

“Skeptics” among rocket specialists explain this oddity by the fact that the technical principles inherent in the design of the F1 were initially flawed, which did not make it possible to provide the thrust necessary for flights to the Moon. By the way, the failure of the lunar engine, which was still in the design stage, was predicted by the great Sergei Korolev. The real power of the F1, according to skeptics, could only be enough to lift the half-empty body of the Saturn from the ground, underfilled with fuel, to simulate a lunar launch. The reliability of the weak F1, according to experts, was below average. That's why NASA wisely wrote it off and never used it again after the end of the lunar epic. But what engines do Americans use today on their powerful Atlas rockets? The United States uses RD-180 rocket engines purchased from Russia or manufactured in the United States using Soviet-era technology received from Russia. When in the early 90s, in the ecstasy of unity with the world community on the basis of universal human values, Russia laid out to the Americans its scientific and technical secrets from the times of the “closed” USSR, they were shocked: the Russians, many years ago, were able to bring into reality what American rocket scientists had been unsuccessful in achieving fought for many years and abandoned it, considering it impracticable. For scientific and technical documentation on the RD-180 engine, the United States paid Russia 1 million in green pieces of paper - the current price of a three-room apartment in Moscow.

Strange things with lunar soil

According to NASA, lunar expeditions brought about 400 kg of lunar soil to Earth from different points on the Moon. Compared to 300 grams of regolith, a mixture of lunar dust and rubble, delivered by Soviet automatic machines, the high scientific value of the American samples was determined by the fact that they belonged to the bedrock of the moon. It would seem that the United States should have distributed a significant portion of lunar rocks to the best laboratories in the world so that they could carry out an analysis and confirm: yes, this is soil from the Moon. However, the Americans showed surprising stinginess. Thus, USSR scientists were provided with 29 grams of rock, but not indigenous rock, but in the form of dust, which unmanned vehicles are quite capable of delivering to Earth in small quantities. At the same time, in exchange, out of its 300 g of regolith, the USSR gave the United States one and a half grams more. Other scientists from different countries were even less fortunate: they were given, as a rule, from half a gram to two grams of regolith, and with the condition of return. The results of studies of American samples published in the scientific press either refer to regoliths, or do not allow them to be identified as lunar, or lead to doubts. Thus, geochemists from the University of Tokyo established that the NASA lunar samples presented to them spent a gigantic period of time in the Earth’s atmosphere, which is almost impossible to explain if the samples were formed under lunar conditions. French researchers, studying the reflective characteristics of the American and Soviet samples, concluded that only the latter has light reflection characteristics corresponding to the albedo of the lunar surface. A comedic sensation, which for some reason did not get much attention from “free journalists,” was the recent report by Dutch scientists that a sample of lunar soil, solemnly presented by the US Ambassador to the Prime Minister of Holland in 1969, turned out to be a piece of petrified terrestrial wood. There were no comments from donors. But NASA decided to no longer provide lunar soil to researchers. The explanation is this: we should wait until more advanced research methods appear, and in the meantime preserve the lunar soil for future generations of scientists. NASA doesn't believe that future astronauts will be able to go to the Moon and bring back soil samples?

So, instead of publicly inviting the world's leading laboratories to conduct a comprehensive study of hundreds of kilograms of lunar soil samples using the latest methods and widely publish the results, a taboo has been placed on the study of samples. Strange, isn't it? Skeptics have the following explanation: the United States does not have genuine stones, because they have never been to the Moon, and subterfuges are invented to stop further revelations.

Where did the original lunar filming go?

Without responding to numerous accusations of falsification, NASA nevertheless sometimes reacts to them by silently removing ridiculous pictures or individual fragments from its websites, or even simply correcting details in photographs. Thus, noticed by skeptics in one of the NASA photographs, the distinct letter “C” on the “moon” stone, which is used to mark props in the American film world, suddenly disappeared from the photograph. The photo, in which the shadows of objects intersected, which is impossible in sunlight, was simply cropped. And so on. Let us dwell only on some of the oddities associated with the “lunar movie”.

Probably everyone saw on TV the exit from the lunar module to the surface of the Moon of astronaut N. Armstrong, who uttered the legendary phrase about “a small step for a person and a giant step for all mankind”, and drew attention to the extremely low image quality, which hardly allows one to see a certain figure going down the stairs. NASA explained: these frames were taken on Earth from a monitor screen in Houston, and the poor quality was because the image was broadcast from the Moon. However, magnetic tapes with a high-quality image, directly filmed on the Moon, for some reason were in no hurry to show. With each new lunar expedition, the situation was repeated: NASA did not show the original lunar footage. To answer perplexed questions - why aren’t they showing high-quality footage? - NASA replied that everything has its time, a special repository is being built for the originals of priceless video recordings, after which copies will be made from them and shown to the general public. Years passed. And now, 37 years later, NASA announced that the original records of the first human step on the lunar surface were lost, just like the records of all other lunar expeditions. A trace of 700 boxes containing more than 10,000 magnetic tapes was lost before 1975, according to NASA. So, it turns out why high-quality video recordings were not shown - they seemed to have vanished into thin air! Well, it happens. It is a pity, however, that it was the records made on the Moon and during flights back and forth that disappeared, while for some reason much less valuable terrestrial records of astronaut training, their rest, stay with their families, ceremonial launches to the Moon, and even more ceremonial meetings upon return. In 2006, NASA created a special commission to search for the missing films. Since then, there has been silence. They are probably still looking. Strange, isn't it? Skeptics explain it this way: the film is dynamic, so it is almost impossible without computer technology to pass off filming made on Earth as lunar. Such technologies did not exist during the Apollo era. And photographs are static; it is much more difficult to detect deception from them. This is why, skeptics say, NASA “lost” the “lunar films” but saved high-quality “lunar photographs.” By the way, in the years since the lunar epic, NASA has repeatedly reported about the loss of lunar soil. It seems that the moment is not far off, say skeptics, when NASA will announce that everything has been stolen, so it is impossible to conduct further research on the moon rocks. Just as it is impossible to see the missing original recordings of people on the Moon.

Why is there no independent verification?

Modern technology makes it possible to photograph objects located on it with a resolution of about 0.5 meters from near-Earth orbit from a height of several hundred kilometers from the surface of the planet. When photographing the lunar surface from lunar orbit, the absence of an atmosphere not only improves visibility, but also allows for much higher resolution by reducing the orbital altitude to tens of kilometers. This makes it possible to receive from lunar probes not only a clear image of the Apollo landing modules remaining on the Moon, which are about five meters in size, but also the lunar vehicles left there by lunar expeditions and even traces of astronauts in the lunar dust. In the last decade, several countries have successfully launched lunar probes that have repeatedly flown over NASA's stated landing areas.

Information from Cnews.ru dated May 5, 2005: “The European Space Agency ESA unexpectedly stopped publishing images of the Moon obtained by the SMART-1 research probe. The agency previously said that one of the most important elements of the probe's scientific program is the "inspection" of the Apollo lunar landing sites, as well as other American and Soviet vehicles. This would put an end to the bitter debate and accusations that NASA is lying....

At the same time, it is known that the device continues to actively function... The program for searching for Apollo landing sites is not mentioned at all, despite the fact that this was previously directly stated by the leading scientific specialist of the ESA research program, Bernard Foing... Moreover just now it has become clear that research vehicles, even from Mars orbit, are capable of successfully finding long-lost landing vehicles on the surface, the landing sites of which were only approximately known to scientists. These devices are much smaller in size than the Apollo fragments that were supposed to remain on the Moon, and Martian winds and sandstorms significantly complicate the task.”

During the Kaguya lunar probe mission, which ended in the summer of 2009, the Apollo issue was lively discussed in the Japanese media. However, the hopes of finally receiving independent confirmation of the historic accomplishment of the United States did not come true. Even the previously inaccessible bottom of the lunar crater was able to shoot Kagui, he saw water on the Moon and a lot of other interesting things. However, although he flew hundreds of times over the American landing sites, for some reason he did not provide any information about what he saw.

But it seems that the Indian probe "Chandrayan" was lucky

Report from Gazeta.ru dated 09/05/09: “Leading researcher Prakash Shauhan reported that the probe photographed the image of the landing site of the American Apollo 15 apparatus. Studying the disturbance on the lunar surface, Chandrayaan-1 found traces of Apollo 15 being on the Moon ... True, Shauhan added that Chandrayaan-1 has a camera whose resolution is not enough to distinguish between traces astronauts, noting that such pictures can be taken by the American LRO apparatus.

"Disturbance on the lunar surface" looks like a tiny whitish speck in the photo from the probe and for some reason is interpreted as the landing stage of the lunar module. "Traces of the lunar rover" look like a thin, barely noticeable squiggle.

For many years, NASA did not respond to proposals to photograph the Apollo landing sites and thereby confirm its lunar version. And now, after 40 years, NASA has presented space images from the LRO probe of the landing sites of five Apollos. Alas, the quality of these pictures was no better than that of the Indians. Therefore, skeptics, and not only them, exclaim at NASA: damn it! You have managed to transmit beautiful images from Mars, from the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn. But where are the normal photos from the Moon, which is hundreds of times closer to us?

Skeptics explain the oddities with checking the Apollo landing sites as follows. The devoted allies of the United States - Europe and Japan - having not found any traces of Americans on the Moon, did not disgrace their senior partner by exposing them. NASA's examination of itself for cosmic deception cannot be taken seriously. And for what kind of sins the Hindus took upon themselves - only God knows. It should be noted that they left themselves an escape route, mentioning some kind of “disturbance of the lunar surface.” When the lunar deception is revealed, the Hindus will be able to disown: they say they interpreted the “outrage” incorrectly. Skeptics note that reports of photographs from Chandrayaan and LRO appeared a week after the scandal in the Netherlands with the “moon rock”, which turned out to be a petrified piece of wood.

Decades after the US lunar triumph, American experts concluded that going to the Moon was very dangerous, if not impossible. Thus, experts from the famous Massachusetts Institute of Technology believe that the quality and reliability of information on the surface of the Moon is outrageous and inferior even to the available data on the surface of Mars, which does not allow landing on the Moon with a sufficient level of safety. But forty years ago there were even fewer such maps, yet the Apollos, according to NASA, landed on the Moon many times without any problems. How did they do it? There is nothing to be surprised here, skeptics believe, because no one has ever landed on the Moon.

Is landing on the moon still impossible today?

The head of NASA's Meteoroid Environment Office said the actual number of meteorites falling on the Moon is four times higher than previously predicted by computer models. But these models were created on the basis of observations and measurements carried out by the Apollo crews! Why did they turn out to be so wrong? Because, skeptics believe, no one has made any observations of meteorites on the Moon for the reason that no one has ever been to the Moon.

Several years ago, the United States set out to return to the Moon. However, problems arose. “NASA considers it necessary to carry out missions with a flyby of the Moon without landing on it and the return of the landing module to Earth to study the features of reentry into the atmosphere at such high speeds - they are currently “not fully understood by NASA” (Space News report of 01/31/2007). Well well! Once everything was clear and easy, nine expeditions returned from the Moon or from lunar orbit without a hitch. And after 40 years, it became unclear how to land astronauts returning from the Moon to Earth?

“The Bush lunar program ran into an unexpected obstacle: its creators forgot about the X-ray radiation of the Sun. It suddenly turned out that it was simply impossible to travel on the Moon without heavy radiation "umbrellas". (“Astronomy, Aviation and Space”, 01/24/07, Wed, 09.27, Moscow time). It turns out that scientists from the Lunar and Interplanetary Research Laboratory in Arizona have found that the likelihood of cancer for astronauts on the Moon is very high, moreover, staying on the Moon in a spacesuit with an active Sun can be fatal. How so? After all, 27 Americans spent a total of hundreds of hours on the moon, in its vicinity, on the way to the moon and back, but none of them suffered from radiation, despite the fact that powerful solar flares occurred repeatedly during lunar expeditions. The health of some astronauts is enviable. So, 72-year-old Edwin Aldrin cuffed a famous TV presenter when he suggested that the astronaut swear on the Bible that he flew to the moon. They refrained from fighting, but the other five astronauts, to whom the TV presenter approached with the same proposal, also refused to swear.

“The 2011 budget draft prepared by the Barack Obama administration essentially closes the Constellation space program by returning the United States to the Moon. So, George Bush’s widely publicized program is being phased out” (“Rossiyskaya Gazeta” - federal issue No. 5100 (21). Here they are! Instead of using the already debugged, proven, extremely reliable Saturn lunar rocket and the Apollo capsule, For some reason, they spent about nine billion dollars on the creation of a new lunar rocket "Ares" and a new capsule for the "Orion" crew. After which they realized that today flights to the Moon are impossible in the same way as 40 years ago?

Was there a “moon conspiracy” between the USA and the USSR?

Supporters of NASA's lunar version ask skeptics the key question: if the lunar epic is a grand hoax of the United States, then why was it not exposed by the USSR, which participated in the lunar race of the last century and was the leader in it, and was also in a state of "cold war" with the United States ?
And why are some of the glorious Soviet cosmonauts defending the NASA version if it is false?

Skeptics answer: there was a collusion between the leadership of the USSR and the leadership of the United States. Without a guarantee of non-disclosure on the part of the USSR, the United States simply could not commit a scam. The USSR “sold” the Moon to the USA. According to skeptics, a number of events, including strange ones, are connected with this conspiracy.

1) 1967-69 - the beginning of the policy of detente. In 1972, President Nixon, who arrived in Moscow, signed or planned to sign 12 agreements between the USA and the USSR, extremely beneficial for the Soviet Union.

2) Agreements on missile defense and strategic weapons removed a considerable part of the burden of the arms race from the USSR.

3) The embargo on the supply of Soviet oil and gas to Western Europe was lifted, and currency flowed into the USSR.

4) Supplies of large volumes of American feed grain to the USSR began at prices lower than world prices, which allowed the USSR to significantly increase the production of meat and dairy products and caused discontent in the United States itself, as it led to rising food prices.

5) At the expense of the United States, chemical plants were built in exchange for their finished products. The USSR received modern enterprises without investing a dime.

6) The USSR’s refusal in 1970 to prepare a manned flight around the Moon on the Proton rocket with the Soyuz spacecraft.

Skeptics explain this refusal by the fact that if the flyby had taken place, the USSR would have had to answer the question: did the Soviet cosmonauts see the American landing sites on the Moon? The USSR would not have been able to confine itself to the silence provided for by the agreement. He would have to either withdraw from the conspiracy, or take the path of outright lies, confirming the American version.

7) In 1970, a Soviet ship caught an empty model of the Apollo capsule being lowered to Earth in the Atlantic. There is a photo of the layout on the Internet, taken by a Hungarian journalist. The USSR quietly transferred a mock-up of the capsule to the United States, which, according to skeptics, serves as direct confirmation of the existence of collusion.

8) In 1974, despite the objections of specialists and leaders of the space industry, the leadership of the USSR curtailed the Soviet lunar program and the development of the N1 lunar rocket. The explanation is the same as in paragraph 6): as a result of the conspiracy, flights to the Moon for the USSR were, in fact, ordered.

9) In 1975, flights to the Moon and Soviet automatic stations were stopped. Since then, neither the USSR nor present-day Russia have approached the Moon.

Skeptics conclude: Russia, as the successor of the USSR, is fulfilling its obligations under the “lunar conspiracy” of the late 60s of the last century.

10) In 1975, the Helsinki Treaty was concluded, which affirmed the inviolability of borders in Europe after the war. He removed all possible claims against the USSR regarding the “occupation” of Western Ukraine, Bessarabia, East Prussia, and the Baltic states.

The first and only joint orbital flight "Soyuz-Apollo", which took place in the same 1975, was needed by the United States, according to skeptics, as an indirect confirmation on the part of the USSR of the US space victory.

Some skeptics suggest that the United States had serious compromising evidence against the leadership of the USSR, which contributed to the conspiracy. If we accept this assumption, then, in my opinion, such incriminating evidence could have been something connecting the dissolute daughter of the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Galina Brezhneva, a lover of diamonds, wine, men and the “beautiful life,” with American intelligence. Such a connection could be the result of a provocation by American intelligence services. The publication of compromising evidence threatened the USSR with an unprecedented international scandal. In the face of his threat, taking into account US proposals that were also beneficial for the USSR, including the policy of détente, the USSR leadership agreed to a conspiracy.

Regarding the defense of the NASA version by some Soviet cosmonauts, skeptics suggest considering the following:

1) The astronauts limit themselves to the statement that “the Americans were on the Moon,” but do not try to refute the specific arguments of the skeptics. By the way, in view of the obvious forgery of “lunar film materials,” in particular, American flags fluttering in the lunar wind on the atmosphere-less Moon, the cosmonauts are forced to admit that these materials were “filmed” on Earth.

2) Cosmonauts are military people. They swore an oath to keep state secrets known to them. And the collusion between the USSR and the USA is still protected as the greatest secret by both the USA and Russia.

3) Astronauts are also people, there are also selfish individuals among them, not all of them could resist the temptation to support NASA’s lies, not without benefit. One of the former cosmonauts, twice Hero of the Soviet Union, who has visited the United States many times and is friends with American astronauts, now the deputy director of a large bank and one of the richest people in Russia, even expressed his admiration for the oligarch Abramovich, who managed to make a multi-billion dollar fortune out of thin air.

4) Among Russian cosmonauts there are cautious skeptics who do not show off their skepticism for the reason stated in paragraph 2.

American Patrick Murray"exploded" the world media with an incredible sensation - he published an interview with the now deceased director Stanley Kubrick, recorded 15 years ago.

“I committed a huge fraud on the American public. With the participation of the United States government and NASA. The moon landing was faked, all the landings were faked, and I was the person who filmed it,” Stanley Kubrick claims in the video. In response to the interviewer’s clarifying question, the director repeats once again: yes, the American landing on the Moon is a fake, which he personally fabricated.

According to Kubrick, this hoax was carried out on instructions from the US President Richard Nixon. For participation in the project, the director received a large amount of money.

Patrick Murray explained why the interview appeared only 15 years after the death of Stanley Kubrick. According to him, this was a requirement of the non-disclosure agreement that he signed when recording the interview.

The loud sensation, however, was quickly exposed - the interview with Kubrick, whose role was actually played by the actor, turned out to be a hoax.

This is not the first time that the topic of Stanley Kubrick's participation in what has been called the "moon conspiracy" has been raised.

In 2002, the documentary film “The Dark Side of the Moon” was released, part of which was an interview with the widow of Stanley Kubrick Christiana. In it, she claimed that her husband, at the initiative of US President Richard Nixon, inspired by Kubrick’s film “2001: A Space Odyssey,” took part in the filming of the landing of American astronauts on the moon, which was carried out in a specially built pavilion on Earth.

In reality, the film “The Dark Side of the Moon” was a well-staged hoax, as its creators openly admitted in the credits.

"We have never been to the moon"

Despite the exposure of such pseudo-sensations, the “moon conspiracy” theory is still alive and has thousands of supporters in different countries of the world.

July 21, 1969 astronaut Neil Armstrong stepped onto the surface of the Moon and uttered the historical phrase: “This is one small step for a man, but a giant leap for all mankind.”

The first human landing on the surface of the Moon was televised to dozens of countries, but some were not convinced. Literally from the first day, skeptics began to appear, convinced that there was no landing on the Moon, and everything that was shown to the public was a grandiose hoax.

On December 18, 1969, The New York Times published a short article about the annual meeting of members of the comic Society in Memory of the Man Who Will Never Fly, held in a Chicago bar. In it, one of the NASA representatives allegedly showed other tipsy members of the public photos and videos of the astronauts' ground training activities, showing a striking resemblance to footage from the Moon.

In 1970, the first books were published expressing doubts that earthlings had actually visited the Moon.

In 1975 the American writer Bill Kaysing published the book “We Have Never Been to the Moon,” which has become a reference book for all supporters of the “moon conspiracy” theory. Kaysing claimed that the entire moon mission was an elaborate hoax by the US government.

Bill Kaysing formulated the main arguments of supporters of the “moon conspiracy” theory:

1. NASA's level of technological development did not allow sending a man to the Moon;
2. The absence of stars in photographs from the surface of the moon;
3. The astronauts' photographic film should have melted from the midday temperature on the Moon;
4. Various optical anomalies in photographs;
5. A waving flag in a vacuum;
6. A smooth surface instead of the craters that should have been formed as a result of the landing of lunar modules from their engines.

Why is the flag flying?

Supporters of the version that the Americans have never been to the Moon point to numerous contradictions and inconsistencies in the materials of NASA's lunar program.

The arguments of conspiracy theorists and their opponents have been collected in dozens of books, and citing them all would be extremely reckless. For example, you can analyze the incident with the American flag on the moon.

In photographs and video footage of the installation on the Moon by the Apollo 11 crew of the US flag, “ripples” are noticeable on the surface of the canvas. Proponents of the “lunar conspiracy” believe that these ripples were caused by a gust of wind, which is impossible in the vacuum of space on the surface of the Moon.

Opponents object: the movement of the flag was not caused by the wind, but by damped vibrations that arose when the flag was planted. The flag was mounted on a flagpole and on a horizontal telescopic crossbar, pressed against the staff during transportation. The astronauts were unable to extend the telescopic tube of the horizontal bar to its full length. Because of this, ripples remained on the cloth, which created the illusion of a flag fluttering in the wind.

Almost every conspiracy theory argument is refuted in this way.

The silence of the USSR was bought for a bribe?

The Soviet Union occupies a special place in the “moon conspiracy.” A logical question arises: if there was no landing on the Moon, then why did the Soviet Union, which could not but know about it, remain silent?

Adherents of the theory have several versions of this. According to the first, Soviet specialists were unable to immediately recognize the skillful forgery. Another version suggests that the USSR agreed not to expose the Americans in exchange for certain economic preferences. According to the third theory, the Soviet Union itself participated in the “lunar conspiracy” - the leadership of the USSR agreed to remain silent about the tricks of the Americans in order to hide their unsuccessful flights to the Moon, during one of which, according to the “conspirators,” the first cosmonaut of the Earth died Yuri Gagarin.

According to supporters of the “lunar conspiracy” theory, US President Richard Nixon ordered an operation to simulate the flight of astronauts to the Moon after it became clear that technology did not allow for a real manned flight to the Earth’s satellite. For the United States, it was a matter of principle to win the “moon race” against the USSR, and for this they were ready to do anything.

In an atmosphere of the strictest secrecy, the best Hollywood masters were allegedly involved in the operation, including Stanley Kubrick, who allegedly filmed all the necessary scenes in a specially built pavilion.

Arguments and Facts

In 2009, on the 40th anniversary of the first manned landing on the Moon, NASA decided to finally bury the “moon conspiracy.”

The automatic interplanetary station LRO completed a special task - it photographed the landing areas of lunar modules of earthly expeditions. The first ever detailed photographs of the lunar modules themselves, landing sites, elements of equipment left by expeditions on the surface, and even traces of the earthlings themselves from the cart and rover were transmitted to Earth. Five of the six revenge landings of American lunar expeditions were captured.

Traces of the presence of Americans on the Moon, independently of each other, have been recorded in recent years by specialists from India, China and Japan using their automatic spacecraft.

Supporters of the "lunar conspiracy", however, do not give up. Not really trusting all this evidence, they claim that an unmanned vehicle sent to the Earth’s satellite could have left traces on the Moon.

How Hollywood Played into the Hands of Skeptics

In 1977, the American feature film Capricorn 1, based on the “lunar conspiracy” theory, was released. According to its plot, the US presidential administration sends a supposedly manned ship to Mars, although in fact the crew remains on Earth and reports from a specially built pavilion. At the end of the mission, the astronauts must appear before the admiring Americans, but upon returning to Earth, the spacecraft burns up in the dense layers of the atmosphere. After this, the special services are trying to get rid of the astronauts, officially declared dead, as unwanted witnesses.

The film “Capricorn-1” significantly increased the number of skeptics who believe that such a scenario could well be applied to the lunar program, especially since the authors used references to the real history of the Apollo program in the plot. For example, at the beginning of the film, the US Vice President mentions that $24 billion has been spent on the Capricorn program. That is how much was actually spent on the Apollo program. The film says that the US President was absent from the Capricorn launch due to urgent matters - the real head of the United States, Richard Nixon, was absent from the Apollo 11 launch for a similar reason.

Soviet cosmonauts: the Americans were on the moon, but they filmed something in the pavilion

It is interesting that Soviet cosmonauts and designers, theoretically most interested in exposing the “lunar conspiracy,” never expressed doubts that the Americans actually landed on the Moon.

Constructor Boris Chertok, one of the companions Sergei Korolev, wrote in his memoirs: “In the USA, three years after the astronauts landed on the Moon, a little book was published in which it was stated that there was no flight to the Moon... The author and publisher made good money on a deliberate lie.”

Spaceship designer Konstantin Feoktistov, who himself flew into space as part of the crew of the Voskhod-1 spacecraft, wrote that Soviet tracking stations received signals from American astronauts from the Moon. According to Feoktistov, “arranging such a hoax is probably no less difficult than a real expedition.”

Astronauts Alexey Leonov And Georgy Grechko, who took part in the Soviet manned flight program to the Moon, confidently declared: yes, the Americans were on the Moon. At the same time, they agreed that some of the landings were filmed in the pavilion. There is no crime in this - the staged footage was only supposed to clearly demonstrate to the public how everything really happened. A similar technique was used when covering the achievements of Soviet cosmonautics.

Astronomically expensive Moon

There is no merit to the argument that the United States did not have the technical capability to take astronauts to the Moon. All now declassified documents indicate that both the USA and the USSR had such a technical capability. However, in the Soviet Union, having lost the “lunar race”, they preferred to curtail further work, declaring that a manned flight to the Earth’s satellite was not planned.

Another question asked by supporters of the “moon conspiracy” is: if the Americans really visited the Moon, then why did they curtail further research?

The answer to this question is quite banal: it's all about money.

Having lost almost all the main prizes of the first stage of the "space race", the United States threw incredible funds for the implementation of a manned flight to the moon for that time. In the end, this allowed them to win.

But when the euphoria subsided, it became clear that the "lunar prestige" was a heavy burden on the American economy. As a result, the Apollo program was decided to be curtailed - as it was then thought, in order to return to the Moon in a few years with a more extensive and cheaper research program.

Conspiracy theory 2.0

Programs for the construction of permanent lunar bases were developed both in the USA and in the USSR. All of them were interesting from a scientific point of view, but required a truly astronomical investment. The question of industrial development of the Moon remains a matter of the distant future.

As a result, no earthling has flown to the Moon for more than 45 years. And this was the reason for many supporters of the "lunar conspiracy" to become adherents of its, so to speak, modernized version.

According to her, the American astronauts were really on the moon, but they found traces of the presence of an alien civilization there, which it was decided to keep in the strictest confidence. That is why the flights to the Moon were officially stopped, and a cover operation was launched in the media, part of which was disinformation about the staging of the Apollo program.

But this is a topic for a separate story.

The so-called "American moon landing in 1969" was a huge fake! Or, in Russian, a grandiose deception! Western politicians have this rule: "If you can't win in a fair competition, achieve victory by deceit or meanness!"

Surprisingly, not only American astronauts, but also Soviet astronauts made an effort to deceive the entire world community, who stated that “only absolutely ignorant people can seriously believe that the Americans were not on the moon!”. Such, in particular, is the opinion of the Soviet cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, when many citizens of the USSR, who carefully studied all the materials on the "American lunar epic", found obvious mistakes and inconsistencies in it.

And only now, after almost half a century, it becomes clear that all this information, entered by historians in various encyclopedias, is actually misinformation!

"Apollo 11" ("Apollo-11") - a manned spacecraft of the Apollo series, during the flight of which on July 16-24, 1969, the inhabitants of the Earth for the first time in history landed on the surface of another celestial body - the Moon.

On July 20, 1969, at 20:17:39 UTC, crew commander Neil Armstrong and pilot Edwin Aldrin landed the ship's lunar module in the southwestern area of ​​the Sea of ​​Tranquility. They remained on the surface of the moon for 21 hours 36 minutes and 21 seconds. All this time, Command Module Pilot Michael Collins was waiting for them in lunar orbit. The astronauts made one exit to the lunar surface, which lasted 2 hours 31 minutes 40 seconds. The first person to walk on the moon was Neil Armstrong. This happened on July 21 at 02:56:15 UTC. Aldrin joined him 15 minutes later.

The astronauts planted a US flag at the landing site, placed a set of scientific instruments and collected 21.55 kg of lunar soil samples, which were delivered to Earth. After the flight, crew members and lunar rock samples underwent strict quarantine, which did not reveal any lunar microorganisms.

The successful completion of the Apollo 11 flight program meant achieving the national goal set by the President of the United States John Kennedy in May 1961 - to land on the moon before the end of the decade, and marked the victory of the United States in the lunar race with the USSR.".

Surprisingly, John Kennedy, the US President who approved the program of “landing a man on the moon before 1970,” was publicly shot in front of a crowd of millions of Americans back in 1963. And what’s even more surprising is that the entire archive of film on which the landing of American astronauts on the Moon was faked in July 1969 subsequently disappeared from NASA storage! It was allegedly stolen!

The Russians have a very good proverb about this: "do not count your chickens before they are hatched!" Its literal meaning is this: on peasant farms, not all chickens born in the summer survive until the fall. Some will be carried away by birds of prey, and the weak simply will not survive. That’s why they say that you need to count chickens in the fall, when it is clear how many of them have survived. The allegorical meaning of this proverb is this: one must judge something by the final results. Premature joy from the first result, especially if it was obtained dishonestly, may later give way to bitter disappointment!

Absolutely in the context of this Russian proverb, today it turns out that the Americans still do not have a reliable and powerful rocket engine that could propel their American spacecraft to the Moon and return it back to Earth.

Below is a story by a Soviet and Russian scientist about the leadership of Russian science and space industry in the field of creating rocket engines.

The creator of the world's best liquid-propellant rocket engines, Academician Boris Katorgin, explains why the Americans still cannot repeat our achievements in this area, and how to maintain the Soviet head start in the future.

On June 21, 2012, the winners of the Global Energy Prize were awarded at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum. An authoritative commission of industry experts from different countries selected three applications from the 639 submitted and named the laureates of the year’s prize, which is already commonly called the “Nobel Prize for energy workers.” As a result, 33 million bonus rubles this year were shared by the famous inventor from Great Britain, Professor Rodney John Allam, and two of our outstanding scientists - academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences Boris Katorgin and Valery Kostyuk.

All three are related to the creation of cryogenic technology, the study of the properties of cryogenic products and their use in various power plants. Academician Boris Katorgin was awarded “for the development of highly efficient liquid rocket engines using cryogenic fuels, which ensure reliable operation of space systems at high energy parameters for the peaceful use of space.” With the direct participation of Katorgin, who devoted more than fifty years to the OKB-456 enterprise, now known as NPO Energomash, liquid rocket engines (LPRE) were created, the performance characteristics of which are now considered the best in the world. Katorgin himself was involved in the development of schemes for organizing the working process in engines, the mixture formation of fuel components and the elimination of pulsation in the combustion chamber. His fundamental work on nuclear rocket engines (NRE) with high specific impulse and developments in the field of creating high-power continuous chemical lasers are also known.

During the most difficult times for Russian science-intensive organizations, from 1991 to 2009, Boris Katorgin headed NPO Energomash, combining the positions of general director and general designer, and managed not only to save the company, but also to create a number of new engines. The lack of an internal order for engines forced Katorgin to look for a customer on the foreign market. One of the new engines was the RD-180, developed in 1995 specifically to participate in a tender organized by the American corporation Lockheed Martin, which was choosing a liquid-propellant rocket engine for the Atlas launch vehicle, which was then being modernized. As a result, NPO Energomash signed an agreement for the supply of 101 engines and by the beginning of 2012 had already supplied more than 60 liquid propellant engines to the United States, 35 of which were successfully operated on Atlases when launching satellites for various purposes.

Before presenting the award, “Expert” talked with academician Boris Katorgin about the state and prospects for the development of liquid rocket engines and found out why engines based on developments forty years ago are still considered innovative, and the RD-180 could not be recreated at American factories.

Boris Ivanovich, what exactly is your contribution to the creation of domestic liquid jet engines, which are now considered the best in the world?

To explain this to a non-specialist probably requires a special skill. For liquid rocket engines, I developed combustion chambers and gas generators; in general, he supervised the creation of the engines themselves for the peaceful exploration of outer space. (In the combustion chambers, mixing and burning of fuel and oxidizer occurs and a volume of hot gases is formed, which, then ejected through the nozzles, create the jet thrust itself; in gas generators the fuel mixture is also burned, but for the operation of turbopumps, which pump fuel and oxidizer under enormous pressure into the same combustion chamber. - "Expert".)

You are talking about peaceful space exploration, although it is obvious that all engines with a thrust from several tens to 800 tons, which were created at NPO Energomash, were intended primarily for military needs.

We did not have to drop a single atomic bomb, we did not deliver a single nuclear warhead on our missiles to the target, and thank God. All military developments went into peaceful space. We can be proud of the enormous contribution of our rocket and space technology to the development of human civilization. Thanks to astronautics, entire technological clusters were born: space navigation, telecommunications, satellite television, sensing systems.

The engine for the R-9 intercontinental ballistic missile that you worked on later formed the basis for almost our entire manned program.

Back in the late 1950s, I carried out computational and experimental work to improve mixture formation in the combustion chambers of the RD-111 engine, which was intended for that same rocket. The results of the work are still used in modified RD-107 and RD-108 engines for the same Soyuz rocket; about two thousand space flights have been carried out on them, including all manned programs.

Two years ago I interviewed your colleague, Global Energy laureate Academician Alexander Leontyev. In a conversation about specialists closed to the general public, which Leontyev himself once was, he mentioned Vitaly Ievlev, who also did a lot for our space industry.

Many academicians who worked for the defense industry were classified - this is a fact. Now much has been declassified - this is also a fact. I know Alexander Ivanovich very well: he worked on creating calculation methods and methods for cooling the combustion chambers of various rocket engines. Solving this technological problem was not easy, especially when we began to squeeze out the maximum chemical energy of the fuel mixture to obtain maximum specific impulse, increasing, among other measures, the pressure in the combustion chambers to 250 atmospheres.

Let's take our most powerful engine - RD-170. Fuel consumption with oxidizer - kerosene with liquid oxygen passing through the engine - 2.5 tons per second. The heat flows in it reach 50 megawatts per square meter - this is enormous energy. The temperature in the combustion chamber is 3.5 thousand degrees Celsius!

It was necessary to come up with a special cooling for the combustion chamber so that it could work properly and withstand the thermal pressure. Alexander Ivanovich did just that, and, I must say, he did a great job. Vitaly Mikhailovich Ievlev - Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor, who unfortunately died quite early - was a scientist of the widest profile, possessed of encyclopedic erudition. Like Leontiev, he worked a lot on methods for calculating highly stressed thermal structures. Their work overlapped in some places, was integrated in others, and as a result, an excellent technique was obtained that can be used to calculate the thermal intensity of any combustion chambers; Now, perhaps, using it, any student can do this. In addition, Vitaly Mikhailovich took an active part in the development of nuclear and plasma rocket engines. Here our interests intersected in those years when Energomash was doing the same thing.

In our conversation with Leontiev, we touched upon the topic of selling Energomashev’s RD-180 engines in the USA, and Alexander Ivanovich said that in many ways this engine is the result of developments that were made precisely during the creation of the RD-170, and in a sense, its half . Is this really the result of reverse scaling?

Any engine in a new dimension is, of course, a new device. The RD-180 with a thrust of 400 tons is really half the size of the RD-170 with a thrust of 800 tons.

The RD-191, designed for our new Angara rocket, has a thrust of 200 tons. What do these engines have in common? All of them have one turbopump, but the RD-170 has four combustion chambers, the "American" RD-180 has two, and the RD-191 has one. Each engine needs its own turbopump unit - after all, if a four-chamber RD-170 consumes about 2.5 tons of fuel per second, for which a turbopump with a capacity of 180 thousand kilowatts was developed, which is more than two times greater, for example, than the power of the reactor of the nuclear icebreaker Arktika , then the two-chamber RD-180 is only half, 1.2 tons. I participated directly in the development of turbopumps for the RD-180 and RD-191 and at the same time supervised the creation of these engines as a whole.

The combustion chamber, then, is the same on all these engines, only their number is different?

Yes, and this is our main achievement. In one such chamber with a diameter of only 380 millimeters, a little more than 0.6 tons of fuel per second is burned. Without exaggeration, this chamber is a unique, highly heat-stressed equipment with special protection belts from powerful heat flows. Protection is carried out not only due to external cooling of the chamber walls, but also thanks to an ingenious method of “lining” a film of fuel on them, which, evaporating, cools the wall.

On the basis of this outstanding camera, which has no equal in the world, we manufacture our best engines: RD-170 and RD-171 for Energia and Zenit, RD-180 for the American Atlas and RD-191 for the new Russian rocket "Angara".

- “Angara” was supposed to replace “Proton-M” several years ago, but the creators of the rocket faced serious problems, the first flight tests were repeatedly postponed, and the project seems to continue to stall.

There really were problems. The decision has now been made to launch the rocket in 2013. The peculiarity of the Angara is that, based on its universal rocket modules, it is possible to create a whole family of launch vehicles with a payload capacity of 2.5 to 25 tons for launching cargo into low Earth orbit based on the universal oxygen-kerosene engine RD-191. Angara-1 has one engine, Angara-3 has three with a total thrust of 600 tons, Angara-5 will have 1000 tons of thrust, that is, it will be able to put more cargo into orbit than Proton. In addition, instead of the very toxic heptyl, which is burned in Proton engines, we use environmentally friendly fuel, after combustion of which only water and carbon dioxide remain.

How did it happen that the same RD-170, which was created back in the mid-1970s, still remains, in fact, an innovative product, and its technologies are used as the basis for new liquid-propellant rocket engines?

A similar story happened with the aircraft created after World War II by Vladimir Mikhailovich Myasishchev (long-range strategic bomber of the M series, developed by the Moscow OKB-23 in the 1950s - “Expert”). In many respects, the aircraft was about thirty years ahead of its time, and elements of its design were later borrowed by other aircraft manufacturers. It’s the same here: the RD-170 has a lot of new elements, materials, and design solutions. According to my estimates, they will not become obsolete for several decades. This is primarily due to the founder of NPO Energomash and its general designer Valentin Petrovich Glushko and Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Vitaly Petrovich Radovsky, who headed the company after Glushko’s death. (Note that the world's best energy and operational characteristics of the RD-170 are largely ensured thanks to Katorgin's solution to the problem of suppressing high-frequency combustion instability through the development of anti-pulsation partitions in the same combustion chamber. - "Expert".) And the RD-253 engine of the first stage for rocket carrier "Proton"? Adopted back in 1965, it is so perfect that it has not yet been surpassed by anyone! This is exactly how Glushko taught us to design - at the limit of the possible and necessarily above the world average.

Another important thing to remember is that the country has invested in its technological future. What was it like in the Soviet Union? The Ministry of General Engineering, which was in charge, in particular, of space and rockets, spent 22 percent of its huge budget on R&D alone - in all areas, including propulsion. Today, the amount of research funding is much less, and that says a lot.

Doesn’t this mean that these liquid-propellant rocket engines achieved certain perfect qualities, and this happened half a century ago, that the rocket engine with a chemical energy source is in some sense becoming obsolete: the main discoveries have been made in new generations of liquid-propellant rocket engines, now we are talking more about the so-called supporting innovations?

Definitely not. Liquid rocket engines are in demand and will be in demand for a very long time, because no other technology is capable of more reliably and economically lifting cargo from the Earth and placing it into low-Earth orbit. They are safe from an environmental point of view, especially those that run on liquid oxygen and kerosene. But for flights to stars and other galaxies, rocket engines, of course, are completely unsuitable. The mass of the entire metagalaxy is 10 to the 56th power of grams. In order to accelerate on a liquid-propellant rocket engine to at least a quarter of the speed of light, an absolutely incredible amount of fuel is required - 10 to the 3200th power of grams, so it’s stupid to even think about it. LRE has its own niche - sustainer engines. Using liquid engines, you can accelerate the carrier to the second escape velocity, fly to Mars, and that’s it.

Next step - nuclear rocket engines?

Certainly. It is unknown whether we will live to reach some stages, but much was done to develop nuclear propulsion engines already in Soviet times. Now, under the leadership of the Keldysh Center, headed by Academician Anatoly Sazonovich Koroteev, a so-called transport and energy module is being developed. The designers came to the conclusion that it was possible to create a gas-cooled nuclear reactor that was less stressful than in the USSR, which would work both as a power plant and as an energy source for plasma engines when traveling in space. Such a reactor is currently being designed at NIKIET named after N. A. Dollezhal under the guidance of Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Yuri Grigorievich Dragunov. The Kaliningrad Design Bureau "Fakel" also participates in the project, where electric jet engines are being created. As in Soviet times, the Voronezh Chemical Automation Design Bureau will not do without it, where gas turbines and compressors will be manufactured in order to drive a coolant - a gas mixture - through a closed circuit.

In the meantime, let's fly on a rocket engine?

Of course, and we clearly see the prospects for further development of these engines. There are tactical, long-term tasks, there is no limit: the introduction of new, more heat-resistant coatings, new composite materials, reducing the mass of engines, increasing their reliability, and simplifying the control scheme. A number of elements can be introduced to more closely control the wear of parts and other processes occurring in the engine. There are strategic tasks: for example, the development of liquefied methane and acetylene together with ammonia or ternary fuel as combustible materials. NPO Energomash is developing a three-component engine. Such an LRE could be used as an engine for both the first and second stages. At the first stage, it uses well-developed components: oxygen, liquid kerosene, and if you add about another five percent of hydrogen, then the specific impulse will increase significantly - one of the main energy characteristics of the engine, which means that more payload can be sent into space. At the first stage, all kerosene with the addition of hydrogen is produced, and at the second stage, the same engine switches from running on a three-component fuel to a two-component one - hydrogen and oxygen.

We have already created an experimental engine, albeit of small size and a thrust of only about 7 tons, carried out 44 tests, made full-scale mixing elements in the nozzles, in the gas generator, in the combustion chamber, and found out that it is possible to first work on three components, and then smoothly switch to two. Everything works out, high combustion efficiency is achieved, but to go further, we need a larger sample, we need to modify the stands in order to launch into the combustion chamber the components that we are going to use in a real engine: liquid hydrogen and oxygen, as well as kerosene. I think this is a very promising direction and a big step forward. And I hope to do something in my lifetime.

- Why have the Americans, having received the right to reproduce the RD-180, not been able to make it for many years?

Americans are very pragmatic. In the 1990s, at the very beginning of working with us, they realized that in the energy field we were much ahead of them and we needed to adopt these technologies from us. For example, our RD-170 engine in one launch, due to its greater specific impulse, could carry two tons more payload than their most powerful F-1, which meant a gain of 20 million dollars at that time. They announced a competition for a 400-ton engine for their Atlases, which was won by our RD-180. Then the Americans thought that they would start working with us, and in four years they would take our technologies and reproduce them themselves. I immediately told them: you will spend more than a billion dollars and ten years. Four years have passed, and they say: yes, we need six years. More years passed, they said: no, we need another eight years. Seventeen years have passed and they have not reproduced a single engine!

They now need billions of dollars just for bench equipment. We have stands at Energomash where you can test the same RD-170 engine in a pressure chamber, the jet power of which reaches 27 million kilowatts.

Did I hear right - 27 gigawatts? This is more than the installed capacity of all nuclear power plants of Rosatom.

Twenty-seven gigawatts is the power of the jet, which develops in a relatively short time. When tested on a bench, the energy of the jet is first extinguished in a special pool, then in a dissipation pipe with a diameter of 16 meters and a height of 100 meters. To build such a stand, which houses an engine that creates such power, you need to invest a lot of money. The Americans have now abandoned this and are taking the finished product. As a result, we do not sell raw materials, but a product with enormous added value, into which highly intellectual work has been invested. Unfortunately, in Russia this is a rare example of high-tech sales abroad in such a large volume. But this proves that if we pose the question correctly, we are capable of much.

Boris Ivanovich, what needs to be done in order not to lose the head start gained by the Soviet rocket engine industry? Probably, in addition to the lack of funding for R&D, there is another very painful problem - personnel?

To remain on the world market, we must constantly move forward and create new products. Apparently, until we were completely pressed down and the thunder struck. But the state needs to realize that without new developments it will find itself on the margins of the world market, and today, in this transition period, while we have not yet matured into normal capitalism, it, the state, must first of all invest in new things. Then you can transfer the development for production of the series to a private company on terms beneficial to both the state and business...

And that’s what’s surprising! In this story by Academician Boris Katorgin, the creator of the world's best rocket engines, there is not a word about the fact that “the Americans did not fly to the Moon”! However, he doesn’t need to shout about it. It is enough to say and prove that only Russia today has the RD-170 rocket engine with a thrust of 800 tons, created in 1987 - 1988, the characteristics of which alone can ensure the flight of a spacecraft to the Moon and back. Americans don’t have such an engine today!

Worse, they cannot even organize the production of the Soviet RD-180 engine, which is twice as weak in power, the license for the production of which Russia kindly sold them...

But what about the American Saturn-5 rocket, the launch of which was observed in July 1969 by millions of people who followed the “lunar program”? - perhaps someone will say now.

Yes, there was such a rocket. And she even took off from the cosmodrome! Only her task was not to fly to the Moon, but just to show everyone that the take-off had taken place. And this should have been recorded by television cameras, as well as the eyes of all kinds of witnesses. Then the Saturn 5 rocket fell into the Atlantic Ocean. Its first stage, its head part, and the descent module, in which there were no astronauts, fell there...

As for the engines of the Saturn 5 rocket...

For a “fake flight” the rocket did not need to have any outstanding rocket engines with particularly high power! It was quite possible to get by with the engines that the Americans were able to develop by that time!

The launch of the “lunar rocket” Saturn-5, as is known, took place on July 16, 1969. On July 20 and 21, American astronauts were allegedly able to walk on the Moon and even plant an American flag on it, and on July 24, 1969, on the ninth day of the expedition, they returned very cheerfully in a descent capsule to Earth.

The cheerfulness of the US astronauts immediately caught the eye of all specialists. She could not help but cause at least bewilderment. Well, how can that be?! It can not be so!..

Here is the testimony of Russian professionals from the cosmonaut search and rescue team. The picture after landing looks like this: “The approximate condition of an astronaut is as if a person ran a thirty-kilometer cross-country race, and then rode on a carousel for several more hours. Coordination is impaired, the vestibular system is impaired. Therefore, a mobile hospital is necessarily deployed next to the landed descent vehicle. Immediately after landing, we check with cosmonauts' state of the cardiac system, blood pressure, pulse, amount of oxygen in the blood. Cosmonauts are transported in a lying position."

In other words, if the astronauts have been in low-Earth orbit for at least several days, then in the first hours after returning they are in a state of extreme fatigue and are practically unable to move independently. A stretcher and a hospital bed - this is their fate for the coming days.

This is how real cosmonauts return from being shaved:

And this is how the Americans returned, having supposedly visited the Moon and spent almost 9 days in zero gravity. They themselves bravely climbed out of the descent capsule, and without spacesuits!

And just 50 minutes later, Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin and Michael Collins cheerfully participate in a rally dedicated to their return to Earth! (But then they had quality! In 9 days they should have produced 5 kg of crap and 10 liters of urine for each person, at least! So quickly did they manage to wash themselves off?!)

Let us return, however, to the engines of the Saturn 5 rocket.

In 2013, news spread around the world: “At the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, it was possible to discover and recover parts of the F-1 liquid rocket engine, which fell along with the spent first stage S-IC-506 of the Saturn V launch vehicle, which was launched on July 16, 1969! It was this bundle of five F- engines 1 lifted the launch vehicle and Apollo 11 spacecraft, with its crew of astronauts Neil Armstrong, Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin and Michael Collins, off launch pad 39A on its historic flight. two discovered F-1 engines, from a depth of ~3 miles.In addition to the engines, parts of the first stage structure were discovered, destroyed after falling upon impact with the water.

The first stage of the S-IC separated after 150 seconds from the moment the F-1 engines started, imparted a speed of 2.756 km/s to the launch vehicle and spacecraft, and lifted the bundle to an altitude of 68 kilometers. After separation, the first stage moved along a ballistic trajectory, rising at its apogee to an altitude of about 109 kilometers, and fell at a distance of about 560 kilometers from the launch site in the Atlantic Ocean.

The coordinates of the crash site of S-IC-506 in the Atlantic Ocean are 30°13" north latitude and 74°2" west longitude.

How the Saturn 5 rocket engines were lifted:

It is alleged that fragments of this liquid-propellant rocket engine were raised from the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, which for some reason the United States sees no point in producing further today, and therefore prefers to buy Russian-made rocket engines for their needs - RD-180!

A mock-up of the F-1 engine that allegedly powered the Saturn 5 moon rocket.

Here is our famous Russian engine, which Russia is selling today to American rocket manufacturers. Don't you find anything strange in this?!

It remains for me to tell you about one more discovery, which was made in the Atlantic Ocean back in 1970. Then Russian fishermen discovered the Apollo spacecraft's descent capsule drifting in the sea without the astronauts inside. Naturally, the find was reported to Moscow, and there they decided to transfer it to the American side.

Translation of the article into Russian:

Russia says Apollo capsule has been found and will be returned A

MOSCOW (UPI) -- The Soviets have pulled a U.S. space capsule they describe as a component of the Apollo moon mission program from the ocean, and they expect to return it to American officials this weekend, state news agency TASS said.

Verification of this information with American embassy officials revealed that the Soviets had at least two weeks to study this space equipment, and American officials knew this, but the decision to return it now was a surprise.

A U.S. Embassy official said officials inspected the site Friday and could not confirm whether it was a component of the Apollo program. But he added that "from their report I get the impression that this one piece of equipment", and not a fragment of it.

The Soviets explicitly stated that they intended to load the capsule aboard the US icebreaker Southwind, which called at the Barents Sea port of Murmansk for three days on Saturday. US officials subsequently said they had asked Washington for permission to transfer.

A three-paragraph TASS statement on Friday afternoon gave the first suspicions that the Russians have some kind of American spacecraft.

"The experimental space capsule launched under the Apollo program and found in the Bay of Biscay by Soviet fishermen will be handed over to US representatives,"- it says.

"The US icebreaker Southwind will call at Murmansk on Saturday to pick up the capsule."

Before the TASS statement, the embassy announced that the Southwind would call at Murmansk and stay there from Saturday to Monday to give the crew an opportunity for “rest and entertainment.” It described the goodwill prospects of the visit and nothing more.

Asked about the TASS report, an embassy spokesman said the Soviets made the decision without notifying U.S. officials.

"Southwind is sailing to Murmansk for the reasons stated - recreation and entertainment, and I think we can be quite sure that the ship's commander knows nothing about it,"- he said. .

Of course, the Americans did not admit that the descent capsule found by Soviet fishermen was from the same “lunar rocket” that launched on July 14, 1969 and allegedly headed towards the Earth’s satellite. NASA, matter-of-factly, announced that the Russians had discovered an "experimental space capsule."

At the same time in the book "We have never been to the moon"(Cornville, Az.: Desert Publications, 1981, p. 75) B. Kaysing says: “During one of my talk shows, a airline pilot called and said that he saw the Apollo capsule being jettisoned from a large plane around the time the astronauts were supposed to 'return' from the Moon. Seven Japanese passengers also observed this incident...”.

Here is this book, which talks about a completely different Apollo descent capsule, which was dropped from an airplane by parachute to simulate the return of astronauts to Earth:

And one more stroke in continuation of this topic, which further reveals the American deception:

"This old photograph shows the Bulgarian cosmonaut G. Ivanov and the Soviet cosmonaut N. Rukavishnikov discussing the scheme for the Soyuz descent vehicle to enter the dense layers of the atmosphere. The capsule enters the dense layers of the atmosphere at a speed many times greater than the speed of sound. All the energy of the oncoming the air flow turns into heat and the temperature in the hottest place (at the bottom of the apparatus) reaches several thousand degrees!”