Military Review

Why did you stop flying to the moon

231



The first circumnavigation took place in the 1520-ies of the squadron commanded by Fernand Magellan. The heroic campaign almost ended in disaster. Of the five ships, only one of them was able to go around the earth, and only 260, from which the Magellan was no longer, returned from the 18 team.

The first voyage around the world - the beginning of the XVI century. Do you want an interesting question?

In what year did the next round-the-world tour take place?

The next attempt to repeat the achievement of Magellan failed. All seven ships of Garcia Hofre de Loays disappeared into the ocean. Ten years later, only 8 sailors from the de Loias expedition captured by the Portuguese were able to return to Europe.

As a result, the second, somehow successful, "Around the World" was the British expedition 1577-80. under the command of the explorer and pirate Sir Francis Drake. Half a century after Magellan! And again, swimming was not without loss. Of the six ships of the Drake detachment, only one came back — the flagship Pelican, renamed the Golden Doe.



Despite the appearance of maps, new devices and technologies, round-the-world expeditions remained a deadly exotic for a long time. And their participants deservedly received laurels of glory. Like, for example, navigator and discoverer James Cook, although it was already the 18 century. By the way, the Cook expedition was remembered by the fact that for the first time in a round-the-world voyage, none of the sailors died of scurvy ...

The moon from heaven, the cosmic cold, brings its cold light to earth

Why did the topic of space flights begin with expeditions of the XVI-XVIII centuries? Where is the link between Lt. Neil Armstrong (Apollo 11) and Adelantado Magellan (Trinidad)?

Indeed, Armstrong was in much more favorable conditions than the Portuguese.

Armstrong knew the route and had an idea about everything that could have happened on his way. Before him, automatic stations “Surveyer-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -7” were landing on the moon (five successful landings, two crashed). The “inspectors” conducted reconnaissance of future landing sites, transmitted panoramas of the lunar surface and data on the density of the soil. The sixth "Surveyor" had a more complex program: after working in one place, he turned on the engine and flew to another area.

Why did you stop flying to the moon

Apollo-12 was able to wind up in 300 meters from AMS Surveyor-3 ". The crew was tasked to dismantle a part of the probe equipment that had stayed on the Moon for three years
By the way, did you notice the number of Armstrong's ship? Why "11"? What happened to the previous Apollo 10s?

Apollo-8, 9 and 10 (commanders Bormann, McDivit, Stafford) - landing rehearsals. The eighth Apollo made a manned circling of the moon and testing the entry into the Earth’s atmosphere with a second cosmic velocity. The ninth - undocking and rebuilding of compartments in open space. Apollo-10 - dress rehearsal, with access to the circumlunar orbit, rebuilding of the compartments, maneuvering and reduction of the module to a height of 14 km above the lunar surface (without landing).

The rest of the Apollos are three unmanned and one manned space flight with a complex test of a ship and a Saturn-V rocket in Earth orbit. Plus, the unnamed launch of AS-203 and the tragic Apollo 1 with the death of astronauts in training. Apart from two dozen other flights under the Apollo program, during which various elements of the upcoming landing were tested.

All that was left for Neil Armstrong was to complete the work he had begun and to “mobilize” his module in the Sea of ​​Tranquility. All other stages of the flight were repeatedly tested and studied thoroughly.

The Soviet lunar program moved in a similar way. The continuous test cycle of equipment, spacecraft, spacesuits and launch vehicle - on earth and in space. Six soft landings of automatic lunar stations, incl. with rovers-moon rovers and take-off from the lunar surface (delivery of soil samples to Earth). 14 launches on the secret program "Probe", during which four ships (unmanned versions of Soyuz, 7K-L1) made a successful circling of the Moon and returned to Earth. And behind the secret indexes “Cosmos-379”, “Cosmos-398” and “Cosmos-434” were hiding tests of the lunar module and conducting a cycle of maneuvers in orbit.

Returning to the comparison of the Apollo with the pioneers of the XVI century. Unlike Magellan, who was leaving to the unknown, Armstrong had a stable connection with the Earth. From where he received all the necessary calculations, tips and instructions in case of failure of any equipment.

Even in spite of the constrained conditions, the spacecraft provided, unlike, for example, a higher level of comfort and standards of food on board than the 16th-century Portuguese caracaques. Rotten corned beef, poisoned water, rats, dysentery and scurvy. There was no need to worry about anything like Lieutenant Armstrong.

No one expressed hostile intentions to Armstrong all the way, his crew consisting of Aldrin and Collins did not organize rebellions, and the absence of an atmosphere on the Moon simplified maneuvering and eliminated the danger of storms and storms - from which the navigators of the past suffered.



Perhaps that is why the Apollo lunar expeditions ended with almost no losses, not counting the explosion of the tank in the Apollo 13 service compartment, due to which the crew could not land on the surface (manned flyby of the Moon in emergency mode).

Such a "tin", as in the XVI century - when only one of the five ships returned (or no one returned!), Was no longer observed.

But the expeditions of Armstrong and Magellan united one main feature. This is an unjustified risk. In the end, all the achievements and dividends from these expeditions were far beyond the real benefits (there was not even talk of immediate commercial success). In the first case - unstable international prestige, in the second - the search for a western passage to India.

Realizing this, the European seafarers on 50 years, "froze" attempts to repeat the "Around the World" Fernand Magellan. And then, for another couple of centuries, they didn’t particularly rush there. Although less dangerous and cost-effective flights to India and America instantly found success.

Here again there is a brilliant analogy with the cosmos. Nobody flies to the moon, but manned and unmanned launches follow one after the other. There is a functioning space station, the orbits are filled with civil and military satellites.

We see a temporary refusal to repeat too distant, dangerous, but at the same time devoid of practical expeditions. Until better times ... Probably, this is the answer to the question of why neither we nor the Americans are yet aiming for the moon.

Moon battle

Any mention of Neil Armstrong provokes a powerful reaction among supporters and opponents of "Americans on the Moon."

As we can see, the explanation “once they don't fly today means never fly” can only make Fernand Magellan laugh. As for all sorts of technical issues, the more you delve into the topic, there is less and less doubt about the intellectual level of those who doubt Armstrong's landing on the moon.

Arguments about the "fluttering flag" leave on the conscience of housewives. We have more serious aspects on the agenda.

1. None of the Soviet scientists and astronauts has never denied the reality of the landing on the moon. Not in private, not even in the face of the all-powerful USSR. Which, if I knew something, I did not miss such a chance and wiped America into powder. And he would know quickly - with his all-knowing KGB, reconnaissance satellites and espionage capabilities!

2. Start 3000-ton "Saturn" in front of all of Florida and thousands of tourists, specially arrived that day at Cape Canaveral. And so - thirteen times in a row!

3. Scientific equipment and seismographs that transmitted data from the moon for seven years, which were accepted both in the United States and in the USSR.

4. Laser reflectors that are still there. With their help, any observatory can measure the exact distance to the moon. Of course, they were laid out on the moon by American robots.

5. A similar Soviet lunar program ... which was not there?



6. There was no docking of the “Union” with the American “Apollo”, July 15 1975. After all, it is obvious that the heavy ship Apollo did not exist, and the memories of A. Leonov and V. Kubasov (members of the Soyuz-Apollo mission) were fiction.

7. High-resolution images of Apollo landing sites using the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), 2009. Of course, this is all photoshop, much more reliable. "news Agency »OBS.


Landing place "Apollo 17"


8. Under pressure from irrefutable evidence, skeptics are ready to recognize the possibility of any stage of the expedition (the existence of the Apollo 30-ton ship, the numerous starts of Saturn, circling the Moon), except for the landing itself. For them, it is like a sickle in an important place. From the point of view of a typical supporter of the "lunar conspiracy", the moon landing is the most difficult and incredible moment. They are not embarrassed by the abundance of personnel piloting aircraft with vertical takeoff and landing (Yak-38, Sea Harrier, F-35B). Sea pilots miraculously put fighters on the swinging decks of ships. At night, in the rain, in the fog, fending off sudden gusts of cross-wind.

Despite all their training, Armstrong and Aldrin could not do this together.

9. In conditions of low gravity, the lunar "Eagle" engine barely hissed - its max. traction was 4,5 tons, and he had enough for the eyes. Against 10 tons on deck Yak engines and 19 tons on roaring monster F-35. Four times more powerful than the lunar landing stage!

10. For some reason, cosmic rays and “death belts” spared living creatures aboard Russian Probes. They circled the moon and returned safely to Earth. Deadly radiation does not destroy the fragile electronics on board automatic stations flying for decades in open space. Without any lead protection 1 meter thick.

No one argues with the danger of a long stay in space, but a week is too short a time for the start of dangerous changes in the body.

As for the 40-year break in the exploration of the moon, we are dealing with a repetitive history. Humanity, represented by individual heroes, makes a breakthrough with the sole purpose of proving to itself: “YES, WE CAN!”. Then there is a long waiting period (decades, centuries). Until then, until the technology that will allow to make such travel without a significant threat to life. Or, at least, the need for such expeditions for the needs of the economy and defense will be indicated.


Cape Canaveral Night Launch

The article used the ideas of Viktor Argonov.
http://argonov.livejournal.com
Author:
231 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. K-50
    K-50 15 November 2016 15: 11 New
    +8
    Aliens do not give, but they fly. recourse crying
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 15 November 2016 16: 01 New
      11
      Most of the manned flights of Apollo to Apollo 11 were nonsense for developing the budget, and no one would go this way in the USSR, because it was possible to launch all the modules and test their landing unmanned
      N-1 would not have affected this in any way because if the politicians had not merged the Moon, the lunar ship could be assembled by separate launches in near-Earth and near-moon orbits.

      A photo with an astronaut and Surveyor in an article on the topic - at first the Americans planned to fly to the moon in a two-seater Gemini convertible, and without changing diapers, sit on its surface on the same open tripod ...
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 15 November 2016 19: 03 New
        +1
        ... next to which the astronaut is standing in the picture
    2. avaks111
      avaks111 15 November 2016 16: 16 New
      +2
      Damned fly!
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 16 November 2016 11: 06 New
        22
        Quote: avaks111
        Damned fly!

        .... :))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
        Oleg, apparently, decided to "check out." A long time ago there were no materials "going into the cut" and "exciting people".
        Note how much krakls and libermans were noted in the comments ...;)))

        And the fact is in the details - But actually, "THEY flew to the moon?"

        I remember ...
        Somehow, in the beginning and middle of 80xx, I, still a young special and m.s. participated in joint work in Podlipki at the company Koroleva ...
        And so in the year 85, being at their stand, they worked out something. Everything was going fine. And in a great mood, they gradually turned to earthly and family affairs.
        Just the day before we had a conference for young specialists at the post office, at the end of which we were shown with a bonus two "foreign films" in a closed screening - the documentary "Flight to the Moon" and the artistic "Platoon" ...
        Naturally, I enthusiastically shared this event.
        To which, the chief designer and lead of the work, so, asks aloofly:
        "WERE THERE ON THE MOON?" And then falls silent, apparently realizing that he said something superfluous ...
        ....
        there was a long pause ???? !!!!!

        Then this question brought me to a complete stupor ...
        I could not doubt the ignorance and ignorance of a famous person and the head of the motor department of the legendary "Energy" ...
        On the other hand, ALL NEWSPAPERS, RADIO and TV - wrote, talked about US flights to the moon ....
        I had no doubts then.
        Having come to my senses, I am squeezing quietly - "they’re showing me in the movies ..."
        He is "in the CINEMA, and they will not show it!"

        But then this question got hooked and the first doubt appeared ...
        Further more.
        With the advent of perestroika, “openness, pluralism ...” and the possibility of discussing previously “closed topics” appeared.
        Moreover, as part of the SSC, we began to meet with our colleagues from different "parallel structures" ...
        We also discussed this topic. Divided into classes, proving - flew / did not fly. And what is noteworthy, ALL THOSE who were less informed in the subject - with foam at the mouth proved that they flew. Those who worked close to the topic and knew how to analyze doubted that the further, the more ...

        Just another topic causing doubts -
        - compare the spacesuits of the then astronauts and the current ones on the ISS
        - about the life of the Apollo - only the lazy did not go through, about the 100% fault tolerance of the then equipment for lunar expeditions (moreover, unworked in real flight conditions), - also
        - and is and is ....

        And the most important thing - as soon as SOMETHING stutters and makes plans for FLIGHTS to the Moon, the States immediately have a REFLEX - the next program of repeated flights, moreover, in terms of EARLY! INNA?
        1. Sgray
          Sgray 18 May 2017 12: 15 New
          0
          Russians all profiled
    3. Titsen
      Titsen 15 November 2016 22: 59 New
      +4
      Quote: K-50
      Aliens do not give, but they fly. recourse crying


      Our mattress partners were not on the moon!

      On moonlit evenings and nights sawed the budget!
      1. Su24
        Su24 16 November 2016 03: 22 New
        +5
        Quote: Titsen
        On moonlit evenings and nights sawed the budget!


        Is it such a fat trolling or are you really admitting lack of imagination?) "Sawed the budget"?) Is that all?)
      2. K-50
        K-50 16 November 2016 06: 47 New
        +3
        Quote: Titsen
        Our mattress partners were not on the moon!

        There are no mattress "partners" removed, shadows on the background of the moon. The shooting was on this last super moon, November 11-12 this year. Naturally, the moon did not have any mattresses, nor Russian, or any other satellites.
        So who is flying there on the background of the moon?
        1. Egor rustic
          Egor rustic 18 November 2016 00: 45 New
          0
          about propellers author -> author -> author blasphemed. the engines of the plane half of the fuel are flying from the atmosphere ...
          well, in short, there are a lot of things that the author did not catch up with.
        2. Shurik70
          Shurik70 April 3 2017 11: 53 New
          +2
          Quote: K-50

          So who is flying there on the background of the moon?

          Judging by the blurring of the "shadow" and the flight speed, an object flew out of focus in front of the lens,
          very close to the lens.
          If filmed with a telescope on Earth, there could be a night bird.
          If on a movie camera with a good lens - a fly.
          If removed from a satellite - space debris.
  2. igorka357
    igorka357 15 November 2016 15: 27 New
    18
    Seriously ... people who say that the Americans didn’t land ... but they just don’t have anything to do ...! I also ran a dozen times for myself cleanly, in 38 minutes, and never again in my life, but because .. what for?
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 15 November 2016 15: 46 New
      +7
      Because "Sweet-16" has not written articles on this topic for a long time laughing

      Fresh fish overboard, as well as Apollo’s astronauts, of course, also had the opportunity to relieve themselves for it.
      except for the Yak-38, Harrier, the F-35 was also for example the Yak-141 from which it was copied,
      just as much for the American dream of Apollo Saturn and Surveyors, many Soviet technologies were copied or transferred, about the way it is now on the ISS
      For the study of Venus - not transmitted ...

      They don’t fly to the moon simply because it makes no sense, with a signal delay of 1-2 seconds you can normally remotely control robots that can explore its surface.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 15 November 2016 20: 06 New
        +6
        Compare TTX F-35, and Yak-141. wassat
        Well, isn't that a copy? wassat
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 15 November 2016 20: 33 New
          +5
          and you if their TTX where is the secret? crooked copy ... F-35 worse, most records are still not behind him
          years still do not forget to compare ... during this time it was possible to put the engine more powerful
          the penguin was shown in public 25 years later than the Soviet airplane, which until then had been locked up for another 12 years
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 15 November 2016 20: 37 New
            +1
            Airwar
            http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/yak141.html
            http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/x35.html
            You will see that they have almost everything different, length, width, height, even the number of engines, and that is different.
            Yak
            Engine type (thrust, kgf)
            lifting and marching 1 TRDDF R-79 (1x15500 / 1x9000)
            lifting 2 turbojet engines RD-41 (2x4260)
            F-35
            Engine type 1 turbofan Pratt Whitney F135
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 15 November 2016 21: 05 New
              +3
              I see for you this is a sore subject ... bully
              Yak has V-max = 1.8 Mach, the F-35 has only 1,6, and he still does not know how to work reliably without a large runway, therefore, after being taken into service, they have been gone on ships for a year now.
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 15 November 2016 21: 17 New
                +4
                With his ridiculous combat load, which you can’t do.
                1 ton UVP or 2.6 tons during take-off, versus 9.1 tons in F-35 laughing
                And so the planes are very different.
                And there are F-35 ships
                1. Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian 15 November 2016 21: 19 New
                  +3
                  The combat load in 2t was still with the Yak-36 in 1962, but what year was the photo?
                2. Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian 15 November 2016 21: 32 New
                  +1
                  But how do you distinguish by "much difference"?

                  very different is the X-35 and the subsonic Harrier that the Americans stole from the British before
                  1. Blackmokona
                    Blackmokona 15 November 2016 21: 36 New
                    +4
                    The combat load in 2t was still with the Yak-36 in 1962, but what year was the photo?

                    As if the combat load, this is the main concern of the company YAK, they made a fighter for covering the fleet, and not a fighter-bomber with a bias on ground targets like the United States. The main claim to the past Yak-36 was a total accident rate and a meager combat radius. They were fixed.
                    Photos and news about the F-35 on the ships of the sea, the latter reports that they successfully changed the engine of the F-35 on the ship, at the training of maintenance personnel
                    very different are the X-35 and the subsonic Harrier which the Americans stole from the British until this
                    о

                    That is, airplanes are very different in combat load, radius, dimensions, vertical take-off system, number of engines, avionics, presence of afterburner and cruising super-sound, etc. This is not a difference.
                    Let’s write down, all planes are brothers fellow
                    1. Simpsonian
                      Simpsonian 15 November 2016 22: 06 New
                      +2
                      It's not that ... let's write it down and you will remember that the Americans from their own developments have nothing to do with it, there was a certain experimental Bell X-14 that only scared drug lords

                      even the vertical landing control system is the same, and it was not on the harrier, which differs from the English generally only by the wing, and of which they had no idea.
                    2. Simpsonian
                      Simpsonian 15 November 2016 22: 10 New
                      +2
                      I’m waiting in other branches for the same amazing analysis depth that all RD are brothers, and so now there is RD-5 on Atlas-180 and not F-1 “lemon” laughing
                  2. Parsec
                    Parsec 15 November 2016 22: 07 New
                    0
                    Quote: Simpsonian
                    and subsonic Harrier which the Americans stole from the British before


                    Do not dirt, do not stole, but borrowed the design.
                    1. Simpsonian
                      Simpsonian 15 November 2016 22: 13 New
                      +1
                      really - no, they called the British to “work together” to adapt the new English Harrier to American requirements and completely stole all the documentation on him, then slightly increased the wing.
                    2. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 15 November 2016 22: 14 New
                      +1
                      Read the story you need.
                      McDonnell Douglas AV-1B Harrier II [8] The McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is a family of vertical takeoff and landing attack aircraft. The AV-8B Harrier II is a development of an early modification of the AV-8A Harrier.

                      Harrier was a reliable and versatile aircraft, but its operation in the US Marine Corps units quickly revealed shortcomings - a short flight range and a small bomb load.

                      In 1973, McDonnell Douglas proposed the idea of ​​creating a modified, improved Harrier using the existing fuselage and tail, but with an increased wing and a more powerful engine. This program, which received the designation AV-16, was phased out after spending on it exceeded $ 1 billion.

                      In the early 1980s, four aircraft built from scratch were tested. In 1981, British Aerospace entered into an agreement with McDonnell Douglas. Under this agreement, British Aerospace participated in the program as a subcontractor, which meant the return of the British government to the Harrier program. Production began in 1983, McDonnell Douglas built 60 percent of the aircraft, and British Aerospace built the remaining 40. The AV-8B entered service with the US Marine Corps at the end of 1983, the British version (GR.5) was adopted by the British Air Force a bit later. .

                      Already answered by RD-180
                      1. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 15 November 2016 22: 33 New
                        +2
                        BAE may have built the remaining 40% of the aircraft, but it designed all 100%, which is what we are talking about. These 60% were produced by the Americans without a license, and either an English purchased engine (with low accident rate) or English produced in the USA under a license (with high) was inserted into them.

                        According to RD-180, he also answered incorrectly.
                      2. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 15 November 2016 22: 37 New
                        0
                        (again the answer button on the site is naughty)
                        BAE may have built the remaining 40% of the aircraft, but it designed all 100%, which is what we are talking about. These 60% were issued by Americans without a license.
                        According to RD-180, he also answered incorrectly.

                        So you didn’t read that the USA developed the new modification? And then jointly released. And that the first option was developed by the British, no one doubted.
                        Taki there once again answered, your answer laughed, given the presence of Delta-4 in the United States.
                      3. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 15 November 2016 22: 42 New
                        0
                        Harrier, modified by the British for a new, more powerful engine, had a larger fuselage on the contrary (for this engine to get into it), and when the Americans later increased the wing themselves, he lost a lot in speed and maneuverability as a fighter laughing
                      4. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 15 November 2016 22: 47 New
                        +2
                        Where was it written that the new modification was developed in the USA? laughing
                        They on the old Harrier wanted to increase the wing in 1973 and they have it "not received," as it says.

                        Engines in the Delta-4 is not at all the same class, neither in terms of reliability, nor in terms of output, nor in thrust.
                        With the RD-180, the American F-1 is comparable only in draft and therefore passed it to the museum, using it was too dangerous even for unmanned launches.
                      5. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 15 November 2016 23: 13 New
                        +1
                        Your "story" means the following:
                        "In the early 1980s, four aircraft built from scratch were tested according to English documentation. In 1981, British Aerospace entered into an agreement with McDonnell Douglas. Under this agreement, British Aerospace participated in the program as a subcontractor, which meant return the British government into the Harrier program. "

                        what in italics It was omitted in the text, that in bold it should finally pay attention.

                        Before return to the program there was a way out of her, because the Americans created unbearable conditions for the British when working in the consortium, they know how laughing . And before leaving it, there was a first entry in the NN when they bent BAE into partnerships and raped all the technical documentation from them on the new Harrier-2 under “legal guarantees”.
                        But not quite all on the engine laughing all the more, it was rigidly patented, and the Americans were completely unable to change anything in it, unlike the plane itself (wing).

                        BAE, before entering back, was already a subcontractor, tried to sue the Americans, but the American court "legally guaranteed" sent it: like, "well, you got out, and you got out, now what?" ... wassat
                      6. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 16 November 2016 00: 14 New
                        +1
                        There was no "participation" of the British government in the Harrier program, even before that, because Harrier-1 and Harrier-2 were entirely English ... "American" AV-8A (Harrier-1) Americans simply stupidly bought from the British as a whole, and since this flaw really loaded the cowboys, they decided to AV-8B (Harrier-2) through a scam with a “joint development” (in fact, as in 1973 - adaptation) just to steal, but to completely steal due to the fact that in Rolls-Royce there were not such suckers as in BAE - Nepoluchilos. yes

                        In the "English" F-4, on the contrary, there was almost nothing American laughing (its avionics, its chassis, the chassis has been changed, the engine is also its own) it was also better than the American laughing
        2. Perdit monocle capra
          Perdit monocle capra 16 January 2017 21: 03 New
          0
          We learn materiel. http://alternathistory.com/na-doroge-kf-35-gener
          al-dynamicsconvair-model-200
      2. Asadullah
        Asadullah 15 November 2016 21: 02 New
        +4
        They don’t fly to the moon simply because it makes no sense,


        laughing

        with a signal delay of 1-2 sec, you can normally remotely control robots that can examine its surface.


        Chezh not investigated? Where are the robots? Robots in the studio!

        There is no point, say, so on the Moon you can deploy the same Hub a hundred times more than in space, a bunch of stationary sensors that fly on satellites today and require constant correction. The moon is an ideal place to launch LA to other celestial bodies in the solar system. I'm not talking about the possible resources important for the construction of the colony. Of course, skeptics, probably because they are asking questions that have one answer, are Dr. Urak himself.

        I don’t even see a topic for discussion, until you tell me why the Soviet turtles, the flying belts of Van Allen Vernov-Chudakov, were radioactive and subsequently buried in the burial ground, and the brave Americans, like plums from the ass, are smart, healthy and sterile. And flags, shadows there, and other crap - have fun.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 15 November 2016 21: 20 New
          +2
          1.You probably have not heard about Moonquakes, and temperature extremes, since you think that telescopes will be better there winked
          2. And where did you see such nonsense about turtles? winked
          1. Asadullah
            Asadullah 15 November 2016 21: 41 New
            +4
            And where did you see such nonsense about turtles?


            That’s what it’s about, about Probe 5 is nonsense, but about terrible moonquakes and temperature changes, with aspiration. Uncle, what to talk about with you, even if it's lazy to search in the internet? Where are they moonquakes? where is the texture damn? And what, spinning in orbit burning fuel, there without a temperature difference? laughing Give a song about the moon!
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 15 November 2016 21: 51 New
              +1
              What I know is that the turtles returned safe and sound.

              Onboard the Zond-5 station were living objects; turtles, fruit flies, flour flies, tradescantia with buds, Hela cells in culture, seeds of higher plants - wheat, pine, barley, chlorella on various nutrient media, lysogenic bacteria of different species, etc. After returning to Earth, turtles were active - a lot moved, ate with appetite.

              Moonquake - seismic oscillation of the lunar surface [1].

              Moonquakes are much weaker than earthquakes and occur less frequently, but they can be up to 5,5 on the Richter scale (an earthquake of this force can damage buildings). Oscillations caused by shallow moonquakes usually last over 10 minutes, while oscillations caused by earthquakes last only one to two minutes [2].

              Fuel is not spent on orbiting, it is being spent solely on adjusting the orbit. A temperature difference can also be arranged by settling in the points of Lagrange, just the Hablou replacement is going to be located at such a point. At the same time, fuel costs for adjustments will decrease, and given ion engines, fuel costs become completely ridiculous
              1. Asadullah
                Asadullah 16 November 2016 00: 05 New
                +4
                Moonquake


                Oh, already success, the Internet woolly. How boring is it from your Lagrange points and ion engines, is that better than a stationary base on the Moon? On which damned moonquakes will knock the last dawn out of delicate mechanisms? You are not discouraged by such a statement of the question? Or in an Apollonian impulse prove to me that this is the truth of the brain? For turtles, look for the forums on which they discussed, where they were directly contacted with these animals. From me to you
                loc.gov help USMARC format, MARC 21 form if registered, raise the financial documents of the Apollo program. You will be very surprised that the Apollonauts flew there almost for nothing, and 90% of the estimates were eaten immediately after the removal of Brown. Yes, and you will encounter the same as the Orion constructors. Telemetry, radiometry data are not there. And there is nothing. Oh, where are they !? An old Soviet joke about the theft of sleepers comes to mind. You can compare the relevant documents about the Moon-17 and the Moon-21, - tons and tons. Yes, but only if you are interested in the truth. If you are interested in being on the moon, do not be distracted, and remain on it in good health. And then you know these holy fools, everyone will cheat .....
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 16 November 2016 00: 12 New
                  +1
                  1. Three to four orders of magnitude cheaper than your stationary base.
                  2. So the official data of the USSR, the turtles are alive and healthy. And you tell me forums where a crowd of anonymous students tell how they moved the space program of the USSR. laughing
                  3. The financial documents are also in order, and again you carry someone's inflamed fantasies. There was no such thing in them.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. Simpsonian
                      Simpsonian 16 November 2016 01: 29 New
                      +2
                      the telescope on the far side of the moon is cool because there is less light and dust, and at the points of lagrange it’s going to turn ...

                      Well, as it so

                      ... and you have to look through this "cloud" illuminated by the Sun while in it.
                      1. region58
                        region58 16 November 2016 03: 52 New
                        0
                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        there is less light and dust

                        Well, about light, is it clear that the Earth does not shine, and does dust fly from the Earth there too? wink
                      2. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 16 November 2016 04: 00 New
                        +2
                        Not only the Earth does not shine, but when both the Sun and the back half of the horizon, which gives the largest amount of light reflected by dust into the telescope. Dust that has fallen from space to the moon quickly settles, because there is gravity, at the Lagrange point, on the contrary, it is more than in outer space and it is in a suspended state around the telescope, and the dust that is closer to it gives more reflections.
                      3. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 16 November 2016 04: 02 New
                        +1
                        About a week ago, NASA wrote that it was going to put a telescope on the moon until 2025, and that you can do with its much smaller size.
    2. Sagittarius2
      Sagittarius2 15 November 2016 16: 00 New
      +8
      Yesterday there was a big full moon, Satanists, Russophobes and liberalists agreed with that world, apparently inspired by the sweet muna, or maybe not all funds allocated by the previous administration were selected, so the last time, we are waiting for a series of articles from Kaptsov.
      1. vinc
        vinc 15 November 2016 17: 50 New
        +2
        Oleg is such an Oleg.
    3. antivirus
      antivirus 15 November 2016 21: 40 New
      0
      they run for health, creating a mood (I know it myself, but I'm running, I'm going to die early?)
    4. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 16 November 2016 10: 06 New
      +1
      Quote: igorka357
      I, too, once in the army ran a dozen for myself cleanly, in 38 minutes, and never again in my life, but because ... why?

      Who told the author that they stopped flying to the moon?
      A new lunar rover the size of a desk began to explore the moon. The Chang'e-3 spacecraft, launched in early December 2013 by the Chinese National Space Administration, lunched and launched a new lunar rover to the surface of the moon. The lunar rover, named Utah in honor of the folklore moon jade hare, is to carry out a three-month program to study the area inside the impact crater of the Rainbow Bay (Sinus Iridum) Utah cameras and spectrometers will study the features of the surface and its composition, and the radar to study the soil will examine its deep structure.

  3. uskrabut
    uskrabut 15 November 2016 15: 45 New
    +2
    I am confused by the lack of stars in the moonlight what But they should be better seen than through the dense layers of the earth's atmosphere.
    1. Dan4eG
      Dan4eG 15 November 2016 16: 52 New
      +3

      not a single star
      1. Sagittarius2
        Sagittarius2 15 November 2016 17: 09 New
        +4

        the land is generally flat. smile
        1. Dan4eG
          Dan4eG 15 November 2016 17: 13 New
          +3
          Quote: Sagittarius2
          the earth is generally flat

          Well, they shot a video in Hollywood, so no stars and the earth is round laughing
          1. Sagittarius2
            Sagittarius2 15 November 2016 17: 19 New
            +3
            Quote: Dan4eG
            Quote: Sagittarius2
            the earth is generally flat

            Well, they shot a video in Hollywood, so no stars and the earth is round laughing


            there are stars, but there are times that they fall, for example like this.
            1. Dan4eG
              Dan4eG 15 November 2016 17: 27 New
              +3
              nifiga yourself a Christmas tree toy! belay
              1. Smog
                Smog 15 November 2016 19: 05 New
                +9
                Nifiga men. The earth is round, but the stars and the sun circling around it. And if the stars are not visible, it means a cloud, rain. Do not believe me? Ask your wife Zhirkov, she will confirm s1,50
                No, but what. Kaptsov wrote, we commented.
                All is well, and Kaptsov too wassat
                1. Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian 15 November 2016 19: 27 New
                  +2
                  Well, a woman, nothing, now I will know what her name is, and what kind of decompensated unsatisfactory Ediyot, the hamlo and the beginning hypnotist opposite her - are not at all interested.
      2. Aleksandr12
        Aleksandr12 16 November 2016 11: 58 New
        0
        Stars are visible, when the unlit part of the earth is visible, they can be clearly seen. Roller at 15.48
    2. Michael_Zverev
      Michael_Zverev 15 November 2016 16: 58 New
      10
      The reason why there are no stars in the lunar photographs is too short exposures with which the lunar photographs were taken. It is impossible to capture objects brightly illuminated by the Sun and at the same time stars. You can, of course, photograph the stars by setting a slow shutter speed, but at the same time bright objects (astronaut, moon cabin, flag, lunar surface, etc.) will not work out on the photo. It was more important for Americans to capture lunar landscapes and people in pictures. Stars are not visible in images from Lunokhod-1 and Lunokhod-2, from space stations.
      1. zenion
        zenion 15 November 2016 20: 13 New
        +2
        Stars without air shine very brightly, astronauts said so. And they took pictures of the earth, and the stars were visible.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 16 November 2016 06: 48 New
          +2

          Well look at the view from the ISS. The brightness of the stars just rolls over. It all depends on the camera settings and ambient lighting.
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 16 November 2016 10: 30 New
        +1
        Quote: Mikhail_Zverev
        The reason why there are no stars in the lunar photographs is too short exposures with which the lunar photographs were taken. It is impossible to capture objects brightly illuminated by the Sun and at the same time stars.

        You can argue with you.
        The photo shows the astronaut H. Schmitt,

        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 16 November 2016 11: 21 New
          +1
          You can argue, given that this is a drawing of the artist wink
          1. Michael_Zverev
            Michael_Zverev 16 November 2016 14: 48 New
            +2
            Not quite to the artist’s drawing, but this is an artificially compiled picture of two of these: http://supercoolpics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/
            12/supercoolpics_03_17122012112720.jpg http://tainy.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/apolo
            17n1.jpg
            On both stars it is not visible, obviously, they were lit later, those who needed it. smile
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 16 November 2016 16: 06 New
              +2
              Well or so, compiled and painted on.
            2. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 16 November 2016 23: 20 New
              +1
              Quote: Mikhail_Zverev
              On both stars it is not visible, obviously, they were lit later, those who needed it.

              In August 2009, an equinox occurred on Saturn, during which unusual shadows and dark rings surrounded the planet. Then, in early August, the plane of the rings of Saturn was turned exactly to the Sun. In the photo you see how the satellite of Saturn, Tethius casts a shadow at the right edge. A broad black stripe to the right stretched the shadow of Saturn itself. The unlit, nightly side of Saturn glows with "ashen light" - sunlight reflected by particles of rings back to Saturn. Images taken at the equinox on Saturn give astronomers a chance to find unexpected shadows. At this time, the Sun can illuminate previously unnoticed details of the complex system of rings of Saturn. The real image was taken by the cameras of the automatic ship Cassini, which now flies around Saturn.

          2. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 16 November 2016 22: 48 New
            +1
            Quote: BlackMokona
            You can argue, given that this is a drawing of the artist

            No, this is a photograph.
            It is impossible to capture objects brightly illuminated by the Sun and at the same time stars.

            In this Mikhail Zverev is right.
            I wanted to express that not all photos were taken under such conditions.
            Here you have another photo on which the stars are viewed, I sincerely hope that you will not say that this is a picture.
            1. Michael_Zverev
              Michael_Zverev 17 November 2016 07: 21 New
              +1
              Frankly, I can’t make out the stars in the picture.
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 17 November 2016 12: 49 New
                +1
                should be in the upper left ...
  4. gorgo
    gorgo 15 November 2016 15: 50 New
    13
    And why this article? To convince everyone that the Americans were still on the moon? So, it seems like a lot of materials are stronger according to the evidence base, why repeat it again? Well, were they there, and then what? Why is it tugging again? It is incomprehensible ... You know, dear author, it is because of such articles that the thought appears: "Or maybe they really did not fly there ... Otherwise, why such articles appear?" :)
    1. Rock_n_roll
      Rock_n_roll 15 November 2016 16: 08 New
      +1
      And why do people write articles? Well, in addition to show off)
    2. antivirus
      antivirus 15 November 2016 21: 42 New
      0
      was, was, was, but passed by eccentrics
    3. Serzh_R
      Serzh_R 16 November 2016 10: 39 New
      +3
      In the same 1968 year, even before the first flight to the moon, NASA decided to deliver notifications of “temporary layoffs” to seven employees of the Marshall Space Research Center in Huntsville, where Saturn-5 [16] was developed. And only after 2 of the year was the first and until that time the permanent director of the Center named after Marshall, the chief designer of many rockets and space systems, the chief designer of the Saturn-5 rocket, Werner von Braun (ill. 5), was relieved of his post as director of the Center and removed from the leadership of rocket science. And removed not "temporarily", but forever.
  5. Serzh_R
    Serzh_R 15 November 2016 16: 07 New
    11
    What a pathos article!
    Manned flights with astronauts to the moon are still not possible.
    Our lunar program in the 21 century with the landing of astronauts in the 2030 years
    http://kosmolenta.com/index.php/project-lunar/lun
    ar-program-overview
    Let the USA show the rocket engines of the opollons, samples of the lunar soil, the media materials of Apollo flights (suddenly disappeared), and then you can believe it?
    1. vadim dok
      vadim dok 15 November 2016 16: 30 New
      +8
      After the first flight, the Americans handed over part of the lunar soil to many countries, including the USSR! This was written in the newspaper Pravda. Soviet scientists had the opportunity to compare this soil with soil samples delivered by the Soviet lunar expedition!
      1. viktorR
        viktorR 15 November 2016 18: 48 New
        +8
        Yeah, out of 400 kg allegedly brought, they handed everyone the same couple of hundred grams, with a ban on destructive tests. I’m silent about the fossilized sackcloths donated as stones from the moon.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 15 November 2016 21: 53 New
          +4
          There was no such ban, this is a myth wink There was an exchange with the USSR, and do what you want. There are scientific papers comparing soil from various Soviet and American expeditions. Everything was in the USSR.
      2. t7310
        t7310 17 November 2016 22: 46 New
        +1
        Soviet scientists had the opportunity to compare this soil with soil samples delivered by the Soviet lunar expedition!


        After all, they could have brought robots like ours. another version of our "took". or found on the ground or maybe they cheated
    2. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 15 November 2016 20: 08 New
      +4
      Saturn-5 rocket engines are in the museum, you can watch as much as you like.
      You can see samples of the lunar soil from the Apollo, even in Moscow, in the cosmonautics museum.
      Media materials to hell.
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 15 November 2016 21: 09 New
        +3
        Why aren't they on Atlas-5? Is it because it happened that they turned off during the flight, and did they unscrew something too shaking on Apollo 13?
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 15 November 2016 21: 54 New
          +3
          Because the RD-180 is sold below cost. It’s hard to compete with that.
          https://ria.ru/economy/20110511/373020049.html
          MOSCOW, 11 May - RIA News. OJSC NPO Energomash sold Russian RD-180 rocket engines for Atlas-5 American launch vehicles for half the cost of their production costs, according to the Russian Audit Chamber.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 15 November 2016 22: 18 New
            0
            Because they simply do not have engines of this class.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 15 November 2016 22: 23 New
              +3
              Laughed
              RD-180
              Thrust 390,2 tf (3,827 kN) (sea level)
              423,4 tf (4,152 kN) (vacuum)
              Specific impulse 311 s (at sea level)
              338 s (in vacuum)

              RS-68A engine flying on their Delta-4 launch vehicle
              March engine RS-68A
              Thrust 319,9 tf (3137 kN) (sea level)
              363 tf (3560 kN) (vacuum)
              Specific impulse 360 s (at sea level)
              412 s (in vacuum)

              Lower thrust, higher UI (A single impulse is an indicator of the efficiency of a jet engine. Sometimes the synonym “specific thrust” is used for jet engines (the term has other meanings), while specific thrust is usually used in internal ballistics, while specific impulse is used in external ballistics.), in general, too. wink
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 15 November 2016 23: 33 New
                +1
                RD-180 is a half from RD-171
                thrust is also an indicator of efficiency, because the right number of engines depends on it
                if intellectually, then hydrogen engines are not used in the first steps, because the wrong impulse

                I didn’t check the numbers, laugh yet ... the F-1 is the analogue of the RD only in terms of thrust, it is not the same for reliability and shaking, the RS-68A is also not the Delta, they never launched something manned because the brains of the astronauts would be soft-boiled .
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 16 November 2016 00: 17 New
                  +1
                  A performance indicator has always been considered a MI, but here bang and traction. laughing
                  The engine should effectively turn fuel into traction, and not just show more traction. Otherwise, American boosters, in general a masterpiece of technological thought, the thrust of which is 1300 tons at the Shuttle accelerator. (One sidewall)
                  Poor Americans did not know about vibration, and calmly let the astronauts on the RS-68. Poor poor. Plak Poster. You somehow forgot that such an engine was on the Shuttles. and plan to put on SLS which will also carry astronauts. drinks
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 16 November 2016 00: 41 New
                    +2
                    This is a single engine ... If there are a lot of engines with high UI but low thrust, then it will explode if at least one of them fails

                    solid fuel boosters are not a masterpiece, in the shuttle there were three RS-25 pieces, not half one lol and whether they will carry four, with not from good traction these "masterpieces" on the sides, this is still a question.
                    1. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 16 November 2016 06: 43 New
                      0
                      Falcon-9 calmly brought the PN to orbit, with a failed engine, laughs at your argument.
                      Such is your masterpiece, because only traction is important to you. And the thrust of one booster is greater than that of the RD-170
                      1. Sagittarius2
                        Sagittarius2 16 November 2016 10: 13 New
                        +3
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        Such is your masterpiece, because only traction is important to you. And the thrust of one booster is greater than that of the RD-170


                        the thrust is large, but its own weight is also large, almost 600 tons. That is almost half of the thrust of the accelerator itself, so the efficiency of the accelerator is low.
                      2. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 16 November 2016 11: 36 New
                        +2
                        And how often did the Falcons explode so that at least a dwarf (and homosexual lol ) chimpanzees? And how often is Atlas 5?
                        they simply turned off (when they had time) the engines on both Saturn and the Shuttle, on one of which this fuel-masterpiece could not be turned off, and it only worked for a little more than a minute with all its toxicity and considerable weight ...
              2. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 16 November 2016 10: 51 New
                +3
                Quote: BlackMokona
                Lower thrust, higher UI (Single Impulse - an indicator of the efficiency of a jet engine.

                Firstly, the RS-68A is almost a ton heavier, secondly, hydrogen as a fuel, thirdly, the thrust-weight ratio is 44,4, while the RD-180 has 77,3 and the operating time of the RD-180 is 11 seconds longer, such wink
                1. Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian 16 November 2016 11: 40 New
                  +3
                  but he uses environmentally friendly hydrogen and oxygen, though from their reaction with the nozzle wall they produce such “substances” that everything around him dies ...

                  and uses starting from the first stage where the draft of kerosene is obviously more ...
                  the shuttle also immediately immediately the second-stage hydrogen laughing

                  and you have "mmm" so you troll "-5" wink
  6. renics
    renics 15 November 2016 16: 16 New
    +9
    Well, the NASA space agency from the USA did not present iron facts about their moon landings, all that is given in the information in this article as facts, they all belong to the category of indirect evidence, and not direct evidence. That is why a number of both specialists and ordinary inhabitants have doubts. Well, tell me how this photo with a blurry spot on the lunar soil, with the name of the place of landing of Apollo 17 as evidence, can serve. What can be seen there, but nothing. This is like what everyone says and writes about UFOs everywhere, but not a single detailed and intelligible video and snapshot is anywhere. That the object is not recognized, yes, but what kind of object it is and what its nature is unknown.
    1. region58
      region58 15 November 2016 16: 28 New
      +8
      Quote: renics
      Well, the NASA space agency from the USA did not provide iron facts about their moon landings.

      1. aba
        aba 15 November 2016 23: 08 New
        +2
        Here is the help for you:
        http://gorod.tomsk.ru/index-1303305018.php
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. renics
          renics 16 November 2016 08: 31 New
          +3
          Well, what are we talking about. It also shows the soft landing of the lunar module using a multi-function crane. The true essence of the Apollo: http://www.x-libri.ru/elib/innet381/00000001.htm.
          http://igor-grek.ucoz.ru/publ/hronos/nasa_no_apol
          lo / 8-1-0-7
          http://archive.li/SmDYr
      2. renics
        renics 16 November 2016 07: 05 New
        +1
        I wrote that direct evidence is not only indirect and if you are so stupid that you can not understand the semantic meaning of two words, then these are your problems. And what you put here is far from the topic of the article and is a natural flood. And if you have nothing to do, then do it. what the dog does when she has nothing to do. Well, you yourself know what. And the flood is off topic, most likely it will have to be deleted by the administrator. And one more thing, if you decide to answer me, there will be no dialogue by itself. Not ... to
        1. region58
          region58 17 November 2016 00: 06 New
          0
          Quote: renics
          if you are so dumb that you can’t understand the semantic meaning of two words, then these are your problems

          Quote: renics
          And if you have nothing to do, then do it. what the dog does when she has nothing to do.

          Ek, how did you feel that ... What, the hooligans offended?
          Quote: renics
          And one more thing, if you decide to answer me, there will be no dialogue by itself. Not ... to

          Do not tell me what to do, and I will not tell you where to go.
        2. Stegosaurus Brontosaurus
          Stegosaurus Brontosaurus 17 November 2016 09: 54 New
          +1
          Man, are you rude to the local public?
          There are many thousands of photos from the moon, and you mess with one.
          At the expense of evidence ... the American lunar program is a fact, this is the case when evidence is not needed, just as evidence of the existence of the moon itself is not needed - you just need to raise your head and look up.
          The research of astronauts has long become a solid foundation for scientific knowledge, which is too complicated for the average person, and thank God that doubts of such ordinary people do not affect scientific progress.
          Have you seen a new advertisement (I don’t remember which one) of a car? There in the first minute he asks "is it possible to measure the distance to the moon with a laser?" Well, this became possible thanks to the landing of the Apollo 11 crew, and a little later two more crews. Or do you require a certificate that the laser location is not nonsense?
          About Apollo 17 ... After all, all that is needed is to read about the tasks before the crew and the results of experiments conducted on the lunar surface, and you're talking about some kind of "iron facts".
          And yet, here is my link http://igor-grek.ucoz.ru/publ/hronos/nasa_no_apol
          lo / 8-1-0-7 do not bring anywhere else, otherwise the extravagants risk dying of laughter.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 17 November 2016 13: 11 New
            +2
            the mirror could take AMC there too ... winked
            did you see the movie Capricorn-1, Interstellar, Martian, and what did they want at the beginning of the American lunar program Agen-Gemini, for example, to fly there on nitric acid and UDMH?
            Quote: Stegosaurus Brontosaurus
            you just need to raise your head and look up.

            and at this time the reptilians will continue to fumble in your pockets again ...
            1. Stegosaurus Brontosaurus
              Stegosaurus Brontosaurus 17 November 2016 13: 53 New
              +1
              Quote: Simpsonian
              the mirror could take AMC there too ... winked


              Could you? yah? Do we see a self-propelled chassis at corner reflectors? In fact, each flight has its own program of experiments, its own equipment. Hence the question: before Apollo 11, in which flight were, in your opinion, mirrors placed on the moon?
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 17 November 2016 14: 43 New
                +2
                I could - there are literate thematic sites on Moon Hoax in pictures with "shagonauts" on this topic, in principle, the same low stable moon rover is only easier
                within anyone with just a soft landing, they could be hindered ... flying there for this was not necessary
                it was still possible to deliver a mirror to the AMS, and to show the public pavilion photos with others

                I personally think that the Americans most likely were on the moon, but the Soviet experts did not have a unanimous opinion on this issue, even taking into account how much the mother of pearl passed to Saturn Apollo in the USA to merge the moon with them and they abandoned their original Titan-Gemini.
                1. Stegosaurus Brontosaurus
                  Stegosaurus Brontosaurus 17 November 2016 15: 53 New
                  +1
                  Theoretically, yes, she could. We put such a reflector without the participation of pilots. For some reason, there are no questions for us in this, although there are no photos to find. Oh yes ... there was no one to photograph). Only before the Apollo did the Servers sit on the moon. And in the reports of their programs there are no reflector settings. And such reports appear at Apollo 11, -14 and -15. If we resort to conspiracy theory, then the mirrors should have been put in the framework of three unmanned expeditions. And this is already too much. Yes, and we can clearly see that these reflectors are not "low" moon rovers. They have a platform without any chassis. In this photo https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/
                  ae / ALSEP_AS14-67-9386.jpg
                  it is clearly seen that the right side just bite into the lunar soil.
                  The Americans flew, of course, not only in order to put mirrors. Yes, even if beyond this, then their reflectors are many times more than what we could send after them. Our reflectors were on Lunokhods, and therefore on the chassis. Given that the chassis is not low (half a meter), the reflector was still lost for a long time. What can we say about the "low shagonauts". If they fall on an uneven surface, they will be lost immediately.
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 17 November 2016 16: 08 New
                    +1
                    you could take pictures just like the Americans at Mosfilm ...
                    The serverers had a soft-landing system donated by NASA all the same Khrushchev
                    Well, no and no - forgot to deposit ... lol
                    working "low shagonauts" at the range of supporters of MoonHoax transported such mirrors and left the manipulator in place
                    1. Stegosaurus Brontosaurus
                      Stegosaurus Brontosaurus 17 November 2016 17: 02 New
                      +1
                      Why leave them with a manipulator? Then to fly away without them? No shagonaut flew back. And our Lunokhods did not fly away anywhere, and they dragged reflectors on themselves. In the case of the lunar tractor, such manipulators are not required, this is an excess. If they were needed, they would have stood on our Lunokhod.
                      And to photograph in the pavilion ... You know, in total for the lunar program about 300 thousand photos were taken and 200 hours of video were shot. Agree, this is a bust for the conspirators.
                      1. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 17 November 2016 17: 21 New
                        +1
                        then so that they shine ... could fly away, could roll up or cover with rags ...
                        this is normal, especially for the conspirators ... some of the American filming was exactly pavilion-based, they recognized this, like Roscosmos see below in the comments about Leonov’s return to the airlock after spacewalk ...
    2. vadim dok
      vadim dok 15 November 2016 16: 36 New
      +7
      Soviet scientists could control the lunar rover perfectly! So, they could and have observed ALL 7 American flights and moon landings! Why did not ONE scientist and military from space forces say that these are lies and Hollywood productions! And so seven times in a row!
      1. fzr1000
        fzr1000 15 November 2016 21: 25 New
        +3
        Maybe there was some kind of deal between the USSR and the USA on that score? But the USSR still kidanuli in the end.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 16 November 2016 08: 28 New
          0
          Only Putin directly states that the landing said that only people far from special services can believe in the conspiracy
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 16 November 2016 11: 44 New
            +2
            Yes, he says a lot of things, and his DAM is even more, the language is given to politics to hide his thoughts, and special services are busy with just conspiracies.
            the "landing" does not cancel the fact of the "conspiracy"; the Khrushchevites for Saturn Apollo and Surveyor transferred so much to the USA that there are more Soviet technologies there than American ones
            a purely American project was a stubborn Titan-Lunar_Gemini, in which the Americans would have been trivial "at ... smiling" and, having comforted the buttons, had a rest.
      2. Sagittarius2
        Sagittarius2 16 November 2016 10: 10 New
        +2
        Quote: vadim dok
        Why did not ONE scientist and military from space forces say that these are lies and Hollywood productions! And so seven times in a row!


        but because the German, that for such conversations they are fired from work, that under the USSR, that in our time. There is some kind of common secret - sorry for the vulgar word through which neither ours nor pin-to-day can skip. But it’s not aliens.
        1. Tired
          Tired 16 November 2016 12: 11 New
          0
          Quote: Sagittarius2
          There is some kind of common secret - sorry for the vulgar word through which neither ours nor pin-to-day can skip. But it's just not aliens.


          These are the Nazis!
          1. Sagittarius2
            Sagittarius2 16 November 2016 12: 41 New
            0
            Quote: Tired
            These are the Nazis!


            punishmentists ...
  7. Vilensky
    Vilensky 15 November 2016 16: 20 New
    +2
    And why even on the photos in this article do the shadows look in different directions?
    1. Dan4eG
      Dan4eG 15 November 2016 17: 22 New
      +4
      Quote: Vilensky
      And why even on the photos in this article do the shadows look in different directions?

      cross-eyed camera! laughing
      1. Smog
        Smog 15 November 2016 19: 11 New
        +3
        Or a curve photographer
    2. Nat1961
      Nat1961 15 November 2016 17: 34 New
      +6
      You see .... Hollywood, in those days did not possess computer technology, and literally, everything had to be greased "manually"!
  8. guzik007
    guzik007 15 November 2016 17: 22 New
    +4
    Supporters of the conspiracy theory in those distant days, when VOs were dominated by minuses, doused me with them, when I claimed the Americans were on the Moon !.
    I say this now, the Americans were on the moon. Another thing is why they faded. And this is not only a matter of economic inexpediency. There is a lot of literature on this subject, there are monographs of NASA direct employees at that time.
    And there is a suspicion that the Americans came across on the Moon SUCH knowledge, which, as their politicians thought, humanity is simply not ready.
    1. viktorR
      viktorR 15 November 2016 18: 52 New
      +3
      And there is a suspicion that the Americans came across on the Moon SUCH knowledge, which, as their politicians thought, humanity is simply not ready.
      Supporters of conspiracy speak? Ahem ...)))
      1. guzik007
        guzik007 15 November 2016 20: 46 New
        0
        Supporters of conspiracy speak? Ahem ...)))
        ------------------------
        My kakl ... oops! ; the South Russian opponent, I personally, had in mind the theory of universal lies about the impracticability of flying to the moon at that time.
        However, a reasoned dispute with an ignorant opponent is a debate about the advantage of cold with iron.
    2. netmag
      netmag 15 November 2016 20: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: guzik007
      And there is a suspicion that the Americans came across on the Moon SUCH knowledge, which, as their politicians thought, humanity is simply not ready.


      Take it easy. Maybe among the Americans there are altruists who care about the welfare of mankind, but they are definitely not among the American rulers. If the Americans on the moon found SUCH knowledge, then there, on the moon, trains would already go, for SUCH knowledge.
      1. guzik007
        guzik007 16 November 2016 15: 49 New
        +1
        Take it easy. Maybe among ...
        --------------------------------------------
        If they found "super-super-technology", which can be used, then I agree with you.
        Only there other things were found ...
        Given that America, oddly enough, is a fairly religious country, and creationism, which is a denial of Darwin’s theory, has been cultivated there since the first grade of elementary school, then the moon’s finds of heavily destroyed glass domes of cyclopic sizes over ancient settlements would be a strong blow to the consciousness of Western society, capable of changing the course of our history and, possibly, a change of government.
        This is where the point played by those in power ...
    3. Serzh_R
      Serzh_R 16 November 2016 10: 18 New
      +1
      And there is a suspicion that the Americans came across on the Moon SUCH knowledge, which, as their politicians thought, humanity is simply not ready.


      They came across an inscription on lunar soil with the signature of the USSR: "USA - Pardon me, kiss my pucker!"
  9. DrVintorez
    DrVintorez 15 November 2016 17: 31 New
    +6
    WHY gave Kaptsov a book about the moon ??? WHAT FOR!?!?!?
  10. Cynic
    Cynic 15 November 2016 18: 28 New
    +1
    The only thing that was not used as evidence of the landing on the Armstrong’s moon is: twice two four, if you admit this is true, then there was a landing!
    Such things!
    If anything, then by no means a priori I reject a man’s landing on the moon, just as it’s not supported, it hurts a lot of FACTS both for and against. But this material stands out with naive, absurdity, arguments, akin to the above: if you admit that two, two, four, then there was a man’s landing on the moon!
    1. Sagittarius2
      Sagittarius2 16 November 2016 12: 43 New
      0
      Quote: Cynic
      that twice two four, then the landing of man on the moon was

      is this a Jewish girl told you?
      1. Cynic
        Cynic 16 November 2016 17: 11 New
        0
        Quote: Sagittarius2
        is this a Jewish girl told you?

        LITTLE VIRGIN TRUE!
  11. tolmachiev51
    tolmachiev51 15 November 2016 18: 32 New
    +1
    With the moon itself there are more questions than answers — why is the cosmic body / small in size / located over millions of kilometers. we see such large sizes-diffraction is rubbish !!! Did they fly or not? - fly, but were they on the moon ... ??? With regards to the KGB and cosmonauts, we must remember that these are military people, because at one time there was a bike, "you will declare that we were not on the moon, we will tell how Gagarin" died "!!! And look carefully at any interview of astronauts on this subject-affirmative the answer is "pulled out almost by ticks."
    1. MarioG
      MarioG 16 November 2016 02: 31 New
      +1
      Judging by how much nonsense the astronauts heard from various idiots about whether the Americans were on the moon it’s not surprising that
      Quote: tolmachiev51
      any interview of astronauts on this subject, the affirmative answer is "pulled out almost by ticks"
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 16 November 2016 02: 44 New
        +1
        in fact, there is simply no consensus among them and they are under a subscription about the non-disclosure of certain things ... wink
    2. region58
      region58 16 November 2016 03: 34 New
      0
      Quote: tolmachiev51
      why the cosmic body / small size / located over millions of kilometers. we see such large sizes-diffraction is rubbish !!!

      You can use the online calculator if you yourself do not want to count: http://planetcalc.ru/1897/
      We enter: the distance of 384500000m (minimum, since the eccentricity), the diameter of 3474000m, we get about 31 angular minutes, which is what we actually see. Taking into account diffraction and other factors from 28 to 33 arc minutes.
  12. Tambov Wolf
    Tambov Wolf 15 November 2016 18: 34 New
    +2
    Interestingly, but in the photo placed at the very beginning, the shadows of the device and the stone are directed at different angles. We have, Mr. Kaptsov, two Suns. And if you dig around, maybe we can find the third one?
    1. Stegosaurus Brontosaurus
      Stegosaurus Brontosaurus 17 November 2016 10: 20 New
      +1
      Actually, this takes place in the first year of technical universities on the subject of descriptive geometry: the projection of parallel lines on different planes. If there were two suns, then there would be four shadows from two objects.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  13. Lumumba
    Lumumba 15 November 2016 18: 43 New
    +6
    There are no women on the moon and there is nothing to eat. That does not fly :)

    But in reality, what is there to do? In a world of victorious capitalism, moon exploration is not a cost-effective venture, even for the distant future. They’ll finish building ITER, learn how to burn helium-3, develop “space mining” technologies, and then, maybe, it makes economic sense to fly to the Moon. By the way, it makes much more sense to fly directly to Mars, but that's another story.
  14. Denimax
    Denimax 15 November 2016 18: 53 New
    +4
    Flying to the moon was a matter of prestige. The Americans got it, and, as it were, all on that.
  15. cedar
    cedar 15 November 2016 18: 55 New
    +1
    Well, why, stopped flying to the moon ..?
    1. Denimax
      Denimax 15 November 2016 19: 09 New
      +3
      From an economic point of view, flying there is unprofitable. While unprofitable.
    2. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 15 November 2016 19: 38 New
      +4
      already had this, they were attacked by Luntik

  16. Retvizan
    Retvizan 15 November 2016 19: 55 New
    +8
    It was interesting to read. Hypotheses why before they could, but now it’s so difficult, so long ago.
    I'll start with Magellan. He sailed on maps (until now it is not known which one) he had a clear route, plus he was very lucky with the currents. The fact that they could not repeat after him was corny just explained by insufficient progress, but he was lucky (well, relatively to death). He was able to cross the strait (of his name), he was able to go through the currents, got in good weather and the wind ... And he had maps (there is a theory where Columbus and others have great maps, in which even Antarctica is without ice)
    Well, the second - his expedition, like everyone else, was a purely commercial event. Yes, and it paid off (stocked up with spices).
    Do not think that the notorious prestige of the state in the era of the Cold War of the two systems was not worth the money invested! The USSR has long been gone - but the glory of the first satellite, the first man, the first woman, is and will be. At stake was the superiority of socialism and capitalism! USSR and USA. For the sake of this idea, they did not spare money, for the sake of the idea people went to great lengths, the whole country / countries strained.
    There is such a National project. Space race.
    In general, the re-flight to the moon became difficult precisely because of investments, now it is pure commerce. The moon obeyed the earthlings, but why again, when can I buy a new iPhone or Peugeot on credit? Tasty to eat and have fun in Thailand? Global ideas have lost the comfort of existence. We have returned from 21. Jet Carcasses and Concords lost, speed gave way to value and comfort.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 15 November 2016 20: 47 New
      +1
      Everything is more prosaic, the Indians in kayaks sailed along the “Magellanic” Strait, the Polynesians in tipi in Oceania, the Chinese junky was better than any European ship, it was just this lousy backward Europe where the pots were poured out on the head (and therefore walked in hats) was not needed ...
      Gemini 7 was launched by immigrants from Europe, for a long time with only one astronaut to find out how it is, not to pour pots on the head of passers-by, it turned out - nothing ...
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 15 November 2016 20: 52 New
        +1
        it was really a giant step, for all of humanity ... for "everything" because these stinkers (who voiced, or wrote what to say) all the others, except themselves exceptional, simply do not consider people ... racists, in a word, by the way, then white and black still drove there separately in the transport, but they pooped alongside each other without getting up from the chair in tiny Gemini and then in Apollo when they returned back - together bully
        1. fzr1000
          fzr1000 15 November 2016 21: 29 New
          0
          And then there were Negro astronauts?
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 15 November 2016 22: 21 New
            +1
            no, to sit next to the black man - they just couldn’t understand this, but when the white man next to him is engaged in defecation, this is normal ... such people!
      2. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 17 November 2016 17: 35 New
        +1
        Quote: Simpsonian
        it turned out - no way ...

        probably because the windows were on the opening doors (each astronaut has their own, nature is nearby, and not a common hatch like on a submarine), otherwise they would have reached before lol
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 17 November 2016 17: 40 New
          +1
          but we all have to pay tribute - the KK Gemini of the rural type was certainly a progress compared to two-seater stereo water closets in Sochi hotels
          http://zpravda.ru/images/stories/images/sochi_pri
          koli_01.jpg
          wink
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 17 November 2016 17: 45 New
            0
            Well
            http://knopik.org/uploads/posts/2014-01/139064921
            83444.jpeg
            to complete the Lunar Program, so then the whole aircraft carrier had to pinch his nose laughing
  17. Darth Revan
    Darth Revan 15 November 2016 20: 39 New
    +1
    Why don't they fly? Yes, because the galactic races said, "Shah! You are technical barbarians with an atomic baton, so sit on your ball!"
  18. sabakina
    sabakina 15 November 2016 20: 52 New
    +1
    He began to read, was at a loss. I read to the author, I understood everything. KAPTSOV!
    1. sabakina
      sabakina 15 November 2016 21: 09 New
      +3
      PySy. I have one question for Kaptsov. Where did the stool and urine go astronauts! Or they did not eat or drink for a week! Please note that at that time they did not have a space toilet from the word VAAACHE!
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 15 November 2016 21: 23 New
        +3
        now it’s clear where in the lunar soil came "petrified wood" ...
      2. Stegosaurus Brontosaurus
        Stegosaurus Brontosaurus 17 November 2016 10: 36 New
        +1
        Quote: okroshka79
        And why, in fact, a waving flag on the moon is a question for housewives?

        And how do you think the flag fabric should behave. And for starters: what kind of fabric did the flag have? Tarpaulin and silk behave differently.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 17 November 2016 12: 52 New
          0
          wrapped in a flag? probably that's why he stayed on the moon lol
  19. netmag
    netmag 15 November 2016 21: 19 New
    +3
    7. High-resolution images of Apollo landing sites using the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), 2009.


    Listen, but that’s not even funny. High-resolution images taken from a height of 21 km, vile and blurry ha * but. Go to Google maps and see pictures of the Earth’s surface. On a scale of up to 20 m, they shoot devices located at an altitude of about 450 km and the images are not an example of the best quality.
    Well, what is the matter with the Americans, here they can, but it costs a thousand miles from America to move away and everything - they can’t.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 16 November 2016 06: 50 New
      0
      On Google maps, a lot of aerial photographs. wink
      1. netmag
        netmag 16 November 2016 08: 04 New
        0
        I knowingly indicated the scale. Aerial photography - scale from 20 to 10 m.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 16 November 2016 08: 20 New
          +1
          When taking pictures 20 meters per pixel, you will see your house with one point. Is this your normal quality?
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 16 November 2016 08: 48 New
            0
            Well, I decided to immediately reveal the maps, the Google satellite gives 0,5 meters like LRO, which is much smaller and contains a number of scientific instruments except the camera. A super quality otsedovo.
            Google Maps (Eng. Google Maps; formerly Google Local) - a set of applications built on the basis of the free mapping service and technology provided by Google. Created in 2005 [2].

            The service is a map and satellite images of the planet Earth. Highly detailed aerial photographs (taken from a height of 250-500 m [3]) are available for many regions, for some with the ability to view from four cardinal points at an angle of 45 ° [4] [5] [6]. Additionally, pictures of the Moon [7] and Mars [8] are offered.
            1. netmag
              netmag 16 November 2016 22: 04 New
              +3
              You compare the heights. Yes 20 m. Per pixel from a height of 450 km. and shooting through the atmosphere. And LRO filmed the landing site from a height of 21 km. 20 times closer! No atmosphere!
  20. ksv36
    ksv36 15 November 2016 22: 01 New
    +3
    Quote: DrVintorez
    WHY gave Kaptsov a book about the moon ??? WHAT FOR!?!?!?

    Do not worry so colleague! No one gave him a real book. wink He was given the opportunity to read Nosov’s Top Secret, Dunno on the Moon. wassat laughing
  21. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 15 November 2016 22: 48 New
    +1
    Simpsonian,
    Harrier, modified by the British under a new, more powerful engine, had a larger fuselage on the contrary (for this engine to get into it), and when the Americans later increased the wing themselves, he lost a lot in speed and maneuverability as a laughing fighter

    Stupid British, then they took on the basis of their American made. Yes with this engine and wing drinks
    British Aerospace / McDonnell Douglas Harrier II (British Aerospace / McDonnell Douglas Harrier II) - the second generation of Harrier vertical take-off and landing attack aircraft. The British version is based on the American aircraft AV-8B, which, in turn, was developed on the basis of the British first-generation Harrier. Retired from the Royal Air Force and the British Navy and has the designation Harrier GR7 / GR9. The British version of Harrier II differs from the American AV-8B in the presence of an additional pylon for placing missiles under each wing console and using the original avionics.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 15 November 2016 23: 48 New
      0
      Own what?
      The British have their own engine as it was - English. Wing on the part of the Harriers (Harrier-FA, fighter), on the part of the Harriers - American (Harrier GR)

      On the "American" Harrier AV-8B English engine and fuselage under it.

      The "American" Harrier AV-8B was "developed" based on the British Harrier second generation, a simple increase in only its wing.

      you read above about return to the program?

      As soon as the British made an enlarged engine (without American snot, which they later bought or licensed), they made a new fully enlarged version of the Harrier on this engine, and before the Harriers were small, because the engine was low-power, and before there were Kestrels in general ...
      Now the engines are no longer manufactured and the Americans bought all the British Harriers for parts, both the GR with the larger wing and the FA with the smaller ... not least for the engines.
      With the engine, the Americans failed to throw the British, they threw only with a glider ... bully
      1. ydjin
        ydjin 16 November 2016 11: 42 New
        +1
        Quote: Simpsonian
        Own what?
        The British have their own engine as it was - English. Wing on the part of the Harriers (Harrier-FA, fighter), on the part of the Harriers - American (Harrier GR)

        On the "American" Harrier AV-8B English engine and fuselage under it.

        The "American" Harrier AV-8B was "developed" based on the British Harrier second generation, a simple increase in only its wing.

        you read above about return to the program?

        As soon as the British made an enlarged engine (without American snot, which they later bought or licensed), they made a new fully enlarged version of the Harrier on this engine, and before the Harriers were small, because the engine was low-power, and before there were Kestrels in general ...
        Now the engines are no longer manufactured and the Americans bought all the British Harriers for parts, both the GR with the larger wing and the FA with the smaller ... not least for the engines.
        With the engine, the Americans failed to throw the British, they threw only with a glider ... bully

        And why is a small island country in Britain weapons? Let the horses be bred and comedians! Benny Hill and Mr. Bean are good brands! laughing
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 17 November 2016 21: 04 New
          0
          oligarchs on grandmas ...
    2. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 15 November 2016 23: 59 New
      0
      In this quote, it was already directly confused who developed what and on the basis of what.

      1. Doesn’t it seem strange that the Americans themselves had no right at all to scale the first Angliysky Harrier on a large scale (they would not have done it, see point 2)?
      2. And even stranger how is it in the "American" plane that the all the same enlarged English engine suddenly appeared, which the Americans could not produce without a license? laughing
      By the way, they did not learn how to the end, because almost all Harriers with licensed engines (25% of the fleet) beat because of their failures, and with their native English in storage, or fly.
    3. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 16 November 2016 00: 02 New
      0
      well or not forgery, but now they have not written who developed it lol
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 16 November 2016 00: 03 New
        0
        although they still write in British Aerospace / McDonnell Douglas Harrier, BAE comes first wassat
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 16 November 2016 00: 14 New
          0
          Doesn’t it bother you that both the American and the British versions of the Harrier-2 had engines of the same company? laughing
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 16 November 2016 00: 34 New
            0
            This should confuse you! Firm Rolls-Royce ... wassat
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 16 November 2016 01: 02 New
              0
              In the USA, its Pegasus 11 engines were nevertheless produced by Pratt & Whitney under a license as F402 and not vice versa, and she didn’t go into “partnership” with the Americans with BAE, so that later she would not turn into a “subcontractor” from the seller. laughing
              at the same time, 3 times more engines were produced for Harrier by the British than Americans, and Harrier with non-native dvigl beat 3 times more, that is, those that were with American engines were beaten because of their failures almost everything ...

              and you "speak" F-1 lol
            2. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 16 November 2016 01: 02 New
              0
              "American partners" are such "partners."
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 16 November 2016 06: 45 New
                0
                He laughed again. you re-read your posts. lol
                1. Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian 16 November 2016 11: 49 New
                  +1
                  I re-read if I missed something ... And when will the answers be, and what else can you do? fellow
                  1. Blackmokona
                    Blackmokona 16 November 2016 11: 57 New
                    0
                    Read it
                    http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/av8.html
                    Created by the joint efforts of specialists from the British companies Hawker Siddle (later part of the British Aerospace consortium), Rolls-Royce and the American company McDonnell-Douglas, the AV-8A Harrier entered service with the United Kingdom Air Force and then with the United States Marine Corps. Soon after the adoption of the aircraft into service with the US Marine Corps, an analysis was made of its combat and operational characteristics. Specialists came to the conclusion that the combat effectiveness of the VTOL aircraft is extremely low. With vertical take-off with a load of 1360 kg, the combat radius of the aircraft is only 92 km. An increase in the combat radius to 500-700 km is possible only during take-off with a take-off run of 270-305 m in length. But at the same time, all its advantages are lost as a vertical take-off - after all, such an aircraft was considered as a means that could rise from disguised sites (for example, in a forest) and after completing the assignment, return to them. Moreover, these sites could be located in the frontline zone. But the reality was not so - the fuel consumption was too high for the aircraft.

                    In this regard, in 1972, it was concluded that in its present form, the AV-8A aircraft and, accordingly, its original version, the Harrier, will not be able to satisfy the requirements of the 1980s. Therefore, in April-December 1973, specialists from the United States and Great Britain conducted joint research on the advanced VTOL aircraft with the new Pegasus turbojet. At the end of 1973, the governments of the two countries decided to begin joint development of the project for the AV-16A Super Harrier aircraft. Hawker Siddy and McDonnell-Douglas were appointed responsible for the development of the airframe, and Rolls-Royce and Pratt-Whitney were assigned to design the new Pegasus engine. A mixed commission was created to guide the program, which developed the basic requirements for the AV-16A. They noted that this should be a subsonic VTOL (although it was agreed that a supersonic version may be required in the future), its combat radius and load should be twice as much as the Harrier’s data.
                    1. Simpsonian
                      Simpsonian 16 November 2016 18: 09 New
                      0
                      In the first paragraph about who made the AV-8A - bullshit, and the British with the Americans, he took off shortly from the very beginning, which the specialists with their incorrect analyzes may not have known laughing
                      with vertical take-off, not consumption but underfilling and underload
                      The British simply mastered the new engine and “made it happen” made the bigger Harrier-2, Pratt-Whitney didn’t do anything with its engine, he released them under the English license - see back to Wikipedia.
                      Super Harrier AV-16 it was generally a project of the supersonic Harrier from the very beginning, by itself - unsuccessful.
                      Whoever wrote this article apparently didn’t even read the English wiki article about Harrier laughing
                      About the fact that the Shuttle had RS-25 and not RS-68 cm in the same article in the article about "SSME". laughing
  22. Lumumba
    Lumumba 16 November 2016 00: 42 New
    0
    Quote: Retvizan
    I'll start with Magellan. He sailed on maps (until now it is not known which one) he had a clear route, plus he was very lucky with the currents. The fact that they could not repeat after him was corny just explained by insufficient progress, but he was lucky (well, relatively to death). He was able to cross the strait (of his name), he was able to go through the currents, got in good weather and the wind ... And he had maps (there is a theory where Columbus and others have great maps, in which even Antarctica is without ice)


    And how many failed Magellans perished in the depths of the ocean? Thousands and thousands They cannot tell about themselves, here we don’t know anything about them. And what about the failed Columbus?

    It's like a myth about dolphins saving drowning people: how many people have dolphins pushed into the ocean? Thousands and thousands. And these people, obviously, also will not tell wonderful stories of salvation. So you should not make urban legends about "cards from aliens" and other nonsense.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 16 November 2016 01: 12 New
      0
      and many cases of unsuccessful pushing people into the ocean by dolphins have been documented?

      the expeditions exit from the port as well as their goals are fixed and found out easily ...
  23. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 16 November 2016 06: 51 New
    0
    Quote: Simpsonian
    About a week ago, NASA wrote that it was going to put a telescope on the moon until 2025, and that you can do with its much smaller size.

    Such a link, and so the new orbital telescope for the Lagrange point is already sent for tests.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 16 November 2016 11: 55 New
      0
      You will find them on their site ... One does not interfere with the other.

      But did you understand at least that dust is collected at the points of the lagrange, and not just telescopes? lol Which will be there around them. And on the moon it "falls to the floor" with the acceleration of gravity.
      And if the news about the telescope on the moon appeared before testing this, then they would simply close the program.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 16 November 2016 15: 38 New
        0
        Will you give a link to the news? lol
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 16 November 2016 18: 10 New
          0
          Search for a long time, google it yourself ...
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 16 November 2016 18: 55 New
            0
            I carefully follow the news, so I even know what you have mixed up with. Near-moon space station laughing
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 16 November 2016 19: 52 New
              0
              I'm only interested in what is of practical interest.
  24. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 16 November 2016 08: 15 New
    +1
    Everything is written correctly! I would add one more thing: they do not fly, because it is not commercially / politically profitable at the moment (it does not bring bonuses). "Racing super powers" no. Lunar resources are still unclaimed ... Next, everything is the same. A “kick in ...." a civilization mired in consumerism is required to fly again. :)
  25. Severomor
    Severomor 16 November 2016 09: 52 New
    +5
    Bah, there’s moonlight, but I didn’t notice))), though it’s only 125 comments, you can’t compare it with “red” and “white”
    my 5 kopecks.
    About ACS)))
    Here is ours:

    Initially, the design needed to take into account the anthropological differences between men and women. Therefore, the ACS for the 3-day flight of Tereshkova was different from the male one, and in general the first time the ACS were of individual use and exactly repeated the contours of the body, for which they took fingerprints of the "fifth point" of the astronauts, including the mentioned Tereshkova.
    1. Severomor
      Severomor 16 November 2016 09: 55 New
      +2
      And here they are

      Astronaut Buzz Aldrin demonstrates how to use the package.

      Threat all the ISS stationary bathrooms are of Russian origin. Initially, the toilet was only in the Russian Zarya module, and in 2007 NASA ordered a toilet for the Calm module: "The US National Aerospace Agency (NASA) ordered a toilet in Russia for the US part of the ISS for $ 19 million."
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 16 November 2016 11: 58 New
        +1
        and according to estimates for Congress, he went for 420 laughing there was a big boom among the senators and half went to kickbacks ... although the Russians still did not yesterday, but half a century ago.
  26. Serzh_R
    Serzh_R 16 November 2016 09: 59 New
    +2
    Before a monkey, no one flies into space.
    Americans on the moon - apparently does not count.
  27. ydjin
    ydjin 16 November 2016 10: 53 New
    +2
    Quote: Simpsonian
    already had this, they were attacked by Luntik


    Yeah, horror, and salvation was so close! laughing
  28. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 16 November 2016 11: 24 New
    0
    Sagittarius2,
    Quote: Sagittarius2
    Quote: BlackMokona
    Such is your masterpiece, because only traction is important to you. And the thrust of one booster is greater than that of the RD-170


    the thrust is large, but its own weight is also large, almost 600 tons. That is almost half of the thrust of the accelerator itself, so the efficiency of the accelerator is low.

    Q.E.D. UI decides.
    Quote: saturn.mmm
    Quote: BlackMokona
    Lower thrust, higher UI (Single Impulse - an indicator of the efficiency of a jet engine.

    Firstly, the RS-68A is almost a ton heavier, secondly, hydrogen as a fuel, thirdly, the thrust-weight ratio is 44,4, while the RD-180 has 77,3 and the operating time of the RD-180 is 11 seconds longer, such wink

    And the cheap Marilyn on Kerosene, the throttle ratio in general is 163, and the operating time of the full 40 take-off and landing cycles. And again we turn to UI winked
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 16 November 2016 12: 03 New
      +1
      UI does not solve, the shuttle SRB does not work very long, and it is also low

      Again we turn to how many times the Falcon exploded, and how many times the Shuttle.
    2. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 16 November 2016 12: 08 New
      +1
      Merlin, though on kerosene, is not cheap, and everyone’s unreliability should be multiplied by 9, try it, you might like it ... laughing
      he’s “cheap” because all the achievements of NASA in honor of something under capitalism went to Ilon Mask free then
      their price would also be nice to multiply by 9 lol maybe that’s why they wouldn’t fit into the budget for free. laughing
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 16 November 2016 16: 08 New
        0
        Marilyn is the development of SpaceX, NASA has nothing to do with it.
        One failure on 280 engines, without an accident. Not a bad result.
        The price is 1 million dollars a piece, dial on the same thrust RD-180 and compare the price.
        drinks
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 16 November 2016 18: 21 New
          0
          NASA, however, is an old engine from the Apollo Lunar Module producing a bankrupt company for this business, SpaceX did only “rebranding” on it laughing
          price - fake ...
          see the second paragraph of the Russian wiki article on your "Marlin" there were traces of "about eta" laughing
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 17 November 2016 13: 02 New
            0
            This is the development of TRW Inc., a bankrupt company in 2002, with intellectual property and samples illegally and donated to SpaceX through NASA.
            the price of engines in production on such a scale consists mainly of their R&D, which SpaсeX did not have.
        2. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 16 November 2016 19: 05 New
          +1
          for one RD-180 (which is half of the RD-170) you need to get about 7,5 Marlin
          it's like riding a horse or dog sled
    3. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 16 November 2016 15: 45 New
      0
      Quote: BlackMokona
      And the cheap Marilyn on Kerosene, the throttle ratio in general is 163, and the operating time of the full 40 take-off and landing cycles. And again we turn to UI

      The pressure in the combustion chamber of the SpaceX Merlin-1D engine is only 95 atmospheres, the line that Soviet engineers crossed in the 1960s, and the United States in the 1980s. But Musk can make these engines at its production facilities and receive at the right cost in the right quantities, tens of years a year, liquid-propellant rocket engines have a parameter that shows the efficiency of the expiration of the combustion products - the pressure in the combustion chamber. The greater the pressure, the faster the molecules of the combustion products will fly. An engine with a higher pressure in the combustion chamber will be more efficient than an engine with a low pressure on the same fuel. And if we sort the list of engines by the pressure in the combustion chamber, then the pedestal will be occupied by Russia / USSR - in our design school we tried our best to make efficient engines with high parameters. The first three places are occupied by the RD-170 family of oxygen-kerosene engines: RD-191 (259 atm), RD-180 (258 atm), RD-171M (246 atm).

      The efficiency of a rocket engine is a combination of various parameters and it is not worth it to rest only on the AI.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 16 November 2016 16: 09 New
        +1
        So re-read my post, I said craving lower, MI higher overall too. My opponent began to swing that traction is the most important thing, and the AI ​​is sideways.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 16 November 2016 18: 28 New
          +1
          UI again because the engine itself weighs relatively little over the entire rocket.
          For reliability (it comes to the fore for manned launches), the fewer engines in a rocket the better, therefore, thrust is more important than specific impulse.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 16 November 2016 22: 34 New
            0
            Quote: BlackMokona
            UI sideways.

            Quote: Simpsonian
            therefore, thrust is more important than specific impulse.

            For the first stage, thrust for the second MD is more important, if we consider it roughly.
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 17 November 2016 01: 14 New
              0
              it’s just that in hydrogen the thrust (and therefore the UI) in vacuum is usually greater
  29. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 16 November 2016 11: 47 New
    0
    Quote: Simpsonian
    And how often did the Falcons explode so that at least a dwarf (and homosexual lol ) chimpanzees? And how often is Atlas 5?
    they simply turned off (when they had time) the engines on both Saturn and the Shuttle, on one of which this fuel-masterpiece could not be turned off, and it only worked for a little more than a minute with all its toxicity and considerable weight ...

    The first 18 Falcon-9 launches went through without any accidents. wassat
    1. ydjin
      ydjin 16 November 2016 11: 56 New
      0
      I propose another criterion for calculating reliability, how many man-launches ended unsuccessfully in percentage terms and then we derive reliability!
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 16 November 2016 12: 15 New
        +1
        Oki
        Data for 2015 year.
        Two accidents per country (Two Shuttle and two Union).
        Cosmonauts of Russia (USSR) - 119; Manned flights of Russia - 133
        US astronauts - 335; US manned flights - 163
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 16 November 2016 15: 48 New
          0
          Quote: BlackMokona
          Cosmonauts of Russia (USSR) - 119; Manned flights of Russia - 133
          US astronauts - 335; US manned flights - 163

          Until recently, American astronauts did not sit in the COP for years; they often had to fly into space.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 16 November 2016 16: 10 New
            +2
            Taki here a man asked, accident rate on a man \ launch. I brought the data.
          2. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 16 November 2016 18: 50 New
            +1
            in recent years they fly on relatively safe "Unions"
            before that they had a much higher chance of dying.
    2. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 16 November 2016 18: 31 New
      +1
      May be so... bully And what about the Atlas-5 on the Russian RD-180? laughing but something with the help of someone somewhere away suffered ...
  30. okroshka79
    okroshka79 16 November 2016 13: 19 New
    0
    And why, in fact, a waving flag on the moon is a question for housewives?
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 16 November 2016 15: 39 New
      0
      Because no one in space has canceled inertia. wink
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 16 November 2016 18: 51 New
        0
        because at least part of the filming was in the pavilion
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 17 November 2016 12: 23 New
          +1
          Because 4 of the 5 flags set on the moon are still
          since One fell on takeoff of the descent vehicle.
          Long thin shadows from their poles are clearly visible on the surface.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 17 November 2016 12: 55 New
            0
            part of the shooting was indeed in the pavilion for entertainment, the question is what ...
            when Leonov was unable to return to the airlock for a long time when he first left for outer space, this part was re-shot for display instead of the chronicle.
  31. TOPchymBA
    TOPchymBA 16 November 2016 16: 49 New
    +2
    Why are all Russophobes talking about a neglect of human lives in the USSR and stubbornly silent after how many successful and unsuccessful launches of Saturn 5 people were put there?
    Well, who after this cannibal?
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 16 November 2016 18: 41 New
      +1
      shuttle catastrophes are also an indicator as well as their overall “design”
      before that there was a cheerful Gemini without a means of escape from a starting position
      shuttle non-disconnectable and non-shootable boosters - that’s it ...

      Tsar Ivan the Terrible at least sent someone to fly on one barrel of gunpowder instead of two
      also had a head - even then I understood that wings in space are not needed
  32. Stegosaurus Brontosaurus
    Stegosaurus Brontosaurus 17 November 2016 17: 39 New
    0
    Quote: Simpsonian
    then so that they shine ... could fly away, could roll up or cover with rags ...

    That is, there is no goal. Such a manipulator is good for testing technologies when creating product samples. But in practice, if it is not multifunctional, it is a meaningless, expensive, extra load.
    We know that nothing unmanned from the moon did not fly away. We know that the Americans put 3 reflectors there. We know that they are big. We know in which flights they were delivered. For all this there are reports and experimental results.
    As for the pavilion shooting, it is quite possible that something has been done in the pavilion, but only within the framework of programs not related to flight reporting.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 17 November 2016 17: 55 New
      0
      the goal is they, they shine on them from the earth ...
      it was all done cheaply and with a smile tested by enthusiasts in the sandbox in practice
      and the load just turns out much less ...
      yes, they wrote to you about all this ...
      Soviet AMS were unpawedly returning the soil.
      It was shot in the framework of the programs, as NASA recognized - for entertainment because the original films turned out bad.
      my personal opinion is that in order to just troll everyone ... then the real ones will show without flaws ...
      1. Stegosaurus Brontosaurus
        Stegosaurus Brontosaurus 17 November 2016 18: 08 New
        0
        Well, why remove the reflector from the tractor, if it is good on the tractor? that's what it is about!
        How will the load turn out less if the useless manipulator is overweight?
        For entertainment filmed - yes, and let it be! Has someone caught a fake NASA? As part of a training program for teenagers - take pictures even underwater. What does this survey have to do with flight reporting?
        In your opinion, in what 3 flights to Apollo 11 (at least presumably) did the Americans install 3 reflectors.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 17 November 2016 18: 31 New
          +1
          in order to leave him ...
          the manipulator is needed to leave the reflector ...
          the load will be much less because people with all their livelihoods will not fly ...
          caught, they admitted that "for entertainment"
          in my opinion - it makes no difference, maybe in those, and maybe even earlier, most likely in those, the questions remain whether these flights were manned ...
          Quote: aba
          Here is the help for you:
          http://gorod.tomsk.ru/index-1303305018.php
          1. Stegosaurus Brontosaurus
            Stegosaurus Brontosaurus 17 November 2016 18: 52 New
            0
            A manipulator is not needed for this. In the case of an unmanned flight, it does not need to be removed from the tractor. An example is our Lunokhod. The reflector is standing on the tractor, because the tractor then does not fly away anywhere. The manipulator is overweight, which can be used for other equipment.
            Nobody caught NASA. All photos and videos are available on their website. Perhaps someone asked something, they were answered. And that’s all.
            In those, precisely in those: Apollo 11, 14, 15 and in no others. Surveyors were before the Apollo. They took a bunch of photos, and there are no reflectors in those photos. And in the flight reports there is no information about the installation of reflectors. And there were no tractors with manipulators in those missions. And the reflectors are exactly where the Apollo landed. And on Apollo no tractors with manipulators. Everything was installed manually.
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 17 November 2016 21: 18 New
              0
              In the case of an unmanned flight that they want to pass off as a manned flight, we need it, and the song is about that ...
              Through available and caught, but what else?
              Surveyors almost all did not sit in places where then the Apollos.
              the reports say that dinosaurs became extinct long ago, but there seems to be one ...
  33. zoolu300
    zoolu300 18 November 2016 06: 25 New
    +1
    The main trump card among the supporters of the theory of the "lunar conspiracy" is the F - 1 engine. After all, it is strange that with such a powerful, and most importantly reliable oxygen - kerosene RD, NASA refused to continue using it on other rocket carriers, and used it only on Saturns - 5". Indeed, in the 1970s, it was really possible for NASA to use F - 1, to create an analogue of our Zenith of the 1980s with a payload on a DOE of up to 15-18 tons, and this system would in no way compete with a Space Shuttle with a payload on a DOE up to 30 tons. There is an opinion that the F - 1 thrust in reality was 20-25% less than indicated and Saturn 5 under these conditions could not output 130 tons of DOE necessary for the indicated Apollo configuration for landing on the moon. That is, its actual load on the NOO was 75 - 80 tons. But this mass is enough to create a spacecraft with the means of simulating the landing on the moon. So the shortage of thrust for the F - 1 was hidden by the large size of Saturn - 5 (piece goods), but could not have been hidden on mass products of medium-class missiles.
  34. Pimply
    Pimply 18 November 2016 12: 50 New
    +2
    Let it be srach! And he became srach
  35. 1536
    1536 21 November 2016 19: 06 New
    +1
    It should also be added that round-the-world travel and flights to the moon took place at the turn of the shift in the socio-economic structures of human society. A steam engine can be compared with a personal computer. Nevertheless, the future of space exploration is the future. This, even in Lithuania or Harvatia, for example, will not be denied.
  36. Serzh_R
    Serzh_R 25 November 2016 09: 41 New
    0
    The USA flew to the moon, did not fly - time will tell.
    Here is the fact that the "next" time they will fly to the moon in the passenger seat of our manned vehicle - this is a fact.
  37. 78bor1973
    78bor1973 28 November 2016 20: 30 New
    0
    I didn’t catch the thought, to be honest, well, they stopped flying so what? Like, everything is very simple, give time, they will build "imperial cruisers" and fly far and fast! It’s just that far and the commercial component is not clear, what to carry from there? It was clear from India what to carry, but from the moon? Americans don’t believe every penny, they showed "advice" -Win, it's just a sport!
  38. Penzyac
    Penzyac 11 December 2016 18: 20 New
    +1
    Quote: guzik007
    .
    And there is a suspicion that the Americans came across on the Moon SUCH knowledge, which, as their politicians thought, humanity is simply not ready.

    Do not idealize the Americans, the moral side of the use of knowledge and technology has never restrained them, remember, at least, Hiroshima ...
  39. Vilensky
    Vilensky 4 January 2017 09: 16 New
    +5
    As for all kinds of technical issues, the more you delve into the topic, there is less and less doubt about the intellectual level of those who doubt Armstrong’s landing on the moon.

    Curious argument.
    Arguments about the "fluttering flag" leave on the conscience of housewives. We have more serious aspects on the agenda.

    So is there an atmosphere on the moon ???
    None of the Soviet scientists and astronauts ever denied the reality of the moon landing.

    Why lie so impudently?
    The start of the 3000-ton “Saturn” in front of the whole of Florida and the thousands of tourists who specially arrived that day at Cape Canaveral. And so - thirteen times in a row!

    About 3000 tons, you old man bent. Read rocket specialists. Powerful engines they buy something in Russia
    By the way, did you notice the number of Armstrong's ship? Why "11"? What happened to the previous Apollo 10s?

    One of our sailors caught. By the way, did you notice that the shadows are directed in different directions? Are they in the system of several suns?

    Cosmic rays and "death belts" for some reason spared the living creatures aboard the domestic "Probes." They circled the moon and safely returned to Earth. Deadly radiation does not destroy fragile electronics aboard automatic stations that have been flying in outer space for decades. Without any lead protection 1 meter thick.

    Rats withstand very powerful radiation, and cockroaches 5000 x-rays do not care. In general, all the "evidence" of the stay from the series about Dunno.
    tongue fellow the author has caught such a fish
  40. free
    free 16 February 2017 18: 29 New
    0
    To stop flying to the moon, you must first start flying to the moon. laughing
  41. ship
    ship 16 February 2017 18: 53 New
    0
    "High-resolution images of Apollo landing sites with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), 2009."
    And is this evidence ?. Other "evidence" from the category of plausible, but no more.
  42. srha
    srha 16 February 2017 20: 01 New
    0
    In the article, for some reason, the emphasis is on banter and, to put it mildly, a strange interpretation of events: "All other phases of the flight have been repeatedly tested and thoroughly studied?", "The Soviet lunar program was moving in a similar way. A continuous cycle of equipment testing," at least they would take an interest in the facts .... In the Soviet cosmonautics there was a rule of three accident-free flights before launching a manned spacecraft (violation of this rule with Soyuz1 - ended in the death of V. M. Komarov - 18 months break in flights and completion of the ship, after the tragedy with Soyuz-11 - 27 months break, with shuttles too many months of flight stops after the tragedies and only with the Apollos any failures (even Apollo -13) did not stop the program).

    What else was strange with the Apollo program?

    The first manned flight - Apollo 7, flight Apollo 6 before this is officially recognized as "" not a success ... "!!!

    The next Apollo 8 immediately manned flyby of the moon - note before this, such an apparatus as Apollo did not fly around the moon even once !!! (By the way, maybe someone does not know - Apollo 8 and Apollo 9 just swapped places in the flight program during the race).

    And even the Americans didn’t even send any of the animal kingdoms to the moon before sending their astronauts to the moon (unlike the moon turtles of the USSR). Here monkeys were sent before orbital flights, but not to the moon. To assert after this: "repeatedly tested and thoroughly studied" - what is it, if not banter?
  43. Seraphimamur
    Seraphimamur 18 February 2017 06: 36 New
    0
    The flight of Americans to the moon is like a matter of Faith. There is no solid evidence and it is up to everyone to believe or not. Like in God. And the fact that there is no commercial need to explore the moon is a fact. Well, we'll fly. So what ?
  44. Indifferent
    Indifferent 18 February 2017 07: 23 New
    0
    How much you need to be illiterate in engineering and mathematics to claim that the Americans were on the moon.
    The probability of an accident-free flight of 6 missions in a row to the moon has long been calculated. It is equal to 0, 00005%. Apparently for a person not familiar with mathematics, this does not mean anything? It's a pity. It discredits itself with its articles.
  45. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 2 March 2017 18: 01 New
    0
    They don’t fly to the moon because “Until technologies appear that allow such trips to be made without a significant threat to life. Or, at least, the necessity of such expeditions for the needs of the economy and defense is indicated. '
    1. The threat to life did not stop the United States will lose two shuttle crews.
    2. The need for these flights for the economy and defense, and then and now in the foreseeable future will not change.
    For the United States, there was only one necessity — they would show the world, through these flights, their superiority and integrity did not disappear in the next decade, but more flights Saturn 5 did not beat. On the basis of Saturn 5 they could create a large station in orbit of the earth, or a base on the moon and / or receive Martian soil. Even for the shuttle they could use Saturn 5. This carrier could be improved. All this could demonstrate the superiority of the USA and obscure the success of the Mir station. In the whole question. Could they not? Or could not and therefore did not?
    Comparison with the pace of technology development in the 16th century cannot be commented on.
    The USSR did not start the propaganda war because it did not want it.
  46. Locksmith
    Locksmith 5 May 2017 09: 10 New
    0
    A rare nonsense, from Kaptsov did not expect this at all ... Not even a single little bit of a critical explanation, only slogans and many letters. belay