Military Review

Obvious Things About a Moon Scam

758
Obvious Things About a Moon Scam

One proof is enough to dispel doubts about a man’s flight to the moon.


Saturn V flew


If the eyes of tens of thousands of eyewitnesses gathered on the launch day on m. Canaveral, the 2300-ton carrier was able to ascend into the sky, then all disputes about flags, improper dust and fake photos no longer matter. The energy capabilities of launch vehicles and accelerating units (thrust, specific impulse) are the defining moment in interplanetary flights. And if they were able to overcome the most difficult test, the remaining stages of the path could not cause problems. In technical terms, docking, flying and landing on the surface of the moon is easier than creating the Saturn V superracket.


Tourists on m. Canaveral, on the launch day of the Apollo 11

Each of the five engines of the first stage of “Saturn” burned two tons of liquid oxygen and a thousand liters of kerosene per second. The gas generator developed power, like atomic icebreaker turbines. In just two minutes, the thousand-ton design accelerated to a hypersonic speed of 10 thousand km / h and reached an altitude of 68 kilometers.

If modern “whistleblowers” ​​could feel the tremors of the earth and see the fire storm with their own eyes, they would be ashamed to publish their “revelations”.

“Saturn V” certainly flew. His start thirteen times in a row personally witnessed thousands of witnesses. And on the other side of the Earth, the powerful Soviet telescopes closely watched the course of the lunar mission. The military and scientists could not be mistaken, seeing as the 47-ton ship went on the departure trajectory to the Moon ...

In the end, who else, besides the “Saturn V”, could bring out the Skylab orbital station (77 tons, 1973 year) ??

There is one more reinforced concrete argument, the authenticity of which cannot be doubted. Above the lunar program seriously worked in the Soviet Union. That means only one thing - domestic experts did not consider landing a man on the Moon a technically insoluble task. As part of the Soviet lunar program, a full range of technical equipment was created: the super-heavy launch vehicle H-1, the lunar-orbital ship LOC, the launch module LK and the lunar spacecraft “Krechet”.

All this was repeatedly tested and participated in space flights!

Instead of reading the fascinating books of Y. Mukhin, better find out detailed information about the secret victories of the Soviet Cosmos.

“Cosmos-379”, “Cosmos-398” and “Cosmos-434”. Three consecutive successful flights of the descent module Lunar LK (unmanned version) with a cycle of maneuvers in near-earth orbit.

“Cosmos-146”, “Cosmos-154”, as well as a series of 12 launches on the probe program. All this is a test of the Soyuz 7K-L1 spacecraft, created for a manned flyby of the Moon (without landing). Constructively, this was the Soyuz spacecraft without a domestic compartment, instead of which the accelerating block D-1 was docked. Also, the lunar “Soyuz” was distinguished by the presence of a system of remote space communications and enhanced thermal protection. It was considered by the Soviet leadership as a relatively simple and cheap ersatz project for inflicting yet another defeat on America in the Space Race.

The ships Zond-5, 6, 7, 8 perfectly completed the flyby program. It was Zond-5 that became the first spacecraft to fly around the Moon with living organisms on board with their subsequent safe return to Earth (hello to all fans of tales of terrible radiation belts, as if they were killing all life).

With regard to a number of failures - the state commission came to the conclusion that, if the “probe” were in a manned version, its crew with a high probability could correct the mistakes that were still imperfect automation.

The real problems have arisen only with the most complex component of the system - the super-heavy carrier rocket H-1. But even in this case, one cannot doubt the reality of its existence. As for the first unsuccessful launches of H-1, it really did not have time to “bring”. Could, but did not have time.

And after that come the various “fly”, and talk about shooting in the pavilions of Hollywood. Disgrace.

As for the landing of Americans on the moon directly:

The fact of the existence and flight of the super heavy RN Saturn V is beyond doubt.

The next component of the lunar expedition is the heavy manned Apollo spacecraft. The Soviet cosmonauts A. Leonov and V. Kubasov, participants of the experimental flight under the international program “Soyuz-Apollon” (docking of two ships in orbit, July 15 1975) could confirm the existence of this ship.


The volume of the command compartment - 6 cube. meters
Estimated autonomy - 14 days (with a duration of lunar missions from 8 to 12 days).
Fuel capacity in the service compartment tanks - 7 tons.
The stock of oxidizer is over 11 tons.
The total mass of the spacecraft (without the lunar module) - 30 tons.

Life support systems are normal. A full supply of 18,4 tons of fuel (excluding 120 kg of nitrogen tetroxide for engines of the orientation system). Large and heavy "Apollo" had all the technical capabilities for the lunar expedition (of course, because it was created for this).

Landing on the moon. For some reason, this one is the most questioned among the exposers of the “moon swindle”. The Americans built a rocket, but could not put the module, because ... Because all this is incredibly difficult from the point of view of the inhabitant.

But how big is the complexity of such maneuvers for those who seriously dealt with the problem? Planes with vertical takeoff and landing can give the answer.

24 is considered to be 1966 in March of the Russian VTOL aircraft. On this day, three years before the Americans landed on the Moon, the Soviet Yak-36 performed a vertical take-off and landing.

What was the difference between the vertical landing of the “Yak” and the landing of the lunar “Eagle”?


In both cases, the fuel supply is limited. Overview of the cab leaves much to be desired. “Yaku” is even more difficult - unlike Armstrong and Aldrin, his pilot has to deal with the negative influence of the earth’s atmosphere, including dangerous gusts of side wind. At the same time, driving two lift-marching engines + a system of jet rudders in the front and rear parts of the fuselage.

In this case, the engine “Eagle” was two times less than the total thrust of the engines Yak-36 !!! Under conditions of six times less gravity, the lunar module was content with the total 4,5 ton (against the YN 10 ton). Taking into account the fact that at the time of landing he was working on a minimum mode, this explains the absence of any “terrible craters formed by a jet” at the site of the landing of the Eagle.

And they landed! With proper preparation, this trick was becoming commonplace.

In 1972, the first Yak-38 made a vertical landing on the swinging deck of a moving ship. The total flight time during the operation of these machines was 30 000 hours !!

During the events of the Falkland War, the British managed to land their “Harriers” on the decks of aircraft carriers in a solid fog when the amplitude of the vertical movements of the deck reached several meters. And this was done by ordinary combatant pilots. Without the help of modern computers. Exclusively based on his flying skills and intuition.

But Armstrone and Aldrin's hands apparently grew from the wrong place. They couldn’t put an “Eagle” on a static surface, even if they were alone, provided they had informational support and advice from the mission control center.

As for the cosmic velocities of the “Eagle”, then descending from orbit and approaching the surface of the moon represented a set of algorithms for switching on the braking engine, compiled even on Earth. Accurate to the second. As with the usual return of astronauts to Earth.

What is special about it?


Finally, if everything was so bad, how could SIX soft landings of automatic stations “Surveyor” (1966-68, the purpose of the mission is to check the density of the soil, to collect information about the relief and features of the areas selected for the work of subsequent manned missions).

Further more. Moonlight Soviet stations:
“Luna-9” - 1966 g., The first soft landing on the surface. Followed by “Luna-12, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 24”. Seven domestic vehicles successfully reached the Moon, moreover, taking into account the level of development of 1960's technologies, they did it almost blindly!

“Luna-16” not only she levitated, but also took off, delivering samples of lunar soil to Earth in September 1970. “Luna-24” did the same.

“Luna-17” и “Luna-21” Lunar rovers successfully transported to the surface of the satellite 800-kg.

And then the charlatans will come and say: “What about the American flag waving? Technique of the time did not allow to fly to the moon ".

Moreover, the Soviet and American space programs have always been at the same level. And if we could - why could not they?

Why did you stop flying to the moon?


A manned flight to the moon is of no practical value even in the perspective of the coming decades (neither industrially, nor economically, not even militarily). What can we say about the 70-s. last century!

For a similar reason, the Yankees froze manned flights on the ISS for a whole decade — from 2011 to the beginning of 2020. (renewal, plan). But is this not a reason for doubting the existence of “Shuttles”?

“Mukhin and Co.” may consider themselves the smartest of all, deftly “calculating” fakes and traces of retouching on photographs of American expeditions. ABOUT! - here is the second light source. And this is a narrowing shadow. There is not that stone. And it all looks ridiculous. It is logical to assume that if people who built the 2300-tonnage “Saturn” decided to really deceive everyone, then you would not have guessed about a fake.

Although what are fakes for? Is there a ready-made PH of the required power, a ready-made ship and a landing module? Everything is ready for the expedition, but decided to shoot in Hollywood. So that the whistleblowers could earn millions on their "revelations".

Forty years have passed, didn’t there really appear a single device capable of taking photographs of Apollo’s landing sites, once and for all to dispel doubts?

Launched to 2009, the Lunar Orbital Scout (LRO) helped to compile a detailed 3D map of the lunar surface with a resolution of up to 0,5 m. All Apollo landing sites and Soviet automatic stations were captured.


Landing place "Apollo 12"



Landing stage of the Soviet AMC "Luna-24"


Of course, this argument is not worth a penny in disputes with supporters of the "lunar conspiracy." All traces of a human being on the Moon were undoubtedly drawn in Photoshop.

But the main arguments remain unshakable.

Thirteen successful launches of the super heavy RV Saturn V

Fully ready Soviet lunar program, not implemented solely because of the will of the top leadership of the country. To put it more precisely - the loss of the need to continue the “lunar race”.

If the Yankees half a century ago built a rocket engine with 700 tons of tons (the thrust of one F-1 exceeded the thrust of all 32 LREs in both stages of the Soyuz launch vehicle), then why did these “geniuses” fly on Russian engines?

The production technology of “Saturn” is irretrievably lost, as well as the technology of making damask steel. And this is never a joke. Six million parts - the most complex of systems ever created by man. Despite the preserved drawings and even engine samples, now no one remembers the order in which all this was collected and what materials were used in the manufacture of individual elements. But the main thing is that even having spent billions on the analysis of the remaining samples of the LV design and having fully restored the technology, it is completely incomprehensible who will now undertake the manufacture of the “Saturn”.

In the work on the program “Saturn-Apollo” was attended by hundreds of contractors, many of which over the past 40 years have changed their occupation, were bought out, merged with each other or went bankrupt, dissolved in time.

Currently, a pleiad of 16 rocket engines and boosters is being used across the ocean (Rocketdine 68, RL-10 family, Centaurus, Falkens Ilona Mask, SRB solid propellant accelerator - the most powerful rocket engine ever built, with double more than the Saturn LRE, etc.).

Among them - only two engines of Russian origin. These are the RD-180 (the first stage of the Atlas-III / V PH) and the upgraded NK-33 (the first stage of the Antares RV). This is not an argument in favor of NASA's technological powerlessness. This is a business.

Photo Gallery:


Start 130-meter RN "Saturn V"



Soviet lunar spacesuit "Krechet"





Boarding cabin



Samples of lunar soil, delivered by the Apollo-11 expedition, Moscow, Exhibition of the Exhibition of Economic Achievements



Moonstone Storehouse



Camera of the automatic station "Serveyor-3", delivered to Earth by the Apollo-12 expedition (the module was sent in 400 meters from the site of the "Surveyor")


The article was posted on the website 2016-01-05
Author:
758 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Support
    Support 5 January 2016 07: 51
    -20 qualifying.
    All space shuttles take off on a parabolic trojectory ..... how can they go out of the near-Earth space? like they are in space?
    1. Max_Bauder
      Max_Bauder 5 January 2016 08: 41
      -1
      The author told almost everything, but did not take into account some points.
      He describes the launch of the rocket so violently, as if he personally observed. Tens of thousands of people-witnesses? did he personally see them? did they take selfies? when did he personally meet with everyone? Then televisions were not so developed, black-and-white low definition, anything they can "draw". Especially when all the channels are state-owned, they work on demand. Could put thousands of people in one place and show the launch of some rocket, and where it flew, yes the dog knows him. Or they shot faces in one shot, in another they showed the launch of a rocket. The Soviets saw and also supposedly knew. Then what was satellite intelligence? how could they have known in 1969? And the most important argument, as everyone knows, is that Americans fly by shuttle, i.e. the carrier rocket brings the shuttle to the near-earth surface, then the shuttle returns to the landing strip, like an airplane. So how was the shuttle able to land on the lunar surface? there are no landing loops, for example, like a lunar rover, on a parachute. But when did he fly back? The lunar attraction is 4 times less than the Earth's one, but still there is, where does the space shuttle get fuel to overcome the lunar attraction? not a word about it. For reference: the lunar attraction is so strong that the ebb and flow of it on Earth, every student knows this.

      PySy. as the author himself put it, it will be possible to prove an American flight only if some international satellite can photograph the American flag.
      Forty years have passed, didn’t there really appear a single device capable of taking photographs of Apollo’s landing sites, once and for all to dispel doubts?
      Launched to 2009, the Lunar Orbital Scout (LRO) helped to compile a detailed 3D map of the lunar surface with a resolution of up to 0,5 m. All Apollo landing sites and Soviet automatic stations were captured.

      And not a single photo of the high, yes to hell, even small, resolution of the American flag. Anyone can lower the device without a person. The Mars rover is working now and there are probes on distant planets. But, as always, not a single person has entered the surface.
      1. pimen
        pimen 5 January 2016 08: 58
        87
        in fact, degradation in some area of ​​knowledge is common, as one "immortal" adage said: they forgot more about space than we know. Another thing is that objectively, only the fact of departure and arrival, landing on the moon and everything else could be recorded on Earth - only from the words of the Americans
        1. Max_Bauder
          Max_Bauder 5 January 2016 09: 09
          15
          Quote: pimen
          objectively, on the Earth only the fact of departure-arrival, landing on the moon and all other things could be recorded - only from the words of the Americans


          What are we talking about
          1. i80186
            i80186 5 January 2016 09: 32
            15
            Quote: Max_Bauder
            What are we talking about

            Yeah, and this is our drawing on Mosfilm. Or did he go there on the trampoline? laughing
            1. Technical engineer
              Technical engineer 5 January 2016 09: 54
              +7
              Quote: i80186
              Yeah, and this is our drawing on Mosfilm. Or did he go there on the trampoline?

              Read about Soyuz-Appolon here: http://www.manonmoon.ru/articles/st55.htm
              I can not say that he believed everything, but questions appeared. Especially on the module which has gone down on the earth.
              1. Chera
                Chera 5 January 2016 15: 44
                +1
                http://metrolog.org.ua/man_in_moon-101
                A fairly detailed description of everything that revolves around the lunar epic of Americans.
                Starting from Saturn 5 ...
                1. Mahmut
                  Mahmut 5 January 2016 18: 06
                  21
                  As for the cosmic velocities of the “Eagle”, then descending from orbit and approaching the surface of the moon represented a set of algorithms for switching on the braking engine, compiled even on Earth. Accurate to the second. As with the usual return of astronauts to Earth.

                  But these are already fools. The brake engine only serves to leave orbit. And all the energy costs for braking are borne by the atmosphere of the Earth. But on approaching the moon you have to slow down exclusively by the engines. From 11 km / s to 0. But you still need to leave the fuel on the return trip. And on board, in addition to astronauts, there is also an all-terrain vehicle. And also stones need to be taken back. And at the same time, the author claims that the traction power is less than that of the Yak.
                  1. Alex
                    Alex 5 January 2016 18: 26
                    13
                    Quote: Mahmut
                    But on approaching the moon you have to slow down exclusively by the engines. From 11 km / s to 0.

                    Much less: the circular velocity for the Moon is about 1,68 km / s. I agree with the rest.
                    1. Temples
                      Temples 11 November 2020 10: 05
                      +7
                      "If in front of tens of thousands of eyewitnesses who gathered on the day of the launch on Cape Canaveral, the 2300-ton carrier was able to ascend into the sky, then all the disputes about ..... do not matter."

                      We saw how it took off.
                      But they did not see where they arrived.

                      Why the moon? request
                      Maybe in the sun? fellow

                      Yet they saw how it took off, which means they landed on the Sun! good wassat

                      The author has broken causal relationships.


                      Everyone saw that the cannon fired - that means the shell hit the target. negative


                      After such a beginning of the analysis, it makes no sense to read the further text.

                      This is pure propaganda.

                      Well, Kaptsov wants to believe that every rocket takeoff is the result of a mission, that's his business.
                      But making normal people believe this is at least misleading.

                  2. bootlegger
                    bootlegger 5 January 2016 19: 10
                    +9
                    Quote: Mahmut
                    And all the energy costs for braking are borne by the atmosphere of the Earth.

                    Well, it's not that simple. First, you have to "get" into this atmosphere at the right angle and speed. The angle of entry into the atmosphere should not be too steep, so as not to enter too quickly and not burn in the atmosphere.
                    And this does not cancel the thermal protection, which has a significant mass and which is not required when landing on the moon.
                    Quote: Mahmut
                    But on approaching the moon you have to slow down exclusively by the engines. From 11 km / s to 0.

                    Celestial mechanics are a bit more complicated. There are no 11 km per second when approaching the moon.
                    They exist when leaving the Earth’s orbit, and as you fly to the Lagrange point, this speed drops dramatically, the effect of the Earth’s gravity. Then the gravity of the moon, of course, builds it up again, but not to 11 per second, of course.
                    The engine thrust, like that of Yak, is not needed at all. Landing mass of the Apollo lunar module, including fuel: 10 334 kg. This is with the passage from the lunar orbit.
                    Given the low gravity of the moon, the fuel consumption for braking and the loss of mass by the ship, this is quite enough for the thrust-weight ratio at its surface of more than 1.
                    The take-off stage has a mass, including fuel: 4 670 kg. and she had enough engine with a thrust of 15,6 kN to have a 2,124 thrust-to-weight ratio at the start.
                    I personally climbed into our lunar module in the mid 80's when I was a student of Baumanka.
                    If we had such a technique, then why could not the USA have it?
                    1. Lekov L
                      Lekov L 7 January 2016 15: 59
                      +2
                      We actually not only climbed there, but also passed tests, including calculations, the results of which you kindly brought here.
                      Hi baumantsam ... smile
                      And the Americans, if not sad about this to us, were on the moon.
                      1. Vlad.by
                        Vlad.by 17 October 2016 13: 46
                        +5
                        For example, I am sad only because the Americans are so lucky!
                        Because I cannot explain the "flawless" take-off of Saturn with people after the failed three unmanned tests otherwise than by terrible, inhuman luck. And in terms of "courage and courage" we are no match for American astronauts! I would never agree to fly a rocket that has NEVER successfully flown.
                        Moreover, they did not give a damn about the risk that NEVER successfully !!! the MANUAL landing of the Eagle was not even worked out, even on the earth, but they sat on the Moon without a hitch! Well, monsters, not people! And the docking on Lunar Orbit? Again, FIRST TIME and immediately successful? And so six or seven times in a row !? Well, just like in a joke about self-cutting. No, we can not compare with the Americans! Steel people, Kevlar!
                        I don’t even want to remember about Gemini’s flights. The Americans sat 18 days in a compartment of 0,9 cubic meters for 2,5 days, and then rode goats on the deck of an aircraft carrier after landing, and ours, flying in much more comfortable conditions (still 18 cubes per person - this is not a grave space) for those for XNUMX days they were exhausted and exhausted so much that they themselves could not get out of the landing capsule. Well, where do we go to these ATLANTS ?! They won’t even get thermal protection on the descent vehicles, why, are they unkillable ?!
                        In general, I wonder why they took spacesuits to the moon.
                      2. Motorist
                        Motorist 12 November 2020 00: 13
                        +1
                        Quote: Vlad.by
                        In general, I wonder why they took spacesuits to the moon.

                        Plus for your question about the need for spacesuits ... I can't put ... request You are from 16, and I am a guest from the future. hi
                2. gladcu2
                  gladcu2 5 January 2016 21: 48
                  +7
                  Mahmut

                  I always wondered and could not find the answer.

                  How did the lunar module find a transport ship in orbit upon return?

                  Let the lunar module be controlled by man. A person sees at a distance of 10 km. Let the lunar module have a radar at a distance of 50 km, which is already fantastic. Let the transport ship have a stationary orbit, which should be high. Probably 300-500 kilometers. How did you solve this issue?

                  The belief that man was on the moon is based only on a few evidence. One of which was recorded on video, Hero of the Secular Union of Leonov, said that he confirms this fact on the basis of recordings of negotiations. Yes...
                  1. Simple
                    Simple 6 January 2016 01: 14
                    +5
                    Quote: gladcu2
                    A man sees in the distance let 10 km.

                    Tales
                    the absorption of 5-14 photons or, respectively, the activation of 5-14 rods indicates to the brain that it "sees something."
                    Proven: If Earth was flat, or if you were standing on top of a mountain and looking at a much larger stretch of the planet than usual, you could see bright lights hundreds of kilometers away. On a dark night, you would even be able to see the flame of a candle located 48 kilometers from you.
                    And if there is no atmosphere, still further
                    Quote: gladcu2
                    Let the lunar module have a radar at a distance of 50 km, which is already fantastic.

                    and space communications stations?
                    and a beacon?
                    and MCC?
                    and DOE is stationary (which even the remnants of the atmosphere do not affect, as on Earth)
                    Quote: gladcu2
                    Probably kilometers 300- 500. TO

                    Theoretically, the NOU on the Moon starts from 5 km (at this altitude you can fly in orbit without touching the mountains)
                    The Americans first entered the initial orbit of 80 (90) km x 10 (17) km, then maneuvering into the orbit of convergence: 110x 90km (+/-)
                    1. gladcu2
                      gladcu2 6 January 2016 21: 34
                      +1
                      Simple

                      Thank. One less question.
                  2. shasherin.pavel
                    shasherin.pavel 6 January 2016 15: 36
                    0
                    Quote: gladcu2
                    negotiation records

                    And here the main thing can be "records" that can be recorded on Earth and broadcast through a tape recorder.
                  3. Alex
                    Alex 6 January 2016 15: 48
                    +7
                    Quote: gladcu2
                    How did the lunar module find a transport ship in orbit upon return?

                    Well, basically, it's not that hard. The ship's orbit and landing point are chosen so that they are in the same plane (or very close to it). Further, the launch of the "Eagle", its speed and trajectory of the orbit are also calculated values. The only task is to calculate the start time as accurately as possible and not make a mistake with the orbit correction, then they themselves will meet at the desired point, like trains from a children's puzzle (or like a bullet and a target when shooting in motion). Small errors (but only small ones!) Can be corrected by radio from the ship.

                    That is, from a technical point of view, everything is quite calculable with a sufficient degree of accuracy and is fundamentally feasible. That's just on the way to practical implementation can get up (and probably got up) a lot of completely unaccounted factors. And the price of the error here is fatal: neither help wait, nor fix the error. And here one detail is surprising: everything turned out literally the first time, without any estimates and training.

                    The belief that man was on the moon is based only on a few evidence. One of which was recorded on video, Hero of the Secular Union of Leonov, said that he confirms this fact on the basis of recordings of negotiations. Yes...
                    I did not want to write this for a long time, but I could not stand it. My father is an astrophysicist, while he worked at the Byurakan Observatory. He said that at that time all graduate students (and not only) were eager for telescopes. Of course, they didn’t give a hooligan to the big one (then it was only one meter), but Hambardzumyan pretended not to notice the crowds on the small ones. Father said that he saw something near the moon, but did not notice activity on its very surface or near it. So, as they say, there are no facts for or against. Now he has been gone for a long time, I am writing from his words, for which I bought - for that I sold it.
                  4. Locksmith
                    Locksmith 11 November 2020 08: 57
                    +1
                    It has already been said above that these are super-kevlar-metal people, at a speed of 1600 m / s to hit a "hole in a hole", at a quarter of a turn, even now they cannot smile
                3. Simple
                  Simple 6 January 2016 01: 04
                  +4
                  Quote: Mahmut
                  But on approaching the moon you have to slow down exclusively by the engines. From 11 km / s to 0.

                  Not with 11 km / s. It is enough to cross the border beyond which the gravitational field of the moon began to affect the ship stronger than the earth ...
                  Gravity maneuver and braking in the Moon GP.
                  Hiten Japanese mission (The satellite, for the most part, was intended only for testing flight technology, gravitational maneuvers, aerodynamic drag in the Earth’s atmosphere, i.e., they learned to fly between the Earth and the Moon.)

                  Quote: Mahmut
                  But you still need to leave the fuel back on the way.

                  2 space for the Moon: 2,4 km / s (SAM missiles fly at such speed)
                  + Earth GP
                  Quote: Mahmut
                  And also stones need to be taken back

                  leaving the landing stage on the moon, which is several times heavier than stones, and the set of scientific instruments ALSEP remains there, and part of the waste products of astronauts, and they breathed something, ate, drank, etc.
                  Quote: Mahmut
                  And at the same time, the author claims that the traction power is less than that of the Yak.

                  acceleration of gravity on the Moon = 1,622 m / s², almost 6 times less than Earth
                  1. little man
                    little man 8 January 2016 22: 55
                    +4
                    I especially liked the waste products! fellow so much left! And I really liked the fact that everyone had drunk for a long time, died, emigrated and lost the drawings ... What a mismanagement !!
                4. Jurkovs
                  Jurkovs 6 January 2016 10: 03
                  +5
                  Quote: Mahmut
                  From 11 km / s to 0.

                  When will we study physics? 11 km / s is the take-off speed of the ship. As it moves, it falls under the influence of the gravitational field of the Earth and drops to almost zero. Upon reaching the libration point, the Moon’s gravitational force becomes larger than the Earth and the ship begins to slowly accelerate to a speed of about 1,5 km / s. This speed must be slowed down to zero. In general, first physics, and then the keyboard.
                  1. opus
                    opus 6 January 2016 15: 11
                    +6
                    Quote: Jurkovs
                    When will we study physics? 11 km / s is the take-off speed of the ship.

                    They won’t. They can’t ..
                    After the acceleration stage is completed, the apollo speed is approximately 36 km / h (360 km / s).
                    Corrective inclusion of remote control (manipulation re-clipping) give another 3-5 m / s

                    On the line of the Moon-Earth gravitational balance (up to the moon approx. 62 km), the Apollo’s speed is ALREADY only up to 600-900 m / s. The gravitational influence of the Moon on it becomes more than the Earth. At that moment, the ship was at a distance of approximately 1000 km from the Earth,
                    Its speed begins to increase (under the influence of ST Moon) and reaches approximately 9200 km / h (2560 m / s) = 2 M less than the OTR speed of the Republic of Kazakhstan Iskander M on the marching section
                    Quote: Mahmut
                    . But on approaching the moon you have to slow down exclusively by the engines. From 11 km / s to 0

                    Mahmut ... to school?
                    1. Proxima
                      Proxima 7 January 2016 17: 17
                      +5
                      Quote: opus

                      Mahmut ... to school?

                      It’s a pity that your posts will not replace the missing school education, because as you know, no one will go to school. Although your posts are rich in information, I personally read them with great pleasure.
                  2. little man
                    little man 8 January 2016 22: 57
                    0
                    so you read, like all physicists ... So were on the moon or not? winked
            2. Srgsoap
              Srgsoap 26 October 2016 13: 19
              0
              Hello, I can advise this link. Quite interesting facts are given.
              http://www.skeptik.net/conspir/moonhoax.htm
            3. renics
              renics 13 June 2017 10: 42
              0
              (Especially for a module that descended to the ground.) What kind of module are you talking about? The Apollo pro-lunar command module, which was identified as the BP-1227 object that was caught by the Soviet fishing trawler in the Bay of Biscay in the early 1970s. The point is that in June – November 1970, the US Coast Guard icebreaker Southwind cruised the Arctic, performing oceanographic research in the Barents and Kara Seas and replenishing supplies at American Arctic research bases. After entering Greenland and Iceland, the icebreaker anchored in the Soviet harbor of Murmansk. Here, on September 8, 1970, the astonished crew was solemnly handed over ... the Apollo command module, seemingly lost at the beginning of the year under unclear circumstances .. The capsule was loaded into the bow of the vessel, and the Southwind went back. In Portsmouth (UK), the module was removed from the ship. This amazing event was written both in the "Cosmonautics News" and in the encyclopedia of Mark Wade. But no one makes mention of this fact here, as elsewhere, which is strange. And they don’t write about how the crew managed during such a long mission from 8 to 12 days without a toilet. They are that all this time on the way to her and on the moon, were in their own shit. After all, it was not without reason that, before and on the initiative of the Americans, before the flights to the moon with the USSR, the Treaty was signed on April 22.04.1968, XNUMX - the Treaty on the Salvation and Return of Cosmonauts.
          2. SPACE
            SPACE 5 January 2016 10: 05
            35
            Quote: i80186
            Yeah, and this is our drawing on Mosfilm. Or did he go there on the trampoline?

            And where does the Soyuz-Apollon dock? Apollo was launched into Earth orbit with a real flying Saturn-1B rocket, something like the Russian Proton. Where in this event are the facts proving the astronauts are on the moon?
            But as for Saturn-5, then half-bother with the types of single-chamber engine of the first stage F-1, especially the diameter of the exhaust nozzles, the materials and from which it is made and why Glushko because of the problems of unstable combustion of large volumes of fuel and oxidizer due to uneven mixing, causing strong vibration made the world's most powerful rocket engine RD-170 four-chamber, on the half of which RD-180 30 years after Saturn, the Americans fly. About the pressure in the combustion chambers and the temperature of the exhaust, and why, for example, the RD-107 engines use bronze alloy nozzles, and the F-1 stainless steel nozzles, how and how nozzles are cooled ... etc. Maybe this will make you think and ask questions ??? wink
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 5 January 2016 10: 23
              +4
              The F 1 engine is the most real and you should not think about it here.
              1. SPACE
                SPACE 5 January 2016 11: 30
                31
                Everyone saw Saturn take off, meaning there is a working engine that pushed it. But how and what he pushed is covered in a veil of secrecy. The pressure in the combustion chamber is F-1 70 atmospheres with an expansion degree of 16, RD-170 250 atmospheres with an expansion degree of 36, and the mass, second fuel supply, operating time and draft are approximately the same, don’t you find anything strange? laughing
                1. Bennert
                  Bennert 5 January 2016 11: 47
                  +6
                  Quote: SPACE
                  But how and what he pushed is covered in a veil of secrecy. The pressure in the combustion chamber F-1 is 70 atmospheres with an expansion ratio of 16, RD-170 is 250 atmospheres with an expansion ratio of 36, and the mass, second fuel supply, operating time and thrust are approximately

                  NASA is so stupid that they could not even name the realistic parameters of its non-existent dvigla

                  So that experts do not immediately have questions - F-1 violates the first law of thermodynamics
                  1. Baikal
                    Baikal 5 January 2016 11: 53
                    15
                    This is all wonderful, I won’t say whether they were there or not.
                    Let's say yes, they were. Perfectly.
                    BUT! I have only one and purely practical question:
                    1. mark2
                      mark2 5 January 2016 12: 13
                      +1
                      Oh crap, oh crap! ...

                      Take away this picture, do not disgrace ... From my point of view, I can say that the Chinese photo is faster than a fake than the American one. Why? yes simple. Have you looked at the moon for a long time? Where are the brown spots? She is silver gray. This is the first and only. They would at least sprinkle cement for plausibility))
                      What am I doing? We noticed that thanks to the development of technology in the field of photography, any truth can be passed off as getting on in Photoshop and any getting on for the truth. Although it is also made in Photoshop.
                      And in general you are all just the signals of the "Matrix" in my monitor!
                    2. Baikal
                      Baikal 5 January 2016 20: 03
                      +6
                      Oh wise guy, oh wise guy laughing
                      Have you flown to the moon for a long time? Do you know exactly what is gray?)) Other sources indicate that it is not. And there is much more reason to believe in a small modern device with excellent optics, which was launched during our lifetime, than the whole time corrected NASA photo (which, incidentally, is also a fact).
                      Once again: I do not claim that all this is a scam - but some inconsistencies are strange.

                      Hehe, duplicate the photo from the article - what color is the moon? laughing

                    3. Baikal
                      Baikal 5 January 2016 20: 16
                      +6
                      Quote: mark2
                      Have you looked at the moon for a long time? Where are the brown spots? She is silver gray.


                      Seriously, cap ?! laughing
                      Have you watched for a long time?) It happens, after all, in different ways ... laughing



                    4. Petrix
                      Petrix 6 January 2016 13: 23
                      0
                      Quote: Baikal
                      It happens in different ways ..

                      You can see through the stained glass window. And photographs are not a fact, only eyes.
                      The most natural color, in my opinion, when the rays from the sun to the moon do not pass through the earth's atmosphere and the moon is at its zenith. Of course the sky without clouds and smoke should be. And what color? Gray.
                      Well, or I'm color blind. belay
                    5. Baikal
                      Baikal 6 January 2016 13: 57
                      +6
                      Are you trying to deny the obvious - that you haven’t seen such sunsets / sunrises? laughing What does the stained glass window have to do with it?) You can look at least through the smoke damper))


                      .
                      By the way, I conducted a simple experiment, accessible to everyone.
                      We launch the well-known editor of raster graphics. We take approximately cinnamon The moon and put on it an approximate color of the atmosphere (the spectrum of blue our atmosphere misses the most). The atmosphere color is superimposed in the Multiply mode (Color Multiplication Mode). And we get as a result - the already grayish surface of the moon. If we add to the result that, due to the same atmosphere, an inevitable loss of color saturation follows, it is quite possible to get a gray surface at the output.

                      If these calculations are correct - we can also assume that if the moon were neutral gray in color - from the surface of our planet it would look more like BLUE or BLUE wink
                    6. Petrix
                      Petrix 6 January 2016 14: 48
                      -3
                      Quote: Baikal
                      What, such sunsets / moonrise have not seen?

                      That's it. Sunsets. When the rays from the moon pass through the maximum thickness of the atmosphere and have maximum color distortion. Those. reddish is a distorted shade.
                      Quote: Baikal
                      We take approximately the cinnamon moon and impose an approximate color of the atmosphere on it.

                      Take the ash gray moon and the output will get a more believable color. As we see with our eyes.
                      Quote: Baikal
                      if the moon was neutral gray - from the surface of our planet it would look more like a BLUE or BLUE

                      And there is. Look at the moon when the sun has not set and stars are not visible, and the sky is still blue. The moon is blue.
                    7. Baikal
                      Baikal 6 January 2016 21: 32
                      +1
                      Quote: Petrix
                      Those. reddish is a distorted shade

                      Those. gray through the atmosphere - a natural color? laughing Your arguments are even weaker and unprofessional than mine))

                      In fact - 99% of what the Americans were on the moon. And, I hope that this is actually so. Perhaps they cheated, cheated, in extreme cases - they were, but not the first time.
                      Otherwise, there will be a grandiose racket on one planet, because everyone will be involved.

                      For my part, there are some issues that I would like to clarify. As is the case with surface color.
                    8. Petrix
                      Petrix 8 January 2016 11: 48
                      -2
                      Quote: Baikal
                      Those. gray through the atmosphere - a natural color?

                      those. brown through an even greater atmosphere (at sunrise-sunset) - a natural color? I saw the red moon during a lunar eclipse. But every night above me a gray (silver, blue) moon.
                      Do people trust Internet photos more than their own eyes? Lived, real zombies.
                    9. Baikal
                      Baikal 8 January 2016 16: 34
                      0
                      You were born yesterday. Photography has long been one of the tools for obtaining scientific data. The "pictures" have a lot of useful things - the molecular structure of substances, distant galaxies, your giblets on x-rays ...
                      However, if it’s more convenient for you, you can live as before - with holy water and farm spells laughing

                      PS By the way, with "eyes" you can see that everything outside the planet revolves around it. I hope these observations reassure you))
                    10. Petrix
                      Petrix 8 January 2016 21: 23
                      -3
                      Quote: Baikal
                      Photography has long been one of the tools for obtaining scientific data.

                      In gives a man. He does not believe his eyes. So what are you looking at in the photograph, aren't you eyes? So they are lying! Here she is. See the moon as much as you want. But no, submit the photo. Better yet, a photograph of a photograph according to your logic.
                      Well, believe the Chinese, NASA and others. Specialists. And I believe my eyes, not blind and not color blind.
                    11. Baikal
                      Baikal 9 January 2016 20: 24
                      0
                      Well, I’m not convincing anyone of anything, especially those like you laughing
                      Questions of "faith" are just in your part))
              2. little man
                little man 8 January 2016 23: 04
                0
                they were probably there, but didn’t shoot anything, and then they supplemented it in the studio lol
              3. zenion
                zenion 11 November 2020 19: 18
                -1
                People walk on planet Earth and do not see that the Earth under their feet is reddish, mostly. Therefore, in the Bible, she was called Adam, which means red in translation. If the Moon is part of the Earth, then it should be reddish, or brown.
    2. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 6 January 2016 15: 47
      0
      If the sun's rays first passed through the atmosphere of the Earth, reflected off the surface of the moon and we saw their reflection, it also depends on the distance to the moon, which is not a constant value.
  2. Vadim237
    Vadim237 5 January 2016 22: 39
    -7
    The colors are just like that -
  3. mark2
    mark2 20 January 2016 14: 53
    0
    Oh wise guy, oh wise guy


    Conspiracy theorists cite a photograph taken during the landing of the Apollo 17 mission. On it, an astronaut photographs himself against the background of a gray lunar landscape, while brown soil is reflected in his spacesuit!

    Opponents of conspiracy theory give their arguments. Firstly, the lunar surface can have different shades depending on the time of day, the prevalence of a particular substance on a particular site of soil, etc. Secondly, a lot depends on the removal equipment, the filters used, as well as the methods of further processing. Some colors can really be removed.

    Someone believes that thereby NASA hides the truth about the moon from ordinary mortals, and someone vice versa that as a result of processing the images become more distinct. By the way, on the same NASA website you can find photographs of the moon in different shades, and not just cement gray.

    Source: http://fishki.net/1242107-pjat-samyh-neobychnyh-snimkov-poverhnosti-luny.html © Fishki.net
  4. Scraptor
    Scraptor 21 January 2016 13: 57
    0
    There was one more comrade who went about reconfiguring monitors to shift the newly received Martian photos into the red part of the setting, and these unique ones are sometimes forgotten to take into account color changes at the same time on the nas emblem and usa flag.

    those who write about these "theories" usually participate in them themselves.
  5. sssla
    sssla 5 January 2016 23: 00
    15
    Quote: mark2
    Oh crap, oh crap! ...

    Do not so tear your ace for the mattress !!! This is enough for normal people !!! I will upload a hundred times if you need to watch from 2.35 to 2.50 !!!
  6. Baikal
    Baikal 5 January 2016 23: 11
    +6
    Never seen this video, thanks!
    At the indicated moment - some epic disgrace request
  7. sssla
    sssla 5 January 2016 23: 56
    +9
    Quote: Baikal
    At the indicated moment - some epic disgrace

    You are welcome !
    They constantly told us that the flag was flapping or waving and constantly showing this image and the video showed it. And they proved that it was wobbling (swaying) because the astronauts themselves were touching it! But we are Soviet schoolchildren))) And I found this video) I don’t need more evidence !!
    How can they not excuse that excuses that a lot of frames were lost and had to be finished in the pavilion !! hi
  8. sssla
    sssla 5 January 2016 23: 59
    +2
    Here the photo could not be inserted there.
    And in general there are not so many docks and frank lies that it’s better not to start)
  9. Vadim237
    Vadim237 6 January 2016 10: 11
    +1
    The flag on the video is in very contrast - they worked with the video.
  10. Petrix
    Petrix 6 January 2016 13: 12
    -2
    Quote: Vadim237
    they worked with the video.

    Why not?
    In general, everything related to photos, videos, stories from experts - how to check them? No way. Only by the method of logical reasoning based on generally recognized facts.
  11. little man
    little man 8 January 2016 23: 07
    0
    so what is logic? But what about physics? Flag, all should hang out and leave a shadow or not?
  12. denis02135
    denis02135 6 January 2016 08: 49
    -16 qualifying.
    Dear sssla

    Do you remember the November 41 parade, where Comrade Stalin did not have steam in the cold during the speech, so the parade did not happen?

    “Only absolutely ignorant people can seriously believe that the Americans were not on the moon. And, unfortunately, all this ridiculous epic about allegedly fabricated shots in Hollywood began precisely with the Americans themselves, ”noted Alexei Leonov. TV channel Star

    http://tvzvezda.ru/news/vstrane_i_mire/content/201512131157-c0mm.htm

    Refute the hero of the Soviet Union, cosmonaut # 11 A.A. Leonov, or is he also lying?
  13. sssla
    sssla 6 January 2016 11: 08
    +4
    Quote: denis02135
    noted Alexei Leonov. TV channel Star

    Quote: denis02135
    Refute the hero of the Soviet Union, cosmonaut # 11 A.A. Leonov, or is he also lying?

    Dear Dennis Volkov, if it’s NOT difficult for you, then raise the answers of American scientists and NASA scientists to the question of what materials the lunar flag was and how it was fastened and compare with the answer to the same question of the respected Leonov (only because he supports the NASA version and only !!!) And then you will tell me about November and the rest of the lecture to read !!!!! hiMattress protectors have already become so "exceptional" that they can no longer notice even elementary miscalculations, inconsistencies and blunders !!!
  14. denis02135
    denis02135 6 January 2016 18: 03
    0
    Dear Stas

    Of course, I respect A.A. Leonov, but not only for the protection of the Americans, but for the first exit into space.
    I don’t give you lectures, but if you were offended by the astronaut’s words, then excuse me. And I gave an example of November 41 so that you would believe, if something was finished in the studio for a better picture, then this event could happen elsewhere.

    If you give examples
    Quote: sssla
    elementary miscalculations, inconsistencies and mistakes
    I will be very grateful to you.
  15. Burbur
    Burbur 6 January 2016 15: 03
    +9
    Yes, he is lying. Either it was sold, or a team from above, or professional solidarity. Or little by little. It’s like Portos - I’m fighting Patamushta.
    So it was here: they flew, the patamushta flew and I believe in aki in the holy calendar ....
  16. gladcu2
    gladcu2 6 January 2016 21: 51
    +2
    Denis

    Interested in books about Soviet front-line intelligence? Lieutenant Romashev :)

    Not everyone knows that that parade was partially recorded in the studio. One of the minuses I fixed.
  17. denis02135
    denis02135 6 January 2016 22: 06
    0
    Thanks gladcu2

    Write the names, read it. I really like "In August 44" but it's about SMERSH.

    Can you explain why I got minuses? I kind of didn’t write anything like that (just interesting). Of course scolding Americans is the trend, but still ...........
  18. tso1973
    tso1973 27 January 2016 17: 48
    0
    We don’t have to blame Amer, but we need to put a mace in them in Yellowstone! And as for the jambs with the photo, I agree that they don’t say that the Yankees were not on the moon! When the time for the neck expires, it’s top secret, and then they will tell us the truth if we survive !
  19. zenion
    zenion 11 November 2020 19: 48
    0
    tso1973 This stamp will not expire, as well as the fact that according to the documents on the Second World War, the Americans had to declassify the data about which banks and firms collaborated with Hitler and the date was 2000. The amazing thing happened on New Year's Day 2000, when the Americans announced that Congress had extended the secrecy about it for another 50 years. When the chief archivist was asked on American television for what reasons, the government official replied, as if in jest, that Jewish pogroms would not start in the United States. In Israel, they were very offended by these words.
  20. denis02135
    denis02135 6 January 2016 22: 06
    +2
    Thanks gladcu2

    Write the names, read it. I really like "In August 44" but it's about SMERSH.

    Can you explain why I got minuses? I kind of didn’t write anything like that (just interesting). Of course scolding Americans is the trend, but still ...........
  21. little man
    little man 8 January 2016 23: 09
    +1
    here I am about the same! The Americans got in the studio !!!
  22. ver_
    ver_ 10 January 2016 09: 42
    +1
    ... yeah - like a gray gelding ...
  23. Lepsik
    Lepsik 25 July 2019 22: 25
    0
    ---- Refute the hero of the Soviet Union, the astronaut

    There are no authorities in science, after the lie that he wrote in his book "The Time of the First" - how he put Belyaev there, I think normal cosmonauts stopped greeting him. And what could he see there? some kind of rocket flying into the sky?
  24. zenion
    zenion 11 November 2020 19: 40
    +1
    denis02135 (Dennis Volkov) The steam from Comrade Stalin's mouth was not visible due to the fact that the temperature was above zero and it was raining. For this reason, the Germans did not fly. For this reason, there was a parade.
  25. veteran66
    veteran66 6 January 2016 17: 56
    -16 qualifying.
    Quote: sssla
    This is enough for normal people

    the palm of the states does not give rest to our idiots. Well, why does no one in the world require proof of the first space flight of Gagarin or the first artificial satellite? No, our scammers need irrefutable evidence of what is unknown. Let's claim the original recording of the first interview with Squirrel with Arrow! Nonsense...
  26. Bayonet
    Bayonet 8 January 2016 08: 27
    -8
    Quote: veteran66
    the palm of the states does not give rest to our idiots.

    Their energy, but in the mainstream of creation! And so ... poorly educated clowns with the ambitions of experts! request
  27. little man
    little man 8 January 2016 23: 10
    0
    Why are you so tough? I am happy for any country, space for now ... winked common. But it’s very interesting all about the laws of physics ...
  28. Alexanderrr
    Alexanderrr 10 January 2016 13: 04
    +2
    Quote: veteran66
    Quote: sssla
    This is enough for normal people

    the palm of the states does not give rest to our idiots. Well, why does no one in the world require proof of the first space flight of Gagarin or the first artificial satellite? No, our scammers need irrefutable evidence of what is unknown. Let's claim the original recording of the first interview with Squirrel with Arrow! Nonsense...

    It’s nonsense to talk like you. They do not require evidence on our achievements, because they were given in due time, and are very convincing and do not require clarification. But the flights of Americans, and not only to the moon, are covered with darkness, cause a lot of questions, answers to which it is still impossible to obtain because of their absence or their secrecy. They have not yet declassified! And we have already declassified everything for a long time, at least in the questions you have indicated ...
  29. veteran66
    veteran66 11 January 2016 19: 25
    -1
    You see, questions can be posed to any achievements and even to
    Quote: Alexanderrr
    very convincing and not requiring clarification.
    Although it is not clear to me what evidence this was? Distorted voice and image of Gagarin, or signals from a satellite? For some reason, ordinary people have doubts, but such people as Chertok, Leonov and other scientists and astronauts do not doubt it. I must say right away that I believe in our first flight into space (satellite, dogs and Gagarin) and in the flights of Americans to the moon equally.
  30. shasherin.pavel
    shasherin.pavel 6 January 2016 15: 43
    0
    Quote: mark2
    Have you looked at the moon for a long time?

    Yesterday I looked, but through the atmosphere of the Earth, while space is not blue, outside the atmosphere, but through the atmosphere "blue". And they say that if the atmosphere was not 20 km, but 60, then it would appear completely white.
  31. ans
    ans 8 January 2016 20: 19
    0
    Quote: mark2
    Why? yes simple. Have you looked at the moon for a long time? Where are the brown spots? She is silver gray. This is the first and only.

    you can even cover your siphon so as not to disgrace yourself ... From the Earth, the Moon is visible only ... THROUGH the atmosphere of the Earth, and we have it blue fool
  32. max702
    max702 5 January 2016 21: 06
    +2
    Quote: Baikal
    This is all wonderful, I won’t say whether they were there or not.
    Let's say yes, they were. Perfectly.
    BUT! I have only one and purely practical question:

    Here's a link to an article where a high-class specialist explains WHY Americans have such a moon color, everything is quite simple and clear http://leonidkonovalov.ru/meeting/moon/?ELEMENT_ID=392 What does the soil of the moon actually look like? Is the regolith really completely gray, as we see in most photographs of the lunar missions of the Apollo, or is the lunar soil brown? Black and white moon or color? Someone on the forums claimed that the lunar soil looks like black earth.
    To understand such issues, I acted very simply. Since the average reflection coefficient of the lunar soil, the albedo of 7-8%, is known, using the reference gray scale and a professional brightness meter used by cameramen to determine the exposure, I picked up an object with the same brightness as the lunar regolith. Used for this the ground under the window. But since the moist earth turned out to be slightly darker than the required 7-8%, I had to mix it with a small amount of cement. And that’s what happened.
    highly recommend ! how twice two is proved that the Americans messed up with evidence ..
    And here is the second link about a scam with lunar soil, there is no more laziness there and study http://bolshoyforum.com/wiki/Лунный_грунт,_привезённый_миссиями_Аполлон everything and everything is chewed! And again, the mattresses screwed up ...
  33. Baikal
    Baikal 5 January 2016 21: 17
    +6
    Quote: max702
    Here's a link to an article where a high-class specialist explains WHY ...

    Konovalova read. But exactly until he began to talk about what he was doing clairvoyance and extrasensory perception... By the way, it is also written there that he starred in the "Battle of Psychics" laughing

    As you know, a person with such a mess in his head - a priori, cannot be a provider of reliable information, simply because capable of deceiving himself or deliberately engage in quackery... All this nonsense about "abilities" is the lot of psychiatry and the competent authorities.

    All of the above crosses out any of his merits in the field of professional knowledge of color.
  34. max702
    max702 6 January 2016 15: 54
    +3
    Konovalova read. But exactly until the moment I have not read it, but I condemn it! is it familiar?
    All are somewhat strange, but his justifications are just based on scientific calculations and the words "for I believe so" are not in them, and therefore what does not contradict physical laws is true .. If a person as a specialist has achieved in his professional activity, then He understands something, and what his hobby is not important. Do you have any complaints about its technical calculations? Is there anything to refute his conclusions about color in American filming? If there is, please. And if not, we will consider his conclusions TRUE! And therefore the shooting of the Americans is LIPA!
  35. bravo-fab
    bravo-fab 10 January 2016 19: 56
    +1
    conclusion: the Chinese camera shit or accidentally pretended to Mars, but for some reason did not capture the atmosphere. Chinese hovno
  • Alexanderrr
    Alexanderrr 10 January 2016 12: 35
    +3
    Quote: BENNERT
    Quote: SPACE
    But how and what he pushed is covered in a veil of secrecy. The pressure in the combustion chamber F-1 is 70 atmospheres with an expansion ratio of 16, RD-170 is 250 atmospheres with an expansion ratio of 36, and the mass, second fuel supply, operating time and thrust are approximately

    NASA is so stupid that they could not even name the realistic parameters of its non-existent dvigla

    So that experts do not immediately have questions - F-1 violates the first law of thermodynamics


    So they later said that "maybe we messed up something (did not tell), since some technical details of the" lunar program "are still classified and we have no right to spread about them." And then it turns out that according to the "denier of the scam exposers" - the author of this article - the drawings and technical documentation are lost! A very convenient argument for covering up an event that did not happen.
  • mark2
    mark2 5 January 2016 11: 51
    +3
    don’t you find anything strange?

    The engine capacity of the Volga Automobile Plant is 1.6 liters of VAZ = 2106, and produces only 76 hp of power. Now I have a KIA 1.6 engine capacity of 126 hp. Don't you find it strange?)
    1. Chatlanen
      Chatlanen 5 January 2016 13: 15
      +2
      Each of the five engines of the first stage of “Saturn” burned two tons of liquid oxygen and a thousand liters of kerosene per second. The gas generator developed power, like atomic icebreaker turbines. In just two minutes, the thousand-ton design accelerated to a hypersonic speed of 10 thousand km / h and reached an altitude of 68 kilometers.

      If modern “whistleblowers” ​​could feel the tremors of the earth and see the fire storm with their own eyes, they would be ashamed to publish their “revelations”.

      Quote: mark2
      The engine capacity of the Volga Automobile Plant is 1.6 liters of VAZ = 2106, and produces only 76 hp of power.

      And what, fuel consumption at the VAZ is also not frail. Where is the logic? If you rephrase
      "If modern" exposers "could feel the tremors of the earth and witness this fiery storm with their own eyes, with the silencer removed on the VAZ = 2106, they would hesitate to publish their 'revelations'. "
    2. ver_
      ver_ 5 January 2016 13: 53
      +9
      ... any techie, our curious one, will say that the power of the dvigla depends on the speed - so at idle he only has a few mares ..
      in addition, the engines are short-stroke and long-stroke, with a different combustion chamber, with a different compression ratio, with a different camshaft arrangement and so on ..
    3. realist
      realist 5 January 2016 14: 11
      22
      and the engine from a BMW for Formula 1 in 1984 (turbocharged) with a displacement of 1.5 liters produced from 800 hp (with a minimum boost pressure - a resource of 3 hours) to 1500 hp (with a maximum boost pressure - a resource of 15 minutes, a smooth manual adjustment of the cut-off pressure was used). if you had an engine in 19 ...... a worn out year, then you can do it today, moreover, it’s better and cheaper! technology is not lost but improved!
    4. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 6 January 2016 16: 06
      -3
      Quote: mark2
      Don't you find it strange?)

      Foreigners remove engine power from the crankshaft, we have the wheels, and this takes power at the checkpoint and bridges.
    5. tso1973
      tso1973 27 January 2016 17: 52
      0
      You have other horses, pony them under the hood fits more!)))
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 5 January 2016 15: 44
    -5
    Maybe you can open it a little here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb6Otwd7Ff4
    1. sssla
      sssla 5 January 2016 22: 58
      +3
      Quote: Vadim237
      Maybe you will open it a little here.

      Maybe you will open a little ??? Watch from 2.35 to 2.50 to save time)))
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 6 January 2016 13: 38
        13
        Thank you for the video.
        But it’s not the flag that touches me, but the jerboas. How carefully they simulate weightlessness. Rigid spacesuits - well, not lubricated hinges - well, it’s difficult to understand the leg, it’s worth a lot of effort - I sympathize. And only the hinge in the foot switch works like a clock. By the way, six times reduced weight beautifully acts on them, and mass, inertia in the horizontal plane forgot about them, offensively.
  • opus
    opus 7 January 2016 00: 29
    +1
    Quote: SPACE
    Pressure in the combustion chamber F-1 70 atmospheres with an expansion ratio of 16

    comrade space ... what is
    Quote: SPACE
    degree of expansion 16,
    ?
    maybe 16: 1 (and even with the nozzle nozzle), without it 10: 1
    and how do you "knit" the expansion ratio and
    Quote: SPACE
    second fuel supply, operating time and traction are about the same, don’t you find anything strange?

    Of course not does not "fit" (with the flight to the moon)
    RD-170 closed-circuit liquid propellant rocket engine (After a low-differential turbine, the oxidizing gas is directed to the main combustion chamber, where the remaining mass of liquid fuel is fed)
    fuel components are completely burned in the main combustion chambers with an optimal ratio of components. The engines of such circuits make full use of the chemical energy of the fuel, which allows you to raise the pressure to the maximum, determined by the energy linkage of the parameters of the rocket engine. Today, the achieved pressure level is 150-270 atm.

    F-1 - open (exhaust gases in a turbopump unit (ТНА) gases are emitted into the nozzle, cooling the nozzle nozzles. Turbopumps direct fuel components to the combustion chamber (КС), where they are burned, turning into exhaust. The exhaust is emitted through the nozzle, producing thrust).
    both components - oxidizing agent and fuel - are pumped into the combustion chambers in liquid form.


    Engines of such a scheme are simpler, more reliable, lighter and cheaper than a closed-circuit rocket engine.
    However, the combustion chamber of a closed-circuit rocket engine is substantially smaller than that of an open-cycle rocket engine. As you probably guessed, this provides high pressure in the combustion chamber (usually 200 atmospheres or more) and a large degree of expansion of the engine nozzle, allowing the LRE to give high efficiency (specific impulse) in the planet’s atmosphere

    Only in November 1976. a draft design of the RD-170 engine was developed

    Quote: SPACE
    , RD-170 250 atmospheres with an expansion ratio of 36

    mb because the RD-170/171 is FOUR-CHAMBER? belay
  • karbofos
    karbofos 5 January 2016 18: 18
    14
    very soon, literally in five years, the victims of the exam after watching the movie, the Martian will foam at the mouth to prove that the Americans landed on Mars. there is a video!
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 5 January 2016 20: 16
      -15 qualifying.
      Unless victims like you, but not the Unified State Exam, but their own heads - many have already been brainwashed by such as Mukhin and "Mukhin" - will continue to hang noodles on their ears, cloud their mind, parasitize on human problems, desires and needs, create sects around and for the "victims of the head" such figures will become a symbol of undeniable truth. A little time will pass and Mukhin will lose faith in the "Lunar scam" - he will get tired of it and he and his like will come up with a new "masterpiece" - about the falsified flight of Yuri Gagarin, and people like you and others like you will continue to believe in these " masterpieces "- you will go far.
      1. karbofos
        karbofos 6 January 2016 19: 36
        +6
        Do you have questions about Gagarin’s flight? but there are amers, and their own local first doubted. I personally do not care landed or not, it infuriates that the Americans decided that the landing is the greatest achievement of humanity and not the American state. such as a small step for man but a big step for humanity. In my opinion, Gagarin’s flight is a giant step for mankind and since it was proved that a person can live and work in space. and everything else is a matter of technology, including landing. in the next 100 years, a man will land somewhere else, so what? this is a matter of technology.
        1. Rumata
          Rumata 6 January 2016 19: 52
          -16 qualifying.
          Quote: kalbofos
          Do you have questions about Gagarin’s flight?

          Do you have facts proving that Gagarin flew into space? Using the logic of the conspiracy theorists, all we saw was the take-off of some kind of rocket, then the descent module was already on Earth. Radio talk fake is not a problem.
          The problem is not the flight to the moon, but that it is the United States. There, too, there are enough sizzling on this topic, but in RuNet their percentage just rolls over. I can find fault with 90% of everything that the USSR did in space. Where is the evidence of flying to Venus? I demand a video with a turtle in orbit of the moon, otherwise - a fake. You yourself blame the West for double standards, but you don’t notice the log in your eye
        2. karbofos
          karbofos 6 January 2016 21: 11
          +1
          Again. "I personally do not care whether they landed or not, it pisses me off that the Americans decided that the landing is the greatest achievement of mankind."
      2. Bayonet
        Bayonet 8 January 2016 08: 38
        -7
        Quote: kalbofos
        infuriated that the Americans decided that the landing is the greatest achievement of mankind and not the American state.

        A normal person would appreciate it, but not rage! I have no doubt that if our first sat down, you would have yelled about the outstanding success exclusively of the USSR!
      3. karbofos
        karbofos 12 January 2016 17: 42
        0
        I wouldn’t scream, but would be proud of the achievement of the USSR and would not expose it as a merit of all mankind
    2. veteran66
      veteran66 11 January 2016 19: 33
      0
      Quote: kalbofos
      infuriates what

      take care of your nerves, the American Act is already annoying you, but still they are good fellows, we didn’t guess the US flag next to its own on the moon, ashamed.
  • Pomeranian
    Pomeranian 9 January 2016 22: 09
    -1
    [quote = Vadim237] A little time will pass and Mukhin will lose faith in the "Lunar scam" - he will get tired of it and he, and others like him, will come up with a new "masterpiece" - about the falsified flight of Yuri Gagarin, and people like you and others like you will be further to believe in these "masterpieces" - you will go far.
    Mukhin is dead.
  • Petrix
    Petrix 6 January 2016 13: 34
    +3
    Quote: kalbofos
    will prove with foam at the mouth that the Americans landed on Mars. there is a video!

    ... They will prove with foam at the mouth that the Americans on the moon is a hoax. There is a video.
    It is amazing why people, when they see the exposure of the first video, do not think that it is also possible to expose a revealing video? Sense to prove this or that, and even with foam at the mouth?
  • heal
    heal 6 January 2016 19: 25
    0
    Quote: kalbofos
    very soon, literally in five years, the victims of the exam after watching the movie, the Martian will foam at the mouth to prove that the Americans landed on Mars. there is a video!

    Don't you know that there has long been a documentary about an entire colony of amers on Mars. Well, there was also Schwartz. "Total Recall" is called.
  • sssla
    sssla 5 January 2016 23: 08
    +3
    Quote: Vadim237
    The F 1 engine is the most real and you should not think about it here.

    Here is the most real rocket !!! So what ?? Prove that we did NOT fly to the moon on it ???
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 6 January 2016 10: 20
      0
      If we flew on N 1 to the Moon everyone would know about it - there is no sense in hiding it. All emergency launches of these missiles were documented and removed, and the NK 33 engines in the amount of 200 units, which at that time were manufactured, after the closure of the program were stored and only in the 90s they began to be sold in the United States.
  • Andrey NM
    Andrey NM 6 January 2016 18: 08
    +1
    The engine is like an engine. The cooling jacket is visible, gas genes and TNA are visible (at least in location and shape it should be them). And only the stand will show real characteristics ...
  • Vlad.by
    Vlad.by 25 October 2016 03: 09
    0
    Of course! He is American. They have everything present.
  • AK64
    AK64 11 November 2020 16: 54
    0
    The F 1 engine is the most real and you should not think about it here.


    Yes - thinking is generally harmful.

    The point here is this: F-1 worked on Kerosene. But von Braun wanted a HYDROGEN engine!
    And I ordered a hydrogen one. And all the calculations were for hydrogen. And all the design.

    BUT it did not work with hydrogen - in fact, hydrogen engines of such power have never been built by anyone (but then they did not know it). And von Braun received only a kerosene stove.
    And the kerosene stove gave out power - but it did not work with the specific impulse.

    So I had to call Kubrick.
  • SRC P-15
    SRC P-15 5 January 2016 10: 31
    +1
    Taking into account the fact that at the time of landing he worked at the minimum mode, this explains the absence of any “terrible craters formed from the jet stream” at the place of the Eagle’s landing.

    And the fact that the soil on the moon is 6 times lighter does not mean anything?
    And he says to me that even with the minimum mode of the Eagle's engines, a crater would have formed on the surface, because the lighter the soil, the larger this crater will be, under the lunar attraction.
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 5 January 2016 10: 39
      +8
      Quote: СРЦ П-15
      And he says to me that even with the minimum mode of the Eagle's engines, a crater would form on the surface,

      Harrier Propulsion twice exceeds lunar module thrust



      WHERE IS THE CRATER ??
      1. SRC P-15
        SRC P-15 5 January 2016 10: 53
        16
        Quote: BENNERT
        WHERE IS THE CRATER ??

        Do not compare the moon dust, which covers the entire surface of the Moon, with earthen soil - grass is generally visible on your photo, which means that there is turf. And even your Harrier will not be able to make a crater on the turf.
        1. mark2
          mark2 5 January 2016 11: 58
          +4
          Do not compare moon dust, which covers the entire surface of the moon, with earthen soil

          You know, the sun is spinning around the earth!

          Where does the information that the moon is covered with a thick thick layer of dust, if there was nobody there?
          If you refer to the Soviet program of the Lunokhod, the question will be: why was there no crater left for the lunar rover landing module? And how could this design move along the dusty surface of the moon, if there was so much dust that could wash the crater?)
          1. ver_
            ver_ 5 January 2016 13: 59
            +7
            ... however, you are not very at odds with elementary physics - if you take the Earth as a reference point - then not only the sun, but the whole universe revolves around the Earth ...
          2. Rumata
            Rumata 7 January 2016 07: 29
            -5
            Quote: ver_
            ..but you are not very at odds with elementary physics - if you take the Earth as a reference point - then not only the sun, but the whole universe revolves around the Earth ...

            Sit down three! Elementary observations are enough to understand whether Mars, for example, revolves around this reference point, or not. If you take the sun, you might think that it revolves around us, but it’s enough to add any object except the moon to this system to understand that this is not so. By the way, the universe does not rotate, deuce and parents to school tomorrow.
          3. ver_
            ver_ 10 January 2016 09: 59
            +1
            ... did not try to be treated ..?
  • Max_Bauder
    Max_Bauder 5 January 2016 11: 10
    -15 qualifying.
    Quote: BENNERT
    The thrust of Harrier engines is twice the thrust of the LRE of the lunar module


    chegozh then the harriers do not launch to the moon, launching detached rockets into near-earth orbit. Can he also sit on the moon as in the photo?
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 8 January 2016 08: 44
      -2
      Quote: Max_Bauder
      chegozh then the harriers do not launch to the moon, launching detached rockets into near-earth orbit. Can he also sit on the moon as in the photo?

      Start small - the principle of rocket and turbojet engines. laughing
  • Alex
    Alex 5 January 2016 14: 07
    26
    Quote: BENNERT
    Harrier Propulsion twice exceeds lunar module thrust

    1. Gravity on Earth six times exceeds moonlight.
    2. Soil on Earth is constantly exposed to the atmosphere (wind, precipitation, sometimes icing), plants and microorganisms. On the moon, all this good is absent and dust for millions of years has been easily layered in thin layers.
    3. On the same American "movie" you can clearly see how dust is spreading under your feet from each step, what should remain from the RD?
    4. According to the Americans, the original films were partially lost, partially damaged, so they finished something in the pavilion. The story is the same with the soil delivered: almost all of it either disappeared or was taken away for souvenirs. In general, it seems that NASA is a passage yard where anyone can take whatever he wants without millet.
    1. max702
      max702 5 January 2016 21: 12
      +8
      Quote: Alex
      The story is the same with the soil delivered: almost all of it either disappeared or was taken away for souvenirs. In general, it seems that NASA is a passage yard where anyone can take whatever they want without millet.

      Do not forget it was brought about 400kg !! But in samples of more than a few grams, no one saw it! And in the United States, criminal liability for the export of lunar soil outside the United States, and at the same time almost all of it was "accidentally lost" ...
  • Wheel
    Wheel 5 January 2016 15: 32
    +4
    Quote: BENNERT
    WHERE IS THE CRATER ??

    And let's put Harrier in the Sahara, for example ....
  • Strashila
    Strashila 5 January 2016 16: 12
    +2
    You compare the heat of a fan with a gas burner ... the velocity of the outflow of gases and their mass in an aircraft engine and rocket, it is not quite the same.
  • Privat
    Privat 5 January 2016 11: 03
    10
    Is it nothing that the top layer of crushed soil in the places of planting is up to several tens of centimeters thick, and under it is rock?
    And does the melting temperature of stones depend on their weight?
    And the blow from the jet of the launching take-off module fell not into the ground, but into the plane of the landing platform, which is still lying there.
    In addition, lunar stones weigh about the same as earthly ones. But the force of gravity on the moon is really 6 times less than the earth.
    1. SRC P-15
      SRC P-15 5 January 2016 11: 20
      +2
      Quote: Private
      And the blow from the jet of the launching take-off module fell not into the ground, but into the plane of the landing platform, which is still lying there.

      And where does the jet of this module hit upon landing? Does he first reset the landing platform? belay
      1. Privat
        Privat 5 January 2016 11: 54
        +5
        When landing, the engine runs landing stage. And so that the landing is soft, the main damping of the speed is done on approach, and at the surface the draft is no longer tons, but kilograms. So when landing, there is practically no jet hit at all.
        1. pv1005
          pv1005 5 January 2016 14: 47
          +1
          Quote: Private
          When landing, the engine runs landing stage. And so that the landing is soft, the main damping of the speed is done on approach, and at the surface the draft is no longer tons, but kilograms. So when landing, there is practically no jet hit at all.

          You tell the helicopter pilots. Guys at least laugh from the heart. laughing
        2. Privat
          Privat 5 January 2016 16: 56
          +2
          According to the landing plan, the astronauts had to reduce the approach speed to 0 m / s at a height of 1 meter from the surface, after which turn off the engines and just fall under the force of gravity of the moon. A light blow was compensated by telescopic shock-absorbing strut legs. Such a scheme was developed so as not to burn the bottom of the lunar module reflected from the surface by a jet.
          And if your helicopter pilots can fly in airless space with gravity 6 times less than the Earth's and slow down by impulses of switching on a jet engine, and in life they are illiterate ignoramuses who have never heard the word "physics", then to hell with them - let them laugh, miserable. wassat
        3. The comment was deleted.
  • Proxima
    Proxima 5 January 2016 13: 09
    16
    Quote: Private

    In addition, lunar stones weigh about the same as earthly ones. But the force of gravity on the moon is really 6 times less than the earth.

    Not properly. MASS of stones is the same! But the weight is 6 times less, because 6 times less gravity.
    1. Privat
      Privat 5 January 2016 17: 08
      +1
      Formally, you are right, but I wanted to say that moonstones and earth stones are very similar to each other, and do not differ in weight by 6 times. Of course, with the same gravity, that is, on the same planet. wink
      1. Proxima
        Proxima 5 January 2016 23: 47
        +4
        Quote: Private
        Formally, you are right, but I wanted to say that moonstones and earth stones are very similar to each other, and do not differ in weight by 6 times. Of course, with the same gravity, that is, on the same planet. wink

        But in fact you are right, and in other posts you are absolutely right. Just be careful in terminology. See here what shells fly overhead.
  • i80186
    i80186 5 January 2016 10: 38
    -1
    Quote: SPACE
    Apollo was launched into near-Earth orbit with a really flying Saturn-1B rocket, something like the Russian Proton.

    Yes, of course nothing to do with it. Only here the RD-180 is certainly cool, but the oxygen-hydrogen engine appeared only on Energy. Let's think from what? smile
  • Strashila
    Strashila 5 January 2016 16: 09
    +2
    And what engines do you know except RD-107 ... and you saw them firsthand ... you touched them with your hands, you washed the nozzle and the chamber ???
  • g1v2
    g1v2 5 January 2016 20: 42
    +5
    I wonder why no one has any questions about the first manned space flight or spacewalk? If there are only conspiracy theorists around? And questions arise only about the American lunar program? And in America more than ours? Should jump for joy and be proud? So, is there really something wrong? Too many questions, and even for Americans.
  • sssla
    sssla 5 January 2016 23: 12
    0
    Quote: i80186
    Yeah, and this is our drawing on Mosfilm. Or did he go there on the trampoline?

    So what does this prove ????? What do you think proves a flight to the orbit of an EMPTY barrel called Apollo ???
  • figwam
    figwam 6 January 2016 11: 53
    0
    People have never landed on the moon.
    Article nonsense for schoolchildren.
  • opus
    opus 6 January 2016 14: 55
    +9
    Quote: i80186
    Or threw him there on a trampoline?

    do not persuade the stubborn.
    Our scale even on brands has changed

    ================================================== =
    I will give interesting photos (for patriots)
    The docking event has not ignored, not a single publication in the world. The magazine "PLAY BOY" did not stand aside either
    Illustration from "Playboy" magazine, 1975, dedicated to the docking in space of "Soyuz" and "Apollo" ("Apollo-Soyuz", Playboy, 1975).



    Most importantly, how TRUE accents are placed ...


    Still, the country of the USSR was strong, even the Americans recognize this, albeit in this form.
    So why are our stubborn (especially those who do not distinguish a hole from a hole) elevate themselves (among themselves), belittling others?
    1. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 6 January 2016 16: 19
      0
      The priority is not even that, but that "He" stands with at least one leg, and "She" hangs, as if on ...
      1. opus
        opus 6 January 2016 21: 33
        0
        Quote: shasherin.pavel
        The priority is not even that, but that "He" stands with at least one leg, and "She" hangs, as if on ...

        "They" are in zero gravity, legs do not matter here (thrust-exhaust is important belay )
        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Although America will gain an advantage:
        The advantage of high-ranking males would be obvious if not one but. In these species, as in many others, the female mates sequentially with many different males. Thus, several portions of sperm from different males appear in the genitals of the female at once, and here begins the process known as “sperm competition”. Whose sperm first gets to the egg and fertilizes it depends on their number, as well as on motility and other qualitative characteristics.
        / Sorry for medicine and biology, I could not resist, I hope there will be no ban ... everything is so "kulturnenko
  • renics
    renics 13 June 2017 10: 18
    0
    All about the same.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Nazar
    Nazar 19 November 2020 07: 46
    0
    Max_Bauder - still simpler - the author does not want to describe how and with what the Americans protected their astronauts from space radiation? Really those foil spacesuits in which they were filmed on the "Moon"?
    The spacewalk at the orbital station takes place in much more bulky, and therefore more protected spacesuits, while the orbital stations are still largely protected by the nearby Earth. Only a chronic physicist in physics can believe that people in Amerov's spacesuits are on the Moon ... well, or a paid Amerovsky lackey.
  • Pimply
    Pimply 5 January 2016 15: 31
    +3
    Quote: pimen
    Another thing is that objectively, on the Earth only the fact of departure-arrival, landing on the moon and all other things could be recorded - only from the words of the Americans

    Actually, no.

    “We had military unit 32103 on Komsomolsky Prospekt, which provided space broadcasting, since there was no MCC in Korolev at that time. Unlike all other people in the USSR, we saw the landing of Armstrong and Aldrin on the moon, broadcast by the United States to the entire The Americans put up a television antenna on the surface of the Moon, and everything they did there was transmitted through a TV camera to Earth, several replays of these TV broadcasts were also made.When Armstrong stood on the surface of the Moon, and everyone in the USA clapped, we are here in the USSR , Soviet cosmonauts, also crossed their fingers for good luck, and sincerely wished the children success, "recalls Soviet cosmonaut Yevgeny Leonov.

    http://ria.ru/science/20090720/177908258.html
    1. stroybat ZABVO
      stroybat ZABVO 5 January 2016 19: 55
      +7
      and a film with these “a few repeats for the television”? Where? what? not preserved? ah ah! Amers disappeared, the Soviet Union also disappeared. or maybe when clapping and crossing fingers, at least someone guessed to make a video copy?
      1. stroybat ZABVO
        stroybat ZABVO 5 January 2016 22: 29
        +4
        by the way, fingers cross when they lie .....
    2. little man
      little man 8 January 2016 23: 24
      0
      now I'm stunned. From such recognition of such a respected person as an astronaut. I take off my hat and fall silent. hi
  • vadim dok
    vadim dok 5 January 2016 21: 11
    +2
    There were USA 6 (SIX) lunar expeditions with a LANDING and take-off from the Moon! About a hundred kg of lunar soil (rigolith) part of which was received by the USSR was delivered to the earth! Which could be compared with the soil received from the Soviet section!
    1. pimen
      pimen 5 January 2016 21: 33
      0
      Quote: vadim dok
      There were US 6 (SIX) lunar expeditions with LANDING and take-off from the Moon! About a hundred kg of lunar soil (rigolith) part of which the USSR received on the Earth was brought to the earth! Which could compare with the soil received from the Soviet station!

      And what, he was somehow very different from terrestrial rocks?
    2. gladcu2
      gladcu2 5 January 2016 23: 28
      +1
      Vadim dok

      When you remember the program "Time" 80s. Each spacewalk of an astronaut was an event more important than a military coup in, say, South Africa. And here on you, some 6 unfortunate flights to the moon.
    3. opus
      opus 6 January 2016 21: 39
      0
      Quote: vadim dok
      Delivered to the ground about HUNDREDS kg of lunar soil (rigolith) h

      more than 300, up to 400 kg: 378 kg

      To whom they distributed here:

  • Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 6 January 2016 09: 58
    +3
    Quote: pimen
    only from the words of the Americans

    The land and the ship were constantly exchanged telemetry and this entire data stream was intercepted by our national tracking stations. Nobody hides this fact.
    1. pimen
      pimen 6 January 2016 21: 55
      0
      Quote: Jurkovs
      Quote: pimen
      only from the words of the Americans

      The land and the ship were constantly exchanged telemetry and this entire data stream was intercepted by our national tracking stations. Nobody hides this fact.

      Do you know why it bothers me so? Because "from the words" of the Americans, they created the Saturn rocket, with a launch weight of almost 3000 thousand tons, with five engines with a total thrust of 3500 tons at sea level, capable of launching 140 tons of payload into low orbit.
      And we, with our Energy, at 2400 tons of starting weight, with eight engines with a total thrust of more than 5000 tons, could only say about 100 tons of payload ...
      1. opus
        opus 7 January 2016 00: 45
        +4
        Quote: pimen
        could only claim 100t payload ...

        we (on Energy) have a lateral packet payload location
        1. Minus aerodynamics
        2. Minus restriction on centering
        3. And so for reference:
        Saturn 5 has dry weight 235tn, in the filled state: 2328,5 tn to 2750 tn

        Energy (11K25) has dry weight of 338,46 tons, in the filled state: up to 2270tn - 2400 (2375) tons.
        Do you need to decrypt?
        or more already
        Quote: pimen
        This is true NOT annoying?
        1. pimen
          pimen 7 January 2016 09: 19
          0
          Quote: opus

          we (on Energy) have a lateral packet payload location
          1. Minus aerodynamics
          2. Minus restriction on centering
          3. And so for reference:
          Saturn 5 has a dry weight of 235 tons, in a tucked state: 2328,5 tons to 2750 tons

          Energia (11K25) has a dry weight of 338,46 tons, in the filled state: up to 2270 tons - 2400 (2375) tons.
          Do you need to decrypt?
          or more is it not so annoying?


          Yes, please. With dry weight, is it serious, but with lateral loading - was this the only possible way to get out (if so, why?), Or just an alternative for Buran?
          1. opus
            opus 7 January 2016 15: 19
            +1
            Quote: pimen
            output (if so, why?),

            1. Shuttle Influence
            2.Buran (you can't put it on your nose, see 3)
            3. We have no experience of transporting to the launch pad vertically (like the Americans), and MK are different (there are pH).
            And raise such a mondule .....
            in general, a batch scheme is simpler (SC, flood, drain strength of the launch vehicle, etc., transportation to the SS), but it introduces significant restrictions on the loading capacity.
            Therefore, the "Energia" LV has a very LARGE lower PN threshold.
            30-40tn, if you have not forgotten
            1. pimen
              pimen 7 January 2016 16: 42
              0
              Quote: opus
              Quote: pimen
              output (if so, why?),

              1. Shuttle Influence
              2.Buran (you can't put it on your nose, see 3)
              3. We have no experience of transporting to the launch pad vertically (like the Americans), and MK are different (there are pH).
              And raise such a mondule .....

              in fact, the Shuttle uses a fuel tank and this design is made only for him. We, as I understand it, have made a universal rocket for different tasks. In your opinion, is it not madness - to raise 200 tons - add 4 more sidewalls, if it was possible to foresee the possibility of traditional placement of the payload?
              I don’t know about putting a rocket on the priest's account, but somehow they put H1, and more than once
              1. opus
                opus 7 January 2016 17: 39
                +1
                Quote: pimen
                actually, the Shuttle uses a fuel tank and this design is made only for it

                I know very well what and how it uses:
                this is still a batch scheme with a side arrangement of monitors.
                Ours wanted to do the same
                (the most important thing is to save the expensive main remote control)
                But it didn’t work out:
                -not fit into the dimensions of Buran
                - the inability to work out in flight conditions an orbital ship of large mass due to the lack of the necessary carrying capacity in the country at the time
                - Well, and a number of technical difficulties in powering the TC GDU, ensuring the strength of large-sized LV structures under conditions of a significant temperature difference during parking and refueling, etc.
                Quote: pimen
                In our country, as I understand it, they made a universal rocket for different tasks

                could not "like them" (see above) and was born 11K25
                Quote: pimen
                if it was possible to provide for the possibility of traditional placement of the payload?

                it would be a phalos with a height of 120 m and a weight of 2500 tons, with an even greater dry mass (load on the tank)
                ===============
                the scheme implemented on LV Energy has a LOWER weight limit for PN, something about 30 or 40 tons (forgotten).
                Less is impossible.
                Are there many needs to withdraw 20 tons and above? Especially today ...
                S-IC-13 (Saturn INT-21) for SkyLab and everything else
                S-II: Apollo 4 and Apollo 6
                S-IVB options 200 and 500 series for Saturn-1B "and" Saturn-5 "
                Quote: pimen
                but H1 somehow set, and more than once

                1. RN N-1 has a "backward" scheme from the FAU-2: a carrying "body" and suspended component tanks.
                It is "tougher and stronger", respectively, heavier tare weight

                Because of this, this is the only launch vehicle in which the stages were divided into "dry" (without reserves of TC) and (if not forgotten) according to "hot".
                And still, the characteristics were not enough to bring the required payload to the DOE
                2. "We decided", only it was worth it ...


                3. Low-frequency longitudinal vibrations associated with the coincidence of the frequencies of combustion instabilities in the combustion chambers of the engines and the natural frequencies of the oscillations of the fuel lines and the rocket stage .... have not been resolved
                1. Lekov L
                  Lekov L 7 January 2016 18: 18
                  +1
                  Many thanks for the detailed and correct answer - a comment.
                  Quite possible productive (and useful for the majority of those present at the forum) discussion of the topic, some discussion participants tried to turn into another ... well, you understand.
                  Respectfully..
        2. AK64
          AK64 11 November 2020 17: 24
          0
          we (at Energiya) have a lateral batch arrangement of the payload .....


          Yes, that's not the point ... Regardless of anything, the declared performance characteristics of Saturn correspond to a hydrogen rocket, and only a hydrogen one. And his 1st stage is kerosene. Well, it is impossible to get such figures on kerosene --- and no one has received them until now.
          It's just that Brown was promised a hydrogen engine for the 1st stage. But .... did not work (which is understandable).
          So I had to fantasize. Moreover, it was no longer possible to replay --- because during the design an UNPRECEDENTED level of modularity and parallel design was applied (which Americans are rightly proud of --- but there is a nuance ...)
      2. AK64
        AK64 11 November 2020 17: 19
        0
        Quote: pimen
        Do you know why it bothers me so? Because "from the words" of the Americans, they created the Saturn rocket, with a launch weight of almost 3000 thousand tons, with five engines with a total thrust of 3500 tons at sea level, capable of launching 140 tons of payload into low orbit.
        And we, with our Energy, at 2400 tons of starting weight, with eight engines with a total thrust of more than 5000 tons, could only say about 100 tons of payload ...


        You are absolutely right.
        But I will offer you this: I will suggest that, having said A, say B: make a list of natives, divide it into 3 parts: (1) kerosene, (2) hydrazine and (3) hydrogen.
        And then, for each racket in each group, calculate the ratio of M to m --- starting table mass to LEO mass.

        Perhaps some understanding will appear. And you will stop speaking languages. (However, you won't stop)

        PS: everyone should do it ---- EVERYTHING immediately becomes clear and understandable.
  • borov
    borov 6 January 2016 21: 04
    0
    But we found our capsule as well (we could refute any words with this alone, but didn’t want to. Why - see paragraph 14 using the link below):

    Source: http: //edgeways.ru.mastertest.ru/public/index.php? Doc = 107

    "According to NASA, after the flight to the Moon, the Apollo capsules (cabins) with the astronauts on board splashed down in the Pacific Ocean. So that the capsules do not burn out when entering the Earth's atmosphere, they are covered with a layer of thermal protection. And such a capsule, completely empty and without thermal protection, in 1970, Soviet sailors found not in the Pacific Ocean, but in the waters of the Atlantic. And "on September 8, 1970, in the Soviet harbor of Murmansk, the crew of the US icebreaker" Southwind "(Fig. 17, 18) was solemnly handed over the command module" Apollo " “Caught by a Soviet fishing trawler in the Bay of Biscay!” At the same time, Hungarian journalists with cameras appeared in the secret port of Murmansk. The capsule was loaded and Southwind left. "[16-19] This was the first call of an American ship in Murmansk since World War II when the USSR and the USA were allies and a completely unique case in the history of cosmonautics. True, it is completely impossible to believe in its "accident" - just as small as the find is in comparison with the size of the Atlantic.why did both main parties and Hungarian witnesses keep silent about this story? "

    It seems that the surrender of the USSR began not at all with a hunchback, but when the moon was surrendered! And what is the result of the lunar race for us and our "partners"?

    15. The total balance of the transaction for the United States

    As a matter of fact, the USA, as an experienced trader, bought a product (prestige) that it really needed for itself for practically nothing, if we consider not individual transactions, but in the aggregate. Well, they sold cheap several million tons of grain. So after the destruction of the USSR, they pumped out so much raw material from it for cheap, including strategic raw materials, that you can’t even remember about that grain. They built several plants. But now in the Russian Federation there are no numbers of factories and companies with American capital. Have you lifted the embargo on supplies of Soviet oil and gas? So this “good" turned out to be that previously a self-sufficient state was put on an oil needle and now everything depends on the United States. Because the price of oil is determined on the New York Stock Exchange. They seduced the Politburo with a policy of detente and eternal peace. And where now to look for the inviolability of borders that is declared in Helsinki? In torn into small pieces of the USSR and Yugoslavia, in divided Czechoslovakia or in a united Germany? Have an ABM contract been concluded So they themselves refused him. And where did the prospects for eternal peace go? Have you migrated to NATO airfields located in the Baltic states? Or do NATO squadrons visit the Black Sea? Or, in the guise of NATO instructors, are they teaching the peace of the Georgian soldiers?

    In general, solid advantages come out for the USA, because, having bought a victory in the lunar race from the Politburo, the USA thereby won the struggle of “two systems for the minds”. As a result, they destroyed by political means their former detentement partner, as a state, and turned its many fragments into their raw materials appendage. And today, the United States is the most powerful country in the world, monopolistically dictating the behavior of half the world, if not more. That’s what a profitable product the Moon turned out to be in good hands.
    1. borov
      borov 7 January 2016 02: 49
      0
      Photo: Transferring the capsule to American sailors and loading it onto an American ship. Hungarian News Agency, September 8, 1970 First published in 1981
      1. Rumata
        Rumata 7 January 2016 03: 55
        +2
        This is not a capsule, this is a Boilerplate, everyone who has their own space program, including the USSR, has used and are using similar models. Here is a list of tests where this capsule was used, only during Apollo development
        BP-1 - Water impact tests [10]
        BP-2 - Flotation tests storage [10]
        BP-3 - Parachute tests [10]
        BP-6, -6B, - PA-1, later Parachute drop test vehicle, [10] and LES pad abort flight test to demonstrate launch escape system's (LES) pad abort (PA) performance at White Sands Missile Range. [11]
        BP-9 with Mission A-105 (SA-10) Test Flight, Micro Meteoroid Dynamic Test; not recovered. [10]
        BP-12 with Mission A-001 Test Flight, now at former NASA Facility, Downey, CA [9] to test the LES transonic abort flight performance at White Sands Missile Range. [11]
        BP-13 with Mission A-101 (SA-6) Test Flight, not recovered [10]
        BP-14 with environmental control system tests, Oct. 22-29, 1964, [9] consisted of Command Module 14, Service Module 3, Launch Escape System 14, and Saturn Launch Adapters. [10]
        BP-15 with Mission A-102 (SA-7) Test Flight, not recovered. [10]
        BP-16 with Mission A-103 Test Flight, another Micro Meteoroid test, not recovered. [10]
        BP-19A - VHF antenna, parachute drop tests; [10] now at the Columbia Memorial Space Center (former NASA Facility, Downey, CA) [12]
        BP-22 with Mission A-003 Test Flight; boilerplate on display at Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX [13]
        BP-23 - LES high-dynamic-pressure abort flight performance tests at White Sands Missile Range. [11]
        BP-23A - LES pad abort flight performance tests with Canard, BPC, and major sequencing changes at White Sands Missile Range, [11] now displayed with SA-500D at the US Space & Rocket Center, Huntsville, Alabama. [10]

        BP-29 at Barringer Crater (used for flotation tests)
        BP-25 Command Module (CM) - Water recovery test, at Fort Worth Museum of Transportation [10] See BP-25 photo
        BP-26 with Mission A-104 (SA-8) Test Flight - another Micro Meterioid test. [10]
        BP-27 CM and Service Module with LES-16 - Stack and engine gimbal test. [10] Now on display atop the vertical Saturn V at the US Space & Rocket Center, Huntsville, Alabama. [14]
        BP-28A - Impact tests [10]
        BP-29 - Uprighting drop tests at Downey, CA, Oct. 30, 1964, on display at Barringer Crater, Arizona [9] [10]
        BP-30 - Swing arm tests; currently on display at Kennedy Space Center's Apollo / Saturn V Center [10]
        But in general there were about 70 different launches and about 1000 tests. Some kind of secrecy about the caught disc exists only in the minds of conspiracy theorists.
        1. borov
          borov 12 January 2016 16: 33
          0
          But in general there were about 70 different launches and about 1000 tests. Some kind of secrecy about the caught disc exists only in the minds of conspiracy theorists.
          Either the American was sent an icebreaker after her - hunting a ship to drive for thousands of miles ...
          Learn more here:
          http://www.manonmoon.ru/articles/st24.htm
  • xtur
    xtur 7 January 2016 00: 20
    0
    > in fact, degradation in some area of ​​knowledge

    There was not any degradation of knowledge - here's a story about how a certain group in the USA got access to documentation to create a mathematical model of the F-1 engine and improve it:

    http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-monstrous-f-1-moon-r


    ocket-back-to-life /

    the group was faced with poor-quality documentation, from which they could not get the information they needed - sizes in different places, materials ... They found it easier to expose the 3D engines to scanning. And they faced another problem - the holes for injecting fuel into the engine were carried out by eye by the workers themselves. That is, in reality, all the engines were incomparable from differences in size, materials, hole arrangement ...

    As far as I understand, with such a degree of repeatability of the results it is impossible to get a reliably working engine in a short time and none of the engines available in museums can serve as proof of the performance of the F-1 engine itself.


    In any case, the article has already been more than 2 years old, if the group could prove the engine’s efficiency with a mathematical model, they would have trumpeted this long ago.

    if anyone understands such issues it would be interesting to read the comments
  • bve56
    bve56 24 January 2016 11: 49
    +2
    DO NOT AGREE! All this looks like complete nonsense! Russia, despite the collapse of the USSR, raises a bunch of old projects, continues to do abandoned things for decades! Those. are Americans just barbarians? Well, some kind of baby talk .... of course it’s not hiding that Saturn 5 was designed by a German, but that’s not even the point! How can I lose those pictures, lose advanced data, technology .... in general, some kind of nonsense, since Russia continues to carry out old projects, despite the collapse of the USSR and the outflow of many minds (I repeat). And at the same time, it seems like you have your own, but send the most important projects to Russian engines? Well this is not funny at all.

    I was very discouraged by the end of the article! Americans have 16 engines! Despite this, there are data and facts that all the latest rovers were sent to the RD-180, moreover, 180 million were allocated for the creation of the RD-160 on a wiki, but in reality there are more, drawings were issued, but America has not made an engine .... does not have the ability to deliver astronauts to the ISS! Well, they can’t! You call it business .... America very often lied, so your word business looks very pathetic and stupid, since this is a huge blow to their prestige! And America cherishes its prestige like gold! And what's the point of allocating hundreds of millions to copy the RD-180, when there are plenty of them? Some kind of stupidity.

    I don’t know whether they were there or not, but the article is stupid, SO AS the Americans, as amended by McCain, were forbidden to buy the RD-180 because of sanctions, but at the end of 2015, she spat on the cancellation and bought 20 space-based RD-180s again. AND REPEAT they still can not deliver astronauts to the ISS and pay for each $ 60 million to the budget of Russia. By the way, it costs so much cargo delivery in falcon today ... progress - 40 million.
    ps In general, the article is weak ... come up with a better one or fix the mistakes.

    Serge Babkov
  • at84432384
    at84432384 12 November 2020 00: 55
    0
    The fact that 75 Soviet cosmonauts and American astronauts have landed under the Soyuz-Apollo program is very indicative. The footage of the landing of Soviet cosmonauts and their condition after landing were immediately classified in the USSR (now they can be viewed on the internet). The guys were pumped out for several weeks. And this is after just a few days in zero gravity! The Americans, on the other hand, put on a whole show right on the deck of an aircraft carrier (supermen!). Typical Collin Powell tube. The fact is only what has been shown. I don’t even want to talk about the "return" of astronauts from the moon - even rougher noodles.
  • Lord of Wrath
    Lord of Wrath 5 January 2016 09: 08
    35
    Quote: Max_Bauder
    And the main argument, as everyone knows, Americans fly by shuttles, So how was the shuttle able to land on the surface of the moon? there are no landing strips

    Why do you smoke comrade "GENERAL ARMY"? lol
    1. Max_Bauder
      Max_Bauder 5 January 2016 09: 10
      -14 qualifying.
      Quote: Lord of Wrath
      Why do you smoke comrade "GENERAL ARMY"?


      I did not invent the title, maybe I am a soldier. There are arguments, what is the fallacy of my views or just hang labels?
      1. Privat
        Privat 5 January 2016 09: 44
        26
        What naher shuttle on the moon? !!!
        Dreamed in a dream or from a hangover dreamed?
        Saturn-Apollo and Space Shuttle are fundamentally different projects. At least on Wikipedia, see what the Apollo lunar module looks like and do not disgrace yourself!
        1. Max_Bauder
          Max_Bauder 5 January 2016 10: 55
          -17 qualifying.
          Quote: Private
          Saturn-Apollo and Space Shuttle are fundamentally different projects. At least on Wikipedia, see what the Apollo lunar module looks like and do not disgrace yourself!


          And here are the forms, even though the hon will be in the shape of a bear, explain how this module could overcome the lunar attraction when taking off back to Earth? even at the start there are mines on the Earth and so on, and he is wasting all the fuel to overcome gravity, these modules are disconnected after they put the device into orbit, how could Apollo take off from the moon?
  • vch62388
    vch62388 5 January 2016 09: 11
    11
    By parachute? To the moon? Without an atmosphere? Oh well...
    1. Max_Bauder
      Max_Bauder 5 January 2016 11: 02
      -13 qualifying.
      Quote: vch62388
      By parachute? To the moon? Without an atmosphere? Oh well...


      I agree, I didn’t take into account the air, but let's say the module could dock on an asteroid like in outer space, regulating the speed of landing by the engine, throwing gas in the opposite direction, but there is attraction on the moon, how do you think Apollo sat there, is the question open?
      1. Old
        Old 5 January 2016 20: 30
        11
        Max you just burn! I don't want to prove something to you, I don't want to argue. I just want to listen. Do not be offended, pzh. I'm kind. By the way, I like the film "Apollo 13", there are many interesting moments for people familiar with astronautics. It seems to me that you did not watch it.
        To me, in general, this whole story with the landing on the moon also seems doubtful. There are a lot of inconsistencies. But what impresses me most about this story is not Armstrong's walk on the moon. And the return! This must start, meet in orbit with the ship, dock and return.
        Now it looks archbishop and dangerous, and forty years ago!
        Even if the Americans were not on the moon, they succeeded in the show. It is worth recognizing that they should not occupy creativity.
        There are many things, and not just bad ones, that Americans have given to humanity. Maybe this is the knowledge of people and do not tidy up this topic with a landing.
        1. Max_Bauder
          Max_Bauder 8 January 2016 08: 46
          0
          Quote: Old
          Even if the Americans were not on the moon, they succeeded in the show. It is worth recognizing that they should not occupy creativity.


          That's right.
      2. denis02135
        denis02135 6 January 2016 09: 21
        +1
        Dear Max

        And how the first stage of the SpaseX rocket sat down December 21, 2015
        1. Max_Bauder
          Max_Bauder 8 January 2016 08: 46
          0
          Quote: denis02135
          And how the first stage of the SpaseX rocket sat down December 21, 2015


          with the person on board? brdm parachute too with the crew? smile
  • Alex 1972
    Alex 1972 5 January 2016 09: 14
    26
    Judging by the enthusiastic tone of the article, Oleg is a NASA freelance correspondent.
    If in front of tens of thousands of eyewitnesses who gathered on the launch day on Cape Canaveral, a 2300-ton carrier could ascend into the sky, then all disputes about flags, irregular dust and fake photographs no longer matter.

    Undoubtedly, this is a powerful, non-refutable argument.
    What can I argue about after that ?!
    ps
    The production technology of Saturn is irretrievably lost, as is the technology for manufacturing damask steel.

    This is why you dear author took that the technology for the production of damask steel has been lost?
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 5 January 2016 10: 08
      58
      I don’t want to enter into a debate about whether there was a flight or just a dramatization of it, but in the following passage:
      Despite the surviving drawings and even engine samples, now no one will remember in what order all this was assembled and what materials were used in the manufacture of individual elements.
      The author understands the technical documentation as, sorry, a pig in oranges.
      The technical documentation for such complex products describes materials, the assembly procedure, tolerances, test modes, and much more. Take and do. But, everyone forgot. Even how to read this documentation ... which is not officially lost.
      Such a statement (about the loss) is akin to the statement: I freely read and write, but the alphabet for me is a meaningless set of demonic tweeters.
      1. i80186
        i80186 5 January 2016 11: 14
        -7
        Quote: abrakadabre
        Such a statement (about the loss) is akin to the statement: I freely read and write, but the alphabet for me is a meaningless set of demonic tweeters.

        And what is it worth taking and starting the Tu-160 to produce five pieces a year tomorrow? They don’t know how to read documentation. Somehow they read for a long time. It seems everyone can read, and there is something to copy. Moreover, even repairs and modernization are carried out constantly. But still, it doesn’t come out right away. For some 20 years, they completely forgot how to do it. winked
        1. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 5 January 2016 17: 12
          15
          i80186
          Oh, sweetheart! And you don’t know that thousands of defense industry factories, component suppliers, were razed to the ground?
          1. mav1971
            mav1971 5 January 2016 20: 28
            +6
            Quote: Mavrikiy
            i80186
            Oh, sweetheart! And you don’t know that thousands of defense industry factories, component suppliers, were razed to the ground?


            Do you know.
            They weren’t leveled with the ground.
            They just bent.

            But ...
            Why do people not want to understand that with the same plants and factories, but in the USA, the same thing happens?
            Is there a contract for 10 missiles, is it profitable to build a new workshop with new people under this contract? Profitable.
            Built, done.
            Все.
            The contract is over.
            There is no such work.
            There are no such contracts.
            People moved to other industries, other companies.
            The factory was resold as a warehouse.
            All is well.
            Who needs tons of documentation?
            And so on all subcontractors.

            The same "Rocketdyne" since the release of F1 - four times completely resold and reorganized.
            I'm sure that there were the same "optimizers" that we have.
            As we have lost the production technology of NK-33, so they have lost the technology F1.
            There is no difference.
            It seems that there are drawings, and there are technological maps.
            But all the R&D of the old engine must be done anew from zero.
            being constantly limited in decisions.
            After all, you need to repeat.
            Why do this?
            Maybe just make new engines?
            With new solutions.
            1. Mavrikiy
              Mavrikiy 6 January 2016 13: 06
              +6
              Dear mav1971!
              response to your:
              "Do you know.
              They weren’t leveled with the ground.
              They just folded. "
              Should disappoint you, "just" and the pimple will not jump up. If you have forgotten, then I will remind you. From the beginning, restructuring, then conversion, then bankruptcy, by all means, including raiding. Machine tools for scrap metal, high-precision lines, bought yesterday, a very profitable business of 30 people on the street, did not fit. Fools. there is only one plant №000 in our city, and ChTZ ... They were not leveled with the ground ... In place of the 78th there is a handsome shopping mall. So it turns out, how the factories were churned, I know, but from which planet you broadcast I don't know.
              1. mav1971
                mav1971 6 January 2016 18: 58
                +2
                Quote: Mavrikiy
                So it turns out how the factories were kicking, I know, but I don’t know what planet you are broadcasting from.


                I broadcast from Samara.
                Only two plants in my memory were pulled apart in pieces in Samara. To office and shopping centers.
                These are 4GPZ and ZIM. One, in principle, was closed by the owner himself - for it turned out that nobody seemed to need millions of bearings, the second just got up - because the clock, fuses and elements of guidance systems were also not needed.
                What stood in the center of the city.
                All other really large factory infrastructure remained.
                Even KATEK (Tarasov factory) - also in the geographical center of the city - still stands. Though idle.

                So in my universe - not everything is ruined.
                1. Oleg samara
                  Oleg samara 16 May 2016 16: 06
                  0
                  In Samara: Instrument Bearing Plant (former affiliate of GPP 4) - one and a half workshops remain (which, it should be noted, still produce unique microscopic bearings. They say there was only one similar plant in the States), the rest was given to hucksters selling Chinese plastic wall panels and other rubbish. The product range, I believe, has shrunk by an order.
                  The Middle Volga Machine-Tool Plant is dead, the hulls are sold in parts.
                  SPZ-4 - assembles bearings from Chinese components. http://samip.ru/2012/10/samarskij-podshipnikovyi-zavod/
                  Aviakor - out of 25.000 employees, 3.000 remained, in the 80s the plant produced 10 aircraft per year, from 1995 to 2016 7 aircraft were built.
                  You can simply open 2gis, go through the industrial zones, and you will immediately see what the tenants of the areas of former enterprises - warehouses, cooperatives, hucksters doing Chinese crafts do. At best, artisanal production.
                  It was precisely in Samara that they came off in the 90s.
                  Either your memory, dear, is short, or you did not delve into the question, or the universe is somehow parallel.
                  Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan in this sense suffered much less, or maybe it seemed to me.
        2. mav1971
          mav1971 5 January 2016 18: 33
          +7
          Quote: i80186
          Quote: abrakadabre
          Such a statement (about the loss) is akin to the statement: I freely read and write, but the alphabet for me is a meaningless set of demonic tweeters.

          And what is it worth taking and starting the Tu-160 to produce five pieces a year tomorrow? They don’t know how to read documentation. Somehow they read for a long time. It seems everyone can read, and there is something to copy. Moreover, even repairs and modernization are carried out constantly. But still, it doesn’t come out right away. For some 20 years, they completely forgot how to do it. winked


          Exactly.
          Samara Aircraft Plant produced aircraft before 1993.
          And already in 2001 I could not do this.
          How many did not try to reanimate him.
          It took 8 years to stop understanding what they were learning ...
        3. vitvit123
          vitvit123 18 November 2020 15: 16
          0
          the bottom line is that people will forever remember Powell's tube!
          And we don't buy that 160 from amers ...
      2. Kombrig
        Kombrig 5 January 2016 11: 25
        15
        Quote: abrakadabre
        The author understands the technical documentation as, sorry, a pig in oranges.
        The technical documentation for such complex products describes materials, the assembly procedure, tolerances, test modes, and much more. Take and do. But, everyone forgot. Even how to read this documentation ... which is not officially lost.
        Such a statement (about the loss) is akin to the statement: I freely read and write, but the alphabet for me is a meaningless set of demonic tweeters.


        The author, simply, wants to say that restoring this frozen project will come out much more expensive than acquiring a finished product. Indeed, in fact, it will be necessary to assemble a puzzle of several million components ... Plus, the restoration of many industries, most of which were created specifically for this project ... So, in principle, we can assume that the technology has been lost .. Somehow it worked on one production and it was necessary to make a small batch of non-standard parts - it took a long time to develop manufacturing technology, invented it, realized it (used patterns in a certain sequence), but there was one worker. who cheated on the award. So when he was fired, he simply erased the markings from these patterns and we spent almost the same time. to restore everything again .... Something like this .. All survivors of the New Year holidays - congratulations))))))
        1. pv1005
          pv1005 5 January 2016 15: 03
          +8
          Quote: Kombrig


          The author, simply, wants to say that restoring this frozen project will come out much more expensive than acquiring a finished product. Indeed, in fact, it will be necessary to assemble a puzzle of several million components ....

          The author said what he said - TECHNOLOGY LOST.
          RESTORE technology for a single instance is really disadvantageous, but possible. The Americans, on the other hand, buy dozens from RD-180.
          In a puzzle of several million components, half are bolts, nuts, grovers, washers, rivets, clamps, gaskets, hoses, the manufacturing and application technology of which has been irretrievably lost, as well as the construction technology of the Egyptian pyramids.
      3. Andrey NM
        Andrey NM 6 January 2016 19: 16
        +3
        Not quite the topic. I remembered the joke. The Americans stole the blueprints and technical documentation of the newest rocket from us. Whatever they did, nothing happens. We decided to obey, turned to ours. "They stole five wagons of documentation from you. As soon as we are not perverted, we cannot get a rocket, then a locomotive, then a tractor ...". Ours to them: "Uh, guys, you still forgot the echelon of permission cards and changes ...".
        In general, of course, for renewal, you need a huge amount of equipment, equipment, and most importantly, competent staff. With competent staff, the first two problems are not problems.
    2. Wheel
      Wheel 5 January 2016 15: 35
      +6
      Quote: Alexey 1972
      This is why you dear author took that the technology for the production of damask steel has been lost?

      Since it’s Oleg Kaptsov. lol
  • Sirocco
    Sirocco 5 January 2016 15: 01
    +4
    Quote: Max_Bauder
    So how did the shuttle land on the surface of the moon? there are no boarding booths, let’s say, like a lunar rover, by parachute. But then how did he fly back? Lunar attraction is 4 times less than Earth, but still, where does the shuttle have fuel to overcome lunar attraction? not a word about it.

    You are right, for the Americans there was a problem landing the Curiosity rover, for a long time they puzzled just about this topic, gravity is less, air density is not ground, this is why the parachute was not used, but they developed a landing platform, if I'm not mistaken, the Sky Crane was called . The question is, if with such success and fanfare they sat on the moon, why did they rack their brains with the Curiosity rover? (National Geographic has a Curiosity movie about this)
    Well, the second
    Quote: Max_Bauder
    Tens of thousands of witnesses? did he personally see them? did they take selfies?

    What they saw is a series of promises to marry, it does not mean that they marry you.
    The third and most important thing, at least for me.
    I admit, they flew, if they did such a good step, but that’s why all these movie screenings in the studio, and photo montage work. (only the lazy did not write about shadows, etc., and their arguments look as convincing as those of the proponents of the flight)
    For me, with all this, they crossed out all their possible achievements.
    The question is, why is this a fake, what is the purpose behind this?
    Well, the fact that they just took a break in flights and fly on our equipment is not all simple here, I think we decided to combine the useful with the pleasant, that is, performing space flights and tasks with minimal risk, and not spending money on the restoration of shuttles, and the released funds are invested in the development of a new space program.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 5 January 2016 15: 41
      -4
      Quote: Sirocco

      You are right, for the Americans there was a problem landing the Curiosity rover, for a long time they puzzled just about this topic, gravity is less, air density is not ground, this is why the parachute was not used, but they developed a landing platform, if I'm not mistaken, the Sky Crane was called . The question is, if with such success and fanfare they sat on the moon, why did they rack their brains with the Curiosity rover? (National Geographic has a Curiosity movie about this)
      Well, the second


      Because you need to learn physics. And you would know about such a thing as the atmosphere. They would learn about the size of celestial bodies and their mass. Which is on Mars and is absent on the Moon. On Mars, the atmosphere is thick enough to burn the module and spend too much fuel on landing, and discharged enough to just parachute the module on Earth.

      And as for the dossiers - read Leonov’s interview, he clearly and clearly explains what and why

      http://ria.ru/science/20090720/177908258.html
      1. not a Jew
        not a Jew 5 January 2016 16: 21
        -3
        Quote: Pimply
        And as for the dossiers - read Leonov’s interview, he clearly and clearly explains what and why

        Zhenechka, especially for you, pasatri film by you beloved Yuri Ignatievich Mukhin "Maximum of lies and stupidity."
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 7 January 2016 10: 20
          0
          Quote: not a Jew

          Zhenechka, especially for you, pasatri film by you beloved Yuri Ignatievich Mukhin "Maximum of lies and stupidity."

          All this is certainly nice, especially the way Mukhin called his film very accurately reflects the essence of the nonsense that he expounds
      2. Sirocco
        Sirocco 6 January 2016 06: 47
        +2
        Quote: Pimply
        Because you need to learn physics. And you would know about such a thing as the atmosphere. They would learn about the size of celestial bodies and their mass. Which is on Mars and is absent on the Moon.

        Zhenya, physics includes many areas that she studies, and there is no person who is a general physicist. Most of those present here are people with knowledge gained at school, and a little wider from those who received education at the institute.
        Now about Mars and the canopy of the parachute. Even with such a large dome with a diameter of 15 meters like Curiosity, he could not have made a soft landing (to extinguish the speed just because of the atmosphere of Mars) so as not to get damaged.
        Therefore, a sky crane was developed and applied. The development of this landing module took quite a lot of time, and this is with modern technology, excluding the race for the championship to visit the moon.
        Again the question, since the technology for landing using the jet module (platform) was developed back in the 60-70s, then why did NASA puzzle over the landing of the Mars rover on Mars? Possible options were considered, and
        With pneumatic cameras, a parachute, and a transmission, they developed sports bike manufacturers, but came to the conclusion that the mass was large and damage was possible, so they did not risk the mission, and began to develop a reactive system. Why develop something if there is something ready and tested on the moon.
        Quote: Pimply
        about such a thing as the atmosphere. They would learn about the size of celestial bodies and their mass.

        Now the highlight on the cake.
        If my memory serves me (many years have passed, and we have been sitting here for a long time))))))) then the atmosphere and celestial bodies were studied not in a physics lesson, but in an astronomy lesson.
        1. Rumata
          Rumata 6 January 2016 12: 26
          +3
          Curiosity was inhibited by the atmosphere of Mars, then parachutes and only at the end of the crane. Everything is much simpler on the moon. Compare the first cosmic on Mars and the moon, as well as the force of gravity ...
        2. Pimply
          Pimply 7 January 2016 10: 34
          0
          Quote: Sirocco
          Now the highlight on the cake.
          If my memory serves me (many years have passed, and we have been sitting here for a long time))))))) then the atmosphere and celestial bodies were studied not in a physics lesson, but in an astronomy lesson.

          Just about the cherries. Memory changes a little. Initially, atmospheric pressure was studied in the 7 class.
          https://ru.wikiversity.org/wiki/Физика_(7_класс)/Давление

          Also in physics before astronomy:
          The law of gravity. The movement of bodies under the action of gravity
          Weight and weightlessness
          Friction force
          The law of conservation of momentum. Jet propulsion
          Mechanical work and power
          Kinetic and potential energy
          Solid rotation

          This was all at school before astronomy.

          Quote: Sirocco
          Therefore, a sky crane was developed and applied. The development of this landing module took quite a lot of time, and this is with modern technology, excluding the race for the championship to visit the moon.
          Again the question, since the technology for landing using the reactive module (platform) was developed back in the 60-70 years, then why did NASA rack their brains with the landing of the Mars rover on Mars?


          Now here. I should chew slowly what is the difference in landing on a celestial body without an atmosphere (where a parachute cannot be used in principle and rocket engines definitely have to be used) and landing on a celestial body with an atmosphere, albeit discharged? And do not forget two points - these are different missiles for launching these projects, their different masses, different distances.

          The atmosphere of Mars can easily burn a ship if you do not extinguish speed. However, it is too discharged for a parachute. That is, it works, but the density of the atmosphere is much lower, so the efficiency of the parachute is much lower than on Earth. In addition, gravity is different, which in total gives volumes of fuel that are many times larger than those needed to land the lunar module. Well, on the lunar module they spent 4 percent of the GDP of such a country as the USA - for a minute.
    2. mav1971
      mav1971 5 January 2016 18: 44
      +2
      Quote: Sirocco

      You are right, for the Americans there was a problem landing the Curiosity rover, for a long time they puzzled just about this topic, gravity is less, air density is not ground, this is why the parachute was not used, but they developed a landing platform, if I'm not mistaken, the Sky Crane was called . The question is, if with such success and fanfare they sat on the moon, why did they rack their brains with the Curiosity rover? (National Geographic has a Curiosity movie about this)


      Did you even see the Skycrain working scheme?
      Everything there is completely different and different from the moon.
      You can watch from 1.30 to 3.30.
      1. pilot bin-bom
        pilot bin-bom 5 January 2016 21: 04
        -1
        Mars rovers say? Type in a search engine "Mars is filmed in Devon".
        By the way, this explains the large number of absurdities in the shooting frames.
      2. Sirocco
        Sirocco 6 January 2016 07: 01
        -1
        Quote: mav1971
        Did you even see the Skycrain working scheme?

        I watched more than once. So what? What does it change? Jet platform, just the opposite.
    3. pilot bin-bom
      pilot bin-bom 5 January 2016 21: 03
      -1
      Mars rovers say? Type in a search engine "Mars is filmed in Devon".
      By the way, this explains the large number of absurdities in the shooting frames.
  • mav1971
    mav1971 5 January 2016 17: 53
    +9
    Quote: Max_Bauder
    And the most important argument, as everyone knows, Americans fly by shuttles, i.e. the launch rocket carries the shuttle to the near-Earth surface, then the shuttle returns to the landing strip like an airplane. So how did the shuttle land on the surface of the moon? there are no boarding booths, let’s say, like a moon rover, by parachute. But then how did he fly back?


    Did you really write this seriously now? About the shuttle on the moon?
    I just don’t understand. if you quoted the complete syphilism of someone’s brain, it’s also a cheating trolling designed for the uneducated mass ....
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 7 January 2016 10: 37
      +1
      Quote: mav1971
      Did you really write this seriously now? About the shuttle on the moon?
      I just don’t understand. if you quoted the complete syphilism of someone’s brain, it’s also a cheating trolling designed for the uneducated mass ....

      And there are a lot of them. It’s easier to repeat someone’s nonsense than to turn on the brain a little, teach physics, read serious scientists
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 8 January 2016 09: 15
        -3
        Quote: Pimply
        And there are a lot of them. It’s easier to repeat someone’s nonsense than to turn on the brain a little, teach physics, read serious scientists

        It's right! Well, you hate America - sit in the corner and water it with verbal diarrhea, but do not go into science with your shit !!! It’s at least ridiculous, about decency, when you and your cosmonauts think it’s corrupt, I’m not even talking! hi
  • vadim dok
    vadim dok 5 January 2016 21: 09
    +1
    There were USA 6 (SIX) lunar expeditions with a LANDING and take-off from the Moon! About a hundred kg of lunar soil (rigolith) part of which was received by the USSR was delivered to the earth! Which could be compared with the soil received from the Soviet section!
  • not main
    not main 5 January 2016 22: 52
    +2
    Quote: Max_Bauder
    And the most important argument, as everyone knows, Americans fly by shuttles, i.e. the launch rocket carries the shuttle to the near-Earth surface, then the shuttle returns to the landing strip like an airplane. So how did the shuttle land on the surface of the moon? there are no boarding booths, let’s say, like a moon rover, by parachute. But then how did he fly back?

    But nothing that before the US shuttles flew on a Saturn rocket and Apollo ship? It is advisable to read the article, and not just comment! And about landing on the moon by parachute, then this is generally a masterpiece! If a person does not know that there is NO ATMOSPHERE on the moon, then what is it about? (or doesn’t know the principle of the parachute?).
  • shasherin.pavel
    shasherin.pavel 6 January 2016 15: 29
    +1
    The most interesting statements are given by our cosmonauts when they saw American suits ... "Did you go into space in this? Yes, you can't even land at the North Pole in them!" "How did you walk on the moon?" "And like this" "Why are you !? Is it possible to move in the absence of gravity? It should be like this ..." So, having been on the Moon, they could not understand how to move along its surface? And our cosmonauts mastered it in the pools during the preparation for landing on the Moon "Now the Americans use our suits, and it was they who" visited "the Moon. Too many questions that the author did not answer.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 7 January 2016 10: 38
      0
      Quote: shasherin.pavel
      The most interesting statements are given by our cosmonauts when they saw American suits ... "Did you go into space in this? Yes, you can't even land at the North Pole in them!" "How did you walk on the moon?" "And like this" "Why are you !? Is it possible to move in the absence of gravity? It should be like this ..." So, having been on the Moon, they could not understand how to move along its surface? And our cosmonauts mastered it in the pools during the preparation for landing on the moon "Now the Americans are using our suit

      And you can somehow more specifically, who, what and when said
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 8 January 2016 09: 17
        -1
        Quote: Pimply
        And you can somehow more specifically, who, what and when said

        But can delirium be concrete?
  • Sergey777
    Sergey777 6 January 2016 17: 30
    +2
    Quote: Max_Bauder
    Then what was satellite intelligence? how could they know in 1969? And the most important argument, as everyone knows, Americans fly by shuttles, i.e. the launch rocket carries the shuttle to the near-Earth surface, then the shuttle returns to the landing strip like an airplane. So how did the shuttle land on the surface of the moon? there are no boarding booths, let’s say, like a lunar rover, by parachute. But then how did he fly back? Lunar attraction is 4 times less than Earth, but still, where does the shuttle have fuel to overcome lunar attraction? not a word about it. For reference: the lunar attraction is so strong that the ebbs and flows from it on Earth, every schoolchild knows.

    Max for your knowledge of the material is a fat minus to you, read the least laziness at least on Wikipedia on which you flew into space in the 60-70s of the last century. Well, and so almost fontastika in 1969 on the shuttle, wow, you burn a guy! wassat
    1. Zefr
      Zefr 7 January 2016 13: 29
      0
      Yes, it was he who watched Armageddon. There the shuttles flew to the moon.
      He wrote everything right
      1. Max_Bauder
        Max_Bauder 8 January 2016 08: 51
        0
        Quote: Zefr
        Yes, it was he who watched Armageddon. There the shuttles flew to the moon.
        He wrote everything right


        Petrosyan? laughing
    2. Max_Bauder
      Max_Bauder 8 January 2016 08: 50
      0
      Quote: Sergey777
      Well, and so almost fontastika in 1969 on the shuttle, wow, you burn a guy!


      Yes, I did not use space terms correctly, I confess, but it does not change the essence of the matter, the shuttle, the module, I did not focus on the appartment, but on the fact that no matter what tin was sent into space to conquer the moon, a man on this "piece of iron "still hasn't landed. If you can reasonably prove the opposite, if you own the material, if you point out other people's mistakes.
  • kig
    kig 7 January 2016 20: 30
    +1
    how could the shuttle land on the surface of the moon? there are no boarding booths - are you serious? Or is it such a joke of humor?
    1. Max_Bauder
      Max_Bauder 8 January 2016 08: 52
      0
      Quote: kig
      is it such a joke of humor?


      boring on a site without humor then smile
  • Sharikov.P.P
    Sharikov.P.P 9 January 2016 15: 37
    0
    If they are so smart, why didn’t they come up with Kamunism?
  • Nishtiag
    Nishtiag 12 January 2016 00: 22
    0
    Obviously, you have no idea what you're talking about. That is, absolutely no knowledge.

    The whole world, including the most reliable source for us - the Soviet star town, received live signals from the Apollo, telemetered during all stages of the flight.

    Yes, the Americans flew to the moon in ships called the Apollo, not a shuttle. It is utterly utterly spherical in a vacuum nonsense to make a statement: "how did they land the shuttle on the moon, if there is no landing strip there." There is no atmosphere there to create the lift of the shuttle wings during landing, and there is no resistance of this atmosphere in the upper layers for braking the shuttle with the bottom.

    And all this is because the shuttle was created after flying to the moon and for flying into orbit of the Earth and back. Only in this way and nothing else.

    There is no optical telescope that would be able to see in high resolution the traces of the landing of the Americans on the moon. And not a single space agency will be engaged in the creation of this (or a special lunar orbiter) to confirm that the Americans were on the moon. All experts have no doubt about this. And the townsfolk, who due to their ignorance (in general or in the particular field of astronautics and astronomy), thank God, will not be the reason for such a massive cost. To whom it is really interesting, carefully read such articles, and do not try to refute them without having any knowledge.
  • Vorchun
    Vorchun 10 February 2016 21: 30
    0
    You have already written this nonsense about the Shuttle on the Moon to another article about the flights of the Americans to the Moon.
  • AK64
    AK64 11 November 2020 16: 45
    +1
    The author told almost everything, but did not take into account some points.
    He describes the launch of the rocket so violently, as if he personally observed. Tens of thousands of people-witnesses? did he personally see them? did they take selfies? when did he personally meet with everyone?


    This is not the point: well, you see the start of Saturn-5, so what? How do you know what kind of cargo is there and how much it weighs?
    They showed you what they showed you - an impressive sight. Which distracts attention from the fact that this bad rocket was lucky ... a dummy.
  • Pilat2009
    Pilat2009 16 November 2020 13: 14
    0
    Quote: Max_Bauder
    The author told almost everything, but did not take into account some points.
    He describes the launch of the rocket so violently, as if he personally observed. Tens of thousands of people-witnesses? did he personally see them? did they take selfies? when did he personally meet with everyone? Then televisions were not so developed, black-and-white low definition, anything they can "draw". Especially when all the channels are state-owned, they work on demand. Could put thousands of people in one place and show the launch of some rocket, and where it flew, yes the dog knows him. Or they shot faces in one shot, in another they showed the launch of a rocket. The Soviets saw and also supposedly knew. Then what was satellite intelligence? how could they have known in 1969? And the most important argument, as everyone knows, is that Americans fly by shuttle, i.e. the carrier rocket brings the shuttle to the near-earth surface, then the shuttle returns to the landing strip, like an airplane. So how was the shuttle able to land on the lunar surface? there are no landing loops, for example, like a lunar rover, on a parachute. But when did he fly back? The lunar attraction is 4 times less than the Earth's one, but still there is, where does the space shuttle get fuel to overcome the lunar attraction? not a word about it. For reference: the lunar attraction is so strong that the ebb and flow of it on Earth, every student knows this.

    PySy. as the author himself put it, it will be possible to prove an American flight only if some international satellite can photograph the American flag.
    Forty years have passed, didn’t there really appear a single device capable of taking photographs of Apollo’s landing sites, once and for all to dispel doubts?
    Launched to 2009, the Lunar Orbital Scout (LRO) helped to compile a detailed 3D map of the lunar surface with a resolution of up to 0,5 m. All Apollo landing sites and Soviet automatic stations were captured.

    And not a single photo of the high, yes to hell, even small, resolution of the American flag. Anyone can lower the device without a person. The Mars rover is working now and there are probes on distant planets. But, as always, not a single person has entered the surface.

    Comrade, what kind of shuttle? There is an ordinary landing module. It is clearly written, several Soviet automatic stations landed and returned to Earth. You are talking about some kind of runways. Study the design of the landing module.
  • Sweles
    Sweles 5 January 2016 09: 03
    +8
    Quote: Prop
    All space shuttles take off on a parabolic trojectory ..... how can they go out of the near-Earth space? like they are in space?


    only the first American redstones and titans took off in a parabola, jumped over the atmosphere and collapsed back under themselves, in fact a stratospheric flight, but the pin_dos proudly called it "suborbital flight"
    http://usa-moon.ru
    in order to go into orbit, real R7 space carriers were needed, not fake ones, because to go into orbit is no longer a parabola, but a hyperbole, it is necessary to develop the 1st space velocity of 7.9km / s ...
    1. Sweles
      Sweles 5 January 2016 09: 44
      26
      One proof is enough to dispel doubts about a man’s flight to the moon.


      If in front of tens of thousands of eyewitnesses who gathered on the launch day on Cape Canaveral, a 2300-ton carrier could ascend into the sky, then all disputes about flags, irregular dust and fake photographs no longer matter.


      What to take from Kaptsov? this is an illiterate and irresponsible statement. Even if you do not disassemble
      fundamental research by A. I. Popov “Americans on the Moon. Great breakthrough or space scam? ”,
      -Velyurov "Thermal calculation of F1",
      -Eremenko S. M. "To the Moon with God's help ..."
      AND MUCH MUCH all sorts of other SERIOUS studies, and not Katsov’s illiterate throws
      even Mukhin drew attention to the fact that some of Apollo’s flights ended up with the fact that our sailors caught a model of an American ship in the Bay of Biscay and secretly handed it back to the Amers. This secrecy suggests that the Soviet leadership was also on the side of the American Hollywood team.
      It seems to Kaptsov that since something big and big has taken off, is this a guarantee that this big thing must fly to the moon? It seems so to him. This is a complete profanity for amateurs and ordinary people. Saturn 5 is such a big decorative element in the Munich performance, it was actually half empty and without payloads, because it was hard, it just took off and fell into the Atlantic. Everyone saw the first part, only those who needed the last.
      1. Bennert
        Bennert 5 January 2016 10: 00
        -4
        Quote: Sveles
        attention to such a fact as the fact that some of Apollo’s flights ended with the fact that our sailors caught a dummy of an American ship in the Bay of Biscay and secretly gave it back to the amers.

        Fact, fact)))
        Quote: Sveles
        something big and big took off

        So flew away

        first stage of the launch vehicle - maximum thrust = the most difficult part of the project
      2. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 5 January 2016 11: 27
        20
        Quote: Sveles
        What to take from Kaptsov?

        You can try to take tests. I wonder if Kaptsov knows that the "secret" of damask steel is not a secret at all. And for those who wish, twenty years ago, a formalized regime card for obtaining bulat was created. Observe and do damask as much as you want.
        For me, the indisputable fact is that the Americans are not able to create an engine with good traction characteristics. As confirmed by the experience of decades. And then it happened once, and suddenly ... the technology was lost. This is a joke, only humanists of the spirit like Kaptsov can think so, for an engineer it sounds simply indescribable. Technology is like a dime - slipped out of your pocket and lost! Uh ...
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 5 January 2016 15: 44
          -3
          Quote: Mikhail3
          For me, the indisputable fact is that the Americans are not able to create an engine with good traction characteristics. As confirmed by the experience of decades. And then one day it happened, and suddenly ... the technology was lost

          And more?
        2. mav1971
          mav1971 5 January 2016 19: 06
          +3
          Quote: Mikhail3
          Quote: Sveles
          What to take from Kaptsov?

          You can try to take tests. I wonder if Kaptsov knows that the "secret" of damask steel is not a secret at all. And for those who wish, twenty years ago, a formalized regime card for obtaining bulat was created. Observe and do damask as much as you want.
          For me, the indisputable fact is that the Americans are not able to create an engine with good traction characteristics. As confirmed by the experience of decades. And then it happened once, and suddenly ... the technology was lost. This is a joke, only humanists of the spirit like Kaptsov can think so, for an engineer it sounds simply indescribable. Technology is like a dime - slipped out of your pocket and lost! Uh ...


          You can try anything, but I will tell you how the engine technology is lost.
          In 1976, the last NK-33 engine was assembled.
          All development, production was at one enterprise.
          It seems that all the documentation was.
          Our Kuibyshev-Samara "Kuznetsov".
          2010 is tasked with resuming the release.
          Less than 40 years have passed.
          Even the people who participated in the creation of these engines survived.
          But alas.
          For four years, having all the drawings, all the flow sheets, they were able to restore production technologies only by 50 percent.
          And to start the release it is already required not to renew, but to repeat,
          Those. re-go through the entire R&D cycle. Almost from scratch.
          Money needs tens of billions of rubles. According to the most conservative estimates.
          Most likely the figure will fluctuate between 60-80 billion rubles.
          And this is for the same reengineering.
          Is this a loss of technology?
          I think. what "yes.
          Why could this happen to us, but not to the amers?
          enough conspiracy theories already ...
          1. max702
            max702 5 January 2016 21: 27
            +7
            Quote: mav1971
            2010 is tasked with resuming the release.
            Less than 40 years have passed.
            Even the people who participated in the creation of these engines survived.
            But alas.

            Are you sure that the required amount of funds was allocated for this? Both human and financially financial? Are you sure that you have assigned to this task those who are able to solve it, and not someone's sons-in-law and friends? Did you allocate the money and materials in the required amount? And this money was not stupidly stolen with the wording "well, I didn’t ..." like they lost the technology, yeah .. a banal drank will ruin absolutely any project, of any complexity from the simplest to the most complex, and those who could fuss with engine data well you do not need to eliminate the necessary links in the chain .. Conspiracy, tell me, well, why not? Look for someone who benefits ...
          2. Sweles
            Sweles 5 January 2016 23: 05
            +5
            Quote: mav1971
            Even the people who participated in the creation of these engines survived.
            But alas.
            For four years, having all the drawings, all the flow sheets, they were able to restore production technologies only by 50 percent.


            do not fool your head, how can this be so that people and documentation remain, and technology is lost? So the wrong people remained, maybe some people stayed, but did the NECESSARY people remain? Technologists and designers? No, they didn’t stay and the technological process on Kuznetsovo is continued not by those people, but by others, that's why everything is going slowly, and even the salaries are such that I don’t want to work, what will be the resumption of production?
            1. Ka-52
              Ka-52 6 January 2016 01: 08
              0
              Hmm, I'm not in the subject but the first thing I googled:
              AJ-26 is a family of NK-33 engine modifications developed by Aerojet and licensed in the USA (AJ26-58, AJ26-62) for use on American launch vehicles (including Antares) created by removing some equipment from the original NK-33 (from among 37 copies purchased from the N. D. Kuznetsov SNTK), adding American electronics, checking the engine for compatibility with fuel produced in the USA, and also equipping with a universal joint for controlling the thrust vector (similar to NK-33-1)

              I fully admit the thought that "ours", in opposition to the Americans, stupidly merged the project to recreate these engines ...
            2. mav1971
              mav1971 6 January 2016 19: 05
              +2
              Quote: Sveles
              Quote: mav1971
              Even the people who participated in the creation of these engines survived.
              But alas.
              For four years, having all the drawings, all the flow sheets, they were able to restore production technologies only by 50 percent.


              do not fool your head, how can this be so that people and documentation remain, and technology is lost? So the wrong people remained, maybe some people stayed, but did the NECESSARY people remain? Technologists and designers? No, they didn’t stay and the technological process on Kuznetsovo is continued not by those people, but by others, that's why everything is going slowly, and even the salaries are such that I don’t want to work, what will be the resumption of production?



              You in your text contradict yourself ...
              I write, do not fool my head. they themselves later described everything possible according to the scheme of the impossibility of restoring production.
              They themselves explained everything.
              So who is fooling his head?
              Stop ringing ...
            3. Pimply
              Pimply 7 January 2016 10: 42
              +1
              Quote: Sveles
              do not fool your head, how can this be so that people and documentation remain, and technology is lost? So the wrong people remained, maybe some people stayed, but did the NECESSARY people remain? Technologists and designers? No, they didn’t stay and the technological process on Kuznetsovo is continued not by those people, but by others, that's why everything is going slowly, and even the salaries are such that I don’t want to work, what will be the resumption of production?


              Yes, very simple. Because the technology consists of hundreds of thousands of developed technologies, and not just one. Even from millions. And technologies are constantly moving forward, some are discarded as outdated, enterprises that produce a particular screw or nut, mixture or lamp are being shut down. These people were engaged in development forty years ago. 40!
          3. Mikhail3
            Mikhail3 7 January 2016 11: 02
            -1
            Quote: mav1971
            You can try anything, but I will tell you how the engine technology is lost.

            That is, NK 33 was needed after some 40 years of everything, and immediately managed to raise half? You call it failure ... wow.
            But didn’t the Americans try to lift their Skylab, suffering from the inability to put more modules into orbit, and they couldn’t make a sensible station? And why wasn’t they using their super-powerful lunar carrier capable of lifting giant loads into orbit? Recall that 40 years did not pass by then. The station could be made huge, but not even one. And why? For no reason. Just. Here we will not use the existing engine and all.
            Was there a need for a powerful lunar complex, which instantly allowed us to win the space race from the USSR, immediately after the closure of the lunar program? The question, you know, is rhetorical. Here are the manufacturers. Here are the machines. Here are the materials. Here are the people. Take it, work ... no, I won’t. You yourself are not funny?
            1. Dmitriy Zadorozhniy
              Dmitriy Zadorozhniy 11 November 2020 17: 30
              0
              Skyleb, was made from the tank of Saturn. And Saturn brought it into orbit. Royal n1 Saturn, had approximately the same starting mass. But! Saturn has a higher output load. Saturn has a supporting body, h1 has a frame. Overweight however. It was just that at that time there were no technologies for welding such parts.
              1. Mikhail3
                Mikhail3 12 November 2020 09: 18
                +1
                Since Saturn was so powerful, then its power was used in the removal of Skyleb by about 60%. Well, in fact, why is there an "extra" mass in orbit? What nonsense. For the construction of the station, mass is not needed at all, we will not load the rocket ... You yourself do not feel what it is ... how can it be without a mat ... nonsense is it?)) Reading all this nonsense is already a feat, what is it like for you to write all this I can't imagine.
                1. Dmitriy Zadorozhniy
                  Dmitriy Zadorozhniy 12 November 2020 19: 09
                  0
                  Yes, at least read something, except the ABC book. For example about the space strike. If my sclerosis does not change me, a skyleb from an oxygen tank was built. They fired not 3 steps, but 2. The second was skylab.
                  1. Mikhail3
                    Mikhail3 13 November 2020 09: 43
                    0
                    Instead of answering the logical question, "strike". Oh well...
      3. Locksmith
        Locksmith 5 January 2016 12: 41
        0
        Quote: Sveles
        What to take from Kaptsov?

        This is such a New Year’s trolling campaign. wink
        1. Locksmith
          Locksmith 6 January 2016 22: 20
          +4
          Quote: Locksmith
          This is such a New Year’s trolling campaign.

          And if you seriously?
          1) neither a computer nor a video camera was provided on the departure module - and they had to dock their "chicken coop" MANUALLY EVERY TIME in the departure orbit !! At a speed of 12 km / sec !!! , they didn't make ANY MISTAKE, although they only had to flip the lander 180 degrees !! THIRTY TIMES in a row !!!!
          2) For all thirteen flights they TROUBLED MYSELF TO THE PANTS and TURNED MYSELF into the pants !!!, this happened over 7 days !! They did it 13 flight CONTRACT !!
          3) now it is already reliably known that VACUUM IS AWESOME GOOD HEAT PROTECTION !!!
          even the ISS, which "sees" the Sun for only 23 minutes, has a fucking size CONDEY, they are damn freezing and FUCK fried in 22 MINUTES in the sun! "Chicken coop" flew there in the Sun .... 2 days, 3 more days ON THE SUN THERE HAS BEEN FASTING THERE, neither in the landing module, nor in the departure module, nor in spacesuits there is NO ADEQUATE system of protection against overheating .... AND NOW THE PANCAKE IS! !!!!
          It is reliably known that ours tested the lunar module, in space, etc., which is strange in OUR MODULE with an energy of departure similar to that of Amer. There was a BALANCING SYSTEM, and it COULD NOT take PHYSICALLY more than a few kilograms, and the pilot did not sit booty on the TAKEOFF engine! laughing and ours did not manage to create an automatic system for docking the orbit of the moon, docking with a 100% effect, well, they couldn’t, it doesn’t happen ... bully
          And our "partners" with ease, never testing this system, from the FIRST TIME, and 13 times in a row, WITHOUT FAILURES !!! WITHOUT a reserve of fuel for a mistake !!!!! Das ist fantastish ...
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 7 January 2016 11: 04
            -1
            Quote: Locksmith

            And if you seriously?
            1) neither a computer nor a video camera was provided on the departure module - and they had to dock their "chicken coop" MANUALLY EVERY TIME in the departure orbit !! At a speed of 12 km / sec !!! , they didn't make ANY MISTAKE, although they only had to flip the lander 180 degrees !! THIRTY TIMES in a row !!!!
            2) For all thirteen flights they TROUBLED MYSELF TO THE PANTS and TURNED MYSELF into the pants !!!, this happened over 7 days !! They did it 13 flight CONTRACT !!
            3) now it is already reliably known that VACUUM IS AWESOME GOOD HEAT PROTECTION !!!
            even the ISS, which "sees" the Sun for only 23 minutes, has a fucking size CONDEY, they are damn freezing and FUCK fried in 22 MINUTES in the sun! "Chicken coop" flew there in the Sun .... 2 days, 3 more days ON THE SUN THERE HAS BEEN FASTING THERE, neither in the landing module, nor in the departure module, nor in spacesuits there is NO ADEQUATE system of protection against overheating .... AND NOW THE PANCAKE IS! !!!!


            Seriously, I don’t even know how to comment on so much suffering for Americans. It seems that there are answers to everything - from the diapers that the American astronauts have been using for many decades to the thermal protection of the module - its description has been around for a long time. But as you are too lazy to read something instead of Mukhin and others like him, so I am too lazy to chew something for you. Because it is pointless.
            1. Locksmith
              Locksmith 8 January 2016 18: 07
              +4
              Quote: Pimply
              starting from diapers that have been used by American astronauts for many decades, and ending with the thermal protection of the module - its description has long been

              And from here, please, in detail, what diapers are US astronauts currently using ?! How much they know now they are using the product of our industry MADE BY ORDER for their module, since they themselves were not able to create anything like that. laughing And as for thermal protection, there was no conversation — no need to distort, the conversation was about heat dissipation, the chicken coop was always in the Sun !! It would simply stupidly overheat without cooling, the ISS also has multilayer thermal protection, but this absolutely does not prevent it from overheating in the sun. wink
              Quote: Pimply
              so I'm too lazy to chew something for you. Because it is pointless.

              It’s just as hard to get something from you as to get mercy from the executioner.
        2. Locksmith
          Locksmith 6 January 2016 22: 34
          +1
          Quote: Locksmith
          And if you seriously?

          For example, we went somewhere there ( wassat ) we fly to ourselves, and who damn us orbit rules? Our carabel is constantly losing mass - therefore, it is necessary to continuously correct the orbit, otherwise = voila, the first moon as it was bunched on the moon laughing funny? But people are not at all funny = they are engaged in bullshit, they spend their mass on maneuvers - they have to turn the pepelats, otherwise the trouble is we don’t sit down and fly away, so the people roam around in OPEN SPACE, sewing thread holders sewn with seamstresses all their lives, that is, they DO NEVER TESTED their so-called spacesuit in VACUUM, before that there was one tester who FOR THE FIRST TIME in the WORLD went into space ... but with difficulty entered, and so, our seamstress AT ALL did not test their spacesuit in VACUUM !!!
          In the photo you can’t see at all that someone is suffering from a shitty spacesuit among Amers, although he’s a rare dump in general = this is not a curse word, but a definition of the variety !!
          ..18) upon departure, the CAMERA WITH THE VIDICON DOES NOT ABSOLUTELY SEE the infrared radiation of the LRE on heptyl \ amil = this is generally nonsense, which is why plop = and flew ...
      4. Rumata
        Rumata 6 January 2016 12: 49
        0
        Quote: Sveles
        about even Mukhin drew attention to such a fact as the fact that some of Apollo’s flights ended with the fact that our sailors caught a dummy of an American ship in the Bay of Biscay and secretly handed it back to the amers.

        This is a myth, as is the loss of documentation. The sailors fished out a dummy on which the sailors trained to rescue the capsules. Nobody made this secret, and nothing was secretly passed on. This is how "refutations" appear, one invented, the other believed, the third states it as a fact.
        1. Locksmith
          Locksmith 6 January 2016 22: 40
          0
          Quote: Rumata
          This is a myth, as is the loss of documentation.

          The Americans OFFICIALLY abandoned this module, like they did not train !!
          1. Rumata
            Rumata 7 January 2016 04: 02
            +2
            Quote: Locksmith
            The Americans OFFICIALLY abandoned this module, like they did not train !!

            Proof to the studio. Such capsules were lost decently, it was this which most likely was missed not by the Americans, but British. And this photo appeared in 1981 not because of secrecy, but because everyone had a drum on it. In addition to the archives, the photographer himself had all this time. Nobody attached importance to this. If everything was so secret, then we would not have taken photographs, or we would not have seen them when.

            By the way, the photo surfaced exclusively in the wake of hysteria in the USA, the beginning of the 80s, about the Lunar conspiracy. All this has been refuted many times, but you don’t care about the facts ...
      5. Pimply
        Pimply 7 January 2016 10: 39
        -1
        Quote: Sveles
        even Mukhin drew attention to the fact that some of Apollo’s flights ended up with the fact that our sailors caught a model of an American ship in the Bay of Biscay and secretly handed it back to the Amers. This secrecy suggests that the Soviet leadership was also on the side of the American Hollywood team.

        EVEN THE GREAT MUKHIN !!! GREAT! BEAUTIFUL! 8 conspiracy everywhere)))
      6. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 16 November 2020 19: 49
        0
        Quote: Sveles
        our sailors caught a dummy of an American ship in the Bay of Biscay and secretly gave back to the Americans

        Throw tests
      7. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 17 November 2020 10: 07
        0
        Quote: Sveles
        One proof is enough to dispel doubts about a man’s flight to the moon.


        If in front of tens of thousands of eyewitnesses who gathered on the launch day on Cape Canaveral, a 2300-ton carrier could ascend into the sky, then all disputes about flags, irregular dust and fake photographs no longer matter.


        What to take from Kaptsov? this is an illiterate and irresponsible statement. Even if you do not disassemble
        fundamental research by A. I. Popov “Americans on the Moon. Great breakthrough or space scam? ”,
        -Velyurov "Thermal calculation of F1",
        -Eremenko S. M. "To the Moon with God's help ..."
        AND MUCH MUCH all sorts of other SERIOUS studies, and not Katsov’s illiterate throws
        even Mukhin drew attention to the fact that some of Apollo’s flights ended up with the fact that our sailors caught a model of an American ship in the Bay of Biscay and secretly handed it back to the Amers. This secrecy suggests that the Soviet leadership was also on the side of the American Hollywood team.
        It seems to Kaptsov that since something big and big has taken off, is this a guarantee that this big thing must fly to the moon? It seems so to him. This is a complete profanity for amateurs and ordinary people. Saturn 5 is such a big decorative element in the Munich performance, it was actually half empty and without payloads, because it was hard, it just took off and fell into the Atlantic. Everyone saw the first part, only those who needed the last.

        Well, yes, well, yes, there were no satellite tracking devices at that time. I'm just convinced that the USSR examined the entire American program under a microscope. Once again, why can a lunar rover be thrown to the moon but no man?
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 5 January 2016 10: 12
      +1
      Hyperbola is the second cosmic one. None of the modern manned spacecraft fly hyperbole. But between the parabola (V <the first cosmic) and the hyperbola (V => the second cosmic), the range of orbital trajectories lies. And these are all ellipses.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Sweles
        Sweles 5 January 2016 11: 37
        +1
        Quote: abrakadabre
        Hyperbola is the second cosmic one. None of the modern manned spacecraft fly hyperbole. But between the parabola (V <the first cosmic) and the hyperbola (V => the second cosmic), the range of orbital trajectories lies. And these are all ellipses.


        yes so 1st space - ellipse 7.9km / s
        2nd space hyperbola-11.2km / s
      4. Bayonet
        Bayonet 8 January 2016 09: 25
        -2
        Quote: abrakadabre
        But between the parabola (V <the first cosmic) and the hyperbola (V => the second cosmic), the range of orbital trajectories lies. And these are all ellipses.

        What about a geostationary orbit?
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 8 January 2016 15: 06
          -1
          Quote: Bayonet
          What about a geostationary orbit?

          Well, put a minus and felt smarter? smile Come on come on! laughing
    3. Alex
      Alex 5 January 2016 15: 44
      +6
      Quote: Sveles
      because to enter orbit it is no longer a parabola, but a hyperbola, it is necessary to develop 1 cosmic velocity-7.9km / s ...

      The speed ~ 8 km / s is just the circular speed at which the body becomes the eternal (relatively, of course) satellite of the Earth. Parabolic speed (runaway speed) is the speed at which the body overcomes the Earth's gravity, but becomes the same satellite of the Sun. For the Earth it is ~ 11 km / s. Speeds in this interval are called elliptical, the magnitude of the eccentricity depends on the speed.

      Hyperbolic speed is the speed at which the body overcomes the attraction of the Sun and enters interstellar space. For the solar system, it is 46,9 km / s relative to the Sun, but using the Earth’s orbital and axial rotation in the best way, it is enough for the spacecraft to develop ~ 16,6 km / s relative to the Earth.

      Entrance into the near-earth orbit is carried out not only due to a set of speed and altitude, but also due to maneuvering at certain sections of the flight.
      1. Sweles
        Sweles 5 January 2016 16: 27
        +1
        Quote: Alex
        Entrance into the near-earth orbit is carried out not only due to a set of speed and altitude, but also due to maneuvering at certain sections of the flight.


        do not explain in more detail what does this phrase mean?
        1. Alex
          Alex 5 January 2016 16: 53
          +2
          Quote: Sveles
          do not explain in more detail what does this phrase mean?

          This means that at certain parts of the trajectory, a change in the direction of the velocity vector is made (to put it simply, "turn", but this is not quite an analogy with a car). A series of such maneuvers leads to a change in trajectory from vertical to symbate with the Earth's surface.
  • Proxima
    Proxima 5 January 2016 10: 16
    -8
    It was not pleasant to see an article on VO that told about the opposite, that is, that the Americans were not on the moon. This article was about 3 weeks ago, but, to VO's credit, it lasted a few hours and was quickly deleted. To be honest, I thought the "lunar scam" discussions were the lot of low-quality sites. But the fact that this topic is "not closed" for some VO members is surprising.
    Despite the controversial points, many thanks to the author for the article. Recently I ran into the publication of Kaptsov 3 years ago dedicated to space issues. It was very interesting to read. It turns out Oleg is not only able to write about booking ships. Once again, thanks for the article.
    1. Alex 1972
      Alex 1972 5 January 2016 10: 56
      21
      Quote: Proxima
      It was not nice to see an article on VO

      It is terribly not nice to see the article that we are now commenting on.
      Not an article, but a broth of enthusiastic exclamations in the style of 2 tons flew away means certainly to the moon and statements about the "lost" technologies for the production of damask steel.
      I want to spit when you read such facts.
      1. Proxima
        Proxima 5 January 2016 12: 33
        -3
        Quote: Alex 1972
        Quote: Proxima
        It was not nice to see an article on VO

        It is terribly not nice to see the article that we are now commenting on.
        Not an article, but a broth of enthusiastic exclamations in the style of 2 tons flew away means certainly to the moon and statements about the "lost" technologies for the production of damask steel.
        I want to spit when you read such facts.

        The article is not indisputable, with mistakes and so what? Who does not have them?
        As for the blunders, there was such a Russian metallurgical scientist Pavel Petrovich Anosov, who in the 40s of the 19th century discovered the secret of damask steel, but according to Oleg, this secret is still lost. Then the question is, what then did Anosov discover? Next, about the F-1 engine. According to Oleg, there are drawings for this engine, but the workers "no longer remember what and how to screw it on." Not written correctly. The reason why the F-1 is not being produced is a topic for a separate post - and so on. But, in principle, the message in the article is correct. If you prefer to read the nonsense of Mukhin and those like him, then read on, and do not get to the bottom of it.
        1. pv1005
          pv1005 5 January 2016 15: 26
          +9
          Quote: Proxima

          The article is not indisputable, with mistakes and so what? Who does not have them?

          The previous article about the flight of the Americans to the moon was also not indisputable, with blunders, and so what? Who doesn't have them? However, it was unpleasant for you to read it. Then why do you deny such "pleasure" to persons who have the opposite point of view from you and O. Kaptsov? Or O. Kaptsov is the ultimate truth, so to speak AXIOM? request You have my friend smacks of DUAL STANDARDS. yes
          Quote: Proxima
          If you prefer to read the nonsense of Mukhin and his ilk, then read on, and do not dig into the details.

          In your own words, if you prefer to read the nonsense of O. Kaptsov and others like him, then read on, and do not dig into the details. hi
          1. Locksmith
            Locksmith 6 January 2016 22: 50
            0
            Quote: pv1005
            In your own words, if you prefer to read the nonsense of O. Kaptsov and others like him, then read on, and do not dig into the details.

            It’s a bit different = I wrote nonsense, but you’re not yet mature enough, you’ll understand, you’ll grow up !! laughing
        2. Alex
          Alex 5 January 2016 15: 54
          12
          Quote: Proxima
          read on, and do not dig into the details.

          However, the devil, as you know, is in the little things and hides. This is the first. And secondly, doesn’t it seem to you somewhat incorrect to indicate (and even in such a harsh form) what to do on the site? Any opinion has the right to exist if it is correctly and convincingly expressed. As well as a discussion on any occasion.
        3. vvv-73
          vvv-73 5 January 2016 16: 35
          +1
          About damask steel has already been said: make it. The price is really far from pleasing, but eminent masters will not work for nothing.
          1. Locksmith
            Locksmith 6 January 2016 22: 54
            0
            Quote: vvv-73
            About damask steel has already been said: make it

            While there were no normal steels, this was interesting, now it is no more interesting as a legend, modern grades of steel leave no chance for this division = excluding decorative ones, there are few competitors to him, he is beautiful to say. wink
          2. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 17 November 2020 10: 16
            0
            Quote: vvv-73
            About damask steel has already been said: make it. The price is really far from pleasing, but eminent masters will not work for nothing.

            Who told you that this remake has all the characteristics of the original? Are you going to do carbon analysis?
        4. Locksmith
          Locksmith 6 January 2016 22: 47
          -3
          Quote: Proxima
          The article is not indisputable, with mistakes and so what? Who does not have them?
          As for the blunders, there was such a Russian metallurgical scientist Pavel Petrovich Anosov, who in the 40s of the 19th century discovered the secret of damask steel, but according to Oleg, this secret is still lost. Then the question is, what then did Anosov discover? Next, about the F-1 engine. According to Oleg, there are drawings for this engine, but the workers "no longer remember what and how to screw it on." Not written correctly. The reason why the F-1 is not being produced is a topic for a separate post - and so on. But, in principle, the message in the article is correct. If you prefer to read the nonsense of Mukhin and those like him, then read on, and do not get to the bottom of it.

          Are you by any chance an exhibitionist? A very self-destructive message wassat
      2. Old
        Old 5 January 2016 20: 55
        +1
        I, too, while reading, could not get rid of the idea that this is April Fools trolling) Everyone expected that the author would laugh at all of this at the end.
      3. Petrix
        Petrix 6 January 2016 13: 55
        +3
        Quote: Alexey 1972
        It is terribly not nice to see the article that we are now commenting on.

        An article as an article. The main thing is comments. That's where the storehouse of knowledge is. And Kaptsov, he is like a catalyst for discussion. Not lazy, writes something. Also good.
      4. Locksmith
        Locksmith 6 January 2016 22: 45
        -2
        Quote: Alexey 1972
        I want to spit when you read such facts.

        Actually, there are no facts, so sighs and aha, but if you approach this strictly, for example, put mathematics on the ruler and ... but I don't like it, I really don't like it ...
    2. pv1005
      pv1005 5 January 2016 15: 10
      -2
      Quote: Proxima
      It turns out Oleg is not only able to write about booking ships. Once again, thanks for the article.

      Being able to write is not the same as tackling a question.
    3. vvv-73
      vvv-73 5 January 2016 16: 32
      +7
      And what actually surprises something: with the amount of lies that the American ruling elite has allowed itself over the past century, it is not at all a sin to doubt this issue!
    4. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 5 January 2016 17: 33
      +1
      Yes ... And then the article got 12 responses in 250 hours. Perhaps people will continue to doubt whether there was a boy? And if it’s not nice, you can find something nice, there are a lot of articles in VO.
      Quote: Proxima
      It was not pleasant to see an article on VO that told about the opposite, that is, that the Americans were not on the moon. This article was about 3 weeks ago, but, to VO's credit, it lasted a few hours and was quickly deleted. To be honest, I thought the "lunar scam" discussions were the lot of low-quality sites. But the fact that this topic is "not closed" for some VO members is surprising.
      Despite the controversial points, many thanks to the author for the article. Recently I ran into the publication of Kaptsov 3 years ago dedicated to space issues. It was very interesting to read. It turns out Oleg is not only able to write about booking ships. Once again, thanks for the article.
    5. Locksmith
      Locksmith 6 January 2016 22: 41
      -1
      Quote: Proxima
      Once again, thanks for the article.

      Delirium with butter is no worse than delirium with sausage wassat
  • Juborg
    Juborg 5 January 2016 14: 13
    +7
    Article is a bold minus. The main leitmotif of the article is "tens of thousands of people, witnesses!" So what? Where are the facts of the presence and landing on the moon. Not a single film and lunar soil remained, supposedly gone. Where from NASA, the most heavily guarded facility after Fort Knox, could these witnesses disappear? Nonsense. As for the Americans, the country was not stolen by the unknown. All Americans wake up, bam, but the country is not, stolen!
    1. ver_
      ver_ 5 January 2016 15: 10
      +1
      ... and most importantly - not a single American astronaut was awarded .. why? , and how to reward for the imperfect ... Our astronauts gave the stars of Heroes for
      space launches ...
      1. Cap.Morgan
        Cap.Morgan 5 January 2016 18: 28
        -2
        And the Presidents of America were not awarded for this.
        We then Leonid Ilyich and four Heroes of the Union, and Hero of Labor, and the Order of Victory ....
        This is our mentality.
        1. spech
          spech 5 January 2016 19: 16
          +3
          And the Presidents of America were not awarded for this.

          Babam even in absentia repeat
      2. mav1971
        mav1971 5 January 2016 19: 12
        +2
        Quote: ver_
        ... and most importantly - not a single American astronaut was awarded .. why? and how to reward for the imperfect ... Our astronauts gave the stars of the Heroes for space launches ...



        Do not revel in your ignorance or nearness.
        Armstrong was awarded the Congressional Space Medal.
        And almost 30 people.
        The truth is mostly posthumous.
        Read about the medal here
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Космическая_медаль_почёта_Конгресса
        1. ver_
          ver_ 10 January 2016 10: 16
          0
          ... they were "awarded" in honor of the 30th anniversary of the "landing" - this has nothing to do with the landing itself ... - anniversary medals ...
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 5 January 2016 15: 34
      11
      If, in front of tens of thousands of eyewitnesses gathered on the launch day at Canaveral metro station, a 2300-ton carrier could ...
      (and hereinafter) - the author is an American Trotskyist how he breathes

      If someone is interested in the truth about the Lunar Conspiracy, then just leave it here ...

      Filming in the pavilion was like it or not.
      Therefore, the Mukhins have the right to both doubt and error.

      There were no Soviet lunar ersatz projects without a living compartment.
      There was an American ersatz project "Lunar Gemini" without this very household compartment. In which two astronauts for more than a week would be forced to defecate without getting out while sitting next to each other like in a car. And in which the lunar module was not even pressorized (so the author should be clearer in Russian). The latter would also suggest an overly long EVA in a spacesuit. In Apollo, the lunar module had already been made sealed and not in the form of an open sled with an armchair like on Gemini, and on the way to the Moon there for this purpose it was possible to retire without a spacesuit to change diapers, back on the way to Earth - already just endure, or fenced off from neighbors with a linen curtain, and plug their earplugs into their noses ...

      SIX soft landings of automatic stations “Surveyor” were made after Americans from the USSR received an automatic subsystem capable of doing this.
      The special thing is that the parachute on the moon is not used.
      They themselves were not able to do such a system, like many other things (because in fact Zadornov was not joking at all).
      This much more from the Lunar Project for example also includes:
      - a system of regeneration and life support (the defining moment in the implementation of interplanetary flights, in fact), and ATTENTION
      - kerosene fuel RP-1, it is also Soviet from the royal "Seven". ICBM Titan-2, which launched astronauts before Apollo in Gemini, flew only on UDMH, Redstones-Mercury on alcohol like V-2 (designs of the same von Braun). The Americans switched to Kerosene only in Atlases, and then not immediately. Now they even have Soviet engines, and this is not a business at all (see below).
      They also couldn’t do a system of automatic orbital docking, which is much simpler than a system of automatic soft landing, and bought it half a century later in Russia. Like the landing system for the X-37. Prior to this, the shuttles docked with the ISS (in which everything is entirely Soviet), and sat on the airfield only in manual mode.

      In technical terms, on the contrary, docking, flight and landing on the lunar surface is much more difficult than creating the Saturn V super rocket. Which, like the N-1, was not at all necessary, since the Lunar Ship both in the USSR and in the USA was modular, and the modules, as you know, can be displayed on LEO separately and assembled there in the LK before flying to the Moon. The Soviet lunar module and the Upper Stage were supposed to take out not N-1 but "Proton", the Command module, aka the Soyuz spacecraft - P-7
      According to the Gemini program, the Americans were also going to fly to the Moon on several Titans-2

      And all that is not Soviet in the American lunar project is German (and even a little SS), only the SS F-1 with too big a bell turned out to be too unreliable and vibrant - but of course, put instead of systems for suppressing combustion instability there are just four smaller bells as on RD-171 was certainly not possible ...

      Long before the Yak-36 (which actually did it in 1962), the Soviet "Turbolet" also flew in 1956.

      And the last one - during this very war, in the middle of a continuous deck, which SKVVP hardly swings like a helicopter, it is much easier to land than an ordinary aircraft aft of a CATOBAR aircraft carrier.

      After such a transfer of technology and gifts to amers (even without transferring technology via F-35 to them), there simply is no longer any interest whether they were on the moon or not, and no one has been competing with them for a long time.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 5 January 2016 16: 02
        +6
        This is a completely blown and artificial nation, a Masonic special project, the conceit of which is held in all sorts of shows, and for which they constantly draw pieces fatter from someone else's boiler. In which, in a strange way, not a single bomb fell in both world wars, and in the largest war overseas, their losses, together with shared participation (along with Canadian and small British), were only 3% of the Soviet ones. If they did not sell their motor oils and oil to the Nazis (who later helped them go into space on the Soviet RP-1) through the neutral countries to the very end, then we would have managed faster without them, but apparently that was precisely their target...
      2. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 17 November 2020 10: 25
        0
        Quote: Scraptor
        If, in front of tens of thousands of eyewitnesses gathered on the launch day at Canaveral metro station, a 2300-ton carrier could ...
        (and hereinafter) - the author is an American Trotskyist how he breathes

        If someone is interested in the truth about the Lunar Conspiracy, then just leave it here ...

        Filming in the pavilion was like it or not.
        Therefore, the Mukhins have the right to both doubt and error.

        There were no Soviet lunar ersatz projects without a living compartment.
        There was an American ersatz project "Lunar Gemini" without this very household compartment. In which two astronauts for more than a week would be forced to defecate without getting out while sitting next to each other like in a car. And in which the lunar module was not even pressorized (so the author should be clearer in Russian). The latter would also suggest an overly long EVA in a spacesuit. In Apollo, the lunar module had already been made sealed and not in the form of an open sled with an armchair like on Gemini, and on the way to the Moon there for this purpose it was possible to retire without a spacesuit to change diapers, back on the way to Earth - already just endure, or fenced off from neighbors with a linen curtain, and plug their earplugs into their noses ...

        SIX soft landings of automatic stations “Surveyor” were made after Americans from the USSR received an automatic subsystem capable of doing this.
        The special thing is that the parachute on the moon is not used.
        They themselves were not able to do such a system, like many other things (because in fact Zadornov was not joking at all).
        This much more from the Lunar Project for example also includes:
        - a system of regeneration and life support (the defining moment in the implementation of interplanetary flights, in fact), and ATTENTION
        - kerosene fuel RP-1, it is also Soviet from the royal "Seven". ICBM Titan-2, which launched astronauts before Apollo in Gemini, flew only on UDMH, Redstones-Mercury on alcohol like V-2 (designs of the same von Braun). The Americans switched to Kerosene only in Atlases, and then not immediately. Now they even have Soviet engines, and this is not a business at all (see below).
        They also couldn’t do a system of automatic orbital docking, which is much simpler than a system of automatic soft landing, and bought it half a century later in Russia. Like the landing system for the X-37. Prior to this, the shuttles docked with the ISS (in which everything is entirely Soviet), and sat on the airfield only in manual mode.

        In technical terms, on the contrary, docking, flight and landing on the lunar surface is much more difficult than creating the Saturn V super rocket. Which, like the N-1, was not at all necessary, since the Lunar Ship both in the USSR and in the USA was modular, and the modules, as you know, can be displayed on LEO separately and assembled there in the LK before flying to the Moon. The Soviet lunar module and the Upper Stage were supposed to take out not N-1 but "Proton", the Command module, aka the Soyuz spacecraft - P-7
        According to the Gemini program, the Americans were also going to fly to the Moon on several Titans-2

        And all that is not Soviet in the American lunar project is German (and even a little SS), only the SS F-1 with too big a bell turned out to be too unreliable and vibrant - but of course, put instead of systems for suppressing combustion instability there are just four smaller bells as on RD-171 was certainly not possible ...

        Long before the Yak-36 (which actually did it in 1962), the Soviet "Turbolet" also flew in 1956.

        And the last one - during this very war, in the middle of a continuous deck, which SKVVP hardly swings like a helicopter, it is much easier to land than an ordinary aircraft aft of a CATOBAR aircraft carrier.

        After such a transfer of technology and gifts to amers (even without transferring technology via F-35 to them), there simply is no longer any interest whether they were on the moon or not, and no one has been competing with them for a long time.

        She could not, could not ... you better remember who copied American planes down to the screw.
    3. Scraptor
      Scraptor 5 January 2016 16: 48
      +7
      It is also obvious that he very "competently" counted as many as 7 liquid-propellant engines in the R-32. Probably along the sockets in the back ... wassat It remains only to determine the female or male! Well then, and in the P-51 on the exhaust pipes nemereno engines.
      RD-107/108 is a multi-chamber engine like the RD-171.
      R-7 there are only 5 of them, although 32 by 5 is not divisible, I would have read the Wikipedia at least in the beginning.
    4. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 5 January 2016 18: 26
      -1
      From these positions nothing can be proved.
      By the way, did they fly to Mars or not? Or is it also fiction ...
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 5 January 2016 20: 46
        +6
        From these positions it is clear that the author rosin the brain and is engaged. And the site for some reason publishes such articles, under which technically correct comments mostly get a minus. This is irrespective of the fact that in fact there were no Americans on the moon.

        If this show were 100% real, then Apollo 0 flew there with a full mission in a robotic version without a crew in order to test all its systems in action, just like the automatic Soviet lunar rovers flew, and then Apollo 1 flew with a crew rather than Apollo 11. Instead, it was "required" to stretch the program for more than 10 years and several intermediate staged crew flights in order to create the appearance of some kind of race (they probably chased with themselves), and come up with a stupid launching of one "super rocket" on silly engines (which are now quite understandable reasons are not used) of two modules and a booster to the Moon at once, instead of their separate launch by two or more rockets and docking in orbit.

        The CPSU Central Committee simply "gave" the Moon to the Americans (regardless of whether they were there or not), because otherwise in the space race after Sputnik and Gagarin it would have been 3: 0 and the Americans would have lost all interest in it. This agreement was reached with corn about a week before JFK's landmark speech at some provincial American university.

        They already almost lost interest in the Cosmos, so they were presented with RP-1
        Prior to that, they did not even have ICBMs for launching uninhabited small satellites, they had alcoholic MRBMs and a large fleet of bombers - one strange structure based on a captured V-2 with a pack of Sergeant missiles as an upper stage launched a satellite of many times less weight into orbit for a bird than Soviet and that's it. And for the sake of appearance, then three of us raised its model, like six of them hoisted one mattress flag on Ivo-Jim - this is the whole of America. They even stopped indulging in suborbital jumps in the Atlantic Ocean and wetting their ...
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 5 January 2016 21: 19
          +3
          And then at the end they shot the movie "Capricorn-1" which (with the Martian Apollo-0) is about such a conspiracy, but in fact is part of it - because what you saw in the movie is fantasy and fantasy cannot be reality ... wassat
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 6 January 2016 06: 59
            0
            And if someone allowed to make such a movie, then they say there is no conspiracy ...
    5. Rumata
      Rumata 6 January 2016 12: 52
      -2
      Quote: juborg
      Where are the facts of the presence and landing on the moon.

      Where are the facts of the flight of Gagarin? Compared to this, flights to the moon have hundreds of evidence. What are double standards?
  • Max_Bauder
    Max_Bauder 5 January 2016 18: 57
    -4
    look

    1. Baikal
      Baikal 6 January 2016 00: 18
      +4
      You in the atsral not blown? Would you go to the doctor request
  • Andrey Petrov47
    Andrey Petrov47 6 January 2016 02: 15
    -1
    s - they are s. Thimbles.
  • opus
    opus 6 January 2016 15: 13
    +3
    Quote: Prop
    All space shuttles take off on a parabolic trojectory ..... how can they go out of the near-Earth space?

    I will put you fat +
    (rarely come across such a stupid statement)
  • sisa29
    sisa29 6 January 2016 21: 32
    +1
    Yes, yes, and even wooden corbels do not sink, and metal ones should definitely sink
  • siberalt
    siberalt 6 January 2016 23: 38
    0
    Nothing sufficiently proves the landing of astronauts on the moon. The footage was lost, the "lunar soil" was shown under glass and was not given to anyone for analysis. But before that they asked for the delivered soil from the Soviet lunar rover and we handed it over to them. The same Kubrick confessed how he personally filmed the "landing" in the pavilion. For some reason, the evidence "against" is hundreds of times more than "for". But the fact is that the Americans still carry out launches on our engines. At the same time, at that time, the USA and the USSR had a grandiose political bargaining.
    1. Rumata
      Rumata 7 January 2016 04: 14
      0
      Nd ...
      Quote: siberalt
      The footage is lost,

      Where are the lost? On the NASA website, 100 terrabay photos from LRO and the same with the moon program. Nearly 20 photos. Is it lost?
      Quote: siberalt
      lunar soil "was shown under glass

      Of course, ordinary people were shown behind glass. Scientists had access, and the loss of all soil is the most stupid myth of the refutants. In addition to laboratories, the President of the United States presented more than 100 plates with samples of lunar soil for the countries of the UN. Many of them later settled in private collections, but no one has ever denied that it was not from the moon. They were outbid from any African gods for beads, no one checked? So simple, after all, to buy and refute the entire project. Why didn’t you? Even now, the very lunar soil can be bought, it is very expensive, but sold for collectors. There was not a single billionaire who would like to perpetuate his name by exposing the scam of the century?
      Quote: siberalt
      The same Kubrick confessed how he personally filmed the "landing" in the pavilion.

      Marshal, check your data, tea is not in the bazaar to believe gossip. This "confession" was part of a viral advertisement for yet another documentary exposure. They even found the actor who starred in it. Kubrick liked to mock people, but he never said that.
      Quote: siberalt
      still carry out launches on our engines

      Not for long, Falcons are already cheaper than Protons, even without taking into account the return of the first stage.
  • siberalt
    siberalt 6 January 2016 23: 38
    0
    Nothing sufficiently proves the landing of astronauts on the moon. The footage was lost, the "lunar soil" was shown under glass and was not given to anyone for analysis. But before that they asked for the delivered soil from the Soviet lunar rover and we handed it over to them. The same Kubrick confessed how he personally filmed the "landing" in the pavilion. For some reason, the evidence "against" is hundreds of times more than "for". But the fact is that the Americans still carry out launches on our engines. At the same time, at that time, the USA and the USSR had a grandiose political bargaining.
  • Alexander Sosnitsky
    Alexander Sosnitsky 11 November 2020 18: 27
    0
    Where is the ground? All the same, somewhere nonsense, let the author not assure. Perhaps the Americans flew to the moon, but there is one turbidity around, if ours were obviously dead. And here it is smooth for 6 million parts in one engine. I don't believe ... according to Stanislavsky
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 11 November 2020 22: 11
      0
      if our deaths are obvious
      Did you die on the moon?
      1. Alexander Sosnitsky
        Alexander Sosnitsky 12 November 2020 01: 19
        0
        A stupid question, something like the Immaculate Conception .. It is immediately clear that it is not yours
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 12 November 2020 07: 38
          +1
          Certainly not "my". Ours on the moon did not die, so it became interesting whose died, moreover, obviously.
          1. Alexander Sosnitsky
            Alexander Sosnitsky 12 November 2020 09: 37
            0
            Not yours. Three amers burned down, Union 1 fell, Union 11 suffocated, and how many more unknowns died without advertising? All astronautics were chasing the moon and I would not have turned my tongue to say that no one was killed.
            1. Undecim
              Undecim 12 November 2020 12: 26
              +3
              Soyuz 11 has nothing to do with flights to the moon. By that time, the Soviet lunar program was completely closed.
              As for the unknown, there are none. During preparation for flights and during training, two cosmonauts of the USSR, one Russian cosmonaut, ten American astronauts died.
              All of them are known, as are those who died during the flights above and below the Karman Line.
              1. Alexander Sosnitsky
                Alexander Sosnitsky 12 November 2020 13: 13
                0
                It's clear. But the entire Soviet space program was directed to the moon and then to Mars. So Korolyov built it. And it cannot be torn apart. Everyone worked and died for the sake of the defense industry (the Nedelinskaya catastrophe, the undermining of the P-16) for the sake of prestige (N-1). Even Gagarin was associated with the flight to the moon when he died and earlier still. In OKB MEI there is still a museum of lunar modules, where I was not allowed even in those Soviet times when everything was decided (chief engineer Konstantin Konstantinovich Morozov) even for an interview for graduate school through very, very close people, I only relatively recently understood why, to the homeland of the 1st satellite. All these people must be counted. And the flight itself is already the tip of the iceberg, when everything is fine-tuned and huge amounts of money, business and shows are invested. So I will never believe that everything is true. Ears of deceit stick out from everywhere. Where are 400 kg of moonstones, where are the originals of pictures and videos. Well, crazy thieves could not steal it. The country is such a thief, with my sincere respect for it. As well as our difficult ones. I think there was a big safety net, but the event itself is inspiring.
                1. Undecim
                  Undecim 12 November 2020 13: 27
                  +1
                  I will never believe
                  It's a classic. Mikhalkov gave a canonical description of this state in his famous work.
                  1. Alexander Sosnitsky
                    Alexander Sosnitsky 12 November 2020 16: 37
                    0
                    You tell Stanislavsky that. "I don't believe" is the engine of everything. Many who have believed lie in places that are not so remote. Childhood disease is faith. And as an adult, this is how I wrote it. Faith is if all the facts are confirmed
                  2. vitvit123
                    vitvit123 18 November 2020 18: 18
                    +1
                    As time has shown, Mr. Powell was believed in vain. Believed (figuratively) the weight of the world. And the Americans did everything as expected, they just blew on (e) .., everyone and everything they have God's dew ..
                    1. Undecim
                      Undecim 18 November 2020 18: 19
                      +1
                      See my comment above.
                    2. vitvit123
                      vitvit123 18 November 2020 18: 23
                      +1
                      I don't see how yours, this commentary) whitens Powel and, accordingly, the country of America, at least in this situation.
                    3. Undecim
                      Undecim 18 November 2020 18: 45
                      0
                      I do not see
                      It's your problems. I am not an ophthalmologist.
                    4. vitvit123
                      vitvit123 18 November 2020 18: 52
                      +1
                      I correctly understood that you understood the word - I see - literally? Well, if this is sarcasm, then it's nice of course, but it turns out that Powell did not deceive the whole world? Did I understand you correctly ?
                    5. Undecim
                      Undecim 18 November 2020 19: 00
                      -1
                      I understood correctly
                      Wrong. I don't like it when they mold a humpbacked to the wall, what are you trying to do.
                      All the best.
                    6. vitvit123
                      vitvit123 18 November 2020 19: 08
                      0
                      Mutually, of course! I always try to express my thoughts clearly and correctly. They did not express their opinion in this context .. I will ask another believer in the honesty of our partners ..
  • stopkran
    stopkran 5 January 2016 07: 55
    +5
    "How many times have they told the world ..." that the lunar program of the Americans is a bluff, but to the humanitarian victims of the Unified State Exam, everything is itching to "wash the black dog white." ))

    The true nature of the Apollo or how, where and when NASA falsified flights to the moon
    http://oko-planet.su/science/sciencehypothesis/3178-podlinnaja-sushhnost-apollon

    ov-ili-kak-gde-i.html

    Yu. I. Mukhin
    ANTIAPOLLO. LUNAR SCAM USA
    http://allmuhin.narod.ru/muhin_16_antiapollon/Muhin_Antiapollon.htm
    1. SPACE
      SPACE 5 January 2016 09: 24
      22
      http://www.doverchiv.narod.ru/AIPopov-moon/

      The mass of photos of the lunar epic of Americans, whose quality is surprisingly improved over time laughing
      A photo is much easier to fake than a film, but there are no normal films in terms of image quality and most importantly in the plot at all! No, there are no films about moving away from the earth, there are no films of landing on the moon, there are no panoramic shots of the moon against the background of the earth, there is not a single normal experiment with lunar gravity and what could be interpreted indisputably ??? And so, everything is some kind of husk, contradictory and incomprehensible garbage, which in general is sober-minded and causes legitimate skepticism and suspicion. Well, it is incomprehensible to believe wholeheartedly in what, in general, and in particular in this myth of flying to the moon, maybe only strange people.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 5 January 2016 10: 32
        -8
        It’s just "strange people" who believe charlatans like Mukhin, who beautifully hangs noodles on his ears, but the photographs, moreover in high resolution and they are real - www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1249.html
        1. Proxima
          Proxima 5 January 2016 15: 32
          -6
          Quote: Vadim237
          It’s just "strange people" who believe charlatans like Mukhin, who beautifully hangs noodles on his ears, but the photographs, moreover in high resolution and they are real - www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1249.html

          Vadim, stop throwing beads in front of miners - it's useless. By the evening, the forum users will gather more literate, maybe you will enter the "plus". And so, catch the "plus" from me.
          1. pv1005
            pv1005 5 January 2016 15: 40
            +9
            Quote: Proxima

            Vadim stop throwing beads in front of minusers - useless. By the evening forumites will gather more literate, maybe you will enter the plus. And so, catch the "plus" from me.

            Dear (for the time being), you don’t spit in the crowd, otherwise the hour is uneven; the crowd will spit in you, drown. negative And if you could write an exam, this does not mean that you are competent, especially in technical matters.
            And the battle here for the majority is not for the pluses and minuses, but for the truth and truth. hi
            1. Proxima
              Proxima 5 January 2016 16: 20
              +2
              And the battle here for the majority is not for the pluses and minuses, but for the truth and truth. hi[/ Quote]
              Gold words! So take the trouble to find it. There is more than enough quality material about the Apollo manned lunar expeditions. To convince someone (including you) with posts is useless, due to the large amount of material. The topic is, in fact, serious. If, I was not correct to someone - I apologize. Sincerely.
              1. driver
                driver 6 January 2016 05: 57
                0
                How many people, so many opinions ...
          2. Mikhail m
            Mikhail m 5 January 2016 19: 18
            +3
            From me to you, too. To receive cons from "specialists" who think that a shuttle has visited the moon and confuse an ellipse with a parabola, mail for the honor.
            1. Proxima
              Proxima 6 January 2016 00: 49
              -2
              Quote: Michael m
              From me to you, too. To receive cons from "specialists" who think that a shuttle has visited the moon and confuse an ellipse with a parabola, mail for the honor.

              It's not about the pros. Another upsetting thing is that people who say "for" are mercilessly minus without argumentation, or "arguments" are given approximately what are written above. In general, everything is sad with the author. Kaptsov beats every conceivable and inconceivable record for views. But no, everyone is trying to pour a tub of slops on him, as if leveling their complexes, just like according to Freud. Yes, he has a lot of inaccuracies, simplifications, which gives rich food for ranting and all kinds of speculations to these people. In any case, it does not do them credit. Sincerely.
        2. heal
          heal 6 January 2016 19: 38
          0
          Quote: Vadim237
          It’s just "strange people" who believe charlatans like Mukhin, who beautifully hangs noodles on his ears, but the photographs, moreover in high resolution and they are real - www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1249.html

          With such high-quality photos - the complete lack of high-quality video with a sufficient duration of time to prove the reality of the Americans landing on the moon. Strange, isn't it?
      2. Val_y
        Val_y 5 January 2016 11: 59
        +1
        They took off the tongue, and by the way, a stopudovy scam, at least about the soil supposedly brought from the moon by pin_ dos, which strangely disappeared (500 kg in my opinion), as well as all the gift capsules with fake samples of the lunar soil, so ... wink hi
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 5 January 2016 12: 03
          0
          Quote: Val_Y
          (500 kg in my opinion)

          But in my opinion no
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 5 January 2016 15: 37
          -2
          The disappearance of the lunar soil has its own earthly origin - it was simply stolen as souvenirs - such a thing is worth its weight in gold.
      3. Privat
        Privat 5 January 2016 12: 04
        11
        You can, of course, not believe the pictures of the landing sites made by the LRO orbital lunar station (2009), since the station is American. Although it was this station that discovered water ice on the moon, and for some reason no one doubts these results.
        But the Japanese satellite "Kaguya" (2007), the Indian lunar probe "Chandrayan-1" (2008) and the Chinese satellite "Chang'e-2" (2010) also sent images of the landing sites to Earth, showing the landing platforms of lunar modules and numerous tracks. left by the rover wheels on which the crews of the last three expeditions rolled on the moon. These cunning Japanese, Indians and Chinese were also bribed ?!
        1. Wheel
          Wheel 5 January 2016 17: 12
          +2
          Quote: Private
          You can, of course, not believe the pictures of the landing sites made by the LRO orbital lunar station (2009), since the station is American. Although it was this station that discovered water ice on the moon, and for some reason no one doubts these results.

          Oooooh, how's it going ...
          For those who are especially advanced I will reveal the secret that the presence of water on the Moon has been known since 1976, exactly from the samples of Luna-24.
          1. Privat
            Privat 6 January 2016 00: 49
            0
            Yes, it's not about neglect.
            Our scientists, studying the soil brought by Luna-24, found traces of water in it. And NASA specialists did not find any traces in the samples of the same soil transferred to them. Therefore, our result was attributed to the incorrectness of the research (supposedly water was "brought into the sample" already on Earth - they say the container with the soil "was not sealed") and was unanimously ignored by the "world scientific community".
            But you are absolutely right about one thing. Since the presence of water ice in the lunar soil has been repeatedly confirmed by other studies (including LRO), and its explored reserves are now estimated at as much as 0,6 cubic kilometers, it would be possible to "promote" the priority of "Luna-24" in this matter for the country's prestige. not at all superfluous.
        2. figwam
          figwam 6 January 2016 12: 17
          -3
          Amerikosy landed rovers, but not people.
        3. Wheel
          Wheel 6 January 2016 23: 36
          -1
          Quote: Private
          But the Japanese satellite "Kaguya" (2007), the Indian lunar probe "Chandrayan-1" (2008) and the Chinese satellite "Chang'e-2" (2010) also sent images of the landing sites to Earth, showing the landing platforms of lunar modules and numerous tracks. left by the rover wheels on which the crews of the last three expeditions rolled on the moon. These cunning Japanese, Indians and Chinese were also bribed ?!

          You know, it’s full of references that these three satellites photographed something there, but the pictures themselves could not be found.
          The only exception is the Japanese satellite, but the landing site in the photo from it was discerned exclusively by NASA.
          Quote: Private
          do not believe the pictures of the landing sites taken by the orbiting lunar station LRO (2009)

          It is hard to believe if the trajectories announced initially are either completely absent or "swept by the solar wind". :)
          And the wink of Surveyor is a song from the category of hits of all time.
          1. Rumata
            Rumata 7 January 2016 04: 44
            0
            Quote: Wheel
            You know, it’s full of references that these three satellites photographed something there, but the pictures themselves could not be found.
            The only exception is the Japanese satellite, but the landing site in the photo from it was discerned exclusively by NASA.

            The photo on the right was taken by NASA astronauts on the moon. Left photo - 3D landscape model of the landing site that was scanned by the Japanese satellite. How they guessed it, Kubrick is a genius, so he did everything!
            Z.Y
            They didn’t try to get clear photos because the camera had a resolution 10м per pixel, versus 50sm per pixel LRO. But for topographic surveying and turning it into a 3D map this was enough.
            1. Wheel
              Wheel 9 January 2016 20: 39
              +1
              Quote: Rumata
              The photo on the right was taken by NASA astronauts on the moon. Left photo - 3D landscape model of the landing site that was scanned by the Japanese satellite. How they guessed it, Kubrick is a genius, so he did everything!
              Z.Y
              We didn’t try to get clear photos as the camera had a resolution of 10m per pixel, against 50cm per pixel LRO. But for topographic surveying and turning it into a 3D map this was enough.
              Impressive! laughing
              I especially liked the blurry detailing and chiaroscuro on the 3D model.
              I have a daughter in Photoshop of such models a couple of dozen in the evening will create, if there was a sample at hand.
      4. Proxima
        Proxima 5 January 2016 14: 05
        0
        Quote: SPACE
        http://www.doverchiv.narod.ru/AIPopov-moon/

        Well, it is incomprehensible to believe wholeheartedly in what, in general, and in particular in this myth of flying to the moon, maybe only strange people.

        What does "believe" or "not believe" mean? Are we at a fortune teller's appointment? But what about KNOWLEDGE, LOGIC, INTELLIGENCE? I recommend that you and you miners like you find specialized blogs like "Americans on the moon - the pros and cons." Believe me, the arguments on both sides are more literate than here, like "how the Shuttle can land on the surface of the moon." you will be very unpleasantly surprised that all the experts unanimously say “FOR”, but all the crooks like Mukhin and others like you say “NO.” After reading, I recommend that you not turn on “believe or don’t believe”, but just think.
        1. NIKNN
          NIKNN 5 January 2016 15: 51
          +2
          Proxima RU Today, 14:05
          miners recommend to find specialized blogs like "Americans on the moon - the pros and cons. Believe there are arguments from both sides more literate than here, like" how the Shuttle can land on the surface of the moon. "You will be very unpleasantly surprised, that all the experts unanimously say “FOR”, but all crooks like Mukhin and others like you say “NO.” After reviewing, I recommend that you do not include “believe or don’t believe”, but just think.

          Essential reasons:

          http://www.skeptik.net/conspir/moonhoax.htm#stars
        2. tolancop
          tolancop 5 January 2016 17: 02
          0
          Specialists who are not included in the "ALL" category you mentioned and who had reasonable doubts about the "landing" of the "rogue" Mukhin are also mentioned. T.ch NOT ALL experts "speak with one voice" ... And the advice not to play "I believe or not believe", but to think - is excellent. I personally, after I began to think and came to the conclusion that the Americans did not land on the moon.
        3. Rumata
          Rumata 6 January 2016 13: 00
          0
          Quote: Proxima
          Believe me, there are arguments from both sides more literate than here, like "how the Shuttle can land on the surface of the moon"

          As a result, all the arguments against come down to - it's Photoshop. LRO sent 100 terabytes of photographs of the moon, all landing sites, moon rovers, probes, Apollo, but even a resolution of 50cm per pixel does not suit, you need a boot print with the words Made in USA.
      5. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 17 November 2020 10: 36
        0
        Quote: SPACE
        http://www.doverchiv.narod.ru/AIPopov-moon/

        The mass of photos of the lunar epic of Americans, whose quality is surprisingly improved over time laughing
        A photo is much easier to fake than a film, but there are no normal films in terms of image quality and most importantly in the plot at all! No, there are no films about moving away from the earth, there are no films of landing on the moon, there are no panoramic shots of the moon against the background of the earth, there is not a single normal experiment with lunar gravity and what could be interpreted indisputably ??? And so, everything is some kind of husk, contradictory and incomprehensible garbage, which in general is sober-minded and causes legitimate skepticism and suspicion. Well, it is incomprehensible to believe wholeheartedly in what, in general, and in particular in this myth of flying to the moon, maybe only strange people.

        What is the problem of sending a robot to the moon and photographing the landing sites? Would immediately lower the United States below the plinth. But no one needs it. Better to develop for decades monsters that will never fly - this is the essence of Putin's cosmonautics
    2. opus
      opus 6 January 2016 18: 13
      +3
      Quote: stopkran
      Yu. I. Mukhin

      and who is "Mukhin"?
      Russian public figure, opposition politician and publicist, writer.
      by education he is a "rag" - materials science.
      in rocket science, mechanics, astrodynamics, gas
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 6 January 2016 19: 54
        0
        "Mukhin" is a pure representative of noodles and noodle hangers, the main food of such as him is fools.
        1. opus
          opus 6 January 2016 21: 23
          +3
          Quote: Vadim237
          the main food like him is fools.

          And I agree, + you
  • svp67
    svp67 5 January 2016 07: 59
    +7
    And after that come the various “fly”, and talk about shooting in the pavilions of Hollywood. Disgrace.
    But the Americans themselves do not deny such filming, that it was insured in case of broadcast failures or filming of astronauts' training was the third thing. So, the fact of the pavilion filming does not mean anything. And how strange it is to draw far-reaching conclusions from this by both "Mukhin" and "Kaptsov"
    Cosmonaut A. A. Leonov: "Only absolutely ignorant people can seriously believe that the Americans were not on the moon."
    1. venaya
      venaya 5 January 2016 08: 14
      11
      Quote: svp67
      the fact of the pavilion filming does not mean anything

      Maybe you're right. I am more confused in this matter by our lunar program, the illogical deaths of highly qualified specialists (Korolev, for example), the strange behavior of the leadership of our country in relation to the entire space program creates many questions that people are looking for answers to. I think all this noise comes from here, people themselves want to figure out what really happened in those years. Any errors (if they were of course) are desirable to analyze, so as not to repeat them, this is a natural desire.
      1. svp67
        svp67 5 January 2016 08: 31
        +3
        Quote: venaya
        I am more confused in this matter by our lunar program, the illogical deaths of highly qualified specialists (Korolev, for example), the strange behavior of the leadership of our country in relation to the entire space program creates many questions that people are looking for answers to.

        The Soviet leadership simply did not want to admit defeat, that's all. Before that, the USSR was the undisputed leader in space projects, but here the Americans were the first. Well, we started a PR-action, that it is necessary to protect people's lives, and to study foreign planets with automatic machines. So that the manned lunar program did not fit into this action, so it was buried. The same Leonov was one of our "lunarists" and talks well about it, in particular, about how they gathered together to listen to the broadcast of the report from the Moon about the first landing.
        1. Beaver
          Beaver 5 January 2016 21: 13
          +2
          Quote: svp67
          Before that, the USSR was the undisputed leader in space projects, and here the Americans were the first.

          It is precisely this circumstance that confuses me most of all. How?! request
      2. Alex 1972
        Alex 1972 5 January 2016 11: 06
        +2
        Quote: venaya
        I am more confused in this matter by our lunar program, the illogical deaths of highly qualified specialists (

        I have long been plagued by vague doubts about this fact and many others.
        If we accept for understanding the version that the top leadership of the USSR participated in the falsification of the American flight to the moon, then it is difficult to accept it without recognition of treason in the entire leadership of the USSR, and in particular its special services.
        In this formulation of the question, I would like to recall that Yu. Andropov was possibly an agent of Mi-6. There is an opinion and the Internet is full of information on this subject that Andropov was the founder of the defeat of the USSR.
        Well, for example.
        http://worldcrisis.ru/crisis/1759316
        1. Rumata
          Rumata 6 January 2016 13: 04
          +1
          Quote: Alexey 1972
          I have long been plagued by vague doubts about this fact and many others.
          If we accept for understanding the version that the top leadership of the USSR participated in the falsification of the American flight

          Can you imagine how many people would be involved in this scam? Not even hundreds, but thousands would somehow know the truth. This is how you need to cover up traces of something for so many years - facts against zero, some speculation. It is enough for one KGB general, on his deathbed, to tell everything, in detail, with facts. But no, probably all went through hypnosis, which did not allow them to cut the truth of the uterus ...
      3. Bayonet
        Bayonet 8 January 2016 09: 44
        -2
        Quote: venaya
        strange behavior of the leadership of our country in relation to the entire space program

        There is nothing strange, for them the main thing was to prove their primacy in order to show the "advantages of socialism", and science ... is secondary. smile
    2. Proxima
      Proxima 5 January 2016 15: 23
      +1
      Quote: svp67
      And after that come the various “fly”, and talk about shooting in the pavilions of Hollywood. Disgrace.
      But the Americans themselves do not deny such filming, that it was insured in case of broadcast failures or filming of astronauts' training was the third thing. So, the fact of the pavilion filming does not mean anything. And how strange it is to draw far-reaching conclusions from this by both "Mukhin" and "Kaptsov"
      Cosmonaut A. A. Leonov: "Only absolutely ignorant people can seriously believe that the Americans were not on the moon."

      American housewives, being respectable taxpayers, would be very upset if they saw in the broadcast a part of the filming that was of poor quality. And these aunts cannot be explained that filming from the moon is clearly more technically difficult than broadcasting a baseball game. Therefore, especially for such people, something was filmed in the pavilions. Yes, "something" got into the "general heap". This is not denied by NOBODY, but because of the fly in the ointment to deny the existence of a barrel of honey is simply STUPID.
    3. ver_
      ver_ 10 January 2016 10: 47
      0
      ... you might think that Leonov, an astronaut, knows a lot about these issues, they (the astronauts) had excellent health and ... were "experimental talking rats" in the space program; .., ordinary flyers did not envy them and many refused the honor of serving in the cosmonaut corps .. - it's just that it is not advertised ..., it is mentioned in the "spiral" project ..
  • Irbenwolf
    Irbenwolf 5 January 2016 08: 02
    16
    I liked the author's conclusion regarding "the secret of assembling Satrun 5 ... LOST". "Not enough minerals" - not otherwise.
    1. svp67
      svp67 5 January 2016 08: 11
      -10 qualifying.
      Quote: IrbenWolf
      I liked the author's conclusion regarding "the secret of assembling Satrun 5 ... LOST". "Not enough minerals" - not otherwise.

      Also, now there are not enough such "minerals" to start producing Daimler-Benz engines installed on Messerschmitt fighters ... And what of that? As technologies are invented, so they are lost
      1. Irbenwolf
        Irbenwolf 5 January 2016 08: 18
        16
        Do not confuse Daimler's documentation, which, during the offensive and bombing of the Soviets and allies, that is, under force majeure circumstances, is easy to use, and the launch vehicle technology, which gives a considerable strategic advantage, which was "lost" in peacetime in a non-belligerent country.
        1. svp67
          svp67 5 January 2016 08: 41
          +3
          Quote: IrbenWolf
          Do not confuse Daimler's documentation, which, during the offensive and bombing of the Soviets and allies, that is, under force majeure circumstances, is easy to use, and the launch vehicle technology, which gives a considerable strategic advantage, which was "lost" in peacetime in a non-belligerent country.

          Here the question is not much else. they "continued" as you "degenerate", not because the documentation was lost, but because a specific production was created for this project, which, after the termination of the launches, was destroyed due to economic reasons. We have the same problems when adjusting even what was produced in much larger quantities than the American "C-5", so at the expense of "minerals" here you got excited.
          If the Americans set themselves the goal, they will resume production of the S-5, but now they do not need it, especially since the S-5 is, of course, morally very outdated.
        2. mav1971
          mav1971 5 January 2016 19: 35
          +1
          Quote: IrbenWolf
          Do not confuse Daimler's documentation, which, during the offensive and bombing of the Soviets and allies, that is, under force majeure circumstances, is easy to use, and the launch vehicle technology, which gives a considerable strategic advantage, which was "lost" in peacetime in a non-belligerent country.


          Again.
          How and why is the production technology of NK-33 lost?
          Why can’t it be taken and renewed?
    2. mav1971
      mav1971 5 January 2016 19: 33
      +2
      Quote: IrbenWolf
      I liked the author's conclusion regarding "the secret of assembling Satrun 5 ... LOST". "Not enough minerals" - not otherwise.


      I repeat.
      NK-33, so deservedly praised, is technologically lost.
      Fact.
      Technology playback level - 50% of engine parts.
      The rest is lost.
      Repeated R&D is required.
      40 years have not passed.
      All documentation exists.
      How?
      Answer me?
    3. opus
      opus 6 January 2016 21: 29
      +2
      Quote: IrbenWolf
      LOST "." Not enough minerals "- not otherwise.

      Let's make the "Energy" launch vehicle?
      MAX "Buran" - what?
      "how 2a fingers about ..."?

      Oh well.
      The blasphemous conclusion: we have not "lost" the R-7, UR-500, etc. technologies ...
      just why?
      BECAUSE WE FLY ON WHAT FLYED IN 1950X-1960X.

      That’s the whole story (maybe this is not a bad side: we didn’t have the Shuttle, but neither were the ice — on the Moon we are not the first and Voyager = not ours)
      may not be aware of SU on the modern element base of the Proton launch vehicle and the Union transferred just yesterday.
  • kalibr
    kalibr 5 January 2016 08: 17
    -4
    What you need to be in order not to understand: http: //allmuhin.narod.ru/muhin_16_antiapollon/Muhin_Antiapollon.htm - this is not an argument!
    Oh these Internet children to me. And what is your access to classified material?
    1. Riv
      Riv 5 January 2016 09: 10
      -3
      But the secret of the assembly of Saturn 5 is lost!
      But the Americans are buying our rocket engines!
      But their Challenger exploded !!! 111
      :)))

      As a couple, I said this "same" many times ...
  • Reducer
    Reducer 5 January 2016 08: 26
    22
    "Forgot how the launch vehicle is going" - THIS IS A MASTERPIECE!
    With planned flights to Mars!
    Dear author, enlighten - what practical value do Americans plan to get by launching research programs on neighboring planets?
    He mixed everything in a bunch - no specifics.
    1. Petrix
      Petrix 5 January 2016 13: 51
      -3
      Quote: Reduktor
      What practical value do Americans plan to get by launching research programs on neighboring planets?

      Exactly the same as Columbus once received. Do not forget about colonial policy. Whoever stakes the first will appropriate it.
      1. Reducer
        Reducer 5 January 2016 17: 26
        +2
        Yes, I beg you - read the "Outer Space Treaty"
        1. Petrix
          Petrix 6 January 2016 12: 37
          +2
          Quote: Reduktor
          Yes, I beg you

          How treaties are observed between states is shown to us by the modern UN, IMF, etc. Someone comes strong and "the law is that the tongue ....". You can always rewrite, adopt a new law, change the interpretation, .... Or do you think Russia is just building up its forces in the Arctic. This is in case someone doubts the legality of Russia's actions.
          The dealers were selling the moon, 100 bucks for a piece of the lunar surface. And after all they buy, maybe for fun. But in the future some will need this piece and the contradictions between private property and the space agreement will come to light. Who will win? Who is stronger is right.
          Or put the first station. The second one is already limited in choosing a place - put where you want the acre of a fenced area.
  • shuhartred
    shuhartred 5 January 2016 08: 30
    0
    I don’t understand what I mean !!! There weren’t what the difference .... The priority in space is ours? Yes!!!! So what? Well, that’s it !!!
  • demotivator
    demotivator 5 January 2016 08: 31
    25
    The Baikonur workers, as it turns out, were very doubtful of the lunar successes of the Americans.
    Major Nikolaev, the commander of the combat crew of the so-called "Gagarinsky" launch, which is located on the rocket-test site No. 2 of the Baikonur cosmodrome, and in the 60s, launched all of our cosmonauts of those years, expressing a common opinion, without hesitation, said publicly: “When the news came about the flight of the Americans to the moon, all gophers died of laughter on Baikonur, as the Saturn-5 rocket is nothing more than a myth. Even when comparing its characteristics with those of the royal N-1 and Chelomeevskaya UR-700, our variants of lunar carriers, it is clear that we are dealing with a simple layout, and not with something real. "
    Telemetrists joined the opinion of the starters.
    ... the Americans did not have time to complete their adventure, as the top leadership of the USSR realized that at the training ground, primarily among start-ups, engine operators and telemetrists, there was a rather tough opposition to the fact of the official recognition of the American flight to the moon, which could not cause concern in its ranks. And so, in 1971-1972, General Kurushin, the head of the training ground, arranged, with a filing from above, a uniform pogrom of subordinate officers. Those who were still lieutenants starting their service with Korolev and General Shubnikov were ruthlessly scattered across distant garrisons and IP-am. There, their vast majority either burned out of vodka, or eked out a miserable existence without any prospects for the future.
    Someone will say that Mukhin’s people have read, so he wasn’t close to this topic in those years.
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 5 January 2016 09: 23
      +2
      Quote: demotivator
      Saturn 5 is nothing more than a myth. Even when comparing its characteristics with the characteristics of the royal N-1 and the Chelomeevskaya UR-700, our variants of lunar carriers, it is clear that we are dealing with a simple layout, and not with something real

      Starting weight:

      N-1 - 2730 tons
      Saturn V - 2970 tons

      Low Earth orbit load

      N-1 - 90 tons
      Saturn V - 140 tons
      Quote: demotivator
      all gophers died of laughter
      1. Beaver
        Beaver 5 January 2016 21: 25
        +2
        Quote: BENNERT
        Starting weight:
        N-1 - 2730 tons
        Saturn V - 2970 tons
        Low Earth orbit load
        N-1 - 90 tons
        Saturn V - 140 tons

        SUCH technology lost as unnecessary! No. Somehow sloppy. sad
      2. Dmitriy Zadorozhniy
        Dmitriy Zadorozhniy 11 November 2020 17: 35
        0
        Saturn has a carrying body. H1 has frame crap!
  • iGran
    iGran 5 January 2016 08: 34
    11
    Quote: svp67
    And after that come the various “fly”, and talk about shooting in the pavilions of Hollywood. Disgrace.
    But the Americans themselves do not deny such filming, that it was insured in case of broadcast failures or filming of astronauts' training was the third thing. So, the fact of the pavilion filming does not mean anything. And how strange it is to draw far-reaching conclusions from this by both "Mukhin" and "Kaptsov"
    Cosmonaut A. A. Leonov: "Only absolutely ignorant people can seriously believe that the Americans were not on the moon."

    I somehow, too, believe in cosmonauts more than some "prospectors" ... And there is no need here about the victims of the exam, the victims are just those who read little memoirs and documents ..
    1. Lord of Wrath
      Lord of Wrath 5 January 2016 09: 04
      +5
      Quote: iGran
      I somehow also believe in cosmonauts more than in some "prospectors"

      Astronauts, too, must be trusted with caution)) A well-known fact from our space program, when many cosmonauts in flights before 1966 "communicated with aliens." It turned out to be confused with the oxygen mixture, and nitrous oxide was formed in the air of the orbital modules.
  • Grim Reaper
    Grim Reaper 5 January 2016 08: 37
    0
    If the USSR doubted the reliability of the US flight, it would be exposed instantly. However, for many years there were no problems, and only with the advent of the Internet and a huge number of private TV channels, "shocking facts" appeared. Well, of course, you need to attract an audience. And someone is ...
    1. AUL
      AUL 5 January 2016 21: 39
      +1
      And I don’t think that the Americans would risk such a grandiose deception. Everything secret will ever become apparent, though after 50-100-150 years the truth will still come up! And then SUCH SCANDAL will arise - States will turn into a worldwide laughing stock for centuries, but do they need it?
  • Jozhkin Cat
    Jozhkin Cat 5 January 2016 08: 39
    +3
    the author is not better at all ,, mukhina ,, yes ... The same whistle-blower.
    This govnodrama with flying to the moon already got it, they didn’t fly, they never know the truth, and they don’t give a damn, to be honest. request
    Space is interesting only for resources, from this we must build a development policy, and all these political show-offs are worth nothing, we only burn the already scarce resources of the earth.
    1. Petrix
      Petrix 5 January 2016 14: 08
      +1
      Quote: Yozhkin Cat
      they didn’t fly, we never know the truth, and to spit honestly

      You can hide the truth, but not destroy. And spitting is in vain. There, in space, you can find answers to many things. About history, about extraterrestrial intelligence, about the mechanism of planets, etc. Resources are not all. There is also a strategic position, for example. Also inaccessible for "barbarians-people" artifacts. There is also a bunker in case of an earthly apocalypse. And it is also convenient to control the Earth from there.
      1. Jozhkin Cat
        Jozhkin Cat 5 January 2016 20: 09
        -4
        Earth does not have enough resources for a normal exploration of space. Now rare earths are shoved into iPhones and other nonsense. I believe that the future is beyond space, we will not have time to learn how to take the gifts of the big bang from there, after a couple of hundred years we will move on to wooden plows and horses.
  • Grim Reaper
    Grim Reaper 5 January 2016 08: 40
    +7
    Oleg! Thank you for the article. And then you got bored, it's time and wall to wall. ☺☺
  • BLOND
    BLOND 5 January 2016 08: 49
    +9
    The article is very emotional (although in theory there should be a technical plan)
    The evidence is all chaotically thrown into a "heap" - and the question immediately arises ... Why is the author so worried? After all, there has never been 100% trust in the US Lunar Program ... Has something changed?
    1. NIKNN
      NIKNN 5 January 2016 15: 40
      +2
      Quote: BLOND
      The article is very emotional (although in theory there should be a technical plan)
      The evidence is all chaotically thrown into a "heap" - and the question immediately arises ... Why is the author so worried? After all, there has never been 100% trust in the US Lunar Program ... Has something changed?


      Really messy, much more advanced and technically more competent here:
      http://www.skeptik.net/conspir/moonhoax.htm#stars
  • sabakina
    sabakina 5 January 2016 08: 59
    +5
    I won't say about the starts of "Saturn V", but the fact that the lunar soil, as they say, "bye-bye" is a fact ...
    For Ecilop. We went district to district ...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 5 January 2016 10: 37
      -1
      Yes, the guys from NASA also dragged this soil, presented it to someone, sold it to someone, as a curiosity.
    2. karbofos
      karbofos 5 January 2016 16: 23
      -1
      it was so. and the village went to the village. yes they walked, jumped into the trailer in droves and the tractor driver drove everyone to the mahach ....
  • vch62388
    vch62388 5 January 2016 09: 03
    +5
    The fact that something came up in the pavilion does not prove anything. The dialogue between the Queen and Gagarin was also filmed later. Stalin's speech at the 1941 parade is obscured. However, no one questions the reality of the flight of Gagarin or the parade on November 7th. This is a common practice.
    Technically and technologically, flight was possible. In this I completely agree with the author of the article.
    Termination of the lunar program. Why continue?
    With the loss of technology, it is doubtful. Most likely a clean business. It is cheaper to buy from the Russians, as well as to send an astronaut to the ISS on the Soyuz rather than on the Shuttle.
    And most importantly, there were super-specialists in the USSR, and if they had expressed their doubt about the reality of what was happening, then a scandal would have occurred immediately. In the reality of the conspiracy of American and Soviet specialists in order to deceive the whole world, I personally, excuse me, do not believe.
    Americans flew to the moon, flew ...
    Sincerely.
    1. Chiropractor
      Chiropractor 5 January 2016 13: 15
      +7
      Quote: vch62388
      And most importantly, there were super-specialists in the USSR, and if they had expressed their doubt about the reality of what was happening, then a scandal would have occurred immediately.


      Doubt may have been expressed by super-specialists, but the party makes decisions !!!
      1. tolancop
        tolancop 5 January 2016 17: 05
        +1
        Superspecialists probably expressed their opinions ... in the kitchen or among themselves. And there was nowhere else.
        Who believes otherwise, just did not live at that time.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Bosk
      Bosk 5 January 2016 13: 35
      +1
      Here I completely agree with you, and secondly, for example, I often watch channels like, say the same REN TV, and so on and so forth, interesting channels, interesting versions sometimes slip there, but the truth is, I somehow did not imagine that of this "blue box" there may be such a swirl in the head ..., people are just theories and versions, this is not a fact !, you always need to start from the "cold head" and not from the not "desired", for example, I really want the flight of the Americans to the moon would be a bluff, but unfortunately the wishes of an amateur and the opinions of experts do not coincide and in tenths I am more worried about whether we will wake up there?
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 8 January 2016 09: 58
        -1
        Quote: Bosk
        for example, I really wish that the flight of Americans to the moon would be a bluff

        And you try to imagine that it was not Americans who flew there, but people, earthlings! Maybe it will become easier hi
  • oxotnuk86
    oxotnuk86 5 January 2016 09: 10
    0
    There are more questions than answers. The Americans closed the lunar program, shuttles shut down. We were going to cast to the moon and Rogozin transfers the term to a vague future, and BURAN did not just close it but DESTROY it. This is already the 2nd time. 1st time USSR canceled the program 2nd time RUSSIA. Maybe it’s all about - THE COUNTRIES ARE NOT COMPARED TO THE RESULT!
  • Burbur
    Burbur 5 January 2016 09: 11
    +1
    About the goddess ... Start of Saturn5 ... Yes, the usual Saturn-1B rocket carries exclusively an external decorative body kit, it started, it flew a little drowned in the ocean. So much for Saturn. At least 5, at least 6.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 5 January 2016 14: 56
      0
      The decorative body kit would have collapsed during take-off.
      1. CT-55_11-9009
        CT-55_11-9009 5 January 2016 15: 44
        +1
        Listen, do you know that there are mass-size models? And with them missiles in trials and fly? And EVERYTHING! And do not fall apart.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 5 January 2016 17: 43
          +2
          There are mass-sized models, but I haven't seen any "mass-and-size body kits" for missiles.
  • Mera joota
    Mera joota 5 January 2016 09: 16
    -1
    In the USSR, NEVER questioned the lunar program of the United States because they had the means to watch it all live, received telemetry and intercepted negotiations, which is 100% evidence of the Americans landing on the moon.
  • Fidel
    Fidel 5 January 2016 09: 21
    17
    I can not get past my favorite topic))
    Oh "pleased" the author.
    Especially about the "loss of technology" which is already FORTY years!
    The gray-haired antiquity is direct))
    Why haven't we "lost" anything? There "Unions" fly to this day! And these are the very same LOKs from our lunar program! And the RD-180 is in good health! A direct descendant of "that very" engine! AND?
    I also really liked the manner of plugging factual and logical holes of the mattress scam with facts from the Soviet lunar. Amers did not have a normal spacesuit - it doesn’t matter! Look, the Russians were being developed ?! All. So the matter is proven)) And the Russians won the rakut seriously. Well! So the mattress has everything in an adult way!
    Scream ...))
    Yes, it’s just that nobody ever doubts US seriously !!!
    Therefore, they immediately saw all this striped Galyavud!)))
    1. svp67
      svp67 5 January 2016 09: 31
      -6
      Quote: Fidel
      Why haven't we "lost" anything?

      Yes? Are you sure about that? We will not "fly into space", just ask, can we now produce cast tank turrets?
      1. Fidel
        Fidel 5 January 2016 09: 35
        -1
        Yes, we are sure of that. Because they fly))
        And it seems to me that this article is not about the tank industry.
        1. svp67
          svp67 5 January 2016 09: 53
          0
          Quote: Fidel
          And it seems to me that this article is not about the tank industry.

          I gave you one of the "simplest" examples of our losses in the technological sphere, if now we begin to list the losses in the aviation and space spheres then ... Just look at what our specialists proudly called the "flight recorder" of the Su-24 shot down by the Turks. That's where the SHAME is. And no one answered for this and will not answer. Although oh right.
          1. Fidel
            Fidel 5 January 2016 10: 24
            10
            This is a completely incorrect "analogy". Since we're talking about tanks, please))
            FULLY cast towers ceased to be produced not because of "losses", as you were pleased to inform, but because of the improvement of technologies and the creation of new composite, in fact, layered armor. Therefore, casting the tower like MONOLITH has lost its meaning.
            1. svp67
              svp67 5 January 2016 10: 29
              +3
              Quote: Fidel
              Therefore, casting the tower as MONOLITH lost its meaning.

              For your information. Cast towers have better armor resistance and in the USSR they were able to produce cast towers with MULTILAYER armor.
              The cast turret had special cavities in the frontal part, which were initially filled with aluminum inserts, and subsequently, due to insufficient impact resistance when fired by armor-piercing-projectile shells, they were replaced by ultrafarf rods and then ultraforfor balls. High-strength concrete, glass, diabase, ceramics (porcelain, ultrafarfor, uralit) and various fiberglass.
              Of the tested materials, liners made of high-strength ultrafarfor (the specific quenching capacity was 2–2,5 times higher than that of armored steel) and fiberglass AG-4C had the best characteristics. These materials were recommended for use as fillers in combined armored barriers. The weight gain when using combined armored barriers compared to monolithic steel was 20-25%.
              In the process of improving the combined tower defense using aluminum filler refused. Simultaneously with the development of the design of the tower with ultrafarfon filler in the branch of VNII-100 at the suggestion of V.V. Jerusalem tower design was developed using high-solid inserts made of steel, intended for the manufacture of shells. These inserts, subjected to heat treatment by the method of differential isothermal hardening, had a particularly hard core and relatively less hard, but more ductile outer surface layers. The manufactured experimental tower with high-hard inserts showed even better resistance results when fired than with flooded ceramic balls.
          2. tolancop
            tolancop 5 January 2016 17: 09
            +5
            Our losses are a direct consequence of the defeat of industry, education and science.
            It will not be difficult to give descriptions of such defeats among the Americans ...
        2. 26rus
          26rus 5 January 2016 10: 22
          +3
          Let's not talk about the tank industry, let's talk about aviation. Now, when there was talk of resuming the production of the Tu-160, it immediately began: the technology was lost, the production was destroyed, the personnel were lost ... Although, it would seem, the design bureau remained, and the plant in Kazan was in place, and much less time passed.
          1. svp67
            svp67 5 January 2016 10: 35
            +9
            Quote: 26rus
            Now, when there was talk of resuming the production of the Tu-160, it immediately began: the technology was lost, the production was destroyed, the personnel were lost ... Although, it would seem, the design bureau remained, and the plant in Kazan was in place, and much less time passed.

            Well, they won’t believe you .... it's the same only Americans can ...
            "Shapkozakidatelstvo" really got tired. We are now carrying out a very difficult work to restore everything that we have lost, it requires everything: money, resources, training and time, and many still think that "in the field of ballet we are ahead of the rest of the world" ...
            Yes, now we are largely traveling at the expense of the Soviet heritage and Russian ingenuity, but they also need something to be reinforced.
    2. tolancop
      tolancop 5 January 2016 17: 07
      0
      And we did not lose, despite all the pogroms of industry, because it was. And it came at a very high price. People still remained who remembered WHAT the price was all received and saved.
      1. AUL
        AUL 5 January 2016 22: 11
        +5
        People who still remembered "at what cost ..." have long been retired or in another world.
        Do you really need to explain that now we live in a completely different world, and not in the USSR?
        The product, the level of a rocket, is made in more than one plant, there are cooperation of many enterprises. With the collapse of the USSR, this cooperation was covered with a copper basin. And organizing the production of the necessary components at other enterprises is a daunting task, most of these enterprises "lie" or have completely disappeared.
        The issue of personnel is no less burning. The old people die out naturally, but the young ones cannot be lured into the factory! Well, and those who still come - it would be better if they didn’t come ... Some Jamshuts!
        The level of graduates of technical universities is below the stool. Praise the Minister of Education!
        The management of enterprises is now shaking not about fulfilling an order, but about making personal profit. And forcing him to take an order disadvantageous for him is still a problem. What can he do? He is the owner of the plant, he wants - he takes the order, he does not want to - he will send it.
        So not everything is so rosy.
        You can call me an all-enforcer, but try to object essentially to something first.
      2. svp67
        svp67 6 January 2016 04: 24
        +1
        Quote: tolancop
        And we have not lost, despite all the pogroms of industry

        It’s hard to believe looking at these frames. This launch vehicle is quite old and its technology has been tested, but over the past decade the accident curve has gone up steeply:
  • Fidel
    Fidel 5 January 2016 09: 32
    0
    I also like Skylab very much))
    With its dimensions, it could weigh 70 tons only in one case - if it were made of cast iron!
    This is about the "characteristics" of the great and terrible "Saturn-5" and about what and how much it could bring out.
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 5 January 2016 09: 39
      -1
      Quote: Fidel
      With its dimensions, it could weigh 70 tons only in one case - if it were made of cast iron!

      Length - 24,6 m, maximum diameter - 6,6 m, internal volume - 352,4 m³. The height of the orbit is 434–437 km (perigee apogee), the inclination is 50 °.

      If Skylab were made of cast iron, it would weigh 352,4 * 7,8 = 2745 tons

      Fidel, think before you write anything
      "It is better to be silent, letting people think you are d ... c., Than to speak up and dispel all doubts." (Mark Twain)
      1. Fidel
        Fidel 5 January 2016 10: 19
        15
        Think, think, do not hesitate))
        Therefore, I am somewhat surprised by the multiplication of the INTERNAL volume by the density of cast iron))
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 5 January 2016 10: 24
          -8
          Quote: Fidel
          Therefore, I am somewhat surprised by the multiplication of the INTERNAL volume by the density of cast iron

          Those. Was there a complete vacuum inside your station?
          1. Fidel
            Fidel 5 January 2016 10: 37
            11
            In our no.
            But not cast-iron ingots definitely as in your calculations))
            1. Bennert
              Bennert 5 January 2016 10: 57
              0
              Quote: Fidel
              But not cast-iron ingots definitely as in your calculations

              You were the first to start talking nonsense about cast iron

              Even if we imagine a cylinder with a wall thickness of 5 cm, the weight of a cast-iron station with such dimensions would be 150 tons, WITHOUT taking into account tens of tons of internal equipment and external solar panels and antennas


              So stop baiting your cast iron tales and admit that you lied
              Quote: Fidel
              I also like Skylab very much))
              With its dimensions, it could weigh 70 tons only in one case - if it were made of cast iron!

              There are no contradictions in the weight and size characteristics of the Skylab
              1. Oprychnik
                Oprychnik 5 January 2016 15: 33
                +1
                It's like that joke.
                Question to the crocodile: - "Do crocodiles fly?"
                Pause.
                "Yes ... They fly. But very low ..."
          2. karbofos
            karbofos 5 January 2016 16: 36
            -3
            your competence in the lunar program is doubtless, but there are still questions about the landing and behavior of astronaphthaphs after landing. some fools ask questions about the vigorous gait of the astronaphthaph after two weeks of weightlessness when our cosmonauts in the same conditions after a week-long flight could not walk on their own and had big health problems
            1. Petrix
              Petrix 6 January 2016 14: 34
              0
              Quote: kalbofos
              after a week-long flight they couldn’t walk on their own and had big health problems

              Reminds a pre-hangover syndrome. lol joke
          3. NordUral
            NordUral 12 January 2016 00: 12
            0
            It seems to me that there was a vacuum instead of it at the declared site of the station.
  • R-22
    R-22 5 January 2016 09: 34
    +1
    Americans are your mother! please tell the truth, otherwise you are so torn by interests whether you flew or not, that sometimes we completely forget about the problems of our urgent needs in space ... Yes, they would fly the frost or not, you need to spit and forget, you need to recover, then new victories of ours there will be people, otherwise we will vegetate on the sidelines looking at China, India and Sasha.
  • yuriy55
    yuriy55 5 January 2016 09: 48
    0
    I liked the comparison most of all:

    And they landed! With proper preparation, this trick was becoming commonplace.

    In 1972, the first Yak-38 made a vertical landing on the swinging deck of a moving ship. The total flying time during operation of these machines was 30 hours!


    Indeed, the exact same conditions. And, most importantly, the temperature ... what

    Found another fact:
    “Being on the surface of the moon,” said Edwin Aldria, “we did not smell anything in either the spacesuits or the helmets. Returning to the cabin and taking off our helmets, we smelled some kind of smell ... I caught a distinct smell of lunar soil, pungent like the smell of gunpowder. "We brought quite a lot of moondust into the cockpit on spacesuits, shoes ... We immediately felt its smell."
    http://www.astronautica.ru/polety-v-kosmos/osvoenie-luny/295.html
    At firing positions when firing from guns there is such a smell ... I would not say that - saffron ...
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 5 January 2016 10: 03
      +1
      Quote: yuriy55
      And, most importantly, the temperature ...

      Does it somehow affect piloting?
    2. Chiropractor
      Chiropractor 5 January 2016 13: 34
      +2
      Quote: yuriy55
      they didn’t feel any smells either in suits or in helmets.


      sorry, why did they sniff their spacesuits? Yes, even on the surface?
      I understand, to fly for a long time, there’s nothing special to do, turn the pedal current, but ...
      or they took off their spacesuits (on the surface!), took off their helmets, stuck their nose into the spacesuit, sniffed - no, it smells nothing ...

      and what did they hope to sniff in their helmets? the outboard vacuum that was supplied to them through a special hose?
      but if you are shooting in a spacesuit in the desert, then yes, to facilitate it, you can not fill it with an oxygen mixture, but stupidly make ventilation ...

      Quote: yuriy55
      when shooting from guns there is such a smell

      sniffing something burning / burned in large quantities (from heptyl and a hydrogen-oxygen mixture to smoking sticks) - harm your health! health ministry as hints
    3. ver_
      ver_ 5 January 2016 17: 41
      0
      ... I suppose some kind of bacillus smelled, by the way, after all, there were no tests for "tripper" .. because there could be an infection with something .. - the mattress covers were pierced ..
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 5 January 2016 09: 51
    +3
    Article as if test laughing
  • Fantazer911
    Fantazer911 5 January 2016 10: 03
    -3
    I don’t remember exactly when, there was a program in which they told how the USSR intelligence worked about the spotted blueprint drawings, an analog of a snowstorm and the same spacesuits for a snowstorm but! more accomplishment, refinement of Soviet engineers, about flight and the moon landing I’m rather a skeptic, the Americans were not on the moon, they were not.
  • Privat
    Privat 5 January 2016 10: 04
    +6
    Quote: svp67
    But the Americans themselves do not deny such filming that it is safe for broadcast failures or astronaut training shooting is the third thing.
    It's not even about safety net.
    The signal from the surface of the Moon was broadcast through the orbital module, and when it, revolving around the Moon, left behind it, the connection was interrupted. And in order to "make the average man beautiful," these hoopoes, instead of the lost pieces of the broadcast, inserted pavilion filming in Hollywood into the videos about the landing. And at the same time they questioned the reliability of the entire project.
    As the saying goes, make a fool pray to God, so he will break his forehead.
    1. Fidel
      Fidel 5 January 2016 10: 35
      12
      This version was invented by the amers themselves. And a little later. When they were grabbed by the testicles)) they say, like, yes, there is Haliwood, but purely from trullah-la-la and quite a bit. And everything else is PURE TRUE! We give a tooth! And then in 2009 the epic ABZATS happened. When, in the year of the fortieth anniversary of the FIRST IN THE WORLD HISTORY (at least the official) INTERPLANETARY PILOTED EXPEDITION, these, as you rightly noted, UDODY declared that the original video of this event could not be shown to the admired earthlings, since it was "accidentally destroyed".
      A curtain.
      How do you like it?
      1. Privat
        Privat 5 January 2016 11: 48
        +6
        I do not believe in the accidental destruction. But given a similar "disappearance" (exactly like this, teleportation, not otherwise am) from NASA archives, almost half of the images of the Hubble telescope (and there are millions of them!) is ready to believe both in malicious intent and in "exceptional" American slovenliness.
        Otherwise, it will have to be assumed that the pictures hustled because the telescope captured the smiling faces of aliens in millions of pictures. wink
  • denvar555
    denvar555 5 January 2016 10: 05
    10
    The topic "sis ... k" - the true reasons for the curtailment of the lunar programs in the USA and the USSR have not been disclosed. They forgot the secret of building rockets !!! Just like children. I would still believe that the dough is a pity. But so that in the 60s and 70s they could do what they cannot do now is nonsense. We still need to weave here the Maya who could a thousand years ago!
  • kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 5 January 2016 10: 42
    +5
    It seems that not everyone has yet "weathered" the "New Year's set of alcoholic drinks" and as the poet said: "... how many wonderful discoveries we have ... etc."! If the American lunar program would have been as Mukhin wrote and like him, the USSR would not fail to take advantage of this in full! And our "parteigenosse" knew how to do it and it is very cool!
  • Selevc
    Selevc 5 January 2016 10: 45
    13

    The fact of the existence and flight of the super heavy RN Saturn V is beyond doubt.

    Kaptsov again burns to the fullest !!! The fact of the existence of Saturn V is beyond doubt - the fact that these missiles successfully flew !!! We all often saw beautiful shots with the launching Saturn, then a video of a flying rocket, then it seems to be a video of a separating stage and EVERYTHING !!! AND IT'S ALL !!! FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS OF OPERATION OF ROCKET !!!

    The American lunar program is unique in that in this case the progress of mankind has stopped !!! This is nonsense in history !!! They say that it is too expensive !!! No more expensive than sending satellites to Pluto and Mars, no more expensive than Hubble !!! But the USA’s topic of moon exploration is somehow constantly bypassed - although they are leaders in this field and must have advanced developments and technologies !!!

    If the USA has successfully exploited super-heavy rocket launchers, then why do they now need Russian engines and technologies 30-40 years old? They should dictate fashion in this direction to the whole world and not vice versa !!!
    In general, in the case of the Moon, America darkens a lot - and most likely lies a lot ...
  • Fitter65
    Fitter65 5 January 2016 10: 56
    +4
    Quote: Max_Bauder
    And the most important argument, as everyone knows, Americans fly by shuttles, i.e. the launch rocket carries the shuttle to the near-Earth surface, then the shuttle returns to the landing strip like an airplane. So how did the shuttle land on the surface of the moon?

    This is really the argument of a specialist who knows the topic. To increase intelligence, you would at least look at Wikipedia when the first Shuttle flew, so that you would not get so liquid around then ....
    1. Max_Bauder
      Max_Bauder 5 January 2016 11: 39
      -9
      Quote: Fitter65
      To increase intelligence, you would at least look at Wikipedia


      Wikipedia says that there was a Mongol yoke, because then half the people do not believe in it, all sorts of tartaria are in your head, does this surprise you? and wikipedia is the ultimate truth?
      1. ver_
        ver_ 5 January 2016 18: 02
        0
        ... date of foundation of Mongolia 1920. You can look into the wiki .. and on the same page it is written that the Mongols invaded Russia in the 13th century .. This is double-entry bookkeeping ...
  • Aleksander