Why did the United States not land on the moon?

For decades, people have always doubted the authenticity of the Apollo program in Never Fade. In the 1980s, the American film Capricorn I alluded that the Apollo program might be a scam. But the voice of doubt has never been so high as it is today. The most representative is Bill Kane's questioning of the moon landing photos in his works:

1. The moon has no atmosphere, so there is no problem of air refraction, so you should clearly see the picture of stars shining in the moon sky, but there are no stars in the photos provided by NASA;

2. When the spacecraft landed on the surface of the moon, there should be huge dust blown by the propeller, but the land surface of the moon shown in photos and documentaries was calm as usual;

3. Some photos of the moon landing have obvious puncture marks, and there is a very hidden line between the foreground and the close shot, which makes people wonder whether the "fade-in scanning method" in movie stunts is adopted, that is, the foreground is drawn first, and then covered with light and shadow.

Some astronomy enthusiasts also pointed out that even on earth, jet engines can blow stones as big as eggs to tens of meters away, but on the moon with much weaker gravity, the lunar module will at least spew out extremely spectacular smoke when landing, which is bound to fly sand and stones, but the video provided is just the opposite. #S#

After the works of Goldov and Kane came out, there was a debate about the Apollo program on the Internet. Proponents of Apollo program fraud theory mainly put forward the following viewpoints and evidence:

First, the photos of Apollo landing on the moon were forged. Comparing the incident angle of the sun calculated according to the shadows on the photos taken on the lunar surface with the time, coordinate points and moon phase period of astronauts' activities on the lunar surface announced by NASA, it is found that there are obvious contradictions. Opponents point out: Take Apollo 1 1 as an example, the moon landing point is Jinghai on the moon, 23.5 degrees east longitude and 0.6 degrees north latitude, and the launch time from the earth is1July 969 16 GMT 13: 32, which is on the moon. According to calculation, the incident angle between the sun and the moon is only 6 to 7 degrees, almost close to the horizon. But the photos of Apollo 1 1 planting the American flag on the moon show that the incident angle of sunlight is about 30 degrees, which is obviously illogical.

Second, the moon landing video is also forged. After analyzing the video of Apollo landing on the moon, it is proposed that the astronauts' jumping action and height on the moon surface in the video are the same as those on the ground. The gravity on the moon is one-sixth that on the earth, so it should jump six times higher and six times farther than on the earth. But from the video, the astronauts jumped less than one meter from the ground.

Third, the progress of the moon landing program is contrary to common sense. 1967 65438+ 10, Apollo 1 has just been developed, and its technology is extremely immature. During the experiment of filling the lunar module with pure oxygen, wires collided and caused a fire, resulting in three astronauts being smoked to death. Subsequently, many major improvements were made, and the development of hardware technology for the moon landing program was forced to be postponed for more than a year. However, it was only in July of 1969 that the successful landing on the moon was realized in such a short time, which is unconvincing from the technical point of view.

Fourth, why was Saturn V, the rocket used to carry Apollo spacecraft to the moon, abandoned? Saturn V carrier rocket is powerful, and its technical achievements surpass all kinds of rockets and space shuttles, but it has been abandoned, and even the drawings have not been kept. What's even more surprising is that there is no suitable launch vehicle in the United States to put the space station into earth orbit until today, because there is no powerful launch vehicle, and the modern space shuttle only sends a small load of no more than 20 tons into low-earth orbit at a time, while Saturn V, developed in the 1960s, is said to be able to easily send a load of 100 tons into earth orbit and push dozens of tons of objects out of the earth's gravitational circle, which should be easily used to launch the space station. Five years before and after the moon landing, the United States * * * launched 17 Saturn V spacecraft with Apollo spacecraft, with a success rate of 100%! It is really puzzling that he should quit the Jianghu with such an excellent performance record. So far, NASA has only replied that Saturn V is too expensive to manufacture.

Fifth, how to explain the influence of space radiation on astronauts? Today, people know that there are all kinds of cosmic radiation in outer space, some of which may be fatal. In general nuclear power plants, lead blocks and concrete layers with a thickness of several meters are used to block possible nuclear radiation leakage. It is obviously unrealistic for spacecraft to block radiation with a metal layer several meters thick, and the spacesuit worn by astronauts with a thickness of more than ten millimeters has no effect on blocking high-energy rays at all. How was this fatal problem estimated and solved when landing on the moon?

Sixth, is Armstrong's footprint possible? As Kane pointed out, when the lunar module lands on the surface of the moon, it will inevitably blow up huge dust. So how did Armstrong's first footprint appear so clearly in the photo? In order to avoid the huge dust, landing on the rocky plane of the moon is the best choice. If so, where did the footprints come from? The us government has never given a clear answer to this.

Skeptics also raised many other questions, such as the influence of temperature on camera equipment: the temperature on the surface of the moon is as high as 250 degrees Fahrenheit during the day, and photos show that the camera used by astronauts is exposed outside the spacesuit without any heat preservation facilities. How can the film be photographed when it is heated and curled at 150 degrees?

Of course, the voices defending the authenticity of Apollo's landing on the moon also resolutely fought back. In response to Kane's claim that there is no starlight in the photo, China photographer Bao Kun pointed out that when shooting the clear moon at night, the approximate exposure combination is F5.6/ 1/2- 1 sec /ISO 100℃ (depending on the atmospheric visibility), and the stars in the night sky are all on the negative. Even the brightest star in the night sky, such as Sirius in Orion, needs to be exposed for more than 2-3 seconds, and the rest is the trajectory of the star. The photographic environment of the #S# lunar surface is actually to put the day and night of the earth together in front of the camera, which are two completely different opposing choices, and it is impossible to shoot conventional effects. The two can only be one of them, so the theory of moon landing photo fraud cannot be established. As for the disharmony between brightness and contrast in photos, Bao Kun thinks it can't be caused by using artificial light sources during counterfeiting. The most direct reason is that the surface of the lunar module itself is a huge reflective light source, which reflects sunlight to the surface of the moon, resulting in uneven light and contrast.

Mr. Fang Zizhou, who is studying for a doctorate in chemistry in the United States, refutes fraud from the perspective of the humanistic environment of Apollo's landing on the moon. His reasoning is: first, the fraud risk of the US government is too high. The process of landing on the moon was broadcast live to the whole world. Once the fraud is exposed, the loss of credibility is unimaginable. In addition, the Apollo program involved thousands of engineers and technicians. How easy is it to shut them up? So many scientists don't make fun of their personalities. Secondly, the American press has an outstanding reputation, and its powerful public opinion supervision ability will never allow such a big lie to be staged. Moreover, the evidence provided by the supporters of forgery theory is only a technical analysis of some photos and video materials, which does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Apollo program is a bluff.