Obstacles to the moon landing

1. Radar range



The maximum range of astronomy by radar is very limited, and is confined to the Solar System. This is because the signal strength drops off very steeply with distance to the target, the small fraction of incident flux that is reflected by the target, and the limited strength of transmitters.

The distance to which the radar can detect an object is proportional to the square root of the object’s size, due to the one-over-distance-to-the-fourth dependence of echo strength.

Radar could detect something ~1 km across a large fraction of an AU away, but at 8-10 AU, the distance to Saturn, we need targets at least hundreds of kilometers wide.

It is also necessary to have a relatively good ephemeris of the target before observing it.

2. Vacuum

Echo delay and time spread. Radio waves propagate in vacuum at the speed of light c, exactly 299,792,458 m/s. Propagation time to the Moon and back ranges from 2.4 to 2.7 seconds, with an average of 2.56 seconds (distance from Earth to the Moon is 384,400 km).

3. Interference




The radiation environment of deep space is different from that on the Earth’s surface or in low Earth orbit, due to the much larger flux of high-energy galactiadiationc cosmic rays (GCRs), along with radiation from solar proton events (SPEs) and the radiation belts.



Against this

# Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel who called him out on the hoax after he wouldn’t place his hand on the Bible and say he went to the moon.

Mentioned in the summary below.

# “An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260 degrees F to 280 degrees F, too (hot) for film to survive. At those temperatures, film crinkles up into a ball.

Reason The mid-day temperature on the moon is indeed around 260 degrees Fahrenheit, however, the low temperature in the dark of night is about minus 250 degrees Fahrenheit! The lunar landings and following exploration was done when the sun was low, within a day or so of local sunrise at the landing site at the time of the landing, so that temperatures were actually quite moderate, even after a full 3 days on the lunar surface.

The film in the cameras was also kept in magazines that provided some protection from the extreme temperatures even when left in direct sunlight. In a vacuum without an atmosphere to conduct heat, film inside the magazines it was carried in is quite well protected from the heat of direct sunlight.”

This is a pro-landing site:


In conclusion

The above is by no means comprehensive and is a first flypast, so to speak, to see if there is anything at all to both sides.  There is.

The most telling points to me might not be to others.

The punching of the questioner by Aldrin and his refusal to swear on the Bible can be explained away by it being an obnoxious, disrespectful SJW type, similar to the Border Officer disrespected by Cortez.  There is that point, yes.

Against that, he was a religious man at that point and a born again Christian will not swear something on the Bible he knows to be untrue – question is, how born-again and faithful is that person?  God only knows.

Also, there’s a section which says swear by nothing, just say yea or nay – so where does that leave swearing on the Bible?

A more cogent reason is all the convenient loss of material by NASA, compounded by the attitude of Google for a start. I can recall many serious explorations anti-landing and they were not as characterised in the leading ten pages of Google on the subject – they were as detailed as any pro-landing site.

They’ve gone from the net or are as far down as to be near inaccessible.  Youtubes anti re mysteriously not there, Youtubes for still are – that sort of thing.  The obvious question is – why?  If the landings were cut and dried, settled science as they say, why the continued and consistent suppression of the anti-landing material?

And the material which is available – meaning the first twenty pages of Google listings – are full of quasi and pseudo scientific detail, highly selective, mentioning few of the arguments against in any seriousness and often as strawmen which simply were not as the anti sites had put them.

Add to that the tendency of those on our ‘right-stuff’, ‘gung-ho’ side to give short shrift to the SJW type but that is hardly unemotional and dispassionate, is it?  One particular site listed reasons for quite well but when it came to Van Allen, the writer suddenly went apoplectic, mouthing all sorts of descriptive language against ‘conspiracists’, as though enquiry is, ipso facto, conspiracy in all cases.

That’s hardly scientific.  And that worry does not go away – the attempts to suppress and hideaway legitimate enquiry do seem a bit like protesting too much.

Trying to explain this

We clearly adopt ‘sides’ soon into any investigation – JFK was a perfect example – and we really don’t like the obtuseness and deliberate ignoring by the other side of what we consider legit argument.

The other side to that is when someone, e.g. a blogger or other writer, has spent considerable time gathering and presenting, only for it to be completely ignored by ideological ignorati [see, there I go] who blow in and just present the same old Narrative yet again which you’ve taken twenty posts to debunk.

There are also key anger-triggering, provocative gestures.  One example is Kamala Harris adopting the ‘this is not us’ expression in contradiction to what the majority of Americans consider is ‘us’.  Another is that little cow Omar grinning and saying Trump is unconstitutional.  How the hell would she know for a start, just who does she thing she is second, how much part of ‘us’ is she?  See another post today for more of that.

So the two sides really rub each other up the wrong way, deep annoyance, matey and it takes a Job to have the patience and civility to deal with an obviously hostile contrarian.

For example, one of these said that Trump was out of order with the ‘go back home’ comments but the comments here had already moved onto looking at why he was doing it – what the strategic point was? To just put the squad’s provocations again or to paint them as fine people was so alien to the truth that there was no point. Particularly as the remarks were prefaced by: ‘Why do you …’ meaning me, the blogger, ‘not just post …’

The reason why has been explained over and over and over, I’m not doing it again.

So, relating that to the ‘did they land’ question, both sides are equipped with all sorts of text and charts and ne’er the twain are going to meet.  That’s human beings.

And so matters remain unresolved.

2 comments for “Obstacles to the moon landing

  1. fos
    July 17, 2019 at 12:54


    A few theoretical calculations for radar range don’t do it for me. Current radar systems have got to a point where they can detect minute asteroids etc. many millions of miles away. That’s not the issue.

    Here’s what I mean about the problem of keeping something like the fake moon landing quiet:

    Radio voice and telemetry communications with Apollo 11 during the journey, in orbit, on the moon and back were effected using a series of (independent) ground stations scattered around the globe. They used highly directional transmitters and receivers to follow the path of the spacecraft and the orbit of the moon. The live TV broadcasts required several ground stations, too.

    You have to convince me that the scientists and engineers maintaining these communications went through an elaborate pantomime to pretend to track positions, send and receive telemetry data and voice/video transmissions.

    I don’t even trouble about whether anyone talked about it afterwards – why would anyone even agree to go through this pantomime in the first place?

    And don’t forget that ever since Eisenhower defined the Military-Industrial Complex in the US, there were plenty of hippies around among the educated to blow the whistle.

  2. July 17, 2019 at 13:06

    Some flaws in that. Hippies are irrelevant, no privileged information, ground station personnel work the same way as all other units – pain of career end or worse, plus heavily vetted at the recruitment stage and only those with the right stuff there. Also, simulations have been going for donkey’s years, also need to know basis.

    No reason it could not be faked – an entire nation’s inner boffins on it, e.g. Manhattan Project, I just don’t happen to believe it was. It either happened or the plausibility was first rate.

    Sod’s Law though I agree with you on, also overestimating competence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.