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: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey
Thanks, downloaded and will study when I have more time to spare. (I was prompted to download a copy of Genesis by Robert Zimmerman by the recent Apollo 8 discussion and these will be a nice companion.


NASA had some pretty advanced Photoshop back in the late Sixties, huh?


Edit: Had you noticed the National Geographic caption on the "Earthrise" pic?



I wonder if Neil Armstrong read that before A11...?
edit on 14-5-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 14 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
As regards Russian rocket motors, guess what nations rocket motors are fitted to the Atlas rockets? (Russian designed, manufactured in Ukraine)



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

You can find links to other Life and National Geographics on my site - the Apollo 8 is one I've only just got from ebay.

I'm steeling myself to scan my Apollo 11 special from NG, but it's in great condition and it may damage the spine


Nice spot of the 'giant step' quote! Wouldn't surprise me at all if Neil was a subscriber!



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful


Again: The goal was not to orbit the moon, it was to LAND and RETURN from the moon.


Again: the Russians had all the pieces to the puzzle except the human rated space capsule that could take them outside the earth radiation belts. In 42 years we are still waiting for that demonstration.

Apollo 8 did not demonstrate a moon landing, I am not talking about a moon landing, only a demonstration of Apollo 8. Which would include a human rated space capsule (1,2,3 man take your pick) and a booster configuration suitably configured for TLI and TEI.

It is a very simple mission. Apollo 8. December 1968. 10 orbits around the moon with 1,2,3 human occupants. What is holding back other countries from doing this for 42 years?



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: eriktheawful


Again: The goal was not to orbit the moon, it was to LAND and RETURN from the moon.


It is a very simple mission. Apollo 8. December 1968. 10 orbits around the moon with 1,2,3 human occupants. What is holding back other countries from doing this for 42 years?

The fact that it's a pretty pointless thing to do compared to sending unmanned probes and rovers into space, which is where we are at now. We have left the 1960s willy-waving era behind.

You don't seem to understand that Apollo 8 wasn't an end in itself, it was one of a series of trial runs for the moon landing, each of which tested a particular component of the technology.


Again: the Russians had all the pieces to the puzzle except the human rated space capsule that could take them outside the earth radiation belts.

The problem wasn't with taking them outside the radiation belts, it was chiefly with being able to get back to Earth without leaving a large smoking crater in the Russian steppe.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter


Again: the Russians had all the pieces to the puzzle except the human rated space capsule that could take them outside the earth radiation belts.

Again. The Russians did not have a rocket which could lift a rocket which could lift the capsule out of Earth orbit into Earth orbit. The booster that was supposed to get the gear into Earth orbit kept blowing up.

edit on 5/15/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Phage - my knowledge of the Russian program isn't all it could be. Couldn't the L1 capsule, launched by Proton rockets, have taken men to lunar orbit? I thought it was only the L3, which would have been used for a landing, that needed the N-1 rocket?



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48
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.

edit on 5/15/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48


The problem wasn't with taking them outside the radiation belts, it was chiefly with being able to get back to Earth without leaving a large smoking crater in the Russian steppe.


Firstly, you are saying that the Russians could have built a space capsule capable of sending Russians to the moon and back but they didn't do it. The Russians never tried. Get that through you mind.


Then you suggest that the Russians had difficulty bringing humans back from low earth orbit with the "large smoking crater" idea. Are you implying that the Russians would choose to use the exact same trajectories as NASA did for Apollo 8? What, are you out of your mind?

The Russians had every piece of the puzzle except a capsule that could take a human being through the Van Allen Belts to the moon and back. It would have been great propaganda for the USSR to send Valeria Tereshkova to the moon during the 1970's, the 1980's or the early 1990's.

You are suggesting that the Russians never went to the moon for propaganda reasons simply because the American's discouraged them with the moon landings?

That is absurd. If the American's landed on the moon 6 times the Russians would at least send one woman to the moon for propaganda in the intervening years 1972-1990. But the Russians never did that. Instead, they sent Cubans and other third world cosmonauts into space Low Earth Orbit to share the space experience... whereas NASA was focussed on send white, male, military test pilots. The real problem with Apollo is that nobody can demonstrate Apollo 8, never mind the "moon" landings.
edit on 5/15/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: add leo



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter



It would have been great propaganda for the USSR to send Valeria Tereshkova to the moon during the 1970's, the 1980's or the early 1990's.

No. It would have been coming in second place. Not good propaganda for the expense. Why do you think the US quit doing it?

BTW, the Soviets were sort of screwed up in the early 1990's. They didn't have two rubles to rub together, or republics. Not so sharp on history, are you? Like all those orbital rendezvous before the US, right?
edit on 5/15/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


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.


You keep trying to bring the N1 into this when an N1 is not required. Soviets had demonstrated capability in low earth orbit and never attempted going beyond. This is a red flag for science.

Come on.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:59 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter



Soviets had demonstrated capability in low earth orbit and never attempted going beyond.

So the N1 program was not an attempt to "go beyond?"
What was it?

Hey. Here's a thought. Why didn't the Soviets fake their own lunar missions?
edit on 5/15/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
So what was the difference between the Zond 5 capsule which carried the turtles around the moon and the potential manned version? That was an L1, right? Is it purely the extra weight of a manned version that would have meant the same booster set-up couldn't work for a manned flyby?

When you're used to the complete openness of NASA, trying to track down details of the Russian program can be quite frustrating...



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48



Is it purely the extra weight of a manned version that would have meant the same booster set-up couldn't work for a manned flyby?

Turtles don't weigh much. Or drink much. Or breathe much. Probably didn't eat anything, for that matter.
Every kilogram of payload requires more fuel. Every kilogram of fuel requires...still more fuel.

edit on 5/15/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


No. It would have been coming in second place. Not good propaganda for the expense. Why do you think the US quit doing it?


No, Soviets made a point of selecting cosmonauts for propaganda value long after Apollo 8.


From 1978-1988, the Soviet Union, transported 11 citizens of 10 nations closely allied to the USSR in the Soyuz manned vehicle. All of them flew as a result of the Intercosmos program. These space travelers have usually been referred to as "cosmonauts".



The Soviets would have been delighted to send a woman to the moon just to spite the US for propaganda value. Actually, it would be in the best interests of Communism to follow the Apollo missions with female cosmonaut missions.

Like I said the Soviets had mastered low earth orbit there is nothing holding them back from the moon........ are you saying the Russians are too stupid to engineer a space capsule that can humans can traverse the Van Allen Belts?



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Rob48



Is it purely the extra weight of a manned version that would have meant the same booster set-up couldn't work for a manned flyby?

Turtles don't weigh much. Or drink much. Or breathe much. Probably didn't eat anything, for that matter.
Every kilogram of payload requires more fuel. Every kilogram of fuel requires...still more fuel.


This is such a cruel science fact.

We really need to come up with some better fuel to burn. I dont see how we can get better than hydrogen and oxygen though. Quite literally the most explosive combination on the periodic table.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter



Like I said the Soviets had mastered low earth orbit there is nothing holding them back from the moon........ are you saying the Russians are too stupid to engineer a space capsule that can humans can traverse the Van Allen Belts?

No. That's not difficult. They had one all ready to go.

Engineering a rocket that can do it is trickier though. Apparently...since four of theirs blew up.
edit on 5/15/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Rob48



Is it purely the extra weight of a manned version that would have meant the same booster set-up couldn't work for a manned flyby?

Turtles don't weigh much. Or drink much. Or breathe much. Probably didn't eat anything, for that matter.
Every kilogram of payload requires more fuel. Every kilogram of fuel requires...still more fuel.


Maybe you can explain to the thread how turtles are reptiles with a natural resistance to radiation that is orders of magnitude beyond human flesh.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
Be my guest.
I'm sure you know more about that than I do.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Right, so weight as I assumed. Not some fundamental barrier, as SJ suggests, just a case of building a big enough rocket to lift the extra weight without blowing up.

I have read though that there was a plan to do a Zond launch to take men around the moon in late 1968, which was in part what prompted the USA's change of plan with Apollo 8, but it was cancelled because the technology wasn't ready. Presumably that would have had to use the N-1 - the Proton-K would never have been able to do it?

Some sources seem to suggest that the Proton could have launched a manned flyby but not a landing, hence my confusion.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join