Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

SayonaraJupiter

Come on guys What's with all the name calling?
...
But there is a certain extremist sect within that body of Apollo Believers who basically operate like terrorists

do you like.. read what you type??

do you perhaps know what the meaning of hypocrite?? do you know what double standards are?

only you are allowed to call names and whine about it when you are called what you are..
you wish to dictate what evidence to allow and what evidence not to allow depending if it suits you or not..
you whine about people using propaganda but you yourself use it more than anyone on this site..

you act like a spoilt kid and expect special privileges..

are you that far out of touch with reality?

I never normally read much of these Apollo moon threads due to the descent into name calling and arguing amongst opposing views, however instead of starting another thread on the same subject, I just want to add a few thoughts on this debate….
My main query is as follows:

Rocket Development

In the 1950’s and 1960’s the USSR and the USA were in the centre of the arms race, which included the race to be first into space, etc……..
The USSR, admittedly at the time, were ahead of the USA in rocket development and research. They were, as we all know, the first to launch a satellite into space, the first to send a living animal into space and the first to have an astronaut orbit the earth.
Despite all these firsts, the USA wanted and were determined to follow the USSR and get their own firsts for themselves, even though they had been done already, NASA continued with trying to get a man into orbit, etc.
By 1969, the USSR had unmanned probes on the moon, however were faulting on sending manned missions there, for unknown reasons.
As we all know, officially, the US sent a manned mission to the moon (Apollo) in 1969, even though they were miles behind Russia with rocket development and research. How did they manage to leapfrog the Russians in this regard so quickly?
No matter, so the US landed men on the moon, supposedly….ok.

No Russian Moon Mission

Why, then, did Russia not follow suit and land their own people on the moon? Was it because they saw that it had been done and there was no point in going there? Doesn’t seem plausible.
Or was it because they knew and figured out it couldn’t be done with their current level of development and technology? Remember, at the time, the Russians were not beyond sacrificing people and animals to further their research. Laika, the first animal in space was deliberately exposed to space and the sun’s rays to study the effect. As well as rumours of lost astronauts during their program.
Surely the USSR would be pursuing their own manned Lunar missions, and despite the USA being the first, would still be quite an achievement for Soviet Russia to have a successful manned Lunar landing.
Did the Russians know that there was no way of successfully achieving this? Did the Russians know that it was a one way trip? Or that it was impossible even to survive the trip?
All speculation, however it is worth thinking about, over all the years, why Russia never sent any men to the moon.

Radiation?

Next question, is, after the last Apollo mission, if it was not routine and relatively easy to get to the moon and back, why have we not been back since? Why have we not even been out of low earth orbit since then?
Not to mention the Van Allen Belts of radiation, which I am no expert, and do not know if it would be possible to successfully navigate these. The USA, in 1962, developed a program called Starfish Prime, which called for the detonation of Thermonuclear devices at high altitudes. The results were another belt of radiation being formed around the Earth. This caused the failure of 7 satellites in orbit. Now my question is, would this, along with the Van Allen belts have been known by the Russians, as being impossible to send people through safely, and that is why they never sent anyone to the moon? It just seems strange that, in that time, and sentiment between the nations, that the Russians would give up so easily, from being so far ahead of the US in that regard.

Camera and film

I must ask the question regarding these radiation belts and the cameras brought by the Apollo astronauts. It is established that there was no protective shielding on the spacecraft, nor were the cameras or film used shielded to any significant degree. Why then do we not see radiation spots on the films on the moon, even minor ones? Even exposing film to radiation for a few seconds would cause some kind of artifacts if not ruining the films altogether.

The Space Shuttle

Now fast forward to the Space Shuttle……The original Saturn V rockets were much less expensive than the rockets now being developed for the shuttles. Why change the rocket design to something much more expensive and could carry a third of the weight of the original Apollo rockets? Would it not have been easier and less expensive to redesign the Saturn Rockets to accommodate the shuttle?

Why have we never ventured outside low earth orbit since the Apollo program was cancelled?

Why have NASA stated that it will take years to get back to the moon? Surely with the current level of technology being far superior to what was available in 1969, it should be simple to achieve now and we should have achieved a manned mission to Mars.

Why have the Russians never sent a man to the moon?

Why are we messing about with more robots and rovers on the moon and Mars? It’s like we are going backwards.
Finally, as to the question, if the Russians found out that NASA were never on the moon, why would they keep their mouth shut and not tell the world, would this not have been a propaganda opportunity for the Russians?
Did the US and Russia have some kind of mutual agreement to not disclose cover ups / or false facts? The Russians had plenty of their own secrets to keep hidden in that regards……for example, hiding the fact that Yury Gagarin had ejected from his capsule on the way back, making the first official flight into space, officially invalid. And it is a fact that the Russians and the US worked hand in hand on many space missions in the early 1970’s and since, albeit always to low earth orbit.
Did NASA go to the moon? If so, why did the USSR not go?

Thanks for taking the time to read this, I have no technical knowledge, and I am speculating questions that have bothered me in the whole Apollo subject while reading about it and watching various documentaries, both for and against…..
I believe there are many unanswered questions.

celticniall
Rocket Development

In the 1950’s and 1960’s the USSR and the USA were in the centre of the arms race, which included the race to be first into space, etc……..
The USSR, admittedly at the time, were ahead of the USA in rocket development and research. They were, as we all know, the first to launch a satellite into space, the first to send a living animal into space and the first to have an astronaut orbit the earth.
Despite all these firsts, the USA wanted and were determined to follow the USSR and get their own firsts for themselves, even though they had been done already, NASA continued with trying to get a man into orbit, etc.
By 1969, the USSR had unmanned probes on the moon, however were faulting on sending manned missions there, for unknown reasons.
As we all know, officially, the US sent a manned mission to the moon (Apollo) in 1969, even though they were miles behind Russia with rocket development and research. How did they manage to leapfrog the Russians in this regard so quickly?
No matter, so the US landed men on the moon, supposedly….ok.

It was a combination of different design approaches and the crippling bureaucracy and political infighting in the the USSR. After Apollo 1, quality control and safety became a watchword in the US. In the USSR it didn't.

No Russian Moon Mission

Why, then, did Russia not follow suit and land their own people on the moon? Was it because they saw that it had been done and there was no point in going there? Doesn’t seem plausible.
Or was it because they knew and figured out it couldn’t be done with their current level of development and technology? Remember, at the time, the Russians were not beyond sacrificing people and animals to further their research. Laika, the first animal in space was deliberately exposed to space and the sun’s rays to study the effect. As well as rumours of lost astronauts during their program.
Surely the USSR would be pursuing their own manned Lunar missions, and despite the USA being the first, would still be quite an achievement for Soviet Russia to have a successful manned Lunar landing.
Did the Russians know that there was no way of successfully achieving this? Did the Russians know that it was a one way trip? Or that it was impossible even to survive the trip?
All speculation, however it is worth thinking about, over all the years, why Russia never sent any men to the moon.

Pretty much the first argumen: it had been done, the race had been won. The Soviets stopped spending thier money on rockets that weren't getting off the landing pad and focussed their attention (just as the US did) on LEO and unmanned missions.

Radiation?

Next question, is, after the last Apollo mission, if it was not routine and relatively easy to get to the moon and back, why have we not been back since? Why have we not even been out of low earth orbit since then?
Not to mention the Van Allen Belts of radiation, which I am no expert, and do not know if it would be possible to successfully navigate these. The USA, in 1962, developed a program called Starfish Prime, which called for the detonation of Thermonuclear devices at high altitudes. The results were another belt of radiation being formed around the Earth. This caused the failure of 7 satellites in orbit. Now my question is, would this, along with the Van Allen belts have been known by the Russians, as being impossible to send people through safely, and that is why they never sent anyone to the moon? It just seems strange that, in that time, and sentiment between the nations, that the Russians would give up so easily, from being so far ahead of the US in that regard.

Money. Politics was cancelling missions even as Apollo 11 was being completed, and Nixon scythed the budget for the remaining ones. The focus became LEO missions.

It is possible to navigate around the belts (or at least minimise the time spent in them), which is precisely what the trajectories for Apollo were designed to do. The Russians actually pioneered research into the belts, and arguably discovered them first, but politics again ensured that Van Allen got his name on them. There are reports from Russia that clearly state that it would not be a problem for peope to go throught them, something with which Van Allen himself is on record as agreeing.

Camera and film

I must ask the question regarding these radiation belts and the cameras brought by the Apollo astronauts. It is established that there was no protective shielding on the spacecraft, nor were the cameras or film used shielded to any significant degree. Why then do we not see radiation spots on the films on the moon, even minor ones? Even exposing film to radiation for a few seconds would cause some kind of artifacts if not ruining the films altogether.

There was shielding on the spacecraft - enough to do the job, and radiation levels were monitored and reported to the ground at regular intervals. Lead shielding (often the thing hoax proponents argue should have been there) would have been too heavy and would actually have generated more radiation than it stopped thanks to Bremsstrahlung. The cameras were also shielded to a degree. We don't see radiation spots because on the whole there is not as much as people think there is - it is not some kind of radioactive hell hole.

The main danger is long term (weeks and months) exposure, and fromn solar flares, which the crews were lucky to avoid. In those days they were prepared to take risks that would not be acceptable today.

You can look at images taken by both Soviet and US pre-Apollo lunar probes that took photographs using film cameras - they have no problem with radiation, even on long missions.

The Space Shuttle

Now fast forward to the Space Shuttle……The original Saturn V rockets were much less expensive than the rockets now being developed for the shuttles. Why change the rocket design to something much more expensive and could carry a third of the weight of the original Apollo rockets? Would it not have been easier and less expensive to redesign the Saturn Rockets to accommodate the shuttle?

Because they wanted something re-usable, and it had a different purpose. Horses for courses.

Why have we never ventured outside low earth orbit since the Apollo program was cancelled?

Money and politics.

Why have NASA stated that it will take years to get back to the moon? Surely with the current level of technology being far superior to what was available in 1969, it should be simple to achieve now and we should have achieved a manned mission to Mars.

Money and politics.

Why have the Russians never sent a man to the moon?

Money and politics.

Why are we messing about with more robots and rovers on the moon and Mars? It’s like we are going backwards.

Money and politics - it's cheaper and less likely to be fatal.

Finally, as to the question, if the Russians found out that NASA were never on the moon, why would they keep their mouth shut and not tell the world, would this not have been a propaganda opportunity for the Russians?

Yes it would. The opportunity wasn't taken because it wasn't there.

Did the US and Russia have some kind of mutual agreement to not disclose cover ups / or false facts? The Russians had plenty of their own secrets to keep hidden in that regards……for example, hiding the fact that Yury Gagarin had ejected from his capsule on the way back, making the first official flight into space, officially invalid. And it is a fact that the Russians and the US worked hand in hand on many space missions in the early 1970’s and since, albeit always to low earth orbit.

They did work together after the landings as they started to move towards political detente. As for the rest, there was nothing to disclose on NASA's part at least.

Did NASA go to the moon? If so, why did the USSR not go?

Yes. Money and politics.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, I have no technical knowledge, and I am speculating questions that have bothered me in the whole Apollo subject while reading about it and watching various documentaries, both for and against…..
I believe there are many unanswered questions.

With respect, if you have those questions you haven't been reading the right material. Those unamswered questions are what the people promoting the idea of a hoax want you to think are unamswered, when in fact they answers are both freely available and pretty obvious.

reply to post by celticniall

Why, then, did Russia not follow suit and land their own people on the moon? Was it because they saw that it had been done and there was no point in going there? Doesn’t seem plausible.
Or was it because they knew and figured out it couldn’t be done with their current level of development and technology?

Correct. In order to loft not only men but the consumables necessary to support them, the Soviets would need a very large booster, something on the scale of America's Saturn V. Called the N1, it failed spectacularly. In part, this may be due to their loss of their chief rocket engineer Sergei Pavlovich Korolev, who died in 1966.

Next question, is, after the last Apollo mission, if it was not routine and relatively easy to get to the moon and back, why have we not been back since? Why have we not even been out of low earth orbit since then?

It was neither routine nor relatively easy to get to the Moon and back. It required a rocket as tall as a skyscraper filled with high explosive to send a vehicle the size of an SUV there and back again. No nation has had the political will to waste money on what the average person would consider to be an "expensive stunt."

It is established that there was no protective shielding on the spacecraft, nor were the cameras or film used shielded to any significant degree.

Wrong! You have been listening to people who either do not understand or who are deliberately trying to deceive. The spacecraft itself is shielding! The Apollo CSM is constructed of aluminum honeycomb filled with resin. This is very effective shielding. Furthermore, all the instrumentation (control panels, etc) also served to block radiation. The cameras, of course, were aluminum, and the film was developed to resist exposure to X-rays.

Now fast forward to the Space Shuttle……The original Saturn V rockets were much less expensive than the rockets now being developed for the shuttles. Why change the rocket design to something much more expensive and could carry a third of the weight of the original Apollo rockets? Would it not have been easier and less expensive to redesign the Saturn Rockets to accommodate the shuttle?

No-one is exactly sure how much it cost to develop the Saturn V, so your comparison is meaningless. The Shuttle was designed to fulfill a particular set of mission requirements, and was intended to be re-usable. The Apollo spacecraft could only be used once.

Why have NASA stated that it will take years to get back to the moon? Surely with the current level of technology being far superior to what was available in 1969, it should be simple to achieve now and we should have achieved a manned mission to Mars.

The laws of physics have not changed. It would still require a rocket the size of the Empire State building, and there is no political will to spend that kind of money.

Why have the Russians never sent a man to the moon?

Who remembers the second man to climb Mount Everest?

Why are we messing about with more robots and rovers on the moon and Mars? It’s like we are going backwards.

No, it's like the robots are going forwards. What have you got against robots? They don't need all that heavy food, water and air that make crewed missions so expensive.

Finally, as to the question, if the Russians found out that NASA were never on the moon, why would they keep their mouth shut and not tell the world, would this not have been a propaganda opportunity for the Russians?

Exactly. Remember, the US was not sure that the Soviets weren't going to send their own mission to the Moon at any time. They didn't dare "fake it."

The Russians had plenty of their own secrets to keep hidden in that regards……for example, hiding the fact that Yury Gagarin had ejected from his capsule on the way back, making the first official flight into space, officially invalid.

How does that "invalidate" his flight? He actually achieved Earth orbit. Ejecting from the spacecraft was part of the mission profile. Remember, unlike US spacecraft that landed in water, Soviet spacecraft came down on land!

Did NASA go to the moon? If so, why did the USSR not go?

Yes, NASA sent people to the Moon. The Soviets tried, but failed. Thank you for making an intelligent contribution to this thread. I hope that I have answered your questions to your satisfaction.

Woah People! Come on, its obvious! There is NO Moon!

Sorry jokes aside, I don't think the moon landings where a hoax. Still at the end of the day it doesn't hurt to read up from another persons opinions on what they think happened, everything is still information really. That information only matters what we take from it. Whether to be convinced/disproved to learn something new or to inspire emotions. Its each persons choice to accept or discount new information or old information for that matter.

To all believers that man landed on the moon, try and disprove it.

To all believers that the moon landings were faked, try to disprove that.

Go on give it a go. I did, and got my own answer.

To each their own.... Thanks again OP any information is good in my books (as long as I can still filter it)

onebigmonkey and DJW001, thanks for taking the time to reply.

onebigmonkey , I find your reasoning for many of the questions “money and politics” as hard to believe.

DJW001,I agree somewhat that the death of Korolev had a detrimental effect on the Soviet space program at the time.

Rocket Development: I believe the Soviets were way ahead of the Americans in that regard at the time, so I do not believe that due to quality control or bad engineering failures led to the Soviets abandoning the Moon. Sure that had unmanned probes there, without problems, so sending man to the moon would not have been that much of a step.
If you remember, at the end of WWII, the Soviets got pretty much most of the German Rocket designs and engineers. The Americans got their fair share, although I think the Soviets received more in the way of actual technology. Maybe that is why they were ahead at the time.

I will take your points on the shielding and Van Allen Belts as I do not know the specifics and always open to being enlightened to facts, so fair enough, assume there was sufficient shielding on both the spacecraft and the film 
As for the Space Shuttle, I am talking about the actual rocket designed to take the Shuttle into orbit. I’m saying the Saturn V could have been a cheaper option had NASA developed this further to carry the Shuttle, instead of spending much more in terms of designing a completely new independent design. Just saying………the rockets at the time carried more weight, and had more reusable sections than the current versions that carried the shuttles.
I refuse to believe that the reason we have not gone back to the moon and that the Soviets never did, as being about money and “it’s been done”.
Why then did NASA and the Americans continue to send Astronauts to the moon after Apollo 11? Sure it had been done, why send half a dozen more spacecraft there?

Now if it was so difficult to get to the moon, and carry all those extra resources, the complications with a “skyscraper” rocket……….how did the Americans go from basically nothing space faring in 1960 to accomplishing this MASSIVE feat 9 years later? While still today we cannot organise anything close to this feat again, since the last Apollo mission…..even with the extra technology, the discoveries of new and improved methods of space issues…….better rockets, better materials, better everything basically? Why is it now an almost impossible goal?

Think the moon is slightly different that Everest……it’s another planet…….just recently, we had the Chinese join the VERY ELITE CLUB of nations to land a probe on the surface of the moon. Why did the Soviets give up so easily to be in that even more elite club of having landed a person on another space body………surely that would be much more significant to them as a nation alone.

I remember the first and second people into space……..as I’m sure many people do…….do I remember the second man on the moon….of course? Would I remember the second NATION to land a man on the moon………..you better believe most people on the planet would!

Back in the time of Gagarin, the official completion of a successful flight mission like that, meant landing in the craft. Shortly after Vostok-2 when Titov (second man in space by the way) admitted ejecting prior to landing that the parameters were changed to “the great technological accomplishment of spaceflight was the launch, orbiting and safe return of the human” Gagarin’s mission profile might have been to eject, but that was covered up by the Soviets at the time of the landing.

Gagarin's Flight

Again thank you both for the reply

celticniall
...just recently, we had the Chinese join the VERY ELITE CLUB of nations to land a probe on the surface of the moon. Why did the Soviets give up so easily to be in that even more elite club of having landed a person on another space body………surely that would be much more significant to them as a nation alone...

I think the Soviets gave up was because the U.S. and the Soviets had a race to the Moon to prove who was the greater technologicla power (which, by association, it could be argued which country had the better socio-economic/socio-political system).

The U.S. won, and the Soviets lost. The Soviets did not only some in 2nd, because it was a two country race -- so they lost/came in last. I think the Soviets never felt the need to finish that race, and try to find something else to excel in (they DID later excel in long-duration humans space habitation and space stations).


Now, decades later, we have the Chinese. It is now a different era, and there is no longer a space race, per se. However, the Chinese are still keen on convincing the rest of the world that they are a great technological power, and have a government stability that allows such technological power.

The Chinese want the rest of the world to invest in them -- i.e, come to China to make products and employ workers. China wants their own socio-econimoc and socio-political systems to be seen by the rest of the world as being a major player in running world economies.


In those respects, neither the U.S., the Soviets, and now the Chinese were trying to get to the Moon because they felt the moon was a place they needed to be. They tried to get to the moon simply to prove to the rest of the world that they have the ability to do so -- i.e., prove to the rest world that their socio-ecenomic and socio-political system are able to achieve such a feat, so the rest of the world may be more apt to invest in that country.

In the United States' case, they achieved getting to the moon and proving to the world (at the time) that their system of government, social structure, and economic structure WAS the best in the world, so that goal (proving to the world they CAN get to the Moon) had been reached. Doing more stuff on the Moon once they achieved the goal of proving they could get there was never a major reason for the Apollo Program's existence.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


fair point, and I must look into the Soviet economic backdrop around that time.

Question though.......If the USA had achieved that "first" of getting to the moon......why then spend billions of dollars to go back a half dozen times more after achieving this goal? Surely, if by your logic, it had been done, and proved, then why the need to go back several more times?
Even after the fiasco of Apollo 13, and the risks, why risk more to keep sending missions?

Of all the things that the Apollo astronauts done on the moon could have been done remotely,like the Soviets had done, like bringing back rocks and samples....

Thanks for your reply

reply to post by celticniall

Rocket Development: I believe the Soviets were way ahead of the Americans in that regard at the time, so I do not believe that due to quality control or bad engineering failures led to the Soviets abandoning the Moon. Sure that had unmanned probes there, without problems, so sending man to the moon would not have been that much of a step.

There is a great difference between sending a robotic probe and a crewed mission. Human beings need a lot of extra weight in terms of life support. This requires a bigger rocket. The Soviets and the Americans had different design philosophies. The Americans would build larger rockets, while the Soviets essentially strapped smaller rockets together. This is one reason why there earlier progress was so rapid; they built a standard motor and grouped more and more together. Each American rocket was designed from scratch.

If you remember, at the end of WWII, the Soviets got pretty much most of the German Rocket designs and engineers. The Americans got their fair share, although I think the Soviets received more in the way of actual technology. Maybe that is why they were ahead at the time.

You have fallen for a classic bit of Cold War propaganda. Most of the German scientists surrendered to the allies. American rocketry was well advanced before the war, but was entirely in the hands of amateurs. It was only after the Nazis, who supported rocket research with government funds, demonstrated the effectiveness of rockets as a weapon that the US took rocketry seriously. Post war development lagged behind the Soviets because there was hesitation on the part of the American government to be seen to be openly expanding its military influence into space. Von Braun could have launched the first satellite as early as 1955, but Eisenhower would not let him, as he was developing missiles for the Army. It was important that a civilian agency, NASA, be seen to be exploring space peacefully.

reply to post by celticniall


By co-incidence, I found this in my in-box this morning. You will note that thanks to Tsiolkovsky, the Russians had a strong theoretical understanding of space flight even before the war, and that even a socialist state could not continue to fund a program that was economically not viable!

celticniall
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

fair point, and I must look into the Soviet economic backdrop around that time.

Question though.......If the USA had achieved that "first" of getting to the moon......why then spend billions of dollars to go back a half dozen times more after achieving this goal? Surely, if by your logic, it had been done, and proved, then why the need to go back several more times?
Even after the fiasco of Apollo 13, and the risks, why risk more to keep sending missions?

Personally, I think Apollo 13 made the U.S. want to prove that their first two missions were not flukes -- that they could go at will, and do so (relatively) safely.

Interest in going to the moon was already waning by Apollo 13 (and it was only the third mission). The near-disaster brought the moon to the forefront again in the minds of the public. However, by the time Apollo 16 rolled around, the public again began losing interest in the moon (been there/done that attitude), and that's the main reason the Apollo program was cut short -- i.e., the main reason why Apollo 18 was cancelled.

Of all the things that the Apollo astronauts done on the moon could have been done remotely,like the Soviets had done, like bringing back rocks and samples....

The six Apollo missions returned 382 kilograms (840 lbs.) of Moon rocks. The three Soviet robots gathered only 326 grams (11.5 ounces) combined. That's not even one pound.

The Russians would have needed 1000 more robotic missions to bring back the same amount of weight as the six Apollo missions -- and it would only be a few grams at a time; the robots they used could probably not bring back the larger single rocks that Apollo did.

Appreciate the replies guys, plenty of food for thought, and plenty of reading to do

Do I believe man has landed on the moon? I tend to lean towards a yes in this regard, as I haven't come across a convincing argument or evidence that disputes this unequivocally, although the conspiracy theorist voice in me says otherwise
Do I think there is more to it than the official record? Most definitely yes.

Still, a great discussion topic, I appreciate the informative replies, and will revisit

reply to post by DJW001


Interesting read...thanks

According to these, the delivery system was the financial black hole...as was the shuttle programs issue from what I remember hearing at one point.

Which begs the question.......why create such an expensive delivery system, when possibly the Saturn V rocket could have been implemented as a cheaper launch vehicle, and had already been developed.

Soylent Green Is People
The U.S. won, and the Soviets lost. The Soviets did not only some in 2nd, because it was a two country race -- so they lost/came in last.

And by Soviet propaganda standards that means that the United States had come in second to last.

celticniall
reply to post by DJW001

 

Interesting read...thanks

According to these, the delivery system was the financial black hole...as was the shuttle programs issue from what I remember hearing at one point.

Which begs the question.......why create such an expensive delivery system, when possibly the Saturn V rocket could have been implemented as a cheaper launch vehicle, and had already been developed.

This famous cartoon pretty much explains the Shuttle development project. (Substitute terms like "Pentagon," "Satellite developers," "US Senate" and so forth)

reply to post by celticniall


That's a nice overview of the subject matter, Celticniall. You have a good grasp of the historical narrative going back to the post-war, post-Operation Paperclip time frame up to the Nixon/Apollo era.

Rocket Development The USSR, admittedly at the time, were ahead of the USA in rocket development and research. They were, as we all know, the first to launch a satellite into space, the first to send a living animal into space and the first to have an astronaut orbit the earth. ... How did they (USA) manage to leapfrog the Russians in this regard so quickly?

The long list of Russian space achievements (being the first do something in space) shows, conclusively, that Russia had operational advantage in space from 1957-1980. The 9 Apollo missions that allegedly went out of low earth orbit happened during Richard Nixon's presidency. In the case of Apollo 8, Nixon was president-elect, having just won the '68 election.

The Russians had access to all the technology necessary to do it. They did not do it. Not even once did the Russians try to send a man outside low earth orbit.... the Russians sent turtles and turtles are reptiles that are naturally resistant to radiation!

The Russian turtle mission also resulted in another space achievement for Russia,

On Soyuz 20, launched November 17, 1975, tortoises set the duration record for an animal in space when they spent 90.5 days in space.

The Americans sent a monkey in June of 1969 but that monkey died. See Biosatellite 3. Coincidentally, that's the same month that Frank Borman was visiting 'Star City' in Russia... the top secret Soviet space installation. The Russians could have put men outside of low earth orbit but they somehow were never interested to go beyond turtles. That should tell you a lot about Apollo.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


That's what I was trying to get at, is the Soviets had the capability, but never realised the feat of putting anyone on the moon.

It was interesting points put out earlier that the Soviets understood the radiation risks of the Van Allen belts before the Americans, which led me to speculate as to the reasons behind them not furthering their space program.

Money and politics were cited as reasons, and I have not read up on that aspect as yet, but just seems incredulous that they would stop short after everything they had achieved.

I just think the Apollo missions came totally out of the blue and then disappeared, and this was the only time anyone went outside LEO since then. It's like we got to a technological point in the Space related field and then shut it off completely, to concentrate later on Mars, which probably cost more money overall than going back to the Moon.

Surely the first step in sending man to Mars is to establish some kind of lunar base?

Possible scenario, would be to launch several unmanned craft to the moon to land first with all the necessary supplies and return vehicle with fuel, then send the manned mission afterwards...thats how Mars would be done I believe and makes sense to me.

Thanks for the reply

reply to post by celticniall

That's what I was trying to get at, is the Soviets had the capability, but never realised the feat of putting anyone on the moon.

No, the Soviets did not have the capability. The rocket they were developing for the purpose blew up on the pad.

It was interesting points put out earlier that the Soviets understood the radiation risks of the Van Allen belts before the Americans, which led me to speculate as to the reasons behind them not furthering their space program.

The Soviets knew perfectly well that 2 millimeters of aluminum was sufficient to protect astronauts traveling through the Van Allen belts. Allow me to introduce you to my little friend: E E Kovalev.

celticniall
...Surely the first step in sending man to Mars is to establish some kind of lunar base?

Possible scenario, would be to launch several unmanned craft to the moon to land first with all the necessary supplies and return vehicle with fuel, then send the manned mission afterwards...thats how Mars would be done I believe and makes sense to me.

Thanks for the reply

A better way may be to send a fuel-making factory to Mars, which may be lighter than the fuel it needs to make for a human return craft. It would make the fuel prior to the humans getting there (using water found on Mars, then separating the hydrogen from the oxygen in that water). The humans will then use that fuel for the trip home.

The technology is there to do so, and it isn't very difficult in theory, but in reality the implementation of such a plan would probably have its own set of problems.

Here are two articles on the subject. The first one is a study commissioned by NASA back in 1978 to study how feasible such a plan would be:

Making Rocket Fuel on Mars (1978)


The second article is about Robert Zubrin (a champion of Human Mars exploration) who wants to send a probe to mars to try to demonstrate "proof of concept" for a mars fuel factory.

Robert Zubrin proposes fuel manufacturing experiment for NASA's Mars 2020 probe

WOW 169 pages taking the fun out of hoaxing the moon landings. Like others have suggested, How come the Russian's haven't left the low earth orbit in all their trips to outer space? They were ahead of the US when the space race started, and then continued to trump our space program after. Why then did they not venture beyond LOE? Yeah they didn't have saturn V rockets and their rocket blew up on the launch pad, sure then. Why then if they were the first in space and also the first to build a space station (Mir) why would they be unable to build a space vehicle in space capable of traveling to the moon and back? If payload was the issue then why not take the piece meal approach it worked for Mir. I know money and politics right? The soviet union fell and the Russian federation grew from the ashes all the mean while the Mir and it's cosmonauts continued to operate despite the money and politics (1986-2001).