The Russians never duplicated Apollo 8

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
So my interpretation is that Apollo skipped critical unmanned tests, launched Apollo 8 by faith alone, where no man or command modules had been tested, took ten orbits of the moon, boosted back out from lunar orbit (untested) and made the splash down landing at the fastest speed of any other humans who had flown up until that time (untested).

Apollo 8 had a working heavy lift rocket, working CM/SM, and the science behind lunar and orbital injections has been done.

Almost every senior manager at NASA agreed with this new mission, citing both confidence in the hardware and personnel, and the potential for a significant morale boost provided by a circumlunar flight. The only person who needed some convincing was James E. Webb, the NASA administrator.

On September 9, the crew entered the simulators to begin their preparation for the flight. By the time the mission flew, the crew had spent seven hours training for every actual hour of flight. Although all crew members were trained in all aspects of the mission, it was necessary to specialize. Borman, as commander, was given training on controlling the spacecraft during the re-entry. Lovell was trained on navigating the spacecraft in case communication was lost with the Earth. Anders was placed in charge of checking that the spacecraft was in working order.

en.wikipedia.org...

Hardly what I'd call a blind shot based on faith.

Six minutes before they hit the top of the atmosphere, the crew saw the Moon rising above the Earth's horizon, just as had been predicted by the trajectory specialists.

So my interpretation is that Apollo skipped critical unmanned tests, launched Apollo 8 by faith alone, where no man or command modules had been tested, took ten orbits of the moon, boosted back out from lunar orbit (untested) and made the splash down landing at the fastest speed of any other humans who had flown up until that time (untested).

What are you talking about?

CM high speed re-entry was tested with Apollo 4. The LM with Apollo 5.

Why would you need to test orbital return, when all you needed was to do a burn long enough to change your delta V at the moon? The physics of that was well understood by that time, and testing engine restarts were accomplished with AS-203, Apollo 4 and 5.

Apollo 6 was to do a aborted TLI, but it's engines (the S-IVB) failed to restart. However, the problems were known and repaired.

By Apollo 6, the Saturn V was deemed ready for manned flight (which they did with Apollo 7).

So what in the world are you talking about when you say "no testing" ??? There was no need to send an actual Apollo craft all the way to the moon and back, as being able to test things like engine burn and higher re-entry speeds WERE tested just fine before Apollo 8.

The Russians never duplicated Apollo 8

I introduce the idea of Soviet military doctrine of deception. That's what the N-1 represents, in my opinion everything is under review. So let's review the Cold war, space race, in terms of the Soviet doctrine of deception.

The CIA/western expert narrative tells us that Russia was "all in" for the lunar landings but Apollo shook them up so bad that they gave up. During the space-hype era of the 1960's America the population was constantly over fed with pure hero propaganda when these select men were idolized before they flew. It was a huge hype machine that's for sure.

When Shepard returned from his little pop-up flight then - WOW! - did that hype machine go into maximum over drive.

The Russians have all the appearances of "going for it" and "trying to win" but in reality they had the dual track program which was based on long term goal of space stations. The next step for Russia was a manned lunar orbit mission, or was it?? Was it a deception? The western experts were baffled.

It's my opinion that it seems more than a few people in this thread are still baffled about the space race because all they know are the western media propaganda perspective, the NASA gift shop versions of history. **Spoiler: America Wins!**

More than a few are still not understanding the concept of "history is not a concrete matter", no, no no. History is tricky and we often underestimate it's tricks. Soviet military doctrine of deception could answer why the Russians never duplicated Apollo 8.

The ideal deception i s that history is concrete. It's always tempting to think that way. Some of the western experts are on the record making highly speculative statements about Soviet intentions in space.... I conclude all experts can be baffled.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

You keep posting these one-sided "essays", with very little interaction with the rest of us. I feel like our posts fall on deaf ears.

As for blindly following the Western propaganda about the Soviets, you insult me. I'm half-Russian, Russian is my first language, I grew up in the USSR, I've been to Russia many times, and I'm very proud of what they have achieved in space and science. I'm also very aware of how slow and cumbersome their administrative and beraucratic side was in the USSR.

As I said before, let's not the Western Cold War - era articles shape our knowledge and opinion, but look at the actual track record itself. USA had a working and reliable rocket system, suitable orbital/translunar/reentry configurations, ground-testing facilities, and better technological level overall. The Soviets didn't. The few relatively successful Zond missions were an exception to the rule. It wasn't safe for them to just stick men on a Proton rocket and sling them around the Moon, hoping for the best. They wanted to do it right.

While SJ vacillates between a position that the Soviets were but actually weren't although still might have been going for the moon, here is some reading material.

It's from trawls of NASA' s servers so they are publicly available, but not easy to find so I uploaded them to Scribd.

They are compilations of TASS and scientific reports translated from Russian. The three documents span a period 1957-72

www.scribd.com...

www.scribd.com...

www.scribd.com...

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Thanks for posting new findings. The 3rd item contains info from 1972 only.

Here are the titles.

1. Mastery of Outer Space in the USSR 1957-67 (Ed. G A Skuridin) Moscow 1971
NASA TT-F-16516
Prepared for NASA by Saad Publications, Karachi, Pakistan 1975 published by NASA Washington DC August 1975
Contract NSF-C505

2. Conquest-of-Outer-Space-in-the-USSR-67-70 (Ed. G I Petrov) Moscow 1971
NASA TT-F-725
Prepared for NASA by Amerind Publishing in New Delhi 1973
"Official announcements by TASS and material published in the national press 1967-1970"

Note: The 3rd item contains info from 1972 only. 1971 seems to be skipped.

3. Conquest-Of-Outer-Space-in-the-USSR (Ed. G S Nariminov) Moscow 1974
NASA TT-F-15678
Prepared for NASA by Leo Kanner Associates Redwood California 1974
Published for NASA Washington DC 1974
Contract NASW-2481

Posted by Roscosmos on Facebook:

This week in Space History, July 3 1969 – Russian N1 Rocket Explodes after liftoff. www.youtube.com... During the Space Race, the Soviet N1 rocket was the Soviet answer to the Saturn V. The five-stage moon rocket was nearly as big as the Saturn V rocket (345 feet tall vs 363 feet for the Saturn V), although the N1’s 30-engine first stage produced more thrust than NASA’s Saturn V.

The N1 was the heavy-lift vehicle for the Russian strategy of getting to the moon, called “Earth-Orbit Rendezvous.” Unlike the U.S. Strategy (which was called “Lunar-Orbit Rendezvous”), several launches were required to get the moon-venturing hardware into space. One launch would place the Soyuz capsule and cosmonauts into orbit, and another would loft a type of lunar landing vehicle. Those vehicles would rendezvous in Earth-Orbit (hence the strategy’s name), and then go off to the moon.

According to the documentary “BBC – Space Race,” on July 3 1969 (just days before the launch of Apollo 11) the Soviets launched the N1 rocket in an unmanned test. With 2,600 tons of fuel on-board, the N1 rocket exploded just seconds after launch, destroying both the rocket and the launch tower in the biggest explosion in the history of rocketry.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

AS usual, Phage has an interesting take on it . . . Quite plausible.

imho, the oligarchy told them not to. Period.

imho, the whole space race as was the 'cold war' charade . . . as well as the hot wars from the French Revolution on . . . have all been a series of Kabuki dances, a farces, charades.

Bread and circuses to distract the masses as well as to manipulate the masses toward the one world government and one world religion.

And, for some reason, the oligarchy chose to limit the space conquest or semi-conquest . . . or adventurism . . . or publicity stunts . . . to the Americans.

a reply to: wildespace

BBC dramatizations ... they are like historical cartoons. Does anyone really take these BBC cartoons seriously?? Come on... that's not what we learned in this thread over 20 pages, is it?

Let's review what we learned about it, shall we?

1. The Soviets did not need the heavy lift N-1 to perform a lunar orbit mission. They had Zond and Proton. The Soviets were bragging how close they were to manned lunar orbit missions right up to the Apollo 8 launch. (sorry Phage, as Elvis sang "Easy Come, Easy Go".)

2. The glass ceiling in space is set at 475km which was set in place by 1965-03-18 - Voskhod 2 - Belyayev, Leonov - 475 km apogee orbit

3. The Russians hold all the records for low earth orbit space flight durations in such categories like,
Progressive manned single spaceflight duration record: Polyakov - Mir LD-4 - 8 Jan 1994 - 437.7 days

Top Ten Single Flight Durations: All Russians Mir EO-25 - 207.5 days - Budarin and Musabayev

Top Ten Astronauts by total space flight time: All Russians Malenchenko - 514.5 days - 4 flights

4. Above all other things what we learned in this thread is that history is tricky. That's why you have brought out the BBC drama and recreation of history.. because it doesn't mention that Frank Borman was in Russia on orders from Richard Nixon during the same week the N-1 exploded. Can you really trust the BBC for accurate history?? I should think not.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Let's review what we learned about it, shall we?

1. The Soviets did not need the heavy lift N-1 to perform a lunar orbit mission. They had Zond and Proton.

Factually incorrect, as explained here. Zond/Proton could (and did) fly circumlunar missions using a free-return trajectory. It did not have the delta-V to make a lunar orbit insertion maneuver. Apollo 8 did, and circled the Moon 10 times before firing its engine again to come home.

The Soviets were bragging how close they were to manned lunar orbit missions right up to the Apollo 8 launch...

… and six months later they were saying they never intended to fly manned lunar missions. Who cares about what their PR department said? The question is, what were they actually capable of?

2. The glass ceiling in space is set at 475km which was set in place by 1965-03-18 - Voskhod 2 - Belyayev, Leonov - 475 km apogee orbit

Factually incorrect. Gemini XI (Conrad & Gordon) set the record at 1,369 km apogee on 1966-09-15.

3. The Russians hold all the records for low earth orbit space flight durations in such categories like,
Progressive manned single spaceflight duration record: Polyakov - Mir LD-4 - 8 Jan 1994 - 437.7 days

Top Ten Single Flight Durations: All Russians Mir EO-25 - 207.5 days - Budarin and Musabayev

Top Ten Astronauts by total space flight time: All Russians Malenchenko - 514.5 days - 4 flights

Irrelevant. Who cares what they did decades later on space stations built for a different purpose entirely? What could their manned space vehicles do in the late 1960s?

On a free-return trajectory it takes 3 days to get to the Moon and three days to get back – 6 days (actually just over 5 ½ days, not including time spent in Earth orbit prior to TLI).

The Americans flew two manned missions greater than that length in 1965: Gemini V (7d 22h 55m) and Gemini VII (13d 18h 35m). Apollo 7’s crew flew 10d 20h 09m in October of 1968.

By contrast, the Soviets did not fly a manned mission even 5 days long until the middle of 1970.

4. Above all other things what we learned in this thread is that history is tricky. That's why you have brought out the BBC drama and recreation of history.. because it doesn't mention that Frank Borman was in Russia on orders from Richard Nixon during the same week the N-1 exploded.

For starters, why, with the limited time available in a TV show would they spend any time on this insignificant historical footnote? Sure, you think it there’s something to it, and maybe you can come up with a thrilling movie about what you imagine was going-on behind the scene (and I would pay money to see it), but those guys didn’t. Of course, based on what I’ve seen of your grasp of space history & technology, you would be in no position to say that your version is more accurate than the BBC’s.

If you can, please substantiate that Borman was in Russia on orders from Richard Nixon. Next, demonstrate that the US had any advanced knowledge of the N1 launch in early July. Of course, the Soviets didn’t have to kowtow to Nixon’s orders, and could have unilaterally delayed or even cancelled Borman’s visit if they were so inclined.

Since you like to obsess over this particular footnote in history, let me propose an alternate scenario (hey, I like what-ifs too):

The Soviets get a request for Borman to visit at a date yet-to-be-determined. They know that they will have a launch window to the Moon in early July, and N1 will be ready to test then. They schedule Borman’s visit to overlap. If the N1 mission succeeds spectacularly while the famous astronaut is in-country, this would be perceived as an embarrassment to the US. If the flight fails, the attempt is hushed-up and the Soviets lose no face.

(This last part has an interesting footnote of its own. The CIA completely missed the first attempt to fly N1 on February 21st. British Intelligence detected it, but the Yanks couldn’t believe that they would miss something that big, and dismissed the report. It wasn’t until after the Cold War ended that declassified Soviet documents showed the Brits had been right all along.

Depending on how thoroughly the KGB had penetrated the Western intelligence services, they might have known that the CIA had dropped the ball and felt confident that another in-flight failure could be successfully hidden. Of course, what they couldn’t hide was the accident that actually happened: A rocket fall-back and explosion that destroyed the launch complex. Oh well…)

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: wildespace



BBC dramatizations ... they are like historical cartoons. Does anyone really take these BBC cartoons seriously?? Come on... that's not what we learned in this thread over 20 pages, is it?



Let's review what we learned about it, shall we?



1. The Soviets did not need the heavy lift N-1 to perform a lunar orbit mission. They had Zond and Proton. The Soviets were bragging how close they were to manned lunar orbit missions right up to the Apollo 8 launch. ...

Thanks for making clear that you have not, and clearly refuse to, "get it" about human lunar flight. The Zond-Proton was never a lunar orbit vehicle and never flew such a profile. It flew a lunar fly-by profile. It saddens me that you don't even seem to recognize you don't know the difference.

That's what I've learned about your claims.

originally posted by: Saint Exupery

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Let's review what we learned about it, shall we?

1. The Soviets did not need the heavy lift N-1 to perform a lunar orbit mission. They had Zond and Proton.

Factually incorrect, as explained here. Zond/Proton could (and did) fly circumlunar missions using a free-return trajectory. It did not have the delta-V to make a lunar orbit insertion maneuver. Apollo 8 did, and circled the Moon 10 times before firing its engine again to come home.

This bears repeating. It was my post that you corrected, clarifying the difference between a circumlunar fly-by and a lunar orbit. That detail had escaped me, so thanks. At least one person has learnt from this thread

originally posted by: JimOberg
Thanks for making clear that you have not, and clearly refuse to, "get it" about human lunar flight. The Zond-Proton was never a lunar orbit vehicle and never flew such a profile. It flew a lunar fly-by profile. It saddens me that you don't even seem to recognize you don't know the difference.

That's what I've learned about your claims.

Here is what I have learned : do not trust space experts on ATS because they carry no weight.

"The Soviet space program has a Jekyll & Hyde personality..."

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Do you carry any weight, SJ? I haven't seen any in this thread. I have seen many excellent and informative posts from the space experts / enthusiasts. All I have seen from you is a performance before an audience.

Proton wasn't ready to fly people to the Moon (even if for a fly-by mission) and return them safely. I think that's the crux of it.

Proton wasn't reliable, the N1's long and torturous testing by flight was cut off before it could demonstrate reliability. The Soviets simply didn't get the chance.

a reply to: wildespace

Do you carry any weight, SJ? I haven't seen any in this thread. I have seen many excellent and informative posts from the space experts / enthusiasts. All I have seen from you is a performance before an audience.

Neil D. Tyson and Phil Plait are also performers. They are "media pundits", "space experts". They have an audience of gawkers and admirers, like yourself, Let's not forget to mention the Mythbuster episode which should have the disclaimer "For entertainment use only."

Who are you? Bill Nye the Science Guy? Yet another entertainer.

We're talking about the real history in this thread... the history that you won't get form the BBC video that you posted which is simply a 4-minute historical cartoon. The 7-minute CIA video from 1981 is also an historical cartoon, it had a different audience, Reagan's national security council. Both videos are like the cartoons are played as "a performance before an audience", to quote something you said.

I thought you were a better poster than this. Will you continue to question my motives again, on the record, in this thread?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

As I mentioned before, I prefer the track record speak for itself, rather than relying on cold war era paper clippings and their subjective interpretation. I look at the track record, and I don't see the way for Soviets to send men to the Moon.

While you could brand Tyson and Plait "public performers", I was actually talking about the posts by Saint Exupery and others here on ATS, who have brought out some very interesting and relevant facts. Personally, I have learned something from them.

At least Phil Plait accepts corrections by his readers and admits he was wrong.

originally posted by: Saint Exupery

2. The glass ceiling in space is set at 475km which was set in place by 1965-03-18 - Voskhod 2 - Belyayev, Leonov - 475 km apogee orbit

Factually incorrect. Gemini XI (Conrad & Gordon) set the record at 1,369 km apogee on 1966-09-15.

Correction: "The Soviet/Russian glass ceiling in space is set at 475km..."

Addition: The Gemini 11 altitude record was for only 1 swing around the earth, it was not even a complete orbit at 1369km... just a maximum altitude apogee, over Australia, where they knew that the earth radiation belts were higher up. Conrad & Gordon were test pilots who liked to break records. They used their political will to change the flight plan to allow the record making altitude.

Post-addendum: Will we ever know why the Russians stayed below the glass ceiling of 475km? Should we rely on old CIA videos or BBC cartoons for our historical views? Should we rely on western media TV "science pundits"? Do the news clips from the old days tell a different story than we already know? What would happen to the historical narrative if the satellite image that Charles Vick was denied access to suddenly became declassified and it put the accepted narrative in a new light? Obviously, that satellite image is still vitally important to the national security otherwise Vick would have it already.

Wouldn't he?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

The satellite image does not exist.

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

As I mentioned before, I prefer the track record speak for itself, rather than relying on cold war era paper clippings

The track record shows that Soviets/Russian never exceeded 475km in manned space flight altitude.

The news clippings are real history, the BBC CIA videos are cartoons.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

The satellite image does not exist.

Citation please.