内容来源：https://lifehacker.com/entertainment/what-people-are-getting-wrong-this-week-artemis-ii-mission-fake?utm_medium=RSS

内容总结：

“阿尔忒弥斯2号”任务圆满成功，质疑声却为何不绝于耳？

上周，执行“阿尔忒弥斯2号”月球任务的四名宇航员安全返回地球，他们此行抵达了人类从未涉足的深空区域。此次任务取得圆满成功，令许多人为之振奋。然而，与以往重大航天成就伴随的，还有网络上层出不穷的质疑声音，部分人坚信整个“绕月飞行”任务从未真实发生。

这些质疑观点大致可分为两类：一类是对任务视频图像进行逐帧分析，寻找所谓“造假证据”；另一类则源于认知局限，从科学原理角度质疑航天任务本身的可能性。

针对后者，理论宇宙学家、南卫理公会大学教授乔尔·迈耶斯从科学角度进行了解释：

• 关于飞行轨迹：有观点质疑火箭并非直飞月球，其轨迹看似返回地球。迈耶斯指出，这是设计使然。航天器首先进入地球轨道，然后逐步扩大轨道直至抵达月球，这比直线飞行更节能高效。
• 关于“月球暗面”照片：宇航员传回了月球背面的清晰照片，有人质疑“暗面”如何能被拍摄。迈耶斯澄清，“暗面”更准确的称谓是“月球背面”，当月球正面朝向地球处于“新月”期时，背面恰恰被太阳照亮，因此能被拍摄。
• 关于返回舱减速：猎户座返回舱以约每小时2.5万英里的速度再入大气层，仅凭三顶降落伞最终减速至约每小时20英里溅落。迈耶斯解释，绝大部分减速由大气阻力完成，降落伞仅在最后阶段进一步降低速度以确保安全溅落。

与此同时，网络上流传着诸多对任务视频的“技术性质疑”，例如“食品袋穿过宇航员耳朵”、“iPad未漂浮”、“宇航员头发状态不自然”等。分析指出，这些现象大多可由视频压缩传输损耗、太空微重力环境特性（如物品使用魔术贴固定、头发失重飘散）、地面电视台绿幕技术局限等合理解释。其中一些广为流传的“证据图片”实为AI生成。

迈耶斯教授表示，科学本身并无权威壁垒，其发现属于全人类。航天任务细节高度公开，他希望公众通过了解科学原理和宇航员在轨实验，能共同欣赏这一人类非凡成就，而非陷入无端的对立猜疑。

尽管质疑声不断，详实的科学论证与公开透明的任务记录，共同支撑着“阿尔忒弥斯2号”任务成功的真实性。

中文翻译：

阿尔忒弥斯二号探月任务取得圆满成功。上周，四名宇航员组成的乘组在比以往任何人类都更深入外太空后安全溅落地球。和大多数美国人一样，我怀着惊叹与自豪关注着这次任务——在2026年的当下，这种情感似乎有些不合时宜，但这确实是正在创造的真实历史，连我麻木的心都为之澎湃。但并非所有人都感到兴奋；有些人不相信所谓“绕月飞行”的说法，坚信这次任务从未发生。他们认为所有人都在撒谎，我们看到的图像视频都是伪造的，甚至连太空飞行本身都毫无意义。

我花费大量时间梳理了网络上关于阿尔忒弥斯二号的诸多阴谋论，大致可分为两类。第一类人热衷于在任务视频中吹毛求疵，寻找任务不实的“证据”。我稍后会讨论其中部分说法，但首先想谈谈更有趣的一类太空怀疑论——那种源于想象力匮乏的质疑。

基于科学的阿尔忒弥斯二号阴谋论

这类基于科学的质疑以“这绝不可能真实”的态度，针对本次任务及太空旅行本身的具体细节提出疑问。我理解这种想法。普通人——就像你我一样——将自己绑在火箭上冲破天际飞越月球，又安全返回地球，这种构想如此震撼，以至于显得难以置信。为此我联系了南卫理公会大学理论宇宙学家乔尔·迈尔斯教授，希望获得关于太空飞行原理的、基于科学且贴近实际的解答。

但首先需要明确一点：

斯蒂芬·约翰逊：阿尔忒弥斯任务是伪造的吗？

乔尔·迈尔斯：绝对不是。

SJ：……这是官方说法。但私下说，就你我之间，其实是伪造的，对吧？

JM：仍然不是。没有造假。

SJ：好吧。

“火箭轨迹会返回地球”

许多网络阴谋论者对阿尔忒弥斯的飞行轨迹提出质疑。火箭并非笔直飞向月球，反而看起来像是返回地球并要坠入百慕大三角：

迈尔斯指出，这恰恰是精心设计的。“最大的挑战在于脱离大气层，然后脱离地球引力阱，”他解释道，“但火箭并非垂直向上，而是通过特定轨迹使其勉强进入绕地轨道。”

为使猎户座飞船进入地球轨道，美国宇航局选择了让飞船下落曲线与地球曲率相匹配的轨迹，这样飞船本质上始终朝向地球坠落却又错过地面。要前往月球，需先绕地球飞行，再逐步扩大轨道直至与月球相遇。

“沿直线从地球垂直飞向月球将极具挑战性，需要消耗更多能量，且毫无必要。”迈尔斯说。

“他们如何在月球‘暗面’看到任何东西？”

许多网友对宇航员拍摄的月球“暗面”震撼照片提出质疑：“如果是暗的，他们怎么拍照？”这主要是“月球暗面”这个表述引发的问题，我认为平克·弗洛伊德乐队该为此负责（当然还有其他原因）。

“月球始终以同一面朝向地球，技术上我们称背对地球的那一面为‘月球远侧’，”迈尔斯说明，“当面向地球的月面处于黑暗时（即新月阶段），意味着月球另一侧——远侧——正被阳光照亮。从拍摄照片的视角看，太阳就在摄影师身后，因此照亮了月球远侧。”

“有人能在月球远侧被照亮时在那里拍摄照片，这实际上提供了更有力的证据表明任务并非伪造。”他补充道。

“飞船速度怎能仅靠几顶降落伞减缓？”

阿尔忒弥斯任务的猎户座乘员舱以约每小时2.5万英里的速度返回地球，随后仅凭三顶小型降落伞就将速度降至约每小时20英里进行溅落。这如何实现？迈尔斯表示，大部分减速并非依靠降落伞。“阻力，或者说穿越大气层的过程，对飞船减速起到了重要作用，”他指出，“飞船穿越数英里厚的大气层，在降落伞展开前已消耗了大量速度……降落伞仅在最后阶段展开，将下降速度降至人类可承受的舒适着陆范围。”

阿尔忒弥斯阴谋论的视频“证据”

澄清科学原理后，我们来看看视频阴谋论。网上有许多视频通过剖析阿尔忒弥斯任务传回影像的特定细节，试图证明任务未曾发生。但这些视频反而更印证了任务的真实性。

“食品袋穿过宇航员耳朵”

在上述视频中，可见一个食品袋似乎“穿透”了宇航员的耳朵。“别告诉我这是故障或伪影，”TikTok用户@knightfallenangel在视频中说道。很抱歉，我不得不告诉他这确实是视频伪影：这是高清视频为适应从太空传回地球再发送至手机而压缩产生的噪点。过于清晰的视频反而更可能是伪造迹象，因为在如此特殊环境下长距离传输本应产生损耗。

“绿幕穿帮了”

这段视频据称显示了任务画面中“绿幕穿帮”。辟谣线索就在视频本身。首先，这是单个电视台的转播画面，并非美国宇航局的原始信号。其他电视台播出的同一采访并无此问题。最合理的解释是：当地电视台使用某种绿幕技术叠加网络图文。任务吉祥物毛绒玩具“骑手”戴的帽子呈现蓝绿色调，当画面中出现特定色值的蓝绿色时，当地信号自动将其替换为电视台图文。

若原始画面是“绿幕拍摄”，每次玩具蓝绿色部分出现在画面时，我们都应在帽子相应部位看到背景图案。（我的个人阴谋论是：美国宇航局选择“骑手”的帽子颜色，正是为微妙证明这绝非绿幕特效。）

“iPad为何没飘浮？”

画面中的iPad确实没有飘浮，但我猜测是用魔术贴固定的——这种设计专为防止太空任务中物品飘走。也可能是磁吸装置。

此外：常与此视频搭配的、看似展示绿幕摄影棚内吊着威亚的宇航员照片，实为人工智能生成。

多出的手指数量可作判断依据，且若真在此类摄影棚拍摄，那些黑色吊线在绿幕画面中会非常显眼。

“克里斯蒂娜·科克的头发证明任务造假”

有人指出宇航员克里斯蒂娜·科克在执行任务时披散头发。我不确定这如何成为视频造假的证据，但她的头发恰恰证明了画面真实性。首先，头发从头部呈扇形散开，这是因为重力未对其产生作用。其次，绿幕技术难以处理半透明物体（如头发），尤其当光线从背后照射时。本应出现的“溢色”现象（头部周围的绿色镶边）并未出现。总体而言，科克的头发会是特效师的噩梦。要完美模拟“失重发丝”同时修正溢色，所需的高精度CGI技术或许能在短时间内实现（若有庞大团队和数百万美元预算），但现有任务影像长达数小时。若采用绿幕拍摄，直接让科克束发或戴帽子显然更省事。

“发射视频显示宇航员通过滑索离开飞船”

美国宇航局选择在4月1日发射阿尔忒弥斯二号任务。科学家称该日期是基于轨道力学、任务要求及天气光照条件选定的，但万一这是暗示整个任务是个大笑话的微妙信号呢？无论是否玩笑，请注意美国宇航局发射视频中的这个细节：

争议点在于这些吊舱。火箭升空前，吊舱反向弹射，如图所示：

“看！这说明宇航员根本没上火箭。”有人断言。但若任务造假，为何最初要让宇航员进入猎户座飞船？又为何让“撤离”如此明显？实际这是阿尔忒弥斯紧急撤离系统，专为应对发射台故障设计的应急逃生装置。

科学属于全人类

紧急撤离系统只是这次详尽记录的任务中的一个细节。美国宇航局公开了所有信息，几乎没有秘密可言，这使得各种阴谋论的传播更令人费解。

“阴谋论者存在某种圈内心态。他们自视为质疑权威者，拒绝接受‘主流媒体’灌输的信息，”迈尔斯说，“但作为科学家我感到困惑，因为与其他滋生阴谋论的领域不同，科学进程中不存在权威概念。科学属于所有人。人类作为物种取得的发现属于整个物种。”

“希望了解相关科学原理、看到宇航员开展的实验，能帮助人们理解这确实是惊人的人类成就，而我们都能参与其中。这不是‘我们对抗他们’的问题。”

英文来源：

The Artemis II moon mission was a full success. Its crew of four astronauts splashed down safely on earth last week after traveling further into outer space than any humans before them. Like most Americans, I followed the mission with a sense of wonder and pride that felt out-of-place in 2026–this was actual history being made, and even my blackened heart swelled. But not everyone was excited; some people are not buying this whole "orbiting the moon" thing and are convinced that the mission never happened. Everyone is lying, the images and videos we've seen are bogus, and spaceflight doesn't even make sense.
I've spent a lot of time digging into the many conspiracy theories online surrounding Artemis II, and there are two rough categories. The first is people who nitpick video feeds for "evidence" that the mission wasn't genuine. I'll address some of those theories later, but first, I want to talk about the more interesting kind of space-skepticism—the kind that comes from a failure of imagination.
Science-based Artemis II conspiracy theories
Science-based skepticism questions specifics of this mission and space travel itself with a sense of "it couldn't possibly be real." And I get it. The idea that people, just like you and me, strapped themselves onto a rocket and blasted past the damn moon, then returned safely to earth is so awe-inspiring, it can be seem unbelievable. So I got in touch with Joel Meyers, a theoretical cosmologist and professor at Southern Methodist University, to get some science-based, down-to-earth answers about how space flight really works.
But let's get this out of the way first:
Stephen Johnson: Was the Artemis mission fake?
Joel Meyers: Absolutely not.
SJ: ...That's the official line. But off the record, just between you and me, it was fake, right?
JM: Still no. It was not faked.
SJ: Okay, then.
"The rocket's trajectory would lead back to Earth."
Many online conspiracy theorists have taken issue with Artemis' trajectory. The rocket did not shoot straight into the sky toward the moon. Instead, it looked like it was heading back to earth to land in the Bermuda Triangle:
According to Meyers, that's by design. "The biggest challenges are getting out of the atmosphere, and then getting out of the gravitational well of the Earth," he said. "But it doesn't go vertically upward, but rather on a trajectory that puts it marginally in orbit around the Earth."
To put Orion in Earth orbit, NASA chose a trajectory where the curve of its fall matches the curve of the Earth, so the craft is essentially always falling towards the planet but missing the ground. To get to the moon, you first orbit Earth, then widen your orbit until the moon is in your way.
"Going straight up, on a straight line trajectory from the Earth to the moon, would be extremely challenging. It would use much more energy, and there's no reason to do it." Meyers said.
"How could they see anything on the 'dark side' of the moon?"
Many online took issue with the astronauts' stunning photos of the "dark side" of the moon. "If it's dark, how can they take photographs of it?" people asked. This is mainly a problem with the phrase "dark side of the moon," and I blame Pink Floyd for this (and many other things.)
"The same side of the moon always faces the Earth, and we refer to the opposite side of the moon as, more technically, the far side of the moon," Meyers said. "When the side of the moon that's facing the Earth is dark, when it's a new moon, that means the other side of the moon, the far side of the moon, is illuminated. From the perspective of where that picture was taken, the sun was just behind the photographer, so it was illuminating the far side of the moon."
"That somebody was up there to take a picture, with the far side of the moon illuminated, actually gives stronger evidence that indeed this was not fake," he added.
"How could the speed of the ship be slowed down by just a couple of parachutes?"
The Artemis' Orion Crew Module returned to Earth at a speed of around 25,000 miles per hour. Then it slowed down to around 20 mph for splashdown with just three dinky parachutes. How is this even possible? According to Meyers, most of the slowing-down doesn't come from the parachutes. "The drag, or passing through the atmosphere, does a significant amount to slow down the vessel," Meyers said, "They passed through miles of atmosphere that burned off much of the speed by the time the parachutes are deployed ... the parachutes are deployed only at a later stage to slow the descent to a degree that's comfortable for humans to land and splash down."
Video evidence of Artemis conspiracy theories
With the science out of the way, let's take a look at the video footage conspiracies. There are many videos online that pick apart specific details in the footage sent back from the Artemis mission to indicate it didn't happen. But all of them do more to prove the mission was real than to reveal it as fake.
"The food bag floats through the astronaut's ear."
In the above video, you can see what looks like a food bag "phasing through" an astronaut's ear. "Don't tell me this is a glitch or an artifact," TikToker @knightfallenangel says in the video. I'm sorry, but I am telling him that it is a video artifact: It's compression noise caused by high-definition video being made small enough to be transmitted from space to Earth and then sent to your iPhone. Crystal-clear video would be a better indication of fakery, because it wouldn't have to travel so far under such unusual circumstances.
"The green screen is glitching out."
The above video supposedly shows the green screen "glitching out" in footage from the mission. The debunk is contained right in the footage here too. First, this is from a single station's broadcast, not the feed from NASA itself. The same interview on other stations contains no glitch. Best explanation for what's happening here: The local station uses some kind of green screen to display its online graphics. Ride, the mission's plushy mascot, wears a hat that is various shades of green and blue. When the footage contains just the right shade of green/blue, the local feed replaces it with the station's graphics.
If the source footage was "shot on green screen," you'd see the background in parts of Ride's hat every time the green/blue parts of the toy appeared on the stream. (My own conspiracy theory is that NASA chose Ride's hat color as subtle proof that it's not freakin' green screen.)
"Why isn't the iPad floating?"
The iPad in this shot really isn't floating, but I'd guess it's kept in place with Velcro, which was specifically designed to keep things from floating away during space missions. It could be magnets too.
Also: The photo that often accompanies this footage that seems to show astronauts on wires in a green screen studio is AI-generated.
You can tell by the extra fingers, plus those black wires would be prominent on any green screen footage shot in this studio.
"Christina Cook's hair proves the mission is fake."
Some people have noted that astronaut Christina Cook wears her hair loose during the mission. I'm not sure how this is evidence that the videos are faked, but her hair actually proves the footage is genuine. First, there's the way it fans out from her head, because gravity isn't acting on it. Secondly, green screen does not deal well with translucent things like hair, especially with light coming from behind it. What you'd see is "spill," a green fringe around her head. Overall, Cook's hair would be a special effects person's nightmare. The amount of precision CGI it would take to perfectly animate "weightless hair" while also correcting for the spill might be possible to pull off for a few moments (if you had a large team working on it and several million dollars), but there are hours of this footage. If it was green screened, someone would have just told Cook to pull her hair back or wear a hat.
"This launch video shows the astronauts exiting the craft on a zipline."
NASA chose to launch the Artemis II mission on April 1. Scientists say the date was chosen based on orbital mechanics, mission requirements, and weather and lighting conditions, but what if it was a subtle signal that the whole mission is a big joke? Joke or not, check out this detail from NASA's launch footage:
At issue are those pods. Right before the rocket lifts off, the pods shoot in the other direction, as you can see here:
"See? That's the astronauts not going on the rocket ride," some concluded. But if the mission was faked, why would they bring the astronauts into the Orion in the first place? And why would they make their "exit" so obvious? What you're seeing is actually the Artemis Emergency Egress System, an emergency escape mechanism in case of launch pad problems.
Science belongs to everyone
The AEES is just one aspect of a mission that was exhaustively documented. NASA lays out every detail. There aren't a lot of secrets here, which makes the spread of these weird theories so perplexing.
"There's a bit of an in-group mentality to conspiracy theorists. They see themselves as questioning authority and not taking what's fed to them by the 'mainstream media,'" Meyers says. "But I find it a bit confusing as a scientist, because, unlike a lot of other topics for which conspiracy theories develop, there is no sense of authority in the process of science. It's for everyone. The discoveries we make as a human species belong to the whole species."
"Hopefully, seeing some of the science, seeing some of the experiments that astronauts can carry out, will help them understand that this really is an amazing human achievement, and we can all take part in that. It's not a matter of us versus them."