NASA tries to fake the moon landings... and the Soviets find out

Exactly what it says on the tin. What if the US, rather than actually putting men on the moon, tried to fake the lunar landings, only for their ruse to be busted by the Soviets? I imagine, at the very least, that America's pride and its faith in the soundness of its scientific institutions would've taken a very stinging blow.

The idea for this topic comes from a criticism I read of the "moon landing hoax" conspiracy theory; i.e. no amount of NASA fakery would've been able to fool the Soviets, and even the slightest evidence that it wasn't absolutely real would've been pounced on and used to turn America and NASA into laughingstocks.
 
Exactly what it says on the tin. What if the US, rather than actually putting men on the moon, tried to fake the lunar landings, only for their ruse to be busted by the Soviets? I imagine, at the very least, that America's pride and its faith in the soundness of its scientific institutions would've taken a very stinging blow.

The idea for this topic comes from a criticism I read of the "moon landing hoax" conspiracy theory; i.e. no amount of NASA fakery would've been able to fool the Soviets, and even the slightest evidence that it wasn't absolutely real would've been pounced on and used to turn America and NASA into laughingstocks.

Americans would say that the Soviets were lying as usual and stick to their story.
 
NASA wouldn't try to do that, because they aren't stupid. The world can detect objects in space. If there were no rocket/capsule out there, it would be picked up very quickly.
 
NASA wouldn't try to do that, because they aren't stupid. The world can detect objects in space. If there were no rocket/capsule out there, it would be picked up very quickly.

I agree NASA aren't stupid enough to fake a moon landing but we didn't have the technology to detect objects as small as a moon lander at that time.

Even today the pictures of the Moon don't show clear pics of the landers.
 

Cook

Banned
I agree NASA aren't stupid enough to fake a moon landing but we didn't have the technology to detect objects as small as a moon lander at that time.
The Apollo Capsule with last stage was visible leaving earth orbit, its' trajectory could be extrapolated from there, so something big was going to The Moon. And was tracked by radio telescope the entire way, independently tracked by Parkes Observatory with the Doppler Effect measured and confirming both the position of the transmitter on the space craft and its location. Given the limited capacity of computers at the time it would probably have been harder to achieve the same result with automated devices than with a piloted craft.
 
Considering how many people would have to be shut up and the fact that multiple gigantic rockets with functional spacecraft would have to be built anyway, regardless of whether they landed on the Moon, it would have been just as hard for NASA to fake a lunar landing than to actually go through with it.
 
Exactly what it says on the tin. What if the US, rather than actually putting men on the moon, tried to fake the lunar landings, only for their ruse to be busted by the Soviets? I imagine, at the very least, that America's pride and its faith in the soundness of its scientific institutions would've taken a very stinging blow.

The idea for this topic comes from a criticism I read of the "moon landing hoax" conspiracy theory; i.e. no amount of NASA fakery would've been able to fool the Soviets, and even the slightest evidence that it wasn't absolutely real would've been pounced on and used to turn America and NASA into laughingstocks.

Ignoring the impracticality of doing so, what evidence would the Soviets have used to prove it?

It is going to have to be fairly massive for the American public, and the rest rest of the world, to believe. Most likely even if NASA did fake it the USSR is a laughingstock that is viewed as trying to cheat other countries out of their accomplishments for the next few years. If the Soviets manage to pull it off NASA would be even more determined to get there first, and this time have even more documentation, also proof the first landing was real.
 
In order to give NASA sufficient motive to do it in the first place, it would need (1) an apollo program significantly slowed as compared to OTL, and (2) reliable information that the Soviets were more likely to get there before them, probably necessitating a more successful USSR space program, or at least one that could present itself as more successful. It's possible that the Soviets and Americans both end up staging phony landings, and the Americans are the only ones that get caught. The accusations would be denied by NASA and the US government, but if the Soviets can get impartial observers to examine the evidence and come to the same conclusion, there would be little doubt.
The only real way to fake something of this magnitude would be to send an actual rocket to the moon, so the best possibility would be if US scientists just couldn't quite figure out how to get life support up and running in time. I saw a movie, Capricorn One, where NASA got shortchanged on life-support systems by a bargain contractor for a mars mission and went this route.

NASA and the US government would be humiliated and public interest in space would sharply decline. Official inquiries would be set up to point fingers and control the damage; the government and the public would eventually come to the conclusion that a space race is simply not cost-effective, and interest would wane. Meanwhile, the Soviets will land someone on the moon for real sometime around 1972, accompanied by a healthy dose of international skepticism, then lose interest in 1974-5. USSR might enter a relative economic boom and stave off collapse for a few years, or it might exhaust its funds and end up shooting itself in the foot. After it collapses, the declassified documents prove that the USSR was in the process of staging its own fake moon landing; this doesn't get much attention but would probably be brought up quickly by Americans in internet arguments.
 
Last edited:
Ignoring the impracticality of doing so, what evidence would the Soviets have used to prove it?

It is going to have to be fairly massive for the American public, and the rest rest of the world, to believe. Most likely even if NASA did fake it the USSR is a laughingstock that is viewed as trying to cheat other countries out of their accomplishments for the next few years. If the Soviets manage to pull it off NASA would be even more determined to get there first, and this time have even more documentation, also proof the first landing was real.
This seems like the most likely result to me.
 
What the Hoaxers forget to mention is that given the tech of the 1960s, it would have taken almost as much effort to fake the as it did to actually get there.
 

AndyC

Donor
What the Hoaxers forget to mention is that given the tech of the 1960s, it would have taken almost as much effort to fake the as it did to actually get there.

Probably significantly more.
About ten years ago the sci.space.history newsgroup tried to determine the minimum possible size of conspiracy needed to pull off a Moon landing fake (they were fairly sick of all the Hoaxers and decided to see if - with all their expertise - they could possibly determine a feasible faking). They couldn't get it below triple figures.

Bearing in mind that the launcher is visible in public (and indeed televised), its approximate capacity can be calculated from the fuel used or at least given a range). So the fakers would need to actually design and build a launcher capable of sending a manned mission to the Moon.

They'd also need to simulate a manned capsule and lander, so let contracts and have them do believable jobs (they can be checked up on). You'd also need the infrastructure and support in place, otherwise any rational spies would be able to spot it!

You'd also need to send something into a Trans Lunar Injection orbit (the launch and TLI burn are easily visible from the ground). the capsule can be tracked from Low Earth orbit for quite a distance by telescope.

You'd have to send something to lunar orbit to transmit the telemetry and radio signals (which can be tracked from the Soviet union and elsewhere). You'd also need to carefully synchronise the speech cutoff with the telemetry cutoff and very carefully script the interactions between the astronauts and the ground to allow for the (simulated) speed of light delay.

The telemetry from the lunar lander and simulation of the conditions on the Moon would be murderously difficult to do. You'd definitely want to avoid TV transmissions from the Moon. You'd also need to curtail the programme after the first "landing" - fortunately public attention would drop off fast.

You'd definitely never send "lunar rovers" up - it's still pretty much impossible for us to simulate the driving of the rovers over lunar dust (watching the dust kicked up, you'd have to have a one-sixth gee vacuum environment large enough to encompass the rovers!)

Overall, given what you'd have to do to fake it, it would be far easier to simply go through with it!
 
What the Hoaxers forget to mention is that given the tech of the 1960s, it would have taken almost as much effort to fake the as it did to actually get there.

Search Youtube 'Mitchell and Webb' Moon Conspiracy sketch You can also look at their 'Princess Diana murdered' sketch. You may like it.
 
I agree NASA aren't stupid enough to fake a moon landing but we didn't have the technology to detect objects as small as a moon lander at that time.

Even today the pictures of the Moon don't show clear pics of the landers.

On the other hand, the Apollo missions did plant reflectors for laser ranging experiments, as did the Soviet Lunokhod rovers. In order to fake those, something would have to be landed on the moon.

They would also have to create some fake lunar rocks for geologists to study, or come up with some excuse why they couldn't bring rocks back from the Moon.

Cheers,
Nigel.
 
Top