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: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
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...


I'll just leave this for the Cold Warriors to reconsider some of their rather outdated talking points.


The ESA/ROSCOSMOS foresaw this mission with 3 launch vehicles, low earth assembly and lunar fly-by... do you think they did the math? You Bet they did the math! They saw that mass could be divided between 3 launches and obviously obviously they are not too concerned about "docking ports wouldn't bear the stress. "

For those not paying full attention... The ESA moon plan is a directly inspired knock-off of the 1955 Von Braun moon plan brought to you by Walt Disney.



edit on 5/18/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 18 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter


They saw that mass could be divided between 3 launches and obviously obviously they are not too concerned about "docking ports wouldn't bear the stress. "
Sure they are, and they would design for it. It's a different approach. One neither the Soviets or the US took.

Why did the Soviets expend so many resources on the N1 program if they thought a manned lunar mission was impossible?



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Why did the Soviets expend so many resources on the N1 program if they thought a manned lunar mission was impossible?
Why did the Americans expend so many resources in low earth orbit for the last 42 years if manned lunar missions are possible?



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
Because there was not good reason or any political will to do so.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I didn't say it was impossible. I said it was an engineer's nightmare.

Much easier to send everything up at once.....that is if you have a working heavy lift vehicle.

Ours ended up working. Theirs did not.

As for why they did not continue to place a Soviet on the moon, you're asking the wrong crowd. Ask the Russians.

Getting to the moon first was a statement. Yes, we took science along for the ride. However, who ever got their first would have bragging rights for the rest of recorded history.

Who wants to read about who was in 2nd place?

After the race was over.....exactly what advantage would the Soviets had to keep trying to place a person on the moon? A moon base perhaps, but it would only give them an advantage in doing science. They could brag about having the first actual moon base.....but then they didn't have a working heavy lift vehicle to get everything needed there.

Instead, their attention shifted to LEO.

LEO has many advantages. You can do science. You can get things up into LEO much easier and faster with smaller rockets.

And it has a tactical advantage. If you wanted to set up a missile platform, you can get your missiles into your enemies air space much quicker than launching from your own country......and most certainly from the moon (which would have taken days for them to travel and get to their destinations).

You're asking why the Soviets never bothered to try and still put a Russian on the moon after the US did. You have been alluding to that they did not do it because they realized it was impossible (yet, for some strange reason, they didn't call out the US on that.....if that were true).

Yet you've not offered up any proof that this was the reason that is solid.

What if the tables had been turned? What if the N1 had worked, and it was the Saturn V that kept blowing up? Then our history books would say how the USSR got to the moon first.

Would you then be claiming that it was all a hoax?



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: Phage
Why did the Soviets expend so many resources on the N1 program if they thought a manned lunar mission was impossible?
Why did the Americans expend so many resources in low earth orbit for the last 42 years if manned lunar missions are possible?


Exactly what good would it have done to keep going back?

Do not get me wrong. I think we should have gone back, set up a actual moon base, and then a colony. I've always felt that way.

However, when you're asking the US government to foot the bill, you need to have a good reason for it.

Was there a tactical or political advantage to keep spending that money on the moon?

The short answer was "No."

Politicians do what they think will win them votes. Many people were yelling that our government was "wasting money" by sending people to space.

So instead of sending people into deep space, we've been sending machines instead. The machines don't need food, air or water. They tend to be much smaller payloads, so they don't cost as much to send up.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
It is a fact that the only people to ever leave the earth radiation belts have been caucasian, male, US military test pilots, with the exception of one geologist who later became the US Senator of New Mexico.

BS. Several other of the Apollo astronauts were not test pilots.


originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Why didn't Jimmy Carter send NASA the orders to duplicate Apollo 8 on the 10 years anniversary?

Because it would have made him even more unpopular to waste money on a unless expensive stunt like that.


originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Why didn't the Soviets, after Apollo-Soyuz, proceed to the next step, which would be, to duplicate Apollo 8?

Because their boosters blew up.


originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

The Soviets were doing routine space rendezvous missions well before the USA.

Actually the Soviets tried to rendezvous in space in 1962 but failed Gemini 4 failed in 1965, Gemini 6 succeeded later in 1965, Gemini 8 docked in 1966. The soviets did not perform a manned docking until 1969. Where are you getting your information anyway?

Ranb
edit on 18-5-2014 by Ranb40 because: formatting

edit on 18-5-2014 by Ranb40 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ranb40
Where are you getting your information anyway?


Out of his mind.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Skylab. Mmm, currently parked somewhere in the Western Australian desert......

a reply to: onebigmonkey



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: pseudoless
Skylab. Mmm, currently parked somewhere in the Western Australian desert......

a reply to: onebigmonkey



And that's largely because it had been unmanned for 5 years and the Shuttle (which was intended to visit it) was delayed.
With no-one to re-supply it and no fuel left to boost its orbit this was inevitable. Objects in LEO graze the upper atmosphere, which causes them to lose speed, which means they head downwards.

Rocket science relies on funding, or the rockets don't go anywhere. Funding is a political decision.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Russian space program that far excelled the USA space program in all respects.... EXCEPT going out of low earth orbit.


Russia went out beyond LEO with robotic probes and landers. They were the first to photograph the far side of the Moon, and land a probe on Venus.

A manned expedition beyond LEO would have to have been with the ultimate goal of landing on the Moon, and as such, a heavy rocket designed for a landing mission would have to have been designed and succesfully tested.

By the way, I also have never seen this video, and I'm half-Russian and very proud of their achievements. But I'm also familiar with how backwards and ill-managed Russia is and was. The USA had a real technological upper hand, they had the focus and determination, and of course the Nazi scientists working for them.

History of manned space exploration might have been different had the Russians developed a heavy rocket engine like Saturn V's. For some reason, they didn't.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: Phage
Why did the Soviets expend so many resources on the N1 program if they thought a manned lunar mission was impossible?
Why did the Americans expend so many resources in low earth orbit for the last 42 years if manned lunar missions are possible?

Science and homeland security. The Space Shuttle had, at its core, a military purpose as a weapons delivery system. From a more peaceful perspective, the Shuttle and the ISS allowed us to learn about living in space long term, conduct scientific and technological research, and study and monitor Earth. What USA and other countries have done in LEO in these past decades is far more valuable than just going to the Moon all this time.

And let's not downplay the value of robotic missions to study the Solar System. In many ways, orbiters and landers on Mars and Moon have done a lot more scientific work than a pair of humans could ever do.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Title of the thread: The Russians never duplicated Apollo 8

Quote the OP:


I'm looking for some well reasoned, non technical responses that could convince me why such a simple mission objective could not be duplicated by any other advanced country for the last 46 years. Is it impossible? Or is it possible but nobody has the balls to do it?


In review, there seems to be fellowship among Apollo Defenders who are determined to fight for a sanitized CIA/NASA version of space history narratives. To them, NASA history is a holy relic replete with scriptures, saviors, relics and the revelations of 24 apostles. However, history is always under review. Sadly, the Apollo Defenders are only minimally interested in reviewing history... their main preoccupation is in defending their own concrete version of it.

I have been disappointed to see the incredible lack of depth in knowledge on the timelines of Russian space programs and the lack of mention of Kerim Kerimov who was Soviet's "secret general" of the entire space program from 1966-1991. In fact, the people in Russia had no idea who was running the space program until 1987.

So I can draw two conclusions from this.

One, Nixon cancelled Apollo and ordered a 42 year program of low earth orbit space shuttles.
Two, Kerimov cancelled the Soviet lunar effort after Korelev's death in 1966 and personally supervised a 25 year program of low earth orbit space stations and exploration.

Now we can see more clearly that American decisions to cease lunar missions but also Russian rocket engineers were in the same mindset... to stay in low earth orbit.... for a very long time.

The Apollo Defenders have made their case over a number of pages they have reiterated the main points of the CIA video from 1981. Yes, Defenders, we understand EXACTLY what your position is on the history.

Now lets some other review the history and maybe see what else we can find to get a better, more accurate, less political, narrative for the exploration of space beyond the earth radiation belts.... which coincidentally is the subject of this thread.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Title of the thread: The Russians never duplicated Apollo 8

Quote the OP:


I'm looking for some well reasoned, non technical responses that could convince me why such a simple mission objective could not be duplicated by any other advanced country for the last 46 years. Is it impossible? Or is it possible but nobody has the balls to do it?


In review, there seems to be fellowship among Apollo Defenders who are determined to fight for a sanitized CIA/NASA version of space history narratives. To them, NASA history is a holy relic replete with scriptures, saviors, relics and the revelations of 24 apostles. However, history is always under review. Sadly, the Apollo Defenders are only minimally interested in reviewing history... their main preoccupation is in defending their own concrete version of it.

I have been disappointed to see the incredible lack of depth in knowledge on the timelines of Russian space programs and the lack of mention of Kerim Kerimov who was Soviet's "secret general" of the entire space program from 1966-1991. In fact, the people in Russia had no idea who was running the space program until 1987.

So I can draw two conclusions from this.

One, Nixon cancelled Apollo and ordered a 42 year program of low earth orbit space shuttles.
Two, Kerimov cancelled the Soviet lunar effort after Korelev's death in 1966 and personally supervised a 25 year program of low earth orbit space stations and exploration.

Now we can see more clearly that American decisions to cease lunar missions but also Russian rocket engineers were in the same mindset... to stay in low earth orbit.... for a very long time.

The Apollo Defenders have made their case over a number of pages they have reiterated the main points of the CIA video from 1981. Yes, Defenders, we understand EXACTLY what your position is on the history.

Now lets some other review the history and maybe see what else we can find to get a better, more accurate, less political, narrative for the exploration of space beyond the earth radiation belts.... which coincidentally is the subject of this thread.



Hmm - there was me thinking the subject of the thread was why the Russians didn't replicate Apollo 8.

You had your response: the Russians didn't have a working heavy lift rocket, were defeated by their own political and bureaucratic machinations and it all kind of became pointless when the US beat them to it. End of thread.

You then started resorting to a generalised ad hominem attack accusing everyone who disagreed with you of parroting a CIA video and being some kind of ultra-right wing Reaganites. Except none of the people who disagree with you have seen it and it turns out that they just had the temerity to disagree with your revisionist Nixon obsession.

Don't you see the massive irony of pleading for a less political discussion then using political smears to discredit the people who gave you the facts you wanted?



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 04:20 AM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey


You then started resorting to a generalised ad hominem attack accusing everyone who disagreed with you of parroting a CIA video and being some kind of ultra-right wing Reaganites. Except none of the people who disagree with you have seen it and it turns out that they just had the temerity to disagree with your revisionist Nixon obsession.


You claim to have not seen the 1981 CIA video but your talking points are clearly iterations of the CIA video. In 1955 Wernher von Braun proposed multiple launches with low earth orbit assembly, Walt Disney promoted the film and 50 years later the ESA/ROSCOSMOS proposed exactly the same method in 2006, yet, you continue argue the dead end strategy that says NASA way is the only way. Big rockets are the only way, according to you and your buddies.

Your opinion has been noted. There is not need to try to convince everyone in this thread that your personal opinion is the true gospel. Please take a moment to consider the possibility that the history of space exploration is not exactly as you believe. It's pretty clear that your interest in this thread rests purely in the defense of Apollo. We have heard what you have to say.

After Koralev died after a medical procedure in January 1966 the total effort of Soviet space exploration was put in the hands of Karim Karimov who held the same post through out the entire 70's and 80's and he kept Soviets in low earth orbit.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter


Big rockets are the only way, according to you and your buddies.


Not the only way, perhaps, but the way that both the USA and Russia decided to go for. The American big rockets worked, the Russian ones didn't. Them's the breaks.

You still seem to think the Russians should have put men into lunar orbit as an end in itself. Why? The USA only did it as a lead-up to the main event; once that was over it was pointless carrying on.

Even before Apollo was cancelled in the 1970s, NASA had already set its sights much, much further than LEO or the moon. Don't forget: Voyager 1 was launched less than five years after Apollo 17.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Is it just me, or is anyone else confused by SayonaraJupiter's flow of reasoning, his conclusions, and his preaching? I honestly don't see what the fuss is all about concerning Apollo 8. It's like talking to a mental institution patient (no offence meant, it's just an observation), encountering broken logic and the inability of sound reasoning.

We could go on and on in circles in this thread, but I think everything that could be said has been said.

Over and out.

[I realise this post will most probably get deleted, but it had to be posted after all the effort we have gone to. Is there something that SayonaraJupiter is on to, but we somehow unable to grasp? If so, feel free to enlighten us. Why didn't Russia duplicate Apollo 8?]
edit on 20-5-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 05:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

You claim to have not seen the 1981 CIA video but your talking points are clearly iterations of the CIA video. In 1955 Wernher von Braun proposed multiple launches with low earth orbit assembly, Walt Disney promoted the film and 50 years later the ESA/ROSCOSMOS proposed exactly the same method in 2006, yet, you continue argue the dead end strategy that says NASA way is the only way. Big rockets are the only way, according to you and your buddies.


No, 'm not claiming I haven't seen it, I'm telling you I haven;t seen it. Where have I argued that the NASA way is the only way? What I've told you is what happened. I'm sorry this doesn't coincide with what you prefer had happened.



Your opinion has been noted. There is not need to try to convince everyone in this thread that your personal opinion is the true gospel.


You started this thread as a vessel for your own manifesto. You are clearly not interested in what anyone else has to say.



Please take a moment to consider the possibility that the history of space exploration is not exactly as you believe.


Try reading actual history books instead of trying to re-write it to match your own view as to what happened.



It's pretty clear that your interest in this thread rests purely in the defense of Apollo. We have heard what you have to say.


And? I don't need your permission to post, and I'll post whatever I consider to be relevant to the thread. You asked why the Soviets didn't repeat Apollo 8. Your subtext is that it is because Apollo 8 was impossible, although you also admit that the Soviet's had the capability to do it.



After Koralev died after a medical procedure in January 1966 the total effort of Soviet space exploration was put in the hands of Karim Karimov who held the same post through out the entire 70's and 80's and he kept Soviets in low earth orbit.


So maybe you need to go do some reading on Karimov.

In the mean time, here is some reading for people who are actually interested in finding answers, instead of just paying lip service to the idea.

www.astronautix.com...

www.scientificamerican.com...

www.fas.org...

books.google.co.uk... sq6yOwLM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hyZ7U-feF4HB7Ab7-4DwCA&ved=0CGEQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=the%20soviet%20response%20to%20apollo%208&f=false



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

Well he thinks LADEE is a weapons platform, so...

www.abovetopsecret.com...




top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join