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

    • Funny…I was just thinking the same thing about these explanations. More especially now knowing they’re coming from “REAL” scientists! I mean shouldn’t one at the very least understand real science? Certainly if something is taught in high school it has to be legit, right? You know what else is taught in high school…George Washington was the 1st President. Is that true? Nope! Not even close. He was actually the 11th, or 9th, depending on whether or not you believe “John Hanson” was first instead of “Samuel Huntington.” You know what else high school teaches….Christopher Columbus was a great explorer that discovered America! Is that true? I guess if you choose to ignore the fact he was a drunken moron / serial killing rapist who never even set foot on America’s soil.

      But who cares about actual facts when you’re a REAL scientist with a high school diploma, right? Hell.. all one really needs after that is a FOX NEWS degree to have the equivalent of a REAL life PhD / G.E.D..

      High school science… Sweet!

      Comment by izraul hidashi — October 3, 2018 @ 7:33 am | Reply

      • Apparently there’s some controversy about who was actually the first President of the United States of America. Several historians argue that the President of the Continental Congress is not the same thing. Washington was elected President by following the instructions in the U.S. Constitution, which had been ratified shortly before then, and he began his first term in April of 1789. We’ve been keeping a count of the number of presidents since then, starting with Washington as the first. The present one is the forty-fifth. We’ll probably never see a satisfactory resolution to who was actually the first real President of the United States of America. Don’t we have more important stuff to worry about?

        As far as Columbus goes, he did establish a colony in 1493, named La Isabela. Your careful wording, saying he “didn’t set foot on America’s soil,” is true, in that he never walked on any part of what would eventually become the United States, but I think you’re being a bit disingenuous. The island of Hispaniola was technically part of the Americas, and still is, in its present incarnation of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Please remember that “America” was the name of all of the lands of the New World at one time, and still is in the names of the North and South continents. Citizens of the United States of America use the abbreviation of “Americans”, when describing themselves, because nobody wants to refer to them as, “United Statesers,” or something else just as silly.

        Comment by Rick K. — October 18, 2018 @ 8:11 pm

  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

      • Ah yes… “doing a little research is not hard” is in deed one of the greatest statements ever uttered…

        Comparing photos is also one of the greatest research techniques ever conducted… For example, the Apollo 8 earth rise photos are simply amazing on their own, but not as magical as when you compare them side by side with NASA’s own Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera’s dark side of the moon photos. It’s truly powerful enough to make genius internet moon experts feel like real life jack asses!

        In deed….doing a little research is not hard at all! Try it.

        Comment by izraul hidashi — October 3, 2018 @ 7:46 am

      • You might want to consider revising “dark side” of the Moon, since it does rotate around its own axis, albeit slowly, once every 28 and a fraction Earth days. I think, “far side” is more apt, since we can’t see most of that part from our planet. Instead, we must send out probes (or people, from 1969-1972) to take pictures of it.

        Comment by Rick K. — October 18, 2018 @ 7:23 pm

  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

  26. Show me a picture of the insulation in these 1960’s cameras. There’s absolutely no way the cameras would stay functioning in 260 degree heat and radiation. Leave your 2018 phone or camera in the sun or in your hot car. It will shut down within minutes.

    Comment by Raymond — August 19, 2018 @ 5:37 am | Reply

    • The camera had silver reflective coating, crackpot. You have NOTHING.

      Comment by simple-touriste — August 21, 2018 @ 5:39 pm | Reply

      • yeah right, silver coating… heat resistant coating to 250 degrees… you’re dreamin mate. Like all of the Apollo nutters who seriously thin kthis was possible. rofl.

        Comment by chris — May 14, 2019 @ 8:11 am

    • “Show me a picture”

      Classic. Why don’t you go find by yourself? We owe you nothing. Especially when you clearly show blatant arrogance and laziness.

      PS : phones don’t stop working while in a car or in the sun.

      Comment by Thibault — August 23, 2018 @ 12:12 am | Reply

  27. Dude… go look at the Apollo 12 photos at JPL or wherever. The camera is clearly not shielded! Here’s the Ref Number: AS12-49-7278

    Comment by frederick jacobs — October 3, 2018 @ 7:29 pm | Reply

  28. First, temperature doesnt change much on the moon, night or day.
    “During the night, when the source of heat has set below the horizon, the lunar surface can radiate only by cooling (i.e., drawing on the heat supply stored during the day). However, as heat is emitted at night at a much lower temperature than that at which it was absorbed during day-time, the rate of its night-time loss will be very much reduced – and, as a result, the ground temperature should remain finite throughout the lunar night till the time of sunrise; its actual value depending on the thermal capacity and heat conducting properties of the lunar crust”
    introduction to the study of the moon – springer netherlands 1966
    So lunar soil is still 100+ degrees in the shade. Boots were rubber. They would have melted.

    In terms of radiation
    Some quick calculations. Wikipedia says an unprotected astronaut outside earths magnetic field would get 90,000 r per year in radiation dose. 90k r = 78930 rem = 216 per day. exposure to 50 rem gets you sick, 300 is a fatal dose. That’s one day. Apollo 15 spent 13 days in space. 2811 rad. Deadly.

    Another source, the The Spacecast 2020 Technical Report, puts the space weather radiation hazard to human life in perspective: “…at geostationary orbit, with only 0.1 gm/cm2 of aluminum shielding thickness, the predicted radiation dose (REM) for one year continuous exposure, with minimum-moderate solar activity, is estimated to be about 3,000,000. This 3 million rem per year number is from experts in the industry, 8200 rem per day.

    Cosmic Rays alone are 300 Mev – 1 GeV. You could be hit by one at any moment, but NASA just decides to roll the dice?

    Ok so the apollo ship had 0.012 inches of aluminum shielding (lol). A report on the topic of radiation prepared for the DoE back in 1977, a layer of water 7 centimeters thick reduces the ionizing radiation (rays and particles) transmitted through it by half (the remainder is captured or moderated to non-ionizing energy levels, mainly heat). Aluminum is 2.7 times as dense as water. They had the equivalent of 0.08cm of water shielding or 1/88th of what you’d need to reduce the radiation by half. Enough to cut off about a half of 1 percent of the dose or a whole 16 rad over the 13 days.

    To keep the dose under what you’d need to stay alive and at least not puking your guts out and losing hair = 2811 rad / 2 = 1405 / 2 = 703 / 2 =351 / 2 = 175 / 2 = 88 = the upper level of safe. You’d probably still need some pepto bismol to stop you from throwing up. so 5×7 = 35cm of water protection needed or about 13cm of aluminum. This is on all sides. Because the sun sends of radiation in a fan pattern along its magnetic field lines, making protection from all sides mandatory. ELI5 = they bend. Pointing the back end of a ship at the sun wont protect you because the particles of radiation bend back at you and hit the front and sides of the ship.

    Say the apollo ship was 22m by 5.5m. 1/3 of a meter of water protection around a cylinder that size is roughly 110 meters cubed of water. That would weigh 110,000kg. Saturn could only lift 120,000kg and thats to LEO, not to the moon which requires much more delta v. And thats ONLY water weight. Converted to Aluminium its almost the same weight plus 800kg.

    Keep in mind that metal (aluminium) scatters the initial radiation into secondary particles, which again would explode and come from all sides. But now the secondary particles are inside the ship and you’ve only got a thin layer of cheap seemstress made by the lowest bidder fabric to protect you and fabric doesnt stop radiation. If it did the chernobyl workers would be wearing apollo suits.

    This is without factoring in the 266 flares during the mission. Minor flares can give as much as 25 rem per hour. Thats 6700 rem for the 13 day mission. 2811 rem + flare radiation of 6700 = 9511 rem for the mission. For an acceptable dose you’d need 49cm of water or 18cm of aluminum. Thats 161m cubed of water or 161,000kg which is 34% more than the saturn can even bring to LEO. It could only send 41,000kg to the moon, which means you’d need 3.5 rocket launches just to get the needed water into space, plus a 4th launch for the ship itself. Even if the flare lasted 10 minutes instead of an hour, thats still an extra 1100 rem which is 42cm of water or 138,000kg. Also, the April 17 flare on apollo 16 lasted for 3 days! That’s 1800 rem alone from one flare! And it doesnt include the Van Allen belt radiation! The comprehensive index for major flares on NOAA’s website says that there was in fact one major flare on Apollo 15 (all missions averaged 1.5 class x events). A major flare can be as high as 100 rem per hour. 1.66rem per minute. Lasted 30 minutes so an extra 50 rem. Enough to make you puke. Apollo 12 is even more dead. They had 805 rem from major flares alone. They had 181 minor flares so add 4525 rem and you get 5330 rem plus the normal 2811 rem = 8141 rem! The records show that 1400 minor flares occurred over all nine moon flights. NOAA’s Comprehensive Flare Index for Major flares, also reveals that thirty of the major ones took place during the Apollo missions.

    Conclusion, theres no way man walked on the moon. Hell, even if I’m wrong about the standard solar dose of 90,000rem per year. the flares alone would kill them. According to NASA’s OWN study, they would need 7-9cm of aluminum shielding or 15-20cm of water to keep doses for 1 flare down to their acceptable 30 day limit. That’s 1 flare. There were over 1500 on the apollo missions! 15cm of water is still 50,000kg, more than the saturn could send in payload to the moon.
    That number required was taken from http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NTRS/collection3/NASA_TP_3079.pdf
    Now lets be realistic. Do you really think, when even NOW nasa can’t predict solar flare events, that they would send that many missions to the moon, with 1/185th the required shielding NASA’s own study says they need to protect against solar flares, when the results could be the catastrophic deaths on live tv during the cold war when national pride was at stake? The moon missions are laughable.

    That’s not even getting into any of the photographic proof. The only pictures NASA released of the moon mission were in newspapers, books and press releases. Nothing of substance got released until the 90’s when coincidentally the first version of photoshop was released. DoD tech is 10-20 years ahead of commercial tech, so you can bet NASA was doctoring the pictures in the late 80s for a 90s release. 90% of the pictures you see of the moon missions were released after 1994. Even in the last 5 years NASA releases new or “HD” apollo pictures that have been further doctored to mask the mistakes they made in the 90s. “They didn’t have the technology to fake pictures!”

    Yes they did. They were doing composite images in the early 60s.
    Camera wasn’t shielded and they had to change the film themselves. Do you know how thin and delicate it was to slide a metal plate in the slot, take the camera apart, then put a new roll in, with massive space gloves on? Apollo is fake news.

    All the orbital footage was done using models.
    Its almost comical when you watch the footage how fake it is. Do you actually think NASA would do a manned landing having never even tested the landing once? Or the LEM engines? Just to hope it works on the moon? When their public earth landing module tests were awful and resulted in nothing but crashes. Now look at Orion with LMT. They wont even send men around the moon in it because its too unsafe. Trump told them to send people and they said no. Incredibly, it had taken less than five years to get “the most complicated and sophisticated spacecraft ever conceived” from the chalkboard to the launch pad (The LEM). Upon delivery, the module was found to have “hundreds of problems,” including bad wiring, faulty parts, an abundance of poor workmanship, and, most alarmingly, serious leaks throughout the fuel system. Grumman had neglected to perform any pre-flight checks. Worse yet, a pressure test caused a window to blow out, blasting jagged holes in the skin of the craft and sending debris flying. The cause of the blowout was never determined. They all decided to take the “screw it! What’s the worst that could happen?” approach and merely replaced the window and ignored the failed pressure test, making no design changes to the modules.

    Harrison Schmitt would have had his retinas scorched in seconds.

    China also was caught with fake space walk footage that was clearly shot in a pool. NASA mapped and photographed the entire moon from orbit years before Apollo “landed”, and build life size models to “train” the astronauts with. They also created giant globes with real mapped lunar terrain to scale, so that they could simulate landings with them. China has been very cagey with their moon photos and have released very little, and the stuff they do release comes months or years after the fact. Space is a huge money maker. Budget a billion to go to the moon, fake it for a million and bank 999 million to send to the black budget. It’s a perfect money maker.

    We have data from the Yutu rover’s Active Particle X-ray spectrometer. China announced that this spectrometer had detected the elements Magnesium, Aluminum, Silicon, Potassium, Calcium, Titanium, Chromium, Iron, Strontium, Yttrium and Zirconium. While these elements are indeed found in the Apollo rock samples, analysis of the spectral lines reveals that the quantities of these elements are vastly different between the Apollo and Chang’e 3 soils. For examples: the Apollo rock and soil is predominantly silicon dioxide, while the Chang’e 3 soil appears to be predominantly calcium and titanium oxides.

    In other words, if the Chang’e 3 mission and its x-ray spectral data is real, that means that the actual lunar geology is different to that of the Apollo rock samples, unlike the clementine nasa data that said the entire moon was basically the same and the composition was the same as apollo moon rocks. Even the soviet return samples failed to contain ferric iron while the apollo samples do (ferric iron can only be created by exposing iron to oxygen and water rich atmosphere, like say, on earth). In addition, soviet samples contained almost no water aside from the small amount in luna 24 which drilled over a meter into the surface, while apollo samples were consistent with earth rocks with up to 6000 parts per million and “found” directly on the surface of the moon. China’s samples will tell how legit their moon mission is. Their Chang’e orbiter analyzed water on the moon and the only place with comparable water in surface rocks were at the poles (and only up to 3000ppm, 1/2 of what apollo samples contained). There is no equatorial area with that much water, but the apollo missions were all near the equator. Somebody is lying and its likely not china. Here’s a comparison for all elements. Crazy different than apollo https://youtu.be/ar8FNxiU-tM?t=1526

    We never went to the moon. They can’t even get their skip vs direct re-entry story correct

    Then you’ve got the Gemini program designed to test out EVAs. International Latex Corporation are the ones selected for making the suits, and NASA was so disappointed in them they cancelled the contract. Apparently astronauts were overheating in the desert, yet the moon is over 160 degrees F hotter than that. And this was after they put their “cooling system” in the suits. They didn’t reopen the contract for building the suits until spring of 1965. Ed White allegedly became the first American to perform a space-walk on on June 3, 1965, despite the fact that NASA did not yet appear to have a suit that would allow for such a maneuver. It was announced that White would be performing an EVA while Jim McDivitt piloted the capsule. As McDivitt recalled, “Our EVA was very confidential at the time. We had not announced we were gonna do this, and we were doing all of our training at night, and only a group of maybe 30 or 40 people even knew we were gonna try it.” Translated from NASA-speak, what that very likely means is that a select group worked covertly with the astronauts to fake the space-walk footage prior to the launch of Gemini 4, because the Gene Cernan, Michael Collins and Richard Gordon spacewalks were all complete failures with Cernan almost dying. But then, in November 1966, a year-and-a-half after White’s alleged space-walk, none other than Buzz Aldrin performed a wildly successful EVA during the Gemini 12 mission. NASA then wrapped that up and declared EVA’s were easy as pie and the moon was a cake walk despite going 1/3 with 1 fake eva sprinkled in at the start. Then the Ranger program overall had a 67% failure rate. Surveyer had a near 30% failure rate. But Apollo goes 100% with no issues returning people from the moon alive?

    The Apollo spacesuits supposedly weighed in at 180 pounds each, including the PLSS backpacks. You would think that with the advanced technology now available, NASA would have been able to streamline the package. To the contrary, the suits now worn aboard the space shuttle weigh in at 310 pounds each. And ILC claims that it takes three months and 5,000 man-hours to produce each one. Back in the ‘60s, they claimed to be cranking out a minimum of nine of them for each Apollo flight.

    Michael Wargo, identified as the “chief lunar scientist for Exploration Systems at NASA Headquarters,” contemplating a return trip to the Moon: “’None of our spacesuits that we currently have would be appropriate for that extreme an environment,’ [says Wargo]. Any materials built for Earth-like temperatures won’t work on the moon. ‘They don’t bend anymore, they fracture, and they fracture brittle-y, and so everything gets extremely brittle at those temperatures.’” (“Water Discovery Fuels Hope to Colonize the Moon,” November 13, 2009) And so we discover that there is yet another piece of 1960s technology that has now fallen into an all-consuming black hole: non-brittle materials from which to fashion spacesuits suitable for lunar exploration. Back in the day, it will be recalled, Playtex’s bra seamstresses knew a thing or two about stitching together a non-brittle spacesuit.

    Why were Apollo 13 astronauts frozen when the soviet dog died of overheating? Oh wait, Russia didnt admit that until after the year 2000, and NASA wouldn’t have known the problem was heat, not cold. That and they never left the earth
    And the soviets got the CM

    One final note on the Lunar Orbiters: during their flights to and around the Moon, the five satellites recorded twenty-two “micro-meteoroid events.” The eight lunar modules that made the trip to the Moon apparently recorded no such events. Or maybe the guys just put some duct tape over the holes.

    Then you’ve got apollo 15 fake backdrops

    And perhaps the biggest evidence of apollo being fake is having footage dated before the missions even launched

    And Apollo 10 was fake! Earth gravity while in orbit!

    soviets put lunar ranging experiments on the moon on their rovers and no humans from Russia ever went there, And the fact that MIT was bouncing lasers off the moon pre-moon mission in 1962. You dont need a reflector to bounce a laser off the moon. “Incidentally, the near-specular nature of reflections from the lunar surface entails one more practical consequence: and that is for the Moon to play the role of a convenient screen provided by Nature in outer space for bouncing radio messages from
    one distant part of the Earth to another, on short enough wavelengths to penetrate the Earth’s ionosphere and thus be immune to interference from sunspots”. “1951 the U.S. National Bureau of Standards, in collaboration with the Collins Radio Company, succeeded in transmitting intelligible signals from a 30 kW radio station broadcasting at the frequency of 417 Mcjsec (72 em wave length) between Cedar Rapids, Iowa and Stirling, Virginia – separated by a distance of 1200 km – using the Moon as a reflector and thus inaugurated a new epoch in long-range radio transmission in UHF.
    Pretty easy to fake signals coming from the moon. Bounce the signals off and it looks like they are coming from the moon itself.

    Look at the Baron report, that stated technicians do not know their job, dont maintain proper records, are constantly shifted from one job to another even though they have never done that type of job before, or used that type of equipment before, and NASA never bothered to monitor contractor work, and there was near 0 communication between workers and supervisors. Easy to keep a secret when nobody knew what was going on. NASA is on record saying the simulated data on “training” missions was identical to that of a “real” moon mission thus mission control staff would have data sent to them to train with. They wouldn’t even have known the difference. Want to know why NASA didn’t give a damn about any of this stuff? Because they knew the contractors were building models and props vs actually sending them to the moon.

    by modern standards the Saturn rockets capabilities were way overstated by NASA.

    Click to access F-1_Evaluation.pdf

    The F-1 nozzle cited in all NASA documentation appears to differ from the actual design of the nozzle of the F-1 engine located during a Jeff Bezos’ Expedition in 2013. Part of the nozzle can be seen in a photograph of the F-1 found on the ocean floor. Consequently, the pressure in the F-1 combustion chamber is likely to have been significantly lower than stated, due to fundamental shortcomings in the tubular cooling system of F-1 engines.

    The launch weight of the Apollo Saturn V was found to be considerably lower than stated by NASA and, accordingly, could not ensure the accomplishment of the Apollo Moon program.

    Click to access Pokrovsky1.pdf

    Click to access Pokrovsky2.pdf

    The above studies conclude that no more than 28 tons, including the Apollo 11 craft, could have been placed into lunar orbit. Significantly less than the 46 tons capacity claimed by NASA

    Funny how all blueprints and documentation for Saturn V parts were “lost” by NASA so their work could not be checked
    “When, in recent years, laboratory optical measurements were repeated on silicate powders which received a proton bombardment causing damage equivalent to the effects of the ‘solar wind’ over some millions of years, the results of DOLLFUS and GEAKE (1965) as well as HAPKE (1965) leave but little room for doubt that radiation-damaged silicate dust matches the observed optical properties of the lunar ground almost to perfection”
    taken from an introduction to the study of the moon – springer netherlands 1966
    Guess its easy to create moon dust on earth!

    Comment by Buzz Aldren — November 21, 2018 @ 3:27 pm | Reply

  29. That’s a very comprehensive reply you compiled. Unfortunately, much of it falls apart when practical meets theoretical. I’m not going to dignify a conspiracy theorist’s argument with a point-by-point deconstruction; life is too short.I’ll just make a couple of points and one evidence-based answer.

    “We never went to the moon” So the photographic evidence from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is an expensive attempt to debunk a minority-held view, is it?

    “If we went, why haven’t we been back, when technology is so much more advanced than it was in the 1960’s?” Simple. Been there, done that. If we go back, we would want to go for months, not days and the practicalities of sustaining life on a barren rock still haven’t been overcome. This is particularly the case for the (near) absence of water.

    “All the orbital footage was done using models.” The reference you cite in no way supports this claim! What’s more, even if it did, it came from the Daily Mail which, if you were British, you would know is barely a step above National Enquirer in the credibility stakes.

    “Their boots would have melted.” Yes, they possibly would have, if they’d been made from pure natural rubber. There’s a process called vulcanisation that your are clearly not familiar with. It changes the properties of natural rubber, particularly it’s durability and resistance to heat. That’s if the boot soles were even made from latex-derived material. More likely they were made from a synthetic rubber with even better heat resistance.

    Now, the evidence-based bit.

    According to the data you cite, an astronaut travelling to the moon would be cooked in a matter of minutes. The dosimetry data collected from the majority of earth orbit and lunar missions totally refutes this argument.
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070010704.pdf According to the NASA data, Apollo astronauts received a mean dose of between 0.4 and 1.2 milliSieverts per day (1mSv = 0.1rem). The usual way for justifying these lethal dose arguments is to erroneously assume that the dose is administered all at once, as it would be in X-radiography or a nuclear explosion. As these occur in less than a millisecond, they give a result which is approximately 8.6 million times too large (that’s the number of milliseconds in a day). A standard CT scan administers a dose of about 7mSv, so the Apollo 11 astronauts presumably popped in to have a couple of CT scans before handing back their dosimeters when they left the film set. Oh wait. CT scanners hadn’t been invented in 1969, so they would have had to have 120 chest X-rays!

    Figure 5 in the above reference shows patient-level data, so there is presumably evidence to show that the CM pilots received consistently lower doses than the Commander and LM pilot, that the doses increased in proportion to mission duration and that the CM pilot received higher doses on Apollo 15-17, when he conducted an EVA to recover film from the SM.

    Another publication https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720009978.pdf examines the radiation dosimetry data from Apollo missions up to 14,. It makes the point that, unlike the claims above, solar activity was relatively benign and significant particle radiation data due to flares could not be collected. There were NO major solar flares in any of these missions. Yes, there was a major prolonged flare during the lunar phase of Apollo 16, but NASA had a complex algorithm for evaluating the risk associated with this and the criteria for shortening or aborting the mission were not reached. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730010172.pdf

    Comment by Mark — January 2, 2019 @ 7:44 am | Reply

    • forget nasa data, its fake. they sent guys that didn’t even know what or where the Van Allen belts were … laughable

      Comment by chris — May 14, 2019 @ 8:57 am | Reply

  30. Its now 2019 and hard to believe that some people still believe the moon landings were all faked. They have got to be Democrats— just kidding.There were thousands of people from all over who worked on these Apollo mission moon landings and yet conspirators believe they ALL could hold the secrets of faked landings?….just plain crazy. They are people who are just TROUBLE MAKERS. Period.

    Comment by katanaguy — March 28, 2019 @ 7:21 pm | Reply

    • All those thousands of people did work on a rocket that shot out in space and orbited around the earth. Once out in space, the fake crap happened.

      Comment by StuckInTheMiddle — July 20, 2019 @ 7:26 pm | Reply

      • So, they built a rocket capable of going to the moon, and launched it … why not just go all the way?

        Comment by Stuart Robbins — July 20, 2019 @ 7:28 pm

      • US VP Pence has ordered NASA to go back to the Moon in 5 years. Everyone at NASA is excited about it. In 2022 they plan to fly around in an unmanned craft then in 2024 they plan to put the first woman on the Moon using the new SLS vehicle. This SLS supposed to be the most powerful ever built and it would be used also for Mars excursions as well (maybe by 2040 or so.)
        So these pages might become obsolete in 5 years. Or maybe not. Sceptics will point it out that of course, yes, now, in 2024 we CAN do it but we most certainly could NOT 55 years ago. Why going now anyway, why not 10-20 years ago. Why is it more important now than 10-20 years ago? Never had money for it 10-20 years ago and most certainly have no more money for it now with the treasury totally bankrupt. And, by the way, this is NASA’s biggest IF for now. They are clearly stating that this 5year plan will come to reality only IF the money will be there. The SLS (Space Launch System) is way behind in schedule and by now more than twice-over original budget and counting. Again, sceptics will say that, if NASA fails to deliver to even start, or something goes horribly wrong, there you go, you could not do it then and you cannot do it now either. NASA of course will claim that the money was NOT there.
        There will be other problems as well. Just heard an interview with one of those so called astro-archeologists (jeeez?) who states that the Apollo landing sites should be named as protected archaeological places never to be visited again by anyone other than astro-archeologists with proper permits to “mine” those sites for strictly archaeological purposes only. Sceptics will surely jump on this idea for sure.
        In any case the next Moon spot visited will be far away down at the South Pole where, apparently, there should be lots of water which, hopefully, could be thawed out for commercial use in the future.
        An 8 year old interviewed Buzz about Apollo 11. In which he talks about it. All good. Then someone cut off the last few minutes and put it on Youtube and the short segment went viral.
        Child: Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?
        Aldrin: That’s not an 8-year-old’s question. That’s my question. I want to know. But I think I know. Because we didn’t go there. That’s the way it happened. And if it didn’t happen it’s nice to know why it didn’t happen so in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past if we want to keep it going.
        Sceptics claim this as an admission that no moon walks ever. Believers claim Buzz only refers to not going BACK (people) again since 1972.

        Anyway this past Saturday was the 50th anniversary of the fist step on the Moon. Many papers had front page pictures. At least some of them, due to the ignorance of their editor, used nice clean cut studio pics instead of originals. Here is an example. This most famous photo shows Buzz about to salute the flag. But there is no shadow of the flag so this is obviously a studio pic with the flag embedded later and forgetting to add the shadow of it. I am talking about the pic where Buzz is standing to the right of the flag facing left towards the LEM. Tried but could not cut and paste. Can someone tell me how to do that?

        Comment by Istvan Kovarcsik — July 22, 2019 @ 10:03 am

  31. If we are going slowly from -233 to +123 over the course of say half of 13 earth days lunar day ie say 6.5 earth days to lunar noon, that means that over 6.5 days we go presumably from -233 to +123 (best case scenario, it might take longer) which equates to 55 degrees per day roughly… Means at dawn we’re still at -233 and after 3 days still at -233 +(3×55) = -68 degrees celsius, after 2 days at -233+110 = -123, after 1 day -233+55 = -178… So it would appear the problem was more to keep warm than to keep cool…
    However, I read elsewhere that the change in temperature on the moon occurs within moments – if that is correct then dawn or no dawn would make little difference and the problem is keeping cool…
    I am wondering if there is some definite measurements that have ever been taken to monitor the surface temperature – that would put to rest these contradictions… ANyone?

    Comment by chris — June 17, 2019 @ 7:26 am | Reply

    • The surface temperature change was not uniform. It came up rapidly at sunrise but was still quite cool until mid morning. After sunrise it depended on the sun elevation, as the solar insolation per unit area varied as the cosine of the elevation angle. It’s the same reason the earth’s poles are cold even in the local summer with continuous sunlight.

      The moon’s surface temperatures have long been known by radio observation from earth. Even radio hams can see it; thermal radiation is a source of noise in “EME” (moonbounce) communications.

      Comment by Phil Karn — May 21, 2020 @ 11:53 pm | Reply

  32. I want to know how the interior of the moon lander stayed cool. You know how unbearable it gets in a stationary car in strong sunlight and I imagine the moon lander in direct sunlight gets dangerously hot very quickly. I don’t remember seeing any ‘venting’ or hearing any temp related dialogue

    Comment by Paul rossiter — July 9, 2019 @ 8:00 am | Reply

    • All the Apollo missions landed in the local early morning when surface temperatures were quite moderate. All were gone (even Apollo 17) long before local noon and peak temperatures. That said, the interior of the LM was actively cooled with a glycol loop (similar to the antifreeze in a car) and the waste heat dumped to space by evaporating water to vacuum. The exhaust vent was on the top rear corner of the ascent stage. It emits only water vapor, which is invisible in a vacuum since it doesn’t recondense.

      Comment by Phil Karn — May 21, 2020 @ 11:48 pm | Reply

  33. i guess it was a nice effort by n.a.s.a. or some propaganda arm of the gov.to explain how crazy we who have collage or grad school degrees are .point being .It was a hoax i doubt the astronauts fearing loss of pension or worse. are certanly true heroes.and patriots the hoax broke the all ready strapped ussr. and dont forget velcro

    Comment by Mark C.Meier — October 30, 2019 @ 5:06 am | Reply

  34. “So, they built a rocket capable of going to the moon, and launched it … why not just go all the way?

    Comment by Stuart Robbins — July 20, 2019 @ 7:28 pm”

    They may have “gone all the way” and orbited the moon (but the Van Allen Belts still are a major question with that despite the official “limited radiation” story) – BUT….orbiting the moon and LANDING on the moon are two entirely different things. Landing would be exponentially harder (and doing it perfectly with no problems supposedly 6 times is incredulous) – and using a flimsy cardboard, tar papered & taped up lander to do so seems like a joke.

    IMO…it is very likely the Apollo missions launched and orbited the moon while the “landings” and associated photos/vids were taken on an earthbound set.

    Comment by bullettoothtony — March 4, 2020 @ 8:49 am | Reply

    • @bullettoothtony – Excuse me for asking a bold question, but do you have any evidence to back your claim that the landings were faked?

      Here’s a suggestion: if you get a chance to go to Washington D.C., try taking some time to visit the Smithsonian Museum and wander around the Apollo 11 exhibit. Maybe the evidence presented there will help you arrive at a better understanding of what happened about 50 years ago.

      Comment by Rick K. — March 4, 2020 @ 2:22 pm | Reply

    • Might your denial have anything to do with your refusal to admit your lack of understanding of how it was done? Just because YOU don’t know how to do it doesn’t mean other people didn’t.

      Fortunately, you can find out exactly how it was done. The Apollo project was one of the best documented large engineering projects in history, and you can even examine the hardware close up in museums.

      Comment by Phil Karn — March 4, 2020 @ 5:18 pm | 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 )

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: