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: 13
13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I dispute your claim that you have been "delivering the goods".

You have pretty much posted publicly avaikable material as some kind of proof that the same things were secret. Most of the legwork has been by people with whom you disagree for unspecified reasons on subject matter to which you have exhibited knee jerkand ill thought out contrarianism forthe sake of it.

I'm with Rob - what, specifically, is your point?




posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 04:38 AM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey


I'm with Rob - what, specifically, is your point?


Basically , my point here is to present facts and interpretations in re: the Apollo 8 narratives and to deliver the goods.. Yourself and Rob seem to wanna create a "hoax" environment in this thread which is not very welcome. If you wanna add more sources to the thread you are welcome to do that so long as it has something to do with the topic of the thread "The Russians never duplicated Apollo 8".

Frank Borman mentioned that he might brief the White House after his trip. Frank had his own desk in the White House. I'm going dig through some newspaper to find out if that briefing happened. And If I find something I might post it here.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

But so far you have mostly presented newspaper articles off Google News, which by their very nature show things that were public knowledge 45 years ago.

Other people have done much more in-depth research, and presented much more evidence, which for some reason you now want to spin into some kind of great conspiracy.

Is it really any surprise that we know more about what went on in Soviet Russia in the 1960s now than American newspaper readers did at the time?



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

The resources I have presented have been in answer to questions raised.

The answer to your OP was given pages ago: lack of a heavy lift vehicle, what with it having a propensity to explode.

There is an argument that there was a dual track programme, but the alternative approach also didn't achieve anything because in order to get things into orbit you still need to have a co-ordinated and working construction and launch programme and facilities that haven't just exploded.

If anything a dual track programme contributed to their failure, because their expertise and resources were diluted.

If anyone is creating a hoax or conspiracy environment it is you - you were the one claiming a CIA 'big rocket' agenda, you are the one constantly trying to find hidden motives and agendas involved in Borman's visit to the USSR. As with other threads on space matters you are tilting at windmills and strawmen of your own creation to divert attention away from your failure to produce any relevant evidence.

To summarise, again: The Soviet Union, by their own admission, were not able to emulate Apollo 8 and gave up once the race to the moon was lost.
edit on 3-6-2014 by onebigmonkey because: typo



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 05:55 AM
link   
The point of this thread is to add weight to your idea that Apollo was a hoax. This can't be denied.

No one is disputing the title: "The Russians never duplicated Apollo 8". They are disputing that this supports the hoax idea.

Your intent is to further the hoax theory. To deny it is to be dishonest.

It seems as though you need others to clarify your intentions and ideas, as you obviously are incapable of putting your thoughts down in any sort of clear and direct manner.

Please can you just simply state what the heck you are on about?
edit on 3-6-2014 by mrwiffler because: werh



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: mrwiffler


Please can you just simply state what the heck you are on about?


Would you please mind to keep your commenting on the source material rather than analyze me? You should be adding to the thread with further information about Apollo 8. Or something about Frank Borman or his trip to Russia or the N-1 explosion which coincidentally coincided all together in the same week of July 1969. I've shown you two instances where Frank Borman was allowed to see Russian top secret space facilities... Star City and Eupatoria.

There was a third secret meeting on Frank Borman's Russian itinerary.
edit on 6/5/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: is was



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey


To summarise, again: The Soviet Union, by their own admission, were not able to emulate Apollo 8 and gave up once the race to the moon was lost.


I don't believe you. The Soviets continued carrying on their space science, step by step, Bion by Bion. And the Americans of course haven't had the balls for 42 years.

To say that the Soviets gave up is not fair. They did not give up. They proceeded, step by step, Bion by Bion, in a rational scientific manner, long durations and low earth orbit assembly; and yet never once attempted to send a human being out into the radiation belts around the moon and back. Why is it that Russians never sent a monkey to the moon?



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: onebigmonkey


To summarise, again: The Soviet Union, by their own admission, were not able to emulate Apollo 8 and gave up once the race to the moon was lost.


I don't believe you. The Soviets continued carrying on their space science, step by step, Bion by Bion. And the Americans of course haven't had the balls for 42 years.

To say that the Soviets gave up is not fair. They did not give up. They proceeded, step by step, Bion by Bion, in a rational scientific manner, long durations and low earth orbit assembly; and yet never once attempted to send a human being out into the radiation belts around the moon and back. Why is it that Russians never sent a monkey to the moon?


because they gave up.. incase you forgot from the link YOU posted earlier


Who will care anyway? said Pilyugin. The Americans will have been there already.
www.astronautix.com...



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: onebigmonkey


To summarise, again: The Soviet Union, by their own admission, were not able to emulate Apollo 8 and gave up once the race to the moon was lost.


I don't believe you. The Soviets continued carrying on their space science, step by step, Bion by Bion. And the Americans of course haven't had the balls for 42 years.

To say that the Soviets gave up is not fair. They did not give up. They proceeded, step by step, Bion by Bion, in a rational scientific manner, long durations and low earth orbit assembly; and yet never once attempted to send a human being out into the radiation belts around the moon and back. Why is it that Russians never sent a monkey to the moon?


Unfortunately for ypu belief does not equate to fsct.

The USSR gave up on the moon, but they chose to do other thingd. Just like the US did with Skylab, the Apollo-Soyuz link up and then the shuttle. NASA did not stop working in 1972 any more than the Soviets did, but what both parties did eas abandon manned exploration outside Earth orbit after the lunar race was run. Your attempts to rewrite history will never woek if you don't include all the facts.
edit on 5-6-2014 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:43 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...


Rather conveniently I might add....

The real question here is... why have we not had ANY manned mission to the moon since Apollo??

I mean come on.... it's 42 years since we last went!!!

If that isn't the white elephant in the room then I don't know what is!

Peace,

Korg.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

If that isn't the white elephant in the room then I don't know what is!


I assume your mixed metaphor was not deliberate, but it is quite appropriate.


Manned missions to the moon are a white elephant. They cost a huge amount, and don't really achieve a huge amount - or at least not when they are missions like the Apollo one. You send two men to the moon, they stay for two or three days, explore a few square miles at the most, bring home some photos and rocks. Well, that's great as far as it goes, but it is a lot more cost effective to send a rover or an orbiter (or both) that can stay up there for months at a time and make far more observations, and without needing food, water, air and all those other inconvenient things that humans need.

Putting men on the moon was a race. That race is over, and the competition are (a) no longer the competition, as such, and (b) they are focusing on other things.

If another nation starts building moon bases, then we may see another "moon race". I hope so, as it would be rather exciting, and I was born too late to enjoy the first one...



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

If that isn't the white elephant in the room then I don't know what is!


I assume your mixed metaphor was not deliberate, but it is quite appropriate.


Manned missions to the moon are a white elephant. They cost a huge amount, and don't really achieve a huge amount - or at least not when they are missions like the Apollo one. You send two men to the moon, they stay for two or three days, explore a few square miles at the most, bring home some photos and rocks. Well, that's great as far as it goes, but it is a lot more cost effective to send a rover or an orbiter (or both) that can stay up there for months at a time and make far more observations, and without needing food, water, air and all those other inconvenient things that humans need.

Putting men on the moon was a race. That race is over, and the competition are (a) no longer the competition, as such, and (b) they are focusing on other things.

If another nation starts building moon bases, then we may see another "moon race". I hope so, as it would be rather exciting, and I was born too late to enjoy the first one...


I actually disagree with you on this, for the simple fact that a rover or any automated device can indeed populate a database with data.... it cannot however truly explore or experience.

There is a very strong case for regular visitations to the moon... it's moon not mars so we shouldn't have a problem achieving it today.

From a financial standing point I agree it's costly... but so are many of the other ventures humanity has undertaken for no other reason than to experience it.

One thing I am totally confused over is exactly how come we have never sent an automated rover to the moon??? I mean come on.... this is so close you could remote control it manually with only a 3 second delay time.

Something defiantly doesn't add up about our non return....

Korg.


edit on 5-6-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

I actually disagree with you on this, for the simple fact that a rover or any automated device can indeed populate a database with data.... it cannot however truly explore or experience.

There is a very strong case for regular visitations to the moon... it's moon not mars so we shouldn't have a problem achieving it today.


what case is that?? may i please see the cost analysis of this case?



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

I actually disagree with you on this, for the simple fact that a rover or any automated device can indeed populate a database with data.... it cannot however truly explore or experience.

There is a very strong case for regular visitations to the moon... it's moon not mars so we shouldn't have a problem achieving it today.

From a financial standing point I agree it's costly... but so are many of the other ventures humanity has undertaken for no other reason than to experience it.

One thing I am totally confused over is exactly how come we have never sent an automated rover to the moon??? I mean come on.... this is so close you could remote control it manually with only a 3 second delay time.

Something defiantly doesn't add up about our non return....

Korg.



I agree with you on some of that. The cost argument is the reason we haven't gone back, but I'm not saying I agree with it. I would much rather spend money on sending explorers to the moon and Mars than on wars and other wastes of money, but sadly I am not in charge of the world... yet


And as for rovers... well that depends on what you mean by "we".

NASA haven't sent a rover, but the Russians sent the two Lunokhod rovers, which were very successful. (Lunokhod 2 operated for four months and travelled about 40km.) Here is a picture of Luna 17, which unloaded the Lunokhod 1 rover, and you can see the tracks of the rover heading off to explore:



Then there's the Chinese Yutu (Jade Rabbit) rover, which was less successful, but they are planning a second rover launch next year.

edit on 5-6-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

I actually disagree with you on this, for the simple fact that a rover or any automated device can indeed populate a database with data.... it cannot however truly explore or experience.

There is a very strong case for regular visitations to the moon... it's moon not mars so we shouldn't have a problem achieving it today.


what case is that?? may i please see the cost analysis of this case?


Can you please explain how you quantify the cost on human experience......

Korg.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

I actually disagree with you on this, for the simple fact that a rover or any automated device can indeed populate a database with data.... it cannot however truly explore or experience.

There is a very strong case for regular visitations to the moon... it's moon not mars so we shouldn't have a problem achieving it today.


what case is that?? may i please see the cost analysis of this case?


Can you please explain how you quantify the cost on human experience......

Korg.


you saying the case for regular visits to the moon, is for human experience?

by the way are you referring to regular manned missions to the moon or regular robotic missions to the moon? im asking because i want to know what the case is for regular manned (?) missions to the moon.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I'm kind of with our keyboard friend here.

The bang per buck you get with an unmanned mission is much greater than with a manned one because you don't have to worry about the tedious business of multiple systems to keep people alive.

However, when I've been to meet astronauts, and I've met a few now, the questions people ask aren't "What percentage of plagioclase did you find at site x' or 'please describe your sampling strategy for site y', it's "How did it feel?".

Ultimately, for all the good the science does and the exciting way we push back the frontiers of knowledge, the humanity of the experience is just as important.

As Dave Scott said when he stepped out at Hadley Rille, "Man must explore, and this is exploration at its greatest".

That's why need people there, because they can translate the experience to the rest of us in a way numbers just can't.
edit on 6-6-2014 by onebigmonkey because: clarity



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey

I agree with this, I was just really trying to explain why manned missions aren't a priority. I wish they were, but when you look at the numbers rather than the human factor, unmanned missions look more attractive.

And, unfortunately, bean counters tend to value the bottom line over the romance of exploration.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey


As Dave Scott said when he stepped out at Hadley Rille, "Man must explore, and this is exploration at its greatest".


You quoted that smuggler??
Looks like he was exploring more ways to get paid...

Dave Scott / Apollo 15 COAS optical device May 23 2014 Auction sold $126,179
Dave Scott / Apollo 15 joystick controller May 23 2014 Auction sold $610,023



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: onebigmonkey


As Dave Scott said when he stepped out at Hadley Rille, "Man must explore, and this is exploration at its greatest".


You quoted that smuggler??
Looks like he was exploring more ways to get paid...

Dave Scott / Apollo 15 COAS optical device May 23 2014 Auction sold $126,179
Dave Scott / Apollo 15 joystick controller May 23 2014 Auction sold $610,023


Maybe one day if you do something amazing, your personal possessions will be worth big bucks. I doubt if spreading silly stories on the internet will swing it, though.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join