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: 18
13
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Hey sayonara, you said:



Let's be real. Apollo 8 is a really simple mission objective.


That's your problem right there. You've gone and confused "objective" with "engineering feat".

This is your main issue. You think that it was a simple thing for the Russians to orbit the moon. It was surely one of the most complex and difficult tasks ever attempted. The Russians failed. Why does it have to be radiation or aliens that stopped them? Why?

(the radiation thing has been proved wrong over and over again, and the aliens thing...that's just silly)



edit on 12-6-2014 by mrwiffler because: gioih




posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Getting back on topic again, people might want to search for "Soviet and Russian Lunar Exploration" by Brian Harvey.

Google books has copies, and I believe pdf versions can be found if you look hard enough. It's a good read and full of properly referenced material.

Also of interest is a document called "Soviet space programs, 1966-70".

This is a staff report for the committee on aeronautical and space sciences of the US Senate produced in December 1971.

I have a copy but I can't remember where I got it from! It summarises the US understanding at the time of what those pesky Russians were up to.

e2a: Another book www.lpi.usra.edu...

edit on 12-6-2014 by onebigmonkey because: extra link



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Astronauts who are fighter pilots might be big on setting altitude records (on earth or in space), but luckily (or unluckily for SJ) they aren't the ones who propose and execute space programs. Like I said, there's no purpose to getting up to thousands of miles up just for the sake of it, but there is if you're aiming to land on the Moon and want to test rocket stages / spacecraft / various system and orbit insertion mechanisms. One could argue that it is just an opinion, but so is the allegation that going progressively higher and higher would be of significant propaganda value.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Bulletin!!



I just wanna let you all know that I am not having any problems finding western media sources from the 1960's which indicate that the Zond 5 was a successful precursor to a manned lunar orbit mission. The Soviets didn't need an N-1 rocket to do it.

I have the names of the US space officials, Soviet era scientists, political officials and cosmonauts who made the statements. In fact I have such an overwhelming file of sources that it's going to take me some time to get them organized so I can post them. I also have to go back and get the screenshots.

At this point in the thread I would like to ask is anyone out there still clinging to the idea that the Soviets required an N-1 rocket to perform a manned lunar orbit mission prior to January 1, 1970?? Anyone??????? Anyone????????????????????? Phage??????



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

You do need a rocket that tends not to go wrong as the proton did and the N1 did. You do need to get a reliable re-entry procedure which they did not achieve. Several dead cosmonauts are testimony to that. You need to get reliable equipment and procedures. You need not to have political interference.

You're creating strawmen again. The Soviets were not aiming for a manned circumlunar flight and neither were the Americans. To get a ship to the surface you need a heavy lift rocket. You asked why the Soviets didn't emulate Apollo 8. You had your answer several pages ago.


edit on 13-6-2014 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
You're creating strawmen again. The Soviets were not aiming for a manned circumlunar flight and neither were the Americans. To get a ship to the surface you need a heavy lift rocket. You asked why the Soviets didn't emulate Apollo 8. You had your answer several pages ago.



I don't have a need for strawmen. I deal with facts and interpretations. Are you still clinging to the 'heavy lift rocket' N-1 argument? It looks like you are. Could you please clarify?



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Bulletin!

The Americans only put men into lunar orbit as a precursor to landing on the moon. They were using the same hardware (minus the LM) that would be used to land.

The Proton rocket used for Zond 5 did not have the capability to launched a manned lander to the moon, which was ultimately the whole point of the exercise.

To do that, as has been repeatedly stated, they would have had to use the N-1.

And not only that, but the Zond 5 re-entry went out of control and would have killed any humans inside.

If you were racing to land men on the moon, why would you bother risking crews' lives to test hardware that would never have been useful for actually landing them on the moon?
edit on 13-6-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: mrwiffler

Wrong again, Mr Wiffler,


This is your main issue. You think that it was a simple thing for the Russians to orbit the moon. It was surely one of the most complex and difficult tasks ever attempted. The Russians failed. Why does it have to be radiation or aliens that stopped them? Why?


History is tricky, Mr Wiffler. The Russians didn't fail because the Russians never tried to go above 475km. They know, stay low.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48


The Proton rocket used for Zond 5 did not have the capability to launched a manned lander to the moon, which was ultimately the whole point of the exercise.


No, that is CIA b***s*** and you know it is western media bias. How much you wanna bet on this one Rob?? All your stars that you earned in this thread??



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Just for the record, both OBM and Rob are still clinging to the CIA talking points western media bias history that N-1 was required for a Soviet lunar orbit mission.
Anyone else still clinging to that idea??



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 02:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Just for the record, both OBM and Rob are still clinging to the CIA talking points western media bias history that N-1 was required for a Soviet lunar orbit mission.
Anyone else still clinging to that idea??



Apparently you are incapable of reading, as well as reasoning.

I said the N-1 was required for a manned lunar landing. It wasn't required for a lunar orbit mission, as Zond 5 proved.

Do you know the difference between orbiting and landing? Have a think about what hardware is required for each, and why landing on the moon would require heavier lift capabilities than simply orbiting.

Then have a think about why using the Proton for a second-place manned orbit would have been pointless, when they wouldn't have been able to use the same hardware to land men on the moon.

It's not rocket science. Well, OK, it is, but pretty elementary.

edit on 13-6-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: Rob48


The Proton rocket used for Zond 5 did not have the capability to launched a manned lander to the moon, which was ultimately the whole point of the exercise.


No, that is CIA b***s*** and you know it is western media bias. How much you wanna bet on this one Rob?? All your stars that you earned in this thread??


What was the launch mass of the Zond 5 capsule, turtles and all?

What was the launch mass of the Apollo 11 CSM?

I hate the phrase, but it is appropriate here: you do the math.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Read my post again. All of it this time.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 03:55 AM
link   
You guys are just digging yourself into a huge [snip] N-1 crater.
edit on 6/13/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-6-2014 by elevatedone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 04:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
You guys are just digging yourself into a huge f**king N-1 crater.


you talk alot.. but you still havent answered..

at which point would it have been deemed safe to man the zond missions?



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 04:24 AM
link   
I have a ton of sources that say the Russians could send a manned lunar orbit mission to the moon without an N-1 rocket and using low earth orbit assembly. The Western media journalists knew about the dual - track Soviet manned lunar orbital mission using Proton with Zond, in September 1968, three months before Apollo 8... they did not know about the N-1 at that time.




posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 04:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
I have a ton of sources that say the Russians could send a manned lunar orbit mission to the moon without an N-1 rocket and using low earth orbit assembly. The Western media journalists knew about the dual - track Soviet manned lunar orbital mission using Proton with Zond, in September 1968, three months before Apollo 8... they did not know about the N-1 at that time.





once again.. since you like the use of headlines maybe this will help you more..

At which point would it have been deemed safe to man the zond missions?




posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

~sigh~

1. Were the Soviets aiming for a lunar landing yes or no?

2. Could the rocket that launched zond land a man on the moon, yes or no?

3. Did tbese rockets and unmanned peobes have an unblemished safety record, yes or no?

Stop telling us what we're saying and read what we're saying.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 05:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
I have a ton of sources that say the Russians could send a manned lunar orbit mission to the moon without an N-1 rocket and using low earth orbit assembly.



Which it could, assuming that the manned capsule survived re-entry, which was by no means a given.

Nobody is disputing that the Russians COULD have launched a manned mission to LUNAR ORBIT without the N-1. What they needed the N-1 for was launching the much heavier manned missions. Seeing as you ignored my question, I will point out to you that the Apollo CSM weighed more than five times as much as the Zond 5 capsule.

You seem to think that launching a capsule into lunar orbit is the same as launching a capsule that can land on the moon and return from it. Why do you think that?

And why do you think they would bother putting men into lunar orbit, AFTER the Americans did so, using technology that would have been useless for a landing mission?

You like asking questions but you seen to be incapable of reading answers. Between this thread and the moon landing "hoax" one I am fairly convinced you are simply trolling at this stage.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Zond 5 was the unmanned version of Soyuz 7K-L1 manned moon-flyby spacecraft, yes.

the Soyuz 7K-L1 "Zond" spacecraft was designed to launch men from the Earth to circle the Moon without going into lunar orbit in the context of the Soviet manned moon-flyby program in the Moon race.

But!

After the successful US Apollo 8 manned flight around the Moon, the Soviet manned moon-flyby missions lost political motivation. The first manned flight of the L1/Zond spacecraft with Alexey Leonov and Valery Bykovsky planned for the end of 1970 was cancelled.

And, it seems, for better. Four of the five unmanned Zond flights suffered malfunctions:

Test flights conducted around the Moon showed problems using their star sensors for navigation. These problems caused ballistic reentry due to the failed guidance. One direct descent re-entry was performed on a steep ballistic trajectory with deceleration of up to 20 Gs and splashed down in the Indian Ocean. Three others performed a maneuver known as "skip reentry" to shed velocity. One of those also performed an unsafe (for humans) descent of up to 20 Gs of deceleration, the other suffered main parachute failure, and only one flight - Zond 7 - would have been safe for cosmonauts.

en.wikipedia.org...

Can't blame the Soviets for not just sticking humans in that capsule and hoping for the best.

Not only has Zond 5 shown that is wasn't safe for the Soviets to send humans to the moon yet, it might have given the Americans a push to go ahead with Apollo 8 lunar flyby, beating the Soviets this time.
edit on 13-6-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)







 
13
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join