 I first thought that the crater shown by NASA had been caused by the ascent module jettisoned after it returned to the command module; it's true that I didn't attentively read the description of the crash, but, for me, it was the only thing which might have crashed on the moon. |
 Normally a deorbit command should have been sent to the lunar module, but, because of the loss of control of the lunar module, this deorbit command could not be sent, and the lunar module orbited for a long time before finally crashing, a time evaluated to one year by NASA. During this time, the lunar module made more than 4000 revolutions around the moon. |
 The lunar module of Apollo 16 got closer and closer to the moon along a very progressive spiral. While it kept a horizontal speed of 6000 km/h, it got closer to the moon at a very low speed, averagely 12.5 meters per hour. It means that, when the lunar module finally hit the moon, its trajectory was almost perfectly horizontal. |
Consequently, if the lunar module arrived horizontally on the moon, there is no way that it could have created this crater, which could only come from an almost vertical impact, but certainly not from a lunar module arriving horizontally. Instead, it should have scraped the surface of the moon, and left a long trail. But, in fact, it appears that I was wrong, that this crater was not caused by the lunar module, but by the S-IVB stage of the Saturn rocket instead. |
 The S-IVB stage is the last stage of the Saturn rocket, the one containing the command module and the lunar module. |
 After the separation of the last stage of the saturn rocket, the top of the S-IVB stage would have opened, the command module would then have exited from it, and made a flip-over maneuver to dock to the lunar module and also extract it from the S-IVB stage. The Apollo believers believe that it would then have used its last reserve of fuel to direct itself toward the moon so that it would crash on it. |
And the S-IVB stage would then have crashed vertically on the moon, so that my argument of direction of the crash would become invalid. The Apollo believers gloat, they think they have owned me. |
Now, what does the technical manual of the Saturn rocket say (in page 6-4)? It says this: "The APS yaw and pitch control modes are deenergized (roll control mode remains active) during the second burn; following the second burn, the transportation and docking maneuver and final separation of the spacecraft from the launch vehicle are accomplished. The S-IVB stage is then placed into solar orbit by dumping residual propellants through the engine." |
 Even supposing that the S-IVB manages to place ifself on a solar orbit, once it is on it, it can change neither its trajectory, nor its speed which is the natural solar orbital speed. If the S-IVB is a little closer to the sun, it will orbit the sun a little faster than the earth, so it will cross the lunar orbit at a given moment. But there is a practically nonexistent chance that the moon will be on its trajectory when it crosses the orbit of the moon. And the S-IVB cannot change its trajectory to go meet the moon, it follows its natural solar orbit and cannot go out of it. |
 But it is not the only problem, there is more. In order to make the maneuver to place itself on a solar orbit, the S-IVB needs to a have full tridimensional control of its attitude. |
 But the technical manual of the Saturn rocket says that the S-IVB has no more the control of the yaw and the pitch, it only has the control of the roll (rotation around its lengthwise axis), and, with only the control of the roll, the S-IVB is incapable to make the maneuver to place itself on a solar orbit. He can use its last reserve of propellant to increase its speed, but, with only the control of the roll, all it will manage to do will be to place itself on a farther orbit of the earth. It still has less chance to crash on the moon. |
 Now an Apollo believer has pointed out that what I had described was only standing for the Apollo 11 mission, and that, for the next missions (from Apollo 13), the S-IVB would have been managed differently. It would have been guided to crash on the moon; thus my argument would not stand. |
 But the mission report of Apollo 16 states this: "However tracking was lost at about 29 hours and this prevented an accurate determination of the impact point and time." It took more than 3 days for the S-IVB to reach the moon; it means that, when the tracking of the S-IVB was lost, it had not covered half the way to the moon yet (less than 40%); after the ground had lost the tracking of the S-IVB, the S-IVB could only guide itself by using its inertial platform. If the S-IVB had just directed itself toward the direction that the moon would be when it would reach it, then: - It should have been able to determine the position of the moon at the moment it would reach it with an extreme precision. - It should have known the exact time it would need to reach it. - And it should be able to direct itself toward the impact point with the required precision. The impact point of the S-IVB would have been only at 30 kilometers from the planned impact point. From the earth this distance is seen under an angle of only 0.004 degrees. It is physically impossible that the S-IVB could be oriented with a such precision, and then constantly fly under this orientation till the crash. |
 The procedure to send a missile on a moving target is never done this way, it is always done by making a continuous correction toward the target (first by using an inertial platform, then by following the target with the radar when the acquisition is possible). It is never done simply by just pointing the missile toward the expected contact point, because it is very imprecise, and has practically no chance to work. |
 If it was really efficient to hit a moving target just by aiming the hitting object toward the expected contact point, then the german planes would not have made such destruction in England during the battle of England, and the english and american planes would not either have razed german towns at the end of WWII; the fire of the DCA was rarely hitting an enemy plane; if it was hitting one, it was only after having fired many shots; the probability that a single shot would hit an enemy plane was extremely low. |
After the tracking of the S-IVB was lost, it only could use its inertial system to guide itself, but, with the gyroscope drift, it was unsufficient to reach the required precision. It only had radars transponders allowing the ground to track it, but it didn't have a radar allowing to track the moon. |
 In fact, the flight manual of the Saturn rocket of Apollo 16 says that it is the wrong way which was used to send the S-IVB to the moon: The S-IVB was oriented toward the expected impact point, and was given the corresponding speed, and then the guidance was cut (the computer was turned off), it was not following the moon by continuous guidance. In that case the flight direction of the S-IVB must exactly match the speed which is given to it (with the engine's thrust): The faster the S-IVB moves and the less the moon will move during the travel, and conversely the slower the S-IVB moves, and the more the moon will move during the travel; in short the position of the moon on its orbit at the moment of the impact depends on the speed of the S-IVB, and thus determines the flight direction of the S-IVB. The travel of the S-IVB was more than three days long, which means that, meanwhile, the moon travelled more than a tenth of its orbit (and the orbit of the moon is around 2.4 million kilometers long; in one hour the moon travels a distance greater than its diameter). |
 If the S-IVB's flight direction does not exactly correspond with the S-IVB's speed, the S-IVB will miss the moon, or will strike it at a place very different from the expected one. The hint is in the way the S-IVB of Apollo 16 managed things: First it took the initial fixed attitude allowing it to hit the moon at the expected impact point with the speed which was given to it. Then it made a first burn, but this burn was unsymmetrical, because of an APS problem, which means that it did not exactly push along the lengthwise axis of the S-IVB. So, before the second burn, there was an attitude correction. But they could not perform the second burn, because of a leakage problem. The second burn was representing an increase of velocity of a little less than the tenth of the total velocity. |
 This schema (exagerrated of course) helps understanding the problem. If the last burn is applied, the velocity of the S-IVB will be a little greater than if it is not, so the travel of the S-IVB to the moon will be faster, so the moon will have less time to move, and the impact point will thus be before the case that the last burn is not applied. The difference of direction represents an angle of around 3 degrees. That means that the flight direction should be modified to turn along the direction indicated with the green arrow, which represents a positive yaw. Instead of that, while the yaw was positive in all the previous steps of velocity increase (if we compute the average yaw on the three previous steps, we find approximately 19°), the yaw in the last burn was negative (set to -30°); so that makes a difference of yaw more than 40° in the direction of the red arrow; but as the increase of velocity provided by the last burn was representing a little less than the tenth of the total velocity, this difference of yaw has to be divided by a factor of a little more than 10, and that represents in fact a variation of the yaw of the order of 3° (a little more). As this variation of the flight direction is not applied in the same direction as the variation of the position of the moon at the moment of the impact, that means that it adds to the difference with the direction of the moon at the moment of the impact instead of subtracting. |
So, if we suppose that the S-IVB would have struck the moon if the last burn had been normally applied... |
...There would be a difference of an angle of more than 6° between the impact point obtained with the application of the last burn and the point met at the level of the lunar surface without the application of the last burn...and the moon is seen under a half degree from the earth; so the "impact point" obtained with the non application of the last burn is several moons away from the expected impact point! In other words, according to what is described in the flight manual of the Saturn rocket, if the last burn is not applied, and that the last burn would have allowed it to hit the moon, the S-IVB will largely miss the moon. Anyway, when we look at the tables of the operations of velocity increase, there is always a difference of several degrees between the attitude angles computed by the engineers and the actual angles of the S-IVB; so, it does not make any difference whether the last burn is applied or not, the S-IVB will miss the moon anyway. |
 So, Apollo 16 is still containing a hint. |
 Anyway, the fact that the impacts of the S-IVB of the other missions would have been very precise is not credible. From the earth, a distance of 1 km on the moon is seen under an angle of 0.00015°. This means that, in order to reach this impacting precision, the flight direction of the S-IVB should have been adjusted with this precision. It is illusory to think that the S-IVB had the capacity to orient itself with a such precision. The only way that the S-IVB could eventually have reached a good precision would have been to guide it till the impact point. All the so-called impact points of the S-IVB are obvious fabrications. |
All the impacts of the S-IVB stage of the other missions are strange. They all show white specks on the impact point, and around it. |
 Yet, on the craters on earth caused by meteors, we never see these large flecks of white! |
 And the recording of the crash by the seismometer of the ALSEP is most strange too. There is a horizontal component of the crash which is as strong as the vertical one, whereas the S-IVB struck the lunar ground vertically. |
 What is recorded by the ALSEP is always abnormal; I have made a video about it (The bizarre plots of the ALSEP). For instance, this graph shows the vibrations recorded by the seismometer of the ALSEP after the crash of the lunar module of Apollo 12. On this graph, the vertical vibration appears more important than the horizontal ones...yet, the trajectory of the lunar module was almost horizontal when the lunar module crashed, it was making only an angle of 3.7 degrees relatively to the mean lunar surface according to the mission report, which means that the horizontal stress should have been more than 20 times greater than the vertical one. |
 So, we would rather have expected a graph like this one. |
 Anyway this junk could not have recorded anything or transmitted it toward the earth. Besides I have made a demonstration in a video (the weird Alsep) that it could not technically work. So all its plots shown are pure fantasy. |
 Apollo is the biggest mystification ever. |
