The web has always been a gathering place for the biggest hoaxes we’ve ever heard, from chemtrails to the Flat Earth; one of the first prey of conspiracists to make waves on the web, however, and also one of the most important, concerns the now 50-year-old moon landing. Unfortunately, that’s right: 50 years after man’s first steps on the moon, people still find themselves screaming “To the Conspiracy.” We went to the Moon and we will tell you why.
The “small step for man” has not been well appreciated by humanity and for reasons that we could define as anti-scientific, with a side dish of repudiation of the most basic notions concerning the space aspect. The purpose of the article will be just that: to take the major protests found on the web and analyze them from a scientific, political and, why not, economic point of view. We went to the Moon and we will tell you why.
Why we are not back to the Moon?
Before asking why we didn’t return, let’s start talking about why we got there in the first place. At that time, the United States and the Soviet Union were playing a continuous game of power and supremacy, which is why the funds allocated to the “Space Race” were more than “justified”; for this concept, America, which before Apollo 11 had been outclassed in the space field by Russia, organized what were the only moonwalks of the time.
Having exhausted the vein of this “Race to the Moon”, America also decided to cut the funds for the space sector in a very conspicuous way. The reason we never went back, then, is this: too much money and not enough reason to go back, as well as being a big risk for the crew. With the evolution of our technology and, consequently, of our needs, this race to the Moon is becoming “fashionable” again, for the simple reason that the Moon could be useful as a sort of “Supply Station” for longer space travels (e.g. to Mars).
We went to the Moon and we will tell you why: the Van Allen Bands are impossible to cross!
Whenever you find yourself to discuss with a conspirator, you will hear often mentioned these Van Allen belts as if it was a sort of definitive proof of the false approach on the Moon; in detail, these belts are seen as an insurmountable obstacle both for the human body and for the space equipment.
Well, both considerations are wrong. Before explaining why, let’s expose what are these infamous Van Allen bands: the Earth’s magnetic field is able to deflect any charged particle, whose main source is the so-called “Solar Wind”, that enters in its range of influence. Because of the particular configuration of planetary magnetic field, there are areas, above equator, where charged particles tend to be trapped, that is why above the Earth’s equator there are areas, vaguely toroidal, where the density of charged particles is very high. They are called Van Allen bands.
Given these premises, the consequences of a crossing of these bands, for an exceptionally short time as that of the Apollo missions, are negligible for the human body; in particular, the crossing of these bands has the same consequences as an X-ray or 3 years of life on Earth.
As for the machines, the answer is even simpler: they are hard rad. Let us remember, moreover, that the ISS itself crosses them continuously when it flies over the South Atlantic, in the so called “South Atlantic Anomaly”, yet the instrumentations, as well as the astronauts, are all alive and well (some astronauts have been there for months and months and yet they enjoy excellent health).
The photos are blatantly false, it is impossible for them to withstand such high temperatures!
Another protest that you could make is: “How is it possible that the films have resisted such abnormal temperatures?”; a very informed conspiracist could also show off the variation of lunar temperature that oscillates between over 100 degrees in the part illuminated by the sun and below 100 for the part in the shade.
Well, the films are not ruined thanks to the “vacuum”, the same ally that you find in thermos flasks: between camera and film there is little transport of heat, because inside the camera there is a vacuum, just like in a thermos flask. Heat propagates by conduction only in the few points of contact between camera body and film; moreover, cameras were treated in such a way as to have reflective surfaces that, as such, rejected most of the heat received from the sun.
Regarding the temperature difference, it is necessary to remember that they refer to the ground, not to objects held by astronauts; to be more precise, they refer to the ground but after days and days of continuous exposure to the sun or shade, certainly not after a few hours. It is possible to prove this also by going to take some simple pictures in the desert, the principle is exactly the same.
What about the flag flying over the moon?
THE FLAG DOES NOT FLY. The flag moves only after receiving taps from the astronauts, and after moving for a while, it remains perfectly still. In whatever movie you find [2], if you pay close attention, you can see this for yourself. Even here on Earth we can wave a flag in the absence of air, we just have to give it a few small strokes.
We went to the Moon and we will tell you why: Stanley Kubrick
Knowing that this giant of American cinematography will turn in his grave, we must obligatorily mention him. So many plotters have not been able to avoid pointing out a kind of similarity between the “NASA Stage” and the film 2001: A Space Odyssey. Here, we will just refer to a characteristic of Kubrick: with the extreme attention he had towards details, how could he ever have made such gross errors for what should be the greatest staging ever made?
We went to the Moon and we will tell you why. So what?
We went to the Moon and we will tell you why. Although there is plenty of evidence and material to suggest that this was not a well-organized play, it will never be enough to get the truth into many people’s heads. The proof is to be found in the countless oppositions we find in the “moon landing” arena (these we reviewed were just the “most common criticisms”). Misinformation is rampant and gives voice to everyone, including journalists, so that they feel entitled to have their say, while presenting an obvious lack of knowledge related to this area. The “medicine” is always to get informed through official and reliable sources without falling into the trap of the web for sites of dubious rationality.
Why have we never returned to the Moon? Conclusions
This is a question we often ask ourselves and it was very much in vogue when we “celebrated” the first 50 years since the Moon landing; a legitimate question: despite our technological evolution, why haven’t we gone back to the Moon? If we succeeded 50 years ago, why not now? This is one of the objections you will face against a “moon landing conspiracy”, so read carefully. Before we ask why we didn’t return, let’s first give a nice definition of the historical context in which we found ourselves in 1969.
At that time, the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in an ongoing play for power and supremacy, which is why the funds allocated to the “Space Race” (“Space Race”) were more than “justified”; to this concept we also add another: America, prior to Apollo 11, had been literally outclassed on the space field by Russia, which had taken astronaut Gagarin into history, making him, in fact, the first man to ever go into Space.
Under this scenario, the United States responded by organizing what were the only moonwalks of the era, the Apollo Missions; when the war ended and the streak of this “Race to the Moon” was exhausted, America also decided to cut its funding for the space sector in a very conspicuous way.
Here it is, dear readers, as trivial as it may seem to you, in this paragraph is entirely contained the reason that stopped the trips to the Moon: too much money and little reason to go back, as well as representing a great risk for the crew.
Ok, so for 50 years we didn’t go back to the Moon. And now what?
Well, the evolution of our technology walks hand in hand with the needs of the human being; if you’ve noticed/if you’re a frequent visitor to space agency socials, this race to the Moon is coming back “in fashion” again. As the new favorite subject of future space exploration seems to be the planet Mars, the Moon is ideally placed to serve as the “Fueling Station” for longer space journeys. This provides the excuse to again have the funds needed to return to our Satellite.
For once, besides giving answers, we leave you with some questions:
Why everybody talks about NASA missions, but nobody dwells on the Soviet ones? Why didn’t Russia, owner of advanced spying systems, find out about this sham and denounce it to the whole world? Or, why didn’t Armstrong take any “decent” pictures, limiting himself to a single back picture, despite being the first man on the Moon? How did they recreate such believable effects, in the 60s, to simulate the absence of air? Many times you don’t need answers, you just need to ask the right questions.
