MOSCOW, July 20 - RIA Novosti. Famed cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, who personally prepared for participation in the Soviet lunar exploration program, denied years of rumors that American astronauts were not on the Moon, and the footage broadcast on television around the world was allegedly edited in Hollywood.

He spoke about this in an interview with RIA Novosti on the eve of the 40th anniversary of the first landing in the history of mankind of US astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin on the surface of an Earth satellite, celebrated on July 20.

So were or weren't the Americans on the moon?

“Only absolutely ignorant people can seriously believe that the Americans were not on the moon. And, unfortunately, this whole ridiculous epic about the allegedly fabricated footage in Hollywood began precisely with the Americans themselves. By the way, the first person who began to distribute these rumors, was imprisoned for slander," Aleksey Leonov noted in this regard.

Where did the rumors come from?

It all started with the fact that when, at the celebration of the 80th anniversary of the famous American film director Stanley Kubrick, who created his brilliant film Odyssey 2001 based on the book of science fiction writer Arthur Clark, journalists who met with Kubrick's wife asked to talk about her husband's work on the film in Hollywood studios.And she honestly said that there are only two real lunar modules on Earth - one in a museum where no filming has ever been done, and it’s even forbidden to walk with a camera, and the other is in Hollywood, where, to develop the logic of what is happening on the screen and additional filming of the landing of the Americans on the moon was made," the Soviet cosmonaut specified.

Why was studio photography used?

Alexei Leonov explained that in order for the viewer to be able to see the development of what is happening on the movie screen from beginning to end, elements of additional filming are used in any movie.

“It was impossible, for example, to film the real opening of the hatch of the descent ship on the Moon by Neil Armstrong - there was simply no one to film it from the surface! For the same reason, it was impossible to film Armstrong’s descent to the Moon along the ladder from the ship. Kubrick in Hollywood studios to develop the logic of what is happening, and laid the foundation for numerous gossip that the entire landing was allegedly simulated on the set, "explained Alexei Leonov.

Where Truth Begins and Editing Ends

“Real shooting began when Armstrong, who first set foot on the moon, got a little used to it, installed a highly directional antenna through which the broadcast to Earth was carried out. its movement on the surface of the moon," the astronaut specified.

Why did the American flag fly in the airless space of the moon?

“They argue that the American flag was flying on the moon, but it shouldn’t be. The flag really shouldn’t be flying - the fabric was used with a rather rigid reinforced mesh, the cloth was twisted into a tube and tucked into a case. The astronauts took with them a nest, which they first inserted into the lunar soil, and then they stuck the flagpole into it, and only then they removed the cover. And when the cover was removed, the flag's cloth began to unfold in conditions of reduced gravity, and the residual deformation of the springy reinforced mesh created the impression that the flag was rippling, as if in the wind " , - Alexey Leonov explained the "phenomenon".

“It’s simply ridiculous and ridiculous to talk about the fact that the entire film was filmed on Earth. The United States had all the necessary systems that tracked the launch of the launch vehicle itself, acceleration, flight orbit correction, flight around the Moon by the descent capsule and its landing,” concluded the famous Soviet cosmonaut.

What did the "lunar race" lead to two space superpowers

“In my opinion, this is the best competition in space that humanity has ever carried out. The “moon race” between the USSR and the USA is the achievement of the highest peaks of science and technology,” Alexei Leonov believes.

According to him, after the flight of Yuri Gagarin, US President Kennedy, speaking in Congress, said that the Americans simply thought too late about what triumph could be achieved by launching a man into space, and therefore the Russians triumphantly became the first. Kennedy's message was clear: within ten years, put a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth.

"This was a very true step of the great politician - he united and rallied the American nation to achieve this goal. Huge funds for those times were also involved - 25 billion dollars, today, this is, perhaps, all fifty billion. The program included a flyby of the moon, then the flight of Tom Stafford to the point of hovering and selection of a site for landing on Apollo 10. Sending Apollo 11 already provided for the direct landing of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the moon. Michael Collins remained in orbit and waited for the return of his comrades, " - said Alexei Leonov.

18 Apollo-type ships were made to prepare for landing on the moon - the whole program was implemented perfectly, except for Apollo 13 - from the engineering point of view, nothing special happened there, it just failed, or rather, one of the fuel cells exploded , the energy weakened, and therefore it was decided not to land on the surface, but to fly around the Moon and return to Earth.

Alexei Leonov noted that only the first flight around the moon by Frank Bormann, then the landing of Armstrong and Aldrin on the moon and the story of Apollo 13 remained in the memory of the Americans. These accomplishments have brought the American nation together and made every individual empathize, walk with fingers crossed, and pray for their heroes. The last flight of the Apollo series was also extremely interesting: American astronauts no longer just walked on the Moon, but traveled on its surface in a special lunar car, making interesting photographs.

In fact, it was the peak of the Cold War, and in this situation, after the success of Yuri Gagarin, the Americans simply had to win the "moon race". The USSR then had its own lunar program, and we also implemented it. By 1968, it had already existed for two years, and even the crews of our cosmonauts were formed for a flight to the Moon.

On censorship of the achievements of mankind

"The launches of the Americans as part of the lunar program were broadcast on television, and only two countries in the world - the USSR and communist China - did not broadcast these historical footage to their peoples. I thought then, and now I think - in vain, we simply robbed our people "The flight to the moon is the property and achievement of all mankind. The Americans watched Gagarin's launch, Leonov's spacewalk - why couldn't the Soviet people see it?!", laments Alexei Leonov.

According to him, a limited group of Soviet space specialists watched these launches through a closed channel.

“We had military unit 32103 on Komsomolsky Prospekt, which provided space broadcasting, since there was no TsUP in Korolev then. The Americans set up a television antenna on the surface of the moon, and everything they did there was transmitted through a television camera to Earth, several repetitions of these television broadcasts were also made.When Armstrong stood on the surface of the moon, and everyone in the USA clapped, we are here in the USSR , Soviet cosmonauts, also crossed their fingers for good luck, and sincerely wished the guys success, "recalls the Soviet cosmonaut.

How was the implementation of the Soviet lunar program

"In 1962, a decree was issued, signed personally by Nikita Khrushchev, on the creation of a spacecraft for flying around the moon and using the Proton launch vehicle with an upper stage for this launch. In 1964, Khrushchev signed a program for the USSR to fly around , and in 1968 - landing on the moon and returning to Earth. And in 1966 there was already a decision on the formation of lunar crews - a group was immediately recruited for landing on the moon, "Alexey Leonov recalled.

The first stage of the flyby of the Earth satellite was to be carried out with the help of the launch of the L-1 lunar module by the Proton launch vehicle, and the second stage - landing and returning back - on the giant and most powerful N-1 rocket, equipped with thirty engines with a total thrust of 4.5 thousand tons with the weight of the rocket itself about 2 thousand tons. However, even after four test launches, this super-heavy rocket did not fly normally, so it had to be abandoned in the end.

Korolev and Glushko: the antipathy of two geniuses

"There were other options, for example, using a 600-ton engine developed by the brilliant designer Valentin Glushko, but Sergey Korolev refused it, since he worked on highly toxic heptyl. Although, in my opinion, this was not the reason - just two leaders , Korolev and Glushko - could not and did not want to work together. Their relationship had its own problems of a purely personal nature: Sergei Korolev, for example, knew that Valentin Glushko had once written a denunciation against him, as a result of which he was sentenced to ten years When Korolyov was released, he found out about this, but Glushko did not know that he knew about it, "said Alexei Leonov.

A small step for a man, but a giant leap for all mankind

NASA's Apollo 11 spacecraft on July 20, 1969, with a crew of three astronauts: Commander Neil Armstrong, Lunar Module Pilot Edwin Aldrin, and Command Module Pilot Michael Collins, became the first to reach the Moon in the USSR-US space race. The Americans did not pursue research tasks in this expedition, its goal was simple: to land on the Earth's satellite and return successfully.

The ship consisted of a lunar module and a command module that remained in orbit during the mission. Thus, of the three astronauts, only two went to the moon: Armstrong and Aldrin. They had to land on the moon, collect samples of the lunar soil, take pictures on the Earth satellite and install several instruments. However, the main ideological component of the trip was still the hoisting of the American flag on the moon and the holding of a video communication session with the Earth.

The launch of the ship was watched by US President Richard Nixon and German rocket scientist Hermann Oberth. A total of about a million people watched the launch at the cosmodrome and mounted observation platforms, and more than a billion people watched the television broadcast, according to the Americans, around the world.

Apollo 11 launched to the moon on July 16, 1969 at 1332 GMT and entered lunar orbit 76 hours later. The command and lunar modules were undocked about 100 hours after launch. Despite the fact that NASA intended to land on the lunar surface in automatic mode, Armstrong, as the expedition commander, decided to land the lunar module in semi-automatic mode.

The lunar module landed on the Sea of ​​Tranquility on July 20 at 20:17:42 GMT. Armstrong descended to the lunar surface on July 21, 1969 at 02:56:20 GMT. Everyone knows the phrase that he uttered when he stepped on the moon: "This is one small step for a person, but a giant leap for all mankind."

Aldrin also landed on the moon 15 minutes later. The astronauts collected the necessary amount of materials, placed the instruments and installed a television camera. After that, they planted an American flag in the field of view of the camera and held a communication session with President Nixon. The astronauts left a commemorative plaque on the Moon with the words: "Here, people from the planet Earth first set foot on the Moon. July 1969 of the new era. We came in peace on behalf of all Humanity."

Aldrin was on the moon for about an hour and a half, Armstrong for two hours and ten minutes. At the 125th hour of the mission and the 22nd hour of stay on the Moon, the lunar module was launched from the surface of the Earth's satellite. The crew splashed down on the blue planet about 195 hours after the start of the mission, soon the astronauts were picked up by the aircraft carrier that came to the rescue.

On July 21, 1969, American astronaut Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon. However, to this day one can hear the opinion that the landing of the Americans on the moon is a great hoax.

The "lunar conspiracy" theory

In 1974, American Bill Kazing's book We Never Flew to the Moon saw the light of day. It was the beginning of the spread of the "lunar conspiracy" theory. Caseing had reason to bring this up because he worked for Rocketdyne, which built rocket engines for the Apollo program.

As arguments confirming the staging of flights to the Moon, the author draws attention to the incidents of "lunar photographs" - the unevenness of shadows, the absence of stars, the small size of the Earth. Keyzing also refers to the lack of technological equipment of NASA at the time of the implementation of the lunar program.

The number of supporters of the "lunar conspiracy" grew rapidly, as did the number of revelations of a manned flight to the moon. So David Percy - a member of the British Royal Photographic Society - has already made a more detailed analysis of photographs provided by NASA. He argued that in the absence of an atmosphere, the shadows on the Moon should be absolutely black, and the multidirectionality of these shadows gave him reason to assume the presence of several sources of illumination.

Skeptics also noted other strange details - the waving of the American flag in vacuum conditions, the absence of deep funnels that should have been formed during the landing of the lunar module. Engineer René Ralph brought up an even more compelling argument - in order to prevent astronauts from being exposed to radiation, spacesuits had to be covered with at least 80 cm of lead! In 2003, the widow of American director Stanley Kubrick, Christiane, added fuel to the fire, who stated that the scenes of the American landing on the moon were filmed by her husband in Hollywood pavilions.

About the "lunar conspiracy" in Russia

Oddly enough, but in the USSR no one seriously questioned the Apollo flights to the moon. In particular, in the Soviet press, after the first American landing on the moon, materials appeared confirming this fact. Many Russian cosmonauts also spoke about the success of the American lunar program. Among them are Alexei Leonov and Georgy Grechko.

Alexey Leonov said the following:

“Only absolutely ignorant people can seriously believe that the Americans were not on the moon. And, unfortunately, this whole ridiculous saga about shots allegedly fabricated in Hollywood began precisely with the Americans themselves.

True, the Soviet cosmonaut did not deny the fact that some scenes of the Americans' stay on the moon were filmed on Earth in order to give the video report a certain sequence:

“It was impossible, for example, to film the real opening by Neil Armstrong of the hatch of the descent ship on the Moon - there was simply no one to film it from the surface!”

The confidence of domestic experts in the success of the lunar mission is primarily due to the fact that the process of the Apollo flights to the Moon was recorded by Soviet equipment. These are signals from the ships, and negotiations with the crew, and a television picture about the exit of astronauts to the surface of the Moon.

In the event that the signals came from the Earth, this would be immediately exposed. Pilot-cosmonaut and designer Konstantin Feoktistov in his book “The Trajectory of Life. Between yesterday and tomorrow,” writes, in order to reliably simulate a flight, it would be necessary “to land a television repeater on the surface of the Moon in advance and check its operation (with transmission to Earth). And in the days of simulating the expedition, it was necessary to send a radio repeater to the Moon to simulate the radio communication of the Apollo with the Earth on the flight path to the Moon. Arranging such a hoax, according to Feoktistov, is no less difficult than a real expedition.

Also, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about the "lunar conspiracy", calling in an interview "complete nonsense" the version that the United States faked the landing on the moon. Nevertheless, in modern Russia, revealing articles, books, films continue to be published about the impossibility of technically carrying out such a flight; photos and videos of the "lunar expedition" are also scrupulously analyzed and criticized.

Counterarguments

NASA admits that they are bombarded with so many letters with this or that argument proving the falsification of flights that they are not able to fend off all attacks. However, some of the objections can be discarded, knowing the elementary laws of physics.

It is known that the location of the shadow depends on the shape of the object casting them and on the surface relief - this explains the unevenness of the shadows in the lunar photographs. Shadows converging at a far point are nothing more than a manifestation of the law of perspective. The idea of ​​several light sources (spotlights) is untenable in itself, since in this case each of the illuminated objects would cast at least two shadows.

The visibility of the banner fluttering in the wind is explained by the fact that the flag was mounted on a flexible aluminum base, which was in motion, while the upper crossbar was not fully extended, which created the effect of a wrinkled canvas. On Earth, air resistance quickly dampens oscillatory motions, but in an airless environment, these motions are much longer.

According to NASA engineer Jim Oberg, the most convincing evidence that the flag was set on the Moon is the following fact: when astronauts passed near the banner, it remained absolutely motionless, which would not be the case in the earth's atmosphere.

The fact that the stars in the daytime on the moon will not be visible, astronomer Patrick Moore knew even before the flight. He explains that the human eye, like the lens of a camera, simply cannot adjust to both the illuminated surface of the Moon and the dim sky at the same time. It is more difficult to explain why the lander did not leave behind funnels on the lunar surface or, according to at least, did not disperse the dust, although NASA experts motivate this by the fact that during landing the device greatly slowed down and landed on a sliding trajectory. Probably the most compelling argument of the conspiracy theorists is that the ship's crew simply could not overcome the Van Allen radiation belt surrounding the Earth and would burn alive. However, Van Allen himself was not inclined to exaggerate his theory, explaining that the passage of the belt at high speed did not threaten the astronauts. Nevertheless, it remains a mystery how the astronauts escaped from the powerful radiation on the surface of the Moon in fairly light spacesuits.

Gazing at the moon

A little forgotten in the heated debate is that the astronauts, after each successful descent, installed laser rangefinders on the Moon. At the Texas McDonald Observatory, for several decades, directing a laser beam at the corner reflector of lunar installations, specialists received a response signal in the form of flashes, which was recorded by highly sensitive equipment. On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 flight, the automatic interplanetary station LRO took a whole series of images at the landing sites of the lunar modules, fixing presumably the remains of the equipment of the American crews. Higher resolution photographs were later taken that show footprints from the rover and even, according to NASA, trails of footprints from the astronauts themselves. However, pictures taken by disinterested parties inspire more confidence. Thus, the Japanese space agency JAXA reported that the Kaguya apparatus discovered possible traces of the Apollo 15 presence. And an employee of the Indian Space Research Organization, Prakash Chauhan, said that the Chandrayaan-1 device received an image of a fragment of the lander. However, only a new manned flight to the moon can finally dot the “and”.

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 declared that “only absolutely ignorant people can seriously believe that the Americans were not on the moon!”. In particular, this opinion was expressed more than once by 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, the 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 the achievement of the national goal set by US President John F. 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. Source

Surprisingly, John F. Kennedy, the president of the United States, who approved the program of "landing a man on the moon before 1970", was publicly shot dead in front of a crowd of millions of Americans back in 1963. And what is even more amazing, the entire film archive, on which in July 1969 the landing of American astronauts on the moon was faked, subsequently disappeared from NASA storage! It's supposed to have been stolen!

The Russians have a very good proverb about this: "Chickens are counted in the fall!" Its literal meaning is this: in peasant farms, not all chickens born in summer survive until autumn. Some will be carried away by birds of prey, and the weak simply will not survive. Therefore, they say that you need to count the chickens in the fall, when it is clear how many of them survived, 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, can then be replaced by 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 drive their American spacecraft to the Moon and return it back to Earth.

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

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

On June 21, 2012, at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, the winners of the Global Energy Prize were awarded. An authoritative commission of industry experts from different countries selected three applications from the submitted 639 and named the winners of the award of the year, which is already commonly called the "Nobel Prize for Energy". As a result, 33 million bonus rubles were shared this year by a well-known British inventor, 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 application in various power plants. Academician Boris Katorgin was awarded "for the development of highly efficient liquid-propellant rocket engines on cryogenic fuels, which ensure, at high energy parameters, the reliable operation of space systems 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-propellant rocket engines (LRE) were created, the performance of which is now considered the best in the world. Katorgin himself was engaged 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. Also known are his fundamental works on nuclear rocket engines (NRE) with a high specific impulse and developments in the field of creating powerful continuous chemical lasers.

In 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 absence of an internal order for engines forced Katorgin to look for a customer in 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 chose a liquid-propellant rocket engine for the then upgraded Atlas launch vehicle. As a result, NPO Energomash signed a contract for the supply of 101 engines and by the beginning of 2012 had already delivered more than 60 LREs to the United States, 35 of which successfully worked on the Atlas when launching satellites for various purposes.

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

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

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

You are talking about the peaceful exploration of outer space, although it is obvious that all the engines with 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 charge to the target on our missiles, and thank God. All military developments went into peaceful space. We can be proud of the huge 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, sounding systems.

The engine for the R-9 intercontinental ballistic missile, which you worked on, then formed the basis of 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 being used in modified RD-107 and RD-108 engines for the same Soyuz rocket; about two thousand space flights were made on them, including all manned programs.

Two years ago, I interviewed your colleague, Global Energy laureate Academician Alexander Leontiev. In a conversation about specialists closed to the general public, whom Leontiev 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 the creation of methods for calculating and cooling the combustion chambers of various rocket engines. Solving this technological problem was not easy, especially when we began to squeeze out the chemical energy of the fuel mixture to the maximum to obtain the maximum specific impulse, increasing the pressure in the combustion chambers to 250 atmospheres, among other measures.

Let's take our most powerful engine - RD-170. Fuel consumption with an oxidizer - kerosene with liquid oxygen going through the engine - 2.5 tons per second. Heat flows in it reach 50 megawatts per square meter - this is a huge 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 calculated and withstand the heat 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, unfortunately, who died quite early - was a scientist of the broadest profile, possessed encyclopedic erudition. Like Leontiev, he worked a lot on the methodology for calculating high-stress thermal structures. Their work intersected somewhere, integrated somewhere, and as a result, an excellent technique was obtained by which it is possible to calculate the heat density of any combustion chambers; now, perhaps, using it, any student can do it. In addition, Vitaly Mikhailovich took an active part in the development of nuclear, plasma rocket engines. Here our interests intersected in those years when Energomash was doing the same.

In our conversation with Leontiev, we touched upon the sale of RD-180 Energomash engines in the USA, and Alexander Ivanovich said that in many ways this engine is the result of developments that were made just when the RD-170 was created, and in a sense, its half . What is it - really the result of inverse scaling?

Any engine in a new dimension is, of course, a new apparatus. The RD-180 with a thrust of 400 tons is actually 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 twice as much, for example, as 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 burns. Without exaggeration, this chamber is a unique high-heat-stressed equipment with special protection belts against powerful heat flows. Protection is carried out not only due to external cooling of the chamber walls, but also due to the ingenious way of “lining” a film of fuel on them, which, evaporating, cools the wall.

On the basis of this outstanding chamber, 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 a few 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 slip.

There were indeed problems. A decision has now been made to launch the rocket in 2013. The peculiarity of the Angara is that on the basis of 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 same universal oxygen-kerosene engine RD-191. Angara-1 has one engine, Angara-3 - 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 that is burned in the Proton engines, we use environmentally friendly fuel, after the 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 rocket engines?

A similar story happened to the aircraft created after the Second World War by Vladimir Mikhailovich Myasishchev (long-range strategic bomber of the M series, developed by the Moscow OKB-23 of the 1950s. - "Expert"). In many respects, the aircraft was ahead of its time by about thirty years, and then other aircraft manufacturers borrowed elements of its design. So it is here: in the RD-170 there are a lot of new elements, materials, design solutions. According to my estimates, they will not become obsolete for several decades. This is primarily the merit of 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 performance characteristics of the RD-170 are largely due to the solution by Katorgin of the problem of suppressing high-frequency combustion instability by developing anti-pulsation baffles 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 been surpassed by anyone so far! This is exactly how Glushko taught to design - at the limit of the possible and necessarily above the world average.

It is important to remember something else: the country has invested in its technological future. How was it 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 funding for research is much less, and this says a lot.

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

Certainly not. Liquid rocket engines are in demand and will be in demand for a very long time, because no other technology is able to more reliably and economically lift cargo from the Earth and put it into low Earth orbit. They are environmentally friendly, 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 3200 grams, so even thinking about it is stupid. LRE has its own niche - sustainer engines. On liquid engines, you can accelerate the carrier to the second space velocity, fly to Mars, and that's it.

Next step - nuclear rocket engines?

Certainly. Whether we will live to see some stages is unknown, and much has been done to develop the nuclear rocket engine 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 is possible to create a gas-cooled nuclear reactor that is less stressful than it was in the USSR, which will work both as a power plant and as a source of energy for plasma engines when moving 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 as a fuel or a three-component fuel. 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, however, of small dimensions and a thrust of only about 7 tons, conducted 44 tests, made full-scale mixing elements in nozzles, in a gas generator, in a combustion chamber and found out that it is possible to work first on three components, and then smoothly switch to two. Everything works out, a high combustion efficiency is achieved, but to go further, we need a larger sample, we need to refine the stands to launch the components that we are going to use in a real engine into the combustion chamber: 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 the Americans, having received the right to reproduce the RD-180, cannot 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 far ahead of them and we needed to adopt these technologies from us. For example, our RD-170 engine in one launch, due to its higher specific impulse, could take out two tons more payload than their most powerful F-1, which at that time meant a 20 million dollar gain. 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, six years are needed. More years have passed, they say: no, we need eight more 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.

I heard 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 stand, the jet energy is first extinguished in a special pool, then in a dispersion pipe with a diameter of 16 meters and a height of 100 meters. To build such a stand, in which an engine is placed 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 are not selling raw materials, but a product with a huge added value, in which highly intellectual labor has been invested. Unfortunately, in Russia this is a rare example of high-tech sales abroad in such a large volume. But it proves that with the right formulation of the question, we are capable of much.

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

To stay 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 be on the margins of the world market, and today, in this transitional period, while we have not yet grown to normal capitalism, it is the state that must first of all invest in the new. Then you can transfer the development for the release of a series of private companies on terms that are beneficial to both the state and business...
Source.

And here's what's amazing! In this story of Academician Boris Katorgin, the creator of the best rocket engines in the world, there is not a word about the fact that "the Americans did not fly to the moon"! However, he does not need to shout about it. After all, it is enough to say and prove that only Russia today has an 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 even have such an engine today!

Worse, they can’t even set up production of the Soviet RD-180 engine, twice as weak in power, the license for the manufacture of which Russia kindly sold them ...

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

Yes, there was such a rocket. And she even took off from the spaceport! Only her task was not to fly to the moon, but only to show everyone that the takeoff 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. Her first stage fell there, and her head part, and the descent module, in which there were no astronauts ...

As for the engines of the Saturn V 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 those engines that the Americans had been able to develop by that time!

The launch of the "lunar rocket" Saturn-5, as you know, took place on July 16, 1969. On July 20 and 21, the American astronauts allegedly were able to walk on the Moon and even hoist the American flag on it, and on July 24, 1969, on the ninth day of the expedition, they returned very cheerful in the descent capsule to Earth.

The cheerfulness of the US astronauts immediately caught the eye of all specialists. She couldn't help but be confused. Well, how is it?! It can not be!..

Here is the testimony of Russian professionals from the cosmonaut search and rescue group. The picture after landing is as follows: “The approximate state of the astronaut is as if a person ran a thirty-kilometer cross-country race, and then rode a carousel for several more hours. Coordination is disturbed, the vestibular apparatus is disturbed. Therefore, a mobile hospital is necessarily deployed next to the landed descent vehicle. Immediately upon landing, we check the condition of the astronauts' heart system, pressure, pulse, the amount of oxygen in the blood. The astronauts are transported in the prone position."

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

This is how real astronauts return from shaving:

And here is how the Americans returned, who allegedly visited the moon and spent almost 9 days in weightlessness. They themselves famously got out of the descent capsule, and already without spacesuits!

And just 50 minutes later, Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin and Michael Collins took part in a rally dedicated to their return to Earth! (But then they used diapers as a colostomy bag and a urinal! In 9 days it should have turned out 5 kg of shit and 10 liters of urine for each, at least! How quickly did they wash themselves?!)

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

In 2013, the news spread around the world: “At the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, it was possible to find and raise parts of the F-1 liquid rocket engine that 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 combination of five F-1 engines that propelled the launch vehicle and the Apollo 11 spacecraft, crewed by astronauts Neil Armstrong, Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, and Michael Collins, off Launch Pad 39A on their historic flight. the combustion chamber of one of the two discovered F-1 engines, from a depth of ~3 miles.In addition to the engines, parts of the first stage structure were found, destroyed after falling at the moment of impact on the water.

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

S-IC-506 crash site coordinates in the Atlantic Ocean: 30°13" northern latitude and 74°2" west longitude".

Source.

How the engines of the Saturn-5 rocket were raised:

It is alleged that fragments of this liquid-propellant rocket engine have been raised from the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, which the United States for some reason does not see any point in producing further today, and therefore they prefer to buy Russian-made rocket engines for their needs - RD-180!

Model of the F-1 engine, on which the Saturn-5 "lunar rocket" allegedly flew.

Here is our famous Russian engine that Russia is selling today to US missile 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 descent capsule of the Apollo spacecraft drifting in the sea without astronauts inside. Naturally, the discovery was reported to Moscow, and there they decided to transfer it to the American side.

Translation of the article into Russian:

Russia says it has found and will return the Apollo capsule

MOSCOW (UPI) - The Soviets have pulled a US space capsule out of the ocean, which they describe as part of the Apollo moon missions, and they are going to return it to US officials this weekend, the state news agency TASS said.

Checking this information with US embassy officials showed that the Soviets had at least two weeks to study this space equipment, and American officials knew about it, but the decision to return it right now came as a surprise.

A US embassy spokesman said officials inspected the site on Friday and were unable to confirm whether it was a component of the Apollo program. But he added that "I got the impression from their message that this complete piece of equipment, not its fragment.

The Soviets have explicitly stated that they intend to load the capsule aboard the American icebreaker Southwind, which on Saturday called at the Barents Sea port of Murmansk for three days. Subsequently, U.S. officials said they had requested permission from Washington for the transfer.

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

"An 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."

Prior to the TASS announcement, the embassy had announced that 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 else.

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

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

Source.

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 for the Earth's satellite. NASA, as if nothing had happened, said 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, at p. 75) B. Caseing relates: “During one of my talk shows, a commercial plane pilot called and said he saw an Apollo capsule being dropped from a large aircraft around the time when the astronauts were supposed to "come back" from the moon. Seven passengers - the Japanese also observed this case ... ".

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:

Source.

And one more touch to continue 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 entry of the Soyuz descent vehicle into 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 (near the bottom of the apparatus) reaches several thousand degrees!

The moon is a good place. Definitely deserves a short visit.
Neil Armstrong

Almost half a century has passed since the flights of the Apollo spacecraft, but the debate about whether the Americans were on the moon does not subside, but becomes more and more fierce. The piquancy of the situation is that the supporters of the "lunar conspiracy" theory are trying to challenge not real historical events, but their own, vague and error-ridden idea of ​​them.

Lunar epic

Facts first. On May 25, 1961, six weeks after Yuri Gagarin's triumphant flight, President John F. Kennedy delivered a speech to the Senate and House of Representatives in which he promised that before the end of the decade, an American would land on the moon. Having suffered a defeat at the first stage of the space "race", the United States set out not only to catch up, but also to overtake the Soviet Union.

The main reason for the backlog at that time was that the Americans underestimated the importance of heavy ballistic missiles. Like their Soviet colleagues, American specialists studied the experience of German engineers who built A-4 (V-2) missiles during the war, but did not give these projects serious development, believing that long-range bombers would be enough in a global war. Of course, the Wernher von Braun team, taken out of Germany, continued to create ballistic missiles in the interests of the army, but they were unsuitable for space flights. When the Redstone rocket, the successor to the German A-4s, was modified to launch the first American spacecraft, the Mercury, it could only lift it to suborbital altitude.

Nevertheless, resources were found in the United States, so American designers quickly created the necessary “line” of carriers: from Titan-2, which launched the Gemini two-seat maneuvering ship into orbit, to Saturn-5, capable of sending the Apollo three-seat spacecraft » to the moon.

redstone

Saturn-1B

Of course, before sending expeditions, it was necessary to carry out colossal work. Spacecraft of the Lunar Orbiter series carried out detailed mapping of the nearest celestial body - with their help, it was possible to identify and study suitable landing sites. The Surveyor series landers made soft landings and transmitted beautiful images of the surrounding area.

The Lunar Orbiter spacecraft carefully mapped the moon, determining the places of future landings of astronauts

The Surveyor spacecraft studied the Moon directly on its surface; parts of the Surveyor-3 apparatus were taken and delivered to Earth by the crew of Apollo 12

In parallel, the Gemini program developed. After unmanned launches, on March 23, 1965, the Gemini 3 spacecraft was launched, which maneuvered, changing the speed and inclination of the orbit, which at that time was an unprecedented achievement. Soon the Gemini 4 flew, on which Edward White made the first spacewalk for Americans. The ship worked in orbit for four days, testing orientation systems for the Apollo program. On Gemini 5, which launched on August 21, 1965, electrochemical generators and a radar designed for docking were tested. In addition, the crew set a record for the duration of their stay in space - almost eight days (the Soviet cosmonauts managed to break it only in June 1970). By the way, during the flight of "Gemini-5" the Americans for the first time encountered the negative consequences of weightlessness - the weakening of the musculoskeletal system. Therefore, measures were developed to prevent such effects: a special diet, drug therapy and a series of physical exercises.

In December 1965, the Gemini 6 and Gemini 7 ships approached each other, simulating a docking. Moreover, the crew of the second ship spent more than thirteen days in orbit (that is, the total time of the lunar expedition), proving that the measures taken to maintain physical fitness are quite effective during such a long flight. On the Gemini-8, Gemini-9 and Gemini-10 ships, they practiced the docking procedure (by the way, Neil Armstrong was the commander of the Gemini-8). On Gemini 11 in September 1966, they tested the possibility of an emergency launch from the Moon, as well as a flight through the Earth's radiation belts (the ship rose to a record height of 1369 km). On Gemini 12, the astronauts tried out a series of manipulations in outer space.

During the flight of the Gemini 12, astronaut Buzz Aldrin proved the possibility of complex manipulations in outer space.

At the same time, the designers were preparing for testing the "intermediate" two-stage Saturn-1 rocket. During her first launch on October 27, 1961, she surpassed in thrust the Vostok rocket, on which Soviet cosmonauts flew. It was assumed that the same rocket would launch the first Apollo 1 spacecraft into space, but on January 27, 1967, a fire broke out at the launch complex, in which the crew of the ship died, and many plans had to be revised.

In November 1967, tests began on the huge three-stage Saturn-5 rocket. During the first flight, she lifted the command and service module of Apollo 4 into orbit with a mock-up of the lunar module. In January 1968, the Apollo 5 lunar module was tested in orbit, and the unmanned Apollo 6 went there in April. The last launch due to a failure of the second stage almost ended in disaster, but the rocket pulled the ship out, demonstrating good "survivability".

On October 11, 1968, the Saturn-1B rocket launched the command and service module of the Apollo 7 spacecraft with the crew into orbit. For ten days, the astronauts tested the ship, carrying out complex maneuvers. Theoretically, "Apollo" was ready for the expedition, but the lunar module was still "raw". And then a mission was invented that was not originally planned at all - a flight around the moon.

The flight of the Apollo 8 spacecraft was not planned by NASA: it was an improvisation, but it was carried out brilliantly, securing another historic priority for American space exploration.

On December 21, 1968, the Apollo 8 spacecraft, without a lunar module, but with a crew of three astronauts, set off for a nearby celestial body. The flight went relatively smoothly, but before the historic landing on the moon, two more launches were needed: the Apollo 9 crew worked out the procedure for docking and undocking the spacecraft modules in near-Earth orbit, then the Apollo 10 crew did the same, but already close to the Moon . On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong and Edwin (Buzz) Aldrin set foot on the moon, proclaiming US leadership in space exploration.

The crew of the Apollo 10 spacecraft held a "dress rehearsal", completing all the operations necessary for landing on the moon, but without landing itself

The lunar module of the Apollo 11 spacecraft, named "Eagle" ("Eagle") goes to land

Astronaut Buzz Aldrin on the Moon

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin's moon landing was broadcast via the Parkes Observatory radio telescope in Australia; the original records of the historical event were also preserved and recently discovered there

Then new successful missions followed: Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, Apollo 17. As a result, twelve astronauts visited the Moon, conducted reconnaissance of the area, installed scientific equipment, collected soil samples, and tested rovers. Only the crew of Apollo 13 was unlucky: on the way to the Moon, a tank of liquid oxygen exploded, and NASA specialists had to work hard to return the astronauts to Earth.

Theory of falsification

Devices for creating an artificial sodium comet were installed on the Luna-1 spacecraft

It would seem that the reality of expeditions to the moon should not be in doubt. NASA regularly published press releases and bulletins, specialists and astronauts gave numerous interviews, many countries and the world scientific community participated in the technical support, tens of thousands of people watched huge rockets take off, and millions watched live TV broadcasts from space. Lunar soil was brought to Earth, which many selenologists were able to study. International scientific conferences were held to understand the data that came from the instruments left on the moon.

But even at that eventful time, there were people who questioned the facts of landing astronauts on the moon. The skepticism towards space achievements appeared as early as 1959, and the probable reason for this was the policy of secrecy pursued by the Soviet Union: for decades it even concealed the location of its cosmodrome!

Therefore, when Soviet scientists announced that they had launched the Luna-1 research apparatus, some Western experts spoke in the spirit that the communists were simply fooling the world community. Experts foresaw the questions and placed a device for evaporating sodium on Luna-1, with the help of which an artificial comet was created, with a brightness equal to the sixth magnitude.

Conspiracy theorists even dispute the reality of Yuri Gagarin's flight

Claims also arose later: for example, some Western journalists questioned the reality of Yuri Gagarin's flight, because the Soviet Union refused to provide any documentary evidence. There was no camera on board the Vostok ship, the appearance of the ship itself and the launch vehicle remained classified.

But the US authorities have never expressed doubts about the reliability of what happened: even during the flight of the first satellites, the National Security Agency (NSA) deployed two observation stations in Alaska and Hawaii and installed radio equipment there capable of intercepting telemetry that came from Soviet devices. During Gagarin's flight, the stations were able to receive a television signal with the image of the astronaut transmitted by the onboard camera. Within an hour, printouts of individual frames from this broadcast were in the hands of government officials, and President John F. Kennedy congratulated the Soviet people on their outstanding achievement.

Soviet military specialists working at the Scientific and Measuring Station No. 10 (NIP-10), located in the village of Shkolnoye near Simferopol, intercepted data from the Apollo spacecraft during the entire flight to the moon and back

The Soviet intelligence did the same. At the NIP-10 station, located in the village of Shkolnoye (Simferopol, Crimea), a set of equipment was assembled that allows intercepting all information from the Apollos, including live TV broadcasts from the Moon. Aleksey Mikhailovich Gorin, head of the interception project, gave an exclusive interview to the author of this article, in which, in particular, he said: “A standard system of drives in azimuth and elevation was used to point and control a very narrow beam. Based on information about the place (Cape Canaveral) and the launch time, the flight path of the spacecraft was calculated in all areas.

It should be noted that during about three days of flight, only occasionally did the beam pointing deviate from the calculated trajectory, which was easily corrected manually. We started with Apollo 10, which made a test flight around the moon without landing. This was followed by flights with the landing of the Apollo from the 11th to the 15th ... They took quite clear images of the spacecraft on the Moon, the exit of both astronauts from it and travel on the surface of the Moon. Video from the Moon, speech and telemetry were recorded on appropriate tape recorders and transferred to Moscow for processing and translation.

In addition to data interception, Soviet intelligence also collected any information on the Saturn-Apollo program, as it could be used for the USSR's own lunar plans. For example, scouts monitored missile launches from the Atlantic Ocean. Moreover, when preparations began for the joint flight of the Soyuz-19 and Apollo CSM-111 spacecraft (ASTP mission), which took place in July 1975, Soviet specialists were admitted to official information on the ship and rocket. And, as you know, no claims were made against the American side.

The claims came from the Americans themselves. In 1970, that is, even before the completion of the lunar program, a pamphlet by a certain James Cryney "Has a man landed on the moon?" (Did man land on the Moon?). The public ignored the pamphlet, although it was perhaps the first to formulate the main thesis of the "conspiracy theory": an expedition to the nearest celestial body is technically impossible.

Technical writer Bill Kaysing can rightfully be called the founder of the "lunar conspiracy" theory.

The topic began to gain popularity a little later, after the release of Bill Kaysing's self-published book We Never Went to the Moon (1976), which outlined the now "traditional" arguments in favor of conspiracy theory. For example, the author seriously claimed that all the deaths of the participants in the Saturn-Apollo program were associated with the elimination of unwanted witnesses. I must say that Kaysing is the only one of the authors of books on this topic who was directly related to the space program: from 1956 to 1963 he worked as a technical writer at the Rocketdyne company, which was just designing the super-powerful F-1 engine for the rocket " Saturn-5".

However, after being fired "of his own free will," Kaysing became a beggar, grabbed any job, and probably did not have warm feelings for his former employers. In a book that was reprinted in 1981 and 2002, he claimed that the Saturn V rocket was a "technical fake" and could never send astronauts on an interplanetary flight, so in reality the Apollos flew around the Earth, and television broadcasts were using unmanned aerial vehicles.

Ralph Rene made a name for himself by accusing the US government of rigging the moon landings and orchestrating the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The creation of Bill Kaysing was also initially ignored. The fame was brought to him by the American conspiracy theorist Ralph Rene, who pretended to be a scientist, physicist, inventor, engineer and science journalist, but in reality did not graduate from any higher educational institution. Like his predecessors, Rene published the book How NASA Showed America the Moon (NASA Mooned America!, 1992) at his own expense, but at the same time he could already refer to other people's "studies", that is, he looked not like a lone psycho, but like a skeptic in searching for truth.

Probably, the book, the lion's share of which is devoted to the analysis of certain photographs taken by astronauts, would also have gone unnoticed if the era of TV shows had not come, when it became fashionable to invite all kinds of freaks and outcasts to the studio. Ralph Rene managed to make the most of the sudden interest of the public, since he had a well-spoken tongue and did not hesitate to make absurd accusations (for example, he claimed that NASA deliberately damaged his computer and destroyed important files). His book was repeatedly reprinted, and each time increasing in volume.

Among the documentaries devoted to the theory of the “lunar conspiracy”, outright hoaxes come across: for example, the pseudo-documentary French film “The Dark Side of the Moon” (Opération lune, 2002)

The theme itself was also asking for a film adaptation, and soon there were films with a claim to documentary: “Was it just a paper moon?” (Was It Only a Paper Moon?, 1997), What Happened on the Moon? (What Happened on the Moon?, 2000), A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, 2001, Astronauts Gone Wild: Investigation Into the Authenticity of the Moon Landings, 2004) and the like. By the way, the author of the last two films, film director Bart Sibrel, twice molested Buzz Aldrin with aggressive demands to confess to deception and in the end received a blow in the face from an elderly astronaut. A video of this incident can be found on YouTube. The police, by the way, refused to start a case against Aldrin. Apparently, she thought that the video was faked.

In the 1970s, NASA tried to cooperate with the authors of the "lunar conspiracy" theory and even issued a press release debriefing Bill Kaysing's claims. However, it soon became clear that they did not want a dialogue, but they were happy to use any mention of their fabrications for self-promotion: for example, Kaysing sued astronaut Jim Lovell in 1996 for calling him a “fool” in an interview.

However, what else to call the people who believed in the authenticity of the film "The Dark Side of the Moon" (Opération lune, 2002), where the famous director Stanley Kubrick was directly accused of filming all the astronaut landings on the moon in the Hollywood pavilion? Even in the film itself, there are indications that it is fiction in the mockumentary genre, but this did not stop conspiracy theorists from accepting the version with a bang and quoting it even after the creators of the hoax openly admitted to hooliganism. By the way, another “evidence” of the same degree of reliability has recently appeared: this time, an interview with a person similar to Stanley Kubrick surfaced, where he allegedly took responsibility for falsifying the materials of lunar missions. The new fake was exposed quickly - it was made too clumsily.

Hiding operation

In 2007, science journalist and popularizer Richard Hoagland co-authored the book Dark Mission with Michael Bara. The Secret History of NASA (Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA), which immediately became a bestseller. In this hefty volume, Hoagland summarized his research on the “cover-up operation” - it is supposedly carried out by US government agencies, hiding from the world community the fact of contact with a more developed civilization that mastered the solar system long before mankind.

Within the framework of the new theory, the “lunar conspiracy” is considered as a product of the activities of NASA itself, which deliberately provokes an illiterate discussion of the falsification of the moon landings so that qualified researchers disdain to deal with this topic for fear of being branded as “outcasts”. Under his theory, Hoagland deftly adjusted all modern conspiracy theories, from the assassination of President John F. Kennedy to "flying saucers" and the Martian "sphinx". For his vigorous activity in exposing the "cover-up operation", the journalist was even awarded the Ig Nobel Prize, which he received in October 1997.

Believers and non-believers

Supporters of the "lunar conspiracy" theory, or, more simply, "anti-Apollo" are very fond of accusing their opponents of illiteracy, ignorance, or even blind faith. A strange move, given that it is the "anti-Apollo" who believe in a theory that is not supported by any significant evidence. There is a golden rule in science and jurisprudence: an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. The attempt to accuse the space agencies and the world scientific community of falsifying materials of great importance to our understanding of the universe must be accompanied by something more significant than a couple of self-published books produced by a resentful writer and self-obsessed pseudoscientist.

All many hours of footage of the lunar expeditions of the Apollo spacecraft have long been digitized and are available for study.

If we imagine for a moment that in the United States there was a secret parallel space program using unmanned vehicles, then we need to explain where all the participants in this program have gone: the designers of the “parallel” technology, its testers and operators, as well as the filmmakers who prepared kilometers of films of lunar missions. We are talking about thousands (or even tens of thousands) of people who needed to be attracted to the “lunar conspiracy”. Where are they and where are their confessions? Suppose they all, including foreigners, swore to remain silent. But there should be piles of documents, contracts, orders with contractors, relevant structures and landfills. However, apart from nit-picking some NASA public materials, which are really often retouched or presented in a deliberately simplified interpretation, there is nothing. Nothing at all.

However, the “anti-Apollonists” never think about such “trifles” and insistently (often in an aggressive form) demand more and more evidence from the opposite side. The paradox is that if, by asking “tricky” questions, they themselves tried to find answers to them, then this would not be a big deal. Let's take a look at some of the more common claims.

During the preparation and implementation of the joint flight of the Soyuz and Apollo spacecraft, Soviet specialists were admitted to the official information of the American space program

For example, "anti-Apollo" people ask: why was the Saturn-Apollo program interrupted, and its technologies were lost and cannot be used today? The answer is obvious to anyone who has even a general idea of ​​what was going on in the early 1970s. It was then that one of the most powerful political and economic crises in US history occurred: the dollar lost its gold content and was devalued twice; the protracted Vietnam War was draining resources; youth embraced the anti-war movement; Richard Nixon is on the verge of impeachment in connection with the Watergate scandal.

At the same time, the total costs of the Saturn-Apollo program amounted to 24 billion dollars (in terms of current prices, we can talk about 100 billion), and each new launch cost 300 million (1.3 billion in modern prices) - it is clear that further funding has become exorbitant for the waning American budget. The Soviet Union experienced something similar in the late 1980s, which led to the inglorious closure of the Energiya-Buran program, the technology of which was also largely lost.

In 2013, an expedition led by Jeff Bezos, founder of the Internet company Amazon, lifted fragments of one of the F-1 engines of the Saturn V rocket that delivered Apollo 11 into orbit from the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.

Nevertheless, despite the problems, the Americans tried to squeeze a little more out of the lunar program: the Saturn-5 rocket launched the Skylab heavy orbital station (three expeditions visited it in 1973-1974), a joint Soviet-American flight took place " Soyuz-Apollo (ASTP). In addition, the Space Shuttle program, which replaced the Apollos, used the Saturn launch facilities, and some technological solutions obtained during their operation are used today in the design of the promising American SLS carrier.

Work crate containing moonstones in the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility

Another popular question: where did the lunar soil brought by the astronauts go? Why is it not being studied? Answer: it has not gone away, but is stored where it was planned - in the two-story building of the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility, which was built in Houston (Texas). Applications for soil studies should also be submitted there, but only organizations with the necessary equipment can receive them. Each year, a special commission reviews applications and grants between forty and fifty of them; on average, up to 400 samples are sent out. In addition, 98 samples with a total weight of 12.46 kg are exhibited in museums around the world, and dozens of scientific publications have been published on each of them.

Pictures of the landing sites of the Apollo 11, Apollo 12 and Apollo 17 spacecraft taken by the main optical camera LRO: the lunar modules, scientific equipment and the "paths" left by the astronauts are clearly visible

Another question in the same vein: why is there no independent evidence of visiting the moon? Answer: they are. If we discard the Soviet evidence, which is still far from complete, and the excellent satellite photographs of the landing sites on the moon, which were made by the American LRO apparatus and which the "anti-Apollonists" also consider a "fake", then the materials presented by the Indians (the Chandrayaan-1 apparatus) are quite sufficient for analysis. ), the Japanese (Kaguya) and the Chinese (Chang'e-2): all three agencies officially confirmed that they had found footprints left by the Apollo spacecraft.

"Moon Deception" in Russia

By the end of the 1990s, the “lunar conspiracy” theory also came to Russia, where it gained ardent supporters. Its wide popularity, obviously, is facilitated by the sad fact that very few historical books on the American space program are published in Russian, so an inexperienced reader may get the impression that there is nothing to study there.

The most ardent and talkative adherent of the theory was Yuri Mukhin, a former engineer-inventor and publicist with radical pro-Stalinist convictions, who was noticed in historical revisionism. He, in particular, published the book "The Selling Girl of Genetics", in which he refutes the achievements of genetics in order to prove that repressions against domestic representatives of this science were justified. Mukhin's style repels with deliberate rudeness, and he builds his conclusions on the basis of rather primitive distortions.

Cameraman Yuri Elkhov, who participated in the filming of such famous children's films as "The Adventures of Pinocchio" (1975) and "About Little Red Riding Hood" (1977), undertook to analyze the film shots taken by the astronauts and came to the conclusion that they were fabricated. True, he used his own studio and equipment for testing, which has nothing to do with NASA equipment of the late 1960s. As a result of the "investigation", Elkhov wrote the book "Sham Moon", which was never published on paper due to lack of funds.

Perhaps the most competent of the Russian "anti-Apollo" remains Alexander Popov - Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, a specialist in lasers. In 2009, he published the book "Americans on the Moon - a great breakthrough or a space scam?", In which he gives almost all the arguments of the "conspiracy" theory, supplementing them with his own interpretations. For many years he has been running a special website dedicated to the topic, and at present he has agreed that not only the Apollo flights, but also the Mercury and Gemini ships are falsified. Thus, Popov claims that the Americans made the first flight into orbit only in April 1981 - on the Columbia shuttle. Apparently, the respected physicist does not understand that without huge previous experience it is simply impossible to launch such a complex reusable aerospace system as the Space Shuttle the first time.

* * *

The list of questions and answers can be continued indefinitely, but this makes no sense: the views of the "anti-Apollo" are based not on real facts that can be interpreted in one way or another, but on illiterate ideas about them. Unfortunately, ignorance is tenacious, and even the hook of Buzz Aldrin is not able to change the situation. It remains to hope for time and new flights to the moon, which will inevitably put everything in its place.

The well-known arguments that the Americans did not land on the moon received a new refutation. The Japan Space Exploration Agency (JAXA) has reported the discovery of a "halo" left over from the Apollo 15 lunar module engine exhaust jets, which was found on the image of the stereoscopic Terrain Camera (TC).

Recall that the Apollo 15 lunar module (“Falcon”) landed on the moon on July 30, 1971 near Hadley Rille, at the foot of the Apennine mountains surrounding Mare Imbrium. Hadley Rill is a winding canyon 80 km long and 300 m deep. One of the tasks of the Apollo 15 mission was to study the origin of this canyon. High mountains near the lunar canyon make this place extraordinarily beautiful.

The vantage point shows Hadley Rill from the west, at a height of 15 km (this 3D image was recreated from the Terrain Camera (TC) stereo data).

1. Confirmation of the "halo"

This image (Figure 3) provided by the SELENE mission team (KAGUYA) is derived from processed data from the observation of the Apollo 15 landing site on the moon. In fact, this is the first report in the world since the end of the Apollo program about the discovery of a "halo". Images 1 and 2 show the change in the reflectivity of the lunar surface before and after the Apollo 15 landing.

Rice. 1. Before landing:

The area before the landing of Apollo 15 (NASA photo: AS15-87-11719)

Rice. 2. After landing:

The white area in the photo is the halo from the Apollo 15 jets (NASA photo: AS15-9430)

The photographs show changes in surface reflectance before and after the Apollo 15 landing. The top image (Fig. 1) was obtained indirectly from the descending lunar module. The bottom image (Fig. 2) was taken from the Command Service Module at an altitude of 110 km in the second lunar orbit after landing.

The Japanese enlarged image below (Fig. 3) shows the white area of ​​the existing "halo" (image below: 1 square kilometer. The red circle outlines the "halo").

Rice. 3. The image of the "halo"

Apollo 15 halo area. Photograph of the Landscape Camera (TC). JAXA Photos

The reflectivity of the "halo" area became brighter than in the original photo from the Apollo 15 lunar module, and the possibility of the existence of a "halo" was confirmed.

2. Comparison of images from Apollo and TS

Photo from the Apollo 15 crew

Three-dimensional (3D) model from processed Kaguya data

The viewpoint of the 3D image is obtained by processing the stereo data from the Landscape Camera (TC), and it can be freely changed. The 3D images from the TS data show a very similar scenery (left image) compared to the image taken by the Apollo 15 crew (right image from NASA: AS15-82-11122HR). Although small objects (such as rocks and stones) cannot be shown in this TS image because their respective sizes are smaller than the TS spatial resolution (10 m/pixel), the shapes of the mountains and hills are almost identical and the same.

3. Analysis of the Apollo Landing Site on the Moon

A 3D image of the Hadley Rill area is obtained after processing the TC data. During the Apollo 15 mission, the astronauts also collected samples of basalt near Hadley Rill. Their study confirmed that Mare Imbrium is composed of many layers of lava flows, from a few to ten meters deep. The 3D image of TC looks southeast from the northwest and clearly shows lava flow layers on the upper portions of the Rilla wall. These layers were probably formed about 3.2 billion years ago.

So, from an independent source, more evidence has been received in favor of the fact that the Americans were on the moon. All attempts at refutation are called into question. Recall that the discussion about the real landing of the Americans has been going on for several years in a row. I would also like to note that in the near future space enthusiasts expect to receive even stronger evidence and evidence that the Americans flew to the moon - the LRO probe equipped with powerful optical cameras is heading towards the Moon, the program of which may include photography of the Apollo sites. We'll be looking forward to it!)

Tags

17 comments on “ Have Americans been to the moon? New evidence from JAXA”

1. tttttt

   Maybe it looks like a trace, or maybe not, let's wait for the promised probe.

2. agasi

   Yes, finally show me their equipment, their traces, where they are, otherwise some kind of halos, the area before the flight, after the flight, what kind of kindergarten, your rovers are already sending color photographs from Mars, and we are here “halos”. Ridiculous right word, well, you were not there and say so.

3. Ivan

   Since in a vacuum a feather and a hammer fall at the same speed, I conclude that landing and takeoff in a vacuum on the moon are impossible !!!

   And in zero gravity in a vacuum, a rocket flies by itself and requires little energy to move forward, but on the moon there is no weightlessness and no atmosphere either, and there’s nothing to push off from it!

4. Nikki

   Yes, "proof" leaves a pitiful impression. Just the "Ponyakovsky triangle" from the "golden calf".
   Blurring spots and scientific comments.

5. VLAD

   I will not be rude to everyone who is malicious and aggressively rude: I was not brought up that way, I am a polite person. It is not necessary to be angry, but to think with your head! All over the world, it is customary to defend any scientific and technological achievements in front of experts. Americans with their achievements (and flights to the moon are grandiose achievements) did not do this! Whatever these achievements are, they are worthless without the decision of experts! This is the first. And secondly, NASA and all its defenders are worthless, because you are simply illiterate (apparently, you studied poorly at school and do not know what an objective law of nature is: the attraction of the Moon is 6 times weaker than that of the Earth. And this means that if you placed on the Moon, then your step further or higher, for example, on Earth at 30-40 cm on the Moon will turn 6 times further or higher, i.e. 1.8 - 2.4 meters. , but literally fly over the heads of other people. And you will generally jump into the distance by 8-10 meters and further! And this is an objective law of nature, from which you can’t get away, whether you like it or not. So think with your head, jumped , did the Americans fly such distances or the dust from under their feet or from under the wheels of the rovers or didn’t jump or didn’t fly? It’s up to you to decide if the Americans were on the moon! And read the Internet more: everything is written there, including smart things!

6. Pavel

   on the moon, gravity is less and an astronaut weighs less, which means he will jump much higher than undressed on earth. 60 cm I will jump freely from a place, and they are trained. And this spot appears on other objects too, which halo. A hammer with a feather, even I can make them fall the same way. It's all bullshit. Maybe they were there, the films lit up, or maybe they weren't. does not play a role, the USSR was the first on the moon. And everywhere in space the USSR was the first. Now the USSR is gone, so Americans can reap laurels that they didn’t deserve at all. To fly to the moon when everything else - the first satellite, the first man in space, the first spacewalk was the first to reach the moon, Venus and so on, this flight to the moon is not that important. It's just that the US has inflated this one of its only successes, as if they had won. And all these disputes were not intended to confirm this success. the rest seems to have been forgotten, but they argue about the moon. and it seems like this flight (s) is almost the main and central event. One percent of success from the entire space epic.

   • Peter

     From a place, with a uniform weighing almost a centner, on Earth, can you jump 60 cm?
     What do you think "fell equally"?
     And what's with the hammer and feather?

   • Alexander

     Pavel, why do you compare an astronaut on the Moon with a _undressed_ man on Earth? I will not repeat myself - in the previous answer of Alexei, everything is well painted. About the halo under discussion - it just appears as a result of the operation of the lander's engine.
     Landing a man on the moon is the most difficult technical task, far exceeding the delivery of the Lunokhod to the same place. A total of 6 expeditions visited the moon!
     Also, for example, one of the American spacecraft is located at a distance of more than 15 _billion_ km. from the Sun - in working order. At the same time, flying through half of the SS and passing unique photographs. So about one percent of success - it's you in vain.
     PS: And if you make such a hammer, then I publicly confess my ignorance of elementary physics and undertake to never go online again.

7. Vladimir

   PUNCTURES
   A lot of them. Too many for one space program. Moreover, there are no questions about all other NASA programs, starting with the launch of monkeys into space (none of them lived even eight days after the flight - they all died like flies from radiation) and ending with space shuttles.
   "NASA Fooled America" ​​is the title of a book by scientist and inventor Rene, one of many on the subject. He expressed many doubts about the reliability of the landing of American astronauts on the moon. The main ones are summarized as follows:
   1. Gravity
   A fast view of the astronauts' jumps on the Moon shows that their movements correspond to those on Earth, and the height of the jumps does not exceed the height of jumps under the conditions of Earth's gravity, although the gravity on the Moon is one-sixth of that of the Earth. The pebbles falling from under the wheels of the American lunar rover on flights after Apollo 13 behave in an accelerated way on Earth and do not rise to a height corresponding to the force of gravity on the Moon.
   2. Wind
   At the time of the installation of the US flag on the moon, the flag was fluttering under the influence of air currents. Armstrong adjusted the flag and took a few steps back. However, the flag did not stop waving. No "internal oscillations of the flag" or its "internal energy" can explain this.
   3. Pictures
   Lunar images have specific inconspicuous crosses due to the operation of the equipment. Without these crosses, not a single picture of the lunar expedition should exist. However, contrary to all other images taken during other space programs, in many lunar photographs, crosses are either absent or located under the image, which raises doubts that the images were really taken by lunar equipment.
   A number of photographs allegedly taken on the Moon are presented in various NASA publications with cropping and corrections: shadows have been removed in some places, retouching has been applied. The same images that NASA released to the public in different time, look different and irrefutably prove the presence of montage.
   4. Stars
   The vast majority of space images of the NASA lunar program do not show stars, although they are abundant in Soviet satellite images. The black empty background of all photographs is explained by the difficulty of modeling the starry sky: the forgery would be obvious to any astronomer.
   5. Radiation
   Near-Earth spacecraft are much less susceptible to the harmful effects of solar radiation than a spacecraft far from Earth. According to American experts, walls with 80 centimeters of lead are needed to protect a spacecraft flying to the moon. Otherwise, the astronauts will not survive even a week and die, as all American astronaut monkeys died from radiation. However, NASA spacecraft in the 1960s had sides made of aluminum foil a few millimeters thick.
   6. Suits
   When the daytime lunar surface is heated to 120 degrees, the spacesuit needs to be cooled, which, according to modern American space flight specialists, requires 4.5 liters of water. Apollo spacesuits had 1 liter of water and were almost completely not designed to work in lunar conditions.
   The suits were made of rubberized fabric without any significant protection from cosmic radiation. The Apollo spacesuits of the 1960s are significantly smaller than the Soviet and American spacesuits used today for short-term spacewalks. Even at the current level of technology development, it is impossible to fit into such spacesuits a 4-hour supply of oxygen, a radio station, a life support system, a thermal control system, and so on, which, judging by the legend of the 60s, the Apollo astronauts had more than modern astronauts.
   7. Fuel
   In 1969, Armstrong and Aldrin, literally with the last drop of fuel, heroically landed the Apollo 11 weighing 102 kg on the moon. Apollo 17, weighing 514 kg, landed on the moon without any problems with exactly the same fuel supply. This blatant discrepancy is not explained by anything, and, in fact, it is impossible to explain it by “saving on maneuvers” or “finding a shorter path to the moon”, which any specialist in this field will confirm.
   8. Landing
   The jet stream, beating from the nozzle of the apparatus descending to the Moon, was supposed to completely disperse, under conditions of low gravity, all the dust - practically weightless - from the surface within a radius of at least a hundred meters. In an airless space, this dust should rise high above the surface of the Moon and fly away in a whirlwind for kilometers from the place of descent of the ship, which was observed during all the landings of Soviet lunar modules. However, in American photographs - contrary to all science and common sense - we see how a newly arrived astronaut cheerfully jumps from a landed apparatus into untouched dust and tramples in the dust under the supposedly nozzle, leaving his historical traces everywhere.
   9. Leakage of information
   In the memoirs of astronaut Aldrin, there is a description of a party in a small circle of astronauts, where those present watched a film showing the adventures of Fred Hayes on the moon. Hayes made all sorts of steps, then tried to stand on the step of the moon rover, but the step crumbled as soon as he stepped on it. However, Fred Hayes has never been to the Moon. He is a member of the infamous Apollo 13 flight that did not land on the surface of the moon.
   Either all Apollo flights were faked, or for each flight a fictional landing option was created that could work at the right time.
   There are also many other facts. During the "live broadcasts from the Moon", the viewers saw strange things several times, such as, for example, a frank letter S written on one of the "untouched" moon rocks and accidentally caught in the frame in one of the "lunar" reports.
   The falsification is such a gem from all the holes in the lunar project that tens of thousands of Americans - not Russians at all - filled up television, NASA and the White House with bags of indignant letters.
   This has never happened before or after the lunar epic. No reply was given to any of the letters.
   10. Privacy
   In 1967, 11 astronauts died under dubious circumstances. Seven died in plane crashes, three were burned in a test capsule. According to American researchers of the issue, these were "dissenters." The highest death rate in the camp of American astronauts just corresponds to the most dubious NASA program.
   all of the above once again confirms that HOLLYWOOD is really a great "DREAM FACTORY" !!!