Apollo 20 hoax footage

[Bob B.]

countzero said:

Back to the topic: Based on on an average of the historical impact ranges , the first stage would come down roughly 355 nm (410 miles) downrange - somewhere along the Colorado river, between California & Arizona. The second stage would come down in the Atlantic, between Cape Hatteras and the Bahamas.

That may be where the stages come down when everything goes as planned, but since any of a number of mishaps can occur during launch, a cleared zone downrange of the launch site is required for safety. (The Chinese know about this too well as one of their rockets crashed into a village resulting in many deaths.) This is why both Vandenberg and Canaveral/Kennedy are located on the coast and that launch azimuths are restricted to those that result in launches over water. Launches from Vandenberg are restricted to azimuths between 158 and 201 degrees, while Canaveral/Kennedy launches are restricted to azimuths between 35 and 120 degrees.

BTW, according to Apollo by the Numbers, it looks like the safety range for most of the Apollo launches was between 1,400 and 1,500 nautical miles (~2,700 km).

(EDIT) D'oh! Nevermind on that last part; I misread surface range for safety range. The 1,400 to 1,500 n.mi. number is how far Apollo was downrange of the launch pad at orbit insertion. An eastward Saturn V launch from Vandenberg would therefore be burning its engines until somewhere over Louisiana.

countzero said:

Incidentally, I note that Vandenberg is several degrees of latitude north of Canaveral. This would require a bit more delta-v to make orbit, and still more to get on a lunar trajectory. I'll leave it to you boffins to figure out how much.

There are several pads at Vandenberg with the southernmost ones being around 34.6 degrees latitude. The pads at Kennedy are around 28.6 degrees, however most of the Apollo missions were launched into parking orbits with inclinations around 32.5 degrees. Launching due east from Vandenberg, which is of course prohibited, would result in an orbital inclination of 34.6 degrees. I don't recall the exact formula (I can look it up), but a quick calculation tells me the Vandenberg launch would require about 10 m/s more delta-v. I don't know how the higher inclination would affect the translunar injection.

[graham2001]

bob said:

(EDIT) D'oh! Nevermind on that last part; I misread surface range for safety range. The 1,400 to 1,500 n.mi. number is how far Apollo was downrange of the launch pad at orbit insertion. An eastward Saturn V launch from Vandenberg would therefore be burning its engines until somewhere over Louisiana.

Which would make it visible/audible over just how much of the US?

So much for a secret launch.

Later: I'm adding a link to a map of the lunar farside (4.8mb) over at the Lunar & Planetary institute, looking at it makes it quite clear that the faker may have the names of the craters (more or less) right but thery were totally off in terms of location and relative directions from each other.

I've made a 'quickie' map showing the (best fit) flight path of the LM as derived from the video in the OP (Black line) as opposed to a straight line approach (Yellow line).

Click: Here(1.6mb file)

[Bob B.]

I’ve done some more ciphering on this Vandenberg scenario. We know that an eastward launch from Vandenberg is not plausible because (1) it is prohibited due to over-flight restrictions, and (2) people on the ground would notice it. I therefore wondered whether or not enough payload could be launched into a polar orbit from Vandenberg to complete a lunar landing.

I used Apollo 17 masses in my calculations. I first estimated the total delta-v of the Saturn V on a normal mission flown from KSC, about 12.3 km/s including TLI. Launching into a polar orbit we lose the velocity provided by Earth’s rotation, about 0.4 km/s from KSC. The Saturn V must therefore provide 12.7 km/s for a polar orbit. This extra velocity can be provided by reducing the payload mass. I estimate a payload reduction of about 7 metric tons will give us the required delta-v.

Apollo 17’s payload (CSM+LM) was 47 metric tons. We can therefore manage a lunar payload of only 40 tons launching into a polar parking orbit. The smallest Apollo payloads were the early J-missions at around 44 metric tons. An Apollo lunar landing can’t be achieved with a payload of only 40 tons, thus the Vandenberg scenario appears to be impossible.

[graham2001]

bob said:

Apollo 17’s payload (CSM+LM) was 47 metric tons. We can therefore manage a lunar payload of only 40 tons launching into a polar parking orbit. The smallest Apollo payloads were the early J-missions at around 44 metric tons. An Apollo lunar landing can’t be achieved with a payload of only 40 tons, thus the Vandenberg scenario appears to be impossible.

Unless you are willing to posit a two launch scenario, where the first launch puts an unmanned LM in lunar orbit and the second launch sends the CSM up to rendezvous.

However the hoaxer does not appear to have thought that far.

[donnieb]

Other possibilities would be an upgraded S-V capable of higher delta-V than earlier ones; modifications to the CSM/LM stack to save weight (not too likely); a stripped-down mission with less equipment and lower safety margins on fuel loads; or even a 2-man mission with proportionally reduced consumable loads.

[scooter]

But they would still need the Saturn Infrastructure at Vandenberg...VAB size assembly building, pads, LUTs etc, which would be impossible to conceal.
I doubt you could pull off a S-V launch there without everyone knowing.

[Count Zero]

Unless you are willing to posit a two launch scenario, where the first launch puts an unmanned LM in lunar orbit and the second launch sends the CSM up to rendezvous.

I had to read this twice before I noticed you specified lunar orbit. This is good because the existing hardware (mainly the LM) could not have supported Earth Orbital Rendezvous without major (read time-consuming and heavy) redesign.

Problems with multiple launch Lunar Orbital Rendezvous include:

- The LM cannot do Lunar Orbit Insertion on its own. Either the descent stage must be completely redesigned, or a new stage must be designed and fitted for the job.
- The LM cannot stay in lunar orbit for weeks waiting for the CSM. Its batteries will certainly die, and I don't know if the fuel system can stay pressurized for that long.
- You have to burn two Saturn Vs to achieve it. For a polar orbit launch, nothing else can lift these big payloads to the Moon. As mentioned above, both launches must be in quick succession, so that means having two launch pads to have both rockets assembled and checked out. Launch complex 39 at the Cape could do this, but there's nothing like that at Vandenburg (though the pad that was built to launch the Shuttles is in this frame).

A couple of other points about a Vandenburg Saturn V launch:
- For Shuttle launches from Vandenburg (which, following the Challenger disaster, never occured), there was concern that the echo of the engine noise off of nearby hills could cause unacceptable vibration to the rocket stack. This would probably have been worse with a Saturn V.
- Polar-orbit launches from Vandenburg fly more or less due south, which takes them straight past Los Angeles. I saw many rocket launches from Vandenburg when I was living in Manhattan & Hermosa Beach. So much for a "secret" launch.

[graham2001]

donnieb said:

Other possibilities would be an upgraded S-V capable of higher delta-V than earlier ones; modifications to the CSM/LM stack to save weight (not too likely); a stripped-down mission with less equipment and lower safety margins on fuel loads; or even a 2-man mission with proportionally reduced consumable loads.

However our hoaxer, like the makers of Capricorn One, seems to have opted for a 'stock' Apollo J-Mission with a three man crew...

It's rather ironic that we here, seem to be coming up with a better (In that it makes a little more sense.) scenario than the person who put together the hoax footage

[graham2001]

countzero said:

- Polar-orbit launches from Vandenburg fly more or less due south, which takes them straight past Los Angeles. I saw many rocket launches from Vandenburg when I was living in Manhattan & Hermosa Beach. So much for a "secret" launch.

Which is of course the objection to any eastward launch from Vandenberg, but the hoaxer either cleverly, or more likely through geographic/historical ignorance has not specified the launch trajectory used...

[Bob B.]

I just noticed a couple more problems with this Apollo 20 hoax...

First, how are they talking to Vandenberg while they’re on the far side of the Moon? The features they are allegedly flying over or on the lunar far side, yet they are supposedly talking to Vandenberg. While on the lunar far side they would be in radio communication blackout.

According to the launch segment video the date is supposedly 16-Aug-76 and the Saturn V video appears to be during daylight. Sunset that day at Vandenberg was 7:49 PM PDT, or 2:49 GMT on 17-Aug. Let’s therefore set this as the latest time launch could have occurred. The lasted GET for lunar landing on any Apollo mission was 110:32:36 during Apollo 12. If we assume this same time for Apollo 20 and add it to the launch time, then landing would have occurred at 17:22 GMT on 21-Aug-76. I think this represents the latest landing time that we can reasonably expect.

Below are the Moon phases for the period in question:

Full Moon: 9-Aug-76, 23:43 GMT
Last Quarter: 18-Aug-76, 0:14 GMT
New Moon: 25-Aug-76, 11:00 GMT
First Quarter: 1-Sep-76, 3:37 GMT

From the above, I interpolate that at my estimated landing time, and ignoring libration, the sunset terminator would have been about 44^o W and the sunrise terminator about 136^o E. At the time in question, lunar libration was –6^o in longitude. Correcting for libration we therefore have the sunset terminator at 50^o W and the sunrise terminator at 130^o E. (Perhaps somebody has some software that will give us a more accurate number?)

The alleged alien spaceship is supposedly near the edge of crater Izsak, which is located at 23.3^o S, 117.1^o E. According to my estimates, 117.1^o E is in darkness at the time of the landing, about 13^o from the terminator. Izsak is still one full day from rotating into sunlight. (An earlier landing time would place the crater even further into darkness, which is why I estimate the latest reasonable landing time.)

One could argue that Apollo 20 loitered in orbit longer than all previous missions, but I don’t think that is a reasonable argument. Why would they deviate from a set plan that worked six times previously? To have optimum lighting conditions at the landing site, I think launch probably would have occurred on 18-Aug-76.

[Bob B.]

graham2001 said:

Unless you are willing to posit a two launch scenario, where the first launch puts an unmanned LM in lunar orbit and the second launch sends the CSM up to rendezvous.

donnieb said:

Other possibilities would be an upgraded S-V capable of higher delta-V than earlier ones; modifications to the CSM/LM stack to save weight (not too likely); a stripped-down mission with less equipment and lower safety margins on fuel loads; or even a 2-man mission with proportionally reduced consumable loads.

I agree that there may be other mission scenarios that work if we want to stretch plausibility to the limit, but I don’t find them particularly credible. Furthermore, I don’t think the maker of the Apollo 20 hoax video is attempting to imply anything other than a fairly standard Apollo mission.

scooter said:

But they would still need the Saturn Infrastructure at Vandenberg...VAB size assembly building, pads, LUTs etc, which would be impossible to conceal.
I doubt you could pull off a S-V launch there without everyone knowing.

I agree; I never meant to imply a secret launch from Vandenberg was possible – I don’t believe it is. I just wanted to see if it was within the realm of possible from a payload capacity standpoint only, which it is not without significant changes and/or upgrades.

countzero said:

Polar-orbit launches from Vandenburg fly more or less due south, which takes them straight past Los Angeles. I saw many rocket launches from Vandenburg when I was living in Manhattan & Hermosa Beach. So much for a "secret" launch.

I agree a Saturn V could never be launched secretly from Vandenberg; even if it is launched southward it will be seen and heard. If the launch can’t be concealed, then Vandenberg offers no advantage at all over KSC in Florida. In fact, Vandenberg only creates problems as we’ve been discussing. If everybody is going to know about the launch anyway, might as well launch from KSC and avoid all the problems of Vandenberg.

[PeterB]

Is Vandenburg on the coast? (Forgive my ignorance of the relevant geography.) If not, how would they get the S-I and S-II stages there? For Apollo, they were brought in to the Cape by barge.

[grashtel]

peterb said:

Is Vandenburg on the coast? (Forgive my ignorance of the relevant geography.) If not, how would they get the S-I and S-II stages there? For Apollo, they were brought in to the Cape by barge.

Yes it is and always remember Google Is Your Friend.

[grashtel]

Hmm, looking at Vandenberg's location I wonder how much extra delta v is required for a westbound launch? It seems to me that launching towards the west would at least reduce most of the problems with launching an Apollo mission from Vandenberg that people here have brought up.

[Bob B.]

grashtel said:

Hmm, looking at Vandenberg's location I wonder how much extra delta v is required for a westbound launch? It seems to me that launching towards the west would at least reduce most of the problems with launching an Apollo mission from Vandenberg that people here have brought up.

Launching westward means you have Earth's rotation working against you. At the latitudes of Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg the Earth's surface is already moving about 400 m/s toward the east as the Earth rotates. An eastward launch means we start out at a velocity of +400 m/s, thus the rocket doesn't have to provide this velocity. Launching north or south means that we start out at zero velocity in the north-south direction. The rocket loses the 400 m/s free ride and therefore has to provide all the velocity needed to attain orbit -- it must provide 400 m/s more than an eastward launch. Launching westward means we're starting out at -400 m/s. The rocket therefore must provide 400 m/s to cancel out Earth's rotation and get back to zero, and then it must further provide the full orbital velocity. A westward launch requires about 400 m/s more than a polar launch and 800 m/s more than an eastward launch.

I earlier estimated that we would lose about 7 metric tons in payload with a polar orbit, i.e. about 40 t total for the CSM+LM. For a westward launch from Vandenberg I estimate the reduction would be about 13 metric tons, or about 34 t total.