The Russians never duplicated Apollo 8

a reply to: MysterX
You have to keep in mind the time and the state of the USSR at that time.

They had no more ability to properly test, construct, and move a Saturn V than they did the N1.

a reply to: peck420

It wouldn't have been without problem, but with the vast swathes of land the Soviets controlled, it could have been done...disguised as a missile test perhaps or could have even coincided the clandestine launch with a publicised launch, to mask the secret one.

There are ways to have done it and gone undetected.

The Soviets prefered to have lived in cramped squallor than let the USA get ahead of them. They launched the first satellite, the first dog in space, the first man in space, the first space walk, the first manned space station...it's a bit rich to imagine they were not able or willing, as they obviously were.

a reply to: MysterX

The USSR's problems weren't technical. They were fiscal.

They had insufficient funds to properly test and transport their N1...with tragic results.

They would have had insufficient funds to do the same with a Saturn V built with stolen documentation.

I watched the Russian documentary about the N1 rocket, and they reminiscened how tentative and unsure their efforts were at the time. The first N1 launch, which ended in explosion, was considered a successful test - the engines did fire and the rocket did leave the launch pad.

The Soviets were simply in no shape or form for huge projects like that, especially nothing like in-orbit assembly.

We can dream and imagine "what if", but history is history, and politics and money play their own game.

a reply to: MysterX

You think they could have launched a Saturn V without anybody noticing? At the height of the Cold War with the US and other nations scanning the skies with paranoid eyes? Okaaaayyy...

ESA proposed trans lunar missions with as many as 3 launch vehicles + with assembly in leo space and could be done with existing boosters, e.g. Arianne or Proton. en.wikipedia.org...

This is exactly the mission profile that I suggested earlier in the thread.... multiple launch vehicle, assembly in leo and no manned lander. You do not need a Saturn V/N-1 launcher to get a man or woman to orbit the moon. It is preposterous. There are many arrogant "space experts" in this thread who have now been debunked on that point.

Apparently ESA are just as reluctant as the Russians to proceed with manned missions outside leo. Obviously, Richard Nixon is the only one who had the balls to order these kinds of high stakes missions.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Obviously, Richard Nixon is the only one who had the balls to order these kinds of high stakes missions.

And what exactly did Richard Nixon (sworn in as president January 20 1969) have to do with Apollo 8 (launched December 21 1968)?

originally posted by: wildespace

The Soviets were simply in no shape or form for huge projects like that, especially nothing like in-orbit assembly.

Maybe not in 1968, or 1969. What about the intervening years 1970-2014?

Would the Apollo-Soyuz be an example of a demonstration of in-orbit assembly? I think it was.
Soviets also had Salyut and Mir stations which demonstrated the capability of in-orbit assembly.

You keep stubbing your toe on that N-1 rocket failure theory but now you know : a huge rocket was never required.

You fall back on the Russians were demoralized by Apollo theory but now you know : Russians enjoyed decades of success in space during the Soviet era and the logical next step for Russia was (and still remains) to order the Apollo 8 style missions.

You want to play the Soviets not aware of propaganda value of moon mission theory, however : It was Soviet propaganda which started the whole space race back in October 1957! The propaganda effect of Sputnik was so stunning that Ike had a stroke that left Nixon in charge (for awhile) with extra powers granted to his office of VP.

Flash ahead 11 years and Nixon is moving into the White House just in time to share in the propaganda glow for Apollo 8, just in time for Christmas Eve. The Genesis bible readings were inserted into the A8 narrative to enhance the propaganda glow, it was definitely planned as a F-U to those godless Red commie bastards who were hell bent on taking over the world with their atheistic government.

You can say that the Russians didn't have enough economic power or brain power to demonstrate an Apollo 8 style mission. This is a glittering generality. What they needed was a leader to say "Do it." and it would have happened, in 5-10 years.

Admitting my mistakes: I wrote earlier that Russians didn't have a man rated capsule for a moon trip, well, I was wrong. They had the Zond. That means Russians had ALL THE PIECES TO THE PUZZLE.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Obviously, Richard Nixon is the only one who had the balls to order these kinds of high stakes missions.

And what exactly did Richard Nixon (sworn in as president January 20 1969) have to do with Apollo 8 (launched December 21 1968)?

He is president-elect on November 5 1968. Automatically gets access to intelligence and national security briefings and has direct access to LBJ at any time.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

You keep stubbing your toe on that N-1 rocket failure theory but now you know : a huge rocket was never required.

You keep ignoring the fact that the lunar landing programs of both nations were based on a single vehicle approach.

I know, you keep insisting that the Soviets could have orbited the Moon without the N1. I agree, they could have if they had gone through the trouble of developing a program to do so. I know, you keep insisting the only reason they didn't is because of the Van Allen belts. I also know your argument is specious.

Why did the Soviets devote so much time and energy on the N1 project if they thought they couldn't safely traverse the Van Allen belts?
Why did not Soviets not fake an orbital flight?
Why did the Soviets not bust the US for faking it?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

And you think he just suddenly ordered them in November to do a circumlunar mission the following month?

The revised flight plan for Apollo 8 was drafted in August 1968. It was published the following month: "C Prime" being the designation for the lunar orbital flight:



Apollo 8 had nothing to do with Nixon, however much you and your conspiracy theory wish it did.

originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: MysterX

The USSR's problems weren't technical. They were fiscal.

They had insufficient funds to properly test and transport their N1...with tragic results.

They would have had insufficient funds to do the same with a Saturn V built with stolen documentation.

"They would have had insufficient funds to do the same with a Saturn V built with stolen documentation"
I am glad to see a Russian Finance Minister posting on ATS, This must be a first!

I have a screen shot for the history books now!

Regards, Iwinder

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

What they needed was a heavy launch vehicle that worked.

They didn't have one.

I know you keep going on about how they could have sent each part up, and docked them together, then got to the moon.

However, as Phage said: they had a single launch vehicle program, like we did.

Now, HERE is the question you should be asking yourself, and once you do, you then need to sit down and read how docking, rocketry, orbital mechanics, and delta V for a Lunar Injection Orbit works.

You see what a logistical and engineering nightmare it is.

Docking ports are a structural weakness. A bad structural weakness. They do not do very well under heavy thrust. And leaving LEO (of about 100 miles above the Earth) to get to the moon you have to use a transfer burn so that your apoapsis of your obit now intersects the moon's orbit. That means, you are moving a point of your orbit from about 100 miles above the Earth, to 250,000 miles above the Earth.

And the more mass you have, means the more inertia you have to over come, and the more delta V you are going to need to move your apoapsis out that far.

To do this, Apollo 8 had to burn it's S-IVB engine for almost 320 seconds. It had to burn over 63,500 pounds of fuel. The third stage engine delivered just over 1,000 kN of thrust.

You do not want to put a docking port under that kind of strain, and was a very good reason that the Apollo LM and CM did their docking AFTER the TLI burn.

So you can keep going on and on about how the Soviets could have used smaller rockets to send up individual parts, and dock them, then go to the moon.....but it would not have worked very well.

At the minimum, to simply do a flyby of the moon, they would have had to get their capsule with their cosmonauts into orbit, then they would have had to get their fuel and engine into orbit for the transfer burn. Both mass quite a bit.

They they would have had to burn fuel to meet up in orbit (no small feat either). Then dock. Then find a way to keep the whole thing together and in one piece while they burned for 2 and half minutes to get to the moon.

It was simply easier to send it all up in one package. Why do you think they were trying to develop the N1 in the first place?

Here is another question you should ask yourself:

If NASA faked the whole moon landing........why didn't the Soviets do it instead, well before NASA? I mean, surely in Soviet Socialistic Russia, a secret like that would have been much easier to keep, Da?

Once they were done faking it, just round up everyone involved and send them off to be "re-educated" in Siberia, yes? Who in the USSR would have questioned that? Any questions would lead to a bullet to the head.

Maybe it was because they (the USSR) knew that we (the US) would know that they were faking it, and would be pointed out rather quickly to the rest of the world?

Which means.......that the Soviets (remember how smart they were: first satellite, first human, so many first and how very smart they were as you have pointed out over and over in this thread) would have known right away that NASA was faking it, and would not of hesitated to show the rest of the world. It would have been a major coup for them.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Flash ahead 11 years and Nixon is moving into the White House just in time to share in the propaganda glow for Apollo 8, just in time for Christmas Eve.

Nope, still LBJ.

The Genesis bible readings were inserted into the A8 narrative to enhance the propaganda glow, it was definitely planned as a F-U to those godless Red commie bastards who were hell bent on taking over the world with their atheistic government.

Nope, that is your opinion as to why they did it. This is not why the astronauts said they did it.

You can say that the Russians didn't have enough economic power or brain power to demonstrate an Apollo 8 style mission. This is a glittering generality. What they needed was a leader to say "Do it." and it would have happened, in 5-10 years.

This is a glittering generality.

Admitting my mistakes: I wrote earlier that Russians didn't have a man rated capsule for a moon trip, well, I was wrong. They had the Zond. That means Russians had ALL THE PIECES TO THE PUZZLE.

So you're now saying it wasn't technically impossible to send a man to the moon? You are happy to accept that the Russians were perfectly capable of sending a man to the moon, so why is it so difficult for you to accept that the Americans did, particularly when there is absolutely consistent corroborating evidence of it?

Docking and assembly of modules and space stations in LEO is a completely different story to assembling a rocket with a spacecraft that would boost its way to other celestial bodies. Like "eriktheawful" pointed out, docking ports wouldn't bear the stress.

I asked very early in this thread, why hasn't any country attempted such an assembly in all these decades of space exploration and technological progress? Don't say it's because of Van Allen belts, because they could have tried unmanned rockets first.

You accuse us of generalising, but yet generalising and hand-waving a lot yourself.

I noticed there is a very common theme between the CIA video and Apollo Defender talking points... Pretty sure some of the "space experts" in this thread are getting their talking points from this CIA video circa 1981... that common theme is "America is Great! America is Best! Russians are too slow, too dumb, too poor to copycat our moon program!"

I feel sorry for those Apollo Defenders who still use Reagan-era, anti-Commie tropes to spread glittering generalities about a Russian space program that far excelled the USA space program in all respects.... EXCEPT going out of low earth orbit. And that is a very big exception.

Here it is, the 1981 CIA video where NASA Defenders get their talking points...

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
Well I have never seen that video before and I still think you are talking through your hat.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I feel sorry for those Apollo Defenders who still use Reagan-era, anti-Commie tropes to spread glittering generalities about a Russian space program that far excelled the USA space program in all respects.... EXCEPT going out of low earth orbit. And that is a very big exception.

Why? Why leave LEO unless you are going to land on the Moon (or another planet)? The Soviets didn't have a rocket that could do it. They tried, but their machine didn't work. Why would they try if they thought it wasn't possible?

What do you consider "excelling?" Prior to the shuttle disasters, how many cosmonauts died in space? How many astronauts? How many Americans (non-astronauts) were killed by exploding rockets? How many Soviets?

Who had the first human controlled spacecraft?
Who had the first mission of long enough duration for a Moon mission?
Who had the first rendezvous?
Who had the first docking?

The Soviets sort of lost their edge by 1965.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
I noticed there is a very common theme between the CIA video and Apollo Defender talking points... Pretty sure some of the "space experts" in this thread are getting their talking points from this CIA video circa 1981... that common theme is "America is Great! America is Best! Russians are too slow, too dumb, too poor to copycat our moon program!"

I feel sorry for those Apollo Defenders who still use Reagan-era, anti-Commie tropes to spread glittering generalities about a Russian space program that far excelled the USA space program in all respects.... EXCEPT going out of low earth orbit. And that is a very big exception.

Here it is, the 1981 CIA video where NASA Defenders get their talking points...

Never seen that video, have no intention of watching it. I am not American and feel no need to defend it. You are deciding my politics based on your prejudice, I find this offensive and you are completely wrong.

I am defending science, not whoever is flavour of the month in the Whitehouse,

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
I noticed there is a very common theme between the CIA video and Apollo Defender talking points... Pretty sure some of the "space experts" in this thread are getting their talking points from this CIA video circa 1981... that common theme is "America is Great! America is Best! Russians are too slow, too dumb, too poor to copycat our moon program!"

I feel sorry for those Apollo Defenders who still use Reagan-era, anti-Commie tropes to spread glittering generalities about a Russian space program that far excelled the USA space program in all respects.... EXCEPT going out of low earth orbit. And that is a very big exception.

Here it is, the 1981 CIA video where NASA Defenders get their talking points...

And in typical predictability, instead of countering all the engineering facts put out.......you instead come out with something completely off topic that has nothing to do with the actual topic.

There is nothing "Rah Rah USA!" about the fact that using a single rocket package vs. trying to use multiple dockings engineering problem.