Eleven arrows of Artemis

313

Artemis, sister of Apollo, goddess of the moon, who at one time knew how to use the bow, killing a bunch of characters such as the children of Niobe. And in her honor was named the second American program for the exploration of the moon. The lunar program "Artemis" began in 2017.

As those who really know remember, the predecessor of Artemis was the Apollo program, which was launched in 1961 and completed in 1972.



The result was 6 (SIX) flights to the Moon (and not one taken in Hollywood, as some are trying to imagine), 11 thousand photos of the lunar surface, on the basis of which a new lunar atlas was created, 400 kilograms of lunar soil.

We graduated from the Apollo program because in fact we did everything. what they could: they landed a man (and more than one), won the lunar race, planted the US flag. The photo was taken, the soil was brought. But it cost so much that even an economy like that of the United States really collapsed and could not stand the high cost. Well, the technical capabilities of mankind at that time were exhausted. So the program was closed, which was pretty logical. The victory was for the United States, there was no point in driving Apollo to the Moon anymore.

In those years, there were much fewer conspiracy theorists, Neil Armstrong was received in the USSR at the proper level and from the heart, without questioning his merits.

Eleven arrows of Artemis
Neil Armstrong and Valentina Tereshkova





These two photos show Neil Armstrong in the company of pilot-cosmonaut Konstantin Petrovich Feoktistov and pilot-cosmonaut Georgy Timofeevich Beregov.

In 2017, a new stage began. Now flights to the Moon for the sake of flights and jumps on its surface are not interesting to anyone and are not worth the money spent on it. Now we are talking about how to land on the surface of the moon and gain a foothold there. And on an ongoing basis, start exploring the Earth's satellite in earnest.

The Artemis program consists of several stages.

1. Launch of the circumlunar orbital station "Getway" in 2024.
2. Development of the project "Getway" to the permanent presence of a person on it.
3. Re-landing of a man on the moon, especially a woman (hurray for the US feminists). The year is 2028.
4. Construction on the lunar surface of the infrastructure for human habitation there. From 2030 onwards.
5. Geological exploration with the subsequent extraction of minerals. The time frame is 2040-2050.

All this should lead to the constant presence of a person, first in the circumlunar space, then on the Moon itself.


And then only the development and improvement of the station, infrastructure and logistics. But in 2021, the assembly work of the first modules of the Getway station has already begun.

The huntress goddess Artemis naturally had a bow and arrows. Today in the quiver of the project there are eleven arrows, that is, the participating countries.

In addition to the United States, Canada, Japan, the United Arab Emirates, Great Britain, Italy, Australia, Luxembourg, Brazil, Ukraine and South Korea are participating in the project.

It is clear that the participation of the same UAE or Luxembourg is for the sake of money. So what? Who was hindered by big budgets? But there is plenty of money in these countries, why not? Japan and Korea are electronics, in addition, the Japanese are very successful in working on asteroids with their automatic stations.

But Russia, as you can see, does not exist. In January 2021, Russia was excluded from the list, and was removed from the expert group for the development of Getway. The reason was the repeated statements by Russian representatives about the insufficient role of Russia in the project.

The head of Roscosmos, Dmitry Rogozin, repeatedly spoke negatively about the role that was offered to Russia, namely, the creation of gateways in accordance with NASA standards. Rogozin was against this approach, in the end the parties did not agree, and Russia was asked to leave.

Alas, whoever pays is the one who calls the tune.

Apparently, Rogozin somewhat underestimated the situation. With the advent of Elon Musk's creations, the States have absolutely no reason to play on the same site with Russia, since they can play solo. Basically, if you remember history from the ISS, then, despite the fact that the first block of the station, the Zarya module has a Russian name, was created in Russia and launched into orbit by a Russian carrier rocket, the USA paid for everything. And it is they (NASA) who own the ownership of Zarya.

Who pays, I repeat ...

As a result, the composition of the ISS is known: eight American modules, one European, one Japanese and five Russian. The US pays 60% of the ISS budget, the remaining 40% - Russia, Japan and Europe.

When creating a lunar station, the United States decided not to waste time on trifles, and, playing in high stakes, immediately designate who will be the owner there. The rest of the countries either agree to the position of junior partners, or ... to exit. So after the ISS was flooded in 2024, the roads of countries in space finally diverge.

Projects for the construction of a Russian station, either in Earth orbit or in the Moon orbit, raise doubts both in terms of technical and in terms of financial. And this is a reality that is difficult to get out of.

And then it is worth looking at what the United States is planning in a complex.

The intended final and irrevocable break in US-Russian cooperation is just the beginning.

On April 7, 2020, the United States denounced its signature under the 1979 UN General Assembly resolution, in which the Moon and its resources were declared common to mankind.

Now the US does not recognize this document. There is nothing universal in the Moon. The moon will belong to those who can reach it, gain a foothold and begin development. This immediately puts all the points on the "and", but it looks quite logical.

The 1979 resolution and the “Agreement on the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies”, created on its basis, provided for somewhat non-marketable things. Any profit received from the development of the Moon goes to the disposal of the UN, international bodies and is divided equally among the UN member states.

You know, so that all North Koreas, Iran, Venezuela, and Belarus do not hurt too much to rely on profits. There will be no interest, whoever has mastered the moon will have money.

In general, of course, it is completely in the order of things.

May 2020. Will go down in history that the consortium "Artemis Accord", "Artemis Agreement" was created. And it stipulated the "rules of the game": "Lunar law", the division of the satellite into spheres of responsibility and sectors of influence and stuff like that.

It is clear that candidates for the role of satellites will be carefully selected in the United States. For many countries such as the Emirates or Canada, this will be the only real road to space. It is clear that the United States will take on the main role in financing the project here, but "there is never a lot of money." Therefore, it turns out something like a closed elite club, where not everyone will be allowed.

In some media and on the Internet in particular, strange reactions have started. Criticism and laughter addressed to the same Luxembourg and Ukraine. Not space powers, so to speak.

Forgive me, you can gossip a lot, but Luxembourg is one of the countries whose banking and insurance systems are in the top ten of the world ranking. And the euros that the Luxembourg bankers will invest in the project are no different from the dollars of American financial tycoons. Well, or from the UAE dirhams.

And Ukraine will also be able to play its own melody in the general choir. Whatever the very sharp-tongued "experts" of the Internet say, what is in Ukraine - it is. KB Yuzhnoye, Yuzhny Machine-Building Plant named after A. M. Makarov, Khartron-Arkos, Kievpribor, Khartron-YUKOM, Rapid - these are all world-famous plants. And the fact that they are going through hard times, as practice shows, is treated with an infusion of money.

Even Musk admitted that the Zenith rocket, created by Ukrainian hands, is one of the best in the world.

How realistic is what the Americans are up to?

Unfortunately, real. There is a lot of backbiting in the style of Dmitry Rogozin, but let's take a look at the breakthrough that NASA is showing today.

- The United States delivered to Mars, landed and successfully used the third rover. Weighing 1 kg.


The Chinese, who approached Mars almost simultaneously with the Americans, hung out in orbit for three months. And their apparatus weighed only 260 kg. The Americans sat down almost immediately.

What difference does it make? It's just that landing is considered the most difficult stage from the technical point of view for any such flight.

- From the rover they launched and carried out several flights (albeit not over long distances) of a propeller drone for flight in the atmosphere.


- Musk launched and landed the same first stage of the Falcon.


The first stage is the most complex and expensive part of the rocket. Plus there is another one that flew nine times. And several with the number of starts from four to six. That is, in fact, Musk's reusable system works.

“Most recently, I successfully tested Starship, the heaviest missile in US history.


Not partially, like the Falcon, but completely reusable. Yes, Musk's company ditched a lot of money and materials along the way. Yes, the prototype exploded at the start, jumped, exploded in flight, exploded on landing ...

But in the end, the rocket took off 12 km and safely landed back on the ground. And it didn't explode. When Russia and China will be able to raise the Yenisei and Changzhen 9 in the same way is a question. Not anytime soon.

- in 2021, the Parker solar probe (named after the scientist Eugene Parker, who discovered and proved the existence of the solar wind), launched in 2018, accelerated to 532 km / h, flies to the Sun (where it will burn in 000), sending a huge number of measurements and telemetry of solar activity. Will go down in history as the fastest earthly vehicle that will approach the Sun at a minimum distance.


One could talk about the achievements of Russia, but ...

By the way, there was a similar solar project in Russia. "Interheliozond". The project, worth just $ 1,5 billion, was pulled out of poverty.

Regarding reusable rockets, heavy launch vehicles, reusable spaceships - so far only empty talk and promises. As well as about his station ROSS, lunar stations, flights to Mars and Venus. All this so far exists only on Dmitry Rogozin's twitter.

But 2021 will go down in history as the last year of use of Russian "Unions" for money. Now, from 2022, the Americans themselves will deliver their astronauts into orbit. No, no one says that countries will not let US representatives on board in Soyuz, and Russians in Cru Dragon. But already just by barter.

Here, perhaps, it is worth remembering that for 140 successful launches, Soyuz transported 373 cosmonauts and astronauts into orbit. The Space Shuttle program has delivered 135 people over 852 successful flights. So, for comparison.

But when the Space Shuttle program was curtailed, Roscosmos frankly used it to its advantage. Having become a monopoly, the Russian company raised prices a little. Four times, from $ 21 million in 2006 for a seat, to $ 83 million in 2020. Since 2006, Americans have paid more than $ 72 billion for 4 seats. For Roskosmos, it was good money. That's it. The shop has closed. Cruise Dragon start - $ 55 million. Not a bad signal for the rest.

The program of deliveries of Russian RD-180 engines was closed in exactly the same way. This year, 2021, will be the last in which the United States acquired the RD-180. Yes, the Russian engine accounted for 10 to 15% of the launches of American missiles, but the Americans approached the BE-4 and Raptor, which are at least as good as, and as they say in the United States, head and shoulders above the RD-180.

Energomash, which supplied the RD-180 to the USA, received from these contracts from 10 to 13 billion rubles a year. What fate awaits NPO Energomash named after academician V. P. Glushko after the end of work with the Americans, today it is difficult to say. But it is clear that there is nothing optimistic about the prospects.

There is an understanding that the arrows of "Artemis" will still fly to the moon. Perhaps, under the Internet cackle of a certain category of users. To stories about trampolines and stupid Americans, but ...
I would very much like to write about the real successes of Russian cosmonautics. I would like to live up to this holiday, when something flies with us, works, gets lucky or lands on the moon. When, I hope, we will still move from words on Twitter to deeds at the enterprises of the space industry.

It is not entirely pleasant to watch the next success of the Americans, with each step throwing Russia to the side of the space road.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

313 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    3 2021 June
    Who is the first to stand on the moon, and that sneaker. And who will be the first to show the future. I personally do not see any success of the Americans.
    1. +24
      3 2021 June
      Quote: Sergey39
      Who is the first to stand on the moon, and that sneaker. And who will be the first to show the future.

      In fact of the matter. You can't sit back.
      1. +21
        3 2021 June
        "In those years there were many fewer conspiracy theorists."-from the text. In those years, there were simply much fewer downright stupid people. fool And the now deceased Alexei Arkhipovich Leonov was cheated, who unequivocally said that the Americans were on the moon - they say, "he sold himself to mattress makers." What can I say, thinking at the level of cattle ...
        1. +4
          3 2021 June
          Quote: Proxima
          "In those years there were much fewer conspiracy theorists" - from the text. In those years, there were simply much fewer downright stupid people.

          No, there were just as many fools. They did not have the tools to advertise their stupidity publicly (the Internet). Therefore, they were less visible. The public area had to be earned.
          Conspiracy studies have always been the lot of narrow-minded people, simply because the replication of other people's manipulative conjectures does not require critical thinking ... and indeed thinking in general. It is enough to hum in step with the herd.
        2. +2
          5 2021 June
          Quote: Proxima
          .... Leonov was fucked up, who unequivocally said that the Americans were on the moon - they say "he sold out to mattress makers." What can I say, thinking at the level of cattle ...


          hivi nasa, who stupidly fapay at the poor photoshop and the "lost" original of the film, which "recorded the first steps" of the lohonaut on the moon, thinking, in my opinion, is at the level of an earthworm))))
      2. +12
        3 2021 June
        Quote: Egoza
        You can't sit back

        right, for a start it is worth clarifying where Mr. Skomorokhov was brought in.
        firstly, the recognition of the flight to the moon in the USSR was from above and was the same idiotic mistake as Medvedev recognized Katyn on the basis of forged documents specially created for this expedition.
        Therefore, do not juggle. Those famous cosmonauts who are now drowning unambiguously for the fact that the Americans took the living lunonauts home, to put it mildly, are interested in such a position.
        The rest answer either very carefully in the style of "I do not exclude the possibility", or directly say that there was no such thing. This is not a conspiracy position, but an objectively skeptical one. People do not invent anything mystical, but name facts or hypotheses based on specific things - this applies to the level of reliability of technology, and the Van Allen belt, and American satellites-simulators of signals, and the absence of an ass, and much more, which undermine the statement there were lunonauts.
        Therefore, I would not run after an incomprehensible landmark while burning my slippers.
        Secondly, Roman says "Roscosmos has raised prices." And Roman will not bother to look at the dollar quotes during that period? And the dollar fell by half. Therefore, there was an increase, but firstly, ground preparation was included in the price, and secondly, the price increased by far not as much as Roman wants to imagine.
        Further. Can the novel represent what needs to be done on the moon to at least pay off?
        It's just that if you load rockets with pure gold and carry them from the moon, it will be a loss.
        This is my comment on the "explosive growth" in the use of the moon.
        And so on. Roman's exuberant enthusiasm, in my opinion, has no basis.
        The only thing he is right about (but for other reasons that he didn’t say) is that the policy of Roscosmos is logical and quickly leading it to collapse.
        1. +5
          3 2021 June
          Quote: yehat2
          what needs to be done on the moon to at least pay off?

          Without an answer to this question, there is no need to send anything to the moon at all, except for automatic probes (for scientific and educational purposes). Is that there to create a test site or a test site for crazy experiments.
          Quote: yehat2
          It's just that if you load rockets with pure gold and carry them from the moon, it will be a loss.

          I hope that our allocators of funds from the budget (especially Mr. Mishustin) will take this fact into account and recommend Mr. Rogozin to do something more useful. This p-owls have a lot of money, there is nowhere to go, so let them build quarries on the Moon for mining regolith or basalt.
          Quote: SERGE ant
          It will be with the Moon, as it was with the New World - whose ships will be the first to land on the coast, they will take the "gold-silver" home in the holds.

          To expand on your analogy, in the case of the Moon, ships will carry sand and rubble home in their holds across the ocean.
          PS Rather than getting involved in all empty and mega-cost projects, it is better to develop and launch a world-class domestic passenger car with this money. Or renew the civil aircraft fleet. If anyone believes that the lunar program will give a leap in the development of space technologies, then it may well be given by the work on the Russian near-earth space station.
          1. +9
            3 2021 June
            I think it makes sense to make some kind of industrial facility in a distant orbit
            there you can produce specific materials and develop the object indefinitely.
            And on the Moon, apart from observation stations and very narrowly specialized automatic particle cleaners, there is still nothing to do.
            1. -1
              3 2021 June
              I totally agree. hi
            2. 0
              4 2021 June
              Quote: yehat2
              And on the Moon, apart from observation stations and very narrowly specialized automatic particle cleaners, there is still nothing to do.

              With the fact that the Americans are lying about the moon, and ours went on about it, but about the uselessness of colonization, no.

              Quote: yehat2
              there is nothing to do with very narrowly specialized automatic particle cleaners.
              If you are talking about helium-3, then in order to reach marketable volumes, you will need no less marketable quantities of these "purifiers", moreover, mobile ones! This alone will require constant maintenance. But there is also the problem of orbital construction, that of stations that of ships, and here less gravity will allow supplying the docks with materials and consumables!
        2. +7
          4 2021 June
          Quote: yehat2
          This is not a conspiracy position, but an objectively skeptical one.

          Let's be honest with ourselves - this is the position of those whose position does not solve anything and is not interested in anyone except like-minded people. fellow
          For an illustrative example:
          Let's say I'm a farmer who grows watermelon-sized strawberries. While I was eating it, selling it, treating my friends and relatives - I spat from the high bell tower on the "opinion" of any "skeptics" who tell me that such strawberries do not exist.
          The Flat Earth Society, for example, claims that modern cosmology is a lie.
          Creationists deny evolution.
          Supporters of the ether - they convince that gravity is nonsense, and so on.
          They discuss it all among themselves, grind it, suck all new hypotheses out of their fingers, praise each other.
          Moreover, they all have pseudo-scientific arguments, and quite convincing (for the layman) rhetoric.

          But what really unites them all is that no one really cares about their "position". Unless as an object for banter. Yes
          1. +5
            4 2021 June
            Quote: And Us Rat
            Let's say I'm a farmer who grows watermelon-sized strawberries.


            Let's say I am an American "astrolonaut", in an oxygen environment, without a toilet, in a rag spacesuit, on a raw rocket (previously unsuccessfully tested), took the Kondratyuk Route (a loop in the Earth's radiation belts, in a place with maximum danger) and flew to The moon, during the years of maximum activity of the sun.
            Also, when returning, at the second cosmic speed, without having such experience at all, I entered the Earth's atmosphere according to the "one-hole scheme" (without preliminary braking), and did not burn out, did not die from overloads, moreover, I climbed onto the aircraft carrier as a cheerful goat, exhaling his "oxygen environment", and taking off the crumpled spacesuit.

            I don't care that everyone just saw the start from Earth, and that after that I have no evidence other than my statements and movie masterpieces from Stanley Kubrick, plus my spectacular happy ending. More than 50 years have passed, and so many more will pass, I do not want to repeat this any more.

            Somehow it turns out. Probably, it remains a little to wait until it will be known for certain how a helicopter took off on Mars (on Earth it would correspond to an altitude of 30 kilometers), how their miracle rovers plowed the expanses of Mars for many years, the main thing is that the brave Americans flew so dashingly to the moon 50 years ago.

            By the way, where are strawberries the size of a watermelon, in this, like NASA, you have to take their word for it, or can you present it to the world?
            1. +4
              4 2021 June
              Quote: Per se.
              Let's say ...

              Let's go to health. fellow
              You probably did not understand my message. I'm not interested in proving anything to you. In principle, I am not interested in discussing your position on this issue. Conspiracy topics are not my level of communication, I do not watch Ren-TV.
              I am not your interlocutor, have a nice day.
              hi
              1. 0
                4 2021 June
                Quote: And Us Rat
                I'm not interested in proving anything to you
                Like NASA, why be surprised. That's just, "conspiracy themes", this is something that has not been proven by anything, demagoguery and fairy tales passed off as truth.

                I am not your interlocutor, have a nice day.
                Similarly, כל הברכות!
            2. 0
              4 2021 June
              In order to find out whether the astronauts were on the moon or not, you just need to look there through a normal telescope. The addresses can be found on the Internet and begging for a visit.
              Therefore, the denial of the US lunar program is the 2nd sign of idiocy. (the first, as you know, is stubbornness). I have bad news for you.
              1. kig
                +3
                4 2021 June
                Quote: Max Otto
                In order to find out whether the astronauts were on the moon or not, you just need to look there through a normal telescope.

                Ikhtamnets would have long ago to unite, chip in a coin and hire Mask - let him launch a smartphone with a selfie stick at the first landing site, or something like that. Elon will come up with it. And everything will become clear.
                1. -1
                  4 2021 June
                  Nothing will help them. Even if you dip his face into the lunar soil. He will say like: "It was you who arranged the scenery before my arrival." It's just a diagnosis.

                  On the comment below on the account of the loss of documentation: try to make certificates from the place of work for retirement in the period from 1991 to, approximately, 2005, if you worked in 3, 4 non-state small cooperatives or firms, with a probability of 95% you these periods will be thrown out of the experience, since no traces will be found. And the United States is 95% private offices through and through, so there is nothing unusual in the loss of documentation, there is no need to measure everything according to your own way.
            3. 0
              July 31 2021
              Quote: Per se.
              Let's say I am an American "astrolonaut", in an oxygen environment, without a toilet, in a rag spacesuit, on a raw rocket (previously unsuccessfully tested), took the Kondratyuk Route (a loop in the Earth's radiation belts, in a place with maximum danger) and flew to The moon, during the years of maximum activity of the sun.

              well, the Americans are stupid. lol
          2. +2
            4 2021 June
            uh no, there are differences. Unlike pure theories, skeptics have not just facts, but a mountain of facts that prevent Americans from saying yes it was.
            I am especially amused by the complete loss of the booster documentation.
            Musk has been trying to replicate the technology half a century ago for almost 10 years.
            In my opinion, this is just ridiculous. And where is the conspiracy theories?
            1. 0
              29 2022 June
              The loss of documentation certainly sounds like nonsense .... stop, why does it sound like nonsense?
              Then why did this "nonsense" happen to us too?! It is also impossible for us now to restore the complete documentation on the H-1 launch vehicle, which was created at the same time as Saturn. What can we say, some of the documents on Energy have been lost, although Energia-Buran is the period of the 80s.
              And about "... trying to reproduce technologies half a century ago" - WELL TAU WE ALSO CAN'T RESTORE THE TECHNOLOGIES OF THE ENERGIA-BURAN PROGRAM. And what does it mean that Energia did not fly with Buran ??? The loss of technology is not only the loss of documentation (which happens all the time in life), it is the closure of industries that produced specific components, these are research bureaus in which specialists no longer work. Again, I will cite as an example the more "young" Energia-Buran project. The technology appeared later than the era of the Apollo program, but Russia is not capable of repeating this launch vehicle. Tritely, many people (engineers and scientists) who worked on this project died. And the specialists that came after them came when the work on Energy was no longer being carried out. They just didn't deal with Energy. And how many industrial enterprises have closed since then?!
              The impossibility of recreating the technology of the past is not a sign that this technology did not exist. But only a sign of a loss of competence caused by a period when no one worked in this area. For some reason, no one questions (except for completely repulsed conspiracy theorists) the fact of shuttle flights under the Space Shuttle program. Although the American shuttles were also incredibly heavy (2030 tons versus 2900 tons for Saturn 5) and more difficult than Saturns, and the first flight was made in 1981. I think 30 years will pass and the Space Shuttle will also be considered a fiction.
        3. +11
          4 2021 June
          Quote: yehat2
          firstly, the recognition of the flight to the moon in the USSR was from above

          from above how is it? like the people were against it. and he was forced to 7
          Quote: yehat2
          Those famous cosmonauts who are now drowning unambiguously for the fact that the Americans brought living lunonauts home, to put it mildly, are interested in such a position.

          why? What does it matter to them?
          Quote: yehat2
          Secondly, Roman says "Roscosmos has raised prices." And Roman will not bother to look at the dollar quotes during that period? And the dollar fell by half.

          fell? with-hrenase?
          In relation to ch6emu 7 against the ruble or what? laughing
          inflation in the USA for 15 years is less than 29%
          Quote: yehat2
          the price includes ground preparation, and secondly, the price has not grown as much as Roman wants to imagine.

          not . she just grew up and it is not necessary to pull the owl on the globe --- 4 times.
          1. +1
            4 2021 June
            Quote: atalef
            from above how is it? like the people were against it. and he was forced to 7

            firstly, not the people, but a relatively small group of competent people who could assess the events. Khrushchev did not give time for an assessment. The position of the USSR was announced a few hours later without consultation.
            1. 0
              5 2021 June
              Quote: yehat2
              Quote: atalef
              from above how is it? like the people were against it. and he was forced to 7

              firstly, not the people, but a relatively small group of competent people who could assess the events. Khrushchev did not give time for an assessment. The position of the USSR was announced a few hours later without consultation.

              fairy tales . By the way, it doesn't bother you. that after Khrushchev was Brezhnev and further in order and none of them somehow refuted?
              it means to throw Khrushchev off - this is normal, to declare his entire group almost enemies - this is nothing. but against the landing of the Americans on the moon - no, no, no - a sacred cow.
              .
              And should I believe you?
              1. +3
                5 2021 June
                Quote: atalef
                And should I believe you?

                you don't have to believe me. I am just asking serious questions that Americans have no answers to. Better check yourself - do you need to believe in everything that is generally accepted.
                Let me remind you that not so long ago the whole of Europe considered the earth flat simply because the church said so. So ask yourself - do you believe in everything that the Americans tell you?
                In other words, all the answers on the Moon will soon be received after the implementation of 2 Chinese space programs.
                1. 0
                  5 2021 June
                  Quote: yehat2
                  by the way, all answers on the Moon will soon be received after the implementation of 2 Chinese space programs.

                  It's late, doctor. The Chinese also sold themselves to the Americans, like the entire leadership of the USSR, political and scientific. What things, it turns out, the Americans can do, both red superpowers instantly pinned them to their nails. Didn't expect from them.

                  https://www.gazeta.ru/science/news/2020/06/20/n_14571583.shtml

                  Khrushchev did not give time for an assessment. The position of the USSR was announced a few hours later without consultation.


                  Khrushchev was removed in 1964. Where do you even climb, with such and such knowledge?
                  1. +3
                    5 2021 June
                    that you are constantly trying to divert the conversation to some kind of crap?
                    it's not about whether the Americans flew the moon, it's about
                    Did they bring the living from there?
                    1. +4
                      6 2021 June
                      Quote: yehat2
                      it's not about whether the Americans flew the moon, it's about
                      Did they bring the living from there?

                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      You are absolutely right.

                      I have been saying for a long time that the Americans made a secret lunar program in order to fake an unclassified lunar program.
                2. 0
                  July 31 2021
                  Quote: yehat2
                  you don't have to believe me. I am just asking serious questions that Americans have no answers to.

                  it depends on which Americans you ask questions wink
                  Quote: yehat2
                  Better check yourself - whether you need to believe in everything that is generally accepted.

                  And you have to start with the basics. For example, from the formalistic proof that 1 + 1 = 2, and this is not every mathematician can, and certainly will not want to.
                  Quote: yehat2
                  Let me remind you that not so long ago the whole of Europe considered the earth to be flat simply because the church said so.

                  Yes Yes. recently. wassat
        4. +4
          4 2021 June
          Quote: yehat2
          Further. Can the novel represent what needs to be done on the moon to at least pay off?

          Over the past 100 years, no less money has been spent on the expedition to Antarctica than on the Apollo program. How does it pay off? Yes, in any way! However .. even Argentina and Italy have permanent scientific bases in Antarctica.
          1. 0
            4 2021 June
            Quote: ammunition
            Over the past 100 years on an expedition to Antarctica

            Wake up, we're talking about the moon.
    2. +16
      3 2021 June
      Quote: Sergey39
      Who is the first to stand on the moon, and that sneaker.

      Soglashen about sneakers. With the Moon will be, as in due time with the New World - whose ships will be the first to land on the shore, they will take the "gold-silver" home in the holds. Only this will not be in our lifetime.
      1. 0
        3 2021 June
        Quote: SERGE ant
        as in its time with the New World - whose ships will be the first to land on the shore, they will take "gold-silver" home in the holds

        Easier. There is international law, for example, on the extraction of oil in international waters, outside the economic zones of specific countries. The Americans, in fact, are proposing it; this is a completely reasonable and well-mastered topic from the point of view of legislation.
        1. +8
          3 2021 June
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Quote: SERGE ant
          as in its time with the New World - whose ships will be the first to land on the shore, they will take "gold-silver" home in the holds

          Easier. There is international law, for example, on the extraction of oil in international waters, outside the economic zones of specific countries. The Americans, in fact, are proposing it; this is a completely reasonable and well-mastered topic from the point of view of legislation.

          they want to get around it, with the help of "private" firms. Like SpaceX. There are already agreements, and states it is forbidden to own, extract and sell resources from space. But the parties to the agreement can give "permission" to private traders))) That's it. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_On_Outer Space
          1. -1
            3 2021 June
            Quote: Usher
            they want to bypass it, with the help of "private" firms

            On the contrary. They want the Moon, like the sea, to be an environment for the work of not only states, but also private companies. Including the legal environment.
            1. 0
              13 2021 June
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Quote: Usher
              they want to bypass it, with the help of "private" firms

              On the contrary. They want the Moon, like the sea, to be an environment for the work of not only states, but also private companies. Including the legal environment.

              Do you really believe in US altruism? I didn't laugh like that for a long time)
              1. 0
                14 2021 June
                Quote: Usher
                Do you really believe in US altruism?

                What does altruism have to do with it? You may not have paid attention, but 90 percent of the business in space is fully or partially American companies. In such a situation, sitting as a dog in the hay and guarding stupid pieces of paper from the times of grandfathers, signed in a completely different situation, is even somehow strange.
                1. 0
                  14 2021 June
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Quote: Usher
                  Do you really believe in US altruism?

                  What does altruism have to do with it? You may not have paid attention, but 90 percent of the business in space is fully or partially American companies. In such a situation, sitting as a dog in the hay and guarding stupid pieces of paper from the times of grandfathers, signed in a completely different situation, is even somehow strange.

                  in the sense of guarding stupid pieces of paper? Since when are they stupid, I wrote above why space becomes "private". How did these pieces of paper interfere with the "private traders"? On the contrary, they are encouraging. And not stupid pieces of paper.
                  1. 0
                    14 2021 June
                    Quote: Usher
                    I wrote above why space becomes "private"

                    This is not enough for the normal regulation of property rights in space. Now the concept is in force that an artificial space body is under the jurisdiction of its own state (hence, by the way, the law of Luxembourg developed in this respect), but if we consider the extraction of resources, this is not enough.
        2. +1
          3 2021 June
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          this is a quite reasonable and well-studied topic from the point of view of legislation.

          the Americans offer nothing but an arms race. And given their budgetary capabilities and operational experience, they want to play with one goal.
          1. -1
            4 2021 June
            Of course, some people find it difficult to believe that Space can have not only military, but also, so to speak, national economic significance. And yes, a legal basis is needed for such use.
            1. +4
              4 2021 June
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              some people find it hard to believe

              some people should read the plans and programs of the Pentagon, as well as their reports
              then it clears up in my head.
      2. +2
        3 2021 June
        Feel free to you.

        Maybe fantasy doesn't work, but I can't imagine that the project will somehow pay off in the foreseeable future.

        Another thing is that there can be concomitant successes.
    3. +4
      3 2021 June
      Quote: Sergey39
      Who is the first to stand on the moon, and that sneaker. And who will be the first to show the future. I personally do not see any success of the Americans.

      So it's either because you are blind, or because deep down in your soul you are ashamed of the Korolev and Gagarin's Legacy, or because propaganda has blurred your vision
    4. -6
      3 2021 June
      I apologize for not being in the subject, just now, ours lost to the Canadians in hockey! And why? They sue !!!!!!! am so to the point: all this Western trash will ultimately act as a united front against Russia, and space programs are very important, they have probably already placed / are deploying nuclear weapons on satellites. Sorry again, emotions hi
      1. +1
        4 2021 June
        Quote: Alien From
        most likely they have already / are deploying nuclear weapons on satellites.

        For this, the Kh-37s fly for one and a half to two years in orbit. Any other justification for their existence and SUCH vigil in orbit is just delirium and deception.
    5. +3
      3 2021 June
      Quote: Sergey39
      I personally do not see any success of the Americans.

      How does your observation affect the real state of affairs? winked
    6. +4
      4 2021 June
      The author of the article needs to pull his tongue out of the ass of the mask. And S. Kubrick didn’t shoot that. There were no original films. They mythically disappeared. Because of bad luck. And then it is possible, during the examination, to burn all this "high-rise on the Moon".
      1. 0
        14 2021 June
        Quote: vkl.47
        The author of the article needs to pull his tongue out of the ass of the mask. And S. Kubrick didn’t shoot that. There were no original films. They mythically disappeared. Because of bad luck. And then it is possible, during the examination, to burn all this "high-rise on the Moon".

        If anything, astronomers have long seen in telescopes traces of expeditions to the moon.
    7. 0
      7 2021 June
      Quote: Sergey39
      I personally do not see any success of the Americans.

      They already have a program, under the program of financing and development
  2. +53
    3 2021 June
    the Zenith rocket, created by Ukrainian hands, is one of the best in the world.


    And I thought Soviet, but Roman opened his eyes
    1. +11
      3 2021 June
      totally agree, Soviet Zenith missile
    2. +13
      3 2021 June
      Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
      the Zenith rocket, created by Ukrainian hands, is one of the best in the world.


      And I thought Soviet, but Roman opened his eyes

      I let go of the topic of the fleet .. laughing Defeated. He started space exploration. lol
    3. +4
      4 2021 June
      Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
      And I thought Soviet, but Roman opened his eyes

      It also cut, and presented, such Ukrainians in wide trousers, embroidered shirts, with forelocks, building a Zenit rocket ...
  3. -4
    3 2021 June
    Russian achievements in "military" space can hardly be called impressive.
    1. +7
      3 2021 June
      It is necessary to clarify - we know almost nothing about military space; there are satellites; there are inspectors; there are Liana; communication satellites of reconnaissance.
    2. +1
      3 2021 June
      We still have everything ahead
      1. +1
        August 16 2021
        Quote: Achilles
        We still have everything ahead

        Nice blogger by the way, I watch streams)
  4. -1
    3 2021 June
    When, I hope, we will still move from words on Twitter to deeds at the enterprises of the space industry.


    Don't get your hopes up. Not under the current leadership.

    It is not entirely pleasant to watch the next success of the Americans, with each step throwing Russia to the side of the space road.


    We must pull ourselves together and in no case ask ourselves "Peskov's Question"
  5. +3
    3 2021 June
    But when the Space Shuttle program was curtailed, Roscosmos frankly used it to its advantage. Having become a monopoly, the Russian company raised prices a little. Four times, from $ 21 million in 2006 for a seat, to $ 83 million in 2020. Since 2006, Americans have paid more than 4 billion. For Roskosmos, it was good money. That's it. The shop has closed. Cruise Dragon start - $ 55 million. Not a bad signal for the rest.


    Where is the money, Zin? (WITH)
    1. -1
      3 2021 June
      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
      Where is the money?

      This is just the cost of two or three submarine missile carriers, so follow the media, they periodically report on the transfer of another submarine to the Navy. Or do you think the Americans pay for their construction just like that?
      1. +9
        4 2021 June
        Gygy

        Or do you think the Americans pay for their construction just like that?


        Building nuclear submarines? You take on a new depth, weirdo.
        1. -1
          4 2021 June
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Building nuclear submarines?

          And do you think they give birth, but do not build?
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          You take on a new depth, weirdo.

          For an amateur like you, this is a really big discovery where the money for the construction of the armed forces comes from. Roskosmos is a state corporation and the state controls their revenues, including those received from the delivery of astronauts to the ISS. Learn the materiel, "writer" ...
          1. -1
            7 2021 June
            Quote: ccsr
            and their revenues are managed by the state

            How can the state manage its revenues if Roscosmos is unprofitable?
            1. 0
              7 2021 June
              Quote: Pilat2009
              How can the state manage its revenues if Roscosmos is unprofitable?

              Roskosmos receives income from its activities, and they go to the state's income - this is what all state-owned companies do. But the fact that Roskosmos itself spends more than it earns is the policy of our state. understanding that it is impossible to save on this area.
              But you apparently did not understand that the question "Where is the money Zin?"
  6. -2
    3 2021 June
    "It is clear that the participation of the same UAE or Luxembourg is for the sake of money."
    Luxembourg has the largest external debt.
    1. +6
      3 2021 June
      It is clear that the participation of the same UAE or Luxembourg is for the sake of money. "
      Luxembourg has the largest external debt.

      Luxembourg is one of two countries in the world where there is a legal regulation of mining on the Moon and asteroids.
      The other is the United States.
      1. +13
        3 2021 June
        Quote: Arzt
        legal regulation of mining on the Moon and asteroids

        So far from international agreements there is Art. 1 of the Outer Space Treaty "the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, are carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, regardless of the degree of their economic or scientific development, and are the property of all mankind." will come to a division, then all these agreements will be successfully forgotten and the right of the strong will come into effect - whoever managed, he ate.
        1. +2
          3 2021 June
          So far from international agreements there is Art. 1 of the Outer Space Treaty "the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, are carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, regardless of the degree of their economic or scientific development, and are the property of all mankind." will come to a division, then all these agreements will be successfully forgotten and the right of the strong will come into effect - whoever managed, he ate.

          According to the 1966 Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, at the mining stage, the territory of a celestial body and the celestial body itself do not belong to the company, as well as the valuable resources that are on it.

          https://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/outer_space_governing.shtml

          But.

          After the resource has been obtained, the ownership of the mined arises. wink
      2. -2
        3 2021 June
        Quote: Arzt
        It is clear that the participation of the same UAE or Luxembourg is for the sake of money. "
        Luxembourg has the largest external debt.

        Luxembourg is one of two countries in the world where there is a legal regulation of mining on the Moon and asteroids.
        The other is the United States.

        exists)))) Laughed. Do they have rockets to reach the moon?
        1. +3
          3 2021 June
          exists)))) Laughed. Do they have rockets to reach the moon?

          US law applies to US based companies.
          And Luxembourgish legal regulations apply to companies that simply have an office in Luxembourg. wink
          1. 0
            3 2021 June
            Quote: Arzt
            exists)))) Laughed. Do they have rockets to reach the moon?

            US law applies to US based companies.
            And Luxembourgish legal regulations apply to companies that simply have an office in Luxembourg. wink

            Just wondering, with what fright, and why they have such impudence? Let's start giving permits for land in Luxembourg, too, wherever, but what? :))) You give the rights to space, I can give the right to land in Luxembourg, let them challenge)))
            1. +4
              3 2021 June
              Just wondering, with what fright, and why they have such impudence? Let's start giving permits for land in Luxembourg, too, wherever, but what? :))) You give the rights to space, I can give the right to land in Luxembourg, let them challenge)))

              Offshore-s. laughing
              You can open a company from at least one person.
              Or AO of two! shareholders. With bearer shares.
              No double taxation.
              And a bunch of goodies. wink

              Therefore, Luxembourg is the leader in the number of registered investment funds in Europe and the second in the world (after the USA).
              And number 1 in the list of countries in terms of GDP per capita.

              It is especially recommended for large corporations whose turnover amounts to hundreds of millions of euros and who wish to use all legal opportunities to minimize taxation. hi

              https://internationalwealth.info/offshore-offshores/will-offshore-luxembourg-suit-you/
    2. +10
      3 2021 June
      What is this nonsense? Less than 25% of GDP, nothing by European standards.
      And, by the way, the cosmonautics of Luxembourg is very serious in terms of money. It is one of the leaders in commercial satellite broadcasting. Unlike Russia, for example.
      1. 0
        4 2021 June
        And we have imperial manners. We think in kilometers, not resources.
    3. +2
      3 2021 June
      Quote: mr.ZinGer
      Luxembourg has the largest external debt.

      And this prevents them from living ... how exactly? what
    4. +4
      4 2021 June
      Why are you lying? It is not the largest in terms of total size, per capita, or% of GDP.
    5. +5
      4 2021 June
      Luxembourg has the largest external debt.


      Luxembourg has the smallest external debt in the EU.
  7. +6
    3 2021 June
    ... The result was 6 (SIX) flights to the Moon (and not one taken in Hollywood, as some are trying to imagine), 11 thousand photos of the lunar surface, on the basis of which a new lunar atlas was created, 400 kilograms of lunar soil.


    From it like ... Where is the soil? About six flight films - I do not understand. Who is talking about one? Walk like that. The series was played. And here's another thing that interests me. How is the photo taken by the handy American different from the photo taken by the automatic station?
    As comrade Sukhov said, "peacocks, you say ..."
    1. +10
      3 2021 June
      Quote: sergo1914
      Where is the ground?


      Lost.
      How we lost the miracle engine of the launch vehicle.
      And they also lost the blueprints.
      As well as the production technology.
      1. +9
        3 2021 June
        Quote: Normal
        Lost.

        400 kilograms ???
        You have to be so absent-minded!
      2. Have lost


        True true? Didn't you read it in LJ, by chance?
        1. -1
          3 2021 June
          Didn't you read it in LJ, by chance?

          "Strong" argument.
          Everything in LJ is not trustworthy a priori and does not require refutation after publication in LJ.
          Have you, by any chance, seen American flights to the moon on TV?
          1. I have not seen Gagarin's flight. What did they want to say?
            1. -1
              3 2021 June
              Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
              I have not seen Gagarin's flight.

              This is where you need to look for "where the dog" rummaged ", but it's not time yet. Early.
              Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
              What did they want to say?

              Problems reading or comprehending what you've written?
              1. Quote: Normal
                it's not time yet

                Not drunk yet?

                Quote: Normal
                Problems reading or comprehending what you've written?

                And what do your relatives tell you? If the opinion of people on the Internet is more valuable to you, I think the latter.
                1. +2
                  3 2021 June
                  Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
                  Not drunk yet?

                  Did you pour me something? Don't provoke.

                  Any theory, at first absolutely incredible, goes through three stages:
                  1. This cannot be.
                  2. There is something in this
                  3. Who does not know this.

                  The time will come and we will have to revise many of the undeniable postulates of our time. For good reasons, we better not live to see this, at least I hope.

                  Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
                  And what do your relatives tell you?

                  It is advised not to communicate with those who are not able to perceive a different point of view. They say it's useless. But I, a naive Chukchi youth, harbor illusions.

                  Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
                  If the opinion of people on the Internet is more valuable to you

                  TV is not internet. TV does not admit any opinion other than that approved from above. TV, in fact, is the antagonist of Science, which presupposes the free expression of different opinions and their rivalry, free polemics. In this regard, the Internet bypasses TV "as a stand-up".
                  If you consider the opinion of people expressed in line with the approved policy and receiving content for this content more trustworthy than the opinion of people who receive nothing but obstruction and defamation for their opinion, then your position is one-sided, unproductive and unscientific. You will always be led in your supposedly your own opinion and will be held captive by frozen dogmas.
                  1. Quote: Normal
                    I harbor illusions

                    I mean it to you.
                    1. 0
                      4 2021 June
                      Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
                      I mean it to you.

                      Stung to the core.
              2. +4
                4 2021 June
                I have not seen Gagarin's flight.

                This is where you need to look for "where the dog" rummaged ", but it's not time yet. Early.

                Well, what. If you follow your logic ...

                1. All documents on Gagarin's flight are still classified. There are only links to them.
                2. The media were not admitted to the start of the East. Unlike Apollo.
                3. All "flight witnesses" are interested people in uniform. They will say that they will order.
                4. Photo and video filming inside the ship for some reason was not carried out. Unlike Apollo.
                Even Gagarin's report has not been published. Excuses like "the pencil flew away in zero gravity", "the tape in the tape recorder ran out" look ridiculous.
                Well, show at least what you managed to write down and dictate!
                5. Are radio broadcasts from the East on-line? And who can guarantee that this was not a staging and that there was simply a radio transmitter with a pre-dictated recording? They say that about the moon. wink
                6. Flight telemetry? Yes, there was a rocket. With a dummy and tape recorder.
                7. Well, flowers. Landing Gagarin by parachute. Which was denied for 20 years, allegedly because of a record.
                In fact, he just jumped from the transport. wink
                8. And berries. Gagarin's daughter Elena is not sure about her father's flight.
                A video uploading to Vostok was staged. So does the Apollo video.
                The organizers of the flight admit this.


                Well, is it logical?
                1. 0
                  4 2021 June
                  Quote: Arzt
                  Well, is it logical?

                  It's unthinkable.
                  It can not be.
                  I hope you got what I meant.
      3. -5
        3 2021 June
        Quote: Normal
        Have lost

        Of course not. The soil is all in place. Engines from Saturn surfaced as one of the options for space shuttle accelerators and even Constellation, but the Americans chose solid rocket motors, which are 2 times more powerful. But if the Americans now make a liquid-propellant rocket engine with a capacity of 600 tons, it will naturally be completely different. Since the 60s, they have advanced quite far.
        1. +4
          3 2021 June
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Of course not. The soil is all in place.

          Clear.
          On the moon.

          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Engines from Saturn surfaced

          Floated up - floated up .... but something never floated up.
          We discard our F-1 with a thrust of 690 tf in 1967 and ....
          wait-sss first star 1996, then
          we are purchasing the Soviet RD-180 with a thrust of 390 tf.
          Everything is logical.
          1. +4
            3 2021 June
            Quote: Normal
            Clear.
            On the moon.

            Not only. You are told about this in several posts, you are in vain trumping your ignorance.
            Quote: Normal
            yes, something never surfaced

            Have not surfaced. Better engines have appeared in so much time.
            Quote: Normal
            waiting for the first star of 1996, then

            They did not expect anything, all this time there were flying kerosene stoves, and stinkers, and solid propellants, and hydrogen. They did not need the RD-170, just like the F-1, they converted it into the RD-180 by 2 times less thrust.
            Quote: Normal
            Everything is logical

            Yes, it seemed logical. The former USSR was a dumping ground for almost free rocket parts.
            1. +2
              3 2021 June
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              You are told about this in several posts,
              fellow
              And I directly believe everything that they tell me in several posts. The number of posts is the same criterion of truth.
              --------------------------------------
              I do not trump ignorance, as you would like it, but I doubt the dogma. Do we catch the difference ?, you our respectable.
              --------------------------------------
              They appeared ... for so much that time ... yeah, but "all this time, kerosene stoves, and stinkers, and solid propellant engines, and hydrogen were flying. They did not need the RD-170, like the F-1, they converted it into an RD-180 2 times less traction. "
              Logic - 80 LVL

              Quote: Cherry Nine
              The USSR was a dumping ground for almost free rocket parts.

              Yes Yes. In 1996 there was the USSR. We know. We also made galoshes. Why didn't the Americans buy them?
              Almost free, after all.
              1. +2
                4 2021 June
                Yes Yes. In 1996 there was the USSR. We know. We also made galoshes. Why didn't the Americans buy them?
                Almost free, after all.

                Distrust is a great thing.
                My 28-year-old neighbor is sure that there was no USSR.
                This is all supposedly thought up by modern communists to win the elections. laughing
                1. -1
                  4 2021 June
                  Quote: Arzt
                  My 28-year-old neighbor is sure that there was no USSR
                  Roommate?
                  1. +4
                    4 2021 June
                    Roommate?

                    I would ask that too. laughing

                    No, a new generation, our change!

                    He recognizes the very concept of the USSR, but considers it to be something like the EU.

                    A group of states with their own territories, languages, national characteristics, laws.

                    United by the communists by force with the headquarters in Moscow.

                    The collapse of the USSR is simply the elimination of this headquarters.

                    Why, it looks like ... wink
            2. 0
              5 2021 June
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              You are in vain trumping your ignorance.

              Here's an interesting point, why do people apply their statements exclusively to others?
              Quote: Normal
              unable to perceive a different point of view
              wink
        2. +6
          4 2021 June
          Engines from Saturn surfaced as one of the options for space shuttle accelerators and even Constellation, but the Americans chose solid rocket motors, which are 2 times more powerful. But if the Americans are now making a liquid-propellant rocket engine with a capacity of 600 tons, it will naturally be completely different.

          The problem is that the engine from Saturn is against the laws of physics, so it cannot exist; it has a very large combustion chamber. It is impossible to ensure uniform combustion in such a chamber. Initially, the USSR also went this way, but then the combustion chambers were reduced, but their number increased.
          Then the United States went this way. From the height of our knowledge, it became clear that the Saturn engine could not develop the declared thrust. Consequently, I could not put the specified load into the required orbit.
          If the United States tells how they managed to do this, then doubts about the flight will disappear. But they cannot do this, they say that the technologies and documentation are lost.
          1. +1
            4 2021 June
            Quote: glory1974
            therefore it cannot exist. It has a very large combustion chamber. It is impossible to ensure uniform combustion in such a chamber.

            Seriously?
            That is, it was provided on engines of 400 tons, in engines for 1500 tons (solid propellant rocket), but 700 tons contradicts. What a nuisance. Do the Chinese with a campaign of 9 know about this?
            Quote: glory1974
            If the United States tells how they managed to do this

            Who should Aerojet explain this to? You? What for?
            1. 0
              8 2021 June
              That is, it was provided on engines of 400 tons, in engines for 1500 tons (solid propellant rocket), but 700 tons contradicts. What a nuisance. Do the Chinese with a campaign of 9 know about this?

              Contradicts the size of the combustion chamber. The Chinese know about this, so they are hastily making powerful engines. When the Ameicans found out, they also drew conclusions. Therefore, the engines of Saturn-5 were not used further.
              Who should Aerojet explain this to? You? What for?

              The firm owes nothing to anyone. I am explaining to you where doubts come from.
              1. 0
                8 2021 June
                Quote: glory1974
                I am explaining to you where doubts come from.

                A well-known case. From Russian LJ.
          2. +3
            4 2021 June
            Quote: glory1974
            ... From the height of our knowledge, it became clear that the Saturn engine could not develop the declared thrust. Consequently, I could not put the indicated cargo into the required orbit.

            There is one engine specialist by the name of Batsura, who examined the design in detail and made calculations that this engine could not develop the power declared by the Americans. At the forum "airbase" he is considered crazy, but interestingly, no one could competently refute his calculations regarding the thickness of the walls and different sections of this structure.
            Not being an expert on these engines, but I will note that if such a unique engine cannot be reproduced until now and is not used, then there is a degradation of the technical progress of the Americans. But they will not agree with this, only the engine in the museum can be shown to us, they say it's like the pyramids in Egypt, look and be surprised.
            1. +2
              4 2021 June
              They buried him at the airbase and put a pebble on top. With calculations and formulas
              1. 0
                4 2021 June
                Quote: VTR-295
                They buried him at the airbase and put a pebble on top. With calculations and formulas

                It was impossible to expect anything else - there is a bunch of nasarogs, and anyone who doubts the landing is usually banned, so it is not surprising that Batsura was buried as well. But the little mind of the nasarogs is not enough to correctly refute him, so they took revenge on him in this way. And this has started since ancient times, when the owner of the forum Karshiev himself defined a "reserve" for those who do not believe in landing. He himself has already passed away, but his work is flourishing ...
            2. +1
              5 2021 June
              Quote: ccsr
              unique engine

              What is unique there? And where to adapt it at the moment? Nowhere, he is not needed ...
              Americans do not experience a shortage of engines ...
          3. +2
            5 2021 June
            Quote: glory1974
            the engine from Saturn contradicts the laws of physics, therefore it cannot exist. It has a very large combustion chamber. It is impossible to ensure uniform combustion in such a chamber.

            You will surely be able to give a couple of formulas in support of this? Go bolder. Yes
            1. -1
              8 2021 June
              You will surely be able to give a couple of formulas to prove it?

              I see no point in giving the formulas. If you are on the subject, you don't need them. If you are not in the subject, you still cannot figure it out.
              Can find on the net the statements of the Queen on this issue.
      4. +3
        3 2021 June
        The soil was not lost, but locked up in a safe for "future generations of scientists, with more advanced scientific equipment", almost a quote from some speech. Apparently because the new soil will not be delivered, so the old one must be protected in the name of the future of science.
        1. +1
          4 2021 June
          Question then. Why did NASA request soil from the Chinese mission, having its 400kg for analyzes?
          I also remember the correspondence of the US articles on the content of substances in the lunar soil. That the United States made its conclusions about the presence of some elements in the composition only after others suspected it.
          1. +2
            4 2021 June
            Quote: vargo
            Why did NASA request soil from the Chinese mission, having its 400kg for analyzes?

            Some strange question. The soil was taken in different places, you never know what differences can be. The exchange of lunar soil samples is a long-standing tradition that has not bothered anyone but you.


            Quote: vargo
            cited the correspondence of US articles on the content of substances in the lunar soil. That the United States made its conclusions about the presence of some elements in the composition only after others suspected it.

            What news. Are you a geologist?
      5. +6
        4 2021 June
        at Lyndon Johnson University. Everything is there, no one has lost anything. The university itself even provides such a service as renting lunar soil for research. In general, everything can be safely checked, but many are just thrilled to believe in conspiracy theories. in terms of documentation and technology - this is not the point. At one time, during the construction, thousands of related enterprises were engaged in this, having worked out all the subtleties and nuances, now all this will cost many kilometers of money to restore, no one in their right mind will subscribe to this. Not so long ago, the country of the legendary tankat34 manufacturer bought in one South Azite country, there are workable tanks, and did not begin to manufacture them again. This is not because we cannot, but simply not expedient.
        1. +1
          4 2021 June
          Quote: Korax71
          not so long ago, the country that produced the legendary tankat34 bought out workable tanks in one South Asian country, and did not start producing them again. This is not because we cannot, but simply not expedient.

          You are generally out of your mind if you propose to produce the T-34 in our country, if the serially produced T-90 is much more powerful and reliable, and is in service not only with our army. We brought them back for ceremonies, and it’s much cheaper than rebuilding them. Now tell me where the Americans have new engines superior to the F-1, or please us with at least one launch of a new rocket more powerful than the Saturn-5.
      6. +4
        4 2021 June
        And we can recreate Energy-Buran, and they were created 20 years later than F-1.
        1. 0
          6 2021 June
          We can, in principle, and we do, rd171mv passed all the tests and was accepted into mass production, union 5 is Rn zenith on Russian components, and zenith is, in turn, an element of the first stage of energy.
    2. +7
      3 2021 June
      The soil brought by the Apollo is kept under special conditions. Any thematic institute can obtain a sample for study upon request. The soil was transferred to virtually all developed countries, including China. Even you can get it if you create a sufficiently reputable research group and send a request to NASA.
      Watch the video on how these samples are stored.
      1. -2
        4 2021 June
        The soil brought by the Apollo is kept under special conditions. Any thematic institute can obtain a sample for study upon request.

        Yes maybe. But the US claims to have brought the stones. And they did not show the stones to anyone.
        The soil cannot be proof, because the USSR also brought it with the help of an automatic station.
        1. +6
          4 2021 June
          Quote: glory1974
          The soil cannot be proof, because the USSR also brought it with the help of an automatic station.

          You are absolutely right.

          I have been saying for a long time that the Americans made a secret lunar program in order to forge an unclassified lunar program.
    3. +6
      3 2021 June
      ... Where is the ground?

      Right where it should be, the vault
      1. -2
        4 2021 June
        only no one saw the moon stones, and the soil was brought in with the help of an automatic station, which was made by the USSR.
        1. +4
          4 2021 June
          Quote: glory1974
          only moon stones have not been seen

          Nobody in your village, you wanted to say? Because the rest of the world knows how to use Google. Probably hard to live dense. sad



          1. 0
            8 2021 June
            Nobody in your village, you wanted to say? Because the rest of the world knows how to use Google. Probably hard to live dense.

            The photo of moon stones is complete. There is no question of transferring them for study. It is not necessary to post a photo a lot. You probably study stones from a photo.
            Officially, about 300 grams of lunar soil was transferred to all countries for study. The stones were not given to anyone.
        2. +1
          4 2021 June
          It is in these boxes that the largest stones are stored.
          Those that are smaller and the soil in closed boxes, the photo is not a problem in the network and find
    4. +2
      3 2021 June
      Quote: sergo1914
      Where is the ground?

      Quote: Normal
      Lost.

      Selective perception of reality would be worth losing, it leads to cognitive dissonance.

      1. +2
        3 2021 June
        Quote: And Us Rat
        Selective perception of reality

        Critical attitude is not selective perception.
        What do you call reality?
        Cognitive dissonance awaits you when it turns out that reality is somewhat different from the ideas of stakeholders.
        1. +2
          4 2021 June
          Quote: Normal
          Critical attitude is not selective perception.
          What do you call reality?
          Cognitive dissonance awaits you when it turns out that reality is somewhat different from the ideas of stakeholders.

          I won't even argue if this thought warms you on cold nights - then who am I to deprive you of it? hi
        2. +1
          4 2021 June
          This is not a critical attitude, but a banal wagging of the sirloin part. Above in the work, several people have already given you at least some arguments about the presence of this soil, but you, in turn, have not led to the theory of conspiracy and other nonsense.
  8. +13
    3 2021 June
    And what did the respected Roman about China not remember? He was not invited either. India was not invited. So all these declared countries .....- well, like another zilch! By the way, I don't see France and Germany. Also not the last industrial giants. Honestly - the article is somehow extinct. The conclusions are strange. State plans and "rump" are shown. And what about the rest of the real space powers? Unclear....
    1. +2
      3 2021 June
      Quote: alsoclean
      And what did the respected Roman about China not remember? He was not invited either. India was not invited.

      These countries are competitors for the United States, and they need such as Ukraine. Although after the USSR, a good space industry remained in Ukraine, but everyone knows perfectly well where Ukraine will fly and fly. These are the kind of partners the states need.
      Although the States have money "like a makhorka fool, and they can even reduce the military budget by three times, and send this money to the Lunar program. They have everything now, and all the specialists have been gathered from all over the world. So in the boundless future they can put a couple of "Lunar houses" on the satellite and stake out the territory, and no one will vyaknet against.
      1. 0
        3 2021 June
        If a fool has a makhorka, in difficult years. then he is not at all. Sounds right, like a fool of pebbles or glass. The makhorka was a very expensive product. Plant tobacco. You will not go wrong.
        1. 0
          3 2021 June
          Quote: Free Wind
          Plant tobacco. You will not go wrong.

          Will you share the seeds?
        2. 0
          4 2021 June
          tobacco is a much more whimsical plant, unlike terry, just like the business raw material of tobacco, only leaves without a central vein. mahorka can be used entirely in the manufacture of smoking mixtures. Therefore, if you look objectively, due to the unpretentiousness of terry, even a person with with limited mental abilities, he could get much more smoking raw materials by growing makhorka than tobacco.
    2. +2
      4 2021 June
      The article is saturated with NASA worship and barely concealed hatred of Rogozin and the Republic of Kazakhstan. All theses, especially towards the end, are cited with obvious disdain. If the author was even a little objective, he would have made a more extensive article.
      But he doesn't need this, it's easier to shit, wait for comments, and then pray to NASA. The author does not even understand that it is precisely this one-sided thinking that led us to the fact that it was easier for us to steal in space than to build rockets. It was people like the author who led to thoughts about cuts.
  9. +6
    3 2021 June
    the Americans approached the BE-4 and Raptor, which are at least as good as, and as they say in the USA, they are better than the RD-180

    It's just about the Raptor. And the BE-4 is a pretty average engine. However, Merlin is even more mediocre, but the market for commercial and manned launches still snatched off.
    1. +2
      3 2021 June
      Quote: military_cat
      Merlin is even more mediocre, but the market for commercial and manned launches is still snatched away.

      Merlin is a phenomenal engine, but not for the characteristics that were appreciated in Soviet times.
      1. 0
        3 2021 June
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Quote: military_cat
        Merlin is even more mediocre, but the market for commercial and manned launches is still snatched away.

        Merlin is a phenomenal engine, but not for the characteristics that were appreciated in Soviet times.

        Merlin is a very, very mediocre engine. And its supposedly cheapness, in fact, is a hoax. Which is not surprising. Since Merlin is not supplied separately. And all the statements about 1 million green for the engine, nothing more than sand in the eyes, the real price is higher, and despite the fact that it will be necessary to buy the whole rocket in general. In general, the price of the engine is not clear. Although everywhere it is promoted that the cheapest)))
        1. -1
          3 2021 June
          Quote: Usher
          very, very mediocre engine

          In terms of specific impulse, pressure in the nozzle and other little interesting garbage.
          Quote: Usher
          supposedly cheap, in fact a hoax.

          Chief Accountant Mask in the chat.
          Quote: Usher
          Merlin is not supplied separately.

          Merlin doesn't come with it at all, nor do the rockets come with it. Launch services are provided.

          And no, the price is not its only plus. Although it is quite logical that if a company produces dozens of engines per year, then they will most likely be cheaper than launching 1 rocket every 5 years.
    2. -1
      3 2021 June
      Quote: military_cat
      Merlin is even more mediocre

      And Tesla, in general, is not suitable for AvtoVAZ! wassat
      1. 0
        4 2021 June
        Absolute truth
        Quote: And Us Rat
        Quote: military_cat
        Merlin is even more mediocre

        And Tesla, in general, is not suitable for AvtoVAZ! wassat
  10. +7
    3 2021 June
    "Launches of American missiles, but the Americans approached the BE-4 and Raptor, which are at least no worse, and as they say in the United States - a cut better than the RD-180." But the first one never flew and the second flew only up to heights of 12 kilometers - when in reality something will come from it, namely full-fledged cargo and manned flights and landings, no one knows exactly until 2030. So it is too early to talk about the curtailment of the RD 180 purchases, especially since neither the Neo Glen rocket nor the Vulcan have ever flown - and tomorrow the USA will replace Atlases with them.
    1. +11
      3 2021 June
      Quote: Vadim237
      but the Americans approached BE-4 and Raptor, which are at least not worse, but how spoken in the USA - better on the head than RD-180

      - Doctor, and my neighbor is also 70 years old, and he says that he fulfills his conjugal duty 7 times a week. And I can't do it at all.
      - My dear, well, you say so, what bothers you.
      Something reminds me of this anecdote.
    2. +1
      3 2021 June
      Quote: Vadim237
      So it is too early to talk about the curtailment of the RD 180 purchases, especially since neither the Neo Glen rocket nor the Vulcan have ever flown - and tomorrow the USA will replace Atlases with them.

      They have a supply of RD-180 for another two years. They have a Falcon that flies every 2 weeks and a purely American Delta. So even if there are delays with Vulcan, the USA as a whole will not have any problems from this.
      1. +1
        3 2021 June
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Quote: Vadim237
        So it is too early to talk about the curtailment of the RD 180 purchases, especially since neither the Neo Glen rocket nor the Vulcan have ever flown - and tomorrow the USA will replace Atlases with them.

        They have a supply of RD-180 for another two years. They have a Falcon that flies every 2 weeks and a purely American Delta. So even if there are delays with Vulcan, the USA as a whole will not have any problems from this.

        How much is the carrying capacity and into what orbits does Falcon put them?
        1. +3
          3 2021 June
          Falcon-9 up to 22,8 tons per LEO.
          There is also Falcon Heavy up to 63,8 tonnes per LEO
          Atlas-5 up to 18,8 tonnes per LEO
          1. -4
            3 2021 June
            Quote: BlackMokona
            Falcon-9 up to 22,8 tons per LEO.
            There is also Falcon Heavy up to 63,8 tonnes per LEO
            Atlas-5 up to 18,8 tonnes per LEO

            Figase you have a fairy tale that you smoke?
            1. +2
              3 2021 June
              This is public data. winked
        2. 0
          3 2021 June
          For any orbit, the load depends on the orbit. The ninth could not directly output to the GSO, unlike the Atlas and Delta, but Heavy can do that. What's the question?
          1. -1
            3 2021 June
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            For any orbit, the load depends on the orbit. The ninth could not directly output to the GSO, unlike the Atlas and Delta, but Heavy can do that. What's the question?

            that no problem.
            1. -3
              4 2021 June
              Did you find any problems?
              1. -3
                4 2021 June
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Did you find any problems?

                You write.
                1. +1
                  4 2021 June
                  What I am writing? What is good for the States with Atlas and not bad without Atlas?
  11. +5
    3 2021 June
    the Apollo program, which was launched in 1961 and completed in 1972.

    The result was 6 (SIX) flights to the Moon (and not one, filmed in Hollywood, as some try to imagine),


    And yet I very much doubt that the Americans were on the moon, I am one of the few. To believe in this means to admit that they were able to enter the lunar orbit, successfully land on the lunar the first time ((how do you like that, Elon Musk?), And we know that
    It's just that landing is considered the most difficult stage from the technical point of view for any such flight.
    ), start from the Moon and dock with the orbital module (manually, without help from Earth) and return to Earth. All this together with the FIRST attempt.
    Yes, Elon Musk, with all the experience of the previous rocketry, with the colossal capabilities of computing technology of the 21st century with new materials and technologies, is simply mediocre against the background of NASA specialists of the 60s of the last century. Wild Papuan.
    1. +5
      3 2021 June
      It should always be borne in mind that the Apollo program has cost the United States up to 4% of GDP for several years. Papuan and mediocre does not have such resources even close, and "Artemis" will not have them either.
      1. +7
        3 2021 June
        Quote: military_cat
        ... was worth ....

        You did not understand.
        Landing is not done by money.
        Landing is carried out by people. (personally or indirectly)
        Yes, even ten GDP of the United States in history, it does not matter on the moon. There are just laws of physics (and not sufficiently studied laws of physics of another planet), which do not adapt to a person depending on the budget.
        The descent vehicle and the orbital module were operated by humans.
        People tend to make mistakes even in simple situations. And here is a task of unimaginable complexity with a mass of unknowns and everything worked out the FIRST time. I'm not an expert on the theory of probability, but I think that this is IMPOSSIBLE.
        1. -4
          3 2021 June
          Quote: Normal
          Specialist in the theory of probability, but I think that this is IMPOSSIBLE.

          Impossible. Therefore, Apollo 11 flew to the moon. What do you think the number 11 means?
          1. +3
            3 2021 June
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            What do you think the number 11 means?

            Probably, the number 11 means that either the previous 10 flights to the Moon (exits to a circumlunar orbit, lunar landing, launches from the lunar surface, docking with an orbital module, return to Earth) were carried out automatically and as soon as the 10th one ended successfully, it was a manned flight was carried out, or some of them were manned and ended with the death of astronauts at some stage of the mission.
            Did I understand your point correctly?
            1. +1
              3 2021 June
              Quote: Normal
              Did I understand your point correctly?

              Of course not. The idea should be understood so that before Apollo 11 there were 10 more numbered (in general, much more) missions, during which all aspects of the flight were worked out. Similarly, the USSR, which before Gagarin launched a whole dog shelter into space. This, again, is fairly well known.
              1. +9
                3 2021 June
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Of course not. The thought must be understood so that before Apollo 11 there were 10 more numbered (in general, much more) missions,

                Clear.
                Reread my post above. There seemed to be something about the previous 10 missions.

                Quote: Cherry Nine
                during which all aspects of the flight were worked out.

                They were carried out in automatic mode and not everything went well in any of the stages of the missions or were they manned and everything worked out the first time?
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Likewise, the USSR, which before Gagarin launched a whole dog shelter into space.

                Like Gagarin, you say? Similarly?
                Gagarin's flight - takeoff, one revolution around the earth -108 minutes - landing. It is quite possible to work out the program and on the dogs in automatic mode.
                Apolon -11 Mission more than eight days. "The maneuver of rebuilding the compartments, docking with the lunar module and" pulling "it out of the adapter located in the upper part of the third stage. The command and service module was separated from the third stage. the attitude control system took it about 30 m, turned it 180 ° and made a rendezvous and docking with the lunar module. " Correction of the Trajectory to the Moon. Braking and entering the lunar orbit. Correction of the lunar orbit. Undocking of the lunar module, correcting its position in space and landing. Departure from the lunar module and "walk on the moon" for 2,5 hours. Return to the lunar module. Launch from the lunar surface, maneuvers and docking with the orbital module. Takeoff module undocking. Orbital start and flight to Earth, course correction and .....
                in general, I have not described everything.
                And you want to convince me that all the stages of the mission could have been worked out so much in automatic and even manned mode in 10-20 preliminary, so to speak, training flights that all together without any special surprises happened in a manned flight from the FIRST time?
                Do not make me funny.
                1. -1
                  4 2021 June
                  Quote: Normal
                  training flights, what all together, without special surprises, happened in a manned flight from the FIRST time?

                  As I wrote, you are exposing your own lies. From the first time they had an operation on the Moon itself. Everything else, including docking-undocking in lunar orbit, was already in the Apollo 10 mission. Yes, to work out a landing-start from the moon, you need to land on the moon. Landing had already been done by machine guns, there is no NNP start. In any case, the Americans in those years did not rush into automation.
                  1. +4
                    4 2021 June
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    You expose your own lies

                    Well, this is how you want it and interpret it. I noticed that your logic is at an unprecedented height.
                    I think the Apollo 11 mission is incredible, I doubt such a happy confluence of many circumstances that have not been studied before, and ..... I expose "my own lies."
                    You believe this mission is real, you believe in miracles on the bends, and you stand up for the lies of the Americans.
                    Everyone does what they think is right.
                2. +1
                  11 2021 June
                  So I'm wondering why they didn't put a toilet on the ship, but dragged the car to the moon .... it's kind of strange to drag a colossus there in the struggle for weight .. And it's also interesting that the mixture for breathing was enough for 2.5 hours that the cosmonauts had balloons. to the teachers from MIPT and they were very skeptical about the flight to the moon.
              2. +15
                4 2021 June
                Apollo 1 burned down on Earth with a crew, it was later named Apollo 1.
                Apollo-2 Saturn-1B, testing of the Apollo spacecraft prototype and checking its descent vehicle for a controlled entry into the atmosphere, the spacecraft, when descending to Earth, lost roll control, entered the uncontrolled spin mode and, with overloads of several tens of G, became oceanic.
                Without a model Saturn-1B, study of "the behavior of liquid hydrogen in zero gravity". The flight was "successful" in spite of the explosion of the stage on the 7th orbit.
                Apollo 3 Saturn 1B was launched into the Pacific Ocean instead of orbit, the descent of the capsule in the atmosphere was "steeper than expected", the search for the fallen capsule was carried out for about nine hours.

                AS-501 (or SA, they write differently) Apollo 4 Saturn 5, The first attempt at a test flyby of the Moon, the J-2 engine was re-launched in the satellite reference orbit for 333 seconds, which put the spacecraft into a highly elliptical orbit with an apogee of 17400 km. But this is actually a full standard propulsion impulse to send a MORE heavy ship weighing 45 tons. to the moon. (Apollo 8 - pulse lasted 317,7 seconds), but something went wrong, but the test was considered successful.
                Apollo 5 fired at Saturn 1B to dig deeper into the moon.
                AS-502 Apollo 6 Saturn 5 killed 2 out of five J-2 engines. It was not possible to check the quality of radio communication with the S-IVB at a distance of 500 km (they did not fly), the speed of entry into the atmosphere of the command compartment was less than the speed of entry when returning from the Moon, NASA considered the Apollo 000 flight successful. The orbital stage, according to the calculations of ballistics, could spin for a month, collapsed after 6 days.
                Apollo 7 with pilots to Saturn 1B orbiting 160 orbits. Saturn 5 is out of business again.
                After that, the management of the Apollo program considered that two flights (failed by the second stage) of Saturn-5 were quite enough (women would give birth to new astronauts) and drove off.
                AS-503 Apollo 8 Saturn 5 manned lunar flyby.
                AS-504 Apollo 9 Saturn 5, 10 days in "full" configuration in Earth orbit. Since it did not explode, the second stage (highley likely) was empty (cryogenics did not last long in those years) after being fixed in orbit by the satellite.
                AS-505 Apollo 10 Saturn 5, the final flyby of the moon before the real deal. Both are two.
                AS-506 Apollo 11 Saturn 5, the first landing of the lunar, even without two "test types" as was the case with the rocket and overflight.
                These are the 10 numbered ones, with the development of all aspects (especially lunar landing and takeoff) of the flight. lol
                1. 0
                  4 2021 June
                  Quote: MaikCG
                  These are the 10 numbered ones, with the development of all aspects (especially lunar landing and takeoff) of the flight.

                  Yes, it is easy to see from your listing that all elements of the mission, including docking and undocking in the lunar orbit, were worked out earlier. It is easy to see that there were quite a few accidents. Yes, to practice landing and taking off on the Moon, you need to land and take off on the Moon, such a strange coincidence. Do you have any other suggestions for working out this process? No, the Americans did not make automation for such things in principle. It then came out sideways with the Shuttles.
                  1. +2
                    4 2021 June
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Yes, it is easy to see from your listing that all elements of the mission, including docking and undocking in the lunar orbit, were worked out earlier. It is easy to see that there were quite a few accidents.

                    Spit! We're going to the moon! We can do this! We can handle it!

                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Yes, to practice landing and taking off on the moon, you need to sit down and take off on the moon, such a strange coincidence.

                    Yes, really? Can not be!

                    Do you have any other suggestions for working out this process?

                    But what about? Of course have. We are an exceptional nation - AMERICANS! Away with doubts! Forward! Brakes were invented by cowards. Let's land on the Moon, take off from the Moon and dock with the orbital module from the FIRST time.
                    ------------------------------

                    HAPPENED!!!
                    1. -2
                      4 2021 June
                      Quote: Normal
                      Let's sit down, take off and dock with the orbital module from the FIRST time.

                      They docked before (I see you are not a reader, but a writer), but yes, it worked out to sit down and take off.

                      Why not get it? The USSR, under the Luna program, could not normally bring the apparatus and land it. When it could, Luna-16 flew back without any accidents. The Americans automatically landed on the moon in 1966.
                      Quote: Normal
                      Spit! We're going to the moon! We can do this! We can handle it!

                      What's wrong? If politicians proclaim a certain project as a national goal, then they are not particularly interested in human sacrifice. Moreover, in this case, several volunteers, and not hundreds of thousands of conscripts.
                      1. +2
                        4 2021 June
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        They docked before

                        As soon as you write who and when before the Apollo 11 mission docked in lunar orbit after landing on the Moon and taking off from the Moon, I will not write anything, I will become your devoted and silent reader.

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        but to sit down and take off, yes, it worked. Why not get it?

                        "But I'll pinch raps! And how not to pinch?
                        And I will sell it for three rubles. How not to sell? Selling!
                        .................................................. ...........................
                        The watchman guarding this turnip caught the foolish peasant and began to beat him on the sides with his club, saying - don't go to our turnips and don't sell. "

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        And what is wrong?

                        Yes, everything is so!
                        Except ...... something's not right.
                        Painfully everything is fantastic. Incredible and not believable.
                      2. 0
                        4 2021 June
                        Quote: Normal
                        As soon as you write who and when before the mission Apollo 11 docked in lunar orbit

                        Apollo 10
                        Quote: Normal
                        after landing on the moon

                        7 Surveyor missions, 2 accidents.
                        Quote: Normal
                        takeoff from the moon

                        Takeoff for the first time.
                        Quote: Normal
                        I will become your devoted and silent reader.

                        You won't. You have a religious belief that the first takeoff from the Moon should be emergency. The fact that all missions - American, Soviet, Chinese - suffered accidents before the Moon, but the returns - Luna-16, Apollo, Chang'e - took place the first time, is not interesting to you.
                      3. +3
                        4 2021 June
                        I don't believe in the incredible. You believe in the incredible.
                        I have a religious faith.
                        You have grounded knowledge.
                        What could be wrong here?
                        Everything is "logical".
                  2. +3
                    4 2021 June
                    Well, it's good that you remembered about the docking and their working off. The modern Union, all such digital, on autopilot, calculated by the MCC, drove 3 orbits 1.5 hours before the ISS. Record. The shuttle flies exactly 2 days.

                    And then the Eagle takes off on the handbrake and docks with Colombia in 3,5 hours. This is a little less than 2 lunar orbits. The first time. No test. In manual mode.

                    I recommend taking KSP and driving to Munu without a mechjab and counting how much you will sit on the handbrake (kerosene end-to-end), and most importantly, take off and dock in 2 turns without a mechjab and with a first-person view from the cockpit, without using the creation of a maneuver through the trajectories with a third-person view. And it will be 1000 times easier than in life, because this is a fairly simple game.
                    1. +1
                      4 2021 June
                      Mehjab is a pitiful likeness of Armstrong, he would be guaranteed to fail the exams in the cosmonaut corps laughing
                      1. +1
                        5 2021 June
                        Jeb riding Saturn without a moonwalker would land on the moon laughing
                    2. -4
                      4 2021 June
                      Quote: MaikCG
                      I recommend to take KSP and drive

                      Clear.
                      1. +2
                        5 2021 June
                        The fact of the matter is that it is not clear. Some games (and the PCB is a good example) are very accessible, on the fingers, demonstrate the features of the technoporno real world for people who are not burning to memorize matan.
                      2. -2
                        5 2021 June
                        Quote: MaikCG
                        people who are not burning to memorize matan.

                        Uh-huh.
                        That is, the PCB depicts the lunar module, and I depict Armstrong, who has been in space themes since the 58th, in the astronaut corps from the 62nd, and did manual docking in the Earth's orbit in the 66th.

                        Pyatnenko.
                      3. +3
                        5 2021 June
                        Compare the difficulty of the game and Gemini? laughing I agree, with Gemini's tin can, too, not everything is so obvious, the door hinges on the hatches that open outward are not this for you, this is different, you need to understand.
                      4. -1
                        5 2021 June
                        Oh, so Gemini got canceled too?
                        Pyatnenko.

                        And that, it is logical, there is a pavilion, there is Kubrick, why bother with Gemini. Seven troubles - one answer.
                      5. +1
                        5 2021 June
                        Did you think it was that simple? Is everything fine with the Moon alone? The entire history of the United States is a story of lies, meanness and betrayal. With Gemini, the story is that there was something suborbital, but the design would not allow more. All these pink stories like Borman and Lovell sat for 2 weeks in this tin can, and then ran briskly around the aircraft carriers. They learned that such a long way of life in orbit and activity on Earth are somewhat incompatible, they learned later, when the USSR wrote reports on the health of astronauts. I'll just remind you that the toilet was made even for Gagarin, albeit a simple one, and the Americans enjoyed fecal popcorn (this is the official name, not a joke) even on the Shuttles. However, not quite so, before the Shuttles they enjoyed it with jokes-jokes in the style of American sitcoms, but on the shuttles they somehow became very sad and tried to eat and shit less in orbit. As a result, a Soviet toilet was installed on the ISS, so that they could still be on long-term expeditions. Or, for example, they drove to Ajena in 4 hours, and then from the Moon even faster, and then abruptly forgot how they did it and the Shuttles slowly flew for two days to Mir or ISS. Doesn't cause any questions? Was the kerosene diluted with donkey urine and there was no draft? Such are the things. There are many stories of the "cat and lamp" class.
                      6. +1
                        5 2021 June
                        As if you've ever tried to find out the answers to your killer questions.
                        Quote: MaikCG
                        fecal popcorn

                        Americans have an unhealthy interest in the toilet topic. Every astronaut at every meeting is asked about this. Naturally, out of thousands of answers, you can find something to cling to.
                        Quote: MaikCG
                        As a result, a Soviet toilet was installed on the ISS, so that they could still be on long-term expeditions

                        Well, the Russian side must be proud of something, so they are proud of the toilet. When he is not working, they go to the American one until Progress brings the plunger.
                        Each expedition set a record for the duration of a person's stay in space. The first 28-day expedition broke the record - 23 days of Soyuz-11 at the Salyut-1 orbital station. The record of the last expedition - 84 days was broken in 1978 on Salyut-6 - 96 days.

                        The flights of the station could be observed with the naked eye against the background of the evening or morning sky. Observation schedules were published in the media. In 1974, at the Soviet station Salyut-3, Pavel Popovich, for the first time in the history of cosmonautics, conducted an experiment on optical detection of the Skylab using the Sokol onboard instrument

                        Quote: MaikCG
                        slowly flew two days to the World or ISS. Doesn't cause any questions?

                        Naturally it does not, the Americans have answered this stupid question many times. With the "fast" scheme, the cosmonaut's working day from the beginning of the prelaunch procedures to the opening of the station hatches takes almost a day, while at the end of the flight it is necessary to carry out a responsible docking procedure. So the Americans carry overnight and are not going to change it at all. Fortunately, they can afford it now, and even more so they could on huge shuttles.

                      7. +3
                        5 2021 June
                        Salute-1 to compare with Gemini? Gemini, even to compare it with Suze, must not be very good friends. Read what happened to the Soyuz-9 crew after landing, it was then that everyone realized that weightlessness was bad jokes, this is 1970. And Borman and Lovell rode like saigas in 65, later on Apollo, theoretically, conditions are more comfortable than in the Gemini telephone booth, if they flew, but all the same vigorous American supermen, under amphetamines, pulled out of a floating capsule onto an aircraft carrier and posed briskly.
                      8. -1
                        6 2021 June
                        Quote: MaikCG
                        supermen, under amphetamines, pulled out of a floating capsule onto an aircraft carrier and posed briskly.

                        Have you decided to go through all the points?

                      9. -1
                        8 2021 June
                        We need more emoticons and funny pictures, otherwise in the texts of the defenders of the United States there is only a sad mooing "this is known to all civilized people", "training manual", etc.
                      10. 0
                        9 2021 June
                        No, not a training manual. Wildness is an independent trend, the state supports it, but it did not come up with it.

                        As for lunar conspiracy theories, there is nothing to discuss at all. The Soviet government just behaved decently - for all its shortcomings, the Soviet system was modernist. Conspiracy theories were invented by the Americans themselves, there is a huge subculture on the topic "the government is deceiving us." This has its advantages and disadvantages.

                        As for the pictures, as I understand it, they decided to share them. Or did this one not fly anywhere either?
                      11. -1
                        9 2021 June
                        Is this some kind of flying addict?
                      12. 0
                        10 2021 June
                        Right button (or long press) to help.
                    3. +4
                      4 2021 June
                      Quote: MaikCG
                      And then the Eagle takes off on the handbrake and docks with Colombia in 3,5 hours. This is a little less than 2 lunar orbits. The first time. No test. In manual mode.

                      Do not frighten this public with such difficult questions - they do not even understand that sometimes docking is canceled in low-earth orbit, but on the Moon six times to carry out such a complex operation is just one piece of cake. The main thing is that no one can verify this, which is why they believe the liars from NASA.
                      1. +3
                        5 2021 June
                        The very fact of docking is a trifle, it is surprising how they "forgot" about the technology of fast docking with the beginning of the "real" laughing flights.
                      2. 0
                        7 2021 June
                        no one forgot about them, just the inclination of the ISS orbit is much higher than the latitude of Cape Canaveral, and is almost equal to Baikonur, and this was done just to please Russia (well, for better coverage of the earth)
                      3. 0
                        8 2021 June
                        It has no effect. It is impossible to take off from the circumpolar cosmodrome to the equatorial orbit at once, because the minimum inclination is equal to the latitude of the cosmodrome. But from the equatorial latitudes, you can immediately take off even to the polar one. And this is much more profitable than the option to take off directly, at the latitude of the cosmodrome, and then, in orbit, it is dreary to change the inclination of the orbit to the polar one. +/- 5 degrees is nonsense, but when +45 degrees, then the kerosene will end, then there will be nothing to maneuver, it would be better to tilt right from the Earth where it is necessary, like how the Jews launch their own in the opposite direction to the rotation of the Earth.
                2. +1
                  4 2021 June
                  Quote: MaikCG
                  These are the 10 numbered ones, with the development of all aspects (especially lunar landing and takeoff) of the flight.

                  good
        2. 0
          4 2021 June
          Columbus sailed in search of the New World on 3 ships. Santa Maria is 25m long, the other two are 21m long. And it worked the first time. Correctly people are the main thing, not iron.
          1. +1
            5 2021 June
            Quote: ALARI
            Columbus sailed in search of the New World


            Truth? And they told us at school that he sailed to look for a new path to the old world, and specifically to India.

            Good example.
            This is roughly as if the Americans flew to the moon and flew to Mars.

            Quote: ALARI
            And it worked the first time

            Everything went exactly as planned before the trip. All three ships returned to Spain. All team members returned alive.

            EVERYTHING WORKED OUT!
        3. -1
          5 2021 June
          Quote: Normal
          the laws of physics of another planet

          Why do we have our own laws of physics on each planet? Surprised. Do you know that a programmable calculator is enough to calculate the parameters of the orbit? At one time in "Technology of Youth" there was a cycle of stories and calculations on this topic.
          1. +3
            5 2021 June
            Quote: region58
            Why do we have our own laws of physics on each planet?

            I read somewhere, probably in the "Technology of Youth", that on other planets there is a gravity different from the earth. The magnetic field, they say, is different. The atmosphere there may be different, or it may not even be there at all. Temperature and solar radiation again.
            As they wrote, perhaps, in the "Technology of Youth", all these factors are superimposed on each other, intertwined, strengthen or weaken their impact, distort it. As a result, it can be very difficult to calculate all the conditions even with the use of a programmable calculator. The result is acceptable (if you sit on the ground, and not carry out a lunar mission) approximate. You can be wrong enough to fail.

            Perhaps I didn’t accurately put it in the phrase that hooked you (I’m not a physicist), but you understand what I wanted to say.
            1. 0
              5 2021 June
              Quote: Normal
              the phrase that hooked you

              Surprised. Actually, that's what I wrote.
              Quote: Normal
              Maybe I didn't put it exactly

              Perhaps, if you were interested in technical literature, at least in the Tekhnika Molodezhi magazine, you would be able to express your thoughts more concretely, and many of your doubts would disappear by themselves. hi
              1. +1
                5 2021 June
                Perhaps, if you were interested not only in the "Technology of Youth" magazine, you would not consider yourself smarter than others and the desire to teach others would disappear by itself hi
                1. 0
                  5 2021 June
                  Quote: Normal
                  you would not consider yourself smarter than others and the desire to teach others would disappear by itself

                  Hmm ... Why do you need this? Good luck. hi
                  1. 0
                    5 2021 June
                    Quote: region58
                    Hmm ... Why do you need this?

                    Similarly.
                    Although I did not start this skirmish, but a bad world is better than a good quarrel, and I, perhaps, will stop. Please do not take my fervor to heart.
                    All the best.
            2. 0
              7 2021 June
              Quote: Normal
              The magnetic field, they say, is different. The atmosphere there may be different

              It cannot be but is. There is no atmosphere on the Moon at all. On Mars it is weak. On Jupite it is methane. Everything has been studied for a long time.
              1. 0
                7 2021 June
                It cannot be but is ............ Everything has already been studied for a long time.

                You opened the world to me. Thank you.
                As compensation for your unparalleled labor, I will reveal the "untold" to you. Namely, the techniques of polemics and ways of expressing thoughts.
                There are, you know, such things as irony, ridicule, sarcasm. Well, or in a modern primitive form - banter, trolling.
                Everything has long been known.
      2. 0
        4 2021 June
        Quote: military_cat
        It should always be borne in mind that the Apollo program has cost the United States up to 4% of GDP for several years.

        You are misleading us. The Apollo program cost the United States from 0.2% to 0.4% of GDP per year. For 8 years. Then even cheaper.
        1. 0
          4 2021 June
          Source - https://www.interfax.ru/world/319845
          1. -1
            4 2021 June
            Quote: military_cat
            Source - https://www.interfax.ru/world/319845

            Thanks a lot for the link. So you have been misled by the media. (journalists).
            -----------------------
            The US GDP in 1970 was $ 1 billion. 200% of this amount gives $ 000 billion. And the entire Apollo program (over 000 years) cost 000 billion. So - Apollo cost the US from 4% to 48% of GDP per year.
            1. 0
              4 2021 June
              It doesn't translate that way. If a manufacturer made a rocket for $ 100, for him the body manufacturer produced a body for $ 80, and the fuel manufacturer produced fuel for $ 5, while for the body manufacturer, the fastener manufacturer produced nails for $ 20, and the iron manufacturer - steel sheets for $ 40, then they all participated in GDP for a total of $ 245, although the customer's rocket cost $ 100.
    2. -4
      3 2021 June
      Quote: Normal
      the Apollo program, which was launched in 1961 and completed in 1972.

      The result was 6 (SIX) flights to the Moon (and not one, filmed in Hollywood, as some try to imagine),


      And yet I very much doubt that the Americans were on the moon, I am one of the few. To believe in this means to admit that they were able to enter the lunar orbit, successfully land on the lunar the first time ((how do you like that, Elon Musk?), And we know that
      It's just that landing is considered the most difficult stage from the technical point of view for any such flight.
      ), start from the Moon and dock with the orbital module (manually, without help from Earth) and return to Earth. All this together with the FIRST attempt.
      Yes, Elon Musk, with all the experience of the previous rocketry, with the colossal capabilities of computing technology of the 21st century with new materials and technologies, is simply mediocre against the background of NASA specialists of the 60s of the last century. Wild Papuan.

      They were on the moon, it is a proven fact, to doubt it is like to doubt the electricity in the socket, put the plug in there. I don't understand such people at all. The moon is always facing the Earth, do you think no one has checked?
      1. +7
        3 2021 June
        Quote: Usher
        They were on the moon, it's a proven fact

        I've been to the moon that's a proven fact. tongue Don't believe me? The moon is always facing the earth, and I was on the other side wassat
        How to check - let the world know about it. wink

        Well, it’s impossible to take what you wrote seriously. Sorry.
      2. 0
        6 2021 June
        Who proved the fact? Do you even understand what proof is? This is a mathematical, logistic series of consistent judgments that unequivocally testify to the truth of the considered opinion, or statement, theorem.
        What is your evidence?
        1. 0
          7 2021 June
          Quote: Stav
          What is your evidence?

          Answer you, or do you yourself remember the answer from the same movie as the question?

          Quote: Stav
          This is a mathematically, logistic series of consistent judgments that unequivocally testify to the truth of the considered opinion, or statement, theorem.

          I will answer you that based on your definition, there is no evidence of the reality of the Apollo-11 mission. For:
          - Mathematically not confirmed.
          - From the point of view of logic, this is absurd.
          - The judgments are extremely contradictory.
          - Unambiguity exists only in the minds of holy believers.
          - The truth of the opinion in question is under a hail of well-founded doubts.

          Now answer you.

          Do you know such concepts as ridicule and irony?
          Maybe, although, judging by the presence of your comment, this is far from a fact, do you know what banter and trolling are?

          Well
          - "Why do you always find fault with Georgians, because we are such simple ludi ,,,"
          1. 0
            13 2021 June
            Quote: Normal
            Quote: Stav
            What is your evidence?

            Answer you, or do you yourself remember the answer from the same movie as the question?

            Quote: Stav
            This is a mathematically, logistic series of consistent judgments that unequivocally testify to the truth of the considered opinion, or statement, theorem.

            I will answer you that based on your definition, there is no evidence of the reality of the Apollo-11 mission. For:
            - Mathematically not confirmed.
            - From the point of view of logic, this is absurd.
            - The judgments are extremely contradictory.
            - Unambiguity exists only in the minds of holy believers.
            - The truth of the opinion in question is under a hail of well-founded doubts.

            Now answer you.

            Do you know such concepts as ridicule and irony?
            Maybe, although, judging by the presence of your comment, this is far from a fact, do you know what banter and trolling are?

            Well
            - "Why do you always find fault with Georgians, because we are such simple ludi ,,,"

            The whole world is wrong, only you know the truth. Aren't you taking on a lot of the "respected" Napoleon syndrome? Astronomers, cosmonauts, engineers, they even have no idea that they are wrong, of course they have easier things to do, launch rockets, let alone broadcast from the couch.
            1. 0
              13 2021 June
              It is not at all necessary to lay out all my comments in a quote, a couple of phrases are enough.

              The whole world is not only you, and not even all those who are financially interested, and not even listed plus those who are deluded. The world (no matter how you would like it otherwise) is much more diverse.

              I understand that you are now broadcasting not from the couch, but directly from the moon.
              1. 0
                13 2021 June
                Quote: Normal
                It is not at all necessary to lay out all my comments in a quote, a couple of phrases are enough.

                The whole world is not only you, and not even all those who are financially interested, and not even listed plus those who are deluded. The world (no matter how you would like it otherwise) is much more diverse.

                I understand that you are now broadcasting not from the couch, but directly from the moon.

                What are you talking about !? Why are you throwing arrows? I'm actually talking about your delirium about Appalon-11. Since when has this not been mathematically confirmed, and how is it mathematically? What are you solving problems here? Since when is it a rocket, is it logically absurd? Your words are absurd. And the fact that the whole world, (NOT ME !!!) And the entire scientific and engineering world knows that flights to the Moon are a reality, since it is enough just to look at the Moon through a telescope and see traces of the activities of the expeditions. But you are an obscurantist and a patient, apparently, since you are carrying incoherent nonsense.
                1. -1
                  14 2021 June
                  Quote: Usher
                  What are you talking about !? Why are you throwing arrows?


                  I won't even read further.
                  You can be rude and use a hair dryer to work with your own kind.

                  To ignore.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. 0
                    14 2021 June
                    Quote: Normal
                    Quote: Usher
                    What are you talking about !? Why are you throwing arrows?


                    I won't even read further.
                    You can be rude and use a hair dryer to work with your own kind.

                    To ignore.

                    Soryan confused it with another Strv. These icons merge into one. Yes, in fact, you wrote it right, but what is mathematical proof?
        2. 0
          14 2021 June
          Quote: Stav
          Who proved the fact? Do you even understand what proof is? This is a mathematical, logistic series of consistent judgments that unequivocally testify to the truth of the considered opinion, or statement, theorem.
          What is your evidence?

          Proven by people, not by cows. Ordinary ones, you can see images from artificial satellites of the Moon (there are such), large telescopes. Well, if you don't even believe in it, then how do you live in general, do you believe that you had ancestors? Or are you sure that you are in the mirror?
    3. 0
      3 2021 June
      Musk does it for pennies compared to the cost of Apollo. That's all
    4. -4
      3 2021 June
      Quote: Normal
      And yet I very much doubt that the Americans were on the moon

      I used to argue with people like you, gave arguments, proofs, facts, called for the inclusion of critical thinking and logic ... sad
      And at one point I thought - what for? Even if they believe in Cthulhu, this still does not affect reality.
      As long as smart people guard common sense, and do not allow conspirators and obscurantists to influence the facts officially recognized by science, one can afford the luxury of polemics in the circle of thinking people. hi

      1. +3
        4 2021 June
        The "facts" officially recognized by science are not much worth if, to protect them from the influence of "obscurantists and conspiracy theorists", "smart people" offer punitive psychiatry.
        Apparently, "thinking people" are so mired in the luxury of polemics among themselves that they have forgotten a more effective tool for combating obscurantism and conspiracy - the Holy Inquisition.
        --------------------------
        Before calling for the inclusion of critical thinking and the logic of others, it would be nice to do it yourself.
        The arguments, proofs and "facts" of the "lunatics" do not stand up to simple doubts, and not that criticism and logic tests.
    5. +4
      4 2021 June
      I agree with you.
      start from the Moon and dock with the orbital module (manually, without help from Earth) and return to Earth.

      Ships start from Earth and dock in orbit in a day. The task is to dock in 4 hours. And the United States was able to dock on the Moon in 2 hours. How?
      And they returned to one square 5 by 5 km 6 times in a row. Although, until now, the return strip from a near-earth orbit is 30-40 km wide and up to 500 km long. This is if the brake motor turns on or off with a difference of 2-3 seconds.
      1. -1
        7 2021 June
        And the United States was able to dock on the Moon in 2 hours. How?

        very simple, the orbital inclination of the command module, of course, completely coincides with the inclination of the lunar orbit, and there is no problem at all to dock, and after 20 minutes, the gemini and ajena docked 70 minutes after launch (the orbital inclinations there also coincided, but the earth's orbit is longer than the lunar one) today the orbit of the iss is very different from the latitude of the channel, and a little from the latitude of the Baikonur, because of which it is necessary to make maneuvers to change the inclination of the orbit,
        And returned to one square 5 by 5 km 6 times in a row

        this is not entirely true, not 6, but 24, and today dragons and krudragons have already hit the square of 24/300 meters 300 times, and the fairing flaps and into a smaller circle, this also does not have any problem, it just has a very poor aerodynamic quality and their landing is practically uncontrollable and almost ballistic, and one parachute also does not contribute to controllability, but even with such data, today they are quite within 5/15 km
        1. 0
          8 2021 June
          the orbital inclination of the command module, of course, completely coincides with the inclination of the lunar orbit, and there is no problem at all to dock even after 20 minutes,

          If we imagine that the docking takes place as in the movie "The Martian", then really nothing complicated. But in reality, in addition to entering the same orbit, for which a radar is needed, it is also necessary to coordinate the speeds online. In manual mode on earth orbit, this happens every other time. Of course, it's much easier to do this on the moon, I guess. request
          it's just that the union has very poor aerodynamic quality and their landing is practically uncontrollable and almost ballistic, and one parachute also does not contribute to controllability, but even with such data, today they are quite within 5/15 km

          The Apollo landing is exactly the same. However, this did not prevent them, after landing on a ballistic trajectory, 6 times to hit the same point. What is surprising, how did they achieve this? This goes beyond the statistical error.
          For the landing of modern ships, the corridor is up to 500 km long. It is in it that rescue services are located.
        2. +2
          8 2021 June
          The Union solves the problem of landing with the least overload, so it is expected at two points, normal, where it is aerodynamic) and an accident ballistic one, just in case, and the difference there is a thousand kilometers, that's such bad aerodynamics at the Union.
          And Apollo decided (on paper) the landing with the least dispersion, due to a multiple increase in overload, but it was possible to splash down next to the aircraft carrier and run to sign autographs. Nails would be forged from these men of steel laughing
    6. 0
      7 2021 June
      Quote: Normal
      And yet I very much doubt that the Americans were on the moon, I am one of some

      Rogozin just needs to fly and check
  12. +10
    3 2021 June
    It seems to me that striped storytellers will be cleaner than Andersen. And someone calculated what kind of overloads act on the structure of the first (landing) stage during take-off and landing, and even 9 times, and what kind of residual deformations occurred in this case? Reminds me of SDI's Reagan toy, if anyone remembers from the 80s. You can make up a bunch of myths on this topic, but which independent international commission can confirm this? Or one Musk is puffed out for all. Well, about flights of striped ones to the moon, in general, they still break spears.
    1. +7
      3 2021 June
      Well, you can deny as much as you like, but Musk has very few Boosters and they are all public. For example, right now they were taken to the ISS in a brand new one, only from the factory. Among other things, there is a brand new camera and an expanded broadcast channel from the rocket. Already sat down.


      The legendary ten times lame - B1051, which in one of the flights almost fell, either because of a wave, or because of an error, the rocket crashed and partially folded one support, but resisted. And this did not stop us from making 10 successful flights. And 11 will also be wink ... Musk tweeted that they will let it go all the way.


    2. +9
      4 2021 June
      "what independent international commission can confirm this?" ///
      ----
      ... and when it does, it's easy to anticipate your next post: laughing
      "I see! You can't cheat us conspirators. The Americans bribed this
      a supposedly independent international commission. Divorce for grandmothers! "
      1. -1
        4 2021 June
        There is no need to invent something that does not exist. Or try on the role of an oracle-predictor.
        1. -1
          7 2021 June
          Without exception, all space agencies of the world, one dudu, recognize flights and landings on the moon, the Chinese, Indians and Japanese said that they had found and photographed the landing sites, and published it, is it not an international commission? but it's not enough for you
  13. +3
    3 2021 June
    The novel generally threw Russia off the books, even in the future. Although, you need to live and develop today. We have an option, an attempt to cooperate with India, honestly jointly divide spending on certain programs, simultaneously connecting other solvent and interested countries to our joint. It's not about our unwillingness, but about the ability to negotiate with the same Indians, to begin with. There is also a third, purely fantastic option - Russia itself is running a password lunar program, in which the scope of work is clearly indicated in terms of points, and as it is implemented, it makes efforts to involve other countries of the world that are not participating in the American lunar program in our program.
    1. +3
      4 2021 June
      It's very difficult with India - they dance like this one day, the second like that, and change their shoes in flight.
      It's not easier with China, they can completely dictate their own conditions.
      Who else is left?
  14. +1
    3 2021 June
    The novel went straight out of the box, and he writes articles every day. With this I agree with many who will be the first to master the moon, will not give a damn about the UN right from there.
    1. +7
      3 2021 June
      Master on the moon, what?
      There is no spice (spice mash flow), no vibranium, there is most likely no oil and gas either, gold and diamonds to carry from the Moon is not a business project. The most talk about helium-3 is not techies, but the humanities who do not know in what form this helium-3 is widespread there. Etc.

      Although spitting on the UN from the Moon is worth a lot, there is no dispute.
  15. 0
    3 2021 June
    Special respect for Valentina Tereshkova. From everyone who began to prepare for retirement 5 years later. That is, closer to death.
  16. +10
    3 2021 June
    The author, as it were, blames us for being "left" from the US lunar program. Considering in 2020 that the US Department of Commerce imposed sanctions against Roscosmos enterprises, in any case, there is no need to think about further cooperation.
    The screwed-in hairpin about 852 people under the Space Shuttle program is, in principle, incorrect to compare when the shuttles stay in orbit from 5 to 16 days.
    I do not share the general decadent message.
    Roscosmos finishes its second year without accidents. For 26 months, fifty successful space launches were carried out in a row. Since 1993, modern Russian cosmonautics has not known such a "pure" history. As part of the flight tests, the second launch of the heavy Angara was successfully completed, the Universe was surveyed in the X-ray range using the Spektr-RG telescope, the Sea Launch was relocated to Russia, and new rocket and space technology was being created. The heavy "Angara" is being developed to replace the "Proton" rockets, the operation of which will be completed by 2025. Following the previously announced Soyuz-5 and Soyuz-6 missiles, the state corporation ordered the development of a new rocket, Amur-LNG. It should be the first Russian launch vehicle operating on liquefied natural gas, and the first reusable rocket in Russian history with a dynamic landing system - that is, on telescopic supports, like the Falcon 9. that after use in engines no combustion product remains in the form of soot, and, accordingly, they are convenient to use in reusable rockets - it is much easier to carry out interflight maintenance. "Amur-LNG" will be a two-stage medium-class rocket with a reusable (up to 10 times, the same number as Musk's) reusable first stage, with a methane-powered RD-0169 engine. From the Vostochny rocket launch site, it will be able to launch 9,5 tons of cargo into low-earth orbit with the reusable first stage and 12 tons with a single one. In October 2020, the Soyuz MS-17 manned spacecraft set a world record for the speed of crew delivery to the International Space Station - it took 3 hours 3 minutes from launch from the Baikonur cosmodrome to docking with the station.
    1. 0
      8 2021 June
      Quote: Alexander97
      The heavy "Angara" is being developed to replace the "Proton" rockets, the operation of which will be completed by 2025.

      The hangara costs twice as much as the Proton, how will it compete with the Falcon?
  17. +9
    3 2021 June
    The moon will belong to those who can reach it, gain a foothold and begin development.

    They will not develop anything on the moon!
    There is exactly the same mineral composition as on Earth, only the cost of mining is thousands of times higher.
    About Helium-3, while there is no talk. It can also be extracted from hydrocarbons on Earth. Yes, not a lot, but there is not much of it yet, there is nowhere to use it.
    All the rest is projection.
  18. +8
    3 2021 June
    Good and sad article!
    However, I would like to draw attention not to a certain "international prestige" - but to the functional side. What will the Americans be mining on the moon? How will they do this, taking into account the low gravity and the presence of a mass of destructive factors (radiation, lunar dust, meteorites)? The extraction of what and to what extent will pay off the dispatch of mining tools comparable to standard ones (machines weighing tens of tons), processing equipment and extremely bulky cargo (as well as the development of the entire range of this for hydrogen or electric motors), the creation of a large-scale energy infrastructure for the maintenance of all this (production water ice, electrolysis or other methods) - what exactly is capable of recouping this in comparison with the in-depth development of some conditional rare earth deposit near Japan or in Latin America?

    If we are talking about Helium-3, there is not even ITERa yet, and the successes of the Chinese in general may hint that the deuterium-deuterium reaction, taking into account its environmental friendliness, may turn out to be the most profitable, given that the production of Helium-3 will still have to be "recaptured" ...

    The problem is the environment of a person on the Moon - this is a worse option than the ISS - we get a "gain" in some gravity (the question of how low gravity is less destructive for a person than microgravity is an open question) and the possibility of going deep into the regolith, we get where worse conditions for radiation and aggressive environment - the same lunar dust with its remarkable properties. In fact, the comonauts will have to work in the same ISS conditions + gravity and in a larger volume, because the main functionality of the ISS is in-vessel activity, on the Moon it will be the other way around, at least in the first years.

    Undoubtedly, the far-reaching benefit of "staking out" the Moon is understandable - it is including the possibility of organizing much more convenient and large asteroid missions, this is spurring the robotization of mining and processing in space, in fact, yes, this is a springboard to Mars. But direct practical benefits in the medium term I don't see from the Moon - it will be a big and fat item of expenditure, compared with which the arms race may seem like a kindergarten.
    1. +1
      3 2021 June
      Something needs to be done and not interrupted. Otherwise, all the know-how, infrastructure, industry developed for manned flights - at the final stage on the ISS, will disappear, and then you will restore figs when, for example, all this is urgently needed to combat asteroids or with some other dangers that we are talking about. don't know yet. So the Moon should be like the next testing ground for space technology, in my opinion.
    2. +1
      5 2021 June
      The moon is not a springboard to Mars. There are no Boeing or Musk factories. Any technique there can appear only from the Earth and there is nothing to change from it there. The orbital station near the Moon will not differ from the tasks on which they are working on the ISS, except for its modest size and the amount of equipment. No matter how cheap flights are, their cost will override any commercial plans for trampling the dusty paths of distant planets by anyone other than for scientific purposes. All the rest is demagogy of aviation concerns and their lobbyists.
      1. +1
        5 2021 June
        I agree about the orbital station - but the Moon base is an unambiguous springboard, much more convenient for assembling than the Earth's orbit. It is too early to talk about this now, but the production of fuel for long-distance missions in the future is quite realistic to transfer to the Moon, this will allow organizing large missions to the borders of the system, the results of which will not have to wait for 20 or more years. As a hub for the development and processing of resources mined on asteroids, the Moon is also invaluable - but again, when this is done and developed accordingly. technology (it doesn't smell yet). The time limits for the beginning of the real exploration of the Moon are now extremely optimistic, the reality, in my opinion, will be much more bleak.
        If we talk about the practical benefits - of course we should have staked out a piece of the Moon in this race, albeit relatively unpretentiously, with the help of a number of Lunokhod-like programs.
        1. 0
          5 2021 June
          Note that no one has announced plans to produce fuel on the Moon. There is no appropriate equipment, no delivery schemes, or the most refueled equipment in lunar orbit, for there is no need. There is no exploration of the solar system, although research is still funded. In theory, if time suffers, beyond the orbit of Mars there is a mass of bodies with the necessary materials. For a fleet in space, the place of the fuel source is determined by its constant availability and minimum costs. As long as this is the Earth. How and whether it will be later unknown.
          1. 0
            5 2021 June
            Theoretically (again) the issue of fuel production on the Moon is one of the simplest enterprises in terms of mass and size casting.
            Its effectiveness directly rests on one parameter and two conditions - the parameter is the location and volume of water ice on the surface or in shallow lunar craters. If there is enough water ice - a kilopower-type reactor that already exists and is being worked out (as the most optimal option) or s / b, as a less optimal option - this is the first condition. The second condition is the development of reliable robotic means for the extraction and transportation of ice or regolith with a high ice content (which is much less profitable) on electric traction. All this rests on the energy balance for the provision of electrolysis technology. Variants of water decomposition without electrolysis look more capacious in my opinion, because they will require a larger number of transported containers (to the Moon) as well as the deployment on the Moon of the extraction of chemicals for industrially profitable reactions.
            They do not talk about all this in my opinion for two reasons - the first is that at the moment hydrogen-oxygen engines are not in the focus of attention, the second is that the reserves of water ice and places of its commercially profitable production on the Moon are limited - accordingly, it works well here the rule "who got up first and the boots." If regolith containing Helium-3 or some kind of rare earths can be mined over large areas of the Moon, then a source of ice, convenient in terms of the set of parameters, can be "indivisible".
            And the discovery of such a source will give the casus beli stake it out.
            All these are undoubtedly questions of the distant future, but "staking out" is, unfortunately, a question of the near future. Moreover, a situation is possible when several sections will be "staked out" - which is exactly what the American lawmakers are leading to.
            1. 0
              6 2021 June
              Today, no 'posting' is possible. There are no legal norms, except for the declarations signed at the UN, or mechanisms for their regulation, except for the law of the strong and powerful, which is also questionable. There is no economy under such intentions, for today it is a bluff. With the same effect, one can declare oneself to be the masters of the Universe and global beneficiaries. The trick is that both the value and the benefit of the category of the economy of society, not the absolute. Tear what is working here from reality and you will get one minus. The Arctic is full of fields, but their exploitation will cost more than the profits. Business doesn’t go there and often doesn’t push it - you have to pay for the right annually. Is it necessary if by that time the product will be replaced by an alternative or will significantly drop in price? In general, an unhealthy topic is raised here and there is no need to break spears.
  19. +1
    3 2021 June
    The 1979 resolution and the “Agreement on the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies”, created on its basis, provided for somewhat non-marketable things. Any profit received from the development of the Moon goes to the disposal of the UN, international bodies and is divided equally among the UN member states.

    Where did he get it? belay
  20. +2
    3 2021 June
    "Artemis Agreement". And it stipulated the "rules of the game": "Lunar law", the division of the satellite into spheres of responsibility and sectors of influence and stuff like that.

    There is nothing like that.
  21. +1
    3 2021 June
    Stripes sent the device to Mars. Yes, well done. Commercial success - 0.
    The base on the moon, everything is complicated there, it will not pay off.
    404 is not about anything at all, there is no cosmodrome, there is no X, the planet Zhelezyaka.
  22. +6
    3 2021 June
    I don’t know how to arrive and fly there, but there will be no special problems with living and being on the Moon, that's for sure. The technology for extracting oxygen directly from the lunar regolith is already available, water is there in the form of ice and a lot.
    Despite the large temperature drops on the surface from -170 at night to +127 in the daytime, the soil at a depth of 1 m has a constant temperature of -35 C. He has been on earth in places where the weather was worse. So, I have an optimistic mood.

    By the way, I own a small area there (70 hectares) in the northern part of the Moon with coordinates of approximately 68 ° N. sh. and 4 ° east. So, if you are going to our region, I will clarify the coordinates. I will accept it as a family. hi
    1. 0
      3 2021 June
      I don't know how to arrive and fly there, but there won't be any special problems with living on the moon,
      And there are no Palestinians, right?
      1. +2
        4 2021 June
        Quote: Falcon5555
        And there are no Palestinians, right?

        They will definitely come running if Jews appear on the moon. Just as they came in large numbers of migrant workers from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, as soon as in the former bare and rocky desert in the south, the Jews raised agriculture, as soon as the malaria swamps were drained in the north. As soon as the economy began to develop. The locals are ordinary Arabs. Lived, lived, made good. And then, suddenly some "Palestinians" appear ...

        Who do you think the "Palestinians" are? Who heard anything about them before the middle of the last century?
        Maybe you can name a famous Palestinian scientist, architect, artist, musician, doctor?

        By the way, you will eventually have the same headache with Muslims in Moscow. There are more of them than all the "Palestinians" put together in our area. Of course, they still do not fire rockets from Cherkizovo in the center, but this is only a matter of time ...
        Although, it may not come to this. They'll just trample you earlier. I have already heard about the friendship of peoples and the inherent internationalism of the inescapable Russian.

        So, you'd better get ready for the moon while there is still time. hi
        1. +2
          4 2021 June
          Here we can more or less safely discuss only a number of topics. For example, Ukraine (with condemnation), or the West (with complete condemnation, and it is rotting again, as Vladimir Lenin pointed out in one of his works; I'm really not sure whether it is possible to discuss the works of Vladimir Lenin - after all, he predicted the revolution - perhaps it should be assumed that he was wrong in this. laughing ). Space is probably also possible - space is far away wink ... You can also discuss the weather forecast, but be careful: if you predict too fresh weather, you may not understandsmile ... Therefore, I will refrain from continuing this discussion, excuse me. sad
          1. +4
            4 2021 June
            Quote: Falcon5555
            Here we can more or less safely discuss only a number of topics. For example, Ukraine (with condemnation), or the West (with complete condemnation, and it is rotting again, as Vladimir Lenin pointed out in one of his works; I'm really not sure whether it is possible to discuss the works of Vladimir Lenin - after all, he predicted the revolution - perhaps it should be assumed that he was wrong in this. laughing ). Space is probably also possible - space is far away wink ... You can also discuss the weather forecast, but be careful: if you predict too fresh weather, you may not understandsmile ... Therefore, I will refrain from continuing this discussion, excuse me. sad

            drinks hi
  23. +1
    3 2021 June
    It's just that now it won't work to make a film about the "achievements" of the United States in Hollywood, the number in front of the film makes it possible to find out the truth. That is the end of the lunar epic with the achievement of the "great" nation of adventurers and schemers.
  24. +6
    3 2021 June
    Chef, everything is lost, everything is lost! Plaster is removed, the client leaves!
    You have read the summary of the article.
  25. +6
    3 2021 June
    Extremely Russophobic article.
  26. +5
    3 2021 June
    Well, everything, before it's too late, I'll go and read Nosov - "Dunno on the moon." Not the author of the article, but the operator of the shovel! So the words of the artist Pananov come to mind: "Chef, the truncated is gone!"
    1. +1
      5 2021 June
      Quote: d1975
      I'll go read Nosov - "Dunno on the moon."

      Anyone conceived of a revolution? wassat
  27. +6
    3 2021 June
    The author is a little unaware. The Zenith missile is not a Ukrainian missile, but a Soviet one. The Ukrainians in space are about the same as they once dug the Black Sea.
    As for the fact that the Americans are withdrawing from international agreements - but what's new, the bandits have never recognized the laws. The fact that Russia withdrew from the project is correct, we are not Ukraine. Of course, Russia is not the USSR, but we have independent access to space from 3 cosmodromes, carriers of different classes, and a research program. And it is a huge risk to cooperate with the Americans, it is better not to deal with bandyugans.
    So the little article is a minus, the next "disappeared", about nothing ...
  28. The comment was deleted.
    1. 0
      4 2021 June
      Russia in general is led by the wrong people ... and they will never lead.
  29. -3
    4 2021 June
    Quote: Glagol1
    ... Of course, Russia is not the USSR, but we have independent access to space from 3 cosmodromes,

    May I ask where is the Russian rover? Where is the Russian orbiting telescope? Where the hell is with him at least some interplanetary station?
    1. +1
      5 2021 June
      This year, Luna-25 starts, the next postponed from the 20th due to the Exomars pandemic.
    2. +1
      6 2021 June
      Spectrum pr at point n2 will pass for an orbiting telescope? Exo Mars flies next year, moon 25 flies this year in fall.
  30. +2
    4 2021 June
    The photo of the "lunar base" is just fire, a kind of space hobbits and their "hole"! laughing
    But the way the author "translated" the name of the database is just awful! This whole translation is getvey, it catches the eye. Getway, seriously? good
  31. +3
    4 2021 June
    Luxembourg-based SES SA has 75 satellites in orbit - communication satellites of the ASTRA series were launched by both the European space agency and Roscosmos and NASA, the world's largest communications and broadcasting operator.
  32. -1
    4 2021 June
    Roman, can you tell me what exactly is the success of the work of the Japanese automatic stations on asteroids? Something I have not read, but I did not notice any success there.
    1. +1
      4 2021 June
      Well, at least, while the Americans are just bringing asteroid soil to Earth, the Japanese have delivered it long ago. laughing
  33. +6
    4 2021 June
    The Space Shuttle program has delivered 135 people over 852 successful flights. So, for comparison
    And for 2 unsuccessful ones - the US "killed" 14 astronauts. Even before the death of the Challenger, Soviet specialists were amazed at the absence of SAS in the Space Shuttle system - flights on the Shuttle were "roulette" from the very beginning.
    Here the principle - less is better - works both ways.
    The Union "killed" 2 cosmonauts for 4 unsuccessful flights.
    SAS Soyuz rescued 4 cosmonauts, one astronaut and 5 unmanned descent vehicles.
    The latest disaster - the shuttle Columbia - is a fiasco of the entire US program - the safety problems inherent in the project could not be solved during operation. Fragments of the thermal insulation of the USS fuel tank with the shuttle's glider also collided before the Colombian disaster - one of the missions miraculously did not share the fate of Colombia - in the area of ​​the fallen tile there was not a thin sheet of aluminum cladding, but local reinforcement - it did not burn out during landing - an extraordinary luck.
    The USS program was closed and the astronauts began to fly to the ISS on the Soyuz.
  34. 0
    4 2021 June
    It is a pity that such a legacy has been destroyed. Korolyov turned over in his coffin 100 times.
  35. +1
    4 2021 June
    To solve cosmic issues and problems, one must be able to solve earthly problems. And Russia still performs everywhere under the white flag! Shame, not power! Space, Moon, Mars - this is not for Russia with the current government!
  36. 0
    4 2021 June
    Four times, from $ 21 million in 2006 for a seat, to $ 83 million in 2020 ... Start at the Cru Dragon - $ 55 million

    What surprises the author?
    We look at the current prices of 2021:
    As for the price, Starliner stipulates from $ 60 million to $ 90 million for the chair, while Musk has $ 55-60 million.
    This is from an interview with Rogozin https://tass.ru/interviews/11553849?utm_source=finobzor.ru
    Market.
    Musk's manned flight statistics are still too scanty to speak of the reliability of his ship. And taking into account the refueling of the Space X launch vehicle at the start with the crew in the cockpit - it's damn risky!
  37. +2
    4 2021 June
    Most recently, he successfully tested Starship, the heaviest missile in US history.

    Launched it? Successfully? A space rocket is considered to be successfully launched when it enters orbit, an ICBM when it arrives at the Kuru, and a lunar when it arrives at the moon. And the fact that we see throw tests. Although yes, according to Musk's plans, the starship was supposed to go into orbit for a year already.
  38. -2
    4 2021 June
    The result was 6 (SIX) flights to the Moon (and not one, filmed in Hollywood, as some are trying to imagine)

    After these lines I stopped reading. But he mastered the last, what, you say? American success? No success, they are slowly going their own way, and we just stopped.
  39. 0
    4 2021 June
    in the light of modern realities - the Moon is the closest, largest and relatively accessible resource base. Plus, in the near future, there is clearly no need to worry about "air pollution" and so on. Therefore, it is quite realistic to locate extractive industries, processing plants and the issuance of semi-finished products there. And on the same moon to place cosmodromes for further exploration of near space. Which, by virtue of a bunch of factors, gives great prospects. Therefore, the fight will be very serious. Moreover, I would not be surprised if the first one to capture the Moon cheerfully repels rockets, etc. attempts of competitors to "dig in" on the Moon ... After all, this is logical and very easy: after all, it is impossible to reach the Moon from the Earth in a couple of minutes, any launch of a manned / combat rocket can be detected in advance and successfully counteracted.
    And all this will be very soon ...
  40. +3
    4 2021 June
    Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
    The latest disaster - the shuttle Columbia - is a fiasco of the entire US program - the safety problems inherent in the project could not be solved during operation.

    Do not stop the author from admiring the successes of the States. The author, kanesh, raised the right questions, but gave them a very one-sided assessment.
  41. 0
    4 2021 June
    Is there life on Mars, is there no life ..... I have only one question: when and how did we deal with the radiation?
  42. 0
    4 2021 June
    "which is at least not worse, but as they say in the US - head and shoulders above the RD-180."
    Well, the flip side of the fight against the Kuznetsov Design Bureau. The cadres have grown up, and not in Russia. For all this solitaire was well watched.
  43. Quote: Ros 56
    and which independent international commission can confirm this?

    So you try to write in sports lotto, I'm sure they will prompt.
  44. +1
    4 2021 June
    "... And Ukraine will also be able to play its own melody in a common chorus. Whatever the Internet" experts "who are very sharp in the language say, but what is in Ukraine - it is. KB Yuzhnoye, Yuzhny Machine Building Plant named after A M. Makarova "," Khartron-Arkos "," Kievpribor "," Khartron-YUKOM "," Rapid "- these are all world-renowned factories. money...."
    I cannot agree ... Money should not only be poured in, but it should be poured in LITERALLY. And who will pour money into Ukrainian enterprises? USA? Europe? China? Do they need it?

    ".. The first stage is the most complex and expensive part of the rocket ..."
    Something tells me that the cost of the load (and its complexity) may still be higher than the cost of the first stage.

    However, as usual with the author: a description of the real problem + very controversial (and often unreliable) statements.
  45. +1
    4 2021 June
    Poverty and devastation reign in the "space industry of Ukraine". And for a long time. And this problem cannot be easily solved even by "pouring money". Here are the main factors:
    1. Outdated scientific and industrial bases.
    2. The "scampering" staff partly fled, partly outdated in the literal and figurative sense. And it is not possible to raise new personnel instantly, you need a powerful training base and practice.
    3. A very large part of the former splendor of the Ukrainian "space industry" was tied to the "chains" of other countries of the USSR, which are now broken off.
    4. Potential investments in the "space industries of Ukraine" are not protected by anything. Even without another coup d'état a government revolution can easily wring out to nationalize any enterprise, having lost any agreements. Let's remember the murky schemes with Mittal in Ukraine;)
    5. Musk has a lot of things to say, and many more. You just need to take into account that with his statements Musk, by virtue of his weight, makes the securities market sway every time and heats up rather robustly;) So his next statement should be perceived precisely through the prism of his personal interests, and not taken as a guaranteed confirmation;) And yes, I have already spoken in the previous paragraphs about "international chains" that dilute the "exceptional success" of Ukrainian achievements a little.
  46. +1
    4 2021 June
    What a shame, space was the last border on which we got along well, now we are not safe there either. I am interested in the Moon, but I dream of seeing a man on Mars. This is a real adventure
  47. +1
    4 2021 June
    Quote: vkl.47
    The author of the article needs to pull his tongue out of the ass of the mask. And S. Kubrick didn’t shoot that. There were no original films. They mythically disappeared. Because of bad luck. And then it is possible, during the examination, to burn all this "high-rise on the Moon".

    At least you would restrain yourself, otherwise envy does not paint you somehow.
  48. +2
    4 2021 June
    Quote: vkl.47
    The author of the article needs to pull his tongue out of the ass of the mask. And S. Kubrick didn’t shoot that. There were no original films. They mythically disappeared. Because of bad luck. And then it is possible, during the examination, to burn all this "high-rise on the Moon".

    but the same thing, only in a more cultural form - can you describe it? The point is to go to insults?
  49. +1
    5 2021 June
    Quote: ccsr
    Quote: Intruder
    that they filmed the traces of the Yankee landings on the lunar regolith,

    There is no need to lie - they did not remove any traces of the landing of the astronauts, because the resolution of the equipment did not allow it to be done. The fact that the Americans landed several modules on the moon, no one doubts - we also did this at that time. But this does not mean that the Americans, or we, landed there.


    ccsr, hivi nasa is pointless to explain the obvious, even if they are shown a picture of a piece of land from an orbiting satellite at an altitude of 750 km - the license plate is visible, and a muddy, shameful LRO picture from an altitude of 50 km. - lack of atmosphere, they will not understand anything, thinking in hivinas, in my opinion, is at the level of the first signaling system)))
  50. +2
    5 2021 June
    "Yes, gentlemen, yes! It was
    already my husband's third flight to the moon.
    We did the first two together.
    However, I will write about this later ... "
    Jacobin von Munchausen.

    I'm already tired of writing about the Americans' lunar scam. No evidence of fans of the sect of the truth of these flights does not convince them. At the same time, the evidence is ridiculous: Leonov said, he said ... this one. I stopped believing Leonov when he said that some of the footage was indeed filmed on Earth. And what about such a movie? Perhaps the adherents of the lunar scam are their sent Cossacks?
    Calculations of Russian specialists show that an engine of this design could not provide the declared thrust. This was proved by direct and continuous filming of the American of the launch of one of the Apollo.
    There is no fuel centering in the landing module. This puts an end to the landing and start.
    How could the smooth soles of moonsuits leave ribbed marks on the surface?
    Fluttering flag, no stars and no Earth in the photo. Scooping out water in a vacuum!? /
    Several light sources, etc., etc.
    Where are 430 kg of moonstones? One of them turned out to be a petrified tree.
    crying
  51. +3
    5 2021 June
    No other topic gains such intensity of passion as space in general and Russian space in particular against its backdrop. And, as a rule, the next burst of hysteria begins with the author’s crying. And he, in turn, is with another company to extract money from the US Senate by lobbyists of aerospace corporations for a super-duper mega project of the century perpetuating rights, image, superiority over the world. Well, it’s funny to start from non-Russian information wars for money as applied to Russian space. Now they have this... this is starting to happen, but here we have the same...! And let’s wave our hands, describing who will describe more vividly and more clearly what is there, and what exactly is here. Yes, unfortunately, nothing comes of cooperation except for rare joint projects. Interests often do not coincide, and especially money. Therefore, space will continue to be Russian, Euro-American, Chinese, etc. They will all be different, but this is no reason to panic. Such is life, the main thing is that it exists, and is our own, and not, as in Ukraine, someone else’s and only on screens. And it will not always be bright and stormy, but it will be without a doubt.
  52. The comment was deleted.
  53. 0
    5 2021 June
    I would very much like to write about the real successes of Russian cosmonautics. I would like to live up to this holiday, when something flies with us, works, gets lucky or lands on the moon. When, I hope, we will still move from words on Twitter to deeds at the enterprises of the space industry.


    I would like to write it. For example, about the Zeus transport module, which was recently announced by Roscosmos executive director Alexander Bloshenko. In this area, the United States lags behind Russia by "twenty" years. Why doesn’t the respected R. Skomorokhov write anything about this?
    1. -2
      6 2021 June
      You didn't notice the word real
      1. +1
        6 2021 June
        Are the Americans already on the moon?
  54. -2
    5 2021 June
    Unexpectedly, I completely agree with Roman’s article! Only I looked a little further than 2050 in my fantasies: for me, the Moon, of course, is both fossils and resources that are limited or run out on Earth! But! This is also an opportunity, in the future, to place weapons there that can be launched on the Earth’s side, too, as well as the possibility of developing the so-called strategy. “second home”, after which our “umbrella/cloak/weapon of retribution”, etc. become useless, after which we can be left here alone with our “balalaikas and nesting dolls” to trade “Gzhel and Khokhloma” with the natives in locations from “Mad Max”. Plus, you have to understand that as soon as they complete this program, deep space with other planets will open up before them at lightning speed. In order to somehow “keep up” with this “movement”, we need to develop and popularize robotics, advanced electronic technologies, aircraft construction, modeling, etc. among children yesterday.
    1. +1
      5 2021 June
      Quote: orcinus
      In order to somehow “keep up” with this “movement”, we need to develop and popularize robotics, advanced electronic technologies, aircraft construction, modeling, etc. among children yesterday.


      We now have a robotics club in every school. Free. They create quite advanced models there. You just don't know.
  55. +1
    5 2021 June
    It turns out that Roman believes the lunar storytellers. Didn't expect this from him
  56. 0
    5 2021 June
    Quote: ont65
    This year Luna-25 will start, next year it will be postponed from the 20th

    When it starts flying, then we’ll talk.
  57. +1
    6 2021 June
    This article is very similar to the actions of our Soviet rulers of that time - to accept the lies of the Americans about flying to another planet.
    The rest is a logical derivative of the main thing, of lies. This is not betrayal, but much worse, it is a strategic mistake. It was on this mistake that the Americans managed to defeat us in the Cold War - you can’t trust them, you can’t do this.
  58. The comment was deleted.
  59. 0
    7 2021 June
    Yes, unlike the USSR and, subsequently, Russia, the USA did not have a change in the political system, the collapse of the country, a collapsed economy and other problems associated with this. The fact that Russia and Roscosmos in particular were able to preserve this is a miracle, which, probably, was only possible in Russia. As soon as the power of the dollar ends, the good times for NASA will end, and only then will it be possible to see how effective Musk’s company is. I am not belittling his merits, but we must pay tribute to the fact that the funding of his space program is provided by the US government. Since all space programs are decades-long programs, it is not certain that the dollar will last that long in its current capacity. And then we will see what NASA can save and release.
  60. The comment was deleted.
  61. 0
    7 2021 June
    fairy tales . By the way, it doesn't bother you. that after Khrushchev was Brezhnev and further in order and none of them somehow refuted?

    Khrushchev was removed in 1964, and the first Apollo flight in 1969.
    Everything happened under Brezhnev, including the closure of the N-1 program
  62. 0
    8 2021 June
    It is impossible for the USSR to lose a ten-year war in Vietnam with a half-million contingent and corresponding expenses, but at the same time to win the space race against the USSR, except in the movies.
  63. 0
    8 2021 June
    It feels like the article was written by a troll paid by NASA.
    Firstly, it is not clear why, unfortunately, if the Americans build a base on the Moon?
    Secondly, they will succeed if they appoint a financial director and the entire financial service from NASA to the Yuzhnoye Design Bureau and finance the development and construction of rockets and a lunar base on it, not all the specialists have fled, those who exist will be able to do this, they just need Monitor your spending very carefully. It will be many times faster and cheaper than the Pentagon’s personal Space X
    Thirdly, things are not so bad for Roscosmos, rockets are being built, flying, programs are being implemented, although with a lag, but not as catastrophic as Boeing and Space X. In addition, breakthrough projects are being implemented that will allow us to significantly outpace the United States in technical terms and gain more opportunities for studying planets and satellites, for example, the same nuclear reactor for space.
  64. The comment was deleted.
  65. -1
    8 2021 June
    An extremely interesting article, in contrast to the dull crap, respect to the author. On my own behalf, I can add that the Americans are already openly declaring that the era of practical use of the solar system has come, one of the applications is the extraction and exploration of minerals, and alas, the Russian Federation is simply unsuitable for such a role. To propagandize, to yell hooray, to jump higher and fart louder, yes))) “Pagan Pindos” are pragmatic and enterprising, unlike.
  66. 0
    8 2021 June
    Stop. There is no “side road” waiting for Russia.
    We have nothing to mine on the moon, everything is on earth, in the country.
    We don't need to send people to Mars. Everything can be done automatically
    Space beyond the earth is exploration and automatic weapons will suffice.
    We need a station in orbit, our own or a cooperation one.
    The rest will grow, give it time.

    Everything is possible and affordable.
  67. 0
    9 2021 June
    1. The Americans were on the Moon, ..., but not as they showed and not so much. Due to the abundance of inconsistencies in the official version, it itself can be considered a conspiracy theory.
    2. All the current beauty of current American projects will end when no one needs dollars, and this is inevitable, like the rising and then setting of the Sun.
    3. But Russia shouldn’t rely on this, we need to work, I agree with this, work and strain. It's time to harness as many horses as possible, it's time to start riding quickly. But I’m afraid this will no longer be the case with GDP. Although he played his positive role as best he could, the fall stopped, and thank goodness for that, it could have been much worse.
  68. The comment was deleted.
  69. The comment was deleted.
  70. +1
    10 2021 June
    "In those years there were a lot fewer conspiracy theorists. In those years there were simply a lot fewer outright stupid people." - in fact, in those years there was too little reliable information. Everything that did not coincide with the official theory was kept silent and censored. Therefore, it is not the number of stupid people that has increased, but the amount of information that has increased. More and more “stupid people” began to ask uncomfortable questions to which there are no intelligible answers.
    Over time, more and more holes are revealed in NASA's lunar scam. They no longer have time to edit photos on the official website. You will no longer find a flag fluttering in the wind. Videos with explicit film bloopers have been trimmed. And only those who blindly believe in NASA’s “word of honor” claim that a man’s flight to the Moon was possible using technologies that were half a century old. At the same time, they “forget” that no one currently has these technologies. The technology was there, but lost. Just like Baron Munchausen: he was on the moon (several times) - but the technology was also lost.
    1. -1
      13 2021 June
      Quote: reminin
      "In those years there were a lot fewer conspiracy theorists. In those years there were simply a lot fewer outright stupid people." - in fact, in those years there was too little reliable information. Everything that did not coincide with the official theory was kept silent and censored. Therefore, it is not the number of stupid people that has increased, but the amount of information that has increased. More and more “stupid people” began to ask uncomfortable questions to which there are no intelligible answers.
      Over time, more and more holes are revealed in NASA's lunar scam. They no longer have time to edit photos on the official website. You will no longer find a flag fluttering in the wind. Videos with explicit film bloopers have been trimmed. And only those who blindly believe in NASA’s “word of honor” claim that a man’s flight to the Moon was possible using technologies that were half a century old. At the same time, they “forget” that no one currently has these technologies. The technology was there, but lost. Just like Baron Munchausen: he was on the moon (several times) - but the technology was also lost.

      What are you smoking?
  71. 0
    13 2021 June
    I read the comments and I'm shocked. As I understand it, these people seem to be adults. And complete obscurantism. It's so dark it's creepy. And these people probably manage something, only they have “ice cream” in their heads instead of brains, as my boss puts it. People don’t believe words and books, they believe in what they themselves have seen. Just like in the Middle Ages, even in the 19th century people were more enlightened than today's audience on the site.
  72. Lew
    0
    15 2021 June
    When you want to shit on your table, how can anyone object, your table, yours and excrement.
    It’s another matter if you don’t know what’s going on in the Russian space industry, this is not a reason to say that everything is bad)) Ignorance is a reason to talk about the mental development of the author, who is not even able to use a mouse on the Internet, let alone read literature.
    1. 0
      July 24 2021
      Technologies are not lost. NO WAY. Technical processes are not written to be lost. Technologies can only develop. Americans lie all the time; it is almost impossible to distinguish the truth from pure lies. But they do not know how to make engines for the lunar program and did not know how. The question is what were they flying on - were they sick? Brooms don't count.
  73. 0
    August 9 2021
    Here, perhaps, it is worth remembering that for 140 successful launches, Soyuz transported 373 cosmonauts and astronauts into orbit. The Space Shuttle program has delivered 135 people over 852 successful flights. So, for comparison.

    A very controversial comparison. On the Soyuz they always flew to the station - Mir or the ISS - on the Shuttles almost all the time just on their own and only at the end to the ISS. And what is the use of 7 astronauts on the shuttle if there were only three left on the ISS? And what did they do for two weeks before that, seven people in a 66 cc cylinder? meters - this is, for example, the volume of my living room. I’ll say right away that it’s just a bit cramped, and it’s not at all interesting to do anything else like that.
  74. The comment was deleted.
  75. 0
    August 16 2021
    Mascophile article, the question is how will SpaceX get to the Moon? where and who will make lunar spacesuits until 26?


"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"