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: 19
13
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 05:40 AM
link   
The Russian Wikipedia offers more details (roughly translated by me):


The first manned moon flyby of 7K-L1, aimed to beat the Apollo 8, was planned for 08.12.1968, but was cancelled due to the high risk because of the unreliable rocket and spacecraft, despite the fact that the crew petitioned to the Politbureau of the Communist Party asking to fly to the Moon without delay in order to beat the USA. When this spaceship was launched in the unmanned cofiguration on 20.01.1969, the Proton rocket exploded, although the descent capsule has been safely ejected.

ru.wikipedia.org...




posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Some more useful links:

www.astronautix.com...

www.fas.org...

jap.physiology.org...

The top one is interesting, and shows that the CIA were well aware of both the EOR method of getting to the moon that the Soviets were exploring and also of the construction of the both a heavy lift rocket and its launch facilities long before it got anywhere near a newspaper.

Quite a few sources suggest that they dumped the idea in favour of LOR rather than it being parallel developments. Certainly EOR worked well if you are also in the business of trying to assemble a space station. We will probably never know which version is correct because the people involved are mostly dead and it is down to the interpretation of historians.

In the end it really, really, really doesn't matter one iota: the indisputable fact that requires no interpretation is that they did not get a man to the moon, either in orbit around it or landing on it. They did not because they could not get a reliable set of equipment and procedures done, and once the USA got there they gave up on it.

Saying they needed a heavy lift rocket to land on the moon is not some CIA plot, it's physics and rocket science.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
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??????



originally posted by: Rob48
Nobody is disputing that the Russians COULD have launched a manned mission to LUNAR ORBIT without the N-1.



OK, this should have been clarified on Page 1: Zond did not fly the same type of mission as Apollo 8.

Zond flew circumlunar missions. From a roughly circular low Earth orbit, the Proton rocket's upper stage (called Block D) fired, adding ~3.2 kilometers-per-second (kps) that lofted Zond on a 3-day orbit to the Moon. Why 3 days? Because that allowed a "free-return" trajectory. The spacecraft used the Moon's gravity to swing it around and send it back towards Earth. Thus Zond never entered lunar orbit.

Apollo 8 flew a lunar orbital mission. The Saturn V's upper stage (the S-IVB) put the Apollo Command/Service Module (CSM) on a similar free-return trajectory to the Moon. However, as the spacecraft swung around the backside of the Moon, it fired its engine to brake its relative speed by ~1 kps, putting it in a roughly circular orbit around the Moon. After completing ten 2-hour orbits, Apollo 8 fired its engine again, this time adding ~1 kps to its velocity and shaping a new orbital path back to Earth.

Note the difference in propulsion requirements (called "delta-V" which means change-in-velocity):

Zond needed only the initial 3.2 kps to go from low Earth orbit to a free return trajectory. After that it only needed minor course-corrections that were handled by the spacecraft's small engine.
Apollo 8 needed ~5.2 kps: 3.2 for TLI (trans-lunar injection), + 1 for LOI (lunar orbit insertion) + 1 for TEI (trans Earth injection.

If the Soviets were to put Zond into lunar orbit, they would have to provide it with the SAME 5.2 kps of dalta-V. This is the whole crux of the Proton vs. N1 debate.

The standard Soyuz of the day (Soyuz 7K-OK) massed ~6,560 kg (of which 500 kg was fuel). However, the Proton rocket with a Block D upper stage could only throw ~5,400 kg to the Moon. The Zond (Soyuz 7K-L1) was a radically stripped-down model. They took off the front mission module, simplified the main propulsion system by taking out the safety backup and even removed the reserve parachute. The final spacecraft massed ~5,680 kg, of which 700 kg was fuel. After the Block D finished burning, the L1 would use its own engine to complete TLI.

I've run the numbers using Tsiolkovskiy's Rocket Equation: The Block D and the Soyuz 7K-L1 had a total delta-V of ~3.5 kps.
Zond could (and did) fly to the Moon and back. It could not go into lunar orbit, let alone orbit and return to Earth.

To do so would require an extra 2 kps of delta-V. Using the Rocket equation, adding that would more than double the mass of the upper stage (+~23,000 kg) placing far beyond the lifting ability of the Proton rocket.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Saint Exupery

Actually, Phage did sort of state that....in his short way of stating things back on page 4 of this thread:




Nothing available to provide the translunar injection boost. Proton gets you to orbit. Then what? You need another kick in the pants. A booster you can dock with and be able to burn on command.

The thing about the lunar missions is that a commitment has to be made early on in the development process; orbital rendezvous or a single vehicle. You can't change horses in midstream. The Soviets, like the US, committed to a single launch. The Saturn V worked, the N1 didn't.


Then on page 6 I also tried to explain how you need a heavy lift vehicle for the extra mass of fuel that you are going to need to get into TLI, slow down when you get there, land, get back up, fire again to get your orbit back to Earth.

Kudos on your post actually showing some of the figures.

I could make a quick video and post it using the Kerbal Space Program, just to visually show everything you've mentioned.

However, SJ is a bit hung up on the multiple vehicle approach (send up different stuff one at a time with lighter launch vehicles, dock them all together, and use that to go orbit the moon), which to give SJ credit: it is a valid approach, and had been discussed as he showed much earlier on.

It's just a engineering and logistic nightmare. Can you imagine doing that, and then putting your multiple docked ship under enough thrust to achieve that extra 3.2 kps (3,200 meters per second)? Then using it to slow down again by 1,000 meters per second.....then again to speed back up by 1,000 meters per second.

Even when W. Bush proposed to sending men back to the moon, NASA came up with the Constellation Program with the idea of using the proposed Ares V, a single, heavy launch vehicle to go back. Possibly using 5 or 6 of the RS-68 Engines (pioneered by the Soviets, hehehehehe....sort of ironic when you think about it).

SJ, you keep asking us WHY the Soviets didn't do it. We keep giving you reason why, and you're not happy with our answers.

Okay, I get that (er, not really, but you have your reasons). So....

Go ask the Russians why!

I'm not being sarcastic here. I'm being truly sincere with you. You asked here, we gave our answers, you're not satisfied, so, why not go straight to the source? Ask them.

If you weren't happy with what your doctor told you, you might go seek a 2nd opinion from another doctor, right?

Same thing here: you're not happy with our answers, so go straight to the source on it and ask them.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Friday Night Fun, Facts & Interpretations




"Former NASA director James E. Webb said it was quote the most important demonstration of total space ca-pability up to now by any na-tion. unquote" Published in "The Day", a newspaper out of New London, Connecticut, Thursday, November 14, 1968 from a report filed by "JODRELL BANK, England (AP)



What was he talking about? He was talking about.... Zond 5. Webb, the former NASA administrator, has spoken. You all can make that new notation into your history files.




posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful


However, SJ is a bit hung up on the multiple vehicle approach (send up different stuff one at a time with lighter launch vehicles, dock them all together, and use that to go orbit the moon), which to give SJ credit: it is a valid approach, and had been discussed as he showed much earlier on.


I like the multiple vehicle idea because it was Wernher von Braun's original moon plan, which he described in several Walt Disney videos in the mid-1950's. When I am looking at the contemporary sources from the Sept.-Dec. 1968 news clips, there are two very prominent western media sources who indicated that Zond 5 meant that a Soviet lunar orbit mission was "imminent".

Sir Bernard Lovell of the Jodrell Bank facility also promoted space platform idea in the Schenectady Gazette - Wednesday, July 17, 1963.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 02:55 AM
link   
My question to the space experts in this thread is :

When did Sir Bernard Lovell change his opinion on the vexing problem of radiation damage?
Link to source
news.google.com...



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

So? You are fixated on Zond 5 in isolation, as though that one success granted the Soviets the keys to the cosmos.

When you place it in the context of the entire program, including Zond, Proton and what happened AFTER that flight (on both sides of the Iron Curtain), a very different picture emerges.

Here is a chronology of the Zond/Proton flight series, with a few peeks at other programs going on at the same time (Note the Soviet mission-naming practice at the time: If it failed to reach orbit, it did not receive a name. If it made Earth orbit, but by design or failure did not go further, it was called part of the Cosmos satellite series. If it boosted out of low Earth orbit, it was given a designation such as Zond):

1967 March 10 - Cosmos 146 Success
Proton-K/D with Soyuz 7K-L1 prototype. Successful test of the Proton-K/D configuration. Proton put the L1/Block D stack in Earth orbit, and the Block D accelerated the L1 to translunar speed (though it was not aimed at the Moon)

1967 April 8 - Cosmos 154 Failure
Proton-K/D with Soyuz 7K-L1 prototype. Unsuccessful test of the Proton-K/D configuration. Proton put the L1/Block D stack in Earth orbit, but the Block D did not fire.

1967 September 27 - Soyuz 7K-L1 Failure
Failed Zond “high orbit”* mission. Proton 1st stage failed. Crashed ~60km from pad.
*Intended to reach circumlunar speed, but possibly not aimed at the Moon (see Zond 4, below)

1967 November 22 - Soyuz 7K-L1 Failure
Failed Zond “high orbit”* mission. Proton 2nd stage failed. Escape tower fired and the capsule landed by parachute.
*Intended to reach circumlunar speed, but possibly not aimed at the Moon (see Zond 4, below)

1968 March 2 - Zond 4 Partial success/failure
Zond “high orbit” mission. Proton w/ Block D launched the L1 on 330,000km-high orbit pointed 180-degrees from the Moon. As it returned to Earth, the guidance system failed, meaning the capsule would land outside the Soviet Union. The capsule was ordered to self-destruct.

1968 April 22 - Soyuz 7K-L1 Failure
Failed Zond mission. Proton 2nd stage shutdown early. Escape tower fired and the capsule landed by parachute.

1968 September 14 - Zond 5 Success, though arguably a partial success/failure
Successful Zond circumlunar mission. High-G re-entry profile (10-16 gees) would have injured cosmonauts, had they been aboard.

1968 October 11-22 – Apollo 7 Success
American manned Earth-orbital test of Apollo CSM.

1968 October 25-30 – Soyuz 2/3 Partial success/failure
Failed first Soviet attempt to dock manned spacecraft.

1968 November 10 – Zond 6 Failure
Failed Zond circumlunar mission. On the way back from the Moon, the capsule depressurized, then (2 days later) crashed due to parachute failure.

Now things get interesting...

1968 December 8-12 - ????
This was the last launch window for Zond prior to Apollo 8. Why didn't they launch (or did they?)? This is an authentic mystery of the Space Age. The short-lived TV series "The Cape" had an episode where they find a dead Zond crew that launched in December of '68 and got stranded in orbit.

1968 December 21-27 – Apollo 8 Success
American successful manned lunar orbital mission.

1968 December 30 - Meeting of the VPK Military-Industrial Commission
"In response to the success of Apollo 8, President of the Soviet Academy of Science (and Central Committee of the CPSU member) Mstislav Keldysh suggests that plans for manned L1 missions be scrapped. The Protons would be used to launch [unmanned rovers and] sample return missions. The government's organs of mass communication would say that the Soviet Union's lunar program only consisted of robot probes, emphasizing that his was much safer and that Russia would never risk it's citizen's lives for mere political sensation."

Any student of Soviet space history knows the last line is a joke. but it does explain why the Soviets did not go for Krushchev-style "space spectaculars" such as a woman around the Moon.

1969 January 14-18 – Soyuz 4 & 5 Success
1st docking of two manned spacecraft & crew transfer by EVA.

1969 January 20 - Soyuz 7K-L1 Failure
Failed Zond mission. Proton 2nd stage shutdown early. Escape tower fired and the capsule landed by parachute.

1969 February 19 - Ye-8 w/ Lunokhod rover Failure
Failed lunar rover landing mission. Proton 1st stage failed. Crashed ~15km from pad.

1969 February 21 – N1 w/ Soyuz 7K-L1S Failure
Failed lunar orbital mission. First flight of N1 failed when the 1st stage shutdown 68 seconds into the flight.

1969 March 3-13 – Apollo 9 Success
American successful test of CSM & LM in Earth orbit.

1969 May 16 – Keldysh press conference.
When asked about Soviet lunar plans, “he revealed that Russia would only use robot probes, that it wouldn't risk men's lives in such an endeavour.”

This pretty much codified the Big Lie that the Soviets were never trying to send men to the Moon. Since this was before the Apollo landings, they still had some wiggle-room. If a disaster occurred in the Apollo program, they could still pull a surprise, so they kept working on Zond and the N1.

1969 May 18-26 – Apollo 10 Success
American successful test of CSM & LM in lunar orbit.

1969 June 14 - Ye-8-5 Failure
Failed unmanned soil-return mission. Proton/Block D failed to make Earth orbit.

1969 July 3 - N1 w/ Soyuz 7K-L1S Failure
2nd flight of N1. Rocket fell back onto the pad and exploded.

1969 July 13 – Luna 15 Failure
Failed unmanned soil-return mission. Crashed while trying to land on the Moon on July 20, 1969.

1969 July 16-24 – Apollo 11 Success
Americans land men on the Moon (also on July 20) and return them safely to Earth.

1969 August 7 – Zond 7 Success
Successful Zond circumlunar mission. Double-dip re-entry and normal landing in USSR.

1969 September 23 - Cosmos 300 Failure
Failed unmanned soil-return mission. Proton/Block D failed to leave Earth orbit. Proton/Block D is still not considered reliable enough for manned flight.

1969 October 13-18 – Soyuz 6, 7 & 8 Partial success/failure
Three manned launches in three days. Soyuz 7 & 8 were supposed to dock while Soyuz 6 observed & recorded. Docking maneuvers (both automatic and manual) failed after several attempts.

1969 October 22 - Cosmos 305 Failure
Failed unmanned soil-return mission. Proton/Block D failed to leave Earth orbit.

1969 November 14-24 – Apollo 12 Success
Successful precision manned lunar landing.

Source

At this point, it was clear that the Americans had won the Moon Race.
edit on 14-6-2014 by Saint Exupery because: formatting



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Facts & Interpretations Part 2



Two Western media experts commenting on Russian capability in the space race...

"James E. Webb, outgoing head of the U.S. space program, said the latest Russian feat "shows a capability that could change the basic structure and balance of power in the world."

"Lovell, director of Britain's Jodrell Bank Obs. And an authority on the Soviet space program, called the Soviet shot quote a considerable achievement. It probably means that a manned round-the-moon flight will occur in the coming months as a direct challenge to America's Apollo project."

"Webb "said the Zond 5 flight demonstrated that the Russians have quote an able-boded rocket unquote bigger than any op-erational U.S. rocket." AND "Webb said the flight was quote the most significant demonstration of its time unquote comparable to Sputnik I, the first satellite to orbit the earth."

"Heinz Kaminsky at Bochum said "With this fantastic success, the U.S.S.R is on the way to being the victor and being the first to reach the moon,"

"Soviet scientist Leonid Sedov told Tass that Zond 5 had a spe-cial heat shield, that its speed was slowed down on re-entry by 'air resistance' and that 'at a comparatively small height' it was further slowed by para-chute."

"Physicst Vladimir Kessnikh told Tass "that plans for moon flights already drawn up by the Soviets would be changed 'by the information contained in capsules of this spacecraft"



Source link news.google.com...


edit on 6/14/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 03:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Saint Exupery

Thank you for posting the nice space timeline. But if your purpose was to emphasize Soviet space failures during that timeframe then you must also endure the very long list of USA space failures during that time frame. Are you sure you want to fight that battle?

Lunar Orbiter story Aug 12 1966 "If Orbiter attains its planned moon orbit, it will be the first successful lunar orbit for American spacecraft - after seven failures."

I don't think you wanna play this game.

Source link news.google.com...



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 03:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: eriktheawful


However, SJ is a bit hung up on the multiple vehicle approach (send up different stuff one at a time with lighter launch vehicles, dock them all together, and use that to go orbit the moon), which to give SJ credit: it is a valid approach, and had been discussed as he showed much earlier on.


I like the multiple vehicle idea because it was Wernher von Braun's original moon plan, which he described in several Walt Disney videos in the mid-1950's. When I am looking at the contemporary sources from the Sept.-Dec. 1968 news clips, there are two very prominent western media sources who indicated that Zond 5 meant that a Soviet lunar orbit mission was "imminent".

Sir Bernard Lovell of the Jodrell Bank facility also promoted space platform idea in the Schenectady Gazette - Wednesday, July 17, 1963.


Yes, EOR had one key advantage: If they used the Von Braun idea of building a space station as an orbital construction base for missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond, then after the missions we would still have an existing orbital infrastructure (not to mention regular access to orbit via shuttles). Of course it would have been much more expensive and time-consuming, but it would have been a serious investment in the future.

Instead of taking this long-view,JFK, LBJ & your hero, Nixon treated the Moon Landing as a propaganda stunt. Making a race out of it made time a crucial factor. Lunar orbit rendezvous with a single launcher and expendable components got us to the Moon quickly, but it was a technological dead-end. It was clever, but in the long-run, not smart.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 03:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: Saint Exupery

Thank you for posting the nice space timeline. But if your purpose was to emphasize Soviet space failures during that timeframe then you must also endure the very long list of USA space failures during that time frame.

Lunar Orbiter story Aug 12 1966 "If Orbiter attains its planned moon orbit, it will be the first successful lunar orbit for American spacecraft - after seven failures."


Wrong. My time frame is 1967 to 1969. This is after the Apollo 1 fire caused the US to completely revamp its program management and safety culture, and after the death of Sergei Korolev put the Soviet program in the toilet.

By all means list every mission failure of an American lunar flight in the March 1967 - November 1969 time frame (I count 1 failure and 1 partial). However, this is irrelevant since this discussion is about whether Zond was reliable enough for a manned lunar mission.

The record of that time frame speaks for itself. I emphasized nothing but the results. No matter how many clippings you post, you cannot hide the fact that Zond 5 was an anomalous success. It took another year and three tries to get another - and by that point, the Americans had won the Moon Race.
edit on 14-6-2014 by Saint Exupery because: clarification/correction



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Saint Exupery

1968 November 10 – Zond 6 Failure
Failed Zond circumlunar mission. On the way back from the Moon, the capsule depressurized, then (2 days later) crashed due to parachute failure.

Now things get interesting...


Things do get interesting.

Zond A Rehearsal? Sep 23 1968

"The moon is closer to earth now. More precisely, it is closer to Soviet scientists," said Soviet scientis S. Yesenov on tv. "Soviet announcements hinted a ship like Zond 5 might carry the first cosmonaut in the attempt to orbit the moon and return." "Western scientists said Zond 5 was big enough to carry a man."


Source link news.google.com...


edit on 6/14/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Saint Exupery


Instead of taking this long-view,JFK, LBJ & your hero, Nixon treated the Moon Landing as a propaganda stunt.


Moon landings are a propaganda stunt. Thank you.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Saint Exupery


Instead of taking this long-view,JFK, LBJ & your hero, Nixon treated the Moon Landing as a propaganda stunt.



originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Moon landings are a propaganda stunt. Thank you.


That's not what I said AT ALL. Reading comprehension does not appear to be you strong point.
edit on 14-6-2014 by Saint Exupery because: Clarity



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 04:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Saint Exupery

1968 November 10 – Zond 6 Failure
Failed Zond circumlunar mission. On the way back from the Moon, the capsule depressurized, then (2 days later) crashed due to parachute failure.

Now things get interesting...



originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Things do get interesting.

Zond A Rehearsal? Sep 23 1968

"The moon is closer to earth now. More precisely, it is closer to Soviet scientists," said Soviet scientis S. Yesenov on tv. "Soviet announcements hinted a ship like Zond 5 might carry the first cosmonaut in the attempt to orbit the moon and return." "Western scientists said Zond 5 was big enough to carry a man."



You quoted the entry about the failed Zond 6 mission in November of '68, then posted yet another clipping about the Zond 5 flight two months previously. And what about all of the other failures? You're not making a good case for the reliability of Zond/Proton.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Facts & Interpretations Part 3



Soviet cosmonaut Valery Bykovsky made statements in Budapest "Russia was likely to send a number of rockets around the moon and bring them back to earth before sending men to the moon, and he added that the first passen-gers on these early test flights could be dogs."

Bykovsky was correct because the Russians did send a number of rockets around the moon and bring them back. But the Russians never send men to the moon, or dogs. So he was wrong on that.




posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

In my view, Comrade Bykovsky is dutifully a conduit for Russian propaganda when he says that the Russians would send dogs before men, he is, in my view, making a political comment about the American space program, an unscientific program that would send men before dogs.


edit on 6/14/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

Facts & Interpretations Part 3



Soviet cosmonaut Valery Bykovsky made statements in Budapest "Russia was likely to send a number of rockets around the moon and bring them back to earth before sending men to the moon, and he added that the first passen-gers on these early test flights could be dogs."

Bykovsky was correct because the Russians did send a number of rockets around the moon and bring them back. But the Russians never send men to the moon, or dogs. So he was wrong on that.



That does not mean they were not intending to. The historical record (including Oberg's research, Kamanin's diaries and Leonov's memoirs) is pretty clear that they were.

Here is a photograph of the Zond/Block D/Proton stack sitting on the pad:

Notice the escape tower on top of the rocket. This was only ever included on rocket designs that were ultimately intended to carry crew on operational missions.
edit on 14-6-2014 by Saint Exupery because: grammar



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 04:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
My question to the space experts in this thread is :

When did Sir Bernard Lovell change his opinion on the vexing problem of radiation damage?
Link to source
news.google.com...



You need to learn how to read all the words on a page and interpret them appropriately, as to opposed to picking the ones you like.

Where does it say he changed his opinion? All he did was report what the Soviets were concerned about. It does not say what his starting or ending position on the matter is. Was Lovell able to see into the future? It does not actually say whether the Soviets considered radiation levels to be a danger or not, only that it concerns them. It's something they have to look at.

Radiation levels for astronauts have always been a concern. Why measure it otherwise? By the time men orbited and then landed on the moon numerous Soviet and US probes had returned large amounts of data about levels of radiation in space. If Lovell changed his mind, it will have been because he had better data.

It's worth noting that this news article pre-dates the 1964 Soviet decision to make their own push for the moon.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join