The Russians never duplicated Apollo 8

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 02:04 AM
link   
It is a fact that The Russians never duplicated Apollo 8.

Let that fact sink in.

It is a fact that the only people to ever leave the earth radiation belts have been caucasian, male, US military test pilots, with the exception of one geologist who later became the US Senator of New Mexico.

The Russians sent turtles to outer space and back, but those are reptilian creatures with greater resistance to radiation than human flesh.

The Americans and Russians were always copying technologies from each other. Not in all cases but there is parity in technology over a long term perspective of 50 years.

The Soviet Russians would never allow themselves to be left behind in science like this... there was always the threat of escalation in the Cold War... if one country did this, the other country would do this +1, ... it happened in defense and it happened in space.

So why did Soviet Russia withdraw from lunar science exploration unless they were forbidden to do so: by science, by aliens on the moon, or by Richard Nixon's secrets, or, is there a deeper level chess game going on here?

Why didn't Jimmy Carter send NASA the orders to duplicate Apollo 8 on the 10 years anniversary?
Why didn't the Soviets, after Apollo-Soyuz, proceed to the next step, which would be, to duplicate Apollo 8?

Let's be real. Apollo 8 is a really simple mission objective. The Russians never duplicated it. The USA claimed in December 1968 that 3 Americans orbited the moon and returned them to earth safely. The Russians never duplicated Apollo 8. Do you any of you have alternative theories on this? Is it purely political? How can it be purely political if Apollo 8 was never confirmed, duplicated, peer reviewed by scientists and engineers, etc, by the Soviets, at that time, the mortal enemies of the United States? This makes no historical sense to me.

I'm looking for some well reasoned, non technical responses that could convince me why such a simple mission objective could not be duplicated by any other advanced country for the last 46 years. Is it impossible? Or is it possible but nobody has the balls to do it?



+17 more 
posted on May, 13 2014 @ 02:14 AM
link   

So why did Soviet Russia withdraw from lunar science exploration unless they were forbidden to do so: by science, by aliens on the moon, or by Richard Nixon's secrets, or, is there a deeper level chess game going on here?
Because they couldn't build a launch vehicle which would not blow up. The Soviet's chief designer died.
www.space.com...
edit on 5/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 02:17 AM
link   
In a game of one-up-man-ship, one does not try to do what the other fella has already done. That just says, "We are slow."

Russia had the first satellite, dog, and man in space. That was quite an achievement for any country.

The US played catchup throughout this period until they managed to put men on the moon. The US won that segment and kudos to them for doing so.

Then Russia came back at them with the first space station. Quite an achievement there. It took the international community to equal that one, but Russia did it first.

No one has been able or willing to take the next big leap, ie, put men on Mars. That is the next step and it would be such a massive and costly exercise, it may have to wait until someone has the ability and balls to do so.

In this game, failure is far worse than not trying.

At the rate economies are going, it could well be China that takes that one although it is very likely to be a multinational effort, such is the cost and required tech.

P



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

So why did Soviet Russia withdraw from lunar science exploration unless they were forbidden to do so: by science, by aliens on the moon, or by Richard Nixon's secrets, or, is there a deeper level chess game going on here?
Because they couldn't build a launch vehicle which would not blow up. The Soviet's chief designer died.
www.space.com...


But the Soviets were ingenious. They could have sent up 2 payloads, linked them in space (low earth orbit), and performed the Apollo 8 demonstration. Is there a scientific reason they could not do this or was it purely political, in your estimate?
edit on 5/13/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: add low earth orbit


+4 more 
posted on May, 13 2014 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
Like the US, they committed to a single vehicle flight profile. Their single vehicle didn't work. The Saturn V did...very well.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

Minor correction - the Soviets did have the first space station but the USA followed suit with Skylab. The inernational effort came later.

As for the OP, Apollo 8's veracity is quite easy to demonstrate. Feel free to

E2a: this bit was for SJ, but my tablet screwed up! Apologies for any confusion.

The answer to your question is in the bit you quoted. It kind of helps to be able: to get your launch vehicle into space.
edit on 13-5-2014 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 02:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
Like the US, they committed to a single vehicle flight profile. Their single vehicle didn't work. The Saturn V did...very well.




You do not need a Saturn V to put 3 men into lunar orbit. Once in low earth orbit you connect a booster (requires 2nd launch) and off to the moon you go. The Soviets were doing routine space rendezvous missions well before the USA. They could have easily attached a booster stage to a Soyuz and off to the moon you go... except they never did that. The Russians never duplicated Apollo 8! Not only that... they didn't even try.... Hmmm. Very suspicious.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 02:39 AM
link   
It would have been good for Soviet propaganda of the 1970-1980's to send the "First Cuban Cosmonaut to Luna". If they could have done it they would have done it. They didn't do it therefore they can't do it. The Soviets would have not stopped lunar exploration... there must be some reason behind it.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey




Minor correction - the Soviets did have the first space station but the USA followed suit with Skylab. The inernational effort came later.


Jeez, I forgot all about skylab. Thanks for the correction.

P



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

The Soviets were doing routine space rendezvous missions well before the USA.
They were? Which missions would that be?

In any case...coulda, shoulda, woulda. The Soviets did not plan a multi-vehicle lunar mission.


edit on 5/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter


The Soviets would have not stopped lunar exploration... there must be some reason behind it.

Yes. Their ride didn't work.
The US ride did...very well.

edit on 5/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Are you saying that the only way to duplicate the Apollo 8 mission is with a 1968 Saturn V configuration? That's absurd.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 02:46 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

No.
I'm saying it worked...very well.
The Soviet N1 didn't work. It blew up...real good.
www.youtube.com...

What about those many Soviet rendezvous missions? Can you name them? These ones I mean:

The Soviets were doing routine space rendezvous missions well before the USA.
edit on 5/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

No.
I'm saying it worked...very well.
The Soviet N1 didn't work. It blew up...real good.
www.youtube.com...

What about those many Soviet rendezvous missions? Can you name them?


I am referring, of course, to the Soviet expertise in space rendezvous as demonstrated by Mir.
en.wikipedia.org...

After such a long term demonstration of Soviet low earth capabilities it would be the logical next step to demonstrate a mission to the moon with a minimum objective such as Apollo 8. 10 lunar orbits. What could go wrong?

We are awaiting that demonstration. It seems that the Russian turtles are going to win this one.


+1 more 
posted on May, 13 2014 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I am referring, of course, to the Soviet expertise in space rendezvous as demonstrated by Mir.
Oh. I thought you were talking about rendevous missions "well before the USA." Isn't that what you said?

The Soviets were doing routine space rendezvous missions well before the USA.


When was Mir launched, again? What country had the first successful docking in space? When?
 


What could go wrong?

Their vehicle kept blowing up.
edit on 5/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Their vehicle kept blowing up.


SO did the Space Shuttle, twice! Was so bad that now Russia does the taxi work.

I don't really see your point here unless its Ra Ra USA USA.

All space exploration has inherent risks.

P



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter



The Soviets would have not stopped lunar exploration


They didn't stop, they went with unmanned rovers and landers instead.


+20 more 
posted on May, 13 2014 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358



SO did the Space Shuttle, twice!

How many successful shuttle missions were there? How many successful N1 launches?



I don't really see your point here unless its Ra Ra USA USA.

You don't?
The point is that the Saturn V worked and the N1 didn't.
The point is, that is why the US landed men on the Moon and the USSR didn't. The OP would have you believe that a manned landing on the Moon (or even orbiting it) is impossible. As proof, he cites the Soviet failure to do so.



edit on 5/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


+1 more 
posted on May, 13 2014 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

Well now your comparing apples with oranges.

The Russian N1 rocket had 4 launches and failed 4 times, this rocket was the equivalent to NASA's Saturn V.

The shuttle flew 135 missions with 2 failures, you want to compare fairly, then compare how many missions the Buran flew..if you don't know what the Buran is, it was the Russian equivalent to NASA's shuttle.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Phage, with all respect, you are insisting that the Saturn V configuration is the only feasible one that could fulfill the Apollo 8 mission plan. 3 humans orbiting the moon 10 times. That's not hard, is it? It's been 46 years. There are other configurations that could have been used, like earth orbit rendezvous. Why do you keep insisting on Saturn V as the only viable configuration?





top topics
 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join