Table Of Contentwww.manonmoon.ru
Unknown Title
40-51 minutes
Introduction
Death and damnation awaited the loser
(Pages from the history of space rivalry)
Russia is advancing
Ill.1.
The �rst satellite of the Earth (USSR, 1957)
The �rst astronaut of the Earth
(USSR, 1961)
On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched the world's �rst arti�cial Earth
satellite and thus opened the space era in the history of mankind (Fig. 1). The
Americans took this event hard.
“The �rst Soviet satellite shocked millions of Americans to their foundations,
as it for the �rst time questioned their con�dence in the complete superiority of
the United States. The technical victory of Soviet scientists led the United States
one)
to a political defeat, ” recalled one of the editors of the New York Times.
"A country that is leading in space will be judged as the most
technologically advanced, with the best education and the best impact of the
political and economic system as a whole ," wrote the New York Herald Tribune.
"We unreservedly condemn President Eisenhower for his inability to use the
enormous technical capabilities of the country, as a result of which the Soviet
Union was able to launch its satellite before the United States," ex-President
Truman shouted, glasses flashing. "
"The satellite revealed the psychological vulnerability of our ideas," admitted
the then US President D. Eisenhower.
"The dogma of the technical superiority of the United States has collapsed, "
wrote the French "Pari-Match" [1].
On April 12, 1961, the historic flight of Yuri Gagarin took place (Fig. 1). In the
Soviet Union, a new victory in space caused a huge patriotic upsurge (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. The joy of Russia
a) employees of the Moscow telegraph were among the �rst to learn about
Gagarin's flight, b) a demonstration in honor of a new victory in space, c) a boy
with a leaflet about Gagarin
1) Quotes from other sources are in small print. Highlights in citations where it is
not speci�ed are made by the author of the book. Reference numbers to sources
are indicated in square brackets (for example, [1]).
The Americans were very worried about this new blow to their prestige,
because they did not hide the fact that they saw themselves as a world leader.
"From the point of view of propaganda, the �rst man in space is worth perhaps
more than 100 divisions or a dozen ready to take off at the �rst order of
intercontinental missiles ... Representatives of the State Department fear the
international consequences of Gagarin's flight," wrote the New York Herald
Tribune and Wall Street journal " [1] .
In one of his campaign speeches, Senator DF Kennedy, who soon became
President of the United States, said: “The peoples of the world have witnessed
that the Soviet Union was the �rst to enter space. Its satellites were the �rst to fly
around the moon and around the sun. They concluded that the Soviet Union was
going uphill, and we were marking time. I believe that it is time for us to change
this opinion " [1] .
America's counteroffensive
Fig. 3. John F. Kennedy, President of the United States (1961-1963). On May 25,
1961, he announced that the Americans would be the �rst on the moon.
Traditionally, only once a year (usually in January) the President addresses the
Congress with a message "On the State of the Country", that is, with a political
report and a program of future actions. But on May 25, 1961, shortly after
Gagarin's flight, President Kennedy broke this tradition and delivered a second
message "On the State of the Country" and announced that the United States
would land a man on the moon by the end of the 60s (Fig. 3).
If we want to win the battle that has unfolded around the world between
the two systems, if we want to win the battle for the minds of people, then ...
we cannot afford to allow the Soviet Union to occupy a leading position in
space ” [1] .
A year later, in September 1962, speaking at the Rice University stadium ,
Kennedy, in particular, said: "We vowed that we would not have to see an enemy
conquest flag on the moon, [there will be] a banner of freedom and peace" [2] . As
you can see, the terminology is almost military.
The lunar race has begun - a �erce rivalry between the USA and the USSR to be
the �rst to send a man to the moon. Both sides attached great importance to
achieving victory in this competition “... The rivalry for the moon was a kind of war.
“The loser will face death and damnation,” wrote the New York Times at the time.
It was a struggle between two systems of power, in which the Americans had to
win. By any means [3] ".
The USSR failed to send a man to the Moon, and the USA in 1969-1972
reported six times about the landing of its astronauts on the Moon [4, 5].
Briefs from NASA Moon Missions
To win the lunar race, the Americans carried out a special program called
"Apollo". It cost of 20-25 billion dollars (from different sources) and performed
under supervision of NASA. ( N ational A eronautics and S pace A dministration -
NASA - Authority Aeronautics and Space) . Below, instead of the name "Apollo",
the abbreviation "A" is often used.
According to NASA, the giant Saturn-5 rocket launched a spacecraft with a total
mass of 45 tons and a crew of 3 people into orbit around the Moon (Fig. 4). Then
the lunar module ( 1,2 ) with two astronauts separated from the spacecraft and
landed on the moon . The command and service module (KSM) with one astronaut
on board ( 3,4 ) [6,7,8] remained in orbit . After staying on the Moon, the
astronauts in take-off stage 2 returned to the circumlunar orbit, transferred to the
KSM and returned to Earth in it.
Fig. 4. a) Saturn-5 rocket takes off against the background of the NASA emblem;
b) a diagram of the Apollo spacecraft assembled with a lunar module
According to NASA, A-11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Baz Aldrin were the
�rst to land on the moon (Figure 5). They placed scienti�c instruments (5a) near
the lunar module, set up a flag (5b), captured the prints of their shoes in the lunar
dust (5c) and left a commemorative pennant (5d).
Fig. 5. Through the pages of the magazine " Life " (August 1969)
In 47 countries of the world, television broadcasts about the �rst landing on
the moon (July 1969, A-11, ill. 6a, b). Magazines (Fig. 6 c, d) were published in
special issues, including the frequently cited special issues of the American
illustrated magazines “ Life ” [7] and “ A Look ” [8] .
Fig. 6. a) an astronaut descends on the lunar surface, b) South Koreans watch the
landing from a large screen, c, d) special issues of American magazines, August
1969
In the homeland of the �rst conquerors of the moon, a solemn meeting awaited
(Fig. 7).
Fig. 7. This is how the Apollo 11 crew was welcomed
in the USA
After the A-11 flight, according to NASA, astronauts landed on the moon �ve more
times. Here is a general background on Apollo manned flights [1,4-8] :
A-7 . October 11-21.1968. The �rst manned flight of the Apollo spacecraft in near-
earth orbit. The rocket "Saturn-1B" was used, subsequent ships were launched
into orbit with the rocket "Saturn-5".
A-8 , December 21-27. 1968. First manned flight around the Moon.
A-9 , March 3-13.1969. The �rst manned flight in the lunar module in near-earth
orbit.
A-10 , May 18-26.1969. The �rst manned flight in the lunar module around the
Moon.
A-11 , July 16-24.1969. First landing on the moon. Stay on the Moon - 21 hours /
of which - 2.5 hours outside the module. 20 kg of lunar soil have been delivered to
Earth.
A-12 , November 14-24.1969. Second landing. 31 hours / 7.5 hours, 34 kg of soil.
A-13 , April 11-17. 1970. Ship accident. There was no disembarkation. The
astronauts returned safely.
A-14 , January 31- February 9.1971. Third landing. 33 hours / 9 hours, 42 kg of
soil.
A-15 , July 26 - August 7.1971. Fourth landing. 67 hours / 10.5 hours, 76.7 kg of
soil.
A-16 , April 16-27.1972. Fifth landing. 71 hours / 20 hours, 95 kg of soil.
A-17 , December 7-19.1972. Sixth landing. 75 hours / 22 hours, 110.4 kg of soil.
According to NASA, the astronauts of the six expeditions took photographs,
�lms, and telecasts on the Moon and collected soil samples with a total mass of
378 kg. At the landing sites A-11, A-14 and A-15, they left laser reflectors. In
addition, they left a number of electronic devices on the moon, which transmitted
information even after the astronauts had departed. Overall, the US triumph was
complete.
However, over time, some people began to have doubts about the reliability of
these messages. There were contradictions in NASA's "lunar" information. Other
questions arose as well. For example, why don't Americans go to the moon
anymore? The �rst satellite was followed by thousands, the �rst cosmonaut by
hundreds, and the flights to the Moon - nothing! Why is the super-powerful Saturn-
5 rocket not used, which disappeared almost immediately after the Apollo flights?
Why are hundreds of kilograms of lunar soil, which the astronauts allegedly
brought, have been allegedly stored in NASA's secret storage for almost 40 years,
and scientists are given grams?
Skeptics and defenders
In the media and on the Internet, a
controversy unfolded between skeptics who doubt the authenticity of the
conquest of the moon, and defenders who claim - "were!" [9-12] .
Of the many works of skeptics, the book by Yu.I. Mukhina "Anti-Apollo" [10] .
Fig. 8. The most representative monographs of skeptics (a) and defenders (b, c)
The journalistic direction of "protection" is most fully represented by the book
by Y. Golovanov "The Truth About the" Apollo " Program" [1] . As Academician B.E.
Chertok writes [11] , "From the authors of the most objective works of the literary-
memoir genre, I consider it necessary to single out ... Yaroslav Golovanov - an
engineer who has become a professional journalist and writer closest to the circles
of the rocket and space community." According to Y. Golovanov, the book was
basically written in 1976, following the fresh trail of events, which gives it special
value.
The technical direction of the "defense" is best reflected by the review article by
V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov, published several years ago on the Internet, "Did
the Americans fly to the moon?" [12] (as of 29.04.2003, when printing - 92 s).
About the rules of discussion of the topic
Let's discuss the rules that are reasonable to follow when discussing
information about flights to the moon.
The author himself defends his achievements
Dock
It is the sole responsibility of the author to prove the credibility of any
achievement. Therefore, the statement "the Americans were on the moon" must
be defended by the Americans themselves. N o one is obliged to prove that the
Americans on the moon were not.
This idea is very lucidly stated in the speech of Academician of the RAS V.E.
Zakharov. "There is a difference between the function of a judge and the function
of a scientist: the principle of the presumption of innocence works for court cases,"
while a scientist must be suspicious and distrustful. When receiving a project for
examination, a scientist must assume in advance that it contains errors, and
approve it only after careful and comprehensive veri�cation. Otherwise, our very
existence loses its meaning. " (
http://www.polit.ru/science/2009/12/22/zakharov_vasilyev_print.html )
This order permeates our entire practical life. Try to tell your friends that you
recently set a world barbell record. They will immediately either let you down to
the bar, if there is one nearby, or they will ask you to name authoritative witnesses,
moreover, not from among your close friends. And you will look strange if you
demand: "And you prove that I could not squeeze out such weight!" Unfortunately,
we often hear the "defenders" of NASA say: "And you prove that the Americans
were not on the moon!" Thus, the accepted order is turned upside down.
No statute of limitations
Well, what if the defense went off brilliantly, and over time doubts arose? The
rule of "statute of limitations" does not apply in science. For more than 2000
years, scientists, following Ptolemy, believed that the Sun revolved around the
Earth. It was only 2000 years later that the accumulated errors in these
theoretical predictions, as well as some other facts, prompted Copernicus to
“deprive” the Earth of its central place.
In addition to sincere delusions, the history of progress is full
of examples of hoaxes that were not immediately exposed. And the Americans
have the corresponding "experience" [13-16]. At the beginning of the twentieth
century, the world was captured by the race to conquer the poles of the Earth.
Especially the North Pole was not "given". And on April 6, 1909, the American R.
Peary (Fig. 9) reported that he had reached the North Pole. At the same time, 240
km to the Pole, he sent back Captain R. Bartlett, the only person on the expedition
who, apart from Peary himself, was able to determine geographic coordinates. So
there was no one quali�ed to con�rm the achievement.
Fig. 9. Doubtful "conqueror" of the North Pole - American
R. Piri.
And, nevertheless, the American press made a lot of noise about this Peary
victory. Her efforts were not in vain: until now, in many publications it is the
American R. Peary who is mentioned as the �rst person to reach the North Pole.
Nevertheless, careful researchers soon established that Piri actually overwintered
in the north of Greenland. Later, the camp in which Piri was hiding was also found.
And 70 years later, in the late 80s, when, according to Peary's will, his archives
were opened, it was once again con�rmed that he had not reached the Pole.
From these two examples, we see that there is no statute of limitations for
renewed doubts about the reliability of a discovery or achievement.
Let's follow the example of the boy from the fairy tale of the naked king
Very often in discussions one can hear the following reasoning: “NASA (this
and that) did it, but didn’t show it”, “Our people followed everything, but it is kept
secret”, “They were on the Moon, but �lms about it were made on Earth ", etc. The
author treats such arguments in the same way as the hero of the famous fairy tale
by H. Andersen. Seeing His Majesty naked, the boy did not listen to the words
about the exceptionally thin fabric of the king's new dress, but said that the king
was naked. And he was right.
The author of the book invites the reader to follow the same logic with him:
if NASA didn’t show something, then it didn’t do it,
if the mysterious "ours", who allegedly followed everything, have not yet
appeared, then it means they have not followed ",
if �lms about astronauts walking on the Moon were �lmed on Earth, then it
means that they walked on Earth, and so on.
The author leads the discussion and draws conclusions only on the basis of the
available speci�c, published and not anonymous information. Information from
letters and oral communications was also taken into account, but with the
obligatory indication of the identity of the witness and information con�rming his
authority in the issue at stake.
Do not shy away from the topic under discussion
Quite often, when discussing the Apollo flights, questions are raised such as
what prevented the Russians from flying to the moon, whether space exploration
in the USSR was carried out correctly, whether Gagarin flew, etc. Distraction on
such topics, no matter how interesting they are, leads away from the answer to the
question under discussion: "Were the Americans on the moon?" Therefore, other
issues are better discussed in other books.
Having clari�ed the rules of the discussion, let's �nd out what can serve as
evidence of the landing of astronauts on the moon?
What can serve as evidence of the landing of astronauts on the moon?
Usually defenders give the following list of evidence of the landing of people on
the moon:
1) laser reflectors and electronic devices delivered to the moon;
2) recordings of radio communications between astronauts and the Earth;
3) lunar soil delivered by astronauts to Earth;
4) illustrative materials - �lms, television, and photographs from the Moon.
