Some people imagine that the lunar module was as easy to maneuver as a plane, and that it would have been able to do acrobatics like a plane.
How wrong they are!
if they knew how the LM was unstable!
The main difference of the LM with a plane is that it has no wings which are of course useless in the void of space.
To go from the command module to the lunar surface, the lunar module only has its engines and can only count on them.
At the start of the travel, the LM has a horizontal attitude, for it must first decrease its horizontal velocity which prevents it from joining the moon; as its horizontal velocity decreases, it is more and more attracted by the moon and it must progressively turn to vertical; it arrives vertical near the lunar surface, with its horizontal and vertical velocities nulled if the guidance has correctly done its work.
The LM controls its attitude with the vertical engines of the RCS; the attitude allows to distribute the main thrust on the horizontal and vertical axes; the horizontal component of the thrust allows to control the horizontal velocity, and, likewise, the vertical component of the thrust allows to control the vertical velocity.
In order to control its attitude, a plane uses ailerons which can pivot on its wing; when it turns the aileron up, the action of air pushes the wing down, and when it turns the aileron down, the action of air pushes the wing up.
So, just by acting on the ailerons, a plane can control its attitude, just with mechanical natural forces, without using its engines; the goal of the thrust of the engines (or the propeller) is to allow the plane to keep a horizontal velocty which is necessary for the forces created by air to act on the plane.
Unlike a plane, the lunar module does not benefit of the action of air to control its attitude, it can only do it by using the vertical engines of the RCS.
If the RCS fails, the LM can no more control its attitude.
So this is the essential difference between a plane and the lunar module: the plane controls its attitude in a passive way, using the natural action of air, whereas the lunar module controls its attitude in an active way with the force created by its engines.
The plane also counters the earth gravity with the action of air, whereas the lunar module counters the lunar gravity with its engine.
A plane can even fly without motors at all (provided that it is first hauled in the air) and land safely without them.
The pilots flying commercial planes are even taught to land with a motor off, for they may have to do it one day.
On the other hand, if the lunar module is dropped in the air without an engine, it falls like a stone!
This animation illustrates the trajectory of the lem from the moment it separates from the LCM to the moment it lands on the moon.
It is of course very schematic, and doesn't respect sizes and speeds; but it doesn't matter, because the only goal of this animation is to give an idea about the way the LM goes from the CM to the moon, and it perfectly fulfills this goal.
We can see that the LM follows a parabolic trajectory from the CM to the moon along which it slowly rotates from horizontal at the start to vertical at the end of the trajectory.
When it comes near the lunar ground, the astronauts can move it with the lateral horizontal engines, to avoid a hole for instance.
If the lem is to land on a desired area of the moon, the computer computes the moment that the LM must separate from the CM so that, at the end of the parabolic trajectory, it is on this desired area.
The task of the computer is not easy at all by the fact that it must control both the horizontal and vertical speeds.
If the lunar module arrives with an important vertical speed near the lunar ground, it will crash on it.
But, if the lunar module arrives with a too important horizontal speed near the lunar ground, it willl also crash on it.
If the lunar module has a too important horizontal speed when it is near the lunar ground, it will not be able to reduce it: Indeed, it would need to take a horizontal attitude to counter its horizontal speed with its engine, but, in that case it would no more counter the lunar attraction with its engine and would be attracted by the moon; the lunar module cannot remain vertical and expect that its horizontal speed will be reduced, because, unlike on earth, there is no atmosphere on the moon to create a natural force which would reduce its horizontal speed.
This is a schema extracted from a documentation of the NASA "Apollo lunar descent and ascent trajectories".
This schema is more than exaggerated: The distance of the command module to the moon is equal to the radius of the moon on it; in reality it only was a sixteenth of the moon's radius.
To give an idea, this is in reality the distance of the CM to the moon (the CM is oversized to be visible).
This over-exaggeration of the distance of the CM to the moon makes that the trajectory of the lunar module is irrealistic: The lunar module turns too much around the moon on it; it would turn less if the CM was at a normal distance from the moon.
What is also wrong in the trajectory which is described, is that the LM starts to reduce its speed only when it is at an altitude of 50,000 feet (the cruising altitude of a Boeing), during a phase called PDI.
But it's too late for the lunar module to start reducing its horizontal speed.
The lunar module is not a boeing; it has a horizontal speed much more important than the one of a boeing, and it does not benefit of the forces created by air, unlike a boeing.
If the LM starts to reduce its horizontal speed as it is near to the lunar ground, it will consume more fuel than if it starts doing it sooner (i.ee. as soon as it separates from the CM), for it will have more to control its vertical speed because it has lost its precious reserve of altitude.
In the case that the lunar module starts reducing its horizontal speed as it is closer to the lunar ground, if it was maneuvering the same as it does when it starts reducing its horizontal speed as soon as it separates from the command module, this is what would happen: The lunar module would bump into the lunar ground before it has finished nullifying its horizontal speed, with the consequence that it would be smashed to bits.
To avoid this, the lunar module will have to burn more fuel than if it starts reducing its horizontal speed sooner.
Then you can tell: Why not, if the lunar module has enough fuel?
Because, even if the lunar module manages to reduce its horizontal speed in time, before being out of fuel, that does not mean it can immediately land; the moon is an unknown terrain, and the astronauts may have to look for the adequate place to land on, that is neither a hole nor a rock; meanwhile the lunar module will have to burn fuel to remain over the lunar ground; if the lunar module runs out of fuel before it has found a convenient place to land on, it may land in hazardous conditions on an unfit terrain, causing it to tip over for instance.
Remember that Armstrong had less than one minute of fuel left when he landed; if he had wasted the corresponding quantity of fuel, that means that the lunar module would have landed in conditions that would have caused a damage to it, a damage which might have been fatal to the astronauts.
On this video of Apollo, the lunar module remains visible from the command module; it gets closer to the moon while keeping the same horizontal speed as the one of the command module instead of starting to reduce it.
It may be nice to follow the lunar module from the command module, but it also means that the lunar module will benefit of less altitude to reduce its horizontal speed, and that consequently it will have to burn more fuel than if it had started to reduce it sooner.
On this video, instead of disappearing behind the CM like it should if it starts reducing its horizontal speed, the lunar module remains in view; what is abnormal is that we see the lunar module change its attitude; but the lunar module initially has a horizontal attitude the way it is attached to the LM, and it must start the travel with this horizontal attitude; so why would we see it make this change of attitude?
The lunar module can go under the command module simply by using its RCS (lateral engines).
Notice that we see the moon on this view, which is normal since the lunar module is normally under the command module....
What is less normal is that, on this video taken from the lunar module, we see the moon behind the command module, like the lunar module was above the command module; but normally the lunar module is not above the command module!
On this excerpt of video of Apollo 17, we see the LM fly horizontally over the lunar surface, and, when it is over the landing point, it makes a sudden rotation and descends to the landing place.
But this is completely wrong: The lunar module is horizontal only at the beginning of its travel, when its important horizontal speed creates a centrifugal force which counters the lunar attraction.
When the lunar module is near the moon, it has no more this important horizontal speed, but a reduced one instead (and on the moon there is no atmosphere to create a vertical force to sustain a flying object like on the earth); it must then remain vertical to counter the lunar attraction, and use its lateral engines (RCS) to move over the lunar surface.
So this video is completely irrealistic and shows something which is completely unphysical; in reality, if the lunar module was flying like we see it do on this video, the lunar attraction would make it crash on the lunar ground.
Another example of completely irrealistic video in Apollo:
At the end of the video of the LM lifting off in Apollo 17 (video supposedly filmed by the rover's camera), we see the lunar module start making a weird horizontal sinusoid which is impossible and completely unphysical; never would the lunar module follow a so weird trajectory!
A new example of physical impossibility:
In the description of the lunar rendezvous (that is the return of the lunar module to the command module), they say that the alignment of the guidance platform was done using the Moon's gravity as a vertical reference, and a star as its other reference.
A star?
I thought stars were not visible from the moon, so said the astronauts!
The guidance platform measures in a three dimensional system, so it needs three references for a correct alignment.
One might think that the moon gravity gives a double reference, because it gives the plane which is perpendicular to it, but this plane only has a local meaning; if you take two different points on the moon, the plane which is perpendicular to the moon gravity is different; so, in an absolute system, the moon gravity only gives one reference point (the direction of the moon's center).
So, moreover the moon gravity (the direction of the moon's center), two other reference points are still needed, and these two other points will be two different stars (the sun may also be considered a star, but it is too luminous).
So, it is not one star that the astronaut needs to take as a reference, but two stars, and two stars easily identifiable, like in the constellation of the big bear (and, as it must be two stars not too close to each other, it should be stars from different constellations).
So, where is the second star?
This accumulation of incoherences clearly shows that the engineers intended to send signals that something was wrong with Apollo.
In order to get acquainted with the maneuver of the lunar module, the astronauts were using a special training module called LLTV (Lunar landing training vehicle) or LLRV (Lunar Landing research vehicle).
These crafts were supposed to train them for maneuvering the lunar module.
In fact, if we compare the limits of use of the LLRV with the lunar module, the difference of the conditions is enormous, even taking into account the difference of gravity:
The lunar module had to start with a horizontal velocity of 6000 km/h at an altitude of 110 km, whereas the LLRV could fly at a maximum speed of 110km/h at an altitude of 610 meters.
It is not at all the same order of value!
And the values I have given for the LLRV are in fact theoretical maximums that the LLRV has never flown at.
In fact the LLRV was flying slower, and at a lower altitude, like this video shows.
And it is obvious that the LLRV was difficult to control laterally like this video shows.
Yet, if we look around the footpad on this photo of a mission, it is obvious that the footpad has not at all skidded on the "lunar" ground.
in 1968, Armstong narrowly escaped death in a test flight, he could eject and safely land in parachute.
Of course, on the moon, it would have meant death for him, ejection would not have saved him.
The problem came from a temporary depletion of fuel; if it had happened on a plane, Armstrong could have regained control, but, on this type of vehicle, once you have lost the control, you have lost if for good, you can't regain it; any mishap degenerates very fast and fatally ends in a crash.
And don't think it is an isolated incident: Two other pilots also had to eject to save their lives; two other pilots who would also have perished if this had happened on the moon.
The NASA was so aware of the danger that the LLRV was representing that it has brought a particular care to the eject seat.
Both the main engine and the RCS are vital for the safety of the lunar module.
Should anyone of them fail, then the LM would be unable both to land on the moon and to go back to the command module.
In fact, in a such case it would either crash on the moon, or become a satellite of the moon if it can gain enough horizontal speed to orbit the moon.
And even at the level of the lunar surface, while they are looking for an adequate spot to land on, they still need the main engine and the RCS; the main engine is necessary to remain over the lunar surface, and the RCS to maneuver over this surface.
In fact the main engine could pivot a little around its central position to give an inclination to the lunar module.
On the lunar module, the engine could pivot at a maximum of 6° around its central position according to the documentation of the LM.
If the main engine could pivot, it was not to allow to laterally move the lunar module, but to allow the pilot to have a better view of the lunar ground.
After the main engine was pivoted, the RCS was correcting the attitude of the LM so that the main engine was vertical; with this attitude the pilot of the LM could have a netter glimpse of the ground.
The main engine could theoretically have been inclined relatively to the vertical to move laterally the LM, but it was not as precise as using the lateral engines, and the thrust of the main engine had to be corrected so that its vertical component was countering the lunar attraction (or earth attraction for the LLRV), which was adding a difficulty; so it was better to keep the main engine vertical and use the lateral engines to move the LM laterally (especially since there is no air resistance on the moon).
When the main engine is pivoted, it generates a rotation of the LM which has to be countered; if this rotation was not countered, the LM would start to rotate with nothing to counter it, since there is no air to oppose its rotation, and it would end in a crash.
That's why the RCS is as essential as the main engine in the final phase, when the LM has to maneuver to find a spot to land on.
Since the engines are so important, and so vital for the safety of the lunar module, since their failure would fatally mean death for the astronauts, it is obvious that the NASA should have to be absolutely sure that they are in perfect working order before sending the LM to the moon, without the least doubt, even the smallest one.
Yet, on Apollo 10, during several of the lunar orbits, a critical fuel-cell temperature started to oscillate significantly, as shown on this figure.
An investigation led in a laboratory revealed that small, isolated disturbances in fuel-cell temperature were often present, as shown on this figure.
This investigation demonstrated that small, isolated disturbances could trigger an instability if the power loading ran sufficiently high and the temperature sufficiently low.
From this this information, they devised procedures to eliminate the oscillations, should they occur.
But the only way to be sure that the problem was solved was to make the test in space near the moon.
It is absolutely obvious that, this showing that the engine had a potential problem, even if they thought to have settled the problem, they should have sent another mission to check if the problem was really solved, and study it in depth to get sure that the problem was no more occurring, since the engines are so vital for the safety of the mission, and that a failure of them is not allowed when landing on the moon.
Not at all, they directly sent the next mission, Apollo 11, to the moon, with this "sword of Damocles" hanging over the safety of the ship; they left it to "chance".
The guidance must work so that, starting from a horizontal velocity of 6000 km/h relatively to the moon, the LM arrives near the moon with both horizontal and vertical velocities nulled, or almost.
It is obvious that the computer must be perfectly working to perform the guidance correctly, for, arriving near the moon either with a too important horizontal velocity or a too important vertical velocity would be fatal to the LM.
Yet, when we see how irregularly the computer was working, we can have serious doubts about its safe working.
When we see that the computational time of a cycle can be suddenly more than doubled, and that this computational time is doubled after a while, to finish tripled at the end, we tell ourselves that the astronauts were in the hands of something which was less than secure!
The computer was working so erratically, and multiplying the alarms at the end of the flight...
...that Armstrong stopped trusting it, and made the landing himself manually, before the computer finally sent the LM crash on the lunar ground!
When we see that Armstrong was just using a joystick to maneuver the lunar module...
...we wonder why he had so many controls on the LLRV!
Seriously, if the astronauts could have ejected and landed in parachute to be taken care of by a medical staff, I could have understood that a maximal care would not have been given to the engine and the computer, and that the LM would not have been previously tested in the actual conditions it had to fly...
...I could have understood that the LM would have taken the fantasy to fly over the CM before starting its travel to the moon, thus wasting precious drops of fuel that we know that Armstrong was almost short of when landing on the moon...
But, as it is not the case, and that they could not land in parachute, and that nobody was on the moon to rescue them in case of crash, I call that a good scenario for a Hollywood movie, but certainly not a real professional mission!
How is it possible that Apollo could be managed with so much carelessness???
People use to think that the photos taken by the lunar reconnaissance orbiter (LRO) are a proof that Apollo landed on the moon.
Yet, these photos show plenty of incoherences.
I present here some of them, but it is not exhaustive.
The photo on the right of this stereoscopic view shows a close-up of the lander on a LRO photo of Apollo 11 (the white comes from an arrow pointing at the lander).
I really wonder how the lander, the way it is shaped (larger than high), could produce a so elongated shadow, with a narrow beginning, a shadow which rather makes me think of the shadow of a poplar!
This shadow is incoherent and looks nothing like what the lander's shadow should be!
The lander on this photo of the so-called landing site of Apollo 14 is also incoherent.
Look how the shadow of the lander is oriented; the way it is oriented, the sun is shining from left to right.
Now, look at the way the lander is lit: its lower part is more lit than its upper part, which would rather indicate that the sun is shining from the bottom of the photo toward the top of the photo.
It is contradictory!
Now, look at this photo of the so-called landing site of Apollo 16.
Why is the lander so close to a crater, when, on the photos of the mission, the lander is relatively rather far from the closest crater?
And why would the astronauts take the risk of landing so close to a crater when they could fall into it, and they have the possibility of landing at some distance from it?
And, on the other side of the crater, there is another copy of the lander with an inverted shadow.
This is a close-up of the lander on a LRO photo of the so-called landing site of Apollo 17.
According to the shadow of the LM, the sun is shining along the direction indicated by the green arrow.
We can see a bright footpad of the LM I have circled in orange.
There is another footpad of the lander I have circled in yellow which is dim in comparison; yet it is symmetrical relatively to the direction of the sunlight, and therefore it should be lit the same as the other footpad, and be as bright as it!
There are also some more general considerations which can be said.
Why are the lander and Apollo equipment so brilliantly white on some LRO photos?
These two photos show two views of the Apollo 11 landing site; on the first one, the lander is not more brilliant than the lunar ground; on the second one, the lander is much more brilliant than the lunar ground.
Why?
We have been repeated that the lunar ground was extremely brilliant because of the very reflective regolith, to the point that it could light the astronaut in the LM's shadow; so why would the lunar ground be dull on some photos while the lander would be extremely brilliant.
This makes no sense!
On this photocomposition, I have put a top view of the LM and the rover, with the scales corresponding to what if indicated in the documentation of Apollo.
I have also drawn the rover tracks.
If I scale my representation on the view of the Apollo 17 landing site so that the LM of my representation and the LM of the photo have the same size, the rover tracks on my representation are too small to be visible...yet the so-called rover tracks are perfectly visible on the LRO photo!
And the footprints of the astronauts also are supposed to be well visible; in reality they could not be at that distance.
All this shows that the so-called LRO photos are not even credible.
The engineers could have edited them so to make them credible, but they did exactly the converse: They made them completely incoherent so that smart people could see they were fake.
The problem is that most people (including the media which are not reputed to be very smart) are so fascinated by Apollo, that they accept these pictures without critical thinking.
When you want to believe in something you will accept any weak argument.
That's this way that false prophets could always have plenty of disciples in history.
