Landing on the Moon

10 October 2016

Houston this is Tranquility base, the Eagle has landed,” or did it? Some people believe this is one of the governments biggest cover ups, did Apollo 11 land on the moon or was it all a hoax and a major cover up? In this paper I will show how the facts prove that Apollo 11 did in fact land on the moon and that is was not a cover up. Nine years prior to the launch date of the Saturn V, President John F. Kennedy had said that by the end of the decade the country would put a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth.

We will write a custom essay sample on
Landing on the Moon
or any similar topic specifically for you
Do Not Waste
Your Time
HIRE WRITER

The landing of the Apollo 11 on the moon ushered in the era of the moon exploration that so far until then had gone unrivaled. When President Kennedy made his announcement it came at the height of the space race, which was a subplot to the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union started the space race by sending the first artificial satellite into orbit, Sputnik l in October 1957 (www. nationalgeographic. com). The Apollo 11 astronauts had several tasks that they wanted to accomplish during their extravehicular activity (EVA) operations on the surface of the Moon.

The astronauts planned to collect lunar samples, deploy several experiments and examine and photograph the lunar surface. The EVA lasted about 2 ? hours, and all scientific experiments were completed satisfactory, all instruments were deployed and samples were collected. Neil Armstrong emerged from the spacecraft first, and while he descended, he released the Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly on the Lunar Module’s descent stage. There was a camera on this module that provided live television coverage of man’s first step on the Moon (www. lpi. usra. edu).

Now that we have a little bit of history on Apollo 11, why we launched Saturn V into space to attempt to land a man on the moon and return him safely back to Earth and some of the things that Apollo 11 was suppose to do if and when it landed on the moon, we can now get down to the debate. Did Apollo 11 really land on the moon, or did our government succeed in one of the largest cover ups known? According to some of the conspiracy theorists that are out there and that are saying that the Apollo 11 landing on the Moon was all a hoax say that the flag was waving in the pictures and footage that we see.

How can a flag wave in the wind if the surface of the moon is airless, it can’t. The flag was made from an aluminum foil substance, which would mean that there would have to be a huge fan in the studio to make it “wave” on the moon. So that points to NASA faking the landing, it must have happened in a studio where there were huge fans that would create a breeze, and that is why the flag moved (www. londonladyhubpages. com). Incorrect, there is an explanation to this theory that proves that the flag that was placed on the moon could in fact “wave” after the astronaut placed it on the moon.

The reason that the flag is “waving” after the astronaut placed it on the moon, is inertia from when he let it go (www. nationalgeographic. com). Inertia is understood and described in Newton’s First Law of Motion: that an object not subject to any net external force moves at a constant velocity. Which means an object will continue to move at its current velocity until some force causes its speed or direction to change (www. wikipedia. org). Without drag or friction from the air, the momentum from the planting of the flag on the moon will last for sometime after it has been planted and let go.

And that is why the flag looks like it is “waving” in the picture. There is a lot of controversy around some of the photographs that were taken on the moon, the one where Neil Armstrong and the Eagle are reflected in Buzz Aldrin’s visor or the other major one is how the shadows of the objects are in pictures, how they are not parallel. So for the first theory about only two astronauts on the moon, and who took the pictures is simple to explain. The astronauts had cameras that were mounted to their chests.

In the famous picture of Neil Armstrong you can see how his arm is around his chest area, where the camera was mounted. Plus the visors of the astronauts were curved, so you cannot judge distance very well, and Buzz was a lot closer than he looked (www. nationalgeographic. com) (www. londonlady. hubpages. com). Now to prove the shadow conspiracy theory wrong, the shadows in some of the pictures were not parallel like they should have been; which some people are saying that there has to be more than one light source in order for this to happen.

You can achieve this very easily, all you have to do is change the topography of where ever you are taking the pictures. That is why on the moon it we have shadows that are not parallel, the topography of the moon allows this to happen (www. youtube. com). Theory number three that we will prove to be wrong, there are no stars in any of the photographs that were taken while on the moon. Once again we go back to how the cameras were back then for one, the astronauts were using exposure settings which limited incoming background light.

When you take pictures fast, the stars would not have had time to register on the film. Another reason that we did not see stars in any of the photographs from the moon landing is that the moon’s surface reflects sunlight, and that glare would have made the stars hard to see (www. nationalgeographic. com). The final theory that I am going to talk about is that of the footprints that were left on the moon by the astronauts. People say that the surface of the moon is to dry for this, and the footprints that they would have left would not have as much detail as the ones in the pictures.

Truth is that moon dust, or regolith is like a finely ground powder, when you look at in under a microscope it almost resembles volcanic ash. So when you step down on it, it compresses very easily into the shape of your shoe. Plus the vacuum in space will allow for the footprints to remain in space for a very long time (www. nationalgeographic. com) (www. londonlady. hubpages. org). With all that being said I think science backs up the fact that the Apollo 11 did in fact land on the moon. For every theory from the conspiracists, there is a scientific explanation to prove them wrong.

There are more theories out there I only addressed a few, but I feel that in fact the only hoax that took place here is the hoax that the conspiracy theorists are trying to pull off. The moon does not have a flat smooth topography which explains the shadows in the pictures, inertia explains why the flag moved after being placed and the makeup of moon dust explains how and why the footprints look the way they do.

A limited
time offer!
Get authentic custom
ESSAY SAMPLEwritten strictly according
to your requirements