Exposing PseudoAstronomy

September 7, 2008

Apollo Moon Hoax: Huge, Deadly Temperature Variation Claims

All posts in this series:

This second installment on bashing the Apollo Moon Hoax deals with the various claims that the moon gets to about -200 °F in the shade and up to +200 °F in full sunlight. According to conspiracy theorists, this range is way too much and would have (a) rendered the film unusable (because it would have shattered in the cold or melted in the heat), and (b) been very dangerous to the astronauts, if not deadly.

In order to properly understand why this claim really doesn’t present insurmountable odds, you must first understand how heat is transferred. There are three ways that heat moves from one object to another:

  1. Radiation: Radiation is the least efficient process of transferring heat.  It involves exactly what it sounds like – radiation, or light-based energy (photons).  The photon is emitted from the heat source and is absorbed by the target.  The act of absorbing the photon – a packet of energy – adds to the energy of the target material, thus heating it up.

    The Sun heats all objects in the solar system mainly through radiative heat transfer.  This is also the same mechanism behind “heat lamps” – those hot red lights that are oh-so-common in cafeterias, keeping the french fries or the pizza warm.

    There’s another aspect to this that does not play a role in the other two heat transfer processes:  Some surfaces will absorb heat faster than others.  This is because objects that are whiter will absorb less radiation because they reflect more.  Objects that are blacker will absorb more radiation because they reflect less.  Astronomers call this “albedo.”  You may have noticed this effect if you’re outside in the summer and wear a white shirt vs. a black shirt – you’ll heat up much more quickly in black.

  2. Conduction:  Conduction is the process where heat is transferred by one object physically touching another object.  For example, when you place a pot of water on the stove to boil, the heating element of the stove physically touches the pot, heating it up, and the pot physically touches the water, heating that up.
  3. Convection:  Convection is the most efficient process of heat transfer.  It involves the physical mixing of material of two different temperatures, which distributes the heat.  An everyday example of this is adding ice to a glass of water and then stirring it around.  This stirring physically moves the ice and water to better distribute the heat than if the ice just sat there (conduction).

    Another good example is a pot of thick stew or chili on the stove.  I learned this lesson the hard way – while soup convects quite easily, chili only conducts.  In other words, in most soups, you generally get a good boil going and the liquid circulates throughout the pot, carrying and distributing the heat very well.  Thicker foods like chili, however, do not convect; the heat conducts up through the pot to the food on the bottom, and then it just stays there.  The bottom will continue to absorb heat, but because the food is so thick, these warmer parts of the food don’t move anywhere, they just sit there, slowly conducting heat away at a slower pace than the pot is conducting heat to it.  This results in burnt chili on the bottom and barely warm chili on top.

There’s one more piece of information that you need to remember when trying to understand this claim:  The moon lacks an atmosphere – there’s no air!  This may seem like a basic, obvious statement, but it really makes all the difference.

On Earth, the Sun heats the ground (because the air really absorbs very little radiation) through Radiation.  The ground, in contact with the air, then heats the air near the surface by Conduction.  Because air is like soup and not like chili, it easily Convects, warming the whole planet.  This is part of why there is comparatively very little difference between the day and night air temperatures on the planet, as opposed to, say, Mars.

The the moon, the first step is the same – the Sun heats the ground through Radiation.  And then it stops.  There is no atmosphere to speak of, and so there is absolutely no way for the heat to distribute throughout the moon other than through the slow process of conduction (which doesn’t heat more than a few meters deep, called the “skin depth”).  The region of space directly above the moon’s surface does not change temperature any real amount even though the surface below it goes through 400 °F temperature swings.

With this in mind, let’s place an Apollo astronaut on the surface, with a camera attached to his chest (I’m using male pronouns not out of any sexism, but because they were all men).  The solar radiation is heating the surface fairly well, since the lunar albedo is about 0.08 (it reflects only 8% of the radiation it receives, absorbing the other 92%).  The astronaut and the camera, however, has an albedo fairly close to 0.90 (new-fallen snow, reflecting 90% of the light it receives, absorbing 10%).

So right away, you can tell that the astronaut’s suit – in the absence of any cooling or insulation – will heat up more than 10x more slowly than the ground just through the solar radiation.  However, to be fair, there is a very small contribution from the lunar surface because it has a certain temperature and so radiates, as well.  But, this contribution is very small compared with the Sun.

Now, with an astronaut standing on the lunar surface, there’s an additional heat transfer process:  Conduction.  The ground physically touches the astronaut’s boots, allowing them to conduct heat, and so contributing to heating up the astronaut.  This is a smaller effect, though, than conspiracy theorists may have you believe.  After all, the saying goes, if you walk down a beach on the dry sand with the sun out, your feet quickly roast.  But, the lunar surface material – regolith (we don’t call it “soil” because soil implies an organic origin) – is very loosely consolidated.  In other words, it’s more like trying to conduct heat through flour as opposed to sand or asphalt.  And the heat that was transferred was generally shielded by the insulation in the astronauts’ boots, preventing this fairly slow process from transferring too much heat.

So at this point in the discussion, we have pretty well shielded from any excessive temperatures.

This brings up my third (I think third) point:  The astronauts AND the cameras had insulation around them.  This insulation – like a nice warm winter jacket – prevented a lot of heat from being transferred both into and out of the suits and camera housing.

But this brings up a fourth argument:  Even if the astronauts were not properly insulated from the cold temperatures, where would their heat go?  The process of getting too cold happens when heat is transferred from you to the environment.  But there was no environment on the moon to which the astronauts or their cameras could transfer the heat.  The only way they could do it was conduction back through the insulation in the astronauts’ boots to the lunar regolith, or through radiative heat transfer to empty space.  And with their insulation, neither of these played any significant role.

My fifth and final point deals with the timing of the missions.  NASA knew that the moon’s surface went through these temperature swings.  But, that doesn’t mean that as soon as a square meter of lunar surface rotates into the Sun’s light that it suddenly, immediately goes from -200 °F to +200 °F.  It takes time to absorb the radiation and heat up!  And that is why all of the lunar missions were planned for “dawn” on the moon, before the surface had heated up to the +200 °F temperatures, but after it had warmed a little from the -200 °F temperatures.  So even while the lunar surface does experience wide temperature swings throughout it’s nearly 700-hr day, the astronauts did not experience those extremes!


Finally, to summarize why this claim does not hold up under scrutiny:

  1. The astronauts and the cameras were covered in reflective material, limiting radiative heat transfer.
  2. The lunar regolith is loosely compacted, resulting in very slow conduction of heat from it to the astronauts’ boots.
  3. The astronauts and the cameras were covered in insulation, limiting heat transfer.
  4. There’s no atmosphere on the moon to conduct heat to or away from the astronauts and cameras.
  5. The EVAs (Extra-Vehicular Activities, or moonwalks) were all during lunar dawn, so the astronauts did not even experience the massive temperature swings that conspiracy theorists report.


  1. I have seen blast- offs from the huge spacedromes, Am wondering how they got to launch the module & all that ‘weight’ off the surface of the moon! I mean with all the gloves & all, it must have been next to impossible!!

    Comment by Anil — February 14, 2009 @ 5:52 am | Reply

  2. Anil –

    Your statement doesn’t really have much to do with this post, but I will very quickly answer it. You’re basically coming at this with an argument from personal incredulity – “I can’t believe this could happen, therefore it didn’t.” You’re also relying on every-day experience which has nothing to do with the moon. The basic thing to remember is the moon has 1/6 the gravity of Earth, so you need much less thrust to get off its surface. Also, don’t you think they would have planned all the mechanisms such that the astronauts would be able to operate them? It seems pretty ridiculous to think that in the planning stages no one would have figured out if the astronauts could operate the controls.

    Comment by astrostu206265 — February 15, 2009 @ 8:14 pm | Reply

  3. Landings were planned for lunar dawn so that the sun angle was small, so that craters & rocks & such would be more visible due to the shadows they cast.

    Comment by Woof — May 28, 2009 @ 11:02 pm | Reply

    • That could also be a reason, but I’m sure NASA considered them both.

      Comment by sasracer — July 18, 2009 @ 1:53 pm | Reply

  4. The backpacks that the astronauts wore contained coolers to absorb the extra heat and the heat the bodies of the astronauts produced. The backpacks were only good for a few hours before they needed more oxygen, water, cooler fluid (which I think was water) and battery power.

    Comment by DJ Fixsen — September 2, 2009 @ 11:36 am | Reply

    • That’s correct, the backpacks cooled the astronauts with water. It was a remarkably simple system that used a ‘sublimator’. This was a block of aluminum through which cooling water (from the liquid cooling garment worn by the astronaut) was pumped through small channels so it could dump its heat into the metal. Other channels in the metal block carried water from a feed tank to small pores in the surface exposed to lunar vacuum. When the water reached the surface, part of it immediately evaporated and carried away enough heat to freeze the rest. The ice blocked the pores and stopping the water flow until heat from the astronaut could convert the ice into water vapor. This uncovered the pores, allowing more water to flow until more ice formed.

      This made the sublimator self-regulating, remaining at freezing as long as the cooling water lasted. The later missions (Apollos 15-17) carried enough water for about 8 hours on the surface. Between each EVA, the astronauts refilled the water tanks, replenished the oxygen tank, emptied another water tank that held water condensed from their breathing, replaced the lithium hydroxide canister that removed CO2, and replaced the battery that powered the whole thing.

      Although the sublimator was simple, reliable and very effective, it had one huge drawback: it consumed water, and few substances are as precious on the lunar surface. Not even oxygen, which could be extracted chemically from the lunar regolith in any long-term lunar base. This is one of the reasons why the discovery of water at the south pole is so significant. NASA is working on alternative cooling systems for astronaut backpacks that don’t consume water, and it’s a tough job.

      Comment by Phil Karn — February 18, 2010 @ 11:42 am | Reply

  5. Thank-you for your information

    We know that in space (away from any object that has mass) that the temperature would be absolute zero i.e. totally devoid of heat.

    I have always assumed that if you went into that environment the main problem would be keeping warm.

    After reading the above material is it possible that the main problem would be staying cool?

    You would become a heavenly body and (assuming you have eaten and are alive)would be producing heat at a rate of 60Wh and also be a collector of solar radiation with no ability to dissipate the heat.

    Comment by Tim — September 6, 2009 @ 5:15 pm | Reply

    • Tim – Things in space (well, actually, anywhere) dump heat via radiation. See item #1 in the article above.

      Comment by Woof — September 7, 2009 @ 6:45 pm | Reply

    • See my earlier comment on how the Apollo astronauts remained cool on the moon. Their space suits were extremely well insulated to protect them from the sun’s direct heat and the moon’s reradiated heat. Imagine what it would be like to work hard while bundled up in the best sleeping bag you’ve ever used, only better – you’d overheat in just a few minutes without some way to stay cool.

      Radiators are too big to be practical for cooling an astronaut on EVA. Water evaporation was the method chosen, and it worked fine for the Apollo program because they could bring enough with them for their very short stays.

      If for some reason they lost water cooling, or any other part of their life support system, they did have a backup. This was the Oxygen Purge System (OPS), a separate part of the backpack that sat on the main Portable Life Support System (PLSS).

      If the PLSS failed, the OPS would provide backup oxygen that would flow through the suit and out through a “purge valve” that would be opened on the chest. Opening the purge valve would not only allow fresh O2 to come in from the OPS, but it would also carry away the CO2, H2O vapor, and body heat that would ordinarily be removed by the PLSS.

      While the PLSSes were discarded onto the surface after the last EVA, the OPSes were taken back into orbit in case they were needed for an emergency spacewalk back to the command module. One was also kept for use by the command module pilots on Apollos 15-17 during their spacewalks on the trip home to retrieve film from the Service Module.

      The PLSS worked essentially like a rebreather used by some divers, while the OPS was much more like ordinary scuba. Like a rebreather, the PLSS used oxygen very efficiently, while like scuba, the OPS was far less efficient. Although the OPS contained much more oxygen than the PLSS, it would only last for 30 minutes while the PLSS used on the later Apollo missions was good for up to 8 hours. But that 30 minutes would be enough time to get back to the lunar module.

      To enable the astronauts to venture farther from the lunar module on the later missions, they carried a special hose that allowed them to share cooling water (but not oxygen). If one PLSS failed, they’d connect this hose between them so that both astronauts could be cooled by the working PLSS. This allowed the astronaut with the failed PLSS to reduce the O2 flow rate from his PLSS as he would only need it for breathing, not for cooling. That would extend his O2 supply to 60 minutes, giving them more time to get back to the LM. As an extra backup, they’d still have the other astronaut’s OPS.

      Comment by Phil Karn — February 18, 2010 @ 12:01 pm | Reply

  6. Because it takes a full month for the moon to turn on its axis, the sun moves very slowly in the lunar sky: about half a degree per hour vs 15 deg/hr on the earth. Also, the thermal conductivity of the regolith is very poor, and only the top layer has a wide day/night temperature excursion. So the surface actually does reaches thermal equilibrium.

    The surface is cooler in the lunar morning for the same reason the earth is colder during winter: geometry. The lower sun angle spreads the sun’s rays over a larger ground area. If you plot the surface temperature of the moon over the day, you get a very nice sine-shaped curve, just what you’d expect from geometry.

    Comment by Phil Karn — February 18, 2010 @ 11:30 am | Reply

  7. Could you explain why the astronauts onboard apollo 13 were in danger of freezing when they had no electrical power? I would have thought that according yo your arguements above their main problem would have been the heat from absorbing direct solar radiation for an extended period (even at a low absorption percentage) with no way for that heat to dissipate into the vaccuum of space? (As according to you the craft was well insulated to prevent heat loss also)

    Comment by Stray76 — April 21, 2011 @ 10:12 am | Reply

    • It’s very simple, really.

      Any passive system in space reaches an equilibrium temperature in which it absorbs and emits equal amounts of power as electromagnetic radiation. The best example is the earth itself, where that equilibrium temperature is now being disturbed by the increase in atmospheric CO2 that interferes with the earth’s radiation of heat in the far infrared.

      On the earth, the additional heat we generate by burning fuels is tiny compared to the heat we absorb and re-radiate from the sun, so climate change has to do with that changing radiation balance.

      But the Apollo CM was covered by a highly reflective aluminized mylar tape designed to reflect as much sunlight as possible. So much of the heat that it did radiate came from the waste heat (several kilowatts) of its internal systems powered by the fuel cells in the service module. When those fuel cells failed on Apollo 13, that waste heat was gone and the whole craft had to cool to a much lower temperature where the radiated heat was equal to the absorbed solar heat alone.

      Had it been possible to alter Apollo’s surface coatings during flight, the craft could have been warmed up by simply having it absorb more heat from the sun than usual. But it was never designed for this.

      Comment by Phil Karn — April 21, 2011 @ 11:42 am | Reply

  8. -Very interesting and thorough information. For most people, such as me, we know they dealt with the temperature issue “somehow” but did not know the details. Thanks for the specifics.

    Comment by Lloyd — July 4, 2011 @ 10:36 pm | Reply

  9. Read the NASA moon rover info and the covers were opened to allow the batteries to cool!!! Not one photo of this and not one photo of the tyre tracks from the lander to the point of the photo taken ie a crane was used to move the “moon” buggy.
    Read upon 1970’s rechargeable batteries and read upon temperature ranges.
    Simple unable to work at the given real temperatures on the moon.

    Comment by Cool jay — July 19, 2011 @ 2:28 pm | Reply

    • Cool jay –

      Not sure what your point is about opening the battery covers for cooling. The covers protected the batteries from moondust, which is a good insulator. At stops the astronauts opened the covers and brushed off any dust that got in. What about this sounds bogus to you?

      If you’re going to bitch about missing tracks in a photo, you owe us at least the URL to said photo.

      Oh, and the batteries were NOT rechargeable.

      Comment by Woof — July 19, 2011 @ 7:44 pm | Reply

      • Thats my point not recharageable and look at silver zinc potassium hydroxide batteries and the the effect heat has on them!!!!
        Passive cooling no photos of this !!! not one Again the true temperatures are +123 deg c to -233 deg c and you can see why we never went the amps at low temps would be very very low.
        Ask NASA about temperatures and batts and life support at -233 deg c!!!!

        Comment by cool jay — May 27, 2012 @ 6:29 am

      • Things that needed to be shielded and/or insulated were shielded and/or insulated. That’s not even rocket science. Deal with it!

        I’m trying real hard to figure out your supposed point re space shuttle and re-entry heating. Heat is a problem during re-entry. OK, points to you on that, I guess. It depends on initial speed, vehicle density, trajectory, and aerodynamic lift/drag, all very different when comparing space shuttle to Apollo. (Note that there’s nothing in there about how far you went before your re-entry.) Hell, even the method the “heat shield” used was different – on Apollo it was a 1-use item that was (mostly) consumed during descent.

        Oh, and something I’m dying to know: What’s Mach 6 in a vacuum?

        Comment by Woof — May 27, 2012 @ 1:54 pm

    • I have read about 1970s batteries and the temperatures on the moon. Have you? If so, can you tell me the type of batteries used on the rover (and everywhere else on Apollo/Saturn) and their properties? Can you tell me how to calculate the temperature of an object near the lunar surface given the sun elevation and the object’s optical properties?

      If you can’t answer these questions then you are in no position to say that it could not have worked at the “real temperatures” of the moon. In fact you don’t seem to realize that objects on the moon don’t all reach some common temperature as they would on earth where they’re immersed in a bath of a relatively thick atmosphere carrying heat by convection.

      There’s no atmosphere on the moon so heat transfer is entirely by radiation. Put an object in the shade and it will slowly get quite cold. Put it in the sun and it will warm up to some temperature determined by the object’s optical properties and also by the temperature of the nearby lunar surface. With careful choice of those surface coverings you can control the temperature of a device (like a battery) on the moon. And yes, there are actually plenty of pictures of the batteries on the LRV with their covers both opened and closed. In fact, there are some 16mm film movies showing them bouncing up and down as they drive. These are thin pieces of film that bounce slowly but without any air resistance at all — just as you’d expect in a 1/6g gravity field and a total vacuum.

      Comment by Phil Karn — March 13, 2012 @ 8:27 am | Reply

  10. I don’t buy these long-winded, complex, distracting and manipulative explanations that ultimately make no sense.

    Comment by PsychoScream — September 8, 2011 @ 7:36 am | Reply

    • The fact that you ‘don’t buy’ ( can’t or won’t understand the science involved) only makes YOU look like the ignorant fool that you obviously are.

      Comment by Chris — September 14, 2016 @ 1:14 pm | Reply

  11. What specifically is it about these explanations that doesn’t make sense?

    Instead of just giving a short answer about HOW the moon is, isn’t it more interesting to understand WHY? That does take more detail, but I’ve always thought it worthwhile.

    Many hoax claims actually contain a nugget of a perfectly good question deserving of a complete answer. But I’ve noticed that most hoax believers just aren’t interested in listening to those answers; their minds are already made up. All I ask is that they honestly listen and see if those answers don’t indeed make sense.

    Comment by Phil — September 8, 2011 @ 11:54 am | Reply

  12. You would have to be brain dead to believe man landed on the moon in the 60’s. Hell we can’t pull that rabbit out of the hat with todays technoligy. I realize that the author is Uncle Sam just telling more lies to try to save face. Liar liar panst on fire which is exactly what would happen if we could get to the moon!

    Comment by Mike Martin — March 12, 2012 @ 8:02 pm | Reply

    • Just because *you* haven’t a clue how one would go to the moon doesn’t mean that a large group (about 400,000) of very smart, motivated and well-funded people ($25 billion in 1975 dollars) couldn’t pull it off. Yes, even in the 1960s.

      Let a little air out of your ego, accept that a lot of other people are actually smarter than you, and it can actually be fun to learn from them.

      Comment by Phil Karn — March 13, 2012 @ 8:17 am | Reply

  13. The Russians reported a big problem with the heat and the Americans no problem!!!
    Look at the space shuttle and re entry heat problems !!! Yet in the 1960’s we went 240,000 miles and back and yet as at today we can go 400 miles and then any higher the radiation was a big problem for the human eye and thus exposed to damaging radiation and the same for Camera’s and film. The Kodak film was nothing special that was used in the 1960’s and early 1970’s “moon trips” more like Area 51 fake trips.
    The film would not work at the real moon tempeartures.
    Even NASA show the film cartridge being replaced out side !!!!
    We never went and never will the Saturn 5 rocket had not enough fuel on board to get the 240,000 miles.
    How did the LLM accelerate to mach 6 to dock with the command module!!! Again impossible ask NASA for the speed and it is impossible.
    It was all fake trips and in many years we will have true Photos NASA have covered up this very well but not for ever.
    We accept near earth orbit and yes the video which shows the earth in the window and someone says “talk” and then the arm gets in the way and it gets better they remove the black out film and we have blue sky!!! yep blue sky umm we are in earths orbit not 135000 miles out utter rubbish and lies.
    The best bit is the lack of any comment from NASA nothing at all.

    Comment by cool jay — May 27, 2012 @ 6:12 am | Reply

    • Source? I’d like to see this video.

      Comment by Chad — May 28, 2012 @ 1:59 am | Reply

    • I assume (from your incoherent writing, if nothing else) that you’re not a trained neurosurgeon. You probably don’t know how to remove a brain tumor. Yet there are some people who can. Are they frauds just because you don’t know how to do it yourself?

      You are arguing purely from personal incredulity: you don’t understand how NASA went to the moon, therefore they couldn’t have done it. Is that what you really think?

      Stop wasting good money on Bart Sibrel DVDs. Get some documentaries on the NASA Apollo program and you might actually learn something. You might even enjoy it.

      Comment by Phil — July 9, 2012 @ 7:37 am | Reply

      • Not a good thing, you know, attacking the person instead of the argument.

        Comment by Al — October 11, 2017 @ 10:53 am

  14. > We never went and never will the Saturn 5 rocket had not enough fuel on board to get the 240,000 miles.

    I have to say these comments are quite amusing. If one is going to decide this was a hoax, against the advice of REAL scientists, shouldn’t one at the very least understand Newton’s laws — I mean, they’re hundreds of years old and taught in high school. The first law, that an object an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force, explains this. Fuel isn’t needed to keep going for billions of miles, just to start and to stop.

    Comment by Paul — April 15, 2015 @ 5:33 pm | Reply

    • Sorry for the double ‘an object’ there … I was going to simplify the statement and forgot to finish the edit.

      Comment by Paul — April 15, 2015 @ 5:35 pm | Reply

  15. Hasselback camera’s weren’t insulated for space . They were just regular camera’s that you could buy . The only mods that were done was painting them white . You shills just make up things as you go .

    Comment by kd — April 21, 2015 @ 8:28 pm | Reply

    • Please provide evidence to back up your unsubstantiated claims about the cameras and Dr. Robbins’ relationship with NASA.

      Comment by Rick K. — April 21, 2015 @ 10:29 pm | Reply

    • Perhaps a read through this would be useful for you as it details some of the changes made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasselblad#Hasselblad_cameras_in_space

      BTW, hasselback is a Swedish roast potato; the cameras were Hasselblads.

      Comment by Paul — April 22, 2015 @ 7:18 pm | Reply

    • Just one more thought: the page I linked shows a photo of the Skylab Space Station that was also taken using a Hasselblad camera similar to the ones used on the moon. The conditions in earth orbit are at least as harsh as on the moon’s surface, weightless (mechanically harder than1/6 gravity perhaps) and alternating hot and cold if used on EVA.

      Are you suggesting the space station pictures are also faked?

      Comment by Paul — April 22, 2015 @ 7:25 pm | Reply

  16. Just a small point, while the moon does not have an atmosphere to conduct energy/radiation from the sun and space, neither does it have a shield that stops most of that energy/radiation like the earth. even if the remaining energy/radiation is being conducted because of the atmosphere, that energy/radiation is severely reduced .

    the point that people are making is that how was it that nasa dealt with this problem in space? are you suggesting that reflective material is relevant to all light/radiation spectrums? if solving the radiation problem was as simple as you are making out that would be an incredible bit of science. the suit that the astronauts are wearing is not physically able to stop radiation on the helmet. Even if one was to accept a cooling system for the body, gold foil and glass do not stop radiation.

    Comment by Fiol — August 27, 2015 @ 12:46 am | Reply

    • Fiol,

      Gold foils stops radiation which are above 700 nm in wavelength (Infrared) almost at 100%, while polycarbonate (not glass) blocks radiations with shorter wavelengths (inferior to 400 nm, the UV radiation).
      And -what a surprise- the visible light, the one which our eye can see (colors you may call them), happens to be just between these two. So NASA chose a polycarbonate visor with a gold coat to block infrared and above, and ultraviolet and below, but allowing to see up to 60% of the visible light, which is largely enough.

      Doing a little research is not hard.

      source : https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74412/why-does-nasa-use-gold-foil-on-equipment-and-gold-coated-visors

      Comment by Thibault — June 13, 2017 @ 6:04 am | Reply

  17. +1 Fiol

    Comment by Owais — October 15, 2015 @ 1:08 pm | Reply

  18. What isn’t particularly well addressed is that when modern astronauts go on space walks from the ISS or shuttle, they mention getting overheated on 90 minute orbits that quickly go between night and day (look it up). Modern astronauts have to use a special anti-fog coating on their visors to prevent them from fogging up from all the heat building up (and they get sweaty). These modern space walks aren’t on *any* surface, so the idea that a lunar dawn makes them less likely to experience the warming radiation experienced on a 45-minute “day” during an ISS space walk makes no sense.

    If modern astronauts get overheated on these much shorter space walks (with no actual walking, mind you), why did the lunar astronauts not experience the same overheating?

    And if they did experience overheating, why did they not complain of it on their long moonwalks? Did their visors fog up? Did they get sweaty?

    Comment by Wembley — January 13, 2016 @ 9:19 am | Reply

    • And during EVA astronauts have to perform physical work, or they wouldn’t do any EVA. They aren’t just doing these to watch the stars! So yes they go sweaty, from physical work. People doing physical work will get sweating before overheating.

      You got warm and cold mixed up: fog appears on cold surfaces, so fog is an indication of coldness, not “heat building up”. If you ever sky with sunglasses, you know that problem: as long as you move fast enough, the cold air outside will replace the warm moist air inside your sunglasses. But as soon as you stop, the warm moist air stays inside the sunglasses, and the sunglasses are very cold so you have fog problem. And you are not overheating!

      Also, lunar dawn doesn’t make astronauts “less likely to experience the warming radiation”, you have everything mixed up again. Lunar dawn makes astronauts more likely to experience the warming radiation of Sun, it’s simple geometry. For the same geometrical reason, people who want to tan on the beach are more horizontal than vertical.

      There is:
      – the heat coming directly from the Sun
      – the heat coming from the lunar surface heated by the Sun: by radiation and by contact

      Lunar dawn means that they get less heat from the surface of the Sun and NOT that they get less heat from the Sun.

      So you managed to misunderstand almost every point made here. You need to work on geometry and physics!

      Comment by simple-touriste — April 18, 2016 @ 9:17 pm | Reply

  19. The moon buggy is made mostly from metal right? As such it will absorb ALL of sun’s radiation on it really fast. And since it cannot “lose” heat in any way, how long would it take for it to become so hot that it would be impossible to sit on let alone all of it’s parts, systems still working perfectly. I do not care how well the space suit is insulated, if you sit on a piece of metal that is over 100c your space suit will burn right through.
    Cheers Steve from Toronto, Canada
    Ps if all of these missions were conducted at dawn, why can I NOT find any official picture, and I looked over several hundred of them at the Lunar and Planetary Institute Apollo archive containing ALL Apollo pictures EVER taken (, hey guys check the site out, you will find a lot of interesting pictures), of any stars in the black background skies?
    There is No atmosphere so we should see millions of stars. Hey, even on earth here we can see the first stars coming out with the end of the day light STILL ON!

    Comment by Steve K. — February 8, 2016 @ 11:45 am | Reply

    • You do realize that the VERY bright ambient lighting conditions encountered on the lunar surface dictated that the shutter speed (exposure setting) of the cameras used were set to 1/250th of a second to prevent overexposure of the images? This shutter speed is way too fast to ever allow the faint images of stars to be captured on film. Even on a dark earth night, it takes an exposure setting of at least 10 seconds before any stars will start to show up. You didn’t know any of this did you? But I’m not surprised, as most hoax theorists are seriously ignorant about the science involved in anything to do with space.

      Comment by Chris — September 14, 2016 @ 1:27 pm | Reply

  20. As one who found the “moon hoaxers” as extremely ridiculous, I grew tired of their absurd claims, and thus, set out to prove that we had in fact landed on the moon. The problem being, the more I studied, the less likely it seemed. Everything from suits, boots and surface measurements, to the directional shadowing of moon phases. As I continually calculated, I found myself trying to find the most likely and logical explanations for what seemed a growing pile of questionable anomaly’s more than anything else. A desire to end this foolishness once and for all shifted from yearning obsession, and slowly morphed into disgust and confusion. I say in all honesty, I started out most bias in favor of common sense and logic, but in the end, surmounting evidence for the latter just could not be ignored.

    A lot of valuable time had gont into this project. My conclusion,.. ignorance truly was, bliss!

    Comment by Izraul — April 4, 2016 @ 9:19 pm | Reply

    • Fairy tales have their place too, you know.

      Comment by Al — October 11, 2017 @ 10:59 am | Reply

  21. All I can say now… As a grown man, I believed I should know the difference between real sunlight, and that of stage lighting.

    Comment by Izraul — April 4, 2016 @ 9:28 pm | Reply

  22. Just look at the Apollo 11 pictures supposedly taken. on the Moon.
    And I really mean take a long, cold, hard critical look.
    Do that and please don’t tell me that glorified dustbin made it safely back to earth,
    all those hundreds of thousands of miles away.

    Comment by Andy — February 3, 2018 @ 11:33 am | Reply

  23. Andy, what’s wrong with the LM?

    Comment by simple-touriste — February 3, 2018 @ 3:36 pm | Reply

    • As a stage prop in some film studio someplace there’s nothing wrong with it. My son likes to build make-believe submarines and rockets out of old cardboard boxes. I see the Apollo 11 pictures as a super-expensive glamorised version of the same.

      Comment by andyuk2010 — February 4, 2018 @ 4:06 am | Reply


        Comment by simple-touriste — February 4, 2018 @ 10:15 am


        One can envisage Kubrick barking out “Let’s try this one more time, this time with feeling! Action!”

        Comment by Andy — February 4, 2018 @ 10:40 am

      • How do you determine what is and what is not a spaceship, crackpot?

        Comment by simple-touriste — February 4, 2018 @ 11:03 pm

  24. One point that’s blindingly obvious (but not at all technical) is that not one of the astronauts EVER thought to do a 6 ft vertical jump.

    Easy to do in 1/6 gravity.

    Or throw a lump of moon rock a quarter of a mile.

    They do NOTHING that can’t be shown exactly as normal Earth gravity stuff… played at half speed.

    Comment by Andy — February 4, 2018 @ 10:51 am | Reply

    • Sorry to say, but it’s not “blindingly obvious”.

      If astronauts had filmed each other jumping around as high as possible, you’d claim they were using wires, like in Wuxia movies. You’d also probably gripe about astronauts wasting taxpayer money goofing around, instead of conducting serious scientific work. I know I would.

      Filming a thrown object is tough to do. Compare this with a similar situation here on Earth, where a home run baseball is followed by cameras as it leaves the hitter’s bat. You’ll notice they tend to lose track of it somewhere along its trajectory, and don’t pick it up again until it’s almost in the stands. This is under almost-ideal circumstances, with experienced camera operators and ample light.

      The Moon, however, has a very irregular surface, so the patchy lighting would be very difficult to compensate for. We’re also talking about 1320 feet travel distance, instead of less than 500 feet–nearly three times as far as the baseball. Do you honestly expect a trained but less experienced camera operator to brush off these hindrances and follow the rock all the way through its arc?

      Oh, and one astronaut did use a golf club to hit a golf ball as far as he could manage. The camera picked up the ball being hit, but quickly lost sight of it. Do you think a slightly larger rock would’ve worked any better?

      The folks at NASA didn’t anticipate that people in the future would claim the landings were faked, so they didn’t come up with measures to prove that what they were doing was genuine. They figured the fact that we actually, repeatedly, landed people on the Moon, did some scientific stuff there, then came back home safely, while filming much of it, would be proof enough.

      Besides, you might remember, the United States was in the middle of a Cold War with the Soviet Union. The two were enemies, not co-conspirators in a massive hoax. Any slip-up on the part of one nation would’ve been trumpeted across the world by the other, to embarrass the first as much as possible. Don’t you think the Russkies would’ve jumped all over something like this, if it was faked not once, but several times?

      Comment by Rick K. — February 4, 2018 @ 3:09 pm | Reply

    • “Easy to do in 1/6 gravity.”

      How do you determine what is “easy” and SAFE to do inside a pressurized suit, crackpot?

      Did you ever use a pressurized suit?

      Comment by simple-touriste — February 4, 2018 @ 11:05 pm | Reply

      • Just learn to know scammers and con-artists when you see them and it will save you the effort.
        Like I said, go back and take a critical look at that crappy-looking spaceship.
        It would never have gotten you anywhere never mind hundreds of thousands of miles.
        What you’re looking at is pure theatre.
        You’ve been sold a pup, an extremely expensive pup, but a pup nevertheless.

        Comment by Andy — February 5, 2018 @ 8:33 am

      • Andy responded to my attempt to discuss the matter with ad hominem attacks. From what I’ve seen of his replies to others, he doesn’t seem to be capable of much more than regurgitating the same long-since debunked nonsense we’ve heard from many others long before now. I suggest he’s nothing but a troll, so it’s best to ignore his insults and unwillingness to discuss things in a civil manner.

        Comment by Rick K. — February 5, 2018 @ 11:20 pm

      • What part of the spaceship is crappy looking, crackpot?

        What real-world feature does it miss?

        Comment by simple-touriste — February 5, 2018 @ 9:20 am

      • hi gents, for the last time: pls DO NOT abuse each other with stupid derogatory words. it does not help!! the way i am reading all these remarks, none of you appear to be expert in anything relating to the subjects at hand. our job is to ask questions and try to expand readership so someone somewhere (a disgruntled NASA employee perhaps or one of their thousands of subcontractors??) one day will come up with the TRUTH. however not until ALL involved astronauts have finally died. Same as with the JFK papers. Trump wanted to bring them out but he was told in no uncertain terms that old Bush is still alive and no final release was possible until his death. After that young Bush will still fight the issue.

        Comment by Istvan Kovarcsik — February 6, 2018 @ 8:13 am

      • The abuse doesn’t come from me.

        I am not the one making up stuff here.

        Do you need to be an expert to see that there is zero legitimate criticism here?

        Comment by simple-touriste — February 11, 2018 @ 4:14 pm

  25. So what does the original footage show, besides them arsing around (albeit in a film studio, in fake spacesuits)? There’s no scientific work going on there, just one big scam.

    I wouldn’t gripe about them wasting taxpayers money either, neither would anybody else, except the worst kind of sanctimonious tosser.

    There’s that bit of schoolboy in all of us that says go on then clever clogs, prove it. But they didn’t because they couldn’t. You’re just seeing normal earth gravity in slow motion.

    You really are a gullible plonker.

    Comment by Andy — February 5, 2018 @ 8:22 am | Reply

    • Then tell us about the spacesuits, crackpot. What’s wrong with them? What real-world features do this miss?

      Why couldn’t they go to the Moon?

      Comment by simple-touriste — February 5, 2018 @ 9:11 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: