Man on the Moon - Real or Hoax - Essay Example

Man on the Moon: Real or Hoax Introduction In October 1957, the Soviet Union launched its first satellite- Sputnik- a shiny steel sphere with a diameter of 23 inches with four antennas. Though the functions it was capable of doing were in doubt, the project had very serious impact throughout the world, especially on US. Americans realized the fact that if Soviet was capable of launching a satellite, it would be capable of launching atom bombs in US. Thus, there arose the Space Race and the new avenue was to put a man on the moon. Thus, on July 20, 1969, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first people to walk on moon. However, along with this arose innumerous numbers of controversies regarding the legitimacy of the claim. Various theorists and scholars claimed that the entire plot was hoax, and a considerable proportion of people claimed that the whole chapter was genuine. Arguments against Apollo Programme On February 15, 2001, the FOX television network broadcasted the program named Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? The program provided considerable amount of evidence to show that NASA cheated the world by faking moon landings. In We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle, Bill Kaysing pointed out that it is irrational to believe that the landing on moon actually took place because according to estimates in late 1950s, the possibility of successfully landing on the moon was just 0.0017%, that is, approximately 1 in 60,000; and in fact, this estimate was done by the Rocketdyne Company that took into account the efficacy of technology that existed at that point of time (7-8). Another serious allegation comes from Ralph Rene, the author of NASA Mooned America. He points out that all American missions before Apollo 11 were detected to have multiple numbers of defects. The scholar points out that the earlier projects had so many technical errors that would have forced American to drop the idea of moon landings and to fake it instead (as cited in Eisen, 378). Similar is the allegation that the poor quality of the images of moon landings is a deliberate effort to prevent others from examining them. Still, the photos available were sufficient to initiate controversy. For example, the pictures presented the astronaut saluting the American flag, and unfortunately, the flag was waving as if in a wind. The point in consideration here is the fact that there is no air or wind on the moon. Yet another major allegation came that when a camera was fitted to the astronaut’s chest, how would this be possible to take such excellent photographs that require a lot of body movement. Also, there are issues regarding the shadows seen in the photographs. Though sun is the only source of light on the moon, one could see shadows in many different directions in the photographs provided by NASA. Moreover, in some photographs, the astronauts seem clearly lighted despite their position in shadows. Above all, there is the point that a normal film that is used for taking pictures would melt at the 250o temperatures of moon. Another serious allegation as put forward by Percy and Bennett who wrote Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle Blowers point out that in many Apollo photographs, one can see a darkening towards the horizon which should not take place as the environment is totally airless. Also, there are issues in the video showing Neil Armstrong descending the ladder and taking his initial steps on the surface. The video is evidently taken from below by someone who already descended the ladder. Another allegation is that the high intensity radiation from the sun would have killed the astronauts (31-35). Moreover, it is highly unwise to think that the computers of 1950s and 60s were capable of operations more complicated than usual kitchen works. Evidently, the computers of that time lacked the necessary computing powers that would be required to navigate a satellite towards the moon. Also, one can see the issue of absence of a blast crater despite the powerful engine of the Lunar Module. However, as things go ahead, the allegations become much serious in nature. For example, it is alleged that the fire that killed the Apollo 1 astronauts was the creation of American government in order to silence people like Gus Grissom who wanted to expose the reality. This allegation is further substantiated by the fact that Neil Armstrong does not give in to interviews. The only reason can be his need to hide something serious. In addition are the points that despite their better technologies and chances of sending man to moon, Russia did not think about it as they knew it was impossible. In addition, one has to see that despite the great success, NASA is no more ready to send more people to the moon so that more exploration takes place. Moon landing not hoax- arguments Those who defend the landing have a large number of grounds to counter the allegations. For example, the first point as put forward by Charlie Duke of the Apollo 16 mission is that “why would we fake it nine times, if we faked it?’ (Atkinson). Yes, that is a question that puzzles all those who question the programs authority. Evidently, it is only rational to think that the nation faked the landing once n the effort to surpass Russian might. However, it is rather irrational to think that the nation went on continuing the mission and made faked nine times. Admittedly, increasing the number of visits and increasing the amount of photographs and videos available, the fakers are increasing the chances of getting caught sooner or later (Yes, we did land on the moon). The second allegation that is answered by the NASA believers is that very limited numbers of people were involved so that the cheating remained a secret. Here, Dr. James Longuski of Aeronautics and Astronautic Engineering comes out with the revelation that the entire Apollo Project involved more than 400,000 people. Considering the sheer volume of people involved, it is clear that no amount of pressure can keep these entire people silent, that too, for this long a time. Here, one has to remember that even now, no one inside the project or a credible relative got ready to dispute the success of the program. Thus the claim that Gus Grissom and Neil Armstrong are silenced through threat goes astray. Another important point that goes against the hoax theory is the fact that the rock samples collected from the moon are never disputed for their authenticity. Innumerous studies have proved that these rock samples are very different from the ones seen on earth that means, the rock samples are genuinely terrestrial. In addition is the fact that there is no peer-reviewed article that disputes the source of the rock. In addition, the rock samples very closely resemble the samples collected by the Russians. Had there been any disputable difference, the Russians would have been the first to do so. Lastly, the rock samples age 600,000,000 more years than the oldest known rocks on earth (“The Great Moon Hoax”). Another point that is answered the uncountable numbers of questions regarding photos, reflections, light sources and shadows. Here, the answer is that the doubts raised are based on the principles of light on earth where there is an atmosphere to reflect and refract light. The ones who doubt the photos should understand the fact that when the Apollo program took place, the Lunar Module was covered in reflective paneling. This would have a major effect on the lighting and shadows in the photographs. In addition, as there is no atmosphere around moon, the way reflection and refraction worked would have been different. So, one cannot question the authority of the photographs and videos (Holt). Another point as put forward by this group of people is that even the Soviet Union could not dispute the achievement. Considering he great degree of animosity that existed between Soviet Union and US, it is rather irrational to believe that Soviet would not utilize the chance to open up the American hoax, if any. Considering the allegation that prior estimates predicted a very weak possibility of success for the mission (1 in 60,000), it is replied that in the 1960s, the Apollo Support Department of the General Electric Company conducted extensive research using computer simulations. Though a large number of simulations were conducted using various scenarios, the chances of success were never found less than 90%. To answer the allegation that the poor video quality was intended to stop people from examining the minute details, it is pointed out that in the program, television pictures to the earth were sent directly to earth using the Lunar Modules antenna and power supply. So, there was a restriction on the bandwidth that could be successfully transmitted. Thus, the program was limited to using a slow, black and white video camera. It could scan only 10 frames per second at 320 lines per frame. However, according to the television standards, it required 30 frames per second at 525lines per frame. Thus, the pictures from moon were displayed on a black and white monitor, and again scanned at the required rate. So, there are the large numbers of ghostly effects. However, later missions from Apollo 12 had better dish antennas. This allowed the astronauts to increase bandwidth and thus provided better quality color TV pictures. In order to answer the allegation that the photos are al perfectly composed and focused as if not taken by the astronauts who did not have a viewfinder or light meter with them, it is claimed that the critics are commenting only about the photos that were released by NASA for public view. It is baseless to believe that NASA would release the pictures of blunders that are of little value. In addition, NASA has done cropping of photos. This is evident from the fact that all photos do not have crosshairs of the same number and size. Two things become evident from this finding. Firstly, astronauts have done a wonderful job by taking good quality pictures, and secondly, NASA has done a good job by making the photos appropriate for public presentation. In addition, it is pointed out that for the astronauts, it was rather impossible to get their eyes dark-adjusted to see stars in the sky because of the brighter moon surface. The situation can be compared to trying to s stars in the sky when someone shines a flashlight into eyes. Thus, the allegation that the astronauts must see starlit sky above is broken. Conclusion In total, it becomes evident that the allegations against the moon landing of man are, to some extent, successfully met by those who love to believe in the achievement. So, the society will have to wait until more powerful satellites go very near to the surface of moon and take such photographs that clearly show the remnants of the Apollo mission. Until then, both the sides are free to hold on to their own assumptions. Works Cited Atkinson, Nancy. In their own words: Apollo astronauts say “we went to the moon”. Universe Today, 7 November 2008. Web 8 Dec 2011 Eisen, Jonathan. Suppressed Inventions & Other Discoveries. NY: Berkley Publishing Group, 1999. Print. “The Great Moon Hoax”. NASA SCIENCE. Web 8 Dec 2011 Holt, Richard. “Apollo 11 moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked”. The Telegraph, 15 July 2009. Web 8 Dec 20118 December 2011 Kaysing, Bill and Reid, Randy. We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle. Health Research Books, 1997. Print. Percy, David and Bennett, Mary. Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle Blowers. Adventures Unlimited Press, 2001. Print. “Yes, we did land on the moon”. Web 8 Dec 2011 Read More