MOON LANDING CONSPIRACY DEBUNKED

From 20th July 1969 to 2020 , it's been 51 years since the mankind has set the first steps on moon but still we have never got rid of these -

It's important to question Everything..but still it's important to not form any preconceived notions about your ignorance and accept the facts which have logical proofs. The idea about conspiracy started with Bill Kaysing , who worked as a technical writer for NASA Apollo Mission - published a book - We never went to the moon : America's 30 billion dollar swindle  and claimed that he has got some inside knowledge of conspiracy. It gained immense popularity since then , because  media was heavily earning from this issue and why not the questions raised are really some good ones and worth an explanation . But the problem occurs when the concept is promoted  in such a way that people don't feel any need to check facts or reasoning and are dragged in the camp of " non - believers " 

Here , lets debunk some of the most popular misconceptions that have become conspiracies now:

#1. Sun is the source of light for moon so why there are different angles for shadows ?Are Studio lights the reason ?

Explanation - 

Sun is the dominant but not the only source of light available . Surface of moon is also a reflector as well as uneven - shallow bumps are hard to notice  . Moreover , earth also shines light on moon - called Earthshine. Thus , sun isn't the only source available for light so , shadows are at different angles .

#2. Flag is waving on lunar surface even when it has no atmosphere

Explanation-

 NASA was well aware of the fact that there is no air on moon , so the flag that they constructed had horizontal rods in it . By the time we were on the moon , some serious ripples were there on fabric giving it a bent shape . Moreover , the flag appears to move only when the Astronauts touched it ( momentum conservation ) , so it was not because of wind .

#3. The most popular one - Why there are no stars? Just because it will be easy to locate the position and timing with stars so studio director avoided  that ?

Explanation -

 Obviously , no. There are no stars due to the exposure  . Exposure time is the length of time for which the camera's shutter is open when taking a photograph. If you want to catch each and every star in the background , the exposure would have to arranged ,  in such a way that it will result in  this kind of photograph. Obviously , you don't want that, so the prime Focus was on clicking pic of astronaut not the stars . 

 This is a four-second exposure taken from the flight deck of the shuttle Endeavour

Moreover , try to clicking your pic in night sky , notice no stars will be visible ,  only blackness( with some city lights maybe ) , this is the same thing that happened when we clicked photograph on moon So yeah , issue resolved. 

#4. This image was taken by Neil Armstrong when Buzz Aldrin was stepping out of Eagle . It clearly shows that the sun is in the opposite side and the astronaut is in shadow , so how is he so brightly visible ? Shouldn't he appear dark ?

Explanation  - The astronaut is bright because :

1. Moon's surface is reflective as explained above 

And the astronaut is "soo" bright because - 

Neil Armstrong is clicking the pic and the spacesuit made up of Teflon has 90 % reflective properties , so he himself is like a bright source of light . We have  got all of this tried in a  simulator and the results are the exact same as they were in official  moon landing photographs

#5 How did the astronauts survive radiation from Van Allen belt ? 

Explanation - 

Let's first understand what Van Allen Belt is - it is a torus of the charged plasma ( soup of Charged particles )around earth trapped by the earth's magnetic field .

 It has two layers with the inner one being well defined , so easy to avoid . The outer one is very large and hard to avoid , but we can find relatively less denser regions. Apollo astronauts were exposed to the radiation , but for a relatively shorter amount of time and through a relatively less dense region -similar to getting two CT scans of your head , so not too bad .

#6 Crosshairs etched into the cameras are visible in the Apollo photos; however, in some images these aren't visible ? How's that possible?

Explanation- 

Try photographing a very bright surface, and you will yourself see the crosshairs disappear. those bright objects bleed brightness , saturating the film and obligating the cross hairs . So , yes it's possible.

#9 The powerful engine of lunar module should have produced a blast crater yet it is nowhere to be seen .

Explanation- 

Yes , the engine was indeed very powerful  , landing on earth would have made a lot of hoo-haah on earth due to different rocks and stronger gravity. but on moon , the thrust was lowered down to mere 3000 lbs before landing on lunar surface. The Moon's surface is covered with a rocky material called lunar regolith, that has a unique property that the particles are very jagged, which causes them to interlock. When subjected to pressure, the regolith will resist, almost like solid rock.The exhaust stream was not powerful or centralized enough to displace the regolith and blast out a crater. The first moon landing by Neil Armstrong has been registered to be one of the softest moon landing with a  0.54 m/s velocity.

#8 Still I don't believe that moon landing happened 

Explanation - 

For you first I have some evidences , cuz till now I have debunked assumptions only and maybe visible  evidences can convince you more strong.

• Apollo astronauts brought sample of moon rock back to earth and the rock with this particular composition is nowhere to be found anywhere on Earth. Tests have shown that the lunar meteorites match exactly with the rock samples from moon , except from the features that distinguish them from meteorites. 

•The most solid proof is here - American flag isn't the only thing that astronauts carried on moon . We also have 'Laser Retro - Reflector' - these are a series of corner cube reflectors which have a special property of reflecting the light in the direction where it came from . They are still working today :)

•Some Logical Proofs - 

If it would have been so easy to build a special Hollywood set for moon landing , The Soviet Union ( Russia now ) - the major competitor of would have never accepted this and might have staged Mars landing in response.

400 thousand people have worked on this program ,  so many missions have been there before to make the landing happen . With so many people reporting to the mission constantly , maybe reporting everyday , why it is that no one has spilled tea so far .

600 million people watched the launch , that includes so many people at the launch site watching live. The rocket did launch and there is no place to where it did go except space .

Those pictures have all the smallest details in them and getting these perfectly would have been much easier by going on moon than filming in any Hollywood set .

With so many fallacies explained ,  I guess the conspiracy theories have finally been debunked. Still if there are things left to be explained , try to do some search , instead of jumping right to conclusion.

 20 July 1969 , indeed marks "One small step for man , one giant leap for mankind ". 

COPYRIGHTED IMAGES CREDIT - NASA

Read More

SPACE ELEVATOR

"The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing.”

— Arthur C. Clarke

Ever thought about taking a lift from ground to space ? Well the idea might sound sic-fi and unusual but let me tell you NASA has commissioned the study of elevator in 1990s which concluded that it will be feasible to build one and use it for exploring outer space . In Sept. 2018 an experiment was launched to International space station to test idea that the movement of climber. Not only this , countries like Japan , China , US they all have plans regarding the same . Let's see how did the idea came into existence ?

Birth of Idea of space elevator -

First proposed by a Russian Physicsist Konstantin , the idea finally came into limelight with the novel ' Fountains of Paradise ' by Arthur Clarke . Research was finally started with enthusiasm in this area with the discovery of Carbon Nanotubes ; they play the most important role in realisation of concept of Space Elevator

Building Space Elevator 

This is where the things start getting interesting and complex .

Let's first understand the design -

Space elevator is basically a tall cable rising from Earth to Space , terminating in a Counterweight.

The components are - Cable , Counterweight , Anchor and Climber

We need our elevator to be static wrt. to us so we need to assure that all the forces acting on it are Zero. 

You must have heard about geostationary satellites - as the name says , they appear static wrt  earth        ( the time period of rotation of satellite is same as that of Earth 🌎 ) They are placed directly above equator , at a particular height , at which the Gravitational ( force pulling satellite towards earth ) and Centrifugal force ( force pushing it out of Earth ) become equal , that height from surface of earth is = 35786 km . 

But the situation is not as simple as satellite in this case . We have cable attached to the satellite which carries its own weight . Upward force - centrifugal force must increase to balance this out . So either increase mass of counter weight ( maybe capture an asteroid ) or increase the height of cable. L

So lets talk carefully here -

The Design 

Each portion of tower should be such that total force on it = 0 

Total forces acting on a small element of the giant tower are - 

Fu : Force due to the portion of tower above the element

Fd: Force due to the portion of tower below the element

W: force due to weight of element  and 

Fc : Centrifugal force ( Cuz of rotation of Earth ) 

For the element below geostationary level 

W> Fc , which implies to balance this Fu > Fd .

This means that the thickness of tower should increase with increasing height below geostationary level

For the portion of the tower above geostationary level  implies W< Fc . To balance this we should have Fu < Fd 

LINEAR SCALE HAS BEEN USED TO SHOW INC. AND DEC. IN HEIGHT INSTEAD OF EXPONENTIAL FOR EASE OF REPRESENTATION 

This means that thickness of tower should decrease with increasing height below geostationary level.

Thus , a free standing tower is the one for which tension drops to 0 at both the ends with maximum value at Geostationary height.

Building from ground mathematically , the tower area should first increase exponentially , maximum height at geostationary level and then decrease exponentially. 

We should have something to hold this large structure right ? Here comes the role of anchor .

 

For building a tower so high and with such a large counterweight , there is a risk of disturbing the orbit of Earth around sun by disturbing Centre of mass , so we need to add an anchor attached to the counterweight through cable , down to earth to prevent it. Our anchor is not a simple hook , it will be located on a mobile , ocean - going platform in Pacific in a specific location . Reason ? By doing this we can avoid space debris , lightening and collisions with satellites . 

Let's now discuss about the most crucial impediment to our elevator - the material 

We have an important lead here - the taper ratio - which is the ratio of area of tether at the bottom to area at the highest point . Steel , the seemingly promising material in the construction has taper ratio

 = 1.6 × 10 ^ 23 

Building structure with steel , the area of top of tether is greater than the width of universe by a factor of 10^27 . Steel fails in terms of strength as well.

We require a material which has low density and has high tensile strength . That material is Carbon Nanotubes -

 

basically rolled up sheets of graphite. There are some major problems with this though -

*The ultimate tensile strength is still arguable outside laboratory and is sensitive to slightest foldings and twists 

* We haven't constructed nanotubes in bulk , we have achieved to about 3 cm length 

Good news , research is on !! 

Finally , let's turn to the climber 

Climber will be like a slight  modification to a Spacecraft , in terms of locomotion , cable deployment and power systems.

Calculations show that the mass ratio of cable to climber should be 0.86 .

Let's now talk about power source to space lift now -

It's challenging to power the climber to go up . The only possible way comes out to be photovoltaic cells ( a little ) and (mostly) powerful lasers .But still things like prevention of power dissipation have still a lot to work upon.

Ah..so much complications..

Nevermind , let's imagine to have built the one. So, how will we be using the space elevator ?

Space elevator is like one time risky investment , but if it will be stable and successful, we will be jumping into a new era of space  exploration 

Launching stations can be set up there , we won't have to spend too much fuel in getting rockets out of Earth 

Space travel will be cheap enough to $200 / kg as compared to billions of dollars today .

Stations and labs can be setup there with daily supplies

Global monitoring of earth and it's environment can easily be done. 

It will open gateway to a new way of living life !!

So many complications , is this realistic and worth research ? 

In my opinion , space elevator is quite realistic . Like maybe there is risk on Earth 🌎 , but the situation will be easier with Moon and maybe other planets in terms of low risk factor and type of material required ( like we can go with kevlar instead of Carbon Nanotubes on moon )

Just so many benefits , rely on some innovative Physics- Engineering Research . I think we should never stop research on this topic , goal is not about building an elevator on Earth only , it will bring with it revolution in the field of Material Physics , study of lasers , mechanics and so on ! We aren't losing anything.

What we have found is

interesting , innovative , takes relatively less money and has ability to completely change our ways of living more than any national budget . So let's have a positive attitude and determined approach :)

REFERENCES:

*The physics of the space elevator-P. K. Aravind

Department of Physics, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts 01609

*The Space Elevator-Bradley C. Edwards, Ph.D.

*1-Source -The physics of the space elevator-P. K. Aravind

*2-Source- spectrum.ieee.org

*3-Source -The physics of the space elevator-P. K. Aravind

*4-Source-matmatch.com

*5-Source-amp.ibtimes.co.uk

*6-Source-theconversation.com

*7-Source-themeparksandentertainment.com

*8-Source-extermetech.com

Read More