The improbable travel to the moon

The main obstacle for sending men to the moon is the barrier of the Van Allen belts.
Men couldn't survive the radiations in these belts if not efficiently protected, and it is obvious that the command module was not offering this protection.
The Apollo believers try to minimize the effect of these radiations, and say that the astronauts would have had to stay for a long time in these belts to be really harmed by the radiations.

In June 28 1969, two monthes before the launch of Apollo 11, a spacecraft was launched into space, which one was containing a single, male, pig-tailed monkey named Bonnie, for a planned 30-day mission. The mission objective was to investigate the effect of space flight on a living being. However, after just under nine days in orbit, the mission was terminated because of the subject's deteriorating health. Bonnie died eight hours after he was recovered due to a heart attack brought about by dehydration.
Despite this failure proving the danger of space on humans, Apollo 11 was launched two monthes later, with supposedly humans aboard, and no further tests!

It is not the only occasion in which NASA showed a singular lack of testing before risking human lives.
NASA reports that, during Apollo 10, there were important oscillations observed on a fuel cell; these oscillations could have resulted in a failure of the fuel cell, and they say that Apollo 10 was lucky that it did not happen.

The descent to the moon is the most difficult part of the lunar mission; if a fuel cell was failing in the descent, it would be more critical than if it was happening to the command module orbiting the moon; if might have dramatic consequences for the astronauts.

On earth, they could not reproduce the problem, but they observed small isolated disturbances on the fuel cell that they supposed to be connected with this problem; they devised a solution for this problem, but, as the problem was only occurring in the lunar environment, the only safe way to know if the problem had really been solved would have been to test it in the lunar environment; that would have meant sending another mission to observe the behavior of the fuel cell.

Instead of that, NASA directly sent the next mission, Apollo 11, land on the moon, without being totally sure that the problem had been solved for the fuel cell, and that it was safe from failure.
They left it to "chance".

Astronauts coming close to the Van Allen belts, but not penetrating into them, reported to have been subjected to weird visual effects due to radiations, appearing like shooting stars.
But the Apollo astronauts, like Alan Bean testified, reported no such phenomenon, though they supposedly completely crossed these belts.

The Apollo believers think to have the explanation for this.
The Van Allen belts do not completely surround the earth; there are holes on the poles.
The astronauts could have gone through these holes to be safe from the radiations, and not suffer from them.
However, this explanation cannot stand, and I am going to explain why.

Robert Braeunig has shown a trajectory that the command module would have taken, and which would have allowed it to avoid the dangerous part of the Van Allen belts, and would have spared its radiations to the astronauts.
This trajectory has been shown by many Apollo believers, like it was gospel, and nobody doubts that the command module really took this trajectory...The problem that there is not the least document of the time of Apollo which confirms this trajectory...and, still worse, I am going to show that there is a document which contradicts it.

The document that I take as a reference to contradict the trajectory advocated by Braeunig is a document entitled "Apollo Launch Windows".

This document shows the trajectories which would have been taken by the Saturn rocket.

But what really interests us is the trajectory that the command module would have been put on.
The document clearly states that this trajectory depends on the position of the moon on its orbit.
This position is not constant, and, while the command module travels, the moon travels on its orbit.
So, in order to optimize the trajectory, and make the minimal maneuvers, the goal is to direct the command module not toward the current position of the moon, but toward the position it will have when the command module has reached it.

So, the S-IVB, while it orbits the earth, makes a change a direction so to direct the command module toward its final destination, the position it will have when it has reached the moon.

This is illustrated by this comment in the document:
"Transfer energy considerations. In order to arrive in the vicinity of the moon the spacecraft was 'aimed' (targeted) at a position where the moon would be at the time of its arrival as illustrated in figure 5."

The moon orbital plane makes with the ecliptic plane (the plane of the orbit of the earth around the sun) an angle of 5° which is to be added to the angle than the ecliptic plane makes with the equatorial plane of the earth which is 23°, so in total 23+5=28°.

And, if we draw a direction corresponding to this new angle, we find that, apart from the initial deviation which is not mentioned in the document I took as a reference, the trajectory of Braeunig is almost parallel to this direction.

In fact the direction of the moon (from the earth) makes with the equatorial plane an angle which has absolutely nothing to do with the angle between the orbital plane of the moon and the equatorial plane of the earth.
The angle of the direction of the moon with the equatorial plane is only equal to the angle between the orbital plane of the moon and the equatorial plane of the earth on the extremities of the lunar orbit; eveyrwhere else it is smaller; after having reached its peak, it decreases, till the moon crosses the equatorial plane of the earth, at which moment, it is even null; then it increases again, negatively this time, till the moon reaches the other extremity of its orbit, on which this angle is again equal to the angle between the orbital plane of the moon and the equatorial plane of the earth, and then it decreases again, till the moon crosses again the equatorial plane of the earth, and so on...

The document shows a graph which represents the direction of the moon relatively to the equatorial plane of the earth as a sine wave of amplitude 28° (the angle between the orbital plane and the equatorial plane of the earth).

That is why it is important to study the evolution of the moon on its orbit in order to determine the optimized trajectory, the one which will direct the command module directly to the position that the moon has when the command module arrives near it.

The command module should only be directed on a direction making an angle of 28° relatively to the equatorial plane of the earth if the command module was arriving near the moon while it is on the peak of its orbit...But it is very far from being the case, as we are going to see.
On the other hand, if the command module was arriving near the moon at the moment that the moon crosses the equatorial plane, it could perfectly make its travel in the equatorial plane of the earth.

So, the whole problem is to know where the moon will be on its orbit at the moment that the command module reaches it, in order to determine the direction it must take at the beginning of its travel.
We know that the command module of Apollo 11 reached the moon on July 19th.
So, of course, I looked for the previous new moon, and the previous apogee, so to be able to determine where it was on its orbit at this moment.

When I looked at the moon phases of the year 1969...

...I found that the new moon preceding Apollo 11 happened on July 14th, so 5 days before the command module reached the moon.

Still more interesting, when I looked for the Apogee preceding Apollo 11, I found that it happened on July 13th, for 6 days before the command module reached the moon.

We know that the moon takes 7 days to travel a quarter of its orbit.
From what I have shown, it means that the moon was at that moment much closer to the equatorial plane of the earth than to the peak of its orbit.
It means that the angle that its direction was making with the equatorial plane was consistently less than the angle between the orbital plane of the moon and the equatorial plane of the earth, not even half of it (I would estimate it to around 8°).

This is besides confirmed in the document I have taken as a reference, which shows that the current angle of the direction of the moon at the moment of the rendezvous of the command module with it was very obviously much less than the angle of the orbital plane of the moon.

So, finally, if I now represent the actual direction taken by the command module as determined by its final destination, we can see that the command module was still more going into the heart of the van Allen belts than my previous erroneous demonstration had shown, and it discredits still more the trajectory advocated by Robert Braeunig.

And, this does not only go for for Apollo 11, for, in all the Apollo missions, the command module has arrived near the moon when the moon was close to its first quarter.

In fact things were happening this way: The S-IVB (the last stage of the Saturn rocket containing the command module and the lunar module) was using its powerful engine to make the whole spaceship take an important speed allowing to get out of the gravitational field of the earth, and was also putting it on the trajectory leading it to its final position, the position where the moon would be when the command module would reach it.
The spaceship was then following this direction till the half of the travel to the moon, and then it would make a slight correction, called "midcourse correction", to adjust the trajectory of the spaceship toward the position of the moon at the moment of the rendezvous.
The goal is to make as little changes of direction as possible, for any change of direction needs burning propellant, and saving it is essential.

So, in order to know the trajectory taken by the command module, all we need to know is the coordinates of the translunar injection (made by the S-IVB) and those of the first midcourse correction, knowing that, between these two points, the command module moves in straight line (or almost).
Here I show the parameters indicated in the mission report of Apollo 11 (shown on page 7-9).
The translunar injection is made at a latitude of 9.98° north, and an altitude of 180.6 miles (334 kilometers), and the first midcourse correction is made at an latitude of 5.99° North, and a distance of 109475 miles (202748 kilometers).
I have not mentioned the longitude, for the belts turn all around the earth, and so this indication is not interesting.
In fact, altitude means distance to the earth's surface.

On this figure, only a quarter of the distance to half the distance to the moon can be represented, and so, on the extremity of the figure, the latitude falls of the quarter of the difference of latitude between the translunar injection and the first midcourse correction.
I have represented in yellow the corresponding trajectory of the command module, and you can see that, unlike the trajectory advocated by the Apollo propagandists, the command module does not avoid at all the dangerous part of the radiation belts.

The table also displays data on the point of separation of the command module from the S-IVB, and also the point of the command module docking to the lunar module.
What we first notice is that the separation of the command module from the S-IVB happens at a latitude of 31.16° North, which is consistently above the latitude of the translunar injection, which is completely abnormal, for this latitude should be close to the one of the translunar injection, and even slightly under, as the spaceship goes down from the translunar injection, and the point of the first midcourse correction is closer to the equatorial plane; this is impossible, as there is no correction made by the command module before it reaches the point of the first midcourse correction (at approximately half travel to the moon).
It would make no sense that the S-IVB would send the command module in a completely wrong direction, which would have made it pass far from the lunar orbit, to force the command module to make an important change of direction to make it go down again toward the direction of the first midcourse correction, while the S-IVB could directly send it toward the good direction.
At that speed, a change of direction requires a lot of energy, and so an important consumption of propellant; try to make a sharp turn slowly, and then fast, and you'll see the difference!
But it is not the only incoherence in this table, there is another one, but this one is more subtle.
According to this table, the separation of the command module from the S-IVB is made at an altitude of 4110.9 miles, while the docking of the command module to the lunar module is made at an altitude of 5317.6 miles; that makes a difference of altitude of 1206.7 miles, so 2234.81 kilometers.
The separation of the command module from the S-IVB is made at time 3 hours, 17 minutes, and 4 seconds, and the docking of the command module to the lunar module is made at time 3 hour, 24 minutes, and 3 seconds; that makes 419 seconds of difference.
If is relate the difference of altitude to an hour (3600 seconds), that would make an average radial speed (i.e. speed in the direction to the earth's center) equal to 2234.81*3600/419=19201 km/h (ignoring the decimal data).
But the table gives another indication of speed in the column "space-fixed velocity"; for the separation of the command module from the S-IVB, we read 24456.8 feet/s; by multiplying by 0.3048 we convert it in to m/s, and by multiplying by 3.6, we convert it into kilometers per hour, which gives 26836 km/h, but this speed is a speed along the current direction of the spaceship, not a radial speed (i.e. in direction of the earth's center).

In fact, in order to convert this speed into a radial speed, we must project it on the radial direction (the direction of the earth's center), by multiplying this speed by the cosinus of the angle that the direction of the spaceship makes with the direction of the earth.

In the table, this angle is mentioned as "space-fixed angle", and it is indicated as 46.24° for the separation of the command module from the S-IVB.
After having multiplied the speed we have found by the cosinus of this angle, we finally find a radial speed of 26836*cos(46.24°)=18867 km/h, a speed which, as you can see is very different from the radial speed we have previously found.
Likewise, the speed indicated for the docking of the command module to the lunar module is indicated as 22662.5 feet/s, which gives 24867 km/h; and by multiplying by the cosinus of the space-fixed angle, which is equal to 44.95°, we finally find a radial speed for the docking equal to 24867*cos(44.95°)=17599 km/h.
So, between the separation of the command module and the docking of the command module to the lunar module, we would have an average radial speed equal to (18867+17599)/2=18233 km/h.
So, to conclude, we have obtained the average radial speed between the separation of the command module from the S-IVB and the docking of the command module to the lunar module by two different ways, and, instead of finding two close values, we have found two very different values, as we have found 19201 km/h and 18233 km/h, so a difference of almost 1000 km/h!

This is an obvious hint given by the engineers.
When I examine their tables, I find plenty of intentional incoherences.
I have found many ones in the table of the powered descent shown in a document.

This is the table of parameters for Apollo 12 (at page 5-5 of the mission report).
The translunar injection is made at a latitude of 15.83° north, and an altitude of 192.1 miles (356 kilometers), and the first midcourse correction is made at an latitude of 1.108° North, and a distance of 116929 miles (216552 kilometers).

I have represented in yellow the corresponding trajectory of the command module, and you can see that, once again, unlike the trajectory advocated by the Apollo propagandists, the command module does not avoid at all the dangerous part of the radiation belts.

And once again the latitude of the point of separation of the command module from the S-IVB is abnormally too high, as previously explained.
There also is a hint in this table of parameters.
At the point of separation of the command module from the S-IVB, the spaceship has a speed of 24861 feet/s, which makes 27279 km/h.
At the point of the docking of the command module to the lunar module, the spaceship has a speed of 22534 feet/s, which makes 24726.11 km/h.
At the point of the extraction of the lunar module from the S-IVB, the spaceship has a speed of 16447 feet/s, which makes 18046.96 km/h.
There are 528 seconds between the separation of the command module and the docking of the command module to the lunar module, and 3018 seconds between the docking of the command module and the extraction of the lunar module.
It means that, between the separation of the command module and the docking of the command module to the lunar module, there would be an average loss of speed corresponding to 2553*3600/528=17406 km/h per hour.
And, between the docking of the command module to the lunar module and the extraction of the lunar module, there would be an average loss of speed corresponding to 6679.15*3600/3018=7967km/h per hour.
It means that, between the two first events, the spaceship would have decelerated more than twice more than between the two last events.
An absurdity which is an obvious hint of the engineers.

Finally this is the table of parameters for Apollo 14 (at page 6-4 of the mission report).
The translunar injection is made at a latitude of 15.83° south, and an altitude of 179.1 miles (332 kilometers), and the first midcourse correction is made at an latitude of 28.87° north, and a distance of 118515 miles (219490 kilometers), which means that the command module would cross the equatorial plane during its travel.

Now, we find still more incoherences in this table than in the previous tables.
The latitude of the point of separation of the command module from the S-IVB is 19.23° North, which means that the S-IVB would have sent it in a direction which is still more wrong than in the previous missions.
And, after, the command module would have been sent consistently above the equatorial plane, while if had started under (at the translunar injection), it would be sent closer again to the equatorial plane, for the latitude at the second midcourse correction is 0.56° north; this is certainly not an optimized trajectory!
Between the separation of the command module from the S-IVB and the docking of the command module to the lunar module, there is almost two hours (One hour and 54 minutes).
While so much time, while the previous missions only needed some minutes to do it?

But what did the astronauts do meanwhile? Did they make a coffee break and play cards to kill time?

And, between the docking of the command module to the lunar module and the extraction of the lunar module from the S-IVB, there is a time lapse of 51 minutes, again a consistent time which is difficult to explain.
But what is most interesting is to see the speed of the spaceship at each of these points.
At the point of the separation of the command module from the S-IVB, the indicated speed was 24089 feet/s, so 26432 km/h.
At the point of the docking of the command module to the lunar module, the indicated speed was 13204 feet/s, so 14488 km/h.
And, finally, at the point of the extraction of the lunar module from the S-IVB, the indicated speed was 11723 feet/s, so 12863 km/h.
It means, that, between the separation of the command module and the docking of the command module to the lunar module, the spaceship has lost 11944 km/h in 114 minutes, which makes an average loss of speed of 6286 km/h per hour.
And, between the docking of the command module to the lunar module and the extraction of the lunar module, the spaceship has lost 1625 km/h in 51 minutes, which makes an average loss of speed of 1912 km/h per hour.
It means that the spaceship would have decelerated more than 3 times more between the two first events than between the two last ones, better than in Apollo 12!
This is of course totally absurd, and an obvious hint given by the engineers.

I didn't go farther than Apollo 14, because what I read in the following tables was so delirious that I found useless to exploit them.
The table of parameters of Apollo 15 we find in the mission report of Apollo 15 has been very badly scanned, and its indications are barely legible.
But, what has struck me is that the altitude of the first midcourse correction, instead of representing a distance close to half the distance to the moon, was representing a distance in the close earth orbit instead, and what's ironical is that it was still closer to the earth's surface than the point of the translunar injection, like the command module had gone backwards after the translunar injection.

The conclusion is that the data we find in the tables of the missions confirm that the command module could not take the magical trajectory advocated by the Apollo propagandists.
All the trajectories go into the heart of the radiation belts.

The command module could not have taken the trajectory advocated by the Apollo propagandists, which allows to turn around the radiation belts, for it is completely contrary to a minimum transfer of energy as described in the NASA documentation.
This trajectory would have forced the command module to constantly make changes of direction, which would have implied burning propellant.
And, it goes even beyond what they show, for after the command module must go down again toward the equatorial plane, for the final point of rendezvous with the moon is closer to the equatorial plane.

And yes, the command module also turns around the moon, but it is completely different, for it then follows a natural orbit, it does not have to produce an effort with its engine, for it is the lunar gravity which is doing all the work of making the command module turn.

The command module would have burnt so much propellant to make all these changes of direction in the trajectory advocated by the Apollo propagandists that the service module would have been short of propellant even before reaching the moon.

The Apollo propagandists probably figure that there are plenty of propergol stations along the travel of the command module where the astronauts can refill the tanks of the service module!

Although this trajectory is proven wrong, that it is completely denied by the procedure followed by the spaceship, the Apollo propagandists show it as the trajectory that the command module really followed to avoid the embarrassing part of the Van Allen belts.

For example Curious Droid shows it in a video when he talks about the problem of radiations, like it was absolutely sure that the command module really followed this trajectory.
He trusts the one who imagined this trajectory, and thinks that he has checked that the command module really followed this trajectory, which is absolutely not the case.

And Amy Shira Teitel, the fake specialist of Space Vintage, who only has a very superficial knowledge of the Apollo project, also shows it like it was making no doubt that the command module followed this trajectory.

So, all the demonstrations of the Apollo propagandists are based on a pure disinformation, for they are based on a model which is proven false and impossible; I would not say that this disinformation is intentional, for I am sure that they genuinely really believe in it, and that it is rather due to their ignorance of the project and how it works, but it is factual.

It is not only the travel to the moon which is problematic; the return to earth also is.

The problem of making a direct reentry to earth is that the CM has a very high velocity when approaching the earth.
If it does not kill this velocity before penetrating into the atmosphere, it has a high chance of overheating.
It is body ashes and not living astronauts which would be recovered when the CM would plunge into the ocean.
This is why it is preferable to make a skip reentry instead of a direct reentry, in order to sufficiently kill the CM's velocity before penetrating into the atmosphere, so that the heating of the CM will remain in acceptable limits.
This is what Chris Kraft, Apollo flight director, has advocated.

The Skip reentry consists in making the spaceship bounce on the atmosphere instead of directly penetrating into it, and making sufficiently the velocity decrease before effectively penetrating into it for the final descent, so that the remaining velocity will keep the heating due to atmosphere friction in reasonable limits.
This is what russian rockets have done with success.

So, while NASA has shown the reentries of the command module as direct reentries, this reentry should rather have been a longer skip reentry instead, says Chris Kraft.

But the astronauts Stafford and Al Worden disagree with this point of view, and insist that the reentry was a direct one.
Al Worden is even so furious against Chris Kraft that he has even said:"Chris Kraft is a bad guy. If we could feed him to a bomb, we would"
This is really excessive, for what Chris Kraft was saying was completely making sense.
This shows that the belief that the Apollo astronauts have confines to a religious belief, the one of religious extremists, who talk very violently when contradicted.

This is the effect of the brain washing treatment CIA has submitted them to with its MKULTRA program.

Al Worden has also dismissed NASA's involvement in calculating his Earth re-entry trajectory, claiming outright credit for the calculation and execution of this manoeuvre, which contradicts the Apollo 15 mission flight journal.
So, between Al Worden and the NASA engineer who wrote the Apollo 15 report, there is at least one of the two who lies!

This is a real exploit, for Worden could not count on a computer which was a joke to make these calculations.

Probably that he used his slide rules to make the necessary calculations.

It is true that, even if the ground computers were able to do the job, it was difficult for them to control the CM, as the MSFN (data transmission system) was not working, according to the technical documentation.

These are the tables of the reentry parameters for the various missions.
A first hint is that there are some parameters missing for some missions, whereas they are available for the other ones.
Why?
But this is not the main hint.

The flight path angle is the angle under which the space ship penetrates into the atmosphere.
It is obvious that, the greater it is, and the faster the CM will descend.
However, this angle must not go beyond some limit, otherwhise the descent speed would be such that it would cause fatal overheating for the CM.

g represents the acceleration of the fall of the command module, and maximum g the maximum value of this acceleration.
Everybody understands that, the more a body accelerates, the more it gains speed, and therefore the less time it will take to cover a given distance.
And also, the faster the command module falls, and the more it will get heat, and radiations.
And the greater the flight path angle is, and the faster the command module will descend.
So, to summarize: Greater flight path angle = greater maximum g, shorter duration, more heat and radiations.

The reentry parameters are not easy to study when directly read in the table. That is why I have represented under the form of superposed graphs.
For each graph, the lowest ordinate corresponds to the minimal value of the parameter, and the highest ordinate to the maximal value of the parameter.
The horizontal axis corresponds to the missions Apollo 11 (on the left) to Apollo 17 (on the right).

The Apollo 13 mission, corresponding to the blue vertical bar which has been represented, is particularly interesting:
It has a smaller flight path angle than in the previous missions, but it also has a smaller duration, which is illogical, for this smaller flight path angle should have made the command module descend slower than in the previous missions.

And, if we compare Apollo 11 (left of the graphs) with Apollo 17 (right of the graphs), we can see that Apollo 17 has a consistently smaller duration than Apollo 11, which means that it descended faster, greater heating patameters, and greater radiation dose, which is compatible with a faster descent.
But, while we would expect Apollo 17 to have a greater Maximum g than Apollo 11, it illogically has a little smaller one!
We can find other incoherences in this table, which cast a serious doubt on these reentries.

In the Anomalies section of the Apollo 12 report, they say:
"During postflight inspection of the upper deck, the lanyard which retains the forward heat shield electrical cable had been severed, and only 18 inches of the approximately 45-inch lanyard remained."
Imagine if the same thing had happened to the parachute cords!

This is an animation I have made with the CM falling into the ocean in the Apollo 11 mission.
The CM is initially floating on its floaters, which is normal.
But, strangely, it then turns over, and, although the floaters are now on the top, and outside water, it hardly dips into water, like it had a very light structure.

And the "astronauts" who are recovered from it, hardly look like humans, and rather make think of mannequins.

Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!