Did Americans and Russians fly to the Moon, or were so-called "Moon flights" faked?
By Der Voron, author of book "Unidentified Flying Objects: Starcraft"
It may be that both Americans and Russians never flew to the Moon. Because of a very simple thing:
Take-off after landing on the Moon (to return to the Earth)
To take off, the spacecraft, both modern and of those times (60-70s), needs a carrier rocket weighing many tons, yet more tons of fuel for it, and a powerful space-vehicle launching site.
How to take all this with a spacecraft to be able to take off from the Moon after landing on it? The mid-rank carrier rocket Ariane-5, for example, weighs 750 tons (the rocket itself and the fuel), and the "lite" carrier rocket Dnepr-1 (created basing on the strategic intercontinental ballistic missile SS-18 Satan) weighs 211 tons. They develop the power of about 10-20mn KWt. We certainly can take in account that a rocket able to launch a spacecraft from the Moon should have the power of about 36 times less than here on the Earth -- as the Moon gravity is 6 times smaller and as thrust needed will decrease 36 times if antigravity force is 6 times less, but even in this case the rocket would weigh about 750/36, i.e. about 21 tons minimum (the rocket and the fuel), plus the weight of details for deploying a temporary launching site. Even if the weight of these details equals to the minimum possible weight of about 50 tons, then the spacecraft should be able to take with itself a minimum weight of ~70 tons. No such spacecraft were developed before the flight to the Moon, none even close to that; today's most powerful spacecraft's weight carrying capabilities couldn't approach even the numbers thrice smaller than this (for example, one of the most modern Russian carrier rockets, Titan-4, which is approximately equal to Space Shuttle carrier rocket by its parameters, is able to carry only about 17.5 tons of weight; Ariane-5 is able to carry up to 10 tons, Dnepr-1 less than 4 tons).
Parameters of carrier rocket Ariane-5 are provided above only as an example, this rocket is not able to launch spacecraft into outer space. For this we need a rocket like Russian Energia or Space Shuttle carrier rocket, or even more powerful. Energia weighs about 2,400 tons, and 2,000/36 is about 67 tons; Space Shuttle carrier rocket weighs about 2000 tons, and 2,000/36 is about 55 tons. It is not possible to deliver such a load to space even in our times... But if even we assume that the mass of this rocket -- needed to launch the craft from the Moon -- is 750/36 (mid-rank Ariane-5's mass divided by 36), then its weight is still over 20 tons, plus details for deploying launching site on the Moon, altogether about 70 tons. If even details for lunar launching site weigh zero tons, then we still need to deliver the carrier rocket to the Moon. Such a weight could not be delivered into outer space (into the space closer to the Moon) in those times, there were no Energia or Space Shuttle rockets then, and I think there are no such rockets even now... Else why does NASA not fly to the Moon now, when they have much more advanced rockets? Why don't they fly to the Moon at least once in 10 years? We don't mean today's Russia, they lack money even for Buran (spacecraft analogous to Space Shuttle)...
The official story of American flights to the Moon -- about Russian flights see below -- says that larger command module rocket "Columbia" remained in lunar orbit while the lunar module "Eagle" separated and descended with firing retro rockets to the lunar surface. The astronauts exited "Eagle" to take pictures and recover lunar material from the surface. They then returned to the lunar lander module to return back to the "Columbia" command module. The "Columbia" broke out of lunar orbit to go back to Earth and splash down with parachutes.
"Eagle" reportedly weighed about 16 tons, and its ascent stage about 6 tons. To launch a satellite of such a mass, at least Ariane-5 class rocket is needed (see the rockets' parameters above), and Ariane-5 will deliver it only to the space near the Earth, not the outer space and not moreover the space near the Moon. This can be done only using Energia-class rockets. Before launching "Eagle" from the Moon the rocket able to deliver the "Eagle" from the Moon to the Earth, i.e. to the space close to the Earth -- here we have to swap the places of Moon and Earth -- itself needs to be delivered to the Moon in the spacecraft. Such a rocket, as calculated above, would weigh no less than 20 tons (Ariane-5's mass/36). See above about delivering capacities even of modern spacecraft. Plus launching spacecraft, even of this mass -- 6 tons, like Eagle's ascent stage -- requires deploying a launching site so the weight of this site cannot be considered as "zero". How was it deployed on the Moon?
If even we suppose that several carrier rockets like "Columbia" could deliver all this to the Moon in several lunar modules "Eagles" (seems this should have been a very hard task for such modules to land on the Moon since the Moon has no atmosphere, which diminishes the speed of similar modules when these land on the Earth), then how was for example the Lunar launching site deployed? On-site by astronauts in spacesuits? And why was all this praiseworthy process, or at least its part, not shown on the photos or on the videos? Where are photographs of such a praiseworthy achievement like Lunar launching site? And if somehow no launching site construction was still required to take off from the Moon, why are there no photographs or videos of the spacecraft taking off from it? Wasn't it impossible to take photograph/videos of the spacecraft taking off from the Moon, from "Columbia" rocket? If this was a hard technical task in those times, then why weren't at least preparations for this takeoff photoed or videoed, by astronauts on-site? Did the NASA astronauts return to "Columbia", "which remained in lunar orbit", using the rope that was hanging out of it? And where are Russian photographs and videos dedicated to their "Lunar takeoff" preparations?
The NASA photo below, with its absolutely impossible (for the lunar landscape) shadows -- like if they were made with the use of different projectors shining at different angles -- can be an additional proof of all told above. Maybe NASA, let's say, "feels ashamed" for the mystification, and therefore provided such photos as hidden hints? Or, more probably, did they provide contradictory materials to entangle all this more and more?
NASA photos, with their absolutely impossible (for the lunar landscape) shadows -- like if they were made with the use of different projectors shining at different angles -- can be an additional proof of all told above. Maybe NASA, let's say, "feels ashamed" for the mystification, and therefore provided such photos as hidden hints? Or, more probably, did they provide contradictory materials to entangle all this more and more?
Or maybe NASA astronauts still visited the Moon and videoed/photoed all what is claimed to be lunar videos and photos, but these got of such a poor quality due to some details of lunar atmosphere and climate that NASA decided to order new "better looking" videos/photos to Hollywood? Then we understand why there are such errors in them.
We think Russians, shocked by such a "challenge" from NASA, in turn invented their own "success story" about "flying to the Moon" and "taking samples of lunar rocks" by their "unmanned" "Lunohods"...