One Small Step For A Man

I was born just three months after Alan Sheppard's 1961 sub-orbital Mercury flight, and six months before John Glenn's orbital flight in 1962.

Due to Cold War propaganda, I knew precious little about Yuri Gagarin, who became the first human to orbit the Earth a full three months before Sheppard's ballistic shot.  Nor was I aware of Alexei Leonov's historic EVA in 1965, until years later.

I was born with the Space Age and my life and hobbies have been intricately tied to this epoch in history.  I have fostered a life-long interest in astronomy and aerospace, studying the topics both independently and at university.  I can recite facts and figures about the Universe that would induce narcolepsy in most normal humans.

During the Apollo 11 mission, I absorbed every second of broadcast time, getting exhilarated every time I saw fellow Houstonian Walter Cronkite's visage appear on the fuzzy black-and-white cathode-ray tube, futzing with the rabbit ears to draw in the clearest possible picture of the events as they unfolded.  It was a very rare occasion that my strict parents let me stay up late, glued to the TeeVee (but not too close as it would ruin my eyes).

Perhaps it was my youthful naivete, or my willing suspension of disbelief, or my indoctrination into the Cult of American Greatness, or perhaps a bit of all three that led me to unquestioningly accept everything I saw.  It would be decades until I started critically examining the Moon landings.

Being an expert in optics, lighting, set construction, special effects, and film production in general, I take most of the photographic theories with a grain of salt.  I think Stanley Kubrick was far too careful to make simple mistakes (wink).  I do think a good number of the iconic Moon photos were staged, but that does not a priori rule out actual landings.

My suspicions are centered much more on the technology.  There are some serious and fact-based questions that have never been adequately addressed by NASA, nor satisfactorily answered by Apollogists (pun intended).

There are two issues in particular that have long puzzled me, and the NASA documentation is vague and dodgy.  There have never been any clear explanations for these two issues and some of the design data are still classified.  The first is how the astronauts' backpacks exchanged heat in a vacuum, and the other is the Aerozine 50 fuel used in the descent and ascent stages of the Landing Module (LM).

The first of these mysteries is the Primary Life Support System, or PLSS, which are the bulky backpacks worn by the moon-walking astronauts.  Among the many functions of a PLSS - radio, CO2 scrubbers, micro-meteor protection, insulation, humidity control, etc. - was the removal of internal and external heat and exchange it with the environment.

One may think this is a simple and straightforward process, and inside an atmosphere, one would be right.  We must recall, however, that the Moon has no atmosphere.  We are told repeatedly by NASA and other agencies that the surface is a perfect vacuum in which the entire Universe sucks on any object exposed to it.  While this presents a number of issues with the moonsuits and lander construction, we will focus on the heat exchange.

Anyone familiar with the function of a Thermos will instantly appreciate the problem of exchanging heat with a vacuum.  In a Thermos, an inner glass container is held in a vacuum enclosed by an outer container, which prevents heat from being lost to the surrounding environment.  Because there is no medium of transfer, i.e. air, to dissipate heat to the environment, hot liquids inside the Thermos retain heat.  Simple concept, but presents unique challenges for astronauts on the Moon.

Not only is the astronaut's body generating heat, which gets uncomfortable rather quickly if not vented, the astronaut would quick cook when exposed to direct sunlight on the Moon.  Any surface on the Moon reaches up to 250F in direct contact with sunlight on the Moon.  The moonsuits are not immune to this, even given the bright white reflective materials.  Inside, the astronaut is generating heat, both at rest and especially when working.

The solution was a form-fitting body stocking (LCVG) infused with tiny capillaries circulating cool water to a heat collector inside the backpack.  The heat exchangers then "vent" the heat into the vacuum by sublimation.  This presents a number of major issues.

The astronauts must carry to the Moon a large amount of water to be wasted by sublimating the waste water.  This process will take some time inside the PLSS endangering electronic systems, or it must be sprayed directly into the environment creating clouds of ice crystals and/or steam that can blind the astronauts' visors (among other problems).

Sublimation is the process of a solid converting directly to gas without a liquid state.  To watch sublimation at home, get a piece of dry ice and place it on the kitchen counter.  Note the time and watch how long it takes for the ice to sublimate.

It's a similar problem with water ice in the PLSS on the Moon.  For one thing, a large chunk of ice must be stored somewhere while it sublimates.  There's an additional problem in that water ice at temperatures below -200F is as hard as rock and apparently does not sublimate quickly, since Mars has large amounts of water all over the place, and a number of moons in the solar system are composed entirely of water ice.

If the water ice in the PLSS is not thrown away somehow, then it will melt (presumably) inside the PLSS and the LM, causing all sorts of issues with the electronics, not to mention a slip-and-fall hazard.  Since we never saw the astronauts helping each other get rid of ice balls in their packs, we must assume sublimation was not the means by which waste heat was expelled.

Since footage from the Moon never showed clouds of vapor spraying into the environment from the suits, and any collected inside the PLSSs would melt and cause problems inside the LM, we cannot fathom how the heat was exchanged with the environment.  After all, a vacuum is a critical component of a Thermos, which retains heat.  All of the available documentation either leads the reader in a circular argument, or waves the problems away with vague statements.

The second problem concerning the fuel for the descent and ascent stages of the LM is even bigger.  There is no dodging the issue with hand-waving and circular arguments.  The available documentation simply ignores this issue altogether.

The LM used a hypergolic binary fuel (self-oxydizing and ignites the moment to two liquids come in contact with each other) called Aerozine 50.  There are so many problems with this fuel that it is almost never used for human spaceflight.  In fact, the Apollo program is the only one I can find that used it for a manned mission.

Correction 27 July 2019 - Aerozine 50 was used on the Titan GLV rockets in the Gemini program that preceded Apollo.  A number of modifications were made to make it human-rated.  This fact, however, does not change the concerns and issues mentioned here.

Aerozine 50 combines a form of hydrazine with dinitrogentetroxide as an oxydizer to create a highly explosive fuel with a very high specific impulse.  An accident in 1980 punctured a hydrazine tank on an ICBM missile and the explosion lifted a 750-ton silo door right off, while launching the second stage and nuclear warhead out of the silo.

In addition, hydrazine freezes at 38F/2C, and the shade on the Moon is -250F.  None of the available specifications mention the ability to lower the freezing point to -250F.  Aerozine 50 is a special mixture that does lower the freezing point a bit, but certainly not anywhere near the temperatures found in space or on the Moon.

Hydrazine is highly caustic and will eat through many common materials, such as mylar sheeting, Kevlar spacesuits, etc.  The descent would have spewed vast amounts of highly caustic and poisonous exhaust  all over the landing sites.  This not only would have contaminated any rock and soil samples they collected making them scientifically useless, but would have been carried inside the LM, thus poisoning the astronauts and eating away at the electronics and air scrubbers if it didn't eat through the suits first.

While all of these issues are problematic, at best, the most obvious problem is that burning Aerozine 50 creates thick clouds of red smoke and bright flame, even in a vacuum (self-oxydizing).  In an airless environment like the Moon, this smoke would completely surround the landing sites and take a significant amount of time to dissipate.

To sum all this up, the Aerozine 50 fuel used to land and take off from the Moon placed two astronauts on top of highly caustic and explosive liquids that would have required very intricate heating systems to stay liquid.  The landing would have created a thick cloud of smoke that should have taken days or more to dissipate, leaving the astronauts blind visually and photographically.

Finally, the specific impulse of the Aerozine 50 means that the astronauts would have been pinned to the floor of the LM on launch (they were free-standing) for at least several seconds until acceleration peaked.

It should be noted that there is some discussion whether the ascent engine was powerful enough to lift the weight of the craft, men and samples.  These arguments are generally inconclusive because the weight data is not consistent or not complete, and in some cases, the specifications of the engine are in doubt.

The PLSS cooling system and Aerozine 50 fuel not only have a number of direct issues, there are dozens if not hundreds of ancillary and corollary problems introduced by these two things alone.

If we assume, as I do, that humans have indeed walked on the Moon, then we are faced with either or both of two possibilities: 1) the events did not occur as publicly acknowledged, and/or 2) technologies were employed that are not public knowledge.

These are just two of a number of glaring problems with the Apollo missions.  Other include the vacuum on the Moon and the construction of the LM and moonsuits, micro-meteor bombardment, weight of supplies and equipment versus the power of engine designs, and many more.

All of these issues are highlighted by the fact that humans have not (publicly) returned to the Moon in 50 years and apparently lack of engineering capability at NASA and other agencies to overcome the inherent problems of a return trip to the Moon.

While I have no desire to diminish the achievements of gutsy and talented individuals, there is some underlying reason why America has not be back to the Moon for 50 years, and why the Soviet Union (and later Russia) abruptly cancelled its plans after achieving nearly 90% of the tasks to get there.

History tells us that humans do not suddenly abandon or "lose" radical new technologies without compelling reasons.  It is not a "conspiracy theory" to question the existing facts.  Something has stopped humanity from following in those tentative first steps, at least openly.  Those of us who paid for those steps certainly deserve more than we have received.

One other solution presents itself: everything we have been told about the Moon's environment is false.
============================================================
Update 28 July 2019 (Anonymous Comment)
 With regard to IR radiation being the means by which heat is released into a vacuum, this is true HOWEVER:

The heated surfaces must be exposed to the vacuum in order for the heat to radiate away.  The astronauts and their PLSSs were highly insulated internally and externally.  Since they were not wearing mirrors, they were not perfect reflectors, therefore the amount of heat put into the system was over unity with the amount released through IR.

Diagrams of the PLSS show it being entirely enclosed, thus the IR would build up inside and damage critical circuits and machinery, thus killing the astronaut.  Furthermore, the sweat collected off the astronaut would have to be stored somehow, or released somehow.  There is no evidence of either solution being used.  AND the circulated cooling water would have to BE COOLED somehow, which comes right back to the heat release mechanism.  As I mentioned, the whole thing is a circular argument with dozens of corollary and ancillary issues.

No matter how you slice this problem, you always end up with more heat in the system than it can radiate away, especially considering all possible outlets for IR were insulted and unable to radiate heat away.

With regard to local time on the Moon, the Apollo missions were timed to land in the Moon's local morning, which may reduce heat problems, but increased cold problems.  No matter how you frame this argument, you end up with dead astronauts - whether by boiling or freezing.

As for thermal camera images, I have never found any from the Apollo landings, so difficult for either side to cite such things.  In any event, the IR reflected off of exposed surfaces would make the thermal images useless in this argument.

If water ice sublimates at extremely low temperatures, why aren't Europa, Callisto, Ganymede, Pluto, Charon, and other bodies composed of water ice not sublimating away - even in direct sunlight, and in some cases inside the highly radioactive magnetic field of Jupiter? After billions of years (theoretically), these primarily water ice bodies should be nothing but tiny balls of rock.  These moons and planets should be shrouded in steam as the surface ice sublimates.

Sublimation is sublimation, whether it's dry ice or water ice at 1,013.25 mbars and 25C, or more, or less.  That was the point, not whether or when CO2 exists as a liquid.

As for specific impulse, yes it is similar to octane ratings, but not exactly the same.  Regardless, if you are standing in the back of a pickup with nothing to hold on to and the driver floors the accelerator, does it really matter how much octane the fuel has when you fly out the back end and hit the tarmac?

Hypergolic fuel was ostensibly used because the engines are simple and reliable, but that does not address ANY of the other problems caused by using it.  One tiny pin-prick in the hydrazine tank - with micro-meteor threat and hypersonic dust particles accelerated by the exhaust - and there wouldn't be much left to collect in a bread box.  This is a huge amount of risk to take on a program that was so vital to US propaganda efforts.

Furthermore, this does not address the fact that the hydrazine would be frozen solid at -250F,thus useless as a propellant without a whole infrastructure to heat the tanks that would suck valuable battery life away from all the other critical systems.  Even if Aerozine 50's freezing point were magically lowered to -100F (which it wasn't), one is STILL 150F below that.  Again, a circular argument with no published sufficient remedies.

All of these issues get exponentially more problematic as surface times increase from hours to days in subsequent missions.  To put it as simply as possible, no amount of hand-waving and conditional language eliminates all of the problems.  Yes, they COULD have done a lot of things, but the available documentation is insufficient to answer the questions raised.

Selling A Bridge In Brooklyn

I am increasingly coming to the opinion that most of what we know about the Apollo Moon landings is a fraud.  This is not to say that I am convinced no one went to the Moon, only that the public spectacle was staged all or in part.

As soon as I was able to rationally take apart an argument, say around 12 or 13 years old, I began to question certain aspects of the Apollo landings.  There were things that didn't make sense, or were at least unclear, such as how the "moonsuits" exchanged heat in a vacuum.

I dismissed most of this as idle speculation.  Being a child of the 60s, I practically idolized astronauts and voraciously consumed every tidbit that escaped the NASA PR machine.  It was all so amazing and exciting.  Yet, it was the PR aspects and the amazement generated that eventually led me to question what I had seen even more deeply.

As I grew older, I developed a very healthy and abiding distrust of anything a government said or did.  There was the constant finger-pointing at Soviet media with the mantra that it was all propaganda.  If the Soviets could do it, I reasoned, so could the US.  Further study of Leni Riefenstahl's films for the Nazi regime

I came to the conclusion that all mass media was little more than cheerleading for whatever government it served.  When I read the theories of Edward Bernays, and the ability of media to influence behavior and beliefs, I began to see the mechanics of the media in action every time I sat in front of the TeeVee.

Once I began my career in media, I not only saw, but learned how to do it and made a decent living doing it.  However, the better I go at it, the less I consumed it, and finally, the more I questioned anything I had ever seen in the media.

And that, despite my early indoctrination - especially through the space program - led me to carefully research any and all assumptions I made, figuring a vast amount of my beliefs were pounded into my brain through the media.

Ultimately, I have been forced to give up one of my sacred cows: the belief that everything the public was told about the space program and the Moon landings was false from top to bottom.

I haven't given up my conclusion that someone went to the Moon, but the story and images we were fed in the public were primarily fabricated for mass consumption.  The strongest argument in favor of this view is simply that the US could not afford to fail because, 1) the amount of money spent had to be justified to the public with results, 2) the geopolitical war for hearts and minds against the Soviet Union had to be won, and 3) a strong cover story for the real space program had to be concocted .

The Apollo program consumed US$29.3 billion by 1972, when the program was cancelled.  That would be well over US$120 billion today.  Furthermore, the public goal of reaching the Moon by 1969, combined with the massive pressure to defeat the Soviets in the propaganda wars would have made a successful landing mandatory.  An accident would have delayed the program at least a year, as the Apollo 1 fire did, and a failure to meet the public goals would have meant Congressional hearings and investigations into where all that money went.

The Cold War was one of pure ideology.  A Soviet success, particularly the "first-evers", was a major defeat for the Capitalists.  If the Soviets were perceived to have a better system than the West by dint of their technological wizardry, it was seen as a defeat for the "free" world which obviously could not compete.  This was seen as dangerous for its ability to attract other nations into the Soviet sphere of influence.  This was unthinkable in the US weltanschauung.

In the end, though, the public space program was a necessary cover for the real space program.  Showing the public the "current" state-of-the-art in space travel made for plausible denial of the much more exciting, but highly secretive technology in use by the "dark" programs.

It is a fact publicly acknowledged that NASA operated two space programs.  On the one side were the "space planes" like the X-15 that were close to achieving orbit (if they hadn't already).  On the other hand, there was the rocket program that was less elegant and more brutish, but if everyone believed that was the only way to get "out there", then the US' enemies would put all their efforts into building their own rockets, rather than competing with simple and reusable planes.

The cover story aspect also explains why the public space programs of the world have not progressed beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) in the last 50 years.  Despite the fact that space technology was born practically overnight in historical terms, it has virtually stalled in the last half-century.  By convincing the public that rockets were the "only" answer to achieving orbit, no one would believe that more advanced and exotic propulsion existed, and would keep the world focused in the wrong direction while the real tech was developed.

Once we accept that three very powerful motivations existed to falsify the public record, then everything else becomes suspect.  Money, humiliation and ideological failure would make any government seriously consider falsifying huge events, since it is well established that swallowing huge lies is much easier than small ones, as we have clearly seen with the JFK assassination and the 9/11 attacks, which provide historical bookends to the Apollo program.

Having decided that the public spectacle of Apollo would have had to be faked, due to the tremendous pressures placed on it, then it is only a matter of analyzing the evidence, looking for the "seams" in the fabric.

The are many eloquent and detailed investigations out there that detail all the various evidence for fakery. Everything from the laws of physics to photographic retouching have been put forward.  The only response from NASA is either silence or a condescending snicker at the "absurdity" of such a thing.  However, neither of these responses is an answer, only a dismissal.

Certainly, the behavior of the 12 men who comprised the faces of the "Man on the Moon," is telling in its own right.  The public and private statements and actions from Gus Grissom and Neil Armstrong to Ed Mitchell and Pete Conrad do little to allay suspicions, and in some cases appear to purposely increase them.

As for NASA, they have done little but present some fuzzy orbital photos of the "landing" sites and have dared the world to set foot near those sites.  That sounds more like an agency covering something up, rather than celebrating a magnificent triumph.

If you still cling to the fantasy of NASA's Apollo program, then consider this: the RS-18 ascent rocket used on the return part of the lander produced 3,500 pound-feet of thrust using Aerozine-50 fuel with N2O4 oxidizer in a hypergolic reaction.  The engine had no throttle.  The astronauts stood at their stations with no support of any kind.

When that RS-18 rocket lit up, the astronauts would have been flattened against the floor for at least a few seconds during acceleration.    Furthermore, Aerozine-50 and N2O4 produce thick red clouds of exhaust when combined.  Watch any of the videos showing the LM launching from the Moon and listen to the audio, as well.  The astronauts are not flattened against the floor.  In fact, they don't even grunt trying to resist the force of acceleration.  Nor do the ascent videos show any sign of thick red smoke, or even exhaust of any kind.

I have very little doubt that people have been and continue to go to the Moon.  However, I find little convincing evidence that the Apollo program that the public was fed had anything to do with the events they purport to document.

Unraveling the Apollo Lie is the first step in trying to figure out what is really going on in space.  I imagine the answer is likely far more mind-blowing than most of us are ready to accept all at once.

The Rover of Destiny

History went through a major shift this last week.  No, none of the  various saviors showed up with angels in tow.  No, the ground didn't shake, unless you live in Texas next to fracking operations.  No, the skies didn't part and in fact comet ISON fizzled out.

There were, however, two major events that have changed global dynamics, though if you only watch main-line media (as in jacking heavy drugs), then the news was drowned out by B-movie stars dying and Obamacare hand-wringing.

The first Big Deal was China launching Chang-e 3.  In case you live under a rock, the Chang-e 3 is an orbiter/lander craft sent on its way to the Moon a couple of days ago.  By the time you read this, it should be entering a low orbit to begin a photo session with Diana (see Greek legend if that reference escapes you).  Later, around February, a rover will drop down to the surface and (likely) soft-land to do a little propecting for minerals and exotic isotopes that could fetch a pretty penny back here on terra firma.

Keep in mind that only the US and USSR has soft-landed on the Moon, and neither of them since the mid-70s.  In fact, you'd think the Moon had a "no trespassing' sign on it the way those two (former) nations have been avoiding it.  A landing will put China in a very exclusive club and the first new member in 40 years.

The other Big Deal is that the yuan passed up the euro on its way to becoming the new global currency.  I'm pretty happy about that, seeing as how I bought a truck-load of them years ago in anticipation of this moment.  What's really important though is that this is first natural (the euro is artificial) currency to challenge the US dollar.  It used to be the mark and franc were fairly desirable in their own right, but the euro tried to go head-to-head and died.  The yuan has risen up from the ranks to take the number 2 spot.

By the way, since you'll likely be doing business in yuan soon enough, the word 'yuan' simply means 'money'.  "Renmimbi" means 'the people's currency' and is the official name of the yuan.  Just so's ya know before you make a fool of yourself in front of your new Chinese bosses.

Back in the 70s, when Japan took a serious run at the title, folks in the US were singing "Take This Job And Shove It" while sporting "Made In America" bumper stickers.  Seems no one cares or has even noticed for that matter, now that China is buying up the world.  Guess those 'Merkans are too busy trying to log on to the Obamacare and food stamp websites.

Talk about a country getting its ass whipped.

That giant sloshimg sound (not Ross Perot's giant sucking sound) is global power and prestige cascading over the international date line on its way east.  Does America seriously think it can challenge China on behalf of Japan over some oil blocks in the South China Sea, when the 'enemy' owns about a third of the US national debt, property and equity?  That new sound you hear is me laughing hysterically thinking about the Chinese flipping the switch on all the electronic gear they built for the US military and shutting the whole thing down without a shot fired.

What will be really interesting is to see what China finds on the Moon.  That nothing has soft-landed there in four decades is a bit strange, considering it is the closest celestial pit stop and is supposedly packed with valuable rare-earth minerals and hydrogen-3 (used for fusion generators).  The Chinese certainly know it, since the Big Daddy of their space program has said as much in the last week.

More to the point, what will they find/not find with regards to the US Apollo program landing sites?  Will they discover the alien technology that the US has hidden for decades?  Will they find Kubrick's signature and Disney's brand?  Will they tell the rest of us, or just use it to keep the US in line?  And does this account for all the recent efforts to establish world parks, no-fly zones and other "keep away" signs around Apollo landing sites?

Stay tuned...this story is just beginning.  In the meantime, do you feel those historic shifts now?