53 years of skepticism .. Did humans really land on the moon?

Click to listen

“Did you notice that the sky in the background of the American astronauts on the moon is completely black, where are the stars?” “Focus a little with the video of the moon that was published by NASA for landing on the moon. Do you notice something strange in the shadows of the astronauts, isn’t it supposed to be left and not right ?”, “Have you seen this famous video of the Russian scientist who refuted the nonsense of NASA landing on the moon and said that - from a mathematical point of view - it is not possible to land on the moon?!” Well, we can continue to make this kind of claims about humans landing on the moon. The surface of the moon and we do not finish before we write an entire volume, we are now standing before 50 years (1) doubt.

Did humans really land on the moon?

Let's start by saying that this is a legitimate question, you don't know anything, you didn't see anything, and you say that the Americans were in a cold war with the Soviets, and maybe it actually happened that they managed to fake it in order to win a really huge battle that will strongly affect the future of two entities that are the most powerful in the world But the problem we face when we try to discuss this type of question, believe it or not, is not primarily related to the ability of humans to land on the moon or not, but rather to the extent of people's poor understanding of the scientific process!

The nature of science

Well, let us calm down a bit, and then let us consider together the idea that Lewis Wolpert puts forward in his book “The Unnatural Nature of Science” when he criticizes the belief of the great mathematician Alfred North Whitehead, who said that “science is rooted in the intellectual apparatus of intuitive perception”, while our observations of the way science works And technology completely contradicts our perceptions of the world. In addition, we may live our entire lives without knowing anything about the effects of special and general relativity on travelers' watches or the difference between conventions such as speed and power and their effect on our cars.

We just care that things go as they should for the best possible benefit.

In the words of Daniel Kahneman (2) - the famous psychologist and Nobel laureate in economics - we only use the minimum of our mental capacities to facilitate as many things as possible.

From that point stems the difference between science and our intuitive awareness, and it appears - most of all - in our understanding of the minimum precision barrier at which the capabilities of science and technology stand.

In quantum electrodynamics (3), for example, the theory developed by Richard Feynman and for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1965, we could expect the value of the magnetic moment of the electron, which turned out to be a number equal to 1.01159652182.

Now we can try to test the accuracy of this theory by making measurements of the same property in the laboratories (4) Harvard University and then compare the results, what was the resulting number from the experiment?

It's 1.01159652181, did you notice that?

The difference was only in the twelfth digit after the decimal point, which means that the calculations of the theory of quantum electrodynamics were able to succeed in obtaining an accuracy of one in a trillion, this is an accuracy that has not occurred before in the history of science, and therefore quantum electrodynamics is the most accurate scientific theory to Now, it's like going around the Earth one and a half times and miscalculating the distance as the diameter of one human hair, can you imagine this accuracy?

You may not realize that numbers like those above are the reason you are reading this report right now on your smartphone.

In fact, it was that period of our history, the sixties of the last century, abounding with discoveries that show how accurate the scientific process has been. Take, for example, the 1961 Nobel Prize in Physics, half of which was awarded to Robert Hofstadter (5) for his ability to discover the components of a nucleus. Corn, can you imagine that?

You can put 500,000 carbon atoms in one row and the width of all of that is one human hair, as for the atom itself, most of it is empty as you hear a lot, but to understand it more closely, imagine that we enlarged one atom to become the size of a huge opera hall, here The core would be the size of a grain of rice in the middle of the hall!

In 1962, biology witnessed a new boom that is still the most powerful in its history, when (6) the trio James Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins received the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for their discovery of the chemical composition of DNA in the nuclei of our living cells, to understand the extent Accuracy of this detection Let's consider the body cell count of a normal person, like you.

It is about 37 trillion cells, and "trillion" in turn is a number so great that if we decided to start now counting (1, 2, 3, ...) until we reach the trillion number, we will stop after 30 thousand years!

200 billion dollars!

You can easily look at the Nobel Prizes in science during the period of the forties to the sixties of the last century to know what we mean here, which is the extent of the accuracy reached by science - and by extension technology - in that period of our history, when we talk about topics such as ascent to the surface of the moon, The first problems we face are our perceptions of the extent of scientific and technological accuracy. We say that it is not possible for humans to go to the moon because it is “very complex and requires unprecedented accuracy.” But the process of predicting where the moon will be after two nights from now in relation to the movements of the earth and the sun, for example For example, or calculating the itinerary of a vehicle the size of a medium car from the Earth to the Moon, are matters of relative simplicity - compared to what we talked about a while ago - so that they can be calculated very accurately.

Of course, there may be many factors - on the ground - that can impede these calculations, and the problem that we face during our attempts to transport a person to the moon and return him safely to Earth is in fact the number of those factors is so large that it cannot be counted easily, but at that point some also make mistakes, our problem With the scientific process or technological achievements, we only see the results, so we imagine that the process of transferring humans to the moon’s surface was completed in “one successful step” and it ended. 1961, it could cost - by today's currency standards - up to about 150-200 billion dollars, it's a huge amount, no doubt, what was all spent on?

To understand the reason for that cost, let's imagine that we - you and I - would like to take a person to the moon, it is the first time in history, and in our first meeting together we brought a large amount of white paper and began to write important questions, for example: Is space fit for humans?

Is there a way to make it so?

We can send animals to test that idea, but that question brings us to another: Is the moon itself good for humans?

Then, another question of the same degree of importance, and assuming that the calculations will be very accurate, how can we design a fuel system that helps us travel all that distance back and forth?

Another important question that must have crossed your mind, how many vehicles do we need?

We will ascend to space, then direct ourselves to the moon, then leave a vehicle to revolve around the moon and drop another of them to descend to the moon with astronauts, the latter must have enough energy to ascend, or part of it, to space again and then join those that orbit the moon and start To return to Earth again, then reach the ground and fall through the atmosphere.

Lots of questions we'll be asking that night, but you'll be surprised to know that each one has been answered individually.

In a clearer sense, there were entire space missions to answer each question individually.

Step by Step

Take, for example, the part related to studying the nature of the moon for a mission that carries humans. We are talking here about the “Lunar Orbitar” program (7), which began in 1966 and ended in 1967, five complete missiles with five vehicles, the purpose of each of which is to make an accurate photographic survey of the surface of the moon. The moon with an accuracy of one meter, the main objective of this group of missions was to answer only one question, which is: Can we exist as humans on the moon, and where can we land on its surface so that we achieve the greatest possible benefit?

The spacecraft collected about 3000 high-resolution images, and as soon as it reached Earth, scientists began working on it in order to answer this particular question.

Lunar Orbitar

Now let us contemplate the role played by the “Surveur” program (8), which was launched from 1966 to 1968. We are talking here about seven missiles that launched to the moon with seven vehicles, the sole purpose of which was to test the possibility of placing a vehicle on the surface of the moon safely, and it actually succeeded. Five of those missions did not open the door for a spacecraft carrying astronauts to the moon, so it was not done all at once, but in very small steps, each of which was carefully tested.

Now it's the humans' turn, we need to put them in sardines and throw them into space, it's also a good chance to see together how the gradation scheme has been applied.

Survivor on the moon successfully

First, the “Mercury” program (9), one man on a single-stage rocket to orbit the Earth. It is the Americans’ attempt to repeat what Yuri Gagarin, the first human to travel to outer space and orbit the Earth, required to reach that flight for the Americans more than 25 Space flight, not all of it carried humans, but a lot of it was tests of propulsion systems, corrections of trajectories and adjusting the calculations as accurately as possible before humans reach space, so that the errors are as few as possible.

Well, have you done the math?

About 40 flights into space we have talked about so far, knowing that I did not talk about some other auxiliary missions, but the goal was to clarify the basic work plan, after the success of the “one man” mission to space, the next plan was to send two men, on a two-stage rocket, we talk Here about the program (10) "Gymnai", which aims to exercise two basic things, the first is the docking of vehicles together, because the process of separation and re-docking in a space environment will take place twice in the trip to the moon, which is a very critical and accurate mission, and secondly, one of the astronauts will be able to Space from decommissioning to outer space and performing specific tasks.

A graduated plan: one man in Mercury - two men in Gymnai - three men in Apollo

The Jimny program was the final training before the main mission. During ten full flights between 1965 and 1966, the program was able to prove that humans and machines could endure long periods in space flights of at least eight days or two weeks at most, the conditions are now suitable for the exit of the three-stage giant "Saturn", the largest rocket on Earth's surface, so that the astronauts' vehicle above appeared as a fly standing on top of a sword!

The "Apollo 11" program has begun, and we are now very close to landing on the surface of the moon with the "Apollo 11" spacecraft, with three men.

Well, let's go back to training again, before Apollo 11 with three men goes to the moon, we must train again, now consider this training gradient with me through 10 missions.

First, let's test the capabilities of the Saturn missile, then let's launch an unmanned flight for the lunar module (which will carry astronauts from the top of the moon to its surface), and then we will start the astronauts' flights, but we will not take them directly to the moon, it is dangerous and requires training, so we will allocate a full trip In order to put the astronauts into orbit around the Earth, and although we have succeeded in this before, we must succeed in it with the new rocket.

Giant Saturn 5 from above

Well, to complete the training, we can now move the astronauts away a little towards the moon, then we can put them in orbit around the moon, but they will not descend to it, this training is directed only to put astronauts around the moon and then return to Earth, during ten full missions possible for astronauts Space to actually train for all stages of reaching the surface of the moon, there is only one step left, which is to do what we did the same in all previous missions with one additional jump to the surface of the moon itself, that was a difficult task, but did you know that the Russians also reached the moon ?

Conspiracy theory

When there is talk of a "conspiracy" to land on the moon, we are only talking about carrying humans to the moon from a vehicle orbiting the moon's surface.

In a clearer sense, the Soviets have already succeeded in reaching the moon via the vehicle (12) "Luna 3", where the first picture of the far side of the moon was taken, as well as the Soviet vehicles were able to land safely on the surface of the moon, the vehicle "Luna 9" for example and the vehicle "Luna 13" ″, they were able to land on the moon and take pictures and that was in 1966, and the spacecraft "Luna 16", in 1970 - after the end of the Soviet-American battle with the last victory - was able to return lunar rock samples to the Soviet Union.

This means that going to the moon is possible, it has already happened that the two warring parties managed to reach it, and the American supremacy was only related to putting astronauts on the surface of the moon, which of course carries a lot of technological and scientific complications, but the problem appears when we look at the idea of ​​going In the US-Soviet race, dozens of spacecraft were launched to the moon every year.

Don't try to compare it with what you see these days, satellite programs declined strongly after the end of the Cold War, but in that period a news item on television or newspapers entitled "Rocket on the way to the moon" was a daily thing for people in the United States of America and the Soviet Union, simply Because going to the moon was not a scientific mission in its essence, all that huge cost was an objective alternative to the cost of planes, warheads and warships, it was a war, but the fighting during it was not with tanks, but with spacecraft, and the fighters were not soldiers but astronauts.

Very cool, we can put the threads of the puzzle next to each other, we now know that that period of our history included a great degree of scientific accuracy, we also know that the matter was not done as a single "strike", but rather there are many steps and successive stages, each of which carries an addition Simpler than before, we also know that all of those missions didn't work, and failure was a way to learn to fix mistakes.

For example, of the first 20 Soviet missions to the Moon, only two were successful, and the first 20 American missions to the Moon succeeded only three.

But scientists learn from their mistakes. By reaching the American “Surveur” program, the number of failures was 2 out of 7, and the number of failures in the Russian “Luna” program was 2 out of 10. Learning from errors developed little by little until we reached the stage that failed. It has only one mission within the entire Apollo program, which has gone to the moon 17 times, this success is simply the result of very long training and a huge cost, it's a simple formula that everyone agrees on.

What is the problem then, is it the possibility of landing on the surface of the moon?

Here, the answer will be "No," of course. This is very possible, according to what we learned a while ago, and it is something in which the Soviets succeeded as well as the Americans. Where then could the problem be?

Could it be related to the idea of ​​a "conspiracy theory"?

In his book, A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America, Michael Barcon combines the characteristics of conspiracy "culture" into three important points that conspiracy theorists are convinced of as the norm behind his ideas: No Something happens by chance, nothing is what it seems, and everything is connected.

Take, for example, the idea of ​​evil. Conspiracy theorists are usually convinced (14) that there is some "evil" entity trying to sow corruption in the world, only for the purpose of corrupting, but that form of "evil" is not usual in our ordinary lives (unless you are convinced that "" The Joker has come out of The Dark Knight into the real world. There are really bad guys, but they are evil for their own good.

It is also unusual for plans of the highest quality to appear above normal degrees, as the promoters of the conspiracy view assume that these conspirators are skilled beyond normal degrees, as they leave behind no evidence of their presence, or of their plans, because the intelligence services work to conceal all directories.

hungry mouse

However, the paradox appears in the conspiratorial thought when someone continues to talk to you about that quality and then suddenly says the word “but”, “they mistakenly portrayed the shadows of the astronauts”, or “But the lunar module cannot take this position”, Or “But the scene director made a mistake when he forgot to put the stars in the background.” This kind of contradiction appears strongly in the conspiracy theory, so you find that someone talks to you about a huge amount of money that has been spent in order to cover something with very accuracy and exceptional skills, except They erred in a very trivial part!

In a previous report entitled "The Earth is Flat"... What is the secret of some people's belief in conspiracy theory?" You can achieve a better understanding of conspiracy psychology and how people can fall into conspiracy thought, especially with the global spread of the phenomenon, which is primarily related to a wide wave of skepticism about the concepts of conspiracy. Like rationality, science and modernity, but what I really want to draw attention to now is something else related to the wide spread of those ideas here in the Arab world in particular, especially in the atmosphere of social communication.

In his debate with Jordan Peterson, Slavoj Zizek, the famous Slovenian philosopher, sets an example of Hitler, and this man was - in the words of Zizek - one of the best storytellers of the twentieth century. Hitler with a story that answers all these questions, a story that says: “The reason is in the Jews.” People believe these stories because they give them meaning in their lives, answer the question of frustration and give them a golden opportunity to imagine that the cause of all these disasters is not related to them in the first place.

Do we do the same?

Have our social and political conditions pressured us so that we can no longer tolerate anything, so we can justify all this failure and frustration with reasons outside of us so that we can live in between all of that?

We don't really know, but the idea deserves some reflection from you. What if the whole problem is about us, what if some - like a hungry mouse that hasn't eaten for five days - were looking for an old, moldy cheese to put out a fire in his stomach?

What if we're so empty that we only have a conspiracy theory?

What if we were just looking for an enemy to live our lives thinking he was the cause of all our problems?

Well, NASA is the enemy.