It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why didn't the USSR fake a moon landing?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 01:48 PM
reply to post by Chadwickus

Just to jump in, in case others are confused by Chad's point:

One must consider the entirety of the Space Program, starting with Mercury in the early 1960s, continuing with Gemini and ultimately Apollo.

A bit of History: Everyone is, (or should be) aware of the tragedy of Apollo One. It was called a 'plugs-out' test of the proto-type of the Apollo CM design, as mated to the Saturn IB lift rocket.

Here's something that needs to be explained: Earth's normal atmosphere at Sea Level is about 14.7 PSI. It is about 20% oxygen, the rest mostly Nitrogen and other trace gases.

To save weight, in the Space Missions of the 1960s, as well as on Apollo, the capsules' life-support environments were pressurized to about 3.5 PSI, but with pure oxygen. This, the same with the EVA suits (which blows away one idiot's video of why the gloves wouldn't work in a vacuum, but, I digress...)

Duriing Apollo One's test....the idea was that they HAD to pressurize the CM capsule to simulate the same PSID as they'd experience in a vacuum...but, at the Earth's surface. (PSID = pounds/sq/inch differential)

This means they pumped the cabin up to over 18 PSI....(14.7 + 3.5) of pure oxygen.

Certainly, the O2 wasn't harmful in any way to a Human....they had already purged the nitrogen out of their systems (any Scuba Divers know what I'm talking about).

Two things: It was not necessary to pressurize like that....(could have used normal air for this particular test) and, the egress hatch was a 'plug-type' (as used on jet airliners) but with no explosive bolts for quick exit.

Ironic, that Gus Grissom died on Apollo One, after having been blamed for 'blowing' the hatch on his Mercury capsule (later deemed to be false) during his recovery from splashdown, thusly losing the capsule. (It was recovered, using modern technology, and he was exonerrated post-humously).

SO, the proto-type Apollo CM had no explosive bolts. A fire started, and with the increased pressure in the capsule, and a hatch which had to open iniward before it could open outward to provide escape....there was no escape.

BUT, the very high-pressure O2 environment proved to be a hazard that no one had predicted -- the newly invented 'Velcro' material. Specifically, the 'fuzzy' part of Velcro....the 'loops' (not the 'hooks') turned out to be very flammable in a high-pressure pure O2 environment.

The Velcro didn't start the fire, but it burned readily once the flames hit it.

The CM was re-designed.....and the next vehicle to fly was designated Apollo 7, launched just into Earth orbit on a Saturn IB....but, despite that early tragic set-back, the program recovered. As it is in all experimental flight testing.

BTW, the Saturn V lift vehicle was needed to accomplish launch of Apollo to reach the Moon. The Saturn IB was part of the experimentation as the program progressed. Each step, once shown successful, was built upon and tested, again and again and again...and again....

[edit on 3/28/0909 by weedwhacker]

second edit.....I write off the top of my head....I invite anyone with further interest to visit Wikipedia. Lotsof good info there.....

[edit on 3/28/0909 by weedwhacker]

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Phage

One motive given for the USA to have faked one if not all of the moon landings was to "beat" the USSR in the Space Race. The USSR had the same, if not greater, capability to carry out such a massive deception on the people. Why didn't they fake a landing?

Perhaps the Soviets already had a secret Moon base there? After all its not just about scoring brownie points by showing the world that you are the best. The stakes were probably higher than that - the 'mining' of Helium, Titanium, zirconium and other esoteric materials and laying claim on them. Perhaps even establishing a launch pad for further exploration of the Solar System? After all, using the Moon is a more viable option than space stations costing billions of dollars with no facilities/infrastructure for further missions into the beyond?

OK, now all this is conjecture, but who knows what the heck is going on behind the scenes?


posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 10:37 AM
reply to post by mikesingh

I like this kind of thinking mikesign.
I agree to an extent.
I disagree a little as to why operations like mining and the building of a moon base would need to be kept covert.
Of course unless we were to find that De Beers had hired the NASA mafia to help them mine diamonds or something like that.
But to expand on your premise--- think of this.
Over the last 40 years, young readers take heed, I say 40---the best the Russian anarchy and our soon to government, has been able to do or accomplish on the moon is a proposed attack on it.
A Shock and AWE campaign to determine if there is H20 there???????????
Now let me do a little math. Well no, lets let the guys with all the good tech data help us out with the exact figures.
I will say this--- If we sent just the equivalent of the weight of the LM and it's occupants in water--- to the moon, say once a year since the last supposed Apollo mission you would have enough H 20 there by now
to fill a small crater.
Two small craters if the Ruskies did it also, and China and Europe or Japan and need I go on.
Does anyone know if it would evaporate?
They already could have sent a dude up there with a divining stick. Way much less shocking!
Oh that's right, moon plus man NOT.

[edit on 29-3-2009 by Donny 4 million]

[edit on 29-3-2009 by Donny 4 million]

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 12:39 PM
reply to post by mikesingh

I did a google on that water disertation. Had the time. The market is closed today.

""Posted by Impact Lab May 28, 2006

A strikingly simple concept would provide efficient water provisions for human outposts and even bases on the moon. The idea is to clobber our already crater-rich neighbor repeatedly with tons of water ice — to establish an "anywhere, anytime" delivery system.Not only could chucking a payload of water ice to the moon help sustain an expeditionary crew there, the impact would mimic — in experimental form — a comet strike. Therefore, it’s a double-whammy: A science mission wrapped within an exploration capability test mission.

Spearheading the speculative ploy — called SLAM — is Alan Stern, executive director of the Space Science and Engineering Division here at Southwest Research Institute. He’s the lead scientist on another "far-out but on the way" endeavor: the New Horizons spacecraft that is bound for Pluto.

"I hope the SLAM idea stimulates thought and gets people thinking a little bit more out of the box," Stern told "When we have people on the moon, they are going to need water. This is an exceptionally efficient, low-cost way to get it there.""

Wow some how someone had that idea 3 years ago. Good thinking!
Thats only 37 years late.

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 03:41 PM

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
I think soviet moon fakery never happened simply because it would be impossible for them to have pulled it off. the Soviet Union had no real motion picture industry. No expertise in special effects. No real experience with making convincing sets.
I'm also not arguing that the soviet union didn't know how to build and operate exceptional cameras. I'm just saying film making is an art. and to pull off the moon landing fake you would have to be very advanced at that art, and the soviet union was not then, maybe not even now. Not without outside help from the cultures that actually developed or had that art. and that culture was the western culture. they would have had to go to europe or america for help in that endeavor.

Oh come on now...The cinema that produced Sergei Eisenstein, Andrei Tarkovsky, and movies like Man with a Movie Camera, Battleship Potemkin, Andrei Rublev, Solaris and you're saying that have no real expertise.

The gov't that redefined the concept of the motion picture and propaganda, and you're trying to tell us they were just too backwards to figure it out. Really?

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by PragueSpring

I went to Blockbuster---- they said the vids you tally haven't been returned.
Can you help us all view them somehow, so we can be a little analytic here?
I posted that they didn't have a desert suitable for the shoot.
You know that rain shadow stuff? Somewhere in the Gobi would work, but you and I both know the Chinese would have toasted them if they entered there.

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Phage

One motive given for the USA to have faked one if not all of the moon landings was to "beat" the USSR in the Space Race. The USSR had the same, if not greater, capability to carry out such a massive deception on the people. Why didn't they fake a landing?

From having lived in the soviet union, and having soviet raised parents.

It's quite possible the Soviets never thought of making a grand deception,
since they aren't well practiced at it.
In Rus, Russia, Soviet Union culture
it is more common to use force
to get what they want.

As Peter the great said "steal from the people, and the people will steal for themselves.".
This has been the motto with taxation ever since,
and defines the state to citizen relationship.

How the people saw them, or the people in general were of little consequence.
Wheras in America there was great propoganda about possibility of nuclear war.
In Soviet Union it was mostly ignored.
My grandfather said the most they had in terms of planning,
was a joke he heard, that if a nuclear war brakes out,
they could wrap themselves in white blankets.

Peter got a navy by forcing people to build ships,
this is how the soviet space fleet was made.
Public support is/was optional.

It's quite possible that around that time,
the soviets and U.S. signed some pact,
to co-operate in space and keep it all secret.
as suggested by their shared mars landing.

publically space and technology has been at a virtual standstill in both countries.

To further illustrate the point of Soviets ineptitude or laziness with deception.
My parents were telling me how recently in the news several people were assassinated,
in the news papers it was claimed suicide, but the man had shot himself in the head twice.
in another incident the man in question was over 80 years old,
and allegedly somehow managed to beat himself up,
before vaulting through a high window.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by lowki]

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:25 AM

Originally posted by buddhasystem
The were many reasons they elected not to:

a) the risk of being caught far outweighed the benefit

b) Soviets were proud people and "faking it" (which still would take some ingenuity) would be so humiliating that I don't doubt for a second that most skilled personnel would refuse to do it. I grew up there and that I'm sure about.

c) the sheer number of people involved in the "real" effort was so huge that the truth would probably be impossible to contain anyway!

you know I could be like one of the OP's followers and say "I love you man!" but no I am not like that.

Very good points!


[edit on 23-5-2010 by dragnet53]

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:27 AM
reply to post by lowki

I agree with You. Russia was all about take and steal. They could care about deception. Just remembered about take and steal with Russia during WWII. OUr allegiance was broken with Russia because Russia wanted the land they stole and the USA said no. That was what started the COld War If I remember correctly.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by dragnet53]

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:41 AM
At high levels they work hand in hand. The play was scripted so there would be a them against us to generate funding. Most of the funding went for early black ops projects. Having the Soviets land on the moon would have only escalated the missions to the moon which wasn't desirable. Apollo 13 disaster served the purpose of discouraging moon flights as part of the phase out. Most of the black ops funding was shifted to drugs which facilities a greater networking of control in the world. The moon flights only helped solidify the networking within a few industrial contractors.

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Phage
One motive given for the USA to have faked one if not all of the moon landings was to "beat" the USSR in the Space Race. The USSR had the same, if not greater, capability to carry out such a massive deception on the people. Why didn't they fake a landing?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Soviets were proud people and "faking it" (which still would take some ingenuity) would be so humiliating that I don't doubt for a second that most skilled personnel would refuse to do it. I grew up there and that I'm sure about.

Originally posted by C2CBuddy
when three Russian scientists were asked the same question, they responded that the answer was simple...

'Russia never had Hollywood to help them as America did.'

USSR education in sciences have been superior, so
all these fakes in the Apollo TV shows could be easily spotted by Russian kids.
For the same reason it was not broadcasted in Russia, as the CPSU functioners did not want to destroy the promoted myth of the USA as the land of freedom, quality of life and technology efficiency.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in