Why didn't the Soviet Union land a man on the moon?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
Actually I feel innovation is only stifled when it's hamstrung by government regulations. Some businesses may be promoting those regulations because it stifles competition, but the free market in itself is not the problem; in fact it's what some larger corporations with huge lobbies (the largest corporate lobby is actually GE, believe it or not) are hiding from.


I think we're basically reaching the same conclusion from different sides of the story. My point is precisely that because of the cozy relationship between corporations and government representatives, competition is suppressed and innovation slowed because the biggest players use their influence to steer contracts in their direction, regardless of whether they have a superior product to offer (many don't).

We do not live in a free market.

Demand-side economics, where industry succeeds because the working class has disposable income and wants products to buy, thus paving the way for new ideas and businesses to flourish, IS a free market.

What we have now is largely supply-side, where industry chooses how much workers make and what products will be available to them, and essentially writes legislation in its own favor through our "elected" representatives, is more like a fascist state.

A truly "free" market is driven by the Demand of the People who seek products and services, not by the Supply corporations are willing to provide.

As far as government regulations go, some things MUST be regulated. Without regulation (and aggressive enforcement thereof) there is no framework governing what a company can or cannot do. Because the corporation's impetus is always profit rather than the good of the community or the health and well-being of its customers, the corporation must thus be "reined in" so they know where the "line" is and what the consequences of crossing it will be. Just as the Constitution (supposedly) dictates the functioning and limitations of the US Government, so to do regulations dictate the limitations of industry in seeking profit.

Without it there can be no justice for those wronged by corporate powers.

Regulation in and of itself, I would argue, has absolutely zero effect on innovation as a driving force in our economy. In fact, knowing what society's limitations are offers MORE freedom for innovation within those guidelines, and in a demand-side economy offers more room for new entrepreneurs to flourish.

No, what stifles innovation is, again, the incestuous relationship between industry and government, with representatives taking "campaign contributions" (bribes) in exchange for sweetheart deals, procurement of hardware with shoddy safety records (like the Osprey), extension of programs beyond obsolescence (the Raptor), and the marginalizing of innovators from smaller, less-well-connected companies whose product may be superior but because they're not part of the "good ol' boy" network they get nowhere. The ability of mega-corporations to write their own regulations, especially those that are able to use their government influence to eliminate their competition independent of market forces, is an abomination and the antithesis of the "free market".

And make no mistake--the last thing big companies want is innovation. Innovation in and of itself is great--but anything truly new developed today won't be seen in the market for five to ten years, once the marketing team has decided how best to make money from it--thus essentially rendering it moot. New ideas also usually come from new people, and in the process those new people step on old toes.


Actually spaceshipone is much closer to an X-15 than a space shuttle. The x-15 was another suborbital rocket powered winged vehicle that require a piggyback to a high altitude before launch and could reach the edge of space. NASA built the X-15 before we even had a single spaceflight under our belt (though it didn't reach the internationally agreed upon edge of space until 1963). Burt Rutan's accomplishment is incredible, but it is much more like the earliest days of NASA flight than it is modern orbital spaceflight. The reason the Ares program is taking so long has a lot more to do with the amount of funding than the tech. That said, I have little doubt that a private organization with the same resources could get it done better and faster. The sad fact of the matter is that there just isn't enough profit motive to go beyond earth orbit just yet.


True, it's not "real" spaceflight, but the fact he was able to do what NASA seemingly can't (or won't) with a vastly larger budget (opening space to The People rather than keeping it sacred for a select few elites) is a huge accomplishment. Spaceship Two will have greater capability.

NASA isn't building this stuff on their own, either. They contract out the design and construction work, just as they did in the old days--most of the real work IS being done by "private" organizations (exactly how "private" a mega-corporation is is debatable). Funding IS a problem, yes, but how much is really needed and how much of the price tag is over-inflated by the contractors? When political forces driven by corporate greed create what is, essentially, a monopoly, how do you know you're getting the best price for the work to be done?

If NASA hired Rutan for this project I'll bet we'd see a working spacecraft within two years at a vastly lower cost. But that doesn't line the pockets of Congressional members, or ensure decades-long contracts for companies so big they effectively cannibalize themselves in search of profit (look up who owns who in terms of media and how closely the media is connected to everything from military contracts to food production, and essentially every product that is advertised in the various mainstream media, and you'll see what I mean).


Most innovative perhaps, but without a doubt the most difficult, complicated part were the massive engines. There has never been as powerful a booster as the Saturn V, from a payload standpoint. The little launch escape rockets alone were more powerful than the redstone rocket that made Alan Shepard the first american in space. The powerful F-1 engine of the Saturn V took 7 years to perfect. The completed rocket contained 3 million parts. The apollo guidance computer, although it represented a leap in technology, can be recreated in your own basement by yourself if you have the skill:
klabs.org...


Understood. But again, you don't "lose" that knowledge. My point is, all the components we need to make this a reality right now are on the shelf, waiting to be used. The new spacecraft is supposed to replace the horribly complicated Space Shuttle (which I think was a good idea at the time, but hampered by too many people wanting to "leave their mark" on it, thus driving up complexity and cost) with a newer, disposable, reliable machine that can carry four astronauts within what is essentially the entire Earth/Moon "neighborhood". NASA claims it's a long process and that they've "lost" the knowledge they need. I contend the knowledge cannot be lost; rather it was ignored for too long in favor of less cost-effective systems and now the procurement process is being held back by the corporate/government machine.

As it stands, the Orion spacecraft, which is the primary vehicle needed right now, will not be ready until at least 2013, and we'll have to rely on the Russians to provide "taxi service" to the ISS. There is no sound engineering reason why it should not be ready to fly before the Shuttles are retired in 2010.

It's not about getting the right vehicle for the job, it's about putting dollars in the right pockets--which is about as anti-Capitalist and anti-"free market" as you can get.

[edit on 7/9/2008 by The Nighthawk]




posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Because the corporation's impetus is always profit rather than the good of the community or the health and well-being of its customers, the corporation must thus be "reined in" so they know where the "line" is and what the consequences of crossing it will be.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with this. A corporations impetus is always to keep its stock price high. You do that by satisfying customers and guaranteeing future returns, not immediate profit by ripping people off. Companies that do the latter inevitably crumble when investors find out about it.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
The Soviets did try to get a man on the moon after the US. However, their N1 rockets were anything but a success.

There were four launches between 1969-1972.

www.russianspaceweb.com...



From my understanding, there were some deaths involved as well



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   


True, it's not "real" spaceflight, but the fact he was able to do what NASA seemingly can't (or won't) with a vastly larger budget (opening space to The People rather than keeping it sacred for a select few elites) is a huge accomplishment. Spaceship Two will have greater capability.

I didn't say it wasn't real spaceflight because frankly it is, but it's nowhere near the equivalent of orbital flight. He was able to do what NASA was already done doing 40 years ago. Spaceshiptwo will be able to carry more to a higher apogee, but will still be nowhere near orbital velocity. It's still the tourist's equivalent of the X-15.


NASA isn't building this stuff on their own, either. They contract out the design and construction work, just as they did in the old days--most of the real work IS being done by "private" organizations (exactly how "private" a mega-corporation is is debatable). Funding IS a problem, yes, but how much is really needed and how much of the price tag is over-inflated by the contractors?

This stuff isn't cheap. Look at the ticket price of a suborbital flight on the 100% reuseable spaceshiptwo if you don't believe me. Now imagine having to rebuild part or all of your spaceship for every single flight. Market competition for spaceflight contracts is precisely the reason we have the most advanced spaceflight program in the world.


When political forces driven by corporate greed create what is, essentially, a monopoly, how do you know you're getting the best price for the work to be done?

There is no monopoly in the aerospace industry.


If NASA hired Rutan for this project I'll bet we'd see a working spacecraft within two years at a vastly lower cost.

His spacecraft would need a piggyback just to reach suborbital heights. Sorry, that doesn't even come close to meeting the huge demands of orbital, let alone translunar, spaceflight.


Understood. But again, you don't "lose" that knowledge. My point is, all the components we need to make this a reality right now are on the shelf, waiting to be used.

Do you want to use 40 year old technology or do you want to do things right with modern designs and alloys that will be lighter and more reliable? Do you want people designing and building it who have worked on projects this large before or do you want to hand it off to a brand new company with an extremely short track record of accomplishments that are confined to the very beginnings of spaceflight?



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


Intresting post Magicmushroom..about the radiation in outerspace. Some of us at work came across this intresting feature just in idle conversation about the Ozone levels disappearing. One of us finally reasoned ...if the Ozone level is disappearing and harmful radiation is happening...why are they shooting Astronauts into outer space to be radiated?

One way to know..is ..how many Astronauts have had children after thier outerspace missions?? Any problems birthing children after missions to outer space??

On another tack...to with the Russians problems in getting into outerspace..sufficient to effect a soft landing...is Accelerometer technology.

What someone told me long ago is that the Russians could never build a competent accelerometer ...to link to the engines ..sufficient to control a soft landing...before we managed to do it.
Accelerometers would be used to measure velocity along several axis of movements...in a three dimensional system..an inertial navigation guidance sysem.....then linked to the engine controllers. Inability to measure velocity means inability to control thrust...you would over thrust and not be able to land..or under thrust and heavily impact or slam on the surface. This system would need to be better than 100 percent reliable...on a re entry landing to a hard surface...like on the moon....no atmosphere. No atmosphere ..no parachute.

The acceleromter data ...would be linked to a computer then linked to the engine controls...absolute reliability needed here. Seems to me that the Russians slammed several landers into the surface of the moon in this attempt.

If the Russians today ..have a competant accelerometer..I know from whence it came.

However...someone posted about the bundling of engines used in the Russian technique is correct..this would be a highly complex system...right from the starting gate. I found this difference in approach very striking.
The Russians were uable to come up with a large volume...high thrust rocket engine.

Also when speaking with engineers...here at this shipyard ..while working on the submarine project...they told me some of them have contacts with NASA engineers. They were told that when the Russian/American space programs linked up in outer space..and our guys went across to the Russian space ship for a tour...they were surprised and shocked to find out what kind of equipment they were using in traveling into outer space. They could not believe the Russian Astronauts went up in that space ship...very very crude.

On another note...someone is correct when they stated that there is little of any value outside of propaganda ..in going to the moon.

Demand and technology was to change rapidly and radically to where it became obvious after the first trip in 1969....that the efforts at conquering space....were to take place around this planet...not to and fro the moon.
It quickly became one of communications ,spy, weather sattelites...to control and monitor what was happening here ....on earth. This is obvious in the advent of GPS satellites, satellite phones...cell phones..et al. Most of the moneys used in outerspace were to be for the purpose of controlling what was was happening down here on EARTH. Not on the moon. This is to where the moneys went ..not to and fro the moon. Even the Russians were to come to understand this simple problem...and work on solutions.

Which begs the question....what are they really doing with the Hubble Telescope....looking deep into outer space..or are they really looking down here...and passing this secret off as if they are looking into outer space. They are never going to get there to these places they claim to be looking..for 500 years or more. OF what immediate use are these informations?? The payoff must be something more immediate to justify the expense.

Are we dumb enough to believe the stock issue story...because we have been fed Star Trek, Star Wars..Babylon 5 and other standard drivel?? You folks figure this one out for yourselves.

Some thoughts for your reading and thinking pleasure.

Orangetom



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Google Project Horizon, which studied the feasibility of putting a military base on the Moon. When submarines were able to be equipped with ICBMs, the plans were scratched, since now a submarine could accomplish what a missile coming from the moon could have accomplished.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Because the corporation's impetus is always profit rather than the good of the community or the health and well-being of its customers, the corporation must thus be "reined in" so they know where the "line" is and what the consequences of crossing it will be.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with this. A corporations impetus is always to keep its stock price high. You do that by satisfying customers and guaranteeing future returns, not immediate profit by ripping people off. Companies that do the latter inevitably crumble when investors find out about it.


But investors do not find out, more often than not. You're assuming corporations are honest, and that they do everything "above board"--a dangerous mistake to make on your part. People mean nothing to them. Customers are hassles that sometimes cost more than the profit to be made from them. Corporate mentality is to get what you can for the lowest cost possible to increas profits, and I defy you to find, in any of the top 5 corps in the US, a single one that discloses the whole truth to its investors.

Investors in Bear Stearns knew NOTHING of the company's failing health when that bank tried selling out. Likewise, Enron routinely lied to its shareholders.

The fact shareholders have little to no say in the makeup of the board, CEO pay, etc. should tell you something. One of the major airlines (United, I think, been a while since I read it) made their first profit since 9/11 a couple years back. However, because of the bonuses guaranteed the CEO in the event the company turned a profit, ALL of it was erased and they were back in the red overnight. You think shareholders with real power over the running of the company would have allowed that?

Were this a perfect system where shareholders have real power over a company's operations besides just pulling their investment, I would partially agree with you. As it stands even pulling their investments is no punishment; what they dump someone else will always buy and whatever problems the company has are never solved.

In the current economic environment companies have every reason to rip off everybody they can. Most even rip off their own shareholders. Fast profit is the name of the game. Nothing matters but this quarter. If you think that's not the case in Corporate America today, you're living a fairy tale.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
I didn't say it wasn't real spaceflight because frankly it is, but it's nowhere near the equivalent of orbital flight. He was able to do what NASA was already done doing 40 years ago. Spaceshiptwo will be able to carry more to a higher apogee, but will still be nowhere near orbital velocity. It's still the tourist's equivalent of the X-15.


Stepping stones. The goal is a private, fully functional space station for tourism. From there it's just a matter of time before colonization takes hold.



This stuff isn't cheap. Look at the ticket price of a suborbital flight on the 100% reuseable spaceshiptwo if you don't believe me. Now imagine having to rebuild part or all of your spaceship for every single flight. Market competition for spaceflight contracts is precisely the reason we have the most advanced spaceflight program in the world.


But there's not as much competition as there once was. Where there were dozens of aerospace companies before, now there are a tiny handful. And that's not due to competition either--it has more to do with graft and corruption between industry and government than with any kind of "free market" force. I know you don't want to believe it but how else do you explain the consolidation of aerospace? General Dynamics is now owned by Lockheed. Is it because they had no product to sell, or theirs was any less effective than Lockheed's? No, it's because Lockheed used political influence and bribes to swing the procurement decisions in their favor, then extended an olive branch to their (now failing) competitor to buy them out.


There is no monopoly in the aerospace industry.


This statement is laughable. Sorry, but true, there IS a monopoly. I dare you to try and start up your own aerospace company and compete for a military/NASA contract based solely on your product. You'd be bankrupt before the people in charge of procurement even finish laughing at you.


His spacecraft would need a piggyback just to reach suborbital heights. Sorry, that doesn't even come close to meeting the huge demands of orbital, let alone translunar, spaceflight.


And for a long time the Shuttle was intended as a piggyback as well. It can and does work. Of course that's assuming the vehicle he built would be exactly like what he's doing now, which I doubt. If he was given the requirements and the contract I believe he could meet them better and at lower cost than the big guys.


Do you want to use 40 year old technology or do you want to do things right with modern designs and alloys that will be lighter and more reliable? Do you want people designing and building it who have worked on projects this large before or do you want to hand it off to a brand new company with an extremely short track record of accomplishments that are confined to the very beginnings of spaceflight?


If it ain't broke, don't fix it. A rocket is a rocket is a rocket. It's a controlled explosion used to send a payload into space. There's only so much innovation that can be made in that regard, and frankly, we don't really need a new booster system. We have stuff that works now. The problems I'm reading about from the science publications are in building the crew vehicles, which should also be a piece of cake at this point.

Are you seriously telling me that what is essentially a step down in spaceflight technology is so hard now that it takes this long?



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
There is no real benefit in "men on the moon" except for propaganda purposes. Once USSR lost - why waste resources to come only second and in this way reminding who came first?
Just as in US moon landing is celebrated and burned in memory, in Russia it is the same with first cosmonaut. What would they achieve by sending men to moon? They send robots for data - cheaper.


I notice your argument doesn't extend to "the first man in space". Now why is that?


You see, if I was an USSR propagandist, I would have said "Yes, the Americans were the first on the moon; however, we believe in keeping our astronauts SAFE. We don't believe in unnecessarily risking their lives like the AMERICANS are doing!"


Think outside the box now. Why HASN'T anyone else landed on the moon? Sometimes people have a true NEED for symbolic things (think flags here).

You would think that the symbolism in being able to say "Look! We have done what only one other country has done!" would be a phenomenal way to unite a countries' populace behind it's leaders.

Use Occam's razor and think of the most likely explanation.
(Here's a hint: you can't say "because of the cost", because as we know, governments are all to willing to piss money down a drain on equally "worthless" things)

Here's another hint: Think outside the box.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Because the corporation's impetus is always profit rather than the good of the community or the health and well-being of its customers, the corporation must thus be "reined in" so they know where the "line" is and what the consequences of crossing it will be.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with this. A corporations impetus is always to keep its stock price high. You do that by satisfying customers and guaranteeing future returns, not immediate profit by ripping people off. Companies that do the latter inevitably crumble when investors find out about it.

Is that right? Well, I'd like to buy a washer and drier that will last for 20 years. Where can I purchase that? I'd even pay 2 or 3 times the amount of what are considered "regular" washers and driers today. Any suggestions? My family owned a refridgerator that operated flawlessly for over 30 years. Where can I buy such a device today?

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that, with today's technology, computers, and materials, that companies are incapable of building a cost-effective refridgerator that lasts 30 years?

No, I think the corporate examples from the last 20 years shows that you raise your stock price by ripping people off. Look at Enron. If they hadn't made some stupid, critical errors, they'd STILL be ripping people off, with none the wiser.

Here's two things that PC manufacturers know, but do not tell their customers. 1) If you put a PC on a battery backup (NOT a "power strip") it will last magnitudes of order longer before having a failure. 2) If you erase your hard drive, and reload Windows, that "old, sluggish" PC will perform amazingly fast. Those are FACTS. They aren't even up for debate. Since those are true, why don't PC manufacturers tell their customers this? Could it be because they are willing to sacrifice long-term customer happiness for short-term profits? Could it be because they want to make even MORE PCs, and WANT your computers to fail earlier than they could be made to last?

I'll leave that for you to decide.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by sir_chancealot]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

Originally posted by ngchunter
I didn't say it wasn't real spaceflight because frankly it is, but it's nowhere near the equivalent of orbital flight. He was able to do what NASA was already done doing 40 years ago. Spaceshiptwo will be able to carry more to a higher apogee, but will still be nowhere near orbital velocity. It's still the tourist's equivalent of the X-15.


Stepping stones. The goal is a private, fully functional space station for tourism. From there it's just a matter of time before colonization takes hold.

Then private organizations are free to do as they will. Spaceshipone is proof of that. It doesn't mean that government should be handing them money to do it purely for the sake of the private sector; it defeats the point and makes it no different than contractors doing it. Indeed, Bigelow aerospace is already working towards an inflatable space station. But none of these endeavours can meet the demand right now for establishing the basic infrastructure of lunar exploration. LEO infrastructure is already there thanks to NASA.


But there's not as much competition as there once was. Where there were dozens of aerospace companies before, now there are a tiny handful. And that's not due to competition either--it has more to do with graft and corruption between industry and government than with any kind of "free market" force. I know you don't want to believe it but how else do you explain the consolidation of aerospace? General Dynamics is now owned by Lockheed. Is it because they had no product to sell, or theirs was any less effective than Lockheed's? No, it's because Lockheed used political influence and bribes to swing the procurement decisions in their favor, then extended an olive branch to their (now failing) competitor to buy them out.

Failure of smaller competitors to win enough contracts to survive has nothing to do with the purely private competition for space, which exists, but regardless of what you want to believe it's expensive. General dynamics sold one section of itself to lockheed, not the whole thing. General dynamics still exists and in 1999 re-entered the aerospace industry with their purchase of gulfstream aerospace. Companies come and go, that in itself is not evidence of "corruption."

Spaceshiptwo tickets aren't expensive because of a lack of competition; many similar ventures are in the offing, but the basic fact is that it's an expensive business to the ordinary person no matter how efficient your business is. If the cost of entry could be made cheaper it would be, and one day it will be.



This statement is laughable. Sorry, but true, there IS a monopoly. I dare you to try and start up your own aerospace company and compete for a military/NASA contract based solely on your product. You'd be bankrupt before the people in charge of procurement even finish laughing at you.

Laughable? Name the monopoly. Who is it? Lockheed? Boeing? Airbus? Arianespace? By definition there is no monopoly of aerospace. That I am not an aerospace engineer with a business is not proof of anything, it's not my field. There are new companies out there, SpaceX for one. Sorry, no monopoly exists by any stretch of the imagination.



And for a long time the Shuttle was intended as a piggyback as well. It can and does work. Of course that's assuming the vehicle he built would be exactly like what he's doing now, which I doubt. If he was given the requirements and the contract I believe he could meet them better and at lower cost than the big guys.

I see no evidence at all to support that assumption. He's never taken on anything THAT large of a scale. The original space shuttle idea was a direct extension of the x-15 project, but it was never as ambitious as the actual orbiter we have now. If scaled composites wanted to compete for the contract they could have done so, but they know they'd laughed at and for good reason. They can come back when they've proven they can build a reliable manned orbiter at least.



If it ain't broke, don't fix it. A rocket is a rocket is a rocket.

Sorry, I completely disagree. Every rocket is unique and has a given performance ability, payload capacity, operating cost, reliability, etc. The technology in the Saturn V is outdated. It makes no sense to redo what's already been done when we can improve on it. Improvements are what bring new technologies and make spaceflight worth the risk.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Because they couldn't afford it. They couldn't back then, they can't now.

It'll be the Chinese (after selling us and the rest of the world all that cheap plastic crap they make over there) with the resources and political will to go to the moon and beyond.

If we're lucky they'll let us hitch a ride - perhaps to do their laundry or build their ports on Mars, or...?

Sure is a different world now than it was in 1969...



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that, with today's technology, computers, and materials, that companies are incapable of building a cost-effective refridgerator that lasts 30 years?

Prove that every single fridge made today is worse than ones made before it. I think you'll find that the most common failures of modern appliances are due to the newer features of those appliances. It's a tradeoff, not a ripoff.


No, I think the corporate examples from the last 20 years shows that you raise your stock price by ripping people off. Look at Enron. If they hadn't made some stupid, critical errors, they'd STILL be ripping people off, with none the wiser.

Uh no, they fell apart because the system did what it's supposed to do. They couldn't cook the books forever and get away with it. You actually provided a perfect example of why I'm right and you're wrong. You might be able to "raise your stock price" in the very near term by ripping someone off, but as soon as the investors find out what happened you're going to be out of business much faster than if what you said was true.


Here's two things that PC manufacturers know, but do not tell their customers. 1) If you put a PC on a battery backup (NOT a "power strip") it will last magnitudes of order longer before having a failure. 2) If you erase your hard drive, and reload Windows, that "old, sluggish" PC will perform amazingly fast. Those are FACTS. They aren't even up for debate. Since those are true, why don't PC manufacturers tell their customers this?

You're seriously comparing marketing of new machines to corporate fraud? Give me a break! Other companies specialize in MAKING THE BATTERY BACK UP SYSTEMS and helping you get your old computer working at peak efficency. It's up to a company to advertise someone else's product? No, and it isn't fraudlent to not do so either. I don't see them censoring this information or shutting down this thread so there must not be a conspiracy by companies to conceal the information.


Could it be because they want to make even MORE PCs, and WANT your computers to fail earlier than they could be made to last?

If they wanted your computer to fail sooner all they'd have to do is make all the important parts propietary, but guess what, when companies tried that the market did not tolerate it and they took their business to competitors. Guess what happened then? The companies that did that stopped doing it. The fact that I can now go to the store and pick up a standard ASUS power supply to swap out my default Dell supply without blowing up my motherboard is proof that the market works.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Actually, NASA is encouraging private spacecraft development with its Commercial Orbital Transport Services (C.O.T.S.) program.

After the space shuttle fleet is retired in les than 2 1/2 years, NASA would not have there own way to get supplies to the space station (until the Ares 1 rocket comes online in 2014). They could use the Russian "Progress" and the European "Jules Verne ATV", but they want an American company to provide this service.

Therefore NASA has been encouraging American private industry to step in, and has already awarded a few contracts for private spacecraft development.

They originally awarded three companies -- Rocketplane Kistler, SpaceX, and Orbital Sciences Corporation -- with development contracts. However, only SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation are still actively pursuing the design of a supply spacecraft. In February of this year, NASA awarded the C.O.T.S. contract to Orbital Design Corporation another contract to further pursue the design of the unmanned "Cygnus Spacecraft" and its "Taurus II" launch vehicle. The CXygnus is unmanned, but this can lead to NASA turning to private companies to provide manned transportation also.

This is different than other NASA spacecraft contracts since they want the private corporation to be involved with the launching and operations of the mission -- not just handing the hardware over to NASA, like in the old days.

Here are some links to Orbital Science Corporation's new Spacecraft. They hope to have a test launch in 2010:

Cygnus Spacecraft/Taurus II Launch Vehicle
Orbital Sciences Taurus II

[edit on 7/9/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Orange, I think you will find that the Russian engines were and still are superior to the American ones. They developed a closed combustion cycle for their engines which the US never managed to do, the shuttle uses Russian engine technology to this day. Even at the height of the US rocket program Russian engines were far more powerful than the US counterparts.

Also from the Russian perspective was the cost factor, while they were maintaning massive armed forces at the expense of everything else I think they knew it could not be done at that time so why waste the money trying to do it.

Remember they knew about the radiation problem from their own rersearch and tests and the last thing they were going to do was fry their own crew on global tv.

Look at it this way, what probally happened was plan a and plan b. Plan a was send the boys up in the rocket if they die a fiery death we dont want that shown to the World. Plan b was lets do a televised mock up in case plan a fails and of course it was doomed to failure so what we all saw was plan b.

No doubt all those involved were serious about their attempts to do the impossible but I'm affraid it was impossible just as it is today. If nothing else the Moon could be a massive reservoir of fuels, precious metals etc. every reason to get up there and colonise it but as far as we know were still stuck in near Earth orbit.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


I sit corrected. I had not heard of these programs before. My analysis was based on what I know from acquaintances in defense contracting roles, who tell me the procurement of new systems has as much, and often more so, to do with the politics (such as what district gets the manufacturing jobs for said project, and how much money each competing company has contributed to the right campaigns, and of course which contractors the people in charge invest most heavily in) as it does with innovation, quality, and capability. If NASA is bucking that trend more power to them.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Orange, I think you will find that the Russian engines were and still are superior to the American ones. They developed a closed combustion cycle for their engines which the US never managed to do, the shuttle uses Russian engine technology to this day. Even at the height of the US rocket program Russian engines were far more powerful than the US counterparts.

Uh, no, totally and completely wrong. The F-1 engine from the Saturn V is still, to this day, the most powerful liquid rocket engine ever used. The russians were unable to build a rocket engine that powerful which is why they resorted to using a huge clusters of smaller engines for their N-1 rocket, which is why it was a complete disaster with 4 complete failures and no success. At no time have the russians ever matched the superiority of the F-1 engine.


Remember they knew about the radiation problem from their own rersearch and tests and the last thing they were going to do was fry their own crew on global tv.

There is no "radiation problem" - even James van Allen said as much.



No doubt all those involved were serious about their attempts to do the impossible but I'm affraid it was impossible just as it is today. If nothing else the Moon could be a massive reservoir of fuels, precious metals etc. every reason to get up there and colonise it but as far as we know were still stuck in near Earth orbit.

I'm afraid there's nothing impossible about it. Private citizens on the ground were able to monitor the flights both optically through telescope and in at least one case, with radio as well. There's nothing fake about apollo.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
So you are telling me that the Soviets just took us at our word that there was nothing of interest there?

Would the USA's response be similar if the Soviets handed landed on the moon and told us there was nothing to be gained from going there?

By the same token... What's the value in climbing Mount Everest? There is nothing of interest up there either... Yet, People still attempt to climb it every year despite the fact that the mountain has probably claimed more lives than both space programs combined.

I've also heard that advances in technology over the years have made scaling it more feasible.

Yet, the moon is curiously still out of reach or too costly to do vs. the risk for everyone else but the United States though.

Hmmm...



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Among the engineer and scientist communities there is an inside track or means of communication within the trade so to speak. Informations and language of the trade is exchanged in ways and manners which never make it out to the bulk of the public.

Back when I was working on the Los Angeles submarine program we would occasionally get engineers coming down on board the boats to sort out and analyze certain problems and we would exchange information's and data's.

One day in random conversation the topic came up about the space program. What our Shipbuilding Engineers told me about the space program was that back in the Gemini program...there were a series of spacecraft hookups where the Soviet Cosmonauts and our Astronauts would get to visit each others spacecraft when they were docked together in outer space while orbiting the earth.
What our Engineers relayed to me via their NASA contacts, was that our Astronauts were shocked that the Russians even went up in their spacecraft...they were astonishingly crude. None of the safety features which we take for granted in ours. There were little to no extras.

I have also been told that our first satellite was delayed politically so that the Russians could get into space first...giving our government the political leverage to begin a space race while fleecing the public across the board..in everything needed socially and politically to change America to the template needed in the future..this template is bearing fruit in the last ten years unto now. Our first satellite was ready for months before the Russians but never given the green light to go...until after Sputnik was launched.


Why cannot the Russians land a man on the moon...

They cannot land a man on the moon for the very same reason they cannot build an Aircraft Carrier with a working steam Catapult. They cannot do the long term precision heavy design and machine work to get a steam catapult built much less continue to work and operate.
This is known information's in the trades but kept from the General American Public in order to instill constant fear of the Russian Bear.

One more thing of importance here..it is OUR OWN government who has played us for a sucker here..not the Russians...or the Russian government.

The early space program required a very very fine precise working instrument called an accelerometer to accurately measure the velocity of a spacecraft in order to successfully control rocket burn.

To little control and one would not control rocket burn enough to prevent slamming onto the surface of the moon. To much control and the rocket motors would burn to long negating the ability to soft land until one ran out of fuel and crashed. This is the crux of the Russian design problem and why they could not successfully achieve a moon landing. They tried many times and kept slamming their unmanned spacecraft onto the surface of the moon because they could not get a successful working accelerometer to control rocket burn for a soft landing.

My understanding of the early accelerometers is that the initial batch of these precision measuring instruments were built by hand. In those days there were only about five machinists who could continually do precision work down into tolerances beyond 100,000 ths of an inch...by hand. All of them lived in the USA and all of them around Detroit Michigan.

Interestingly enough even our own WHORISH LYING government is loath to give us this information's and or tell us the truth about this question. Notice that this is a question avoided by NASA and all the supposed "EXPERTS."

Now if the Russians today have a working precision Accelerometer...I know from whence it came..not from Russia.

Notice also that even the Independent French or other Governments do not attempt a moon landing..why is this??

The Russians and their Space program have been used or misused to keep Americans in Check and Fear for some 40 plus years and in support of a space program which is turning out to be a joke in the face of diminishing budgets.
In like manner the Russian/Soviet Military was used in the same way to keep us in fear and check supporting measures and politics which we would not ordinarily be want to support. Fear is a very powerful political tool. Our current as well as past governments are heavily invested the "FEAR" Business as a career opportunity. Nothing changed here.
They just realized that the Russians were no longer useful to keep the public in fear...particularly since the fall of the Wall In Germany and other nations.
Don't worry...they will come up with someone else or something else to fear. For now it will be Muslims or Diseases.

The Russians like other nations have been carefully spoon fed certain technologies to make them appear to be superior and or a threat.

They were given this technology or allowed to steal it...the Chinese as well.

The 1980s Olympics in Russia were cancelled not because of what was Happening in Afghanistan..but because it was suddenly realized that thousands of Americans could not be allowed to run around Soviet Russia and see how horribly Un Super Power they really were. This was the political danger..not what was happening in Afghanistan.

Why do you think their space shuttle looks so much like ours??
Why do you think they produced a supersonic bomber which looked so much like our B1 bombers?

You ....yourself.. can begin to piece this fingerprint together after learning to think outside the box of what passes for news and information's in American today. Be very careful about what one gets off the Internet as well. There is alot of dis or misinformations out here as well.
Most People do not realize what a heavy paper curtain has been over a supposedly free country like America for over 40 plus years now.

The true enemy of the Russian/Soviet Government was their own people. It was their own people which was the threat to them and their power. They just used us Americans to keep their people in check when needed by Hegelian Dialectic.

The enemy of Our American Government has always been the American people. And our own Government has been in the business of Hegelian Dialectic and fear mongering amongst us for many many years to accomplish their control and maintain their power.

There is little difference in the end result of what happened in the Soviet Union and where the United States will be lead in the future...and by a similar template or fingerprint...and by the same masters.

Soon enough we ourselves will not have sufficient industrial base to produce these accelerometers or other high tech goods.
This is not accidental and very much in like manner to the way in which the olde Soviet Government, under the control of their masters, sold the Russian people down the drain for lucre and power.

Buckle up.

Orangetom

[edit on 30-7-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 



Soon enough we ourselves will not have sufficient industrial base to produce these accelerometers or other high tech goods.


You should look up something called laser-ring gyros. They are very high-tech accelerometers. Even in the 1960s, airplanes had Inertial Navigation Sysytems (yes, even the USSR) Modern passenger airplanes have them, they've been around for decades. Russia buys Boeings. See???

(OH...and ICBMs use the same principle, for navigation to target. USSR has those, too)

Nice tissue-tapestry of somewhat factual information combined with a good deal of misinfo.

Your fantasy about 'accelerometers' was likely fed to you as a joke by someone.

AND, I believe you mistook the Apollo-Soyeuz mission, and that docking event, with Gemini. There was no way any of that occured, in that time frame. You do know that there is a large Russian presence on the ISS, right? (One of the toilets is theirs...) Does a Bear crap in space??


Your description of the rockets, and the 'accelerometers' and how precise it had to be?? Well, yes for unmanned vehicles. AND the USSR did land unmanned probes successfully on the Moon, and they even got two to Venus.

Your other parts about the "Cold War" likely have some basis in facts, deep down. But, there is a lot of obfuscation.





top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join