Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

[Ca.]

What.....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1746288506509684988

https://twitter.com/x/status/1746260132269379995

NASA
1 day ago -
Peregrine Mission 1 (TO2-AB)
Description

Astrobotic has posted a message that "At this time the goal is to get Peregrine as close to lunar distance as we can before it loses the ability to maintain its Sun-pointing position and subsequently loses power."

Peregrine Mission 1 (TO2-AB), or the Peregrine Lunar Lander, carrying scientific and other payloads to the Moon, was planned to touch down on the lunar surface on Sinus Viscositatis. The scientific objectives of the mission are to study the lunar exosphere, thermal properties and hydrogen abundance of the lunar regolith, magnetic fields, and the radiation environment. It will also test advanced solar arrays. Peregrine Mission 1 was selected through NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) initiative, in which NASA contracts with a commercial partner, in this case Astrobotic, that provides the launch and lander.
Spacecraft and Subsystems

Peregrine Mission 1 is about 1.9 m high and roughly 2.5 m across. It is a box-shaped main body sitting on four landing legs. The main structural landing bus is composed of aluminum isogrid shear panels and aluminum honeycomb mounting surfaces with one primary deck divided into four parts. Propulsion is provided by five TALOS-150 667-N thrusters mounted on the bottom of the lander. They use a hypergolic system of Mono-Methyl Hydrazine (MMH) fuel and dinitrogen tetroxide/nitrogen dioxide, 25% Mixed Oxides of Nitrogen (MON-25) oxidizer. Four sets of three 45-N attitude control thrusters maintain orientation. Attitude knowledge is provided by Sun and star trackers, inertial measurement, and Doppler radio and LIDAR, with the landing sensors mounted on the bottom of the bus.

Power (at 28 V, max. 480 W) is generated by GaInP/GaAs/Ge triple junction solar cells mounted on the top of the lander on a 1.8 square meter panel, and is stored in lithium-ion batteries with a capacity of 840 Whr. Communications (X-band downlink, S-band uplink) are via a medium gain, low-gain, and WLAN antennas. Thermal control is achieved by radiators and multi-layer insulation blankets.

The mission will carry about 20 payloads of various types, the lander has a payload mass capacity of 90 kg. The scientific payload includes the Laser Retro-Reflector Array (LRA), Linear Energy Transfer Spectrometer (LETS), Near-Infrared Volatile Spectrometer System (NIRVSS), Peregrine Ion-Trap Mass Spectrometer (PITMS), and Neutron Spectrometer System (NSS). Five other science payloads were originally planned for Peregrine Mission 1, but are being reallocated to other future lunar delivery missions. These are: Photovoltaic Investigation on Lunar Surface (PILS), Mass Spectrometer Observing Lunar Operations (MSolo), and Neutron Measurements at the Lunar Surface (NMLS), Fluxgate Magnetometer (MAG), and Surface Exosphere Alterations by Landers (SEAL).
Mission Profile

Launch took place from Cape Canaveral, Florida on a United Launch Alliance Vulcan Centaur rocket in the VC2S configuration, with 2 GEM-63XL solid boosters, a standard short faring, and two RL10 engines in the Centaur upper stage on 8 January 2024 at 07:18 UT. However, there was a "failure within the propulsion system", according to a message from Astrobotic. Astrobotic has posted a message that "At this time the goal is to get Peregrine as close to lunar distance as we can before it loses the ability to maintain its Sun-pointing position and subsequently loses power." indicating the original planned Moon landing will not be possible. It is currently in a highly elliptical Earth orbit and will make a close swingby of Earth on 19 January.

The original mission plan was as follows: After separation, an Earth orbit period, and cruise to the Moon, the lunar orbit phase starts. It will consist of a high, medium, and finally a circular 100 km altitude orbit. Peregrine will descend from this orbit and land in Sinus Viscositatis (Bay of Stickiness) adjacent to the Gruitheisen Domes on the northeast border of Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms). It is planned to land on February 23, shortly after local sunrise, and to operate for about 10 Earth days.

For more on NASA's CLPS initiative and missions, see:

Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) Deliveries - NASA Science

NASA is sending Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) deliveries to the Moon to address Decadal-derived science priorities.

science.nasa.gov

Image credit: Astrobotic Technology

Peregrine Mission One PDF

 

[Brewer]

Japanese moon lander lands but fails shortly after due to the solar array failing to deploy.

A robotic Japanese moon lander touched down on the lunar surface Friday, but it immediately suffered a power glitch of some sort that prevented its solar cells from generating the electricity needed to keep it alive in the harsh lunar environment.

As the sun moves in the lunar sky it may wake up

There's hope the probe could "wake up" at some point, assuming the spacecraft landed in the wrong orientation and the angle between the sun and the solar cells improves enough over time to generate enough power, but officials said that's not at all certain.

So easy six decades ago.

 

[WhiteMountain]

Japanese moon lander lands but fails shortly after due to the solar array failing to deploy.

As the sun moves in the lunar sky it may wake up

So easy six decades ago.

Hey, but remember back then that practically all software did not run on that robust backbone known as the Windows operating system. Probably got nearly there and got the infamous "blue screen of death" :)

 

[Niall]

Matt Walsh weighs in on the 'Moon landing hoax':

https://twitter.com/x/status/1752090483319263594

It's not just large numbers of Americans who believe (or suspect) that the moon landings were faked. This recent poll found that 25% of Europeans say the moon landing never happened. HALF of Russians think so too, which is especially weird because neither the Soviet Union nor the Russian government ever claimed it was a hoax!

 

[mkrnhr]

I understand the modern skepticism, not because of any conspiracy theory, but just looking at the present's representatives of the US intelligentsia in general. Basically, they're so dumb, it makes the achievements of half a century ago unlikely. The fallacy is to judge the past by today's standards.

 

[cholas]

Anyone who visits the Smthsonian and observes the Apollo lander that apparently landed on the moon should have a few questions as to how this sticks & tinfoil could ever have made it there. (I've seen it)

Maybe they did but possibly what is in the museum is not the actual vehicle that made the actual landing?

A very good friend who worked for JPL through the 60's, before early retirement, had his doubts. For what that is worth.

 

[Brewer]

I watched Walsh hoping for something original but its just the usual stuff, nothing in depth. I thought he'd present some visual examples, disappointed. As for the Russians, I wouldn't be surprised if they faked stuff too.
I was in touch with a bloke who claimed to work for the Chinese Space Agency who says that most space travel has been largely faked except for the Chinese stuff of course! I asked him if he could find some video of Chinese spacesuits being tested in a vacuum chamber, because despite 60 years of space travel, there's none. He told me there was an abundance and would provide it soon. Crickets.

Disappointed with Walsh, all he has to do is browse the 'original scans' and he'd find a ton of crap photography and even crappier lab and scanning techniques. What's an isosceles trapezoid is doing within the LM shadow? I do not know!

I could post a photo like the one above daily and I'd still be going after five years! No wonder they photoshopped them like this one below. On left is the 'original scan', if you download a 14MB copy and zoom in you'll see artifacts which are revealed by some simple enhancement (middle). I don't know what those fuzzy oblongs are nor do I know why a frame corner appears one third the way down on the left but they shouldn't be there. The perforations (perfs) on the left have been duplicated with the white ones being smaller than their fainter twins. On the right the perfs are both duplicated and bleed. This is an original scan from photos taken on the moon

It's thoroughly incoherent and they know it because they photoshopped it in 2009 for those nice publications that give us those lovely images. Download it, enhance it a little and you'll get something a little less incoherent but it appears they spent a lot of time and effort cleaning them up. I've even found an image where they added a altered 'sun' and lens flare. Below is the meta analysis data for this image, right down to the time of day.

 

[BHelmet]

Wow Nice! But where does the charcoal go? Or is this run on propane? Looks like you can cook a whole turkey or a ham in it.

 

[XPan]

Disappointed with Walsh, all he has to do is browse the 'original scans' and he'd find a ton of crap photography and even crappier lab and scanning techniques. What's an isosceles trapezoid is doing within the LM shadow? I do not know!

Tricky questions.

So let me tell you what i know and could in theory contribute. I don’t know HOW the original 70mm negatives where scanned. Was it a scanner or has a camera + macro lens been used to “scan” the negative as a whole or even in smaller sections, and then been stitched together ?

It is not unhead of to scan or photograph a large 70mm negative in sections with a macro lens at 1:1. I do that too at home. And then stitch them together.

Albeit stitching patterns today are not uniform any longer - but more like small mosaics of many small parts being uniformly stitched together in order to achieve a better overall images that looks uniform in tone, shape and colors.

Back in the days you had to try to do it manually and get more or less straight borders in the overlapping parts of the different images put together.

Also if a camera has been used to “scan” the negative, likely in several sections, than there is the issue of that (24x36mm fullframe but also larger than fullframe) sensors are often made out of smaller sensors put together.

Examples i know of:

Fujifilms 33x44mm “medium format” sensors n their 50 and 100 MP GFX series are in fact made up out of 4 smaller sensors put together. (Cheaper to produce due to the failure rate - for example in one large surface sensor that must be discarded compared to a fault in smaller sensor)

My old Leica M9 with its 24x36mm CCD sensor is made up out of two sensors. When doing extreme manipulations by lifting the shadows and steepen the contrast one can sometimes spot the line in the middle of the frame.

Also notice that when you lift the shadows to an extreme degree in especially older sensors, you see a lot of artifacts, stripes and noise.

The roundish shapes in one of the images, is a so called Newton ring. This happens when you enlarge a negative, or make a digital copy from a negative or slide, that is mounted behind plain glass.

Than there were extremely expensive professional drum scanners (from Imacon and Swedish Hasselblad) where you obtained the highest possible quality image files from scanned negatives - which usually were wet mounted (i believe) and scanned as a whole. I doubt these scanners were used in this case.

- - -

So all or some of these factors could potentially have played a roll explaining artifacts deep buried in the shadows of the digital files.

 

[WhiteMountain]

I think the most intriguing moon landing theory is the one put forward in "Dark Mission" by Richard C. Hoagland. He was a science correspondent for CBS news covering the event, and he actually said in his book that NASA itself was the origination of the "moon landing hoax" theory as there were files distributed (been over a decade since I read the book, so Idon't remember the exact details) to reporters that pointed to staged event on a set. Hoagland's theory was that the moon landings were real, but they had to stage videos concurrently because they were afraid what they would see when they got up there - stuff that they could not broadcast to the general public such as evidence of an alien presence on the moon.

He has photographs throughout Dark Mission of photos of Mars and the moon indicating structures that could not possibly be natural - such as large spire like structures on the moon that you can see from satellite photos that NASA has desperately tried to cover up; and I assume they probably have much higher resolution photos not made public. This would explain why there are all the BLATANT anomalies in the photos even if we did go to the moon. Given what we do know about our government and extraterrestrial/extradimensional activity, this would seem to make a hell of a lot of sense and is the most probably scenario in my eyes.

I personally am of the opinion our space program is a lot more advanced than what we are being told (TR3Bs etc.) and this has been verified by some people who I consider to he high integrity people (although they could be lied to) - such as Catherine Austin Fitts who used to be #2 at HUD and they went after her for being too honest and not going along with the money laundering. She has spoken extensively about massive money laundering (tens of trillions of missions money) used to finance a breakaway civilization.

 

[hlat]

large spire like structures on the moon that you can see from satellite photos that NASA has desperately tried to cover up

Can you find and post this photo?

 

[The Mechanic]

Claims that there exist no footage of pressure testing the space suits in the sixties are wrong -> Incredible footage of a NASA test subject being exposed to a space-like vacuum | Space Facts – Astronomy, the Solar System & Outer Space | All About Space Magazine

 

[The Mechanic]

She has spoken extensively about massive money laundering (tens of trillions of missions money) used to finance a breakaway civilization.

Why would our money mean anything to a breakaway civilization? That sounds very illogical to me.

Edit: Btw, if you search the forum about Richard C. Hoagland you'll find extensive documentation about what he's been up to, and he isn't what he seems. There used to be pages on the cass website about it, but they aren't there anymore, but still up on arhive.org _Hoagland, Hyperdimensions, Space and Time by Laura Knight-Jadczyk and Hoagland, Hyperdimensions, Space and Time Pt II by Laura Knight-Jadczyk

 

[Keit]

HALF of Russians think so too, which is especially weird because neither the Soviet Union nor the Russian government ever claimed it was a hoax!

Actually it could be because neither the Soviet Union nor the Russian government ever claimed it was a hoax! I am joking, sort of, but it is very consistent with Russian innate distrust of authorities, either Soviet/Russian or foreign.

In fact, one of the movies that Russians remember very well is "Wag he dog". They often use this movie as an example of what US undoubtedly does in reality.

But Russians can go overboard with conspiracy theories. Not only there are extremely detailed conspiracy theories regarding the Soviet Space program, and how it could never happen as described, but there are also other similarly detailed theories regarding things like Chelyabinsk meteorite (not to mention Dyatlov Pass or Tunguska meteorite).

I remember seeing long article arguing for all kind of possibilities, including drawings of trajectories and triangulations, and what not. Chelyabinsk meteorite was claimed to be a secret military test, a downed UFO (or a UFO crash), an intercepted missile, etc. Anything but a simple meteorite fall.

 

[seek10]

Japanese moon lander lands but fails shortly after due to the solar array failing to deploy.

As the sun moves in the lunar sky it may wake up

So easy six decades ago.

While the world is still discussing what is fake (or conspiracy) and what is real, Japan's moon lander (Moon sniper explorer) came back to life due to a backup power mechanism that charges (and provides power to the rover), when sunlight reaches it. It has some interesting features

• First optically guided lander
• 2 probes , one small ball sized shape shifting rover(co-designed by company that created transformer toys) that takes pictures and sends it back.

Japan’s Moon Sniper explorer, also known as SLIM, which is a robotic lander that was launched in 2023 to investigate a region of the moon where the moon’s mantle is exposed. The lander faced a power crisis after landing upside down on the lunar surface, and had to shut down for 10 days. But thanks to the changing angle of the sun, the lander was able to restore power and communication, and resume its scientific operations. The lander also captured and transmitted new images of the lunar surface using its multi-band camera. These images show us the details and features of the lunar region near the Shioli crater, where the moon’s mantle is exposed. They also show us the location and condition of the lander, which landed about 55 meters away from its target, making it the most precise lunar landing in history. The lander also deployed two probes that were detached from it, and that are still functioning and communicating with the Earth. One of the probes is a transmitter that relays the signals from the lander to the Earth. The other probe is a shape-shifting mini-rover, slightly bigger than a tennis ball, that trundles around the lunar surface and beams images to Earth. This mini-rover was co-developed by the firm behind the Transformer toys, and it can change its shape and size depending on the terrain and obstacles. I will also explain why this mission is so important and exciting, and what it means for the global cooperation and competition in the new lunar space race.