The history of the future: how humanity makes its way into space

93
The history of the future: how humanity makes its way into space


Cosmic story humanity with each decade will lose more and more details. The greater the success we will achieve, the less significant the very important achievements of the past will seem. Perhaps, schools should not study the history of political confrontations, bloodshed and strife, but the impressive way of our scientific and technological progress.

Over the past 70 years, mankind has sent a wide variety of spacecraft into space. Few people doubt that the future of our civilization is connected with the cosmos. Despite the many troubles and conflicts, a huge number of various marketing and media "lures", space still "poach" the best minds of mankind. Moreover, he is a dream not only of the intellectual elite, but also of almost all children on the planet, which means that the “last frontier of humanity” will be overcome sooner or later. Let's try to consider some important milestones of the space path. Perhaps today many of them seem insignificant, and after the first interstellar flight they will become completely amusing, like a wooden bicycle against the backdrop of a Formula 1 car. Nevertheless, it was precisely these scientific and technical feats that showed how much success an idea that captures the minds of many people can achieve.

Start, Fow 2

Maybe someday it will be awkward for us to tell our brothers in mind about how our journey into space began. Like many of our best achievements, military technologies have paved the way to space. The V-2 missile, developed by the German Nazis, was the first aircraft to reach near space.


The V-2 rocket became the basis for the development of the V-2 rocket, which removed the first video of the Earth from space


After the war, on the basis of this rocket, the first American and Soviet rockets were created, capable of “bouncing” to an altitude of up to 200 km (the height of the ISS orbit is about 400 km).

Even before the launch of the first satellite, two dogs flew to the height of 2 km on the Soviet P-16 1957 in May of 210. Before 1960, a dozen such launches took place.

In the USA, the V-2 rocket was created based on the same V-2, which was also used to study near-Earth space, and with even greater scope. In total, from 1946 to 1951, Americans performed more than 80 flights to a height of more than 160 km.

Some of these flights were especially valuable, for example, during one of them the first video of the Earth from space was received. Also, fruit flies, seeds of various plants, mice and macaques flew on V-2 rockets into the near-Earth space.

These flights yielded a huge amount of scientific information about conditions at extremely high altitudes. The missiles developed for the war returned to Earth with valuable information about solar radiation, the parameters of the ionosphere and the upper atmosphere. Without these data, it would have been impossible to further explore space, because before the first rocket flights we knew practically nothing about it.

First satellite

In a few hundred years, will the launch of a satellite be considered the first step of mankind into space, or will this technological achievement seem too insignificant? It is difficult to answer this question, but today the first successful launch of a spacecraft into Earth orbit is a very significant event. In many ways, this experiment is the foundation on which the modern powerful satellite constellation stands, with all its outstanding advantages, such as GPS and global communication. Moreover, the satellite changed the history of the planet, became a powerful catalyst for scientific and technological progress.

The first satellite, the Soviet unit PS-1, launched 4 October 1957 of the year. A small device with a diameter of 58 cm carried on board the simplest by today's standards radio transmitter, which broadcast a simple beep-beep. Nevertheless, the signals of this satellite made even more noise than the test of a nuclear bomb - mankind for the first time demonstrated its power over the orbit.


The PS-1 satellite had a simple design, but it served as a powerful catalyst for the space race.


During the Cold War, the launch of the Soviet satellite caused a very strong US reaction. American politicians so frightened the success of the USSR that they literally “flooded” their aerospace sector with money.

It was at that time that the Pentagon created the Agency for Advanced Research Projects (later DARPA), and the US National Science Foundation increased its budget 4 times. But, most importantly, a year after the launch of PS-1, one of the largest space research organizations was created: President Eisenhower signed a decree establishing the National Aeronautics and Space Administration - NASA.

After the launch of the Soviet satellite, US citizens willingly agreed to astronomical spending on the Apollo lunar program, which largely ensured its success and became the next major technological achievement of mankind.

Saturn V

After the first satellite, mastering the orbit became a matter of time: spacecraft for people was difficult, but it was already on the shoulder of engineers. After the flight of Yuri Gagarin, the ways of fixing people in Earth orbit were outlined and it was necessary only to develop appropriate technologies.

But mankind has already set the following task, as always it looked beyond the barely mastered horizon - to the moon.

The main problem of the flight to the moon in those years was to create a sufficiently powerful launch vehicle that could lift a heavy spacecraft, a descent vehicle and deliver them to the satellite of our planet and back in a reasonable time.

In the US, it was a Saturn V rocket, and in the USSR - H1. Unfortunately, the Soviet project failed. Therefore, until now Saturn V remains the largest, highest, heaviest and most powerful launch vehicle that has ever taken off from the surface of the Earth. It was this rocket that brought people to the moon, which so far is the most outstanding achievement of manned cosmonautics.

The creation of Saturn V was spent enormous power and money. In particular, a huge building with a height of 50 floors was built to assemble the rocket. This building, called the VAB (Vertical Assembly), became the “home” for other major spacecraft, including the Space Shuttle.


Saturn V rockets were able to deliver people to the moon


Saturn V has a height of 111 m (36-storey building), weight 2800 t, thrust 34,5 million newtons. The rocket could throw record-breaking 118 T of the payload into Earth orbit, and the Moon about 50 T. The best heavy modern missiles cannot boast even half the values ​​of the Saturn V payload.

Since the first unmanned test flights in the 1967 year, Saturn V has completed 13 successful launches. The rocket not only delivered people to the moon, but also launched the first US space station - Skylab.

Apollo

The Apollo spacecraft is the first ship that brought people to the surface of another celestial body. Due to the imperfect 1960 technology, the creation of Apollo was a search for very complex tradeoffs.


Apollo descent module


Apollo consisted of a descent module lunar weighing 4,8 t and 30-ton streamlined command and service module, the design of which today serves as the basis for many projects of "private" American spacecraft.


Inside the descent module Apollo lunar


The command and service module consisted of two parts: the service module itself and the apparatus designed to return to the earth’s atmosphere from the lunar orbit at a very high speed — 39 000 km / h. The service module had a powerful engine for leaving the lunar orbit. During the mission, a descent module with two astronauts aboard was separated from the command and service module, and the third crew member remained in orbit in the command module. After performing all the tasks on the surface of the moon, the descent module took off, docked with the service module, and Apollo was serving back to Earth.


Apollo spacecraft


The Apollo descending lunar module turned out to be incredibly reliable, while the service module presented unpleasant surprises: it caused the death of the Apollo 1 crew and almost killed the Apollo 13 crew. In the second case, people managed to escape and survive in the descent module.


Service command module Apollo in comparison with other ships


Fifty years ago, Apollo was the peak of technical excellence, but the huge risk that astronauts put themselves on is obvious, flying on such a primitive device with a minimum of automatic devices and backup systems.

"Venus" and "Vega"

Today, not everyone will be able to answer the question: “On what planet did the first unmanned probes descend from Earth”? Many will say that they are on Mars, because they have forgotten about the incredible achievements of the Soviet space program, which for the first time in history could plant earth technology on the planet of the solar system, and not on Mars, but on Venus.

Between the 1961 and 1984 years of the USSR, 16 sent probes to Venus, 8 of which successfully landed on the surface of the planet and transmitted information. In 1985, two more probes, Vega-1 and Vega-2, landed successfully on Venus. Thus, 10 landings of unmanned vehicles were made on Venus, but only 7 vehicles were successfully landing on Mars.

The first soft landing on another planet was provided by the 1180-kg probe "Venus-7", which dropped the 500-kg descent module into the atmosphere of Venus, which successfully landed and collected data on the conditions on the surface of the neighbor of the Earth.


The device "Venus-13" sent color images of the Venusian surface to the ground


The following probes, "Venus-9" and "Venus-10", took the first photographs of the surface of Venus, and "Venus-13" and "Venus-14" performed the first ever drilling on another planet.


Vega probes had an unparalleled payload


The Vega-1 and Vega-2 devices are also unique. They first photographed the comet's core: probes made 1500 images of Halley's comet. In addition, the apparatus "Vega" dropped into the atmosphere of Venus two balloons with scientific equipment. The balloons floated for two days in the atmosphere of Venus at an altitude of 54 km, collecting invaluable data about another planet. So far these are the only balloons that have worked outside the Earth, on another planet. In addition, the Vega probes dropped the descent vehicles that successfully landed on the surface of Venus and worked for about 20 minutes.


Scheme of flight apparatus "Vega"


The devices of the Vega series were heavy “monsters” weighing almost 5000 kg. For comparison, the modern (1997 launch) the largest American Cassini probe weighed at the start of the 5712 kg.

Hundreds of dates and titles

All this is only a tiny part of the vast experience of space exploration. Hundreds of projects, names, missions, thousands of discoveries and dozens of unique machines with "impossible" characteristics - all this is our way into space. Hopefully, in the end, this path will become more important than political games, economic statistics, and will provide mankind with the golden age of peace and abundance.
93 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    25 July 2014 09: 18
    Unfortunately, under capitalism, few people are interested in long-term investments. Everyone wants lightning fast returns. All interests extend no further than one generation to a maximum of two, subject to good continuity. And space is a long-term investment, like all science. At one time, the USSR was a kind of engine. There was someone to compete with. Now it’s not at that pace.
    1. 0
      25 July 2014 09: 38
      Quote: Tilkus75
      Unfortunately, under capitalism, few people are interested in long-term investments. Everyone wants lightning fast returns. All interests extend no further than one generation to a maximum of two, subject to good continuity. And space is a long-term investment, like all science. At one time, the USSR was a kind of engine. There was someone to compete with. Now it’s not at that pace.

      Write nonsense. It is precisely the "capitalist" automatic interplanetary stations (AMS) that study deep space, study the planets of the solar system, it is the "capitalist" orbital telescopes that look deep into the universe ... The USSR has an AMS of the Luna, Venus and Vega series, this is the maximum that they could, the last attempt there were Phobos that reached Mars and disappeared in its orbit ...
      The fact that you don’t know about Cassini – Huygens AWS, neither about New Horizons or Jupiter Polar Orbiter means that everyone in the world, in the absence of the USSR, did not give a damn about space ...
      1. +3
        25 July 2014 10: 33
        We are familiar with the achievements of the United States in the field of space exploration, and we envy it in a good way. I have only one question - why so modest? Having the ability to print bucks in any quantity you like, where are the further high achievements? Where is the base on the moon (promised by 2000)? Where is the manned flight to Mars (promised in 2017, but it is clear that nothing will happen)? Or, in addition to money, scientists and advanced industry, is there also an external irritant in the form of the USSR, which must be wiped off its nose in the space and military race? And the Union didn’t become so it is possible to be picked slowly, to master the budget. Although, of course, in fairness, it is worth recognizing that their achievements in the field of space exploration by automatic stations to all other countries can only be dreamed of.
        1. +4
          25 July 2014 10: 50
          Quote: teron
          in addition to money, scientists and advanced industry, an external stimulus in the form of the USSR is also needed

          Perhaps China will soon become such an "irritant" for the United States.
          1. +3
            25 July 2014 11: 17
            I agree. It's a pity that our officials from Roscosmos do not react to any irritants. Yesterday, one more satellite seemed to be completely silent.
        2. -5
          25 July 2014 11: 51
          Quote: teron
          Where is the base on the moon (promised by 2000)? Where is the manned flight to Mars (promised in 2017, but it is clear that nothing will happen)?

          Why the hell do you need a base on the moon? Please explain? Why do we need a manned flight to Mars? Man on the moon do nothing. On Mars all the more. Bots solve all issues, which they do by the way. TWO crawl along Mars! American rover, why is there also a man? What can a man do that a robot cannot? In orbit of Mars THREE! artificial satellite, of which two are American. A man on Mars will not go far from the descent vehicle and cannot stay there for a certain period, the Mars rovers have been working for several years and have done thousands of times more than a human could.
          The landing on the moon of man was useless and had no sense other than propaganda; after it, landing on Mars will no longer have that effect and therefore it is not needed.
          1. +1
            25 July 2014 12: 59
            "Why the heck need a base on the moon?"

            I can’t know, but I remember what else Bush Sr. promised in the 90s.

            "Why do you need a manned flight to Mars?"

            I don't know about Mars. Everyone wants to, at least periodically declare. Moreover, why else would people be sent into space, if not for flights to other planets? Sitting on the couch at home and saying that “we don’t need this, we don’t need this” is not an option either. So no one will ever fly anywhere.

            "The human moon landing was useless and made no sense other than propaganda."

            That's exactly what I'm talking about. We flew not because it was necessary to explore something there, but to overtake us. On the other hand, the benefit was - the creation of the "Apollo" system is still the promotion of scientific and technological progress.
          2. 0
            25 July 2014 19: 14
            Quote: Nayhas
            Why the hell do you need a base on the moon? Please explain? Why do we need a manned flight to Mars? Man on the moon do nothing. On Mars all the more. Bots solve all issues, which they do by the way.

            How to do that! build science campuses and push science forward. on occasion, study the artifacts of other cosmic civilizations. Doing scientific leaps in progress hundreds and thousands of years in advance.
          3. Kassandra
            0
            26 July 2014 16: 51
            why the hell do you need flying photographs of Voyagers? except for the show off for the capitalist system - absolutely for nothing.
            The only serious success of Western AIS is "Cassini" and it was after the USSR and this achievement is not NASA but ESA
            If a man on the moon has nothing to do, then why did "practical" Americans fly there then?
            Mars rovers are much easier to control from Mars orbit and not from the ground. If this were so, then they would do tens of thousands of times more.
        3. +6
          25 July 2014 14: 39
          Although, of course, in fairness, it is worth recognizing that their achievements in the field of space exploration by automatic stations to all other countries can only be dreamed of.


          Remember "Buran" made in a crumbling state! Fully automatic! A masterpiece ... and notice all your not a single Taiwanese nameplate ...
          1. 0
            25 July 2014 19: 16
            Quote: Tilkus75
            Remember "Buran" made in a crumbling state! Fully automatic! A masterpiece ... and notice all your not a single Taiwanese nameplate ...
            good hi
    2. Andof odessa
      +3
      25 July 2014 14: 13
      The issue is not capitalism or a planned economy. The question is in control. Having an example of the uprising of strong colonies on earth, no power elite is interested in creating colonies outside the earth. they are not badly fed here either. There is nothing to rob. There is no one to sell beads. Unique items too. There are places on earth for sending those who are not satisfied with hard labor or settlement. and no one will give money to enthusiasts. but under World War 3, everything will be created very quickly to unscrew from a radioactive dump.
  2. -4
    25 July 2014 09: 19
    All this is very interesting, except that none of the earthlings has yet set foot on the moon. wink
  3. +1
    25 July 2014 09: 26
    The irony of fate ... National Socialist Werner von Braun paved the road into space. They do not like to remember him, although without him there would have been no Gagarin, there would have been no landing on the moon ... When people talk about space, they usually begin with Korolev and Glushko, that the era of space exploration began with them. Werner von Braun is strictly forbidden to remember, although if it hadn’t been for a long time, no one would have thought about space considering it a distant prospect ... In the USA, for sure, because they thought it was a waste of money.
    1. dmb
      +6
      25 July 2014 10: 37
      Is it worth it to apply the terms of racing to questions of knowledge of the world; the nostril of which stallion came to the finish line earlier. In my opinion, Brown, too, would not have been without the same Tsiolkovsky, da Vinci and, ultimately, Aristotle and Plato (this is from the well-known. And this is recognized not only in Russia.
    2. +2
      25 July 2014 11: 34
      Quote: Nayhas
      Werner von Braun is strictly forbidden to remember, although if it had not been for his achievements for a long time, no one would have thought of space considering him a distant prospect.

      belay I'm certainly not an expert in space technology, but the name Tsiolkovsky doesn’t say anything to you ???
      1. 0
        25 July 2014 11: 39
        Quote: sssla
        I'm certainly not an expert in space technology, but the name Tsiolkovsky doesn’t say anything to you ???

        Theorists undoubtedly all remember Kibalchich and Tsiolkovsky, and Zander, but the first real step was taken by Werner von Braun. The Magnificent Seven would not have appeared without the V-2 ...
        1. +1
          25 July 2014 14: 31
          And the GIRD? You forgot?
        2. 0
          25 July 2014 16: 08
          Quote: Nayhas
          The Magnificent Seven "would not have appeared without the V-2.

          This flying pipe is not Adam and Eve. Or do you want to say that up to this pipe of the USSR Toko threw stones naked above?
    3. 0
      26 July 2014 15: 51
      The irony of fate ... National Socialist Werner von Braun paved the road into space
      But! he relied on the works of Russian scientists!
    4. Kassandra
      0
      26 July 2014 17: 01
      The road to space was not laid by him, but by Korolev. All the same ... Yatozhegitlera love, but not the same degree !? tongue
      The British wanted to fly to the moon in a bunch of several thousand thousand solid rockets in 1939 - the war prevented. They, like Jules Verne, did not even bother with a simple flight around the Earth. The project was quite feasible and fairly cheap, even some of them were made.
      The author of the article does not actually know much from the real history of space research.
  4. +2
    25 July 2014 09: 59
    It is unclear why the author is minus. Yes, maybe a little succinctly stated, but the topic is interesting. Maybe in the future it will take root at VO, because the future lies with space technologies .. Not all the same, political plots are sucked up.
    1. -3
      25 July 2014 11: 32
      for repeating the "irrefutably proven fact" of man's landing on the moon
      1. The comment was deleted.
  5. +2
    25 July 2014 10: 15
    Voyager is still working, this product
    1. 0
      25 July 2014 11: 31
      It is only unclear why he is correcting orientation to the sun. During this period, any fuel should have already run out.
  6. +6
    25 July 2014 11: 30
    But did Saturn 5 reach orbit? All evidence of the American lunar program was on photographic films that were stolen (low-quality copies remained), lunar soil more than 300 kg was stolen. Where are their unrealistically cool Saturn 5 rockets? It displayed a payload 10 times greater than it can now, with modern technology. Etc. America does not give a single answer to these questions. Their whole strategy is an information war (the run-in took place on the lunar program). We can observe all its power now, in relation to Russia. America has learned to cheat so well that it seems that poor Europeans can be made to believe that the Earth is flat :)
    1. 0
      25 July 2014 12: 02
      Quote: IvanPartizan
      Where are their unrealistically cool Saturn 5 rockets?

      Texas, the museum of astonautics, there you can also look at the engine from the Saturn F1 hefty such
      Quote: IvanPartizan
      with modern technology

      modern technologies are about forty years old or more, what surprises you. Oxygen-hydrogen engines have the largest specific impulse, as they say, the physics and chemistry of the process, it does not change over time, and such loads were deduced
      1. 0
        25 July 2014 19: 01
        Where are the flights of these Saturns? After all, the cost of putting payload into orbit is several times cheaper than it is currently used.
        Why do they buy our RD180 If their F1 again exceeds our engine by almost 2 times the thrust?
        1. Kassandra
          0
          26 July 2014 17: 09
          F1 is expensive and unreliable. when the astronauts found out what they flew with the probability of surviving in only 90%, they said that they would no longer climb onto this rocket, therefore basically this program ended a little ahead of time.
      2. Kassandra
        0
        26 July 2014 17: 06
        oxygen-hydrogen is in vacuum, in the atmosphere oxygen-kerosene ..
        they presented the kerosene fuel for these engines to the USSR, before that they instead of Apollo flew to Gemini and Titan-2 and were poisoned. and even before that on methyl alcohol.
    2. +2
      25 July 2014 14: 51
      He flew, the USSR performed radar tracking. All is confirmed.

      On magnetic. Films. Originals of the code. From the broadcast. And only from 11. (you vkurse that they flew there 6, the 13th did not fly)

      The lunar soil in museums is lying around. Not all was stolen.
      The unbelievably cool Saturn 5 fulfilled their mission and that’s all. It’s not advisable to drive such a fool into orbit, reusable ships and much cheaper Soviet missiles can do this more effectively. (Our energy does not fly either). Even Orbital flights of the Apollos performed on Saturn-1B.

      Anyway, LRO took off the places of all landings. The chassis of the lunar modules in their places.

      With the same success, why do you believe in Gagarin’s flight, or in manned astronautics in general?
      1. 0
        25 July 2014 20: 36
        Quote: Pazifist87
        With the same success, why do you believe in Gagarin’s flight, or in manned astronautics in general?

        And we also believe that nuclear weapons turned out to be well in IRAQ, and they are so terrible that the Americans themselves are still afraid to present them to the world and the fact that someone from the State Department kept a test tube with a "very lethal" white powder (washing powder) at the UN. And there is so much of this S. Amersky "consumer goods" that my mother does not grieve a ruble for a bucket and a handful for free. And we don't need to set these stupid rams raking in the heat with someone else's hands as an example.
  7. Stasi
    0
    25 July 2014 11: 42
    The article is very interesting and informative. We must not forget our history, we must remember what successes we have made in space exploration. Unfortunately, after the collapse of the USSR, Russia was unable to repeat its successes. We launch rockets into space, but all this is due to the use of the Soviet reserve. And we need to create a fundamentally new space technology and develop science. In the long term, it is time to switch from rocket astronautics to manned, reusable spacecraft. As Tsiolkovsky said: "The Earth is the cradle of humanity. But humanity will not be forever in the cradle, it becomes cramped in it." Humanity needs to explore new planets. Moreover, science has discovered terrestrial planets in the Universe, you can live on them. But in order to solve such a problem, it is necessary to fulfill a number of conditions. 1) It is necessary to switch to manned reusable spacecraft capable of independently taking off into space. 2) These ships must have reliable protection from space radiation and various types of radiation. 3) It is difficult to work in a state of weightlessness to have artificial gravity. 4) Have powerful engines that allow you to develop tremendous speed to cover a distance of several parsecs. All this is possible to create, only it requires not just large amounts of funding, but most importantly the idea that space is the future of mankind. And without such an idea, funding for space science and its development is meaningless. I'd like to believe that Russia will be able to make such a breakthrough in the creation of such ships and the development of space science and space exploration. But seeing the current situation with our space and the state of the space industry, this is less and less true.
  8. -1
    25 July 2014 12: 06
    Quote: saag
    the engine from Saturn F1 is hefty such

    Why are they then today buying our engines from a flightless N-1, and not flying their own from Saturn?
    1. -1
      25 July 2014 14: 56
      Quote: e_krendel
      Why are they then today buying our engines from a flightless N-1, and not flying their own from Saturn

      Sorry for the question. Why do Americans from the shuttle do not use engines for their rockets. What reasons prevent them from doing this?
      1. 0
        26 July 2014 07: 51
        Quote: schizophrenic
        Sorry for the question

        Forgive me for the question) And what engines do you mean ??? On the shuttle itself or open. block?
        1. +1
          26 July 2014 11: 10
          Quote: sssla
          On the shuttle itself or razg. block

          The accelerating unit, if I am not mistaken, solid fuel, can be used for others if you start from some points of view. From the shuttle itself, it is possible to use the third stage for launching. But here it must be considered how profitable.
          1. Kassandra
            0
            26 July 2014 17: 14
            Velma is extremely poisonous when burned and their "thiokol" is expensive ...
            Yes, and not how profitable, on the contrary, 5 or more times more expensive.
            shuttle launches were canceled due to the weather usually because the wind from the sea blew towards the stands with spectators
            shuttles are needed not for launch missions, but for regular launches of goods from orbit and for service missions (as with Hubble).
  9. +1
    25 July 2014 12: 10
    Quote: e_krendel
    Why are they then today buying our engines from a flightless N-1, and not flying their own from Saturn?

    Well, obviously it is redundant for such businesses, why should they redo Saturn to launch a satellite at a geostationary? You can’t fasten another F1 rocket
    1. +3
      25 July 2014 12: 20
      At the 1st stage of Saturn-5 there were 5 F-1 engines. No one bothers to use 1 or 2 engines now.
      As for "You can't screw it to another F1 rocket" - our RD-180s are screwed to their rocket today, but their F-1 cannot be screwed to their rocket ???
      1. 0
        25 July 2014 12: 57
        Quote: e_krendel
        our RD-180s are screwed to their rocket today

        because they made this engine on their order, each engine is made strictly for a separate rocket
        1. -1
          25 July 2014 13: 28
          it is very similar if the Americans really said this, to try to at least somehow make excuses, in other words, screw the buoy into your ears
        2. 0
          26 July 2014 07: 56
          Quote: saag
          each engine is made strictly for a separate rocket

          Do you know that the RD-180 is a half-divided RD-171? Not a newly designed 180 purely for their missiles! And who prevented them from remaking Saturn 1dv. to your Atlas and so on
          1. Kassandra
            0
            26 July 2014 17: 18
            Thank you love RD-171, being incomparably more reliable than their F-1 in terms of traction, surpasses it by the way.
      2. 0
        26 July 2014 07: 52
        Quote: e_krendel
        As for "You can't screw it to another F1 rocket" - our RD-180s are screwed to their rocket today, but their F-1 cannot be screwed to their rocket ???

        Ah ha ha tochnyak)))
      3. 0
        26 July 2014 11: 09
        Quote: e_krendel
        About "You can't screw it to another F1 rocket" - our RD-180s are screwed to their rocket today, but their F-1s cannot be screwed to their rocket

        We heard about efficiency, open or closed, and another question is the cost of the engines, if you count all the parameters, you will immediately see which engine is more profitable.
    2. Kassandra
      0
      26 July 2014 17: 16
      you screw it completely only it is unreliable
  10. +1
    25 July 2014 12: 15
    Just one simple question that proves that no one flew anywhere.
    The Apollo 11 flight lasted 8 days 3 hours 18 minutes 18 seconds, 3 people flew.
    However, the ship was not provided with a device for, sorry, the sending of natural necessities.
    NASA tells us that they "went" in bags. However, on Mir, etc. not bags are intended for this, but devices like a vacuum cleaner.
    And if the "bags" were used, the entire habitable volume of the ship would, excuse me, be contaminated even during the flight "there".
    1. +1
      25 July 2014 14: 53
      Are you sure? Learn the materiel.
      1. Kassandra
        0
        26 July 2014 17: 21
        quite sure, just on the way there they went poop into the lunar module. and back, alas. but on the way back, they no longer carried out any critical operations that could be hindered by discomfort.
    2. Kassandra
      0
      26 July 2014 17: 23
      and defecation was carried out sitting in a row with a neighbor, just imagine that someone nearby in a car or in a cinema with you is busy with this ...
      and you think why they were first shown to Nixon through the glass for several days? had to be washed!
  11. -2
    25 July 2014 12: 28
    Quote: e_krendel
    As for "You can't screw it to another F1 rocket" - our RD-180s are screwed to their rocket today, but their F-1 cannot be screwed to their rocket ???

    Pretzel, you graduated at least 8 classes, smart people explained everything to you, and you continue to make nonsense
    1. +2
      25 July 2014 12: 33
      Higher engineering education.
      And "smart people" cannot explain elementary things, because it is easier to believe in a fairy tale directed in Hollywood than to think a little yourself.
      1. -1
        25 July 2014 14: 54
        Which specifically?
    2. Kassandra
      0
      26 July 2014 17: 26
      What did they explain to him? dear, the F1 engine is expensive, not reliable and inferior in thrust to the taxiways they are now buying ... these taxiways, by the way, are sawing in two.
  12. 0
    25 July 2014 12: 34
    Quote: e_krendel
    And when using "sachets", the entire habitable volume of the ship would be, sorry, contaminated even during the flight "there"

    And how do you think on a tiny union 18 days flew
    1. 0
      25 July 2014 13: 02
      From Wikipedia:

      If both bathrooms fail on the ISS, then in extreme cases you can visit the bathroom in the Soyuz spacecraft docked to the OS.
      The toilet, installed in the US segment of the ISS, was made in Russia by order of NASA due to the fact that the United States does not own such technology. The cost of the toilet is about 19 million dollars.
      1. Kassandra
        0
        26 July 2014 17: 30
        they screwed an incomprehensible stray to him for the processing of solid waste worth 420 million, but it does not work ... and this all was strangely driven by a bolt.
        Well, you understand laughing
    2. Kassandra
      0
      26 July 2014 17: 28
      in the Union in front of the lander there is a docked utility compartment. there is a toilet.
  13. 0
    25 July 2014 13: 09
    I’m talking about the Union without any ISS, when they flew to two astronauts, only on it 18 days, 44 years ago and the maximum that was there, the same packages and capacities
    1. -2
      25 July 2014 13: 19
      ... then, in extreme cases, you can visit the bathroom in the Soyuz spacecraft ...
      those. it was there initially, when there was no ISS.

      Another interesting point: everyone saw the footage of the astronaut prancing on the moon in a "moon buggy". Question: where was this buggy located on the lander?
      If outside, then where exactly? None of the photos have a buggy stuck to the landing module.
      If inside, how was it pulled out, if an astronaut hardly crawls into the hatch?
      Even if it was heavily disassembled, how and when (how long) it was collected on the moon, and why there is no photo of this fascinating process?
      1. +1
        25 July 2014 14: 23
        Quote: e_krendel
        in extreme cases, you can visit the bathroom in the Soyuz spacecraft ...
        those. he was there initially, when there was no ISS

        Then the MIR station did not fly yet. I advise you to look on the internet, about the Soviet first stations. You confuse Salute with the Union, with the first stations.
      2. -1
        25 July 2014 14: 57
        Learn the materiel! See diagrams, photos, drawings. Although yes! They were faked by evil Americans ...
        http://mcszulu21-f.ndc.nasa.gov/lunar/images/7020219.jpg
        for example
      3. 0
        26 July 2014 08: 02
        Quote: e_krendel
        Another interesting point: everyone saw the footage of the astronaut prancing on the moon in a "moon buggy". Question: where was this buggy located on the lander?

        And also 8 tons of fuel and a lot of crap. It's like kakly in Ukrainian Toko mantras singing because logic is completely broken
      4. Kassandra
        0
        26 July 2014 17: 36
        you can simply type Space toilet on Wikipedia - there about how the councils saved American astronauts from diapers and sachets (not lipitone) - that's all.
        the first American astronaut didn’t even have them, this hero had to piss in his boot.
    2. Kassandra
      0
      26 July 2014 17: 34
      the Union has something spherical in front. in a vacuum. this is a toilet ... when one cosmonaut mistakenly shot him a week before the descent from orbit, the crew, who had not been trained to poop like Americans in bags, had to be put on Earth ahead of schedule. this cosmonaut is the only one who "got sick" and did not receive a hero star in the USSR. for carelessness bully
      Cheers!
  14. 0
    25 July 2014 13: 26
    And one more thing: look at the smiling astronauts giving out interviews right after landing. How they themselves proudly go, etc. (after 8 days of being in space and just landing with huge overloads) when braking from the 2nd space speed.
    And look at how today (or anytime) they pull our (and non-our) astronauts out of the descent vehicle from near-Earth orbit (from the 1st space velocity). They can’t even move, not to go! A day comes to your senses!
    1. +1
      25 July 2014 13: 49
      firstly, for three days they were in zero gravity, then for some time on the Moon in conditions of reduced gravity, then again three days ago, for a trained person this is not so much, but for those who fly to the ISS, they are there for a month and a half, despite on physo and stuff is still a different effect
  15. 0
    25 July 2014 13: 29
    Quote: e_krendel
    If outside, then where exactly? Not a single photo of the buggy stuck to the landing module is not

    http://www.zr.ru/images/news/341753-hronika_pervyj_avtomobil_na_lune/341753-2-7-
    14
  16. 0
    25 July 2014 13: 39
    Quote: e_krendel
    How they themselves proudly go, etc.

    They go proudly only after two weeks of quarantine, before that I don’t let them go anywhere, so as not to bring them from the moon
    1. +1
      25 July 2014 14: 46
      Quote: LM66
      They go proudly only after two weeks of quarantine, before that I don’t let them go anywhere, so as not to bring them from the moon

      It just echoes the day before yesterday article on American bases. Then they still did not know if there was life on the moon, and therefore they were in quarantine.
  17. +2
    25 July 2014 13: 44
    I completely agree with e_krendel, all the facts really shout that the Americans were not on the moon. Where are the videos? - erased, stolen, never mind where. Rave? The delirium of a five year old child. Where is the ground, as much as 300 kilos? - Preserved for posterity! you do not have the right to study, the ban. (as if the descendants are nowhere and never fly) Bullshit? Rave! Why did the soil you donated at the dawn of supposedly expeditions to the moon turn out to be either a pebble usual, or a frozen excrement?) - Answer 0, they shrug their hands with a smile. Why do your photos turn out to be completely untenable during verification? - Yes, we did something in the studio (they don’t deny it anymore) Well, yes, with it, with soils and photos, but how did it fly?
    No one saw how they flew to the moon, no one informed anyone about the flight route and completely secreted how they returned, too. F-1 engines are generally incomprehensible how they were made with such a thrust in a single-chamber design and using this technology (now they cannot repeat anything like this and do not even try because the technical nonsense of the F-1 engine is obvious). Are there any descendants of such a great engine? No, it's better to buy from Russia ... of course. How did you land? Why do astronauts tell one thing, but on the landing diagrams another, where is the dust, where are the high jumps of astronauts? Where is the REAL evidence, and not pawing like "I swear to my mother, I was there, I'll be there" How did you return with a second space speed? Why such an accurate landing, why such a strange crew. And on the little things, how many questions, and a bunch of large aspects, you can't write everything.) Personally, my conclusion is complete bullshit. By the way, read what the astronauts themselves say about the moon, who supposedly were there, you will cut off)
  18. -1
    25 July 2014 14: 01
    Why aren't there any photos from the Apollo board of the receding Earth?
    There are no photos of an astronaut on the moon against the background of the Earth!
    They flew 12 times - and never took a picture ???
    One series of several photos would be enough to absolutely confirm the reality of the mission.
  19. -2
    25 July 2014 14: 02
    Quote: barbiturate
    nobody informed the route of the flight and they kept it completely secret

    The flight path to the moon was described by N.Ya. Kondratyev
    Quote: barbiturate
    F-1 engines are generally unclear how they did with such a draft in a single-chamber design

    Werner von Braun helped
    Quote: barbiturate
    How did you land?

    Not landed, but splashed
    Quote: barbiturate
    How did they return at the second cosmic speed?

    returned, then aerodynamic drag, so Makar the probe returned, with the same second space

    Quote: barbiturate
    Are there any descendants of such a great engine? No, it’s better to buy from Russia ... I see.

    To launch a satellite to a geostationary station, an oxygen-hydrogen engine is not needed, it’s like a gun sparrows
    They need to develop their own for 5-6 years, but they will not have projects to stop, so they buy from Russia until it’s profitable, then Musk will finish his Falcon and take these launch contracts from them and they will be cheaper, and if so, then launch of foreign spacecraft will leave Baikonur
  20. +2
    25 July 2014 14: 12
    Quote: saag
    came back, then aerodynamic drag

    aerodynamic braking from the 2nd cosmic speed with a single-launch circuit leads to overloads of 40G, at which guaranteed death.
    Ours, even from near-Earth orbit (from the 1st cosmic velocity), descend with a two-trigger scheme. With it, the overload is much smaller, but the landing area is very uncertain, with a spread of several thousand kilometers.

    And the brave Americans ALWAYS splashed down right next to some aircraft carrier.
    1. -1
      25 July 2014 14: 49
      Quote: e_krendel
      And the brave Americans ALWAYS splashed directly next to some aircraft carrier

      If the Americans could afford to send 5 pieces of aircraft carriers along the capsule landing track. That will always be aircraft carriers within 100 km. Explain while our lunar soil was lowered, because if, according to some calculations, the capsule with the soil could burn.
      1. +3
        25 July 2014 14: 59
        The capsule with the lunar soil is protected, as well as the lander with people. BUT. The capsule can be landed with any overload, nothing will be done with it. Therefore, it is possible directly from the 2nd space and single-launch scheme, with a more or less accurately known landing area.
        But people according to this scheme cannot be landed, because it will turn out to be bloody mess.
        Therefore, it is necessary to land using a two-trigger scheme, and for it the accuracy is very low objectively, and not because they "cannot". And then no aircraft carriers will be enough. it can fall onto land, and into the Pacific Ocean, and into the Atlantic.
        1. 0
          26 July 2014 11: 18
          Quote: e_krendel
          Therefore, it is possible directly from the 2nd space and single-launch scheme

          The flight path and I can draw, in which the protective shield does not help the capsule, it will burn out and specialists will calculate the rest.
    2. 0
      25 July 2014 15: 43
      first there is an immersion in the upper layer of atmospheres, braking to the first space, then a rebound into space, then at the next orbit again immersion and braking before entering the dense layers, then an exhaust parachute, then the main parachute system, descent, shooting a heat shield near the water and splashing down
  21. +2
    25 July 2014 14: 19
    Quote: saag
    no oxygen-hydrogen engine needed to launch a satellite to a geostationary

    The F-1 was just "kerosene-oxygen".
    J-2 was hydrogen-oxygen.
    The F-1 for history died at the same time as the Apollo program ended.
    J-2 is still being modified, but for some reason they fly on ours.
  22. +2
    25 July 2014 14: 27
    Quote: saag
    The flight path to the moon was described by N.Ya. Kondratyev


    and who told her? even if, according to official figures, the Americans didn’t tell anyone the flight path and ours only received radio communications, which in itself proves absolutely nothing. As in the anode, we have gentlemen, they believe in us, well, I have the color and it hurts)

    Quote: saag
    Werner von Braun helped

    do you really think that von Braun was something like a messiah?)) Read how his fau flew, how many disasters there were, what percentage of successful launches (by the way, look at the Apollo program, until the moment when everything began to work out for the Americans by magic sticks)
    Why not help him fly to Pluto then for example? However, for some reason he was simply fired and dispersed by employees)

    Quote: saag
    Not landed, but splashed

    Quote: saag
    returned, then aerodynamic drag, so Makar the probe returned, with the same second space


    return to Earth, therefore, they landed, but the essence of the matter does not change, so no one still understands how, without the experience of returning at a second cosmic speed, the Americans brought their descent capsule accurate to a couple of kilometers from the aircraft carrier) Take an interest, read, Is this a simple task and with what accuracy. And one thing is an automaton, and another thing is astronauts, apparently the Americans did not value the lives of people at all.


    Quote: saag
    To launch a satellite to a geostationary station, an oxygen-hydrogen engine is not needed, it’s like a gun sparrows
    They need to develop their own for 5-6 years, but they will not have projects to stop, so they buy from Russia until it’s profitable, then Musk will finish his Falcon and take these launch contracts from them and they will be cheaper, and if so, then launch of foreign spacecraft will leave Baikonur


    again, it is very much like a simple excuse, in the late 60s to have such an engine and everything will not go through "5-6 years", then after another ten years who will "finish something" there - and this is proof of some kind of flight? )
    1. -1
      25 July 2014 15: 51
      Quote: barbiturate
      and who told her? even if, according to official figures, the Americans didn’t tell anyone the flight path and ours only accepted radio communications

      there is such a section in physics called celestial mechanics
      Quote: barbiturate
      do you really think that von Braun was a bit of a messiah?

      He was an enthusiastic and talented person, coupled with US finances, he was able to fully realize himself

      Quote: barbiturate
      as without the experience of returning at a second cosmic speed, the Americans brought their descent capsule down to a couple of kilometers from the aircraft carrier

      physics and math
      Quote: barbiturate
      again very much like a simple excuse

      You are free to interpret as you please, but the Americans have such a trend - to attract private individuals in space projects, in particular for launch services
      1. -1
        26 July 2014 12: 56
        Quote: saag
        there is such a section in physics called celestial mechanics


        this section tells how you can fly to the moon) it tells how, in principle, to fly to Pluto, people flew Pluto?)

        Quote: saag
        He was an enthusiastic and talented person, coupled with US finances, he was able to fully realize himself


        that's why he was fired) and money doesn't solve everything, and enthusiastic and talented people are also often mistaken. From the area of ​​"believe in yourself and everything will work out") Is this proof?)

        Quote: saag
        physics and math

        You yourself are not funny from your statements?)) What are we still sitting on the Earth for a long time, we would have mastered other constellations, just physics and mathematics) But this is bad luck, Soviet scientists were at least no worse in physics or in mathematics, and now scientists from other countries, but how they return to Earth from the second cosmic people, they are all afraid of something, not to mention the accuracy of splitting the amers)
  23. +2
    25 July 2014 14: 33
    Quote: Nayhas
    It is the "capitalist" automatic interplanetary stations (AMS) that study deep space,


    This is all "native" inertia ...
  24. -1
    25 July 2014 14: 47
    And ours (as a result of a special operation) fished in the Bay of Biscay the descent capsule of the next Apollo, "returned from the Moon", which turned out to be a dimensional model (an essno dummy). It was then given to the Americans. After that, they had "how it cut off"! The lunar program ended urgently.
  25. -2
    25 July 2014 15: 01
    Quote: e_krendel
    And ours (as a result of a special operation) fished in the Bay of Biscay the descent capsule of the next Apollo, "returned from the Moon", which turned out to be a dimensional model (an essno dummy). It was then given to the Americans. After that, they had "how it cut off"! The lunar program ended urgently.

    Where did you read this?

    LRO photographed a mustache landing site.
    Look at the photo.
    http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/LRO
    Though! This is also a fake !!!
    Z.Y. Don't you wear a foil hat? (this is so secret)
    1. +1
      25 July 2014 15: 14
      Do you think these photos prove something?
      From the Earth's orbit (more than 100 km) they take such photos that you can distinguish time on a wristwatch.
      And here with a lower, without atmospheric interference, one could distinguish the shape of the tread of the moon buggy and measure the stride length of the astronaut!
      No, instead, some kind of muddy frames where an image of one and a half pixels give out for what you want.

      And in secret: I don’t wear a foil hat, but I don’t even believe in fairy tales.

      By the way, in the last photo, in the shadows ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IS ANYTHING! And it’s right, because there is no atmosphere, and light does not scatter or illuminate the shadows.
      But, on all photos of "landing on the moon" in the shadows, the light is beautifully set! You can distinguish the smallest shades and brightness transitions. This alone proves that the "lunar photos" were not taken on the Moon.
      1. -3
        25 July 2014 15: 19
        Well, look for a higher resolution here yourself, I'm too lazy:
        http://target.lroc.asu.edu/q3/

        http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html
        1. Kassandra
          +1
          26 July 2014 17: 42
          and where does the hats? take your bully
          the moon is full of all the rubbish from among the robots, which by the way could also be there
  26. -1
    25 July 2014 15: 01
    By the way, at least our turtles were sent to the moon to check whether all living things returned from there or not.
    And Americans immediately people, immediately to the moon, and immediately 3. And even missed the stage of the orbital manned flight!
    1. 0
      25 July 2014 15: 14
      Well, have you heard about Apollon 8? Orbital flight around the moon!
      And about the 9th, but about the 10th?
      Have you heard about Ranger and Surveyor?
      In general, this is the third American manned program. (Mercury, Gemini)

      Learn the materiel! Teach!
    2. 0
      25 July 2014 15: 15
      Quote: e_krendel
      even missed the stage of orbital manned flight

      They even went out into space, if I'm not mistaken 5 months after ours.
      1. -2
        25 July 2014 15: 21
        They could not go into space, because they stupidly HAD NO GATEWAY for this. It just has not been developed yet.
        And the so-called manned flight was a "suborbital jump", much less than one orbit.
        1. +2
          25 July 2014 15: 23
          But it was necessary to depressurize. And then inflate. Oxygen was))
          About the jumps:
          Pretzel, are you a troll? Or just fool around?
        2. +2
          25 July 2014 15: 28
          Yes, without a gateway with an oxygen supply hose, they got out. If ours used a gateway, then the Americans simply depressurized the ship. Worked in pursuit and overtook in the end.
          1. Kassandra
            0
            26 July 2014 17: 46
            they did not overtake anything, just the Kremlin and the White House threw fingers whose show it would be. after which the United States abandoned Gemini and slowly began to deal with Apollo, and the USSR scored the moon. In addition, he transferred unmeasured technologies in the USA, namely
            RP-1
            soft landing system for Surveyor (on Apollo she later insured)
            life support system for Apollo,
            and much more.
      2. +1
        25 July 2014 15: 22
        Yes, and practiced rapprochement and docking, just for future Apollos. Only 12 launches.
        Comrade Pretzel, I just probably didn’t bother)))
        1. 0
          25 July 2014 20: 41
          No, but for what minus? During the Gemini program, 12 flights were made, of which 10 were manned. Dzhemini-6 the first rapprochement of two devices, Dzhemini-8 the first docking, commander by the way Neil Armstrong. Here are the pictures (on the first 6th, on the second 8th and Agen):
          [/ Center]
        2. Kassandra
          +1
          26 July 2014 17: 49
          comrade, then with what they practiced docking this is a booster to the moon,
          they wanted to fly to Gemini first. which would have killed 99 pounds ...
          leave the test character of the gemini program to idiots, because then it turns out that they experience one rattletrain and fly to another. it’s the same as experiencing the Boeing and then flying on the airbase.
          almost no iron after gemini in apollo then did not participate
  27. 0
    25 July 2014 15: 24
    Quote: Pazifist87
    Learn the materiel! Teach!

    And Gagarin did not fly, because he landed on a parachute, and we all know that there is no air in space and the parachute would not open there wink Pazifist87 do not waste time, not the level that would discuss something with this character
    1. Kassandra
      +1
      26 July 2014 17: 50
      you think you are smarter in vain ...
  28. +1
    25 July 2014 15: 40
    Of course, why bother? They showed a movie, everyone believed, why think about and analyze something?
    For a long time nothing happened, an accident after an accident at the start or take-off. Then they drove out the main rocket launcher, and along with him 800 specialists. And everything immediately went like clockwork, already 12 times in a row. We invented for this a bunch of everything useful and interesting, flew, and everyone forgot the next day, and never again used for other purposes. All drawings lost, soil (300 kg) was stolen, technology was forgotten.

    And so, of course, everything is smooth.
    1. Kassandra
      +1
      26 July 2014 17: 52
      all this nonsense ... the USSR could have ended up there back in 1964, they just "gave" the moon to the Americans .. and they also helped them with the technology for this.
      about the same as with the transfer of the Yak-141 for the F35, but all the same "not so much".
  29. -2
    25 July 2014 15: 48
    Once again: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/LRO

    Very High Resolution LRO_Tycho_Central_Peak Last Frame

    And compare with all the famous pictures of "walking on the moon".

    If there is even a little brain, you will find several differences. And if you use this brain even a little, you can determine which photo is real and which are not.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  30. 0
    25 July 2014 15: 50
    Quote: e_krendel
    We invented for this a bunch of everything useful and interesting, flew, and everyone forgot the next day, and never again used for other purposes

    The item on which you are now knocking with your fingers (personal computer) was specially created and first used for these flights
    1. 0
      25 July 2014 16: 01
      IBM B2 like?
    2. Kassandra
      +1
      26 July 2014 17: 56
      the object on which he knocks was invented in half in England with Germany, and made in Taiwan, and without the technology received from the USSR, Americans would not even have launched a human into orbit for another 10 years, as France or Great Britain had still not launched.
      and China, too, received and launched.
      1. -1
        26 July 2014 19: 16
        Well, damn it, it’s clear that technology swam back and forth. For that, the CIA and the KGB were. And in general, I do not argue, our technique of that time was more advanced, including computing. Our AMCs all confirm this.
        1. Kassandra
          0
          26 July 2014 20: 39
          no KGB with the CIA in the story with the transfer of the Yak-41 to the F-35 was somehow noticed ...
          also then.
          an extra confirmation is that brains flow from where there are more of them to where there are fewer of them, and if even this does not help, then simply "the administrative resource is involved."
          the automatic orbital docking system used on Salutes and the ISS is much simpler than the automatic soft landing system transferred from the USSR to the USA for Surveyor in the 1960s, but the Americans themselves could not develop it for all these decades and bought from the Russian Federation only a few years ago.
  31. ivmes
    +1
    25 July 2014 16: 02
    A very pleasant romantic article in the spirit of the era of great geographical discoveries - renews dreams of space and gives a positive impetus, thank you.
  32. +1
    25 July 2014 16: 04
    Since it’s about computers ...
    There is a study in which it is shown that the computer that controlled the landing module (and its specifications are laid out and available), even theoretically could not only control the landing, but even simply calculate the telemetry of the landing module.

    There is a study where the design and operation of the F-1 and J-2 engines are disassembled to the finer points, and the impossibility of creating the claimed thrust by them is proved, which by the way is confirmed by the results of tests of these engines.

    There is a study of what radiation dose a crew would receive when overcoming the Earth’s radiation belts and when flying in interplanetary space (based on modern knowledge). She is close to deadly. But astronauts did not know about it (because the information about it at that time was very scarce), and therefore received a very small dose.

    Ballistic calculations for the landing trajectory also mean nothing, because the astronauts did not know anything about overloads when braking from the 2nd space one, so they did not suffer. And they would know, so from them only a bloody mess would remain (at 40G).

    And much more in detail ...

    Although, of course, not thinking about anything is much easier and more enjoyable.
  33. +1
    25 July 2014 16: 11
    Pretzel, before refuting anything, you need to thoroughly know the subject.
    Everything that you have heard somewhere, you will be able to disassemble more critically, if you take the trouble to learn about the Apollo program (about Soyuz-Apollo it will shock you to learn laughing ), specifically about technology, about astronauts, about the physics of flights to the moon and back. And then, in general, about the American space program, and even then about ours, and generally about the manned space program.
    In the meantime, better not to disgrace)
  34. 0
    25 July 2014 16: 33
    e_krendel don't explain anything to them, they won't explain a bunch of facts, if NASA itself is not able to explain them, you tell them about one-pixel images, and they are like NASA - look for yourself. Or tell me the number of the picture, and since you certainly don’t know the number, we shrug it off. The simplest explanation is given by persons like Pazifist87 and others like him, including from NASA, we were there, learn the materiel, but if there are a lot of wild inconsistencies, it's you, but we are fine, learn the materiel). They have one argument, what you are talking about cannot be, because it can never be!)
    By the way, for LM66, what does Gagarin’s flight into space prove? If we move away from any other polemics, then the main evidence is the flights of other astronauts and astronauts and teicunauts and other people from different countries. We can almost certainly assume that people fly into space, so why not Gagarin be the first?
    And what about the American lunar program and the American ship Saturn 5 do you know? so read and be surprised.
    Although there is no sense in convincing someone, everything has been published for a long time, questions have been asked and answers to them have not been received for a long time and not by us. By the way, read what astronauts babble when they are asked under hypnosis about a flight to the moon) Yes, and when some comrades from their own cohort are asked not under hypnosis)
    So don’t bother e_krendel, a lie will be revealed when, for example, the Chinese really go to the moon, with sacrifices and difficulties, they really show that they will ask Americans again and with smiling, only with real data in their hands on their flight and then big rzhach provided) Well lan, stop scribbling, it's time to go drink a beer after a hard working week.
    1. Kassandra
      +1
      26 July 2014 17: 59
      C'mon, they’ll call psaku everything will be settled ...
  35. +1
    25 July 2014 16: 37
    About Soyuz-Apollo in the know, do not worry.

    But in general, to prove the fact of the presence of something should be the one who claims this fact.
    Those. NASA must prove that someone flew somewhere, landed there, and flew back safe and sound, brought this and this, on the way and on the spot made "selfies" against the background of local landscapes.

    So, there is not a single reliable incontrovertible fact confirming the landing on the moon.
    Do not mention the photo of "walks". Dear Pazifist87 himself provided the link above. The comparison unambiguously proves the "non-lunarity" of widespread photos. But absolutely none of the photos that really unambiguously prove the fact of the flight were made, for all 12 "flights", although this presented absolutely no problem.

    About the "moonstones" donated to anyone, it is not necessary, they all were later fabulously "stolen" and "lost", and there is nothing to show. In reality, those unfortunate 100 grams brought by Soviet lunar stations are being sold on the black market for big money.

    If those 300 kg of "American lunar soil" were stolen, then 100 Soviet grams of lunar dust would not be interesting to anyone, and prices would immediately fall hundreds of times.
    1. +1
      26 July 2014 01: 49
      Quote: e_krendel
      prices would immediately fall hundreds of times

      They wouldn’t fall a hundred times. Back in Soviet times they wrote that the cost of lunar soil is equal to the value of diamonds tongue
      1. Kassandra
        +1
        26 July 2014 18: 01
        Helium-3? bully see film "Iron Heaven" laughing
  36. +1
    25 July 2014 16: 45
    barbiturate drinks For the moon!
  37. Neighbor from below
    +1
    25 July 2014 17: 50
    Yes, the future belongs to space. The author accurately noted the words of some half of humanity: "Why go to space? There are few problems on earth? Etc." In order to develop space, you need to act together, and not sit in camps and look at each other.
  38. 0
    25 July 2014 17: 55
    Quote: Downstairs Neighbor
    Yes, the future is beyond space.

    Yes, the future! But for real achievements, and not for the Hollywood props.
    But now they are no longer recognized until they are dipped in the "jam".
  39. +1
    25 July 2014 20: 27
    Well, I didn’t want to change anyone’s opinion, and I’m not particularly interested. Fans of conspiracies, why not be interested in the Apollo program, and not in loud revelations?
    I personally became interested in Apollo since childhood, probably from the movie "Apollo 13". I read a lot, saw, by the way, about the stolen blueprints, somewhere I found even fragments of the working blueprints of the Command Module. Everyone has their own opinion.
    But for me personally, the astronauts of that time are heroes. Just like the astronauts.
    For me, the era of "Apollo" is an era of amazing adventures on the verge of human capabilities. Both the intellectual capabilities of thousands of engineers and scientists, and the physical and mental capabilities of pilots. An era when every flight was a risky test and challenge. The era when everything rested on people, infinitely brave, real men.

    But the limited politicians, fueled by the ignorance of the masses, almost put an end to all the achievements of the heroic pioneers.
    1. +2
      26 July 2014 01: 36
      From childhood, too, was interested in astronautics. Before the event in Ukraine, it was more interesting to read the discussion, but now it has become worse. It seems that someone in the subject, just once. So there are those who believe in loud revelation. Very many people on the site have appeared recently.
    2. -1
      26 July 2014 10: 45
      Yes, the pioneers were heroes. Now everything has become almost ordinary.

      A shot is not bad, but it only proves that the Moon and the Earth were taken from the orbit of the Moon. Any automatic station could do this.
    3. Kassandra
      0
      26 July 2014 18: 03
      "Capricorn-1" is also nothing ...
  40. +1
    26 July 2014 11: 26
    And I do not want to prove anything to you. Your right to believe or not to believe in anything.
    For those interested, I wrote a small article with an overview of the Ranger and Surveyor programs, then I plan about the first stage of Apollo to Apollo-8)
    1. Kassandra
      +1
      26 July 2014 18: 07
      hammer it, don’t disgrace ... or it says that on the Surveyor there was a Soviet soft landing system (BZ-heh) transmitted to America as part of a scientific and technical exchange (just like the Yak-141 for F35)
      write about Advanced Gemini, and at your place everything will fall into place.
      compare this pepelats with Apollo and calculate how much has been shed from the Union to the States so that America finally sailed to the moon ...
      1. 0
        26 July 2014 19: 05
        Hey, well, the roots are completely different from the lunar Gemini and the Apollo, remember which department was involved in Gemini and which Apollo
        1. Kassandra
          0
          26 July 2014 20: 29
          what kind of department? both programs led NASA
  41. +1
    26 July 2014 13: 06
    Well this time, what's up? Was that Gemini ... or are you and them questioning? About Mercury (2 of 6 flights and really suborbital) I think you can’t stutter here? Alternative history forever !!! laughing
    1. -1
      26 July 2014 14: 41
      Are you talking to yourself here? Who was talking about gemini or mercury?) It was about an alleged flight to the moon. Why attribute something to someone and then deny it? What is the alternate history? The first doubts about the alleged flight to the moon were just the Americans, NASA employees, the first books about a huge number of inconsistencies, the lack of direct evidence, etc. left just in the west. Or should it be taken as an absolute if the Americans said something? But there is still no direct evidence, especially interesting are the facts about the American "lunar" soil, etc.) We lost or erased the films, the soil is unknown where, the one that was presented to someone is a fake (probably heard scandals).
      Does it not seem to you that if Russia or China gave such explanations at the level of a 5-year-old child (somehow everything was lost, nothing was saved, the technology was lost and how and why we won’t explain to anyone), it would have been recognized for a long time, that no one flew anywhere, but this is the USA !! The main country on earth, so far, and hold on)
      1. 0
        26 July 2014 15: 13
        There a little higher) Someone, Pretzel did not know about them))
        So, lay out all the arguments against the reality of flight, point by point.
        And I will answer for all. Only thoughtfully and in one post. Without "they didn't have a gateway, they couldn't go into outer space."
        Is it coming?
    2. Kassandra
      0
      26 July 2014 18: 07
      Gemini is a native German-American. and Apollo is half Chelomeevsky
      1. 0
        26 July 2014 19: 00
        belay how so Old Werner does not approve of such statements))))))
        1. Kassandra
          0
          26 July 2014 20: 24
          so here. when the Royal missiles were on kerosene, the Werners still made suborbital jumps on alcohol, and even before the Chelomeev’s they were ...
  42. 0
    26 July 2014 13: 09
    Heh, but I like Baz Aldrin’s answer laughing :
    1. 0
      26 July 2014 14: 50
      Well, these are the emotions of the old man, you see something tormenting the old man, tired of being silent, and got nervous, but I like this more, I will copy the text below:

      The next man who set foot on the moon in July 1969, Edwin Aldrin, in his autobiographical book Return to Earth, cites one very curious incident that happened to him in the early 1970s. Aldrin performed at the Kiwanis Club in Palmdale, California. During the speech, he was asked a simple question: “What are the feelings that you experienced on the moon?”

      A wave of panic swept over Aldrin. And the more he tried to remember his feelings, the more his panic became. As a result, he was forced to interrupt the performance and leave the club, accompanied by his wife Joan. And when Aldrin left the club on the street, he became physically ill.

      A similar incident happened to an astronaut, in 1999, during an interview with the online edition of Salon.com, he was asked what he felt like being on the moon, what it looked like. Aldrin was frankly furious: “For God's sake, I do not know! I just do not know! "This question has puzzled me since I left the moon!"


      You see how poor fellow is tormented, we worked hard with his memory, there are a lot of other TESTIMONIES about this !! Namely the CERTIFICATES of astronauts! And there are no answers to serious research articles (books) by scholars and any memories, just a bunch of wild inconsistencies and shrugs, we won’t explain anything to anyone, we were there, believe me, I swear by mom to America !!!)
      1. 0
        26 July 2014 15: 17
        So, lay out all the arguments against the reality of flight, point by point.
        And I will answer for all. Only thoughtfully and in one post. Without "they didn't have a gateway, they couldn't go into outer space."
        Is it coming?
        1. Kassandra
          0
          26 July 2014 18: 14
          just do not scoff at the person, he thinks critically. yourself ... you are not

          The most uncomfortable moment is Van-Allen belts, but I’ll notice you at the box office that almost all the lunauts are somehow sick or have already died ...
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Kassandra
        0
        26 July 2014 18: 10
        he was just bad there ... it's a big joke. he remembered
      4. Kassandra
        0
        26 July 2014 19: 00
        no, he just hit a boor ... better than the American "Ministry of Truth" will shoot, or the wheel will burst at the turn.
  43. +1
    26 July 2014 16: 21
    Yes, you see what’s the matter, there are a lot of points and a lot of people have analyzed them, and I’ll be in music here) half an evening, look, ask questions, sit in front of the computer all Saturday night and everything that would ask questions (you’ll excuse me) is unknown to whom). Therefore, I am inclined to believe that the answers you give have already given and they have not satisfied anyone.
    I can honestly tell you one thing, I have been interested in this problem for a very long time and re-read a lot. If it is still possible to argue about technical issues (not about all, but about some, like it wasn’t like that), then it’s generally useless to argue about many things because it is incontrovertible.
    For example, why did Cernon lie to Leonov, that he left the letter C on the moonstone, which is allegedly marked on the picture on the moon? After all, even NASA denied this and said that it was a mote. Or why the lunar soil was rigged, because many independent laboratories declared that the American lunar soil did not correspond to the present, in many physical parameters that could be measured from the Earth, and ours brought a little. Why give the Royal House of the Netherlands a piece of excrement, calling it lunar soil? Why did the American astronaut do this? Why preserve and legally prohibit the study of as much as 300 !!!!! kg of allegedly brought lunar soil? Why say that all the records were erased by mistake !!! (the greatest achievement of mankind was fixed on them after all), then they simply lost it, then they found some copies in Australia !! (like I can’t mention)
    Yes, there is still a bunch of everything that simply does not add up to a reasonable picture more than absolutely. Believe me, I can write here for a long time, starting from frankly fake pictures, ending with a bunch of technical blunders and incomprehensions. WELL YOU JUST WILL NOT BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THIS, BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW IT AND OFFICIALLY NASA WASN'T ANSWERED TO IT! That is, if you say anything, it will be from the "I think so" area)

    I don’t know how much I’ll read this topic yet, but today I would like to say it in Armstrong’s words, when the old man began to speak out because they are very tormented by the role they were ordered to bear, including under hypnosis. (By the way, he doesn’t talk much interesting one))
    Armstrong in the white house on the 25th anniversary of the alleged flight: “Wilbur Wright once noticed that the only bird who can say it is PARROT !!, and she DOES NOT VERY WELL FLYING !!, so I will be brief” ....
    And he ended up like this: “Today we have a group of schoolchildren, some of the best in America. We tell you: “We have completed only the beginning, we have left you a LOT OF UNFIDED !!. There are great OPEN ideas. Breakthroughs available to those who can remove ONE OF THE LAYERS COVERING THE TRUTH !!! ”

    Why did Armstrong remember the parrot, which is famous not for talking, but for the endless repetition of other people's words and the inability to fly? This is exactly what many researchers and scientists say, people are probably smarter than me and maybe (excuse me)), you: "The astronauts did not fly anywhere, but repeated the text given to them."
  44. 0
    26 July 2014 17: 11
    Hmm
    And if essentially the Apollo program. Not about talk, but about technology and the ability to fly on this technique to the moon and back? I'm not a psychologist, I'm an engineer)

    I ask again on points. By Rocket, by engines, by ship systems, by spacesuits. In dynamics - along trajectories, overloads. By biological parameters - by radiation, by oxygen atmosphere. By communication systems, by photo and video images. According to the conditions of flight and escort, according to the radar, communications, flight management. By technological potential, by materials, by alloys, by technological capabilities. On physical aspects, in the end, such as surface albedo, gravitational effects, weightlessness?

    On these topics, I would be happy to discuss and possibly refute some of your arguments. For fun, we could have gathered facts. I’m a bachelor, on weekends, I’m eating beer and generally free wink
    So, if not lazy, let's take "fake" pictures, and then technical bloopers)
  45. +1
    26 July 2014 18: 32
    I'm not talking about the pictures too much, they just come together from the region "and here, too, fake") Well, what can I say about the pictures, even if our cosmonauts, public defenders of the American lunar program, for example Grechko, directly say that the Americans " what was filmed there in the studio, but that does not detract from the fact ... ", etc., and he just talked enough with the Americans to his fill.

    Let's start with a rocket (although of course, it is best to debate on special sites dedicated to the lunar scam, but there are many of them, with formulas and debriefing from candidates of sciences and above. I will copiously paste from these same sites, for myself, of course, in my head I do not hold so many figures and facts.)

    The final test of the Saturn 5 rocket took place on April 4, 1968 under the name "Apollo 6"

    “Literally from the first seconds of the flight, Apollo 6 bombarded the command post with alarms about all kinds of failures. Of the five engines of the first stage, only three worked, the engine of the third stage did not turn on at all, and then it "suddenly fell apart." Both main tasks of the tests were not fulfilled: the rocket worked poorly ... "The country's lunar program ran into a new difficulty," the Washington Post commented.
    “Frankly, we don’t know what’s the matter,” Arthur Rudolph, Director of the Saturn 5 Program, shook his hands.

    Just 8 months after an unsuccessful unmanned test, and without wasting time on new flight tests, the Saturn 5 launched directly to the moon. He carried a ship with a crew (Apollo 8)

    Here you can still write a lot, tell how our ships tested before putting people in them, tell how Americans tested theirs before putting people on. For instance:

    In Soviet cosmonautics, the rule was: before a manned flight, two completely successful launches of an automatic analogue of the ship should take place. And this rule was not only fulfilled, but also exceeded. Thus, the Vostok spacecraft, before Yuri Gagarin boarded it, underwent five flight tests in space with dummies and animals in a full cycle, including the return to Earth. And in preparation for a manned flight around the moon, the USSR planned to first send ten automatic lunar ships.
    Yes, and NASA in the implementation of previous manned flights behaved quite carefully. So, before sending their first astronaut into space, the Americans performed 3 flights of the Mercury spacecraft with monkeys on board. And this is despite the fact that the Americans were in a hurry to catch up with the Russians, who had already completed Gagarin's flight by that time. Therefore, it was a great surprise for outside specialists when they learned about NASA's decision to start manned flights on a just unsuccessfully tested rocket. On April 4, the rocket "fails" the tests, and on April 23, 19 days later, it was "assigned" to fly with people.

    Smart people at that time said that it was a "pure gamble" to send people somewhere on such a rocket.
    Question to you on the rocket as an engineer (I am also an engineer by training), DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE that PEOPLE got on such a rocket and flew somewhere there? Let it be even Apollo 7 supposedly for practicing something there, before the flight of Apollo 8, this is a little comfort. Honestly, believe?)
    1. Kassandra
      0
      26 July 2014 18: 57
      signals from the moon could be sent simply by a repeater, but this is so by the way ...
      it was about Saturn and not about Apollo
  46. 0
    26 July 2014 18: 44
    1. Do not shame Grechko: "We know for sure that the Americans were on the Moon. When we received signals from the Moon, we received them from the Moon, not from Hollywood."
    2. Give the link not found. Saturn flight schedule for all models: http://astronaut.ru/register/testflights-apollo.htm?reload_coolmenus
    about Apollo 6 in more detail.
    Here from NASA http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo6/index.html
    well or here:
    http://apollofacts.wikidot.com/facts:apollo-6
    about numerous failures-noodles. The mission was a success, a deviation of 90 km from the intended landing.
    Forgot about Apollo 7) Orbital with crew.
    3. The Americans also tested, in the graph above you will see unmanned apolons)
    4. Yes, it was a pure gamble. 13th confirmation of this. Well, hundreds of smaller incidents, so the Apollo Astronauts are daredevils and risky guys)

    Still please, while very unfounded and show no knowledge of the facts)
    And my advice to you, draw your knowledge not from the sources of the "Lunar Conspiracy", but from the sources directly related to the program, in the former, the facts are often misinterpreted or adjusted to fit the theory, while the facts contradicting it are silent.

    PS Leonov about the same:
    “On Komsomolsky Prospekt, we had a military unit 32103, which provided space broadcasting, since there was no MCC in Korolev at that time. We saw, unlike all other people in the USSR, the landing of Armstrong and Aldrin on the moon, broadcast by the USA to the whole world. The Americans put a television antenna on the surface of the moon, and everything they did there was transmitted through a television camera to the Earth, several repetitions of these television broadcasts were also made. When Armstrong came to the surface of the Moon, and everyone in the USA slammed, we here in the USSR, Soviet cosmonauts, also crossed our fingers for luck, and sincerely wished the guys success. ”
    1. Kassandra
      0
      26 July 2014 18: 56
      from the moon they could be sent simply by a repeater, but this is so by the way ...
      it was about Saturn and not about Apollo
      1. -1
        26 July 2014 19: 08
        Could.
        But the transmitter could also have been smacked there.
        And Santa Claus could.
        With deer.
        1. Kassandra
          0
          26 July 2014 20: 19
          Repeater deer and Santa do not need.
  47. +1
    26 July 2014 19: 19
    1. I didn’t dishonor Grechko, but brought his statement, if you look at his interview, you will see everything, like Leonov’s tales, which NASA refuted, the facts are known, you can simply type them in Google.
    2. Modern materials are presented much more restrained than it was in those years when no one knew what and how to be, I believe the notes and publications of my contemporaries that describe the flight of Apollo 6 as a complete failure. you read NASA - the main INTERESTED! face, but even they have:

    • During the operation of the first stage - oscillations and sharp jumps in readings;

    • After 2 minutes, vibrations occurred over the entire structure, exceeding the permissible limits;

    • During operation of the second stage, two out of five engines were turned off. The remaining engines worked asynchronously and turned off at different times;

    * During operation of the third stage, the engine worked 29 s longer than necessary, as a result of which a sharply elliptical orbit was formed instead of the necessary circular one;

    • Re-starting the engine to go to the initial portion of the flight path to the moon failed;

    • The speed of the ship’s entry into the atmosphere did not match the one that occurs when the ship returns from the vicinity of the Moon, and the landing site is 90 km from the target.

    • Conclusion: “Apollo 6, therefore, was officially judge das not a success” - “The trials of Apollo 6 have thus been officially declared unsuccessful.”

    And this is very smoothly filed, filed after a long time, on the official website! which is designed to convince of something there.

    3. What the Americans experienced and how, you can carry for a long time, is the official final test, before landing, how it ended, I said above. If you rely on NASA's OFFICIAL website, then what can you talk about?)) Everything is fine, beautiful marquise, there are certainly some minor failures, but we heroically overcome them and went on to conquer space with leaps and bounds))

    4. We must also drink beer, as I read about the daredevils))

    I don’t know what groundlessly and where I distorted the facts, but I know one thing: If a person is suspected of something, then it makes no sense to ask him if he is guilty, the answer will be one - Well, as you might think !! NO!!
    Therefore, if there are doubts about the veracity of NASA, read NASA OFFICIAL SITES DO NOT EXACTLY)) Do you not understand this?

    Well, what about Leonov, you made me laugh)) did the guys watch a television picture that the Americans broadcast to the whole world and didn’t show only the USSR, Cuba, and North Korea, and does this prove something to you?)))) How much horseradish have you gotten enough beer? I can’t catch you, I asked my wife for permission to only 3 bottles of Abakan)
  48. Metal bro
    +1
    26 July 2014 19: 24
    Pretzels, do you seriously think that in the event of a lie, the USSR would not have trumpeted it to the whole world? Or weren’t they directly able to track the flight?)
    1. 0
      26 July 2014 19: 27
      Yes, I wrote about it from the very beginning, they say they tracked ... But ...
    2. 0
      26 July 2014 19: 53
      Quote: MetalBro
      Pretzels, do you seriously think that in the event of a lie, the USSR would not have trumpeted it to the whole world? Or weren’t they directly able to track the flight?)


      And you read what and how to start on the sites, delved into, thought, still read)
      And the flight cannot be tracked if there is no data on the orbit and flight path, and the Americans did not give them. ,
    3. Kassandra
      0
      26 July 2014 20: 21
      What for? The USSR also had something to hide.
  49. +1
    26 July 2014 19: 26
    Ok, they chatted, everyone remains with their own, I’ll probably get some beer))
    You can still a little, but not yet evening)))
    Tasty beer, barbiturate)
    1. +1
      26 July 2014 19: 39
      Thank you, I’ve gone for a beer, it’s cold, now I’ll apply it deliciously))
      Tasty beer and you Pacifist)
  50. 0
    30 July 2014 01: 35
    Quote: Nayhas
    it is the "capitalist" orbital telescopes that look deep into the universe ... The USSR has an AMC of the Luna, Venus and Vega series,

    Well, you write nonsense, or rather an understatement, I do not argue - a larger number of space telescopes are capitalist (although Russia participates in some of them in one way or another), but we have our own "radioatron", and there were and are just "Astron" , and now they are preparing to launch Millimetron, Spektr-UF and Spektr RG, ..... but this is not the main thing, but Salyut ?, Mir and Mir2 - and the basis of the ISS is Mir-2 - that's all OUR, our technologies, but their "skylab" ... did not even "hold out" to Salyut .... but the exploration of deep space ... well, NASA - where most of the brains are not American - but from all over the world
    1. Kassandra
      0
      30 July 2014 10: 09
      not NASA but ESA (Cassini-Huygens)
      after the collapse of the USSR, NASA didn’t have any serious missions, and flying photographs of voyagers compared to the studies that Cassini does not make any comparison.
    2. Kassandra
      0
      30 July 2014 10: 23
      these brains only very recently thought of when searching for planets in the habitable zone still consider their color drinks
  51. Don barbosa
    0
    30 July 2014 23: 11
    When will we pluck up the courage to say that the Americans have never been to the moon? Now they are lowering us from B777, at that time they were lowering us from the moon. Their evidence of being on the moon is even funnier than Psaki’s arguments now. Both physicists and lyricists have already proven that the American flight to the moon is nonsense and only the Russians fanatically believe that it happened. I won’t prove anything, but I will say it. If you were lucky one time and accidentally survived. Will you tempt fate ten more times after this? What if all the tests were in the movies? We need to pay for the decorations. You can send a dozen expeditions to the moon, and then, out of greed, make a film about Mars in these settings.
    1. Kassandra
      0
      1 August 2014 14: 21
      It's not a fact that they weren't on the moon. Technically this is possible and the point is that the USSR had the opportunity to be on the Moon much earlier than them.
      At first they wanted to fly there on Gemini, but UNEXPECTEDLY it turned out that it had poor habitability (they forgot about the toilet, but the Soyuz has one). Also, the Soviet lunar module was sealed, but the American one under the Advanced Gemini program (see wiki) - no, it was not sealed, which is why, when landing on the Moon and taking off from it, the astronauts had too long a spacewalk in spacesuits. Thus, the overall probability of mission success was only 20%.
      The Agena with which Gemini docked in low-Earth orbit was precisely a booster to the moon.
      Taking this into account, as well as the fact that after Sputnik and Gagaria the score would have become 3:0 in favor of the USSR, the American and Kremlin khutzdog got together and decided that this time it would be Kennedy’s turn to knock his boot on the table. Otherwise the Americans will be completely upset and won’t even care about baseball. Or they will become communists. Which threatens to end the competition between the two systems.
      After which the Geminim program was gradually phased out, and Apollo began to be developed. Each Apollo mission (where these shortcomings were eliminated with the help of the USSR) had only a 90% chance of success. They terminated this program ahead of schedule precisely because they were approaching the “triggering threshold” of failure. In the 13th Apollo we walked along the edge.
      Whether they flew there or not doesn’t matter. Because there has been no competition with them since the summer of 1962. On the contrary, they were given countless technologies for their new lunar program. The fact that the moon would be theirs was decided in Moscow and Washington about a week before September 12, 1962, when Mr. Kennedy publicly gave his speech at some university.

      All the rumors that Apollo is a complete fake are spread by the Americans themselves, so that later, when it turns out that it is not, they will annoy everyone.
      Although they really could have filmed everything in the pavilions and sent a remote-controlled mission there with the transmission of the astronauts’ voices through repeaters from the earth to the moon and then back from there. This can only be clarified by a thorough examination of their landing sites with traces of astronauts and things left there far from the landing modules.

      Interestingly, after the Apollo program the F1 engine was not used anywhere or even once. He's unreliable. that's why they buy Russian RD-180s. And, what's more, this RD-180 is half of the engine of the Soviet lunar rocket RD-171.

      With Boeing, they are now letting themselves down, because everything has long been cleared up.