77

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 with sufficient evidence 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 (including the media outlets delivering it) 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 majority of the general public (regardless of country) must believe that all of the "astronauts" went to the moon and safely returned.
JesseTG
  • 2,667
  • 3
  • 19
  • 24
  • 8
    "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. – user Apr 17 '19 at 19:01
  • 12
    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.se], may well be of interest. – user Apr 17 '19 at 19:01
  • 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 – Greenie E. Apr 17 '19 at 19:14
  • 9
    Mitchell and Webb considered this scenario. The conclusion that the best way to do a fake moon landing involved landing on the moon first. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw – Starfish Prime Apr 17 '19 at 19:47
  • 24
    "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. – hmakholm left over Monica Apr 17 '19 at 21:16
  • Landing = EVA. There's disputable proof that we ever did. What's not in dispute is if you use a laser at a very specific spot on the moon, where we left something, you can tell it's relative speed. – Mazura Apr 17 '19 at 21:34
  • 2
    I think we need some sort of metric to know if the Hoax is exposed or not. Is it enough just to control all major news outlets? What qualifies a news outlet as Major? – Mathaddict Apr 17 '19 at 23:16
  • You might be interested in what NVIDIA said about the moon landing. – Theraot Apr 17 '19 at 23:21
  • "But is it enough?" - is what, enough? What proves we landed on the moon? What would qualify as 'proof'? – Mazura Apr 18 '19 at 00:28
  • 11
    Lets be honest, if we landed on the Moon today; 50% of the US population, representing whichever party didn't control the Presidency would probably think that a moon landing was faked. – kingledion Apr 18 '19 at 00:44
  • 2
    "How could we fake a moon landing now?" With a tweet. – Cort Ammon Apr 18 '19 at 02:24
  • @Mazura, there's multiple line of proof of an EVA. Aside from the more recent satellite imagery showing tracks, there's the little matter of Apollo 15, 16, and 17 which have video of liftoff of the crew portion of the landers, shot from the cameras mounted on the rovers. Given it's known how they were designed, you needed someone there to physically deploy them. So either you postulate breakthoughs in robotics they managed to keep secret for decades, or you accept someone wearing a spacesuit got out and manhandled them. – Keith Morrison Apr 18 '19 at 03:16
  • 1
    Post on Facebook that it was faked, and it will have a million shares in a week. – WGroleau Apr 18 '19 at 07:37
  • In case it's not yet mentioned the film "Operation Alvanache" might be of interest for you. Not possible today though because of the mentioned satellite imagery etc – Daniel Jour Apr 18 '19 at 12:38
  • Why fake it? Just do it for real and people will tell you it's faked. – MonkeyZeus Apr 18 '19 at 13:21
  • It's a fun question (although the answer is pretty much "impossible" these days). BTW you could pose this as ".. fake a Mars landing" so it's more topical! – Fattie Apr 19 '19 at 13:25
  • 1
    Does it just have to convince your populace, or the entire world? If other countries aren't convinced, can they spoil it for your populace? E.g. what if their astronomers discover evidence of your hoax? – bob Apr 19 '19 at 15:18

15 Answers15

99

Stanley Kubrick supposedly filmed the Apollo moon landings for NASA.

In this reality, it would be impossible to successfully fake a moon landing at anytime. The moon landings happened. They were real with real competitors watching every move. A little back history will explain my point of why they could never be faked.

As you may remember, the United States and the Soviet Union were in a space race to see who could make the greatest accomplishments outside the Earth's atmosphere. The Soviet Union and their Cosmonaut program 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 along with amateur radio operators were monitoring as well. Not only could each side monitor every move, they could detect where in space the communications originated. You could put a transmitter on a mountain in Colorado and pretend to broadcast from the moon, but the signal can be tracked. So you have to put a transmitter on the moon to successfully pull off the hoax.

Beyond that, both the US and the Soviet Union cooperated to make sure they did not interfere with radio communications. They knew the broadcast frequencies and 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 officially on. The Soviet Union had a head start with their N1 rocket, but ran into technical issues with the rocket and with the unexpected death of Sergei Korolev, the chief designer of their space program. In-fighting and politics mired the Soviet 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 that 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 thing. 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 the Moon on July 20, 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 simple-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.

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

Buzz Aldrin mocks you

Ton Day
  • 8,656
  • 23
  • 44
gwally
  • 4,437
  • 1
  • 16
  • 16
  • 1
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – L.Dutch Apr 18 '19 at 16:44
  • 26
    "At that point, you might as well send a man to the moon." - This is the key here. Faking a moon landing is so hard, it's actually easier to make a real one. – Gimelist Apr 19 '19 at 03:18
  • 2
    @Gimelist Not under the flat-earth assumption, which frequently comes with the faked moon landing theory. – Therac Apr 19 '19 at 06:29
  • 4
    Don't forget the plethora of telescopes not controlled by the conspiracy that should be able to make out the spacecraft as it is en route. – Ton Day Apr 19 '19 at 08:01
  • Also don't forget, it's not sufficient to just send a transmitter to the moon - you have to also create a return voyage, complete with the communications one would have during said voyage, or else the Soviet Union would immediately know that "to put a man on the moon and have him safely return" did not actually succeed. – Zibbobz Apr 19 '19 at 12:38
  • 4
    say you have a typo: nimble-minded (simple-minded) – Fattie Apr 19 '19 at 13:25
  • This answer focuses on why the Apollo landing weren't / couldn't have been faked, with Soviet observers as one of the serious obstacles. Modern Russia doesn't have the same resources, but OTOH technological advances let you do more with much less budget for electronics. And I think modern Russia would be willing to embarrass the US by exposing a fake. China certainly has the resources to monitor at least as closely as the Soviets did, but perhaps not the motivation to harm a trading partner. But there are plenty of countries and non-state actors willing and able to expose a fake landing. – Peter Cordes Apr 19 '19 at 17:22
  • 1
    The photographer isn't in the reflection. Must be a shop. – Joshua Apr 19 '19 at 20:18
  • @Joshua I would take a closer look at the helmet face plate on Buzz Aldrin and you will clearly see Neil Armstrong taking the photo. – gwally Apr 19 '19 at 20:48
  • 1
    @PeterCordes Roscosmos still maintains a deep space network of large antennas and communication facilities. They have the ability to monitor communications and triangulate signals. – gwally Apr 19 '19 at 20:54
  • @gwally: I was referring to the top photo. – Joshua Apr 19 '19 at 21:22
  • @Joshua, photographer is visible in the top photo as well. Click & zoom in, there's a small white figure (the other astronaut) in the faceplate. It comes out very small due to the highly convex surface. – JDM-GBG Apr 20 '19 at 02:16
  • 1
    Another point is the simple fact that with current technology the ship would be full of cameras. Note how many cameras we have on Falcon starts, with live feeds from inside and outside. Current technology does not mean we can fake better than in 1969. Current technology means we have to fake much more... – Sulthan Apr 20 '19 at 12:57
  • The Soviet union did not even try to respond to declaration that moon is next target. They probably thought "they are gonna shoot themselves in the foot with a lie that huge". – mathreadler Apr 23 '19 at 04:51
  • Not logically coherent.All these points have been refuted before. – Jayadevan Vijayan Oct 17 '20 at 16:10
62

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.

The Square-Cube Law
  • 141,440
  • 29
  • 264
  • 586
  • 19
    It's no harder to see landers on the far side of the moon, since the pictures would be taken by satellites in lunar orbit. – jamesqf Apr 18 '19 at 05:25
  • 3
    This does not attempt to answer the question, so why are people upvoting it? – Innovine Apr 18 '19 at 07:26
  • 32
    “You can’t” is just as valid an answer as all the others that said the same thing in more words. – WGroleau Apr 18 '19 at 07:36
  • 2
    @innovine how is a frame challenge not a valid answer? – The Square-Cube Law Apr 18 '19 at 09:54
  • 4
    @WGroleau The question is even tagged with reality-check which states: "Asks if a given concept is realistic in a given context. Answers should say yes or no, with supporting info.[...]". So the answer should actually be a Yes or No answer. – Dan Apr 18 '19 at 14:14
  • 1
    We should decide how to answer by a tag instead of by the actual question? OP asked "How can we …" and several of us made the same answer as this, i.e., "we can't." – WGroleau Apr 18 '19 at 15:13
  • 1
    @WGroleau The question tells us what we need to answer and in what scenario, the tags are meant to focus answers in a more specific area. If the OP put the Magic tag, we’d probably see more answers involving illusion and mind control. If there was a question that asked for hard-science, we would likely see answers which have research or data to support them. So, if the OP is asking a question with the reality-check tag, they are asking if something would work in real life, which boils down to a yes or no answer with an explanation why. – Liam Morris Apr 19 '19 at 07:11
  • 1
    @WGroleau I am reading Dan's comment as supporting you, counter to Innovine's comment. You seem to have done just what Dan says should be done for a reality check question. – Loduwijk Feb 25 '20 at 21:34
39

Quite a lot of people say it can't be faked. Mostly they're right.

But ...

I believe that with present-day technology one could fake an unmanned moon landing being manned. Send a robot up, bring it back, have it transmit prerecorded audio and video to pretend there are people on it.

This might be done in a high-stakes political or commercial situation if the program decides at the last moment that their life support system might fail, but propulsion and guidance should work.

  • Record audio and video, possibly in snippets for various branches. "Landed right on location." "Landed east of the site." "Landed west of the site." ...
  • Build a two-legged robot that can make footprints and collect samples.
  • Put a camera on the robot to give on-site pictures and CGI it into the background of your moonwalk in almost-realtime.
  • Use something like steganography to hide remote-control data in your routine telemetry.

As you can see, this wouldn't be possible in the 1960s. It can be done in the 2030s. The price would be similar to a real moon mission.

o.m.
  • 114,994
  • 13
  • 170
  • 387
  • 2
    And if something unexpected happens, the robot cannot jury-rig a solution what humans could have done. The risk is just too high. – vsz Apr 18 '19 at 06:03
  • 3
    You don't even need an event the robot would have to jury-rig. All you need is a conversation where there's no canned response ready. – Keith Morrison Apr 18 '19 at 06:21
  • 1
    I think most people are overestimating the impact another moon-landing would have on people in general. It would probably be a short new segment, but if you time it right no one will care alot about it after a month or so... – Falco Apr 18 '19 at 12:27
  • 4
    +1. A humanoid robot in a space suit won't look too different from an actual human in a space suit, perfect for photo shoots. Some messages can be pre programmed, and some could be AI generated, some AIs are indistinguishable from people in text-based communication (look at Loebner Prize competitions). Just add a convincing enough speech option (siri, google assistant are all pretty good, so it's possible). This is especially true in a formal context like a moon mission where a lack of jokes or sarcasm won't stand out as odd. – Aubreal Apr 18 '19 at 14:48
  • 7
    @Falco, that depends on who does it. A Chinese or Indian moon landing in the next decade would be impressive but not surprising. A commercial one by Virgin Galactic or SpaceX would be slightly more surprising. But a moon landing by Iran or North Korea would really shake things up, so actors like this would have the motive to fake it. – o.m. Apr 18 '19 at 15:19
  • @KeithMorrison, to make the hoax hold several more decades, there have to be bootprints on the moon. The fake would have to leave a realistic landing site with all expected debris. – o.m. Apr 18 '19 at 15:21
  • @o.m., but on the other hand, a claimed moon landing by North Korea or Iran would have the existing space-capable nations looking closely at it, and having the technical capability to quickly reveal a fake. – Keith Morrison Apr 18 '19 at 16:06
  • 4
    @KeithMorrison, the OP asked for detection-proof fakes. Hence my suggestion to have a robot leave footprints. – o.m. Apr 18 '19 at 17:32
  • 2
    +1. This is indeed doable ... but more complicated and would cost as much as a real mission. I don't think you can pull it off safely in a foolproof way without making it insanely expensive, but you could be lucky enough to succeed. You don't need remote control of robots. Machine vision is good enough and you can hard-code mission objectives like get out, plant a flag N steps from the lander, get back in and similar stuff. – Zizy Archer Apr 18 '19 at 22:25
  • 1
    As for possible in 1960s: If you "invent" a genius robot builder that achieved the humanoid robot like those imagined by Asimov ... well, you could have it in 60s too. Hardware was possible to be good enough for a simple hard-coded sequence of steps. Robot walking up and down the stairs is still a very difficult problem in real world - but it is not a difficult one to handwave away as a spark of genius inspiration that led to a good enough solution to be used just for those specific stairs of the lander. – Zizy Archer Apr 18 '19 at 22:38
  • 1
    Actually a robot mission could be made much less expensive than a manned one: Life support costs a ton (and weighs a ton). Now since it is a public project, it will be hard to NOT make it obvious that no life support equipment is being bought, so you have to fake buy it, which will negate the cost savings. – toolforger Apr 19 '19 at 07:38
  • 1
    I think this is a great answer. Building a humanoid robot is now within the bounds of reason in a film-story sense. Robots - pretending to be humans - is the closest to answering the question. – Fattie Apr 19 '19 at 13:27
  • 6
    @Fattie, a robot making human footprints is much easier than a humanoid robot. It might even be mounted on an overhead gantry so it does not have to balance. – o.m. Apr 19 '19 at 16:03
31

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.

JBH
  • 122,212
  • 23
  • 211
  • 522
  • 2
    What you could do is send a robot / empty capsule and then just lie about having had 3 people in there.

    You could fake these few videos, send prerecorded signals back from the spaceship etc. that would work.

    But that's it. And imo that wouldn't be a real fake

    – Hobbamok Apr 18 '19 at 11:17
  • @Hobbamok Soviets sent drones and collected a few grams of lunar rocks, Apollo got hundred pounds and give some to Soviets and a few rocks as souvenirs for each nation on the globe. Given the difficulty to even remote control anything on the moon just getting that amount of material is a huge accomplishment per si and there's little doubt it was done by hand – jean Apr 18 '19 at 12:50
  • @jean I think nowadays in this context robots would save money, since you can drastically reduce launch weight (fully operational capsule + 3 people vs. a Mock-capsule with a radio and a computer). [OP said nothing about doing anything on the moon so u might not even need real robots that leave the shuttle].

    but the cost savings compared to a real moon landing wouldn't be too big, maybe 30-50%?

    – Hobbamok Apr 18 '19 at 13:03
  • 1
    @Hobbamok If you are going to the Moon to make science with no context of the cold war, etc. So yes, the actual technology used for Mars probes can be used in the Moon for a fraction of the costs but we are still unable to achieve the same results Apollo did. One human can still do the work of dozens of those little probes, even considering all the trouble in keeping them alive in space for one week. – jean Apr 18 '19 at 13:14
  • what do you mean, everyone will watch the launch? Only people who know about it will watch it. Launch it in secret? Only those near to the launch pad can actually watch it. The rest watch it on the internet, and contrary to what you might think, what you see there isn't always 100% real. – Innovine Apr 18 '19 at 22:08
  • You dont need to fool SETI. You just need to remind them where their funding comes from. Or close them down for health and safety violations during the mission week. Or cut all their funding for their program months in advance. Or kidnap their families. Or allow some hackers in there to tinker with the equipment when they are away. Or just publish a report with their name on it, and anyone who claims its fake gets a rape case brought against them and dragged through the mud. Are you seriously suggesting you cant get a small, badly funded bunch of nerds to comply? – Innovine Apr 18 '19 at 22:11
  • 2
    @Innovine, I believe you've missed my point. Rocket launches are difficult to miss, and when everyone in Florida starts scratching their heads and asking, "what launch?" it doesn't take long to figure out what happened. Do all 300M citizens of the U.S. pull out telescopes to watch launches? Heavens, no. But neither is the number 0. All those militaries across the world watching for missile heat plumes. All those astronomers keeping an eye on things. You're thinking about the average construction worker - not the hundreds of thousands of people world-wide who would be very hard to fool. – JBH Apr 19 '19 at 04:56
  • @jbh launch from north korea then. Nothing in the question says this needs to be a US launch. – Innovine Apr 19 '19 at 06:26
  • 2
    @Innovine North Korea is one of the most watched countries on the planet.... – JBH Apr 19 '19 at 15:07
  • 2
    @Innovine: like I commented on your answer, saying "hey, I just got back from the moon, sorry I didn't tell anyone I was going" is a huge red flag in this era where publicity and social media are king. It's totally implausible that anyone with the resources to send people to the moon would have chosen to keep it secret for any legitimate reason. – Peter Cordes Apr 19 '19 at 17:51
13

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.

Eric
  • 1,640
  • 5
  • 9
  • 4
    Fails the last requirement: ‘...the general public must believe that all of the "astronauts" went to the moon and safely returned.’ – Mike Scott Apr 17 '19 at 19:27
  • 1
    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. – Thomas Hirsch Apr 17 '19 at 23:14
  • I'd place real astronauts in the capsule when I "recover it". For the US these recoveries were usually made in the ocean by a designated military vessel, meaning that you trade 20-200 military personnel (take some with hushed up warcrimes, they'll stay quiet) and 3 astronauts which can tell an awesome story. Steal real moon dust from somewhere (the US hast a couple of kilos, but 50 gram should be enough ("small storage space" etc.) and you're set. IMO more convincing and less likely to fuel conspiracy theorists than to have all witnesses (which never existed) evaporate – Hobbamok Apr 18 '19 at 13:07
  • 1
    Did you mean the far side? Or literally the dark side (in shadow, not sunlight)? Landing in shadow doesn't stop observers with infrared telescopes from seeing a rocket exhaust plume and maybe taking a guess at the mass of your lander based on that + some visible design parameters of your rocket nozzles. – Peter Cordes Apr 19 '19 at 17:41
11

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.

Keith Morrison
  • 21,416
  • 1
  • 38
  • 76
  • 1
    Sorry to be morbid, but can't those involved in the host just be executed? – Astor Florida Apr 17 '19 at 22:48
  • 5
    One would suspect the sudden death of tens of thousands of people associated with a lunar landing program would be a tad noticeable. – Keith Morrison Apr 18 '19 at 03:06
  • I think it would take but a few dozen to fake it. – Astor Florida Apr 18 '19 at 04:25
  • 8
    You would think wrong. There's the people building the equipment who have to know can't carry people to the moon (if it could, why don't you just send people to the moon?), so you're talking hundreds to thousands right there. There's the hundreds who work at the launch facility who would, or could, discover there were no astronauts aboard, even if by accident, so you need to provide for them as well. The hundreds to thousands required to set up the infrastructure for faking it. Hundreds of visual artists to do the actual faking. (1/2) – Keith Morrison Apr 18 '19 at 06:15
  • 7
    (2/2) Then there are the assorted scientists and engineers you'd have to subvert because they might stumble on it by accident. And their administrative staff. And the freaking janitors. There's a reason why the estimate is that it would take a minimum of 410,000 people to have faked Apollo, because basically all of NASA would have to have been in on it in order to prevent any leaks from getting out. – Keith Morrison Apr 18 '19 at 06:18
8

You are missing the obvious approach. This is how faking something is done in 2019.

Step 1: You make a cheap fake moon landing with poor quality faked footage, no spacecraft, nothing sent to the moon. Don't worry about obvious errors, implausibility or the total lack of anything being actually visible on the moon, or any signals coming from the moon, or that no spacecraft capable of going to the moon has been built. Because these will be dealt with in step 2.

Step 2: you launch a huge social media campaign stating that the landing was genuine. You pay people to make posts about how great the landings were. Any website or news organization that can be persuaded (or paid) to join in, do it. Flood the internet with news that the landings happened. Anyone who disagrees (people with telescopes who can't see anything, people with radios who say there are no signals, universities, astronomers, engineers etc) are simply branded as liars, biased, unpatriotic, or (ha ha) conspiracy theorists.

Pretty soon it will be accepted as true that the moon landings happened, at least by enough people for your purposes. Don't believe me? Look around.

DJClayworth
  • 4,069
  • 2
  • 15
  • 21
  • 4
  • 1 for interesting lateral thinking but this only works if you control the media and you stay in power for 50 years. Fox News could probably persuade people who watch nothing else, and maybe the Chinese or Russians could convince most of their citizens, so long as most of them didn't care enough to really look. Otherwise you've got to tie it to something that people really want to believe, and that limits you to people who are already committed to that thing. (e.g. the Scientologists could persuade their members, but no one else).
  • – Robin Bennett Apr 18 '19 at 15:34
  • 1
    Orwell might back me. And we are building worlds, not working with real life. – DJClayworth Apr 18 '19 at 18:38
  • 3
    They've done their best with things like climate change, but fortunately a majority of the population won't buy into the lies. You can string along your "alternate reality" for a long time, but achieving critical mass will be difficult, unless you have enough of a long-term game plan that you can start influencing (or nixing) education to the point that in a couple of generations people will start believing everything you tell them... – GentlePurpleRain Apr 18 '19 at 20:00