It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Russians never duplicated Apollo 8

page: 10
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

It has been a fairly zesty thread. Lot's of interesting material to look at. While Frank Borman was at Star City, NASA had a monkey in space orbit. What eventually happened to that monkey?




I assume you know the answer but...


Results

The flight subject died about eight hours after the capsule was recovered. The acute cause of death was ventricular fibrillation. At the time of death, body weight was 4.4 kg. Weight loss may have been due to the marginally palatable food pellets that had to be used to accommodate experimental requirements. Marked dehydration was evident. The cause of death is still controversial. At the time it was speculated that the changes noted in the animal were an effect of microgravity alone. However, subsequent Soviet and U.S. flights of monkeys, lasting from 5 to 14 days, have cast serious doubts on such a hypothesis. It is likely that over-instrumentation and chronic restraint resulted in the animal's demise. This possibility is supported by the deaths, shortly after the termination of the flight phase of the mission, of two of the similarly-instrumented ground-based controls.


lis.arc.nasa.gov...

"Slumbered" is a bit of a kind way of putting it. According to the flight data the poor monkey was already hypothermic, hypotensive and dehydrated by this stage.

edit on 22-5-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 22 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
See, the moment I'm trying to make sense of this thread, now we're talking about monkeys.

I think SayonaraJupiter created this thread as a circus, with us being unwitting clowns.

For now, I'll just grab some popcorn and enjoy the show.



posted on May, 22 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
So I guess the subject of the thread is why the Russians never duplicated Apollo 8.

This obviously goes back to the question of whether Apollo 8 really orbited the moon.

If it did the question of why the Soviets never duplicated the mission is moot.

I've researched the Moon Hoax theories quite a bit (for me) though certainly not anything close to what other people have. I don't see how any rational person who objectively and honestly looks into this could conclude the Apollo program was a hoax. Just my two cents. Obviously it won't change anything on these boards.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel
I've researched the Moon Hoax theories quite a bit (for me) though certainly not anything close to what other people have. I don't see how any rational person who objectively and honestly looks into this could conclude the Apollo program was a hoax. Just my two cents. Obviously it won't change anything on these boards.


Your two cents is a very sensible response. Thank you for your donation to the thread.

When you said that you have "researched the Moon Hoax theories" which ones are you referring to? As you may know there is a wide spectrum of possibilities. The official narratives are incomplete, on both sides, American and Soviet.

I hope that you learned something out of this thread.

This thread is actually a good example of why ATS should not have a dedicated history forum. For the most part ATS users are allowed to self moderate (to a good extent) and have 600+ page threads on the topic of Apollo to prove it. The mods let it go as long as things stay within the boundaries of T&C.

The problem with having a dedicated history forum is that ATS is a conspiracy site. The two things just don't mesh well together. This thread is an example of that. What is history? Is it concrete? Can you bust it up? How deep do you go? Do you wanna know the other places that Frank Borman visited in Russia? And yes, that monkey died a horrific death by science one month before the Apollo 11 launch.

I think there are still more questions to ask bout Frank Borman's trip to Russia and the places he went in early July 1969.
There are some newsclips that are suggesting that he was flown out to Siberia (via Kazhikstan) to look at the launch facility at Baikonur facilities. His travel within the Soviet Union during that trip should be re-examined. Double checking the facts does not in any way propose a theoretical presumption about the Apollo program.

Double checking the facts is proper due diligence, in any case. It just so happens that Frank travelled to other places than Star Town which is outside Moscow. Some of the destinations have maybe been kept secret.
edit on 5/23/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: i added a maybe in there, pardon me!



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

There are some newsclips that are suggesting that he was flown out to Siberia (via Kazhikstan) to look at the launch facility at Baikonur facilities.


You're certainly "destroying history" if you're saying that Baikonur is in Siberia!

Borman did go to Siberia: he flew from Yalta (on the Black Sea) to Novosibirsk. This is not a secret; it was reported in the USA at the time.

edit on 23-5-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

There are some newsclips that are suggesting that he was flown out to Siberia (via Kazhikstan) to look at the launch facility at Baikonur facilities.


You're certainly "destroying history" if you're saying that Baikonur is in Siberia!

Borman did go to Siberia: he flew from Yalta (on the Black Sea) to Novosibirsk. This is not a secret; it was reported in the USA at the time.


Not destroying history, I'm helping history!



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

It's possible that Frank Borman only received an aerial tour of Baikonur. The article says that they flew near Baikonur en route to Novosibirsk. Of course we have to keep in mind that Frank Borman is on a special mission to Russia ordered by Richard Nixon.

The Lawrence Journal-World wrote that Borman's visit even to Star City was "highly unusual."



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
Given that 24 hours before Borman was touring Novosibirsk, an N-1 rocket blew up in one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history, and comprehensively destroyed the launch site, I'm going to hazard a guess that they did not take him to Baikonur en route!

Edit: the date on your newspaper article appears to be wrong. Borman flew to Novosibirsk on Monday July 7, from what I can ascertain. So it was actually four days after the explosion, not one. But given that it took 18 months to rebuild the launch site, my point stands.

See this link.


...but kept him well away from their top-secret space center...


Well, showing Borman a smouldering bomb site would have been a bit of a propaganda blunder...
edit on 23-5-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
Edit: the date on your newspaper article appears to be wrong. Borman flew to Novosibirsk on Monday July 7, from what I can ascertain. So it was actually four days after the explosion, not one. But given that it took 18 months to rebuild the launch site, my point stands.

See this link.


...but kept him well away from their top-secret space center...


Well, showing Borman a smouldering bomb site would have been a bit of a propaganda blunder...


Damn. Google News got me on that one.


What this means though, is, Frank Borman, his wife & kids, plus how many other Americans were with them, were in Russia when Soviets tested and failed that N-1 rocket in the first week of July 1969.

Frank Borman noted in his NASA oral history that he spent 10 days in Russia.... he doesn't mention going to Siberia. www.jsc.nasa.gov...

Frank Borman's invitation came from Soviet Ambassador Anatole Dobrynin, on behalf the Institute of Soviet-American Relations. news.google.com...

With the Russians testing & failing an N-1 rocket during the same week that Borman is in Russia. While Borman's 10-day itinerary is still quite sketchy... I am just wondering if there is another story here. I am going to stick with these two bits: "highly unusual" and "remained a secret"...

"Even limited access to facilities being granted Borman is highly unusual."
"But whether his hosts planned to take him to the center -- remained a secret."


edit on 5/23/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter


Frank Borman noted in his NASA oral history that he spent 10 days in Russia.... he doesn't mention going to Siberia.

Siberia is part of Russia. He didn't mention going to Moscow or the Crimea either. What's your point? He says, briefly, that he spent 10 days in Russia. Why should he name every part?


I do wonder, though, whether he might have been invited to Baikonur if the N-1 hadn't blown up? I can't imagine they would have wanted him anywhere near the launch, but if it had gone successfully on July 3 then maybe they would have taken him afterwards. One of those probably unanswerable questions



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48


What's your point? He says, briefly, that he spent 10 days in Russia. Why should he name every part?

I do wonder, though, whether he might have been invited to Baikonur if the N-1 hadn't blown up? I can't imagine they would have wanted him anywhere near the launch, but if it had gone successfully on July 3 then maybe they would have taken him afterwards. One of those probably unanswerable questions.


That's exactly what I was wondering about. Borman, an active duty Air Force officer at the time, would have undoubtedly filed some travel reports/maybe even some per diem or expense paperwork. It goes without question that he would and his wife would have been debriefed upon returned to the US.

Alternatively, it is possible, since Borman was special emissary of President Nixon, that all expenses were "taken care of" for this trip and all that Borman/wife had to do was debrief.

Another thing I was looking at would be the itinerary, from Moscow, to Black Sea, then allllll the way over to Novosibirsk... it looks like they would have to fly over, or near, Baikonur, but definitely in the area of the Soviet space launch center in Baikonur. Take a closer look at one of the newsclips already posted:

"Borman's airplane flew near the space center of Baikonur en route here."



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 12:51 AM
link   
I had to laugh at the unintentional irony of this thread because this thread is about The Russians never duplicated Apollo 8.
The concrete version of history says that the Russian N-1 rocket program was a failure, why? Because Russians gave up on the moon after the Americans beat them to it, etc, Korelev died, Russians were poor, Russians not good at science, Russians not organized enough, etc, all the excuses.

Then we find out that Frank Borman, commander of Apollo 8, was actually inside Soviet Russia during the same week in July 1969 that one of Webb's Giant's [N-1] explodes.

What's my conclusion after 9 pages? We don't have the full story on Apollo 8 or Frank Borman, or his trip to Russia, yet.


edit on 5/24/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I have a feeling that the N-1 rocket would have never been successful.

And that's not really a conclusion, just a generalisation.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

Then we find out that Frank Borman, commander of Apollo 8, was actually inside Soviet Russia during the same week in July 1969 that one of Webb's Giant's [N-1] explodes.

What's my conclusion after 9 pages? We don't have the full story on Apollo 8 or Frank Borman, or his trip to Russia, yet.



Why do you say "Then we find out"? As shown by the newspaper articles you posted yourself, the dates of Borman's Russia trip have been public knowledge since the time of the trip itself.

The failed N-1 test on July 3 1969 was known by the US authorities almost immediately as it was a big enough explosion to be seen by satellites, even if details of the N-1 programme weren't made public until after the collapse of the Soviet Union. A list of Russian launches and dates has been on the public NASA website since at least 2005.

And we already knew that the N-1 programme wasn't cancelled until 1974.

This is not new information, so I am not sure why you are finding it "ironic".
edit on 24-5-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Rob48


The failed N-1 test on July 3 1969 was known by the US authorities almost immediately as it was a big enough explosion to be seen by satellites,


That makes this situation even more ironic! Could you help with some source? Who were the US authorities and who owned the satellites?



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

A couple of links to read:


In relation to N-1 launches, the U.S. also tapped into seismic sensors and atmospheric capabilities, even listening in on countdown demonstrations and in-flight telemetry streams transmitted during booster flights.


m.space.com...


Upon impact of the base of the N1 with the pad, the vehicle exploded with the force of a small nuclear bomb, destroying launch complex 110R. US weather and meteorological satellites revealed the disaster to the US intelligence agencies, and word soon spread through the government.


www.astronautix.com...



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

The first article (interview with Charles Vick of globalsecurity) said (in 2011) that there is a historic bottleneck.

Terming it a “historic bottleneck,” Vick is adamant about pushing for declassification of the last of the Keyhole (KH-7) satellite imagery from 1966-1967 and still classified KH-8 and KH-9 imagery — something he said, is not likely to happen unless forced to occur by presidential executive order.


Also, the satellite imagery of the N-1 explosion on July 3, 1969 remains top secret,

Defense Meteorological Satellite Program imagery from July 3, 1969, that purportedly caught the flash from an N-1 booster exploding, annihilating the rocket and launch tower. The power of groups stamping Top Secret-Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (TS-SCI) on what is openly known after more than four decades “is childish to say the least,” Vick said.


The astronautix article on the N-1 at first seems authoritative however the entire page and history of the N-1 does not adhere to any rules of attribution or foot noting. Bibliography that Charles Vick wrote a lot of that source material. It should be footnoted properly if it's all mixed in with other source. Bad Article!

That entire article could have been written up by the CIA. I'm not saying that it was. As fascinating as it is to read - it is a train wreck of badly smashed together articles cut & pasted out from other peoples research.

Just for example, who wrote this bit: "British intelligence detected the launch attempt, but the CIA's technical means for some reason missed it and they denied for years that it had ever occurred." It's referencing the "February 21, 1969, N1 serial number 3L" launch. But who wrote the text?

TL;DR A named researcher called it an 'historic bottleneck' but anonymous page editors at astronautix pump out articles.
edit on 5/24/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: fix

edit on 5/24/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 02:37 AM
link   
As usual we're disappearing down a maze and not seeing the wood for the trees.

I consider it more likely that the satellite images show 'before and after' shots rather than the actual explosion. DMSP satellites were more capable of being targeted than their civilian counterparts, but they were still in polar orbit and had to operate within the parameters that would maintain them in that orbit. If they were specifically targeted at Baikonur, it suggests that someone wanted them to look at it for a specific reason - ie, they knew about it already based on other evidence such as seismic recordings and audio transmissions. The timing that would be necessary to capture the exact moment of such an event just as it happened to be passing overhead makes it almost impossible that they have it on film and people are making assumptions based on hearsay.

For reference, here are the mosaic composites from ESSA and NIMBUS on July 3rd of the Baikonur region. These are much less detailed than the full size images would be, and could, if the timing was exact, record a large bright flash. The nature of the clouds on the 3rd suggests to me that it would have been hit and miss as to whether the launch pad was visible.



Images may be top secret, but someone has seen them. An image may be classified, but this doesn't mean it shows what you want it to show, and Mr Vick seems more annoyed that images he wishes to see are still classified rather than claiming that they will show something that isn't already well known.

The main point here is that it is a well known fact the N-1 rocket exploded on the pad and also when it happened, exposing fatal flaws in the USSR's heavy lift rocket design that led to their decision not to bother replicating Apollo 8. The US intelligence agencies were well supplied with images and information from Soviet rocket sites, hence their decision to turn Apollo 8 into a lunar circumnavigation in the first place instead of keeping to the planned sequence. The fact that their conclusion was mistaken shows that while images are factual, interpretation ultimately involves opinion.

Mr Vick may include lots of references, but they seem largely to be to his own articles. Just because something is not referenced on a webpage (note: a webpage, not a scholarly document) does not make it untrue - just more difficult to prove one way or another. My own research, while it includes web links and so on, does not fully reference everything I have written - despite the fact that my academic background rails against the idea. Why not? Because it's a website, not a journal article or a thesis, and I just couldn't be arsed. Doesn't mean any of it is wrong or that I didn't use authoritative sources.

Information is out there that will allow anyone who questions the aeronautix site's version of events to written more academically. If anyone wishes to write such an authoritative and properly referenced article, they are free to do so.
edit on 25-5-2014 by onebigmonkey because: whether the weather...



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Just for completeness, here's the area cropped from the full NIMBUS-3 tile rather than the overall mosaic, taken at 06:18 GMT:


edit on 25-5-2014 by onebigmonkey because: extra explanation



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 03:56 AM
link   
And for further completeness, page 691 et seq of 'Challenge to Apollo' gives eye witness account of the N-1's demise.It also discusses Apollo 8 and the response to it.

Available here in 2 parts from this page history.nasa.gov...

It has this quote from Kamanin's dairy about the N-1 explosion:



"Yesterday the second attempt to launch the M I rocket into space was undertaken. I was convinced that the rocket would not fly, but somewhere in the depth of my soul there glimmered some hope for success, We are desperate for a success, especially now. when the Americans intend in a few days to land people on the Moon, and when the American astronaut Frank Barman is our guest. But all such hopes were dispelled by the powerful explosion o/the rocket five seconds after the "launch" command.., on its first time, the rocket flew 23 kilometers, and did not cause harm to the launch platform and launch site. This time it fell two kilometers [sic] from the pad and caused huge damage to the launch site. This failure has put us back another one to one and a half years"


and this:



It also discusses Borman's role in defusing US fears about the likelihood of Luna 15 spoiling the Apollo 11 party.

In the end, it's all a red herring. N-1 failed, Russia did not emulate Apollo 8 because it could not emulate Apollo 8.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join