10 Reasons the Moon Landings Could Be a Hoax

[!eon]

But the earliest of photoshopers were Soviets
Soviet photo manipulation of World War II

 

[Maarkhoor]

• The cost of the entire Apollo program: USD $25.4 billion -1969 Dollars ($135-billion in 2005 Dollars). See NASA Budget. (Includes Mercury, Gemini, Ranger, Surveyor, Lunar Orbitar, Apollo programs.) Apollo spacecraft and Saturn rocket cost alone, was about $ 83-billion 2005 Dollars (Apollo spacecraft cost $ 28-billion (CS/M $ 17-billion; LM $ 11-billion), Saturn I, IB, V costs about $ 46-billion 2005 dollars). Apollo program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Motives
  Several motives have been suggested for the U.S. government to fake the moon landings - some of the recurrent elements are:
  1. Distraction - The U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction to take attention away from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities did abruptly stop, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the US ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.
  2. Cold War Prestige - The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race with the USSR. Going to the Moon, if it was possible, would have been risky and expensive. It would have been much easier to fake the landing, thereby ensuring success.
  3. Money - NASA raised approximately 30 billion dollars pretending to go to the moon. This could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity. In variations of this theory, the space industry is characterized as a political economy, much like the military industrial complex, creating fertile ground for its own survival.
  4. Risk - The available technology at the time was such that there was a good chance that the landing might fail if genuinely attempted.
  The Soviets, with their own competing moon program and an intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing. Theorist Ralph Rene responds that shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the USA silently started shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR. He views this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence. (The Soviet Union in fact had its own Moon program).
  
  Proponents of the Apollo hoax suggest that the Soviet Union, and latterly Russia, and the United States were allied in the exploration of space, during the Cold war and after. The United States and the former Soviet Union today routinely engage in cooperative space ventures, as do many other nations that are popularly believed to be enemies. However, this suggestion is challenged by the impression of intense international competition that was under way during the Cold War and is not supported by the accounts of participants on either side of the Iron Curtain. Many argue that the fact that the Soviet Union and other Communist bloc countries, eager to discredit the United States, have not produced any contrary evidence to be the single most significant argument against such a hoax. Soviet involvement might also implausibly multiply the scale of the conspiracy, to include hundreds of thousands of conspirators of uncertain loyalty.http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations
  

Did man really set foot on the moon?
Shocking : See what NASA has done (Long but worth reading)

Did man really walk on the Moon or was it the ultimate camera trick, asks David Milne?

In the early hours of May 16, 1990, after a week spent watching old video footage of man on the Moon, a thought was turning into an obsession in the mind of Ralph Rene.

"How can the flag be fluttering?" the 47 year old American kept asking himself when there's no wind on the atmosphere free Moon? That moment was to be the beginning of an incredible Space odyssey for the self- taught engineer from New Jersey.

He started investigating the Apollo Moon landings, scouring every NASA film, photo and report with a growing sense of wonder, until finally reaching an awesome conclusion: America had never put a man on the Moon. The giant leap for mankind was fake.

It is of course the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories. But Rene has now put all his findings into a startling book entitled NASA Mooned America. Published by himself, it's being sold by mail order - and is a compelling read.

The story lifts off in 1961 with Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into space, leaving a panicked America trailing in the space race. At an emergency meeting of Congress, President Kennedy proposed the ultimate face saver, put a man on the Moon. With an impassioned speech he secured the plan an unbelievable 40 billion dollars.

And so, says Rene (and a growing number of astro-physicists are beginning to agree with him), the great Moon hoax was born. Between 1969 and 1972, seven Apollo ships headed to the Moon. Six claim to have made it, with the ill fated Apollo 13 - whose oxygen tanks apparently exploded halfway being the only casualties. But with the exception of the known rocks, which could have been easily mocked up in a lab, the photographs and film footage are the only proof that the Eagle ever landed. And Rene believes they're fake.

For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts throw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film man's greatest achievement from a TV screen in Houston - a deliberate ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could properly examine it.

By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred.

As Rene points out, that's not all: The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing. There film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless. They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized suits. It should have been almost impossible with the gloves on their fingers.

Award winning British photographer David Persey is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on these pages, but the basic points are as follows: The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and,in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.

The American flag and the words "United States" are always Brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow. Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.

The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly. David Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by "whistle blowers" who were keen for the truth to one day get out.

If Persey is right and the pictures are fake, then we've only NASA's word that man ever went to the Moon. And, asks Rene, "Why would anyone fake pictures of an event that actually happened?"

The questions don't stop there. Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.

John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil.

How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started. "They should have been fried", says Rene.

Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. Just one effect could have blown the whole thing. "The odds against these are so unlikely that God must have been the co-pilot," says Rene.

Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life.

Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut who baited the Apollo program, was due to pilot Apollo 1 as part of the landings build up. In January 1967, he hung a lemon on his Apollo capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called lemons) and told his wife Betty: "If there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it's likely to be me."

Nobody knows what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month he and his two co-pilots were dead, burnt to death during a test run when their capsule, pumped full of high pressure pure oxygen, exploded.

Scientists couldn't believe NASA's carelessness - even a chemistry students in high school know high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive. In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is
a spectacular accident rate.

"One wonders if these 'accidents' weren't NASA's way of correcting mistakes," says Rene. "Of saying that some of these men didn't have the sort of 'right stuff' they were looking."

NASA wont respond to any of these claims, their press office will only say that the Moon landings happened and the pictures are real. But a NASA public affairs officer called Julian Scheer once delighted 200 guests at a private party with footage of astronauts apparently on a landscape. It had been made on a mission film set and was identical to what NASA claimed was they real lunar landscape. "The purpose of this film," Scheer told the enthralled group, "is to indicate that you really can fake things on the ground, almost to the point of deception." He then invited his audience to "Come to your own decision about whether or not man actually did walk on the Moon."

A sudden attack of honesty? You bet, says Rene, who claims the only real thing about the Apollo missions were the lift offs. "The astronauts simply have to be on board," he says, "in case the rocket exploded. It was the easiest way to ensure NASA wasn't left with three astronauts who ought to be dead." he claims, adding that they came down a day or so later, out of the
public eye (global surveillance wasn't what it is now) and into the safe hands of NASA officials, who whisked them off to prepare for the big day a week later.

And now NASA is planning another giant step - Project Outreach, a 1 trillion dollar manned mission to Mars. "Think what they'll be able to mock up with today's computer graphics," says Rene Chillingly. "Special effects was in its infancy in the 60s. This time round will have no way of determining the truth."

9 SPACE ODDITIES:

1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

The Moon or a Studio in the Nevada Desert!

 

[Nilgiri]

Why the hell no other nation ever tries to go moon after that what was the reason why the hell they are so behind.

The expense is phenomenal. Thats why even the US hasnt returned, even during their economic peak in the 90s. In the 60s the US sorely needed a major victory over the USSR in the space race after being behind for so long. Apollo missions made the perfect opportunity. The feeling of the cold war at that time has never been replicated...it pushed human ambition to new levels....but ultimately Vietnam and Afghanistan drained and sapped all of that economically to a large extent....and the more fragile of the two imploded politically. Space Race was just one element of the manifestation at that particular "ascendancy competition" phase. After moon landings, both sides rested on their laurels to a large degree....and we as humans are somewhat poorer for it.

However humanity will return to the moon in the coming decades, that is for sure. Let us see which countries lead the way.

You are free to believe it was all a hoax all you want. I have wasted enough time with many other moon landing hoax people and 9/11 "truthers etc etc way before this recent thread....so I will just observe it and answer any specific questions people may ask me.

As the X-files said....the Truth is out there!

 

[Maarkhoor]

CBC NEWSWORLD

DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
Sunday November 16, 2003 at 10PM ET/PT
repeating Sunday July 24, 2005 at 10pm ET/PT

How could the flag flutter when there's no wind on the moon? During an interview with Stanley Kubrick's widow an extraordinary story came to light. She claims Kubrick and other Hollywood producers were recruited to help the U.S. win the high stakes race to the moon. In order to finance the space program through public funds, the U.S. government needed huge popular support, and that meant they couldn't afford any expensive public relations failures. Fearing that no live pictures could be transmitted from the first moon landing, President Nixon enlisted the creative efforts of Kubrick, whose 2001: a Space Odyssey (1968) had provided much inspiration, to ensure promotional opportunities wouldn't be missed. In return, Kubrick got a special NASA lens to help him shoot Barry Lyndon (1975). A subtle blend of facts, fiction and hypothesis around the first landing on the moon, Dark Side Of The Moon illustrates how the truth can be twisted by the manipulation of images.

With use of 'hijacked' archival footage, false documents, real interviews taken out of context or transformed through voice-over or dubbing, staged interviews, as well as, interviews with astronauts like Buzz Aldrin and others, Dark Side Of The Moonnavigates the viewer through lies and truth; fact and fiction. This is no ordinary documentary. Its intent is to inform and entertain the viewer, but also to shake him up - make him aware that one should always view television with a critical eye.

Dark Side Of The Moon is written and directed by William Karel and co-produced by Point du Jour Production and ARTE France. http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunday/feature_161103.html
MOON HOAX DARK SIDE
The Nixon administration approached Kubrick
with a mind to stage the moon landing in advance.
Moon Hoax Documentary


Deaths of key people involved with the Apollo program
In a television program about the hoax theory, Fox Entertainment Group listed the deaths of 10 astronauts and of two civilians related to the manned spaceflight program as having possibly been killings as part of a coverup.

• Ted Freeman (T-38 crash, 1964)
• Elliott See and Charlie Bassett (T-38 accident, 1966)
• Virgil "Gus" Grissom (supposedly an outspoken critic of the Space Program) (Apollo 1 fire, January 1967)
• Ed White (Apollo 1 fire, January 1967)
• Roger Chaffee (Apollo 1 fire, January 1967)
• Ed Givens (car accident, 1967)
• C. C. Williams (T-38 accident, October 1967)
• X-15 pilot Mike Adams (the only X-15 pilot killed in November 1967 during the X-15 flight test program - not a NASA astronaut, but had flown X-15 above 50 miles).
• Robert Lawrence, scheduled to be an Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory pilot who died in a jet crash in December 1967, shortly after reporting for duty to that (later cancelled) program.
• NASA worker Thomas Baron Train crash, 1967 shortly after making accusations before Congress about the cause of the Apollo 1 fire, after which he was fired. Ruled as suicide.
• Paul Jacobs, a private investigator from San Francisco, interviewed the head of the US Department of Geology in Washington about the 'moon rocks'. Did you examine the Moon rocks, did they really come from the Moon? Jacobs asked - the geologist did not respond, only laughed. Paul Jacobs and his wife died from cancer within 90 days.
• Lee Gelvani claims to have almost convinced James Irwin, an Apollo 15 astronaut whom Gelvani referred to as an "informant", to confess about a cover-up having occurred. Irwin was supposedly going to contact Kaysing about it; however he died of a heart attack in 1991, before any such telephone call occurred.

Spacecraft testing and flying high performance jet aircraft can be dangerous, and all but one of the astronaut deaths (Irwin's) were directly related to their rather hazardous job. Two of the astronauts, Mike Adams and Robert Lawrence, had no connection with the civilian manned space program. Astronaut James Irwin had suffered several heart attacks in the years prior to his death. There is no independent confirmation of Gelvani's claim that Irwin was about to come forward. Moreover, if there was a coverup (that the Apollo 11 and subsequent landings were faked), the coverup would logically have occurred in 1969 and subsequent years - yet all of the deaths listed above occurred in 1967 or earlier.Moon landing conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Stag112]

 

[Maarkhoor]

Why they would fake it
The Soviet Union had been making all the early advances and the greatest progress in the great Moon race.
The Soviet Union launched the first man and the first women in space in 1961 & 1963 and were also the first to orbit the Earth.

With the above happening the US Government had to make some kind of success with President Kennedy promising that the US would put a man on the moon by the end of the 1960's.

Many people believe that NASA had released that it was not possible to go to the moon with the technology available
(Computer chips being as powerful then as a modern washing machines chip) so they resorted to faking the landing to ensure a
victory of the Soviet Union and keep the dollars coming in for real space projects.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Pictures
NASA have never offered any explanation whatsoever for the numerous errors in the photographs, despite repeated questioning.
These errors include:
The Apollo 11 pictures show the ground in the distance being much darker than the ground in the foreground, as if the Astronauts were standing in a pool of light.

Several photos show evidence of extra lighting (as a professional photographer would use fill-in lights) but no such lights were supposed to have been used.

Some photos clearly show the light coming from "impossible" angles. In one instance, Aldrin's boot is lit from below as he descends the ladder.

Some photos contradict the TV camera pictures of the same events.

Some photos of one astronaut taken by the other are clearly taken from slightly above the eye level of the subject, but in his visor, the reflection of the astronaut with the camera shows it being held at chest level.

The length of the shadows in the Apollo 12 pictures don't agree with the angle which the Sun should have been at.

Some wide area photos show shadows pointing in different directions.

In the sound recording of the lunar landing, you cannot hear the sound of the engines. As the astronaut calls out the remaining distance to the surface, he is only a few feet away from a rocket engine which should have
been producing 10000 lb of thrust.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sounds
The major point which has helped convince me that the moon landing was faked was the fact that when the control room asked a question to the Astronauts the replies were instant with no delays. This seems strange as even with technology in the 1990's there is a delay from satellite links from the UK to the US. There is about a 0.7 second delay from London to California so how is it possible for instant replies from the Moon ?
There is also evidence that when people go into space that there voice goes tense although the Astronauts voices have been analyzed and found to be normal, and 7/10 people said it sounded like someone reading from a script.

When Houston are talking to the module you should not be able to hear the responses at least when the module is landing and the infamous "eagle has landed" quote, this is due to the noise that should have been created by the rocket motor which generates several hundred thousand pounds of thrust 20 ft below the astronauts. The noise would have completely drowned
the vocals out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Radiation
An American author has researched and found out that he believes the Apollo Spacecraft would have needed to be two meters thick to prevent cosmic radiation from cooking the Astronauts inside.
Also in addition to the radiation protection for the astronauts similar protection would be required for the films + cameras, NASA's official explanation of how the films were protected was that the cameras were painted with a coat of aluminum paint,
yeah right.
One small step for man, one giant lie on the American People.

Yes and u don't have, thanks for telling us that u r stupid.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

BS

 

[oproh]

Majority of the american population is dumb to believe this fake non-sense landing to the moon.

 

[Stag112]

A rational person should know that if, and its a freaking BIG IF, such a hoax was carried out, watched by the entire world and governments and intelligence agencies and universities and scientists etc etc, and the hoax would have required like hundreds of hands to pull off, and yet the hoax was successful...

then some stupid system hating conspiracy theorists is not going to unravel it sitting in their mom's basement.

Sorry but that's just hard reality. Accept it.

 

[Maarkhoor]

This shot of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planting the US flag on the moon's surface was taken by a 16 mm camera mounted on the lunar module. Aldrin's shadow (A) is far longer than Armstrong's. Yet the only light on the moon - and the only light source used by NASA - comes from the sun, and should not create such unequal shadows.

Buzz Aldrin stands with the sun shining down across his left shoulder. Although his right side is in shadow, there is too much detail shown on that side of his space suit (B). It should be much darker and less visible because the contrast between light and dark is much greater on the moon. With no atmosphere to pollute the light on the moon, all the photographs should look bright and crisp. But the landscape behind Aldrin (C) gradually fades to darkness. This 'fall-off' effect, hoax theorists say, should not occur on the moon. But the fading effect could have happened because film is less adaptive than the human eye and makes objects seem darker the further they are from the camera. There is a curious objectreflected in Aldrin's visor (D). Some theorists think that it is a helicopter, others say that it is a 12-metre glass structure. NASA claims that it is a piece of equipment on the lunar surface.



NASA claims the strange shape (E) - in this shot taken from the Lunar Module while it was 95 km above the moon's surface - is a shadow cast by the Command Module's rocket. But when larger aircraft fly at lower altitudes over the Earth, they do not cast such huge and defined shadows.

As the Lunar Module Antares, from Apollo 14, rests on the moon's surface there is no crater beneath its feet (F), despite the considerable amount of dust that would have been thrown up during its descent. There also appears to be a footprint (G) directly under the module, yet no one walked on this part of the moon before the craft landed. On the left side of the craft, the words, 'United States' (H) are clearly visible, whereas they should be in shadow. Buzz Aldrin himself said that there is no refracted light on the moon, which points to the fact that another source of light was used to take this shot.

These shots of John Young and James Irwin - like many Apollo photos - show a lunar sky without stars (J). Yet with no atmosphere on the moon, stars should be visible - a fact confirmed by Maria Blyzinsky, Curator of Astronomy at the Greenwich Observatory, London. If NASA could not hope to recreate the lunar sky, they may have opted for simple black backdrops. NASA claim that the sunlight was so strong it overpowered the light from the stars. On the shadow side of the landing modules, there are plaques (K) with the American flag and the words 'United States' quite bright and clearly visible, but the gold foil around the plaques is in near darkness. Studio spotlights highlighting these areas, or technicians retouching the prints, could have caused this effect.



As Alan Bean holds up a Special Environmental Sample Container, the top of his head is clearly in view. But the camera taking the shot was fixed on Charles Conrad's chest, and the ground here seems to be level, so the top of the helmet (L) should not be in the photo. Shadows visible in Al Bean's visor should not be in the photo. Shadows visible in Al Bean's visor (M) go off in various directions, not in straight parallel lines, as expected, suggesting that there is more than one light source. The container Bean is holding (N) is brightly lit at the bottom, yet it is facing away from the light. This may be due to the light reflected from Bean's suit on to the container, but the rest of the container is not so brightly lit.



In this photograph of John Young readjusting an antenna next to the Lunar Rover Vehicle (LRV), there is a marker, known as a cross-hair (inset) (P), that goes behind the LRV's equipment. These cross-hairs (Q),which appear on all the lunar photographs, are made by a screen of cross-hairs placed between the shutter and the film. The bright, reflected light may have obliterated the fine line of this one, or it could have happened if the image was retouched. The foreground shows what looks like the letter 'C' on a boulder (R). Is this perhaps an identification letter left on a studio prop? The letter C on the original photo is actually quite well defined and it is hard to imagine what can cause such a well-laid inscription on a boulder in a desolate place such as the moon. The tracks made by the LRV's wheel turn rather oddly at right-angles (S). These tracks could have been caused by studio technicians pushing the buggy into place. Such clear tracks and footprints require moisture to form and should not appear on the dry lunar surface.

A rational person should know that if, and its a freaking BIG IF, such a hoax was carried out, watched by the entire world and governments and intelligence agencies and universities and scientists etc etc, and the hoax would have required like hundreds of hands to pull off, and yet the hoax was successful...

then some stupid system hating conspiracy theorists is not going to unravel it sitting in their mom's basement.

Sorry but that's just hard reality. Accept it.

And u r the same guy how purchases 100K USD car yesterday in UAE

 

[Nilgiri]

Majority of the american population is dumb to believe this fake non-sense landing to the moon.

Learn better engrish.

 

[VCheng]

BS

The funny thing is that is not mentioned is that powerful telescopes can see all the stuff leftover stuff from the moon landings - on the moon. I wonder how it got there if the landings were a hoax?

 

[Maarkhoor]

The funny thing is that is not mentioned is that powerful telescopes can see all the stuff leftover stuff from the moon landings - on the moon. I wonder how it got there if the landings were a hoax?

Unmanned crafts

 

[Guynextdoor2]

The funny thing is that is not mentioned is that powerful telescopes can see all the stuff leftover stuff from the moon landings - on the moon. I wonder how it got there if the landings were a hoax?

Even today they flash lasers on the mirrors left behind by the astronauts. Gives you a very accurate estimate of its rotation. Even the soviets never questioned it.

 

[Nilgiri]

Unmanned crafts

So sending humans on such craft is suddenly impossible? Life support is that much of a premium?