I'm afraid your text is too difficult for me to make out.
I'm not surprised, since you evidently don't know how STEM works.
@Foster Zygote's statement is perfectly clear and correct to appropriately informed people.
There is no special physics for Apollo that doesn't apply anywhere else such that it can be credibly lied about without consequences. The physics and engineering that apply to Apollo is the same physics and engineering we use to make microwave ovens, lenses for cameras, and bridges that carry heavy loads of passengers over the heads of other people. If you lied about that physics so that by solving fake-physics problems you would make Apollo seem real, all the other solutions in those problem areas would fail. Further, practitioners in other places such as Iran or China, who wouldn't be especially keen to keep America's secrets, would feel obliged to complain. And since they don't want their bridges to fall down and kill people, they would be obliged to learn the real physics, the kind that would say bad things about whether Apollo was real about.
The notion that, say, determinate statics can be rewritten to explain off-balance astronauts means it won't work for the thousands of
other problems in that field being solved by thousands of engineers right now. If we're teaching mechanical statics wrong now in order to hide the "truth" about Apollo, then everything that depends on it being right will fall apart, with noticeable and disastrous results. Our present formulation of statics has been around since Newton's time. He got it (mostly) right, and the times when he didn't—which ironically include the deflection of a cantilevered beam under load—are very quickly noticed and corrected. We
need these things to be right, therefore they can't be credibly lied about.
Similarly you can't rewrite radiometry to solve the "stars in photos" problem without making radiometry wrong for all the problems we need radiometry to be right for. This includes such things as whether a police helicopter searchlight will blind people. It's all the same physics. There's no branch of physics that applies exclusively to Apollo and can be credibly lied about to hide the notion that it doesn't work.
I thought about how to put this into terms you can understand, but since you seem to be having trouble with basic numbers I'm not sure this will work.
Imagine that you're an accountant at a firm and you need to convince people you aren't cooking the books. You just do whatever it takes to make the bottom line match the bank balance, and then you teach all these new accounting "rules" to your associate accountants. If one of those "rules" is, "Don't carry when you add digits that sum to more than 10," it might make
your books balance—the fake ones hiding all the embezzlement—but it won't work for people who
aren't faking it. The basic rules of arithmetic are the same for everyone and empirically verifiable. There are certain things you just can't credibly lie about.
So in your cutesy hypothetical about a fictional country teaching its physics and engineering students wrong so that they learn "rules" that make their fake space missions seem plausible, you just let pass in the story the idea that this wouldn't have any catastrophic consequences. Your story relies upon the absurd premise that one can credibly lie about things that will, in fact, be catastrophic. We have a saying around the office, "If you get this wrong, Mother Nature will reach out and slap you over it." There's usually a qualification on "slap" that would be inappropriate to include here.
You might as well say, "NASA faked Apollo and then a wizard appeared and made it all seem real."
