How could we fake a moon landing now? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) The network's official Twitter account is up and running again. What content…How can I transition from a democracy to a dictatorship, from within the government?How to make a fictional anarchist society believable to non-anarchists?Cheapest way to fake the Mars landingCould a 19th century setting support purely mechanical orbital satellite and manned orbital launches?In a world where asymmetric cryptography is common place in day to day life, what could stop somebody from generating a new key?Could a near-completely capitalistic nation work?What will Mars astronauts do about Dave?Why did US government hide the discovery of an ancient civilisation on the moon?Vampires in spaceLying is illegal. How to make joking not an offence?

Can anything be seen from the center of the Boötes void? How dark would it be?

Maximum summed powersets with non-adjacent items

Denied boarding although I have proper visa and documentation. To whom should I make a complaint?

Closed form of recurrent arithmetic series summation

What causes the direction of lightning flashes?

Do square wave exist?

Crossing US/Canada Border for less than 24 hours

How come Sam didn't become Lord of Horn Hill?

また usage in a dictionary

Around usage results

How to compare two different files line by line in unix?

Can melee weapons be used to deliver Contact Poisons?

Can an alien society believe that their star system is the universe?

How to find all the available tools in mac terminal?

Is it ethical to give a final exam after the professor has quit before teaching the remaining chapters of the course?

Is grep documentation wrong?

Is there a kind of relay only consumes power when switching?

Generate an RGB colour grid

What does the "x" in "x86" represent?

What does "lightly crushed" mean for cardamon pods?

Why are the trig functions versine, haversine, exsecant, etc, rarely used in modern mathematics?

An adverb for when you're not exaggerating

When a candle burns, why does the top of wick glow if bottom of flame is hottest?

Do jazz musicians improvise on the parent scale in addition to the chord-scales?



How could we fake a moon landing now?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
The network's official Twitter account is up and running again. What content…How can I transition from a democracy to a dictatorship, from within the government?How to make a fictional anarchist society believable to non-anarchists?Cheapest way to fake the Mars landingCould a 19th century setting support purely mechanical orbital satellite and manned orbital launches?In a world where asymmetric cryptography is common place in day to day life, what could stop somebody from generating a new key?Could a near-completely capitalistic nation work?What will Mars astronauts do about Dave?Why did US government hide the discovery of an ancient civilisation on the moon?Vampires in spaceLying is illegal. How to make joking not an offence?










11












$begingroup$


The moon landings actually happened, and there's plenty of contemporaneous evidence of it. But what if the United States government wanted to fake a moon landing now?



We have the technology to create pretty convincing images of a moon landing. But is it enough?



My question is this: given the tools we have to uncover and spread information, how could a major government in the present day stage a new moon landing comparable to the Apollo 11 mission?



For the purpose of this question, assume the following:



  • This is present-day Earth, except you can swap out relevant political leaders if you'd like.

    • But don't assume that they'll be in office when the hoax is completed.


  • Pick any government you want as long as they can afford and execute this hoax, and can convince the world it was real.

  • All previous lunar missions (manned or otherwise) happened as officially reported, and the results and observations taken from them are accurate.

  • If the hoax is exposed by a major news outlet at any time before "launch" or within fifty years afterward, it is considered a failure.

  • The government you choose announces plans for a real moon landing, and will at some point announce a formal "launch" date.

  • The identity of the purported astronauts is public knowledge, and they're in on it.

  • The hoax should not cost more than a real trip to the moon.

  • There will be an international television broadcast of the landing. It doesn't need to be live, but the general public has to believe that it is.

  • The "launch" must occur no later than July 20th, 2035.

  • The hoax must not actually involve sending people to the moon. You can send objects or animals there if you have to.

  • The more people or organizations who are in on the hoax, the more likely it will fail.

  • The "mission" will be a quick visit to the moon, similar to the Apollo 11. You are not trying to convince people that you've colonized the moon.

  • The hoax, once begun, will only be canceled if it's exposed.

  • The hoax is of a successful lunar mission; the general public must believe that all of the "astronauts" went to the moon and safely returned.









share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    "The hoax should not cost more than a real trip to the moon." "You can send objects or animals [but not people] [to the moon] if you have to." These are somewhat contradictory. Only by sending inanimate objects are you likely to be able to reduce the cost by any significant amount, since that does away with all life support requirements.
    $endgroup$
    – a CVn
    7 hours ago







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    The Apollo missions left retroreflectors on the moon; a hoax in a world where Apollo happened would likely need to do something similar in order to establish some sort of credibility, which more or less requires at least a soft landing, though not necessarily return capability. An old question of mine, What is the marginal cost of landing on the Moon? on Space Exploration, may well be of interest.
    $endgroup$
    – a CVn
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    There was an episode of Adam Ruins Everything where he discussed this, and why the moon landing wasn't fake. Had something to do with lighting and a giant laser
    $endgroup$
    – Greenie E.
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Mitchell and Webb considered this scenario. The conclusion that the best way to do a fake moon landing involved landing on the moon first. youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw
    $endgroup$
    – Starfish Prime
    7 hours ago







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    "If the hoax is exposed by a major news outlet at any time before launch or within fifty years afterward, it is considered a failure." Some major news outlets will give air time to all kinds of conspiracy theorists. I don't think a real manned moon mission could avoid being "exposed" as a hoax in at least some major news outlets; having it actually be a hoax would do nothing to prevent that.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    5 hours ago
















11












$begingroup$


The moon landings actually happened, and there's plenty of contemporaneous evidence of it. But what if the United States government wanted to fake a moon landing now?



We have the technology to create pretty convincing images of a moon landing. But is it enough?



My question is this: given the tools we have to uncover and spread information, how could a major government in the present day stage a new moon landing comparable to the Apollo 11 mission?



For the purpose of this question, assume the following:



  • This is present-day Earth, except you can swap out relevant political leaders if you'd like.

    • But don't assume that they'll be in office when the hoax is completed.


  • Pick any government you want as long as they can afford and execute this hoax, and can convince the world it was real.

  • All previous lunar missions (manned or otherwise) happened as officially reported, and the results and observations taken from them are accurate.

  • If the hoax is exposed by a major news outlet at any time before "launch" or within fifty years afterward, it is considered a failure.

  • The government you choose announces plans for a real moon landing, and will at some point announce a formal "launch" date.

  • The identity of the purported astronauts is public knowledge, and they're in on it.

  • The hoax should not cost more than a real trip to the moon.

  • There will be an international television broadcast of the landing. It doesn't need to be live, but the general public has to believe that it is.

  • The "launch" must occur no later than July 20th, 2035.

  • The hoax must not actually involve sending people to the moon. You can send objects or animals there if you have to.

  • The more people or organizations who are in on the hoax, the more likely it will fail.

  • The "mission" will be a quick visit to the moon, similar to the Apollo 11. You are not trying to convince people that you've colonized the moon.

  • The hoax, once begun, will only be canceled if it's exposed.

  • The hoax is of a successful lunar mission; the general public must believe that all of the "astronauts" went to the moon and safely returned.









share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    "The hoax should not cost more than a real trip to the moon." "You can send objects or animals [but not people] [to the moon] if you have to." These are somewhat contradictory. Only by sending inanimate objects are you likely to be able to reduce the cost by any significant amount, since that does away with all life support requirements.
    $endgroup$
    – a CVn
    7 hours ago







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    The Apollo missions left retroreflectors on the moon; a hoax in a world where Apollo happened would likely need to do something similar in order to establish some sort of credibility, which more or less requires at least a soft landing, though not necessarily return capability. An old question of mine, What is the marginal cost of landing on the Moon? on Space Exploration, may well be of interest.
    $endgroup$
    – a CVn
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    There was an episode of Adam Ruins Everything where he discussed this, and why the moon landing wasn't fake. Had something to do with lighting and a giant laser
    $endgroup$
    – Greenie E.
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Mitchell and Webb considered this scenario. The conclusion that the best way to do a fake moon landing involved landing on the moon first. youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw
    $endgroup$
    – Starfish Prime
    7 hours ago







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    "If the hoax is exposed by a major news outlet at any time before launch or within fifty years afterward, it is considered a failure." Some major news outlets will give air time to all kinds of conspiracy theorists. I don't think a real manned moon mission could avoid being "exposed" as a hoax in at least some major news outlets; having it actually be a hoax would do nothing to prevent that.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    5 hours ago














11












11








11


2



$begingroup$


The moon landings actually happened, and there's plenty of contemporaneous evidence of it. But what if the United States government wanted to fake a moon landing now?



We have the technology to create pretty convincing images of a moon landing. But is it enough?



My question is this: given the tools we have to uncover and spread information, how could a major government in the present day stage a new moon landing comparable to the Apollo 11 mission?



For the purpose of this question, assume the following:



  • This is present-day Earth, except you can swap out relevant political leaders if you'd like.

    • But don't assume that they'll be in office when the hoax is completed.


  • Pick any government you want as long as they can afford and execute this hoax, and can convince the world it was real.

  • All previous lunar missions (manned or otherwise) happened as officially reported, and the results and observations taken from them are accurate.

  • If the hoax is exposed by a major news outlet at any time before "launch" or within fifty years afterward, it is considered a failure.

  • The government you choose announces plans for a real moon landing, and will at some point announce a formal "launch" date.

  • The identity of the purported astronauts is public knowledge, and they're in on it.

  • The hoax should not cost more than a real trip to the moon.

  • There will be an international television broadcast of the landing. It doesn't need to be live, but the general public has to believe that it is.

  • The "launch" must occur no later than July 20th, 2035.

  • The hoax must not actually involve sending people to the moon. You can send objects or animals there if you have to.

  • The more people or organizations who are in on the hoax, the more likely it will fail.

  • The "mission" will be a quick visit to the moon, similar to the Apollo 11. You are not trying to convince people that you've colonized the moon.

  • The hoax, once begun, will only be canceled if it's exposed.

  • The hoax is of a successful lunar mission; the general public must believe that all of the "astronauts" went to the moon and safely returned.









share|improve this question











$endgroup$




The moon landings actually happened, and there's plenty of contemporaneous evidence of it. But what if the United States government wanted to fake a moon landing now?



We have the technology to create pretty convincing images of a moon landing. But is it enough?



My question is this: given the tools we have to uncover and spread information, how could a major government in the present day stage a new moon landing comparable to the Apollo 11 mission?



For the purpose of this question, assume the following:



  • This is present-day Earth, except you can swap out relevant political leaders if you'd like.

    • But don't assume that they'll be in office when the hoax is completed.


  • Pick any government you want as long as they can afford and execute this hoax, and can convince the world it was real.

  • All previous lunar missions (manned or otherwise) happened as officially reported, and the results and observations taken from them are accurate.

  • If the hoax is exposed by a major news outlet at any time before "launch" or within fifty years afterward, it is considered a failure.

  • The government you choose announces plans for a real moon landing, and will at some point announce a formal "launch" date.

  • The identity of the purported astronauts is public knowledge, and they're in on it.

  • The hoax should not cost more than a real trip to the moon.

  • There will be an international television broadcast of the landing. It doesn't need to be live, but the general public has to believe that it is.

  • The "launch" must occur no later than July 20th, 2035.

  • The hoax must not actually involve sending people to the moon. You can send objects or animals there if you have to.

  • The more people or organizations who are in on the hoax, the more likely it will fail.

  • The "mission" will be a quick visit to the moon, similar to the Apollo 11. You are not trying to convince people that you've colonized the moon.

  • The hoax, once begun, will only be canceled if it's exposed.

  • The hoax is of a successful lunar mission; the general public must believe that all of the "astronauts" went to the moon and safely returned.






reality-check space-travel government conspiracy






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 8 hours ago







JesseTG

















asked 8 hours ago









JesseTGJesseTG

1,04011019




1,04011019







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    "The hoax should not cost more than a real trip to the moon." "You can send objects or animals [but not people] [to the moon] if you have to." These are somewhat contradictory. Only by sending inanimate objects are you likely to be able to reduce the cost by any significant amount, since that does away with all life support requirements.
    $endgroup$
    – a CVn
    7 hours ago







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    The Apollo missions left retroreflectors on the moon; a hoax in a world where Apollo happened would likely need to do something similar in order to establish some sort of credibility, which more or less requires at least a soft landing, though not necessarily return capability. An old question of mine, What is the marginal cost of landing on the Moon? on Space Exploration, may well be of interest.
    $endgroup$
    – a CVn
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    There was an episode of Adam Ruins Everything where he discussed this, and why the moon landing wasn't fake. Had something to do with lighting and a giant laser
    $endgroup$
    – Greenie E.
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Mitchell and Webb considered this scenario. The conclusion that the best way to do a fake moon landing involved landing on the moon first. youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw
    $endgroup$
    – Starfish Prime
    7 hours ago







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    "If the hoax is exposed by a major news outlet at any time before launch or within fifty years afterward, it is considered a failure." Some major news outlets will give air time to all kinds of conspiracy theorists. I don't think a real manned moon mission could avoid being "exposed" as a hoax in at least some major news outlets; having it actually be a hoax would do nothing to prevent that.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    5 hours ago













  • 2




    $begingroup$
    "The hoax should not cost more than a real trip to the moon." "You can send objects or animals [but not people] [to the moon] if you have to." These are somewhat contradictory. Only by sending inanimate objects are you likely to be able to reduce the cost by any significant amount, since that does away with all life support requirements.
    $endgroup$
    – a CVn
    7 hours ago







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    The Apollo missions left retroreflectors on the moon; a hoax in a world where Apollo happened would likely need to do something similar in order to establish some sort of credibility, which more or less requires at least a soft landing, though not necessarily return capability. An old question of mine, What is the marginal cost of landing on the Moon? on Space Exploration, may well be of interest.
    $endgroup$
    – a CVn
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    There was an episode of Adam Ruins Everything where he discussed this, and why the moon landing wasn't fake. Had something to do with lighting and a giant laser
    $endgroup$
    – Greenie E.
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Mitchell and Webb considered this scenario. The conclusion that the best way to do a fake moon landing involved landing on the moon first. youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw
    $endgroup$
    – Starfish Prime
    7 hours ago







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    "If the hoax is exposed by a major news outlet at any time before launch or within fifty years afterward, it is considered a failure." Some major news outlets will give air time to all kinds of conspiracy theorists. I don't think a real manned moon mission could avoid being "exposed" as a hoax in at least some major news outlets; having it actually be a hoax would do nothing to prevent that.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    5 hours ago








2




2




$begingroup$
"The hoax should not cost more than a real trip to the moon." "You can send objects or animals [but not people] [to the moon] if you have to." These are somewhat contradictory. Only by sending inanimate objects are you likely to be able to reduce the cost by any significant amount, since that does away with all life support requirements.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
7 hours ago





$begingroup$
"The hoax should not cost more than a real trip to the moon." "You can send objects or animals [but not people] [to the moon] if you have to." These are somewhat contradictory. Only by sending inanimate objects are you likely to be able to reduce the cost by any significant amount, since that does away with all life support requirements.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
7 hours ago





4




4




$begingroup$
The Apollo missions left retroreflectors on the moon; a hoax in a world where Apollo happened would likely need to do something similar in order to establish some sort of credibility, which more or less requires at least a soft landing, though not necessarily return capability. An old question of mine, What is the marginal cost of landing on the Moon? on Space Exploration, may well be of interest.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
7 hours ago





$begingroup$
The Apollo missions left retroreflectors on the moon; a hoax in a world where Apollo happened would likely need to do something similar in order to establish some sort of credibility, which more or less requires at least a soft landing, though not necessarily return capability. An old question of mine, What is the marginal cost of landing on the Moon? on Space Exploration, may well be of interest.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
7 hours ago













$begingroup$
There was an episode of Adam Ruins Everything where he discussed this, and why the moon landing wasn't fake. Had something to do with lighting and a giant laser
$endgroup$
– Greenie E.
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
There was an episode of Adam Ruins Everything where he discussed this, and why the moon landing wasn't fake. Had something to do with lighting and a giant laser
$endgroup$
– Greenie E.
7 hours ago












$begingroup$
Mitchell and Webb considered this scenario. The conclusion that the best way to do a fake moon landing involved landing on the moon first. youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
7 hours ago





$begingroup$
Mitchell and Webb considered this scenario. The conclusion that the best way to do a fake moon landing involved landing on the moon first. youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
7 hours ago





3




3




$begingroup$
"If the hoax is exposed by a major news outlet at any time before launch or within fifty years afterward, it is considered a failure." Some major news outlets will give air time to all kinds of conspiracy theorists. I don't think a real manned moon mission could avoid being "exposed" as a hoax in at least some major news outlets; having it actually be a hoax would do nothing to prevent that.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
5 hours ago





$begingroup$
"If the hoax is exposed by a major news outlet at any time before launch or within fifty years afterward, it is considered a failure." Some major news outlets will give air time to all kinds of conspiracy theorists. I don't think a real manned moon mission could avoid being "exposed" as a hoax in at least some major news outlets; having it actually be a hoax would do nothing to prevent that.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
5 hours ago











5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















20












$begingroup$

Stanley Kubrick supposedly filmed the Apollo moon landings for NASA.



We couldn't successfully fake the moon landings at anytime. They happened. They were real. This is why we could not fake them. First, a little back history to explain my point.



As you may remember, the United States and the Soviet Union were in a space race to see who could make the greatest accomplishments. The Soviet Union scored many firsts: first man in space, first woman, first robot to operate on another world. Both countries were carefully monitoring the communications of the other and a slew of other countries and amateur radio operators were monitoring as well. Not only could each side monitor, they could detect where in space the communications originated. Beyond that, both sides cooperated to make sure the other side did not step on radio communications. They knew the frequencies, they knew the technology used to send the signals.



On September 12, 1962, John F Kennedy threw the gauntlet down to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade with his, "We choose to go to the Moon" speech. After that, the race to the moon was on. The Soviet Union had a head start with their N1 rocket, but ran into issues with the rocket and with the unexpected death of Sergei Korolev, the chief designer of their space program. Politics mired their moon shot hopes. In the US, we lucked out because the Saturn rocket was already in development and we had a solid design for a liquid rocket engine, the Rocketdyne F1.



When it was obvious to the Soviet Union the Apollo Space Program was going to get a man on the moon first, they sent a probe to the moon to collect soil samples and return before Apollo 11 could do the same. It was the only one of two ways to score a victory from the race to the moon. Unfortunately, Luna 15 crashed into the moon on July 21, 1969. Apollo 11 touched down safely on July 24, 1969.



The last way the Soviet Union could score a coup was to prove the moon landing program was faked. They monitored communications, they knew the US touched down safely, they privately viewed live the same news feeds as the rest of the world.



If the Soviet Union could have proven the moon landings were faked, it would have been the greatest publicity coup in the history of mankind. The US would have been exposed as liars and their prestige forever tarnished.



The only people that believe the moon landings were faked are nimble-minded people who are incapable of admitting mankind did something extraordinary.



If you want to fake a moon landing in your world, you need to somehow disable amateur radio and competing governments from having an impact on your story. You would need to put a transmitter on the moon for signal origination. You would have to have a monster budget and hide the fact that you're faking a project that would require tens of billions in budgetary expenditures just to send the transmitter, let alone fake everything else and somehow convince 400,000 people required to support the project, the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities. At that point, you might as well send a man to the moon.



  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_15

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon

Good luck with your faking. Buzz Aldrin mocks your idea.



Buzz Aldrin mocks you






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 33




    $begingroup$
    In fact the US government did plan to fake the Moon landings, and hired Stanley Kubrick as the best man for the job. But being Stanley Kubrick, he insisted on filming the Moon sequences on location.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    7 hours ago






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    One moon landing denier got more than mockery... youtube.com/watch?v=vUE4VGWAap4
    $endgroup$
    – Starfish Prime
    7 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @StarfishPrime Thanks for posting. Memory of Buzz Aldrin punching Bart Sibrel is why I added the Buzz Aldrin photo and the comment.
    $endgroup$
    – gwally
    6 hours ago






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    If the Soviet Union could have proven the moon landings were faked, it would have been the greatest publicity coup in the history of mankind. That's the understatement of the millennium. +1.
    $endgroup$
    – JBH
    6 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    By "a solid rocket engine, the Rocketdyne F1," you mean "a good rocket engine" and not "a solid fuel rocket engine," right? The way it is phrased is a bit misleading.
    $endgroup$
    – Cody
    5 hours ago


















10












$begingroup$

You can't.



I'll try for a shorter answer than my peers'.



Anyone can send a probe to the Moon if they've got the money and the motivation. In fact, China sent a couple ones in the last 12 years. A private organization from Israel also sent one in February this year. Google has prizes for people who do stuff like this. Japan has an orbiter there which actually took pictures of one of the Apollo mission sites.



If you're going to do a Moon landing, people will challenge you to disclose the coordinates so that they can verify it. If you just say "oh, we landed on the far side, it's hard to get a good view so don't bother", then everyone will assume you are lying, even if you did manage to go there.



If, however, you provide coordinates, you'd better be there and leave a trail. Otherwise, it won't take 90 days for a probe to fly over the place and send back photographic evidence that the site is untouched.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$




















    6












    $begingroup$

    This can't be done



    Too many telescopes having too much resolution. Too much thermal tracking. Too much radio telemetry.



    Everybody would watch the launch. Many would watch the capsule's progress toward the moon. Most telescopes would loose it quickly, but some could watch it longer. Thermal tracking could watch it further still and simple radio telemetry would track it all the way to the moon.



    It's theoretically possible to send them, oh, a third of the way way there, let them sit for three days, then bring them home, having never been to the moon, but what would be the point? It would be easier to simply go to the moon.



    But I believe it would be impossible to not verify the astronauts were well outside high orbit.



    You could fool an individual. You might fool a university. I doubt you could foot SETI. You can't fool the 1st-world nations of our planet.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$




















      5












      $begingroup$

      Honestly this seems harder than actually landing on the moon so to do it I would get as close to an actual moon landing as possible.
      I'd use China to take advantage of the authoritarian structure making secrets easier to keep. Build a real rocket and build some real looking lander style equipment and put it on the rocket and launch it to the moon. But with no astronauts.



      Have the rocket land on the dark side of the moon (to prevent as many people seeing it as possible) and take a quick video on the moon in which while the doors are opening the rocket explodes. The exploding rocket (which if possible should have space suits and possibly even corpses in them) will hopefully cover the evidence and prevent you having to have actors pretend to have reached the moon. Have a quick fake video which seems to show success and then have it cut out and blame camera equipment failures. You want as little footage as possible as the more of it there is the more likely the faking will be uncovered. Then after a day or two have part of your rocket launch back towards earth and crash into the ocean. Then have your fake astronauts be found in a fake floating lander near where the rocket sank. Claim there were mechanical issues in reentry and the crew have suffered various injuries and head trauma to help explain if they get questions wrong or tell the truth.



      The follow up is where you want to misdirect people. Act suspicious, and point the blame for the cameras and re-entry problems at all kinds of people. Arrest some of the engineers involved and accuse them of sabotage or corruption. Try to make it look like you are covering up high level embezzlement rather than the actual truth. Also get a bunch of internet trolls to make terrible and racist arguments claiming you faked the moon landing and if possible make it look like they are sponsored by the US or Russia to discredit people that figure out the truth.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Fails the last requirement: ‘...the general public must believe that all of the "astronauts" went to the moon and safely returned.’
        $endgroup$
        – Mike Scott
        7 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I like the way you describe the distraction in the end, but for the actual faking part, I am somewhat doubtful that any little amount of footage could be faked well enough, even with the technology that we have today. I feel like you would have the whole internet against you, trying to debunk any video, and I'd tend to believe they would come up with something you have not considered in your fake, especially if the footage does not meet the expectations.
        $endgroup$
        – Thomas Hirsch
        3 hours ago


















      2












      $begingroup$

      The biggest issue is the number of people involved: given the number, the secret would be blown in no more than three years.



      Now, technically it's plausible it could be done now. CGI could be used for the things that would be impossible to fake on Earth, like the lower gravity. The other parts are engineering. But...



      1. ...you'd need to send an actual ship and an actual lander to the moon. They wouldn't have people on them; you'd use them to transmit a combination of pre-recorded audiovidual sent with the unmanned ship and audiovisual transmitted from the conspiracy headquarters to the ship to be broadcast back. An actual lander would be needed because the Doppler data contained in its signal could be used to verify its motion (this was actually done by radio astronomers in the real moon landings as an exercise). So you'd need to not only conduct a real landing, you'd need to conduct a real return launch and lunar rendez-vous. And...


      2. ...there are images now of the real Apollo landing sites from lunar orbiters. Easy enough to fake those for your lunar satellites, but somewhat difficult to do so for those of other nations. What happens when the Indians or the Chinese have a satellite that just for giggles takes a look at the landing site but doesn't find a trace of any activity around the alleged landing site?


      So, in short, can't be done. Not practically.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Sorry to be morbid, but can't those involved in the host just be executed?
        $endgroup$
        – axsvl77
        4 hours ago











      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "579"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f144269%2fhow-could-we-fake-a-moon-landing-now%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes








      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      20












      $begingroup$

      Stanley Kubrick supposedly filmed the Apollo moon landings for NASA.



      We couldn't successfully fake the moon landings at anytime. They happened. They were real. This is why we could not fake them. First, a little back history to explain my point.



      As you may remember, the United States and the Soviet Union were in a space race to see who could make the greatest accomplishments. The Soviet Union scored many firsts: first man in space, first woman, first robot to operate on another world. Both countries were carefully monitoring the communications of the other and a slew of other countries and amateur radio operators were monitoring as well. Not only could each side monitor, they could detect where in space the communications originated. Beyond that, both sides cooperated to make sure the other side did not step on radio communications. They knew the frequencies, they knew the technology used to send the signals.



      On September 12, 1962, John F Kennedy threw the gauntlet down to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade with his, "We choose to go to the Moon" speech. After that, the race to the moon was on. The Soviet Union had a head start with their N1 rocket, but ran into issues with the rocket and with the unexpected death of Sergei Korolev, the chief designer of their space program. Politics mired their moon shot hopes. In the US, we lucked out because the Saturn rocket was already in development and we had a solid design for a liquid rocket engine, the Rocketdyne F1.



      When it was obvious to the Soviet Union the Apollo Space Program was going to get a man on the moon first, they sent a probe to the moon to collect soil samples and return before Apollo 11 could do the same. It was the only one of two ways to score a victory from the race to the moon. Unfortunately, Luna 15 crashed into the moon on July 21, 1969. Apollo 11 touched down safely on July 24, 1969.



      The last way the Soviet Union could score a coup was to prove the moon landing program was faked. They monitored communications, they knew the US touched down safely, they privately viewed live the same news feeds as the rest of the world.



      If the Soviet Union could have proven the moon landings were faked, it would have been the greatest publicity coup in the history of mankind. The US would have been exposed as liars and their prestige forever tarnished.



      The only people that believe the moon landings were faked are nimble-minded people who are incapable of admitting mankind did something extraordinary.



      If you want to fake a moon landing in your world, you need to somehow disable amateur radio and competing governments from having an impact on your story. You would need to put a transmitter on the moon for signal origination. You would have to have a monster budget and hide the fact that you're faking a project that would require tens of billions in budgetary expenditures just to send the transmitter, let alone fake everything else and somehow convince 400,000 people required to support the project, the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities. At that point, you might as well send a man to the moon.



      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11

      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_15

      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon

      Good luck with your faking. Buzz Aldrin mocks your idea.



      Buzz Aldrin mocks you






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$








      • 33




        $begingroup$
        In fact the US government did plan to fake the Moon landings, and hired Stanley Kubrick as the best man for the job. But being Stanley Kubrick, he insisted on filming the Moon sequences on location.
        $endgroup$
        – Mike Scott
        7 hours ago






      • 6




        $begingroup$
        One moon landing denier got more than mockery... youtube.com/watch?v=vUE4VGWAap4
        $endgroup$
        – Starfish Prime
        7 hours ago






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        @StarfishPrime Thanks for posting. Memory of Buzz Aldrin punching Bart Sibrel is why I added the Buzz Aldrin photo and the comment.
        $endgroup$
        – gwally
        6 hours ago






      • 10




        $begingroup$
        If the Soviet Union could have proven the moon landings were faked, it would have been the greatest publicity coup in the history of mankind. That's the understatement of the millennium. +1.
        $endgroup$
        – JBH
        6 hours ago






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        By "a solid rocket engine, the Rocketdyne F1," you mean "a good rocket engine" and not "a solid fuel rocket engine," right? The way it is phrased is a bit misleading.
        $endgroup$
        – Cody
        5 hours ago















      20












      $begingroup$

      Stanley Kubrick supposedly filmed the Apollo moon landings for NASA.



      We couldn't successfully fake the moon landings at anytime. They happened. They were real. This is why we could not fake them. First, a little back history to explain my point.



      As you may remember, the United States and the Soviet Union were in a space race to see who could make the greatest accomplishments. The Soviet Union scored many firsts: first man in space, first woman, first robot to operate on another world. Both countries were carefully monitoring the communications of the other and a slew of other countries and amateur radio operators were monitoring as well. Not only could each side monitor, they could detect where in space the communications originated. Beyond that, both sides cooperated to make sure the other side did not step on radio communications. They knew the frequencies, they knew the technology used to send the signals.



      On September 12, 1962, John F Kennedy threw the gauntlet down to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade with his, "We choose to go to the Moon" speech. After that, the race to the moon was on. The Soviet Union had a head start with their N1 rocket, but ran into issues with the rocket and with the unexpected death of Sergei Korolev, the chief designer of their space program. Politics mired their moon shot hopes. In the US, we lucked out because the Saturn rocket was already in development and we had a solid design for a liquid rocket engine, the Rocketdyne F1.



      When it was obvious to the Soviet Union the Apollo Space Program was going to get a man on the moon first, they sent a probe to the moon to collect soil samples and return before Apollo 11 could do the same. It was the only one of two ways to score a victory from the race to the moon. Unfortunately, Luna 15 crashed into the moon on July 21, 1969. Apollo 11 touched down safely on July 24, 1969.



      The last way the Soviet Union could score a coup was to prove the moon landing program was faked. They monitored communications, they knew the US touched down safely, they privately viewed live the same news feeds as the rest of the world.



      If the Soviet Union could have proven the moon landings were faked, it would have been the greatest publicity coup in the history of mankind. The US would have been exposed as liars and their prestige forever tarnished.



      The only people that believe the moon landings were faked are nimble-minded people who are incapable of admitting mankind did something extraordinary.



      If you want to fake a moon landing in your world, you need to somehow disable amateur radio and competing governments from having an impact on your story. You would need to put a transmitter on the moon for signal origination. You would have to have a monster budget and hide the fact that you're faking a project that would require tens of billions in budgetary expenditures just to send the transmitter, let alone fake everything else and somehow convince 400,000 people required to support the project, the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities. At that point, you might as well send a man to the moon.



      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11

      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_15

      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon

      Good luck with your faking. Buzz Aldrin mocks your idea.



      Buzz Aldrin mocks you






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$








      • 33




        $begingroup$
        In fact the US government did plan to fake the Moon landings, and hired Stanley Kubrick as the best man for the job. But being Stanley Kubrick, he insisted on filming the Moon sequences on location.
        $endgroup$
        – Mike Scott
        7 hours ago






      • 6




        $begingroup$
        One moon landing denier got more than mockery... youtube.com/watch?v=vUE4VGWAap4
        $endgroup$
        – Starfish Prime
        7 hours ago






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        @StarfishPrime Thanks for posting. Memory of Buzz Aldrin punching Bart Sibrel is why I added the Buzz Aldrin photo and the comment.
        $endgroup$
        – gwally
        6 hours ago






      • 10




        $begingroup$
        If the Soviet Union could have proven the moon landings were faked, it would have been the greatest publicity coup in the history of mankind. That's the understatement of the millennium. +1.
        $endgroup$
        – JBH
        6 hours ago






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        By "a solid rocket engine, the Rocketdyne F1," you mean "a good rocket engine" and not "a solid fuel rocket engine," right? The way it is phrased is a bit misleading.
        $endgroup$
        – Cody
        5 hours ago













      20












      20








      20





      $begingroup$

      Stanley Kubrick supposedly filmed the Apollo moon landings for NASA.



      We couldn't successfully fake the moon landings at anytime. They happened. They were real. This is why we could not fake them. First, a little back history to explain my point.



      As you may remember, the United States and the Soviet Union were in a space race to see who could make the greatest accomplishments. The Soviet Union scored many firsts: first man in space, first woman, first robot to operate on another world. Both countries were carefully monitoring the communications of the other and a slew of other countries and amateur radio operators were monitoring as well. Not only could each side monitor, they could detect where in space the communications originated. Beyond that, both sides cooperated to make sure the other side did not step on radio communications. They knew the frequencies, they knew the technology used to send the signals.



      On September 12, 1962, John F Kennedy threw the gauntlet down to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade with his, "We choose to go to the Moon" speech. After that, the race to the moon was on. The Soviet Union had a head start with their N1 rocket, but ran into issues with the rocket and with the unexpected death of Sergei Korolev, the chief designer of their space program. Politics mired their moon shot hopes. In the US, we lucked out because the Saturn rocket was already in development and we had a solid design for a liquid rocket engine, the Rocketdyne F1.



      When it was obvious to the Soviet Union the Apollo Space Program was going to get a man on the moon first, they sent a probe to the moon to collect soil samples and return before Apollo 11 could do the same. It was the only one of two ways to score a victory from the race to the moon. Unfortunately, Luna 15 crashed into the moon on July 21, 1969. Apollo 11 touched down safely on July 24, 1969.



      The last way the Soviet Union could score a coup was to prove the moon landing program was faked. They monitored communications, they knew the US touched down safely, they privately viewed live the same news feeds as the rest of the world.



      If the Soviet Union could have proven the moon landings were faked, it would have been the greatest publicity coup in the history of mankind. The US would have been exposed as liars and their prestige forever tarnished.



      The only people that believe the moon landings were faked are nimble-minded people who are incapable of admitting mankind did something extraordinary.



      If you want to fake a moon landing in your world, you need to somehow disable amateur radio and competing governments from having an impact on your story. You would need to put a transmitter on the moon for signal origination. You would have to have a monster budget and hide the fact that you're faking a project that would require tens of billions in budgetary expenditures just to send the transmitter, let alone fake everything else and somehow convince 400,000 people required to support the project, the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities. At that point, you might as well send a man to the moon.



      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11

      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_15

      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon

      Good luck with your faking. Buzz Aldrin mocks your idea.



      Buzz Aldrin mocks you






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      Stanley Kubrick supposedly filmed the Apollo moon landings for NASA.



      We couldn't successfully fake the moon landings at anytime. They happened. They were real. This is why we could not fake them. First, a little back history to explain my point.



      As you may remember, the United States and the Soviet Union were in a space race to see who could make the greatest accomplishments. The Soviet Union scored many firsts: first man in space, first woman, first robot to operate on another world. Both countries were carefully monitoring the communications of the other and a slew of other countries and amateur radio operators were monitoring as well. Not only could each side monitor, they could detect where in space the communications originated. Beyond that, both sides cooperated to make sure the other side did not step on radio communications. They knew the frequencies, they knew the technology used to send the signals.



      On September 12, 1962, John F Kennedy threw the gauntlet down to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade with his, "We choose to go to the Moon" speech. After that, the race to the moon was on. The Soviet Union had a head start with their N1 rocket, but ran into issues with the rocket and with the unexpected death of Sergei Korolev, the chief designer of their space program. Politics mired their moon shot hopes. In the US, we lucked out because the Saturn rocket was already in development and we had a solid design for a liquid rocket engine, the Rocketdyne F1.



      When it was obvious to the Soviet Union the Apollo Space Program was going to get a man on the moon first, they sent a probe to the moon to collect soil samples and return before Apollo 11 could do the same. It was the only one of two ways to score a victory from the race to the moon. Unfortunately, Luna 15 crashed into the moon on July 21, 1969. Apollo 11 touched down safely on July 24, 1969.



      The last way the Soviet Union could score a coup was to prove the moon landing program was faked. They monitored communications, they knew the US touched down safely, they privately viewed live the same news feeds as the rest of the world.



      If the Soviet Union could have proven the moon landings were faked, it would have been the greatest publicity coup in the history of mankind. The US would have been exposed as liars and their prestige forever tarnished.



      The only people that believe the moon landings were faked are nimble-minded people who are incapable of admitting mankind did something extraordinary.



      If you want to fake a moon landing in your world, you need to somehow disable amateur radio and competing governments from having an impact on your story. You would need to put a transmitter on the moon for signal origination. You would have to have a monster budget and hide the fact that you're faking a project that would require tens of billions in budgetary expenditures just to send the transmitter, let alone fake everything else and somehow convince 400,000 people required to support the project, the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities. At that point, you might as well send a man to the moon.



      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11

      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_15

      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon

      Good luck with your faking. Buzz Aldrin mocks your idea.



      Buzz Aldrin mocks you







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 3 hours ago

























      answered 7 hours ago









      gwallygwally

      3,744815




      3,744815







      • 33




        $begingroup$
        In fact the US government did plan to fake the Moon landings, and hired Stanley Kubrick as the best man for the job. But being Stanley Kubrick, he insisted on filming the Moon sequences on location.
        $endgroup$
        – Mike Scott
        7 hours ago






      • 6




        $begingroup$
        One moon landing denier got more than mockery... youtube.com/watch?v=vUE4VGWAap4
        $endgroup$
        – Starfish Prime
        7 hours ago






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        @StarfishPrime Thanks for posting. Memory of Buzz Aldrin punching Bart Sibrel is why I added the Buzz Aldrin photo and the comment.
        $endgroup$
        – gwally
        6 hours ago






      • 10




        $begingroup$
        If the Soviet Union could have proven the moon landings were faked, it would have been the greatest publicity coup in the history of mankind. That's the understatement of the millennium. +1.
        $endgroup$
        – JBH
        6 hours ago






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        By "a solid rocket engine, the Rocketdyne F1," you mean "a good rocket engine" and not "a solid fuel rocket engine," right? The way it is phrased is a bit misleading.
        $endgroup$
        – Cody
        5 hours ago












      • 33




        $begingroup$
        In fact the US government did plan to fake the Moon landings, and hired Stanley Kubrick as the best man for the job. But being Stanley Kubrick, he insisted on filming the Moon sequences on location.
        $endgroup$
        – Mike Scott
        7 hours ago






      • 6




        $begingroup$
        One moon landing denier got more than mockery... youtube.com/watch?v=vUE4VGWAap4
        $endgroup$
        – Starfish Prime
        7 hours ago






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        @StarfishPrime Thanks for posting. Memory of Buzz Aldrin punching Bart Sibrel is why I added the Buzz Aldrin photo and the comment.
        $endgroup$
        – gwally
        6 hours ago






      • 10




        $begingroup$
        If the Soviet Union could have proven the moon landings were faked, it would have been the greatest publicity coup in the history of mankind. That's the understatement of the millennium. +1.
        $endgroup$
        – JBH
        6 hours ago






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        By "a solid rocket engine, the Rocketdyne F1," you mean "a good rocket engine" and not "a solid fuel rocket engine," right? The way it is phrased is a bit misleading.
        $endgroup$
        – Cody
        5 hours ago







      33




      33




      $begingroup$
      In fact the US government did plan to fake the Moon landings, and hired Stanley Kubrick as the best man for the job. But being Stanley Kubrick, he insisted on filming the Moon sequences on location.
      $endgroup$
      – Mike Scott
      7 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      In fact the US government did plan to fake the Moon landings, and hired Stanley Kubrick as the best man for the job. But being Stanley Kubrick, he insisted on filming the Moon sequences on location.
      $endgroup$
      – Mike Scott
      7 hours ago




      6




      6




      $begingroup$
      One moon landing denier got more than mockery... youtube.com/watch?v=vUE4VGWAap4
      $endgroup$
      – Starfish Prime
      7 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      One moon landing denier got more than mockery... youtube.com/watch?v=vUE4VGWAap4
      $endgroup$
      – Starfish Prime
      7 hours ago




      3




      3




      $begingroup$
      @StarfishPrime Thanks for posting. Memory of Buzz Aldrin punching Bart Sibrel is why I added the Buzz Aldrin photo and the comment.
      $endgroup$
      – gwally
      6 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      @StarfishPrime Thanks for posting. Memory of Buzz Aldrin punching Bart Sibrel is why I added the Buzz Aldrin photo and the comment.
      $endgroup$
      – gwally
      6 hours ago




      10




      10




      $begingroup$
      If the Soviet Union could have proven the moon landings were faked, it would have been the greatest publicity coup in the history of mankind. That's the understatement of the millennium. +1.
      $endgroup$
      – JBH
      6 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      If the Soviet Union could have proven the moon landings were faked, it would have been the greatest publicity coup in the history of mankind. That's the understatement of the millennium. +1.
      $endgroup$
      – JBH
      6 hours ago




      3




      3




      $begingroup$
      By "a solid rocket engine, the Rocketdyne F1," you mean "a good rocket engine" and not "a solid fuel rocket engine," right? The way it is phrased is a bit misleading.
      $endgroup$
      – Cody
      5 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      By "a solid rocket engine, the Rocketdyne F1," you mean "a good rocket engine" and not "a solid fuel rocket engine," right? The way it is phrased is a bit misleading.
      $endgroup$
      – Cody
      5 hours ago











      10












      $begingroup$

      You can't.



      I'll try for a shorter answer than my peers'.



      Anyone can send a probe to the Moon if they've got the money and the motivation. In fact, China sent a couple ones in the last 12 years. A private organization from Israel also sent one in February this year. Google has prizes for people who do stuff like this. Japan has an orbiter there which actually took pictures of one of the Apollo mission sites.



      If you're going to do a Moon landing, people will challenge you to disclose the coordinates so that they can verify it. If you just say "oh, we landed on the far side, it's hard to get a good view so don't bother", then everyone will assume you are lying, even if you did manage to go there.



      If, however, you provide coordinates, you'd better be there and leave a trail. Otherwise, it won't take 90 days for a probe to fly over the place and send back photographic evidence that the site is untouched.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$

















        10












        $begingroup$

        You can't.



        I'll try for a shorter answer than my peers'.



        Anyone can send a probe to the Moon if they've got the money and the motivation. In fact, China sent a couple ones in the last 12 years. A private organization from Israel also sent one in February this year. Google has prizes for people who do stuff like this. Japan has an orbiter there which actually took pictures of one of the Apollo mission sites.



        If you're going to do a Moon landing, people will challenge you to disclose the coordinates so that they can verify it. If you just say "oh, we landed on the far side, it's hard to get a good view so don't bother", then everyone will assume you are lying, even if you did manage to go there.



        If, however, you provide coordinates, you'd better be there and leave a trail. Otherwise, it won't take 90 days for a probe to fly over the place and send back photographic evidence that the site is untouched.






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$















          10












          10








          10





          $begingroup$

          You can't.



          I'll try for a shorter answer than my peers'.



          Anyone can send a probe to the Moon if they've got the money and the motivation. In fact, China sent a couple ones in the last 12 years. A private organization from Israel also sent one in February this year. Google has prizes for people who do stuff like this. Japan has an orbiter there which actually took pictures of one of the Apollo mission sites.



          If you're going to do a Moon landing, people will challenge you to disclose the coordinates so that they can verify it. If you just say "oh, we landed on the far side, it's hard to get a good view so don't bother", then everyone will assume you are lying, even if you did manage to go there.



          If, however, you provide coordinates, you'd better be there and leave a trail. Otherwise, it won't take 90 days for a probe to fly over the place and send back photographic evidence that the site is untouched.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          You can't.



          I'll try for a shorter answer than my peers'.



          Anyone can send a probe to the Moon if they've got the money and the motivation. In fact, China sent a couple ones in the last 12 years. A private organization from Israel also sent one in February this year. Google has prizes for people who do stuff like this. Japan has an orbiter there which actually took pictures of one of the Apollo mission sites.



          If you're going to do a Moon landing, people will challenge you to disclose the coordinates so that they can verify it. If you just say "oh, we landed on the far side, it's hard to get a good view so don't bother", then everyone will assume you are lying, even if you did manage to go there.



          If, however, you provide coordinates, you'd better be there and leave a trail. Otherwise, it won't take 90 days for a probe to fly over the place and send back photographic evidence that the site is untouched.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 6 hours ago

























          answered 6 hours ago









          RenanRenan

          53.5k15121266




          53.5k15121266





















              6












              $begingroup$

              This can't be done



              Too many telescopes having too much resolution. Too much thermal tracking. Too much radio telemetry.



              Everybody would watch the launch. Many would watch the capsule's progress toward the moon. Most telescopes would loose it quickly, but some could watch it longer. Thermal tracking could watch it further still and simple radio telemetry would track it all the way to the moon.



              It's theoretically possible to send them, oh, a third of the way way there, let them sit for three days, then bring them home, having never been to the moon, but what would be the point? It would be easier to simply go to the moon.



              But I believe it would be impossible to not verify the astronauts were well outside high orbit.



              You could fool an individual. You might fool a university. I doubt you could foot SETI. You can't fool the 1st-world nations of our planet.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                6












                $begingroup$

                This can't be done



                Too many telescopes having too much resolution. Too much thermal tracking. Too much radio telemetry.



                Everybody would watch the launch. Many would watch the capsule's progress toward the moon. Most telescopes would loose it quickly, but some could watch it longer. Thermal tracking could watch it further still and simple radio telemetry would track it all the way to the moon.



                It's theoretically possible to send them, oh, a third of the way way there, let them sit for three days, then bring them home, having never been to the moon, but what would be the point? It would be easier to simply go to the moon.



                But I believe it would be impossible to not verify the astronauts were well outside high orbit.



                You could fool an individual. You might fool a university. I doubt you could foot SETI. You can't fool the 1st-world nations of our planet.






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$















                  6












                  6








                  6





                  $begingroup$

                  This can't be done



                  Too many telescopes having too much resolution. Too much thermal tracking. Too much radio telemetry.



                  Everybody would watch the launch. Many would watch the capsule's progress toward the moon. Most telescopes would loose it quickly, but some could watch it longer. Thermal tracking could watch it further still and simple radio telemetry would track it all the way to the moon.



                  It's theoretically possible to send them, oh, a third of the way way there, let them sit for three days, then bring them home, having never been to the moon, but what would be the point? It would be easier to simply go to the moon.



                  But I believe it would be impossible to not verify the astronauts were well outside high orbit.



                  You could fool an individual. You might fool a university. I doubt you could foot SETI. You can't fool the 1st-world nations of our planet.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  This can't be done



                  Too many telescopes having too much resolution. Too much thermal tracking. Too much radio telemetry.



                  Everybody would watch the launch. Many would watch the capsule's progress toward the moon. Most telescopes would loose it quickly, but some could watch it longer. Thermal tracking could watch it further still and simple radio telemetry would track it all the way to the moon.



                  It's theoretically possible to send them, oh, a third of the way way there, let them sit for three days, then bring them home, having never been to the moon, but what would be the point? It would be easier to simply go to the moon.



                  But I believe it would be impossible to not verify the astronauts were well outside high orbit.



                  You could fool an individual. You might fool a university. I doubt you could foot SETI. You can't fool the 1st-world nations of our planet.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 6 hours ago









                  JBHJBH

                  48.5k699232




                  48.5k699232





















                      5












                      $begingroup$

                      Honestly this seems harder than actually landing on the moon so to do it I would get as close to an actual moon landing as possible.
                      I'd use China to take advantage of the authoritarian structure making secrets easier to keep. Build a real rocket and build some real looking lander style equipment and put it on the rocket and launch it to the moon. But with no astronauts.



                      Have the rocket land on the dark side of the moon (to prevent as many people seeing it as possible) and take a quick video on the moon in which while the doors are opening the rocket explodes. The exploding rocket (which if possible should have space suits and possibly even corpses in them) will hopefully cover the evidence and prevent you having to have actors pretend to have reached the moon. Have a quick fake video which seems to show success and then have it cut out and blame camera equipment failures. You want as little footage as possible as the more of it there is the more likely the faking will be uncovered. Then after a day or two have part of your rocket launch back towards earth and crash into the ocean. Then have your fake astronauts be found in a fake floating lander near where the rocket sank. Claim there were mechanical issues in reentry and the crew have suffered various injuries and head trauma to help explain if they get questions wrong or tell the truth.



                      The follow up is where you want to misdirect people. Act suspicious, and point the blame for the cameras and re-entry problems at all kinds of people. Arrest some of the engineers involved and accuse them of sabotage or corruption. Try to make it look like you are covering up high level embezzlement rather than the actual truth. Also get a bunch of internet trolls to make terrible and racist arguments claiming you faked the moon landing and if possible make it look like they are sponsored by the US or Russia to discredit people that figure out the truth.






                      share|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$








                      • 1




                        $begingroup$
                        Fails the last requirement: ‘...the general public must believe that all of the "astronauts" went to the moon and safely returned.’
                        $endgroup$
                        – Mike Scott
                        7 hours ago










                      • $begingroup$
                        I like the way you describe the distraction in the end, but for the actual faking part, I am somewhat doubtful that any little amount of footage could be faked well enough, even with the technology that we have today. I feel like you would have the whole internet against you, trying to debunk any video, and I'd tend to believe they would come up with something you have not considered in your fake, especially if the footage does not meet the expectations.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Thomas Hirsch
                        3 hours ago















                      5












                      $begingroup$

                      Honestly this seems harder than actually landing on the moon so to do it I would get as close to an actual moon landing as possible.
                      I'd use China to take advantage of the authoritarian structure making secrets easier to keep. Build a real rocket and build some real looking lander style equipment and put it on the rocket and launch it to the moon. But with no astronauts.



                      Have the rocket land on the dark side of the moon (to prevent as many people seeing it as possible) and take a quick video on the moon in which while the doors are opening the rocket explodes. The exploding rocket (which if possible should have space suits and possibly even corpses in them) will hopefully cover the evidence and prevent you having to have actors pretend to have reached the moon. Have a quick fake video which seems to show success and then have it cut out and blame camera equipment failures. You want as little footage as possible as the more of it there is the more likely the faking will be uncovered. Then after a day or two have part of your rocket launch back towards earth and crash into the ocean. Then have your fake astronauts be found in a fake floating lander near where the rocket sank. Claim there were mechanical issues in reentry and the crew have suffered various injuries and head trauma to help explain if they get questions wrong or tell the truth.



                      The follow up is where you want to misdirect people. Act suspicious, and point the blame for the cameras and re-entry problems at all kinds of people. Arrest some of the engineers involved and accuse them of sabotage or corruption. Try to make it look like you are covering up high level embezzlement rather than the actual truth. Also get a bunch of internet trolls to make terrible and racist arguments claiming you faked the moon landing and if possible make it look like they are sponsored by the US or Russia to discredit people that figure out the truth.






                      share|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$








                      • 1




                        $begingroup$
                        Fails the last requirement: ‘...the general public must believe that all of the "astronauts" went to the moon and safely returned.’
                        $endgroup$
                        – Mike Scott
                        7 hours ago










                      • $begingroup$
                        I like the way you describe the distraction in the end, but for the actual faking part, I am somewhat doubtful that any little amount of footage could be faked well enough, even with the technology that we have today. I feel like you would have the whole internet against you, trying to debunk any video, and I'd tend to believe they would come up with something you have not considered in your fake, especially if the footage does not meet the expectations.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Thomas Hirsch
                        3 hours ago













                      5












                      5








                      5





                      $begingroup$

                      Honestly this seems harder than actually landing on the moon so to do it I would get as close to an actual moon landing as possible.
                      I'd use China to take advantage of the authoritarian structure making secrets easier to keep. Build a real rocket and build some real looking lander style equipment and put it on the rocket and launch it to the moon. But with no astronauts.



                      Have the rocket land on the dark side of the moon (to prevent as many people seeing it as possible) and take a quick video on the moon in which while the doors are opening the rocket explodes. The exploding rocket (which if possible should have space suits and possibly even corpses in them) will hopefully cover the evidence and prevent you having to have actors pretend to have reached the moon. Have a quick fake video which seems to show success and then have it cut out and blame camera equipment failures. You want as little footage as possible as the more of it there is the more likely the faking will be uncovered. Then after a day or two have part of your rocket launch back towards earth and crash into the ocean. Then have your fake astronauts be found in a fake floating lander near where the rocket sank. Claim there were mechanical issues in reentry and the crew have suffered various injuries and head trauma to help explain if they get questions wrong or tell the truth.



                      The follow up is where you want to misdirect people. Act suspicious, and point the blame for the cameras and re-entry problems at all kinds of people. Arrest some of the engineers involved and accuse them of sabotage or corruption. Try to make it look like you are covering up high level embezzlement rather than the actual truth. Also get a bunch of internet trolls to make terrible and racist arguments claiming you faked the moon landing and if possible make it look like they are sponsored by the US or Russia to discredit people that figure out the truth.






                      share|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$



                      Honestly this seems harder than actually landing on the moon so to do it I would get as close to an actual moon landing as possible.
                      I'd use China to take advantage of the authoritarian structure making secrets easier to keep. Build a real rocket and build some real looking lander style equipment and put it on the rocket and launch it to the moon. But with no astronauts.



                      Have the rocket land on the dark side of the moon (to prevent as many people seeing it as possible) and take a quick video on the moon in which while the doors are opening the rocket explodes. The exploding rocket (which if possible should have space suits and possibly even corpses in them) will hopefully cover the evidence and prevent you having to have actors pretend to have reached the moon. Have a quick fake video which seems to show success and then have it cut out and blame camera equipment failures. You want as little footage as possible as the more of it there is the more likely the faking will be uncovered. Then after a day or two have part of your rocket launch back towards earth and crash into the ocean. Then have your fake astronauts be found in a fake floating lander near where the rocket sank. Claim there were mechanical issues in reentry and the crew have suffered various injuries and head trauma to help explain if they get questions wrong or tell the truth.



                      The follow up is where you want to misdirect people. Act suspicious, and point the blame for the cameras and re-entry problems at all kinds of people. Arrest some of the engineers involved and accuse them of sabotage or corruption. Try to make it look like you are covering up high level embezzlement rather than the actual truth. Also get a bunch of internet trolls to make terrible and racist arguments claiming you faked the moon landing and if possible make it look like they are sponsored by the US or Russia to discredit people that figure out the truth.







                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited 7 hours ago

























                      answered 7 hours ago









                      EricEric

                      1615




                      1615







                      • 1




                        $begingroup$
                        Fails the last requirement: ‘...the general public must believe that all of the "astronauts" went to the moon and safely returned.’
                        $endgroup$
                        – Mike Scott
                        7 hours ago










                      • $begingroup$
                        I like the way you describe the distraction in the end, but for the actual faking part, I am somewhat doubtful that any little amount of footage could be faked well enough, even with the technology that we have today. I feel like you would have the whole internet against you, trying to debunk any video, and I'd tend to believe they would come up with something you have not considered in your fake, especially if the footage does not meet the expectations.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Thomas Hirsch
                        3 hours ago












                      • 1




                        $begingroup$
                        Fails the last requirement: ‘...the general public must believe that all of the "astronauts" went to the moon and safely returned.’
                        $endgroup$
                        – Mike Scott
                        7 hours ago










                      • $begingroup$
                        I like the way you describe the distraction in the end, but for the actual faking part, I am somewhat doubtful that any little amount of footage could be faked well enough, even with the technology that we have today. I feel like you would have the whole internet against you, trying to debunk any video, and I'd tend to believe they would come up with something you have not considered in your fake, especially if the footage does not meet the expectations.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Thomas Hirsch
                        3 hours ago







                      1




                      1




                      $begingroup$
                      Fails the last requirement: ‘...the general public must believe that all of the "astronauts" went to the moon and safely returned.’
                      $endgroup$
                      – Mike Scott
                      7 hours ago




                      $begingroup$
                      Fails the last requirement: ‘...the general public must believe that all of the "astronauts" went to the moon and safely returned.’
                      $endgroup$
                      – Mike Scott
                      7 hours ago












                      $begingroup$
                      I like the way you describe the distraction in the end, but for the actual faking part, I am somewhat doubtful that any little amount of footage could be faked well enough, even with the technology that we have today. I feel like you would have the whole internet against you, trying to debunk any video, and I'd tend to believe they would come up with something you have not considered in your fake, especially if the footage does not meet the expectations.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Thomas Hirsch
                      3 hours ago




                      $begingroup$
                      I like the way you describe the distraction in the end, but for the actual faking part, I am somewhat doubtful that any little amount of footage could be faked well enough, even with the technology that we have today. I feel like you would have the whole internet against you, trying to debunk any video, and I'd tend to believe they would come up with something you have not considered in your fake, especially if the footage does not meet the expectations.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Thomas Hirsch
                      3 hours ago











                      2












                      $begingroup$

                      The biggest issue is the number of people involved: given the number, the secret would be blown in no more than three years.



                      Now, technically it's plausible it could be done now. CGI could be used for the things that would be impossible to fake on Earth, like the lower gravity. The other parts are engineering. But...



                      1. ...you'd need to send an actual ship and an actual lander to the moon. They wouldn't have people on them; you'd use them to transmit a combination of pre-recorded audiovidual sent with the unmanned ship and audiovisual transmitted from the conspiracy headquarters to the ship to be broadcast back. An actual lander would be needed because the Doppler data contained in its signal could be used to verify its motion (this was actually done by radio astronomers in the real moon landings as an exercise). So you'd need to not only conduct a real landing, you'd need to conduct a real return launch and lunar rendez-vous. And...


                      2. ...there are images now of the real Apollo landing sites from lunar orbiters. Easy enough to fake those for your lunar satellites, but somewhat difficult to do so for those of other nations. What happens when the Indians or the Chinese have a satellite that just for giggles takes a look at the landing site but doesn't find a trace of any activity around the alleged landing site?


                      So, in short, can't be done. Not practically.






                      share|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$








                      • 1




                        $begingroup$
                        Sorry to be morbid, but can't those involved in the host just be executed?
                        $endgroup$
                        – axsvl77
                        4 hours ago















                      2












                      $begingroup$

                      The biggest issue is the number of people involved: given the number, the secret would be blown in no more than three years.



                      Now, technically it's plausible it could be done now. CGI could be used for the things that would be impossible to fake on Earth, like the lower gravity. The other parts are engineering. But...



                      1. ...you'd need to send an actual ship and an actual lander to the moon. They wouldn't have people on them; you'd use them to transmit a combination of pre-recorded audiovidual sent with the unmanned ship and audiovisual transmitted from the conspiracy headquarters to the ship to be broadcast back. An actual lander would be needed because the Doppler data contained in its signal could be used to verify its motion (this was actually done by radio astronomers in the real moon landings as an exercise). So you'd need to not only conduct a real landing, you'd need to conduct a real return launch and lunar rendez-vous. And...


                      2. ...there are images now of the real Apollo landing sites from lunar orbiters. Easy enough to fake those for your lunar satellites, but somewhat difficult to do so for those of other nations. What happens when the Indians or the Chinese have a satellite that just for giggles takes a look at the landing site but doesn't find a trace of any activity around the alleged landing site?


                      So, in short, can't be done. Not practically.






                      share|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$








                      • 1




                        $begingroup$
                        Sorry to be morbid, but can't those involved in the host just be executed?
                        $endgroup$
                        – axsvl77
                        4 hours ago













                      2












                      2








                      2





                      $begingroup$

                      The biggest issue is the number of people involved: given the number, the secret would be blown in no more than three years.



                      Now, technically it's plausible it could be done now. CGI could be used for the things that would be impossible to fake on Earth, like the lower gravity. The other parts are engineering. But...



                      1. ...you'd need to send an actual ship and an actual lander to the moon. They wouldn't have people on them; you'd use them to transmit a combination of pre-recorded audiovidual sent with the unmanned ship and audiovisual transmitted from the conspiracy headquarters to the ship to be broadcast back. An actual lander would be needed because the Doppler data contained in its signal could be used to verify its motion (this was actually done by radio astronomers in the real moon landings as an exercise). So you'd need to not only conduct a real landing, you'd need to conduct a real return launch and lunar rendez-vous. And...


                      2. ...there are images now of the real Apollo landing sites from lunar orbiters. Easy enough to fake those for your lunar satellites, but somewhat difficult to do so for those of other nations. What happens when the Indians or the Chinese have a satellite that just for giggles takes a look at the landing site but doesn't find a trace of any activity around the alleged landing site?


                      So, in short, can't be done. Not practically.






                      share|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$



                      The biggest issue is the number of people involved: given the number, the secret would be blown in no more than three years.



                      Now, technically it's plausible it could be done now. CGI could be used for the things that would be impossible to fake on Earth, like the lower gravity. The other parts are engineering. But...



                      1. ...you'd need to send an actual ship and an actual lander to the moon. They wouldn't have people on them; you'd use them to transmit a combination of pre-recorded audiovidual sent with the unmanned ship and audiovisual transmitted from the conspiracy headquarters to the ship to be broadcast back. An actual lander would be needed because the Doppler data contained in its signal could be used to verify its motion (this was actually done by radio astronomers in the real moon landings as an exercise). So you'd need to not only conduct a real landing, you'd need to conduct a real return launch and lunar rendez-vous. And...


                      2. ...there are images now of the real Apollo landing sites from lunar orbiters. Easy enough to fake those for your lunar satellites, but somewhat difficult to do so for those of other nations. What happens when the Indians or the Chinese have a satellite that just for giggles takes a look at the landing site but doesn't find a trace of any activity around the alleged landing site?


                      So, in short, can't be done. Not practically.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered 5 hours ago









                      Keith MorrisonKeith Morrison

                      6,88511128




                      6,88511128







                      • 1




                        $begingroup$
                        Sorry to be morbid, but can't those involved in the host just be executed?
                        $endgroup$
                        – axsvl77
                        4 hours ago












                      • 1




                        $begingroup$
                        Sorry to be morbid, but can't those involved in the host just be executed?
                        $endgroup$
                        – axsvl77
                        4 hours ago







                      1




                      1




                      $begingroup$
                      Sorry to be morbid, but can't those involved in the host just be executed?
                      $endgroup$
                      – axsvl77
                      4 hours ago




                      $begingroup$
                      Sorry to be morbid, but can't those involved in the host just be executed?
                      $endgroup$
                      – axsvl77
                      4 hours ago

















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f144269%2fhow-could-we-fake-a-moon-landing-now%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to create a command for the “strange m” symbol in latex? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)How do you make your own symbol when Detexify fails?Writing bold small caps with mathpazo packageplus-minus symbol with parenthesis around the minus signGreek character in Beamer document titleHow to create dashed right arrow over symbol?Currency symbol: Turkish LiraDouble prec as a single symbol?Plus Sign Too Big; How to Call adfbullet?Is there a TeX macro for three-legged pi?How do I get my integral-like symbol to align like the integral?How to selectively substitute a letter with another symbol representing the same letterHow do I generate a less than symbol and vertical bar that are the same height?

                      Българска екзархия Съдържание История | Български екзарси | Вижте също | Външни препратки | Литература | Бележки | НавигацияУстав за управлението на българската екзархия. Цариград, 1870Слово на Ловешкия митрополит Иларион при откриването на Българския народен събор в Цариград на 23. II. 1870 г.Българската правда и гръцката кривда. От С. М. (= Софийски Мелетий). Цариград, 1872Предстоятели на Българската екзархияПодмененият ВеликденИнформационна агенция „Фокус“Димитър Ризов. Българите в техните исторически, етнографически и политически граници (Атлас съдържащ 40 карти). Berlin, Königliche Hoflithographie, Hof-Buch- und -Steindruckerei Wilhelm Greve, 1917Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars

                      Category:Tremithousa Media in category "Tremithousa"Navigation menuUpload media34° 49′ 02.7″ N, 32° 26′ 37.32″ EOpenStreetMapGoogle EarthProximityramaReasonatorScholiaStatisticsWikiShootMe