Military Review

On the prose of life in the missions "Apollo"

Speech about what is not customary to talk openly, but what plays a crucial role in long-term manned space flights is about human life support.

It is clear that the first place in importance is breath. In the USSR, astronauts immediately followed the path of air breathing. This, of course, complicated and weighed the construction of spacecraft (SC), but life showed the correctness of the chosen solution.

Americans used oxygen breathing at atmospheric pressure 1 / 3. For 60-s, this technology has nothing new: oxygen breathing was used by divers and pilots. But some undesirable factors came to light. For example, prolonged breathing with pure oxygen led to depression of the respiratory function. The fact is that the respiratory center reacts to the content of carbon dioxide in the blood, which in the atmosphere of pure oxygen is gradually washed out - if there is not enough of it, then you don’t need to breathe ...

The question of the multi-day stay of American astronauts in an atmosphere of pure oxygen has not been resolved to this day, because experimental data are required here. In any case, after the experiment with the Apollo-1, when the crew was burnt alive in an oxygen atmosphere, it became clear that this was a dead-end direction in astronautics. In the USSR, it was understood several years before the tragedy with Apollo-1, when a similar incident occurred at the Cosmonaut Training Center: March 23 1961 of the year, 19 days before the start of Yuri Gagarin, during an experiment with a man in an atmosphere of pure oxygen alive burned member of the first cosmonaut Valentin Bondarenko. Then we will return to this topic, because, according to NASA legend, American astronauts flew into space for 15 for years and breathed only oxygen.
The second most important topic is the removal of human excrement. In everyday life such juicy details are not discussed, but there are no trifles in space, and each requires careful analysis and technology for its solution.
So, for short-term flights, you can limit yourself to something like a diaper, but in long flights there is a need for special systems for receiving small and large needs. In the USSR, in advance, even before the flight of Y. Gagarin, a special unit was developed - the sanitary-sanitary device (ACS):

On the prose of life in the missions "Apollo"

Initially, the design had to take into account the anthropological differences between men and women. Therefore, the automatic control system for the 3-daily flight of Tereshkova was different from the male one, and in general the first time the automatic control system was individualized and exactly followed the contours of the body, for which the astronauts 'fifth point' imprints, including the mentioned Tereshkov, were taken. Later unified automated control systems were developed:

And how were things with the Americans? After all, if you believe them, then Gemini-4 with two astronauts was in space for 4 days, Gemini-5 for a week, Gemini-7 for two weeks (!), Allegedly setting a record.

It can be presumed that Americans, who are scrupulous up to household amenities, have thought through such an important issue. It is known that American truck tractors and trailers have always been among the world leaders in terms of equipment and comfort - they not only had toilet cabins, but also showers, air conditioners, televisions, and the like, without which the life of an ordinary American is unthinkable. Believe it or not, in the 60s, NASA specialists did not even begin to resolve this issue! Allow me! - the average man will tell me, - the 6 Americans visited the Moon once, having made long flights there and back, so the toilet problem was certainly solved.

What does NASA say

First of all, it would be nice to get acquainted with the device of an outstanding American lunar spacesuit, which, after lunar missions, was immediately sent to the museum:

Clip - a fragment from the BBS film "Apollo 11 A Night to Remember", shot more than 40 years ago. There is a curious moment in it: James Bourke explains that urine is collected in a metal container located in the abdomen area. Where did he get it - he did not invent it himself! All information, as well as the spacesuit, extracted in NASA. But, as we can see, in matters of life support for astronauts at NASA, “the horse did not roll” - improvise on the go.
Refer to the NASA document - APOLLO OPERATIONS HANDBOOK. EXTRAVEHICULAR MOBILITY UNIT. The mentioned garbage bag is on the right (UCTA) and reminds of a string:

So looks mochesbornik in person:

Moreover, this copy is somewhat different from what is exhibited in the museum:

Exhibit of the National Museum of Aviation and Cosmonautics. Smithsonian Institution, USA.

The penis is inserted directly into the bath, but it is not known how tightness is ensured. Obviously, a stuck penis simultaneously serves as a plug.

There are no metal mop tanks in the spacesuit - the tube goes to the connector on the thigh:

Thus, the technology of collecting liquid waste does not look very well thought out and, obviously, suffered flaws that are traditional for NASA. The point is that in the missions "Merkuriyev" and "Gemini" the removal of liquid waste of astronauts by all means was accompanied by leaks. So, "for the first orbital flight on the" Mercury "in NASA was developed a simple urinal from a condom, tube and urine container":

Urine John Glenn. National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, USA.

For longer flights, it was modernized, adding a hand pump to it, so that the astronaut could empty the overflowed urinal. but “the pump was not working well, the hoses were leaking, urine balls were flying in the cockpit. At least part of the short circuits in the last turns of the flight were arranged by the leaking cesspool system, seriously complicating the flight”.

In the Gemini ships, the urine collection system was improved in a rather curious way. The urinal has already become similar to thongs, as in Apollo:

In this case, during the emptying of the bladder, the astronaut had to reciprocate with his hand in order to activate the pump, made in the form of an accordion:

But the visionaries from NASA did not calm down on this, because in reality the procedure should be carried out together: one got rid of an excess of urine, and the second immediately pumped it, wielding an accordion. Probably, this exercise was dedicated to long and hard training. After all, as the astronauts themselves say, "the training process at NASA is subject to the principle of" no surprises. " However, the balls of the "surprises" continued to be pursued by the Gemini crews, since "the system often expelled urine instead of suction - the accordion was not a fan, one careless movement was enough to create excess pressure, not vacuum.". And only starting with the mission "Gemini-5", the spontaneous wandering of urine through the compartments of the ship was obeyed by NASA engineers: they began to throw it overboard into outer space and admire a cloud of sparkling crystals. But the annoying surprises still did not disappear completely, "as it happened with Jim Lovell during the flight to" Gemini-7 "", which burst urine bag. Lovell eloquently described that flight as "two weeks in the latrine".

Now for solid waste. James Bourke explained that the liquid component of feces is absorbed by a special absorbent material, hinting at diapers, which, in fact, put on himself. And then - you are adults, you can guess ...

NASA in the Apollo Operations Handbook ... writes: "It’s not a matter of course."

Translation: for waste management in unexpected (sic!) Cases, a “fecal retention system” is worn around the waist of a crew member, designed to collect and store solid waste.

As it turns out, the “fecal retention subsystem” is the usual panties with a slot for the genitals:

Therefore, it should be said directly that astronauts, according to a NASA document, celebrated the need for pants!

We study the device pantalon: "Fecal Containment Subsystem The FCS (fig. 2-23) consists of a pair of elastic underwear. It is a worm that has been worn under the scrotal area and it has been worn under it. It is expelled by the FCA system and it has been evaporated.

Translation: "The feces retention system includes dual elastic panties with an absorbent liner in the buttock area and a front incision for the genitals. Foamed rubber covers the outside of the thigh, placed on the scrotum and spinal sulcus. This system is dressed in a special astronaut underwear suit (Constant Wear Garment) :

which allows an unexpected defecation in the presence of pressure in the spacesuit. The “Fecal Retention System” collects and keeps feces from falling into the spacesuit. Moisture contained in the faeces is adsorbed by the liner and then - ATTENTION! - evaporates from the liner into the atmosphere of the spacesuit, from where it is removed through its ventilation system. The system has an approximate capacity of 1000 cm³ for solid waste "(highlighted by me).

Where to put feces from the pants and how to wash off after that? But on the technology of emptying drawers the fantasy of NASA figures was scanty and it has not yet been disclosed (obviously, it is kept behind seven seals under the “secret” stamp). Apparently, the astronauts, removing the spacesuit from a comrade, then with improvised means — spoons, forks, napkins, etc. — scooped up the contents of the trousers and put it in a “bucket” (under No. XXUMX in the far corner - “Fecal Canister”):
Scheme of the Command Module (CM) in a section.

It is, of course, very small for adult men 3-s. It should be noted that the astronauts ate a variety of food, without denying themselves anything, some even recovered. Will it be enough for 10-12-day travel, provided that an adult gives off an average 200 of faeces per day? .. And if someone likes stale food or, even worse, they will poison everything at once - here and 5 buckets will be few. Therefore, we have every right to assume that they carried a significant amount of feces on themselves, embodying an ancient aphorism - omnia mea mecum porto ("all my burden with me"). Well, since the astronauts returned to Earth in the same space suits, then the feces collected in the "feces collection subsystem" returned with them.

In the event that the astronauts aboard the ship exposed and completely removed their spacesuit, NASA offered them a different, but no less delightful toilet service. Since there were no automated control systems on the Apollo and the preceding ships, the astronauts, unlike their Soviet colleagues, were supplied with special packages for dealing with great needs. Imagine and describe the procedure itself is very difficult because of its exoticism, so NASA took care of educating all interested in the details of the process, offering to admire this picture:

Astronaut Buzz Aldrin demonstrates how to use the package.

It should, however, clarify that in real life pants will be redundant and interfere with the process of defecation. In addition, in the picture the package is equipped with a hard plastic flange, which is not on the museum specimen:

Exhibit of the National Museum of Aviation and Cosmonautics. Smithsonian Institution, USA.

Apparently, a sample with a flange is one of the options for an individual use package adapted for the buttocks of a particular crew member. Two fingers stuck into the package is not accidental - there are carefully provided special fingertips, so as not to get dirty in the contents of the package. The procedure itself is described in NASA document in the following way: “The package napalechnik was used to position it on the anus. After bowel movement, the napkin were also used to separate the fecal mass from the anus and move it to the bottom of the bag. Then the bag was separated from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with napkins, which were disposed of into the bag. bactericidal fluid and sent it to the same bag with faeces, which was then sealed. Then it was necessary to “knead” the bag so that its contents were mixed. At the end of the procedure, the bag with feces was placed inside ü another package, and everything together was sent to a special compartment for waste storage "(in the CM scheme under No. XXUMX). For some reason, an important detail was omitted in the instructions: the bag had to be not only positioned, but also securely glued to the buttocks, for which its neck was provided with adhesive tape.

Reviews about this technology have been very impartial since the days of "Gemini": “The astronauts used fecal bags rarely enough and described them as“ nasty. ”It was difficult to glue the package properly, and going to the toilet and not getting dirty is almost impossible; besides, the packages did not save the spread of unpleasant odor throughout the small capsule.” If the astronauts rarely used the packages, hence the need to keep in the pants, for other options, NASA has not provided. The NASA document also stresses that “the process of collecting faeces requires considerable skill to prevent the leakage of feces from the bag and the subsequent contamination of the crew, their clothing and the cabin. Because of the difficulties, the process of defecation also took a long time. The Apollo Astronauts 7 "rated this time in 45 minutes".

How can this be imagined? Astronauts flew on the Gemini, came back, to put it mildly, dirty - something needs to be done! And NASA remains Olympic calm and does nothing; astronauts, in turn, amuse the public stories about "poop a bag in zero gravity." So, in the book "Packing for Mars: The Curious Science of Life in the Void" Mary Roach leads conversation recording fragment Astronauts of the Apollo 10 mission:

STAFFORD: Wow, and who did?
YANG: What did you do?
STAFFORD: Who did this? [laughs]
SERNAN: Where does this come from?
STAFFORD: Give me a napkin. Here shit flies.
YANG: It's not mine.
SERNAN: Yes, and not mine, it seems.
STAFFORD: And mine was more sticky than that. Yes, throw it away and everything.
YANG: Oh my god.
[Eight minutes later, discussing the discharge time of the wastewater.]
YANG: They said it can be done at any time?
SERNAN: They said on 135. They said that. Another damn poop. What's the matter with you guys? Give it to me.
Young / Stafford: [laughs]
STAFFORD: Did it just fly here?
STAFFORD: [laughs] Mine was thinner than that.
YANG: And mine. It seems to be from that bag.
SERNAN: [laughs] I do not know whose it is, so I will neither blame nor defend anyone. [laughs]
YANG: What is going on here after all?

In the same anecdotal way she discussed the toilet problems of the astronauts and the press: "According to the reports of the American periodicals of those years, there were cases when such a package was unstuck at an inopportune moment."

And just before the end of the Apollo missions NASA has released a report on the quality of life support systems for crews: “Although the system for collecting feces in Apollo missions was similar to that used on Gemini ships, many other concepts and designs were nevertheless investigated and tested. In all cases, the main goal was to prevent contamination of the crew by feces under weightless conditions. effective than the existing system, which turned out to be acceptable for all flights, was not found, although the crews expressed their hostility towards it. Now, other methods are being studied for future missions and experiments will be conducted. I have a future flight — especially a long one — a better method for collecting faeces should be developed. " In other words, the astronauts in the Gemini and Apollo missions were put in pants with the tricky name “feces retention subsystem” because the packages were used extremely rarely, and NASA reports that this “feces collection” method is effective and acceptable. To some extent you can agree with NASA, because the feces remained in the astronauts' pants, and did not fly away in the habitable space of the spacecraft, thus solving the main task. In fact, cheap and angry!

NASA fecal popcorn in the post-Apollonian period

As mentioned above, NASA has preoccupied with future long-term flights into space while the Apollo crews were in great need of their pants, and they disdain to use packages. The result of these concerns was the automated control system designed for the Space Shuttle (hereinafter simply referred to as the shuttle), which first went into space on the Columbia 12 shuttle in April of 1981. Thus, NASA began to use the ACS on spacecraft exactly 20 years after the start of manned space flight. NASA engineers tried to design their own original design: "First (American - auth.) space toilet bowls were very similar to the Waring blender spinning at 1200 revolutions per minute somewhere in 15, see below the known part of the human body. The device crushed excrement and other tissues — say, paper, and not the scrotum — and threw it all into a container. The machine produced a kind of papier-mâché. "

Toilet Shuttle.

But instead of gratitude, the astronauts again began to complain and be capricious, because “problems arose when the container was placed in a cold and dry vacuum of space (it was necessary to sterilize the contents of the container). Here the mass was falling apart on“ papier ”and“ mache. ”When the next astronaut turned on the device, the blades of the blender began to grind small pieces of aspen nests of faeces, which remained on the walls of the container, and those already in the form of dust scattered around the cabin " (ibid.)

And again the feces fly on the spacecraft! This phenomenon even got the name "fecal popcorn", from which, oddly enough, astronauts had no time for jokes: "Astronauts of the current expedition of the shuttle began to use bags for the feces of the Apollo program. During the previous flight, clouds of faecal dust produced by new toilets caused astronauts to refuse food to reduce the frequency of use of this facility. Fecal dust was not just disgusting, but also caused to the “growth in the mouth of E.coli bacteria”, as had already happened before on board a submarine, when the room was overwhelmed by the evaporation of sewage " (ibid.)

The last remark from the NASA report is curious: there have been cases of the breeding of E. coli in the mouth of submarine crews and shuttles, but for some reason the crews of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo have passed this fate, although feces flew everywhere and soiled astronauts to greater joy of these.

On the ISS, NASA no longer felt the fate and trusted the toilet service to the Russian side - all the stationary sanitary facilities of the ISS are of Russian origin. Initially, the toilet was only in the Russian module "Dawn", and NASA 2007 ordered a toilet for the module "Tranquility": "The US National Aerospace Agency (NASA) ordered a toilet in Russia for the American part of the ISS for 19 million dollars." Thus, the history of the American automated control system counts exactly 30 years clouded by fecal popcorn.

How to understand all this?

Let us summarize the identified features related to NASA technologies that ensure the functioning of astronauts in space.

1. At the very beginning, tragic incidents were mentioned that took place in the USSR and the USA during experiments with a person's stay in an atmosphere of pure oxygen. In the USSR, the death of cosmonaut Valentin Bondarenko was due to the fact that a cotton wool moistened with alcohol broke out, causing an instant fire in the pressure chamber. The crew of the Apollo-1 burned in a similar situation, but there were no burning objects - apparently, there was quite a small spark. But nothing of the kind happened in the missions of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, accompanied by the flying of urine and feces balls in the oxygen atmosphere of the spacecraft, which led to short circuits, but, strangely enough, did not cause fires.

2. Flying feces in the missions listed in 1 invariably caused jokes and fun among crew members - the press relished these stories. And in the same situation, the crews of the shuttle were sad - they even refused to eat, so as not to deal with fecal popcorn. On the contrary, the astronauts of the lunar missions did not complain about the appetite, and some gained weight.

3. The fecal popcorn of the space shuttles caused the crew members to grow in the mouth of Escherichia coli, which exactly repeated the similar phenomenon on the submarines during emergencies with leaking sewage. NASA is silent about similar cases before the shuttle era, although there is no lack of information about flying feces.

4. Technological rolling back shuttle: "But the toilet for the Space Shuttle turned out to be an engineering embarrassment. The original idea was wonderful - let's make a toilet in which air flows will place feces into the receiving device without the participation of an astronaut. However, it was not possible to achieve reliable work - feces constantly touched the walls of the tunnel, and the astronauts had to constantly clean it. The faecal packaging system did not work reliably enough, the toilet went down regularly enough. Also, it was necessary to undergo special training to use the toilet. .. Leakage of urine and flying away feces were not such a rare thing. "

These points clearly and convincingly show that the real era of NASA manned flights began with the appearance of space shuttles, and before that all flights, including those to the Moon, were simply mystified. For the first time, NASA’s ACS was tried on the shuttles, but due to the lack of experience in creating them, the design was unsuccessful. Funny stories about astronauts' toilet problems only reflect the ideas of the directors and scriptwriters of these shows about the leading edge of the space struggle: it was difficult, sometimes difficult and unbearable, smeared with feces - it doesn't happen to anyone, but in general it was fun and spiritually uplifting. Moreover, humor is typically American: anal-fecal. How can a show do without him ?!

But the showmen had no idea about the degree of influence of manned space flight on the human body, so their show do not talk about the hardest consequencesbecause there were no flights themselves! Even in the favorite anal fecal theme, the writers missed some important details. For example, that the physiology of great need is always accompanied by a small, i.e. it is impossible to simply dispense a great need into a package - the release of liquid waste will also occur involuntarily. Those. You need to put on a bath bag, but it’s not going to stick a bag to your buttocks, but also empty your bowels, because the belts of the bag collect over the anus. Moreover, the adhesion of the adhesive tape to sweaty, hairy buttocks is extremely weak, and the bag is almost impossible to fix.

Thus, the whole procedure should include a complete undressing, then the astronaut should somehow attach a hygiene package to the fifth point, which of course will fly away with a sudden and natural release of gases, and then put a liquid on the penis to collect liquid waste nasa engineering thought. What is not the plot for burlesque staging? ..


The Americans, up to the 80s, not only did not fly to the moon, but did not make long flights in Earth orbit. Otherwise, their spacecraft would have been equipped with automated control systems, and we would have seen how astronauts, tormented by weightlessness, are carefully taken out of the descent capsule, which in reality was not. They cheerfully jumped out and right there marched on solemn actions, carrying on themselves, according to the version of NASA, overflowed "feces retention subsystems".

7 December 2014g - 29 Jun 2015
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. PKK
    PKK 20 August 2016 07: 51 New
    Cheerfully jump out of the capsules, astronauts learned on their own head from the first Soviet cosmonauts, and then it was too late.
    Regarding oxygen, this question is not covered. If a person from normal pressure is put in a pressure of 1/3 of atmospheric pressure, what will happen? Boiling blood and even bad processes.
    Yes, the Americans didn’t fly to the shuttles. When they flew, it turned out that the sewers were not suitable. It was amazingly powerless. A simple vacuum cleaner would help to clean the room. You could disinfect your mouth with rinses of potassium permanganate or greens. Before the flight, flush the intestines if the flight is short-lived, dry without food. Pre-slagging the body. Urine output is sharply reduced, generally miserable. If you fly for several days, you can add food based on glucose. (up to 5-6 days). It’s no longer possible to fly without simulators. and all this at the level of state development.
    It also amazes me how, at a speed of gas outflow from a nozzle of three to four thousand meters per second, you can accelerate to a speed of 8 km per hour? Moreover, the work of exhaust gases in a vacuum does not create traction, there is nothing to repel from. they have no pressure.
    1. tolancop
      tolancop 20 August 2016 09: 06 New
      I will not comment on oxygen affairs and body cleansing, I am completely unfamiliar with the topic

      "..Also it amazes me how, at a speed of gas outflow from a nozzle of three to four thousand meters per second, can you accelerate to a speed of 8 km per hour? Moreover, the work of exhaust gases in a vacuum does not create traction, there is nothing to repulse from. don’t roll, they don’t have pressure. "

      Enchanting !! Regarding the operation of jet engines, I recommend reading a physics textbook for grades 6 or 7 - you will find a lot for yourself.
      1. PKK
        PKK 20 August 2016 12: 25 New
        I also read advanced textbooks. I envy you, you believe everything that you would not write.
        1. NOTaFED
          NOTaFED 13 July 2017 16: 50 New
          The principle of jet movement is that this type of movement occurs when separation occurs at a certain speed, from the body of its part. A classic example of jet propulsion is rocket propulsion. The features of this movement include the fact that the body receives acceleration without interacting with other bodies. So, the movement of a rocket occurs due to a change in its mass. The mass of the rocket decreases with the expiration of gases that occur during the combustion of fuel.
    2. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 20 August 2016 09: 17 New
      Quote: PKK
      It also amazes me how, at a speed of gas outflow from a nozzle of three to four thousand meters per second, you can accelerate to a speed of 8 km per hour? Moreover, the work of exhaust gases in a vacuum does not create traction, there is nothing to repel from. they have no pressure.

      You know, somehow beyond. The theory of jet propulsion and spaceflight takes place in physics at school, how can this be written?
      1. PKK
        PKK 20 August 2016 12: 20 New
        Do you have enough school knowledge? I don’t, I don’t have enough knowledge of the Military School of Rocketeers. I envy you.
        1. Proxima
          Proxima 20 August 2016 12: 59 New
          Quote: PKK
          Do you have enough school knowledge? I don’t, I don’t have enough knowledge of the Military School of Rocketeers. I envy you.

          In VO in the field of rocket-related subjects you can meet of course different “specimens,” but I personally encounter such a “miracle-judo” for the first time in my life. He also finished the “Military School of Rocketeers” (! ???!) Judging by the stars - it’s not like a troll. Strange ...
          1. mealnik2005
            mealnik2005 21 August 2016 14: 00 New
            After changing the voting procedure, it will not be possible to lower the rank of such an individual by minus - soon he will become a marshal. It seems that VO is preparing to brainwash readers of comments. Resource merged to outright propaganda.
          2. Igor Polovodov
            Igor Polovodov 21 August 2016 23: 17 New
            About unloading and abstinence from food, he correctly described everything, it is surprising that Americans catch up on such simple things ...
    3. lilian
      lilian 20 August 2016 09: 18 New
      Quezon disease can be prevented by gradually raising and lowering the pressure so that nitrogen from the blood evaporates gradually.
      According to Newton’s law, I don’t remember which number, the force of action is equal to the force of reaction. If from one end of the body of the rocket the gases fly down, then according to the Law the rocket will tend to fly up. Gases do not need to push off from anything, they just need to fly in one direction, so that the rocket fulfilling the Law compensates for this by moving in the opposite direction. When, for example, a person throws a cobblestone, he has to change the center of gravity so as not to fall, the gun has recoil, it does not fly off at the speed of a bullet since it is heavier and more inert.

      The gas expiration rate is 4 km.s. BUT, this is relative to the rocket, and relative to the example of the Earth - much higher.
      1. ver_
        ver_ 20 August 2016 12: 23 New
        .. there is another option - deep-sea divers use a mixture of gases where helium is used, not nitrogen ..
      2. PKK
        PKK 20 August 2016 12: 40 New
        Nobody objects to the cobblestone and the bullet, everyone agrees. Throwing the cobblestone, you get the moment of movement in the opposite direction. But you don’t throw a bullet, but expanding gases. Agree that the expanding gas has a different dynamics than a bullet or cobblestone. not children ..
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 20 August 2016 12: 55 New
          I don’t give a damn what you throw, the only question is speed and mass. The greater the speed and mass, the stronger you will be pushed in the opposite direction. Read the law of conservation of momentum.
        2. maratkoRuEkb
          maratkoRuEkb 23 August 2016 15: 10 New
          but what is incomprehensible to you with expanding gases? don't believe in their energy? try the following method ... sit on a can of compressed gas, grab your legs tightly and hit the sledgehammer on the tap ... you wondered what the expanding gases could do)
    4. aiw
      aiw 20 August 2016 09: 31 New
      > If a person from normal pressure is placed in a pressure of 1/3 of atmospheric pressure, what will happen? Boiling blood and even bad processes.

      On top of Everest, the pressure is 1/7 of normal, and nothing goes. Most with oxygen, and some without.

      > Yes, the Americans did not fly to the shuttles. When they flew, it turned out that the sewer was not good

      The recollections of our SSBN submariners regularly contain stories of sewage accidents. Does this mean, according to your "logic", that in fact our submarines did not sail?

      Minus article, I recommend the author not to forget to ground the cap made of foil.
      1. ver_
        ver_ 20 August 2016 12: 06 New
        .. I don’t know how on the nuclear submarines, but on diesels they cared for the ascent - right to the deck, when washed off, it will be washed off, although it was closet, they were poured into a "dirty tank" for little ...
      2. PKK
        PKK 20 August 2016 12: 18 New
        Sailors would clean your beak for expressions like "swam." Select an expression.
        1. aiw
          aiw 20 August 2016 13: 11 New
          That is, you have nothing to answer in the case? Then take care of the safety of your beak, a grief “rocket launcher” denying the principle of jet propulsion and the law of conservation of momentum.

          If you really graduated from a rocket school, then your teachers and fellow students for such kuntyushki would not only clean your beak, but everything else, starting with bells. Do not disgrace your specialty, google the formula of Tsiolkovsky.
    5. FlyEngine
      FlyEngine 20 August 2016 12: 25 New
      If a person from normal pressure is placed in a pressure of 1/3 of atmospheric pressure, what will happen? Boiling blood and even bad processes.

      Um, what about mountain climbers? Does their blood boil?
    6. AUL
      AUL 20 August 2016 16: 25 New
      It also amazes me how, at a speed of gas outflow from a nozzle of three to four thousand meters per second, you can accelerate to a speed of 8 km per hour? Moreover, the work of exhaust gases in a vacuum does not create traction, there is nothing to repel from. they have no pressure.

      Urgently to school!
    7. de_monSher
      de_monSher 18 October 2016 08: 45 New
      Moreover, the work of exhaust gases in a vacuum does not create traction, there is nothing to repulse from. Repulsion from the gases that have flown out earlier does not roll, they have no pressure.

      What???? *)))))))))) Did you even understand that you wrote something? *))))
  2. Sergey333
    Sergey333 20 August 2016 08: 22 New
    Hence the conclusion: they have nothing to do in space wassat
  3. ImPerts
    ImPerts 20 August 2016 08: 56 New
    To begin with, Sheppard simply urinated on his spacesuit. As it began, it continues. At the same time, they spoil not only themselves, in themselves. But also to others.
  4. tundra
    tundra 20 August 2016 09: 05 New
    Really article cheered!
    And before, they didn’t fly to the moon.
    About flags, about jumping on the surface of the moon.
    And then, how did you guys go to the toilet? laughing
    I’m just stealing, they’re not only buying our engines,
    Well, toilets, space explorers, (nation of the masters of the world)
    And without the wild Russians, with the economy torn to shreds,
    shit ... can not fellow
    1. figwam
      figwam 20 August 2016 09: 35 New
      Until the 80s, Americans not only did not fly to the moon, but also did not make long flights in Earth orbit.

      The human foot has not yet set foot on the moon, and let all these American video comics about astronauts be left for themselves.
  5. aversun
    aversun 20 August 2016 09: 13 New
    Quote: PKK

    It also amazes me how, at a speed of gas outflow from a nozzle of three to four thousand meters per second, you can accelerate to a speed of 8 km per hour? Moreover, the work of exhaust gases in a vacuum does not create traction, there is nothing to repel from. they have no pressure.

    Yes, it seems that Mr. PKK did not attend school and never heard of the law of conservation of momentum.
  6. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 20 August 2016 09: 14 New
    "Did not fly" ... But what about the "footprints" on the moon? After all, these "traces" are recorded by modern research probes? When I visit the Astronautics Museum in Houston, I always look at the lander of the Apolo spacecraft and am amazed at how, in this incomprehensible flimsy film design, the crew, fuel and all that could fit? How could “this” fly to the moon and come back? How is the crew not dead from radiation? I feel that we are "fooled", but I don’t understand how.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 20 August 2016 12: 30 New
      Thousands of pages are written on thematic forums, with a full explanation of all issues. And so Putin said that the Americans flew to the moon, you can just believe him.
      1. aba
        aba 20 August 2016 18: 17 New
        Thousands of pages are written on thematic forums, with a full explanation of all issues.

        Of course, you can write an explanation for any absurdity, but it’s just that one of them is true, we are unlikely to find out.
        On the other hand, everyone can be like a day in diapers, but who has tried this for several days ?! And reading about it can actually be ridiculous, but only reading. Who will face this in reality is unlikely to allow jokes.
        Oh and fool our brother! (with)
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 20 August 2016 20: 32 New
          How well you have missed Putin’s statement, and so many old people in diapers walk, and nothing.
      2. cast iron
        cast iron 3 October 2016 20: 12 New
        Thousands of silly fools, doppelgangers who missed the rock of physics at school wrote tons of rubbish, and you believe them)))
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 21 August 2016 00: 06 New
      He withstood - but received damage - Apollo 11 after landing.
      1. Igor Polovodov
        Igor Polovodov 21 August 2016 14: 37 New
        The cover was lifted, and from there - .... climbed
        It really looks like ...
  7. barbiturate
    barbiturate 20 August 2016 09: 14 New
    The Americans generally have a bunch of questions about their flights to shuttles, smiles and hands all over, like flying. For example:

    “It has been noted more than once that the tightness of the ship is a very important negative factor. Therefore, to objectively compare the psychomotor skills of astronauts and astronauts, immediately after their return, we need to first compare Soviet and American ships in terms of their tightness. Suddenly, it turns out that American ships are much more spacious than Soviet Then the vigorous returns of the Americans will look more truthful. Comparison of the sanitary and hygienic living conditions in these ships, since they also affect the general state of health, will not be out of place. From Soviet ships we will stop at Soyuz, since it was on these ships that the Soviet astronauts made rather long autonomous flights (from 5 to 18 days). We will not consider Mercury from American ships - too short flight stories were composed for them by NASA. Remain "Gemini No. 5 and 7" and all the Apollo

    The Soyuz accounts for 4,25 m3 per person. There is, importantly, a bathroom for the administration of natural needs. Simply put, a space toilet operating in zero gravity. And this is far from a simple device. In general, a minimal set of human conditions.

    In “Gemini” there are 1,3 m3 per person, that is three times less than in “Soyuz”. A little freer than in a coffin covered with a lid. There - 0,9 m3 ( For natural needs, diapers and plastic bags were intended. Imagine this combination: weightlessness + physical inactivity + lower body contact with natural waste.

    In "Apollon" the inhabited volume is 2 m3 per person, that is, 2 times less than in the "Union". And in terms of unsanitary conditions, Apollo is not far from Gemini. It can be assumed that if the flights of the “Gemini” and “Apollo” were real, then by the end of the flight their crews would smell very bad.

    In the USSR there is a close example - Soyuz-9 (18 days in orbit, at normal atmospheric pressure, by the way). Soyuz 9 is a much more spacious space ship than Gemini, inside the volume of 8,5 cubic meters. So cosmonauts Andriyan Nikolaev and Vitaly Sevastyanov after 18 days in weightlessness could not only walk, but after landing their health was so bad that they almost died, and even not much - Nikolaev’s heart stopped and was resuscitated. Both were then treated for a long time. "

    As you can see, either the skis do not ride, or I ...
    Our apparently sick rickets were later recruited and pumped out to the astronauts by poor fellows, and the Americans were real men with great quirks laughing
    1. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 20 August 2016 10: 58 New
      So maybe the Americans feel good just because they shit right in their pants, and the cabin was full of feces and urine, and ours suffered because they used a normal device? We need to investigate this issue, the Americans in the ISS just broke the toilet, we must close them in our section, and then compare with ours.
      We are almost on the verge of a grand opening here, they will really give a Nobel. We put an astronaut in a tank with "waste" and send it to Mars. There, a heavily rejuvenated astronaut with an aikyu under three hundred climbs out of the tank, runs cheerfully, digs trenches, and even calmly breathes the local atmosphere, this will be a breakthrough!
  8. Avas2006
    Avas2006 20 August 2016 10: 08 New
    "did not make long flights in Earth orbit" - a categorical statement. And the "Union - Apollo" in Hollywood filmed?
  9. sabakina
    sabakina 20 August 2016 10: 10 New
    Quote: PKK
    Cheerfully jump out of the capsules, astronauts learned on their own head from the first Soviet cosmonauts, and then it was too late.
    Yes, the Americans didn’t fly to the shuttles. Before the flight, flush the intestines if the flight is short, dry it without food. Having previously relaxed the body, the urine output decreases sharply, generally minuscule. If the flight takes several days, you can add glucose-based food. (Up to 5- 6 days).

    About the Soviet cosmonauts.
    Amers did not have a video of the landing of owls. astronauts, and there were only TASS messages in which it was reported: "The condition of the astronauts is good." "Normal" was spoken periodically. They stupidly did not know about the real state of the astronauts!
    Regarding the meal before the start.
    I read somewhere that there is a video where the astronauts on the camera in the literal word "got drunk." Roasted meat and other tasty things. Which makes one think: "Were they going to fly somewhere?"
    Who did not read, I advise.
    1. barbiturate
      barbiturate 20 August 2016 10: 35 New
      This photo is signed by NASA Archive S65-21093 from March 23, 1965 - Astronaut Virgil I. Grissom (facing camera at right), command pilot of the Gemini-Titan 3 flight, is shown during a steak breakfast which he was served about two hours prior to the 9:24 am (EST) GT-3 launch on March 23, 1965

      Americans have a hearty breakfast 2 hours before the start. Prepare bags in space))
  10. sabakina
    sabakina 20 August 2016 10: 14 New
    Forgot the short video from that article.
  11. Captain45
    Captain45 20 August 2016 11: 37 New
    And for about six months now, the topic of Amer manned flights has been intensively dealt with on the Internet, there are a lot of articles and professionals really do: the cameramen, filming engineers, ship devices, including, as in this article, toilets and everywhere, are emphasized EVERYWHERE, come to the conclusion that all of their manned cosmonautics, sorry astronautics (they fly to the stars) to the Shuttles is a big TUFTA, all, in the literal sense of the word, in g * outside and the web. belay The question is, if for so many years they knew and were silent about it, then from what fright now all this has become exaggerated? Do they not let the SGA authorities understand in this way through the media and the Internet that if you don't calm down, we will lower them below the baseboard. Their army, together with NATO they have already subscribed, now they will take away space victories from the “exceptional” and what will remain? Evergreen paper? But here we’ll also see, 2 a month ago, the GDP gave the command to carry out the necessary measures by the end of this year and start trading on the Uralaz brand oil exchange "for ... RUBLES, what about Start: "Kirdyk your America," (c) k / f "Brother"
  12. Powder
    Powder 20 August 2016 11: 48 New
    Amazing things ..... Just evaluate your well-being when serving in an old need in the village for at least an hour ...
    And this is with natural ventilation.
    What heroes are these Americans.
  13. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 20 August 2016 12: 00 New
    One more completely illiterate article of a cosiroluha. Which draws no logical conclusions from the problems. I think he would have recognized Gagarin as not flying. wink
    1. barbiturate
      barbiturate 20 August 2016 12: 39 New
      You would indicate where it is wrong and why, what kind of toilets the Americans used, with what composition they breathed, wrote and crap in their pants or not, and even after many days of flight in tight capsules they were pumped out, like ours, they were carried out of the descent apparatus in our arms and quickly resuscitated in peppy guys, otherwise they are constantly strewing on trifles and smiling. They themselves tell and show it, and you call it illiterate, although it is really illiterate, so it’s supposed to fly.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 20 August 2016 12: 58 New
        Gagarin was also filmed, not immediately after landing. Is the hint clear? Or do you think the capsule from outer space descended directly onto the aircraft carrier?
        While they were waiting for salvation, they could calmly recover.
        Attention to gas masks. Yes, and they look very far from blooming.

        In high resolution
        1. barbiturate
          barbiturate 20 August 2016 15: 46 New
          Do you know how accurately the capsule landed? There are phenomenal results for the second space velocity - less than a kilometer! The capsule can be seen from afar, especially since all the views of the sky. How long do you think rubber boats to go to the splashdown site from 0.5 to 1 km? If they also went in advance there? Our astronauts crawled, they were pumped out, and these guys climb out on their own, jump into the boat themselves, and even in gas masks)) Really pay attention to gas masks) Have you ever run in a gas mask? And if after a run, when you barely breathe, put on a gas mask, then you can generally die, it makes breathing difficult, because you breathe overcoming the filter resistance.
          And they look normal, nothing is visible on your photo, some emaciated faces, people in gas masks are sitting and another one calmly climbs out.
          Here's an example:
          1) 1965 "Gemini - 5", G. Cooper, C. Conrad, 8 days from the start of the rocket to the return of the "astronauts"
          "According to NASA, Gemini 5 was in orbit for 8 days. And it is natural to expect that violations in the psychomotor of their movements should manifest themselves more strikingly than the astronauts of Soyuz 7 (5 days in orbit) and Soyuz 19 "(6 days in orbit). As they say, prepare a stretcher! But the supermen from Gemini 5 aren’t like that! With them 8 is the daily zero gravity of the glass like goose’s water. Or didn’t they" smell it "at all? No violations of psychomotor skills and, especially, no stretchers!
          . In abbreviation, the translation of the English signature under the picture reads: “August 29, 1965. L.G. Cooper and C. Conrad leave their spaceship after being splashed down. They are moving to the light raft with the help of naval divers. "
          After 20 - 30 minutes, a rescue helicopter delivers the "astronauts" to the deck of the aircraft carrier. And so the "astronauts" go down the deck. Without anyone's support and the same confident step as others. Like ordinary people, only in spacesuits. And they are ordinary! Because these "astronauts" did not go anywhere from Earth. This was eloquently told by their confident gait and natural gestures. In other words, the psychomotor skills of the "astronauts" did not suffer from the "flight."

          By the way, in your photo, pay attention to the capsule itself, it didn’t burn at all, and after all the temperature reaches 11 000 degrees in some parts of the descent, all of us black come back openly “burnt”, and the American ones shine and sparkle, miracles
          1. barbiturate
            barbiturate 20 August 2016 16: 01 New
            By the way, we are watching the landing of Apollo 11, an interesting thing) Here the Americans themselves report that in 63 minutes !! astronauts were on the deck of the aircraft carrier, and even changed clothes in the descent vehicle !! in the spacesuits that were handed to them and closed the hatch again, this is amazing! How exhausted people changed there! But the Americans then did not know that people should be exhausted on a stretcher, so there is nowhere to go, these photos can not be removed anywhere.

            All the "lunonauts" walk quite confidently and unconstrainedly, without any help, while greeting the venerable audience on the go. No violations in psychomotor. Neither a stretcher nor armchairs are visible to carry their supposedly weakened bodies.

            Extremely strange all this
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 20 August 2016 18: 12 New
              Look at the capsule in my photo, it is clear that it is burnt. Secondly, of course, under the shell with the declared KVO of 1 kilometer, will you stand right in the zone?
              Secondly, they have ICBMs that deliver warheads with a much smaller CWO.
              Trident-1 (1971) CWS less than 500 meters. Or do they also have nuclear missiles?
              In the third thirty minutes is more than enough to come to a person. Or do you think they hired all sorts of homeless people, and not the best people able to withstand unbearable conditions?
              Fourth, all these astronauts who cannot walk and sit on a stretcher themselves, these are the children who suffered from months of orbiting, are associated with muscle atrophy, and from the inconvenience of cosmic millions, even on the ISS
              1. Locksmith
                Locksmith 3 November 2016 11: 20 New
                Quote: BlackMokona
                Secondly, they have ICBMs that deliver warheads with a much smaller CWO.

                The warhead will lightly make 25G during landing, astronauts with such a "landing" will be smeared with a thin layer on the inner surface of the module, ours have such a thing as "emergency landing on a ballistic trajectory", which is why they make the cosmonauts an INDIVIDUAL lodgement under the back-ass, otherwise when overloaded 10 G breaks the fuck into minced meat.
              2. Locksmith
                Locksmith 3 November 2016 11: 27 New
                Quote: BlackMokona
                Fourth, all these astronauts who themselves cannot walk

                You don’t have to think up on a level ground and carry a blizzard. Now, if you have special suits with pumping air to the lower extremities and special simulators, you can land and rise to your feet. Previously, NO ONE knew this or could not, couldn’t eat, couldn’t escape from weightlessness, it was only later that they realized that FOOD HANGED AT THE CENTER OF THE STOMACH without touching the walls, and therefore with the gastric juice, and therefore could not soak food! laughing Blood drains from the legs and muscles sharply degrade, literally a day or two, and you can’t stand on your feet anymore, this is now being done in a special suit to lower the legs to ensure blood flow in zero gravity.
          2. Oprychnik
            Oprychnik 20 August 2016 18: 19 New
            We must also add, with a full suit of biological waste. Strange, no one wrinkles his nose.)
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 20 August 2016 19: 38 New
              changed clothes in the lander !! in spacesuits

              That awkward moment when it’s enough to protest my opponent.
              Dressed in a clean spacesuit, and I’m sure that they gave me a wash.
          3. Vadim237
            Vadim237 21 August 2016 00: 16 New
            And why does it burn - the heat shield perceives all the heat load
            The descent vehicles of the Soyuz and Apollo are more alike than they were in previous generations of spacecraft. In the USSR, designers abandoned a spherical descent vehicle - upon returning from the moon, he would require a very narrow entrance corridor (maximum and minimum altitude, which must be reached between them for a successful landing), would create an overload of more than 12 g, and the landing area would be measured in dozens if not hundreds, kilometers. The conical lander created a lifting force during braking in the atmosphere and, turning, changed its direction, controlling the flight. Upon returning from the Earth's orbit, the overload decreased from 9 to 3-5 g, and upon returning from the Moon, from 12 to 7-8 g. The guided descent seriously expanded the entrance corridor, increasing the reliability of the landing, and very seriously reduced the size of the landing area, making it easier to find and evacuate astronauts
            Apollo thermal protection material before and after the flight
          4. Kahlan amnell
            Kahlan amnell 28 September 2016 23: 53 New
            Quote: barbiturate
            By the way, in your photo, pay attention to the capsule itself, it didn’t burn at all, and after all the temperature reaches 11 000 degrees in some parts of the descent, all of us black come back openly “burnt”, and the American ones shine and sparkle, miracles

            Dear barbiturate, not yet discovered substances that would remain solid at temperature 11000 (eleven thousand) degrees. Remember the table of melting points of various substances. Will there be at least one material in it that at such a temperature remains in the solid state? Not. All known substances at this temperature are converted into plasma.
  14. Proxima
    Proxima 20 August 2016 13: 09 New
    Quote: PKK

    It also amazes me how, at a speed of gas outflow from a nozzle of three to four thousand meters per second, can you accelerate to a speed of 8 km per hour?

    Dunno on the moon - just resting!
  15. Barmal
    20 August 2016 17: 07 New
    the same video from the article,

    The video is an excerpt from the BBC film "Apollo 11 A Night to Remember", shot more than 40 years ago. There is a curious moment in it: James Bourke explains that urine is collected in a metal container located in the abdomen. Where did he get this - he didn’t come up with it himself! All information, like the spacesuit, is mined by NASA. But, as we see, in matters of life support for astronauts at NASA "the horse did not roll" - they improvise on the move.

  16. Bayonet
    Bayonet 20 August 2016 18: 17 New

    "Until the 80s, Americans not only did not fly to the moon, but also did not make long flights in Earth orbit."

    I think in the next opus, it will be "proved" that the Americans were not in space at all! Good luck to the authors! laughing
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 20 August 2016 23: 33 New
      Some visitors to the site seriously doubted
      that America exists at all.
      Political discussions at HE are a treasure for psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists.
      Here you can do dissertations on dozens of topics.
      I discover a lot of new things about people every day.
  17. Bayonet
    Bayonet 20 August 2016 18: 25 New
    Quote: barbiturate
    In “Gemini” there are 1,3 m3 per person, that is three times less than in “Soyuz”.

    You compare not with the "Union", but with the "East" which was the same age as the "Gemini"! "Union" appeared later and you can compare it with "Apollo". smile
    1. Idiot
      Idiot 21 August 2016 12: 11 New
      He compared. Anyway, in the "Union" the useful volume is twice as much ...
  18. Bayonet
    Bayonet 20 August 2016 18: 33 New
    Quote: PKK
    It also amazes me how, at a speed of gas outflow from a nozzle of three to four thousand meters per second, you can accelerate to a speed of 8 km per hour? Moreover, the work of exhaust gases in a vacuum does not create traction, there is nothing to repel from. they have no pressure.

    There’s no more nonsense! The man seems to not go to school! I wanted to add a smiley, but did not even find anything suitable!
  19. Aquarius
    Aquarius 20 August 2016 18: 36 New
    Quote: PKK
    Moreover, the work of exhaust gases in a vacuum does not create traction, there is nothing to repulse from. Repulsion from the gases that have flown out earlier does not roll, they have no pressure.

    Comrade Colonel General in a vacuum, there’s nothing to repulse from, but our missiles are flying, they simply reported to you incorrectly ...
    1. Oprychnik
      Oprychnik 20 August 2016 20: 43 New
      I see myself that the vacuum reflector ... Why not painted !?
  20. Bayonet
    Bayonet 20 August 2016 19: 00 New
    Quote: barbiturate
    The Soyuz accounts for 4,25 m3 per person.

    Structurally, the Apollo command compartment is made in the form of two shells. The inner shell is made of aluminum honeycomb profiled panels with a thickness of 20-38 mm, of a welded structure - a pressurized crew cabin with a free volume of 6,1 m3. The total volume of residential compartments (taking into account the lunar module) - 12,7 m³,
    The Soyuz descent vehicle (command compartment) - weight 2,8 tons, diameter 2,2 m, length 2,16 m, volume along the internal contours of the inhabited compartment 3,85 m3 - serves to accommodate the crew at the Soyuz launch station into orbit when controlling a ship in flight in orbit. The total volume of two residential (command and orbital) compartments in the pressure enclosure is 10,45 m3, free - 6,5 m3.
    In the photo a bunch of ships "Union" - "Apollo". The Smithsonian Institution National Aviation and Cosmonautics Museum is the largest aerospace museum in the world.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 20 August 2016 19: 08 New
      In Apollo, they engaged in this wonderful defecation in the same small triangular room, the Union has a separate compartment for these and other needs, it is also a gateway.

      The author trolls leading the Moon hoax theme away from all these everyday oddities that Americans characterize so much.
    2. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 20 August 2016 20: 25 New
      It turns out that a number of electronics failures at the Mir station were then from a flying American powdered stool from the shuttle (since they had one)? And then they sucked.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 21 August 2016 17: 09 New
        And what about the Proton rocket?
        The box with the sensor turned out to be glued with shit
        to the rocket wall. And besides - upside down.
        The Commission sniffed: American! Mac Donalds gives! belay
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 23 August 2016 06: 22 New
          If there is a herbaceous herb fiber, then the trace may stretch to your atalef in your country ...
    3. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 29 August 2016 04: 41 New
      Apollo seems more solid and much larger (especially taken from its angle), because the Union was shot without a booster used for braking by the Moon. When flying to low Earth orbit, including this image, the Apollo was half-charged.
  21. Bayonet
    Bayonet 20 August 2016 20: 50 New
    Since the topic of crap has gone - the latest news!
    In the capital, an attack was made on the journalist of the Novaya Gazeta Yulia Latynina. Two unknown persons attacked Latynina near the editorial office of Echo of Moscow, dousing it with feces, the radio station reported.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 29 August 2016 04: 35 New
      PR even on this lol
  22. Aviator_
    Aviator_ 20 August 2016 21: 32 New
    To put it mildly, the next call with the goal of "refuting" American flights to the moon. The ravings of Hollywood director Stanley Kubrick are already few, do not work. Now the side of the toilet went. But what about the lunar soil, which, in addition to being brought in, also exchanged samples with the USSR: are we our own, mined by our Luna series, are they ours, from lunar expeditions? The soil is very characteristic, even the name had to be given - regolith. One of the characteristic signs there are tracks of tracks from cosmic rays in feldspar crystals, for example. Although from the side of life support systems this is not to be seen ...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 21 August 2016 00: 21 New
      You can refute the flight to infinity - inventing all sorts of stupid things, but the fact remains - there was a flight and landing too.
      1. Idiot
        Idiot 21 August 2016 12: 17 New
        That's right: at least ssy eyes are all God's dew ...
    2. Idiot
      Idiot 21 August 2016 12: 16 New
      Is it that ovic regolith that mysterious fantasists have stolen all over the world? Take an interest, its characteristics are fundamentally different from the Soviet one. At the time, the USSR was accused of falsification - our automatic stations on the moon were not ...
  23. Wingilot
    Wingilot 21 August 2016 00: 37 New
    It always amazes me how two thoughts can be combined in the head of the rebels:
    -USA is so stupid that they cannot create an analogue of "East" and "Union"
    -USA is so clever that it creates in a swoop, without preliminary space flights, the whole system "Space Shuttle". And this is an average of 100 tons in orbit (orbit + payload) and the number of flights at the time the program closed exceeds the total number of flights Vostok + Voskhod + Soyuz. Having only two disasters, which is equal to the number of disasters of the much simpler Soyuz ship.

    At the same time, the refutants do not know that the astronauts are not allowed to move after landing in order to recover after the landing itself and to take the medical indicators “fresh”. Although the Soviet cosmonauts (here are people of steel) nothing prevents walking after landing immediately even after a longer flight, or even piloting a helicopter.

    And refer to "they did not have a toilet!" even more fun. The current generation, what to take from them. At that time they would be told, "He wants to be on the moon; you will even spoil diapers."
    1. Barmal
      21 August 2016 02: 17 New
      apparently you read the text diagonally. The toilet was bought from the Russians. Mouth catching shit, even American, the patriotic liberals did not want to. This is me about amers. Don’t think about you. And when buying Russian engines from the Russians, the Americans never blinked that they were so messed up with the main device to enter low Earth orbit with living people on board. But they have already set a flag on the moon. Apparently, they, the Amers, need to ride on the moon on a square, stand on the moon in a spacesuit with shit in underpants, but with a flag and a camera in their hands. This is very European and American - overtake the Russians in the photographs, but in real life, swallowing fecal good flying around the compartment .. Don’t you try to follow them? Or do you take their word for it?
      1. Wingilot
        Wingilot 21 August 2016 08: 32 New
        You forgot one thing. The Soviets were able to create a toilet, but they didn’t fly to the moon. And I forgot about another thing that the most powerful of the modern US missiles, it is the most powerful rocket in the world, Delta-4 Heavy, uses only American engines.
        It is very Russian, from anger and envy to insult the opponent. Swallow the dust from the moon rover and don’t arise, "patriot"
        1. Idiot
          Idiot 21 August 2016 12: 22 New
          The most powerful rocket is the Soviet Energy. The project was killed on take-off, but it had a place to be, like the Buran, somewhat better than the shuttles ...
          1. Proxima
            Proxima 21 August 2016 13: 23 New
            "Energy" is not the most powerful rocket, in the modification that flew - 105t on the DOE. “Saturn-5” - 140 tons, however, “Energy” in the “Volcano-Hercules” version was capable of casting 170 tons on the NOU, but this modification was unfortunately not implemented.
          2. Wingilot
            Wingilot 21 August 2016 14: 06 New
            I meant "the most powerful of those used."
            And the "Energy" was killed by the fact that such a powerful monster is simply not needed, except for interplanetary flights. Like Buran, in fact. Moreover, he was even worse than the Space Shuttle. At least in that it needed a super-heavy rocket to launch it.
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 23 August 2016 06: 24 New
              QC Buran is also for interplanetary? ...
        2. Barmal
          27 November 2016 15: 23 New
          no, I did not forget about Gagarin. About shit in the pants of Amer astronauts, too, I will not forget. It’s very cool for the Zeueropeans to throw the opponent with the term patriot in quotation marks, which means they themselves as mongrel under the American sherkhan.
      2. Idiot
        Idiot 21 August 2016 12: 20 New
        I would like to add that NASA also did not bother with the development of a lock chamber ...
        1. Wingilot
          Wingilot 21 August 2016 14: 07 New
          And they did not need her. Both Gemini and Apollo were completely depressurized.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 23 August 2016 06: 24 New
            Well, of course, the toilet had to at least be aired ...
    2. barbiturate
      barbiturate 21 August 2016 09: 22 New
      Well, yes, the United States simply lagged, and are they stupid or smart? And the United States, of course, conducted research like the USSR and launched rockets. Research on this topic began back in 1967, specifically the shuttle began to be created in 1971 and in 1981 the first launch - 10 years, is normal. At the same time, the shuttle flies in low Earth orbit and the longest flight is 17 days, nothing big. How this program confirms that in 1969 the Americans were on the moon is not clear.

      Well, the fact that at that time, without special suits and trainers, with an area of ​​2 squares per person (in the coffin - 0.9 squares), the Americans so quickly jumped after landing, is a miracle. We have already given a comparison of the duration and well-being of Soviet crews, where there was (Union) at 4.25 squares per person and toilet !! (crap week not in pants !!), the difference is striking.
      Here's an example: 1975, Soyuz-19, A. Leonov, V. Kubasov (6 days in orbit)
      The astronauts are laid on a stretcher, they themselves are not able to move, as there are photographs. And this “Union” is several times more comfortable than the Apollos, I’m not talking about Gemini, where in general 1.3 squares per person (comparable to the coffin again - 0.9)

      But the Americans at Apollo 8 (1968), less than an hour after landing, are already in free poses and smiling in the doorway of a rescue helicopter, which is also a photo.

      Well, let’s listen to the witness of flights in those years: Here is what the veteran of the Baikonur / Tyura cosmodrome writes about it - There N.V. Kuznetsov:
      “In 1965-67, I worked at the NIIP-5 test site (site No. 1, Tyura - There). The range was given an air regiment, whose tasks included the rescue operations of astronauts. As a rule, the capsule was detected even at the time of its descent by parachute. Doctors removed the astronauts from the capsule and laid them on a stretcher, as their condition did not allow them to move independently. Some even received injections that strengthen the tone. The astronauts were delivered by helicopter to Site No. 1 to the intensive care unit of the hospital, where they recovered for about three days. Then they were transported to Star. There they were examined for one and a half to two months. And only after that they were sent for spa treatment. ”

      Wow! The condition did not allow to move independently! We came to about 3 days, and not half an hour, as some write here above, etc.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 21 August 2016 11: 31 New
        Seeing the condition of the Americans after landing allowed them to move independently - most likely the astronauts took something stimulating - they also had to be like cucumbers in front of the audience.
      2. Wingilot
        Wingilot 21 August 2016 14: 38 New
        The shuttle flies in low Earth orbit, has a mass of about 70 tons and is the most complex spaceship in history. And just 10 years of development.

        The "Union" was not 4,5 cubic meters per person. There, the entire residential volume is 8,5 cubic meters.

        Soviet astronauts were able to move after landing. This I have already said. They are stacked to take readings. And you do not need to refer to the photo, it is not in motion. I can show you the chronicle of well-being of the Soyuz-T4 astronauts. They not only stand, they walk. And even more so in an hour, you can read the interview of the astronauts, after such a time they have come to their senses and experience only some difficulties with the vestibular apparatus.

        Listen to the flight witnesses. What years are there, they say. : 65-67? Let's open the "Chronicle of manned flights."

        65 year - "Voskhod-2", Leonov’s entry into space. USA - 5 flights of the Gemini ships
        66 year - the USSR did not launch people into space. USA - 5 flights of Gemini ships
        67 year - Soyuz-1, Komarov’s death during landing. US completes Gemini program
        68 year (although this is already outside the designated framework). - Soyuz-3, on board - the cosmonaut Beregovoi. USA - two flights of Apollo ships. one of them is around the moon.

        So Kuznetsov could see only Leonov and Belyaev. I hope you know how the "Sunrise" balloon descended? Well, or I can assume that the "veteran of Tyur-Tam" brazenly lying.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 23 August 2016 06: 25 New
          Not the most difficult, Energy-Buran is more interesting ...
          1. Wingilot
            Wingilot 23 August 2016 16: 59 New
            The Buran never became a full ship. And the Shuttle at the time of closing flew more than any other ship.
            1. Connie
              Connie 23 August 2016 17: 03 New
              Are you trying to judge the usefulness of the number of starts?

              The shuttle was not a full-fledged ship, it could not board itself without a pilot, and as a "transport system" it carried itself mainly.
  24. Bayonet
    Bayonet 21 August 2016 07: 04 New
    Quote: Barmal
    You will not try to follow them? Or do you take their word for it?

    Can believe in your nonsense? To deny and try to falsify the achievements of others is simply silly and ridiculous!
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 23 August 2016 06: 26 New
      It’s difficult to solve this ... bully
  25. The comment was deleted.
  26. Mwg
    Mwg 21 August 2016 16: 54 New
    USA is Pulp Fiction from start to finish. What Tarantino hinted quite transparently, calling his film so. Therefore, they have Hollywood almost the fifth power (and in fact-it is).
    And some fanatics continue to unfoundedly believe in everything that comes from the United States, rejecting the obvious and undeniable. In truth, faith is blind ....
  27. vignat21
    vignat21 21 August 2016 19: 10 New
    Recommend. Read and draw conclusions carefully and slowly

  28. Colonel
    Colonel 22 August 2016 14: 51 New
    Unexpectedly, but convincingly. And not any graphs and formulas, as near, the apologist F 22.
  29. Wingilot
    Wingilot 23 August 2016 23: 01 New
    You have been deceived. Not only did the Shuttle have a full-fledged automatic landing system, it was the automaton that controlled the orbiter in hypersonic and supersonic flight modes. The system could carry the orbit even to the touch of the runway. Only two systems were tied to astronauts (at their own insistence) - the release of the chassis and the parachute.
    And this should not be surprised. The weight of astronauts in manned astronautics has always been great, and automation is not always a blessing. You can recall how many times the connections of the Unions broke down due to the failure of automatic systems. And Kamanin, commenting on the reasons for the loss in the lunar race, called one of them aptly - "automated"
    The shuttle drove itself, that's true. But at the same time, only the fuel tank was lost. "Buran for its flight each time demanded a new full-fledged superheavy rocket.
    1. Connie
      Connie 24 August 2016 00: 06 New
      You are trying to deceive - they did not even know how to dock in orbit. Therefore, for landing on the strip in the first flight in the shuttle, there were two astronauts. All spaceships before and after this have always been tested and flew for the first time without a crew.
      Kamanin meant something else. The USSR could have been on the moon before, it was handed over to the Americans by the "corn worker", any cosmonaut or specialist knows this.

      This shuttle-only tank was an expensive and complex design. From a full-fledged launch vehicle, it differed only in the absence of engines and a control system that fits in a suitcase. In subsequent flights of Energy, the first stages of the db fully reusable, second partially rescue. Even compartments were installed for these systems, but managers ordered them not to be equipped because already in fact the country was draining and two Energies were shot in a one-time variant just so that they were not there.

      If the shuttle "drove itself," then what was the "transport system" then?
      Energy could be launched without Buran, and so would most of its launches. As in the USA, the shuttle was forced to carry itself when it was necessary to simply remove the load that even the Proton could handle in the USSR, which was ten times cheaper despite its one-time use. And so were almost all shuttle launches.
      It turns out that the capitalists do not consider money ... Or is it a bad advertisement for their lifestyle (for those who are in the subject).
      1. Wingilot
        Wingilot 24 August 2016 07: 23 New
        The United States knew how to dock in orbit. Who made the first dock in space? How many failures did they have during the docking, with the same ISS assembly? The same thing. And about automatic control is written in official documents.
        I do not believe that you communicated with specialists and astronauts. Since about the "corn" - a frank invention. It was under him that man was launched into space. Khrushchev perfectly understood all ideological advantages. But Brezhnev was already much more passive in this matter. Thanks to this rest on our laurels, "We are the best in space." , as well as the squabble of the "main", the dispersal of funds for two programs of flying around and landing ... That's what prevented the USSR from reaching the moon. Yes, and on what? LOC-LK and L3 looked much more modest than Apollo and LM.
        If Energy were needed, it would fly. How fly "Union", "Proton".
        The creators of Buran did not know how to do it. And then, after all, the first samples looked like a well-spilled Shuttle from domestic components.
        What should be the "Energy-Buran" we do not know. After the first flight, the system died, while it was launched understaffed. And no one knows what penny it would cost the country. At the same time, it pulled out 16 billion rubles for the development itself, which is not much cheaper than the Shuttle
        1. Connie
          Connie 24 August 2016 09: 20 New
          Automatically did not know how. Only in manual mode. Therefore, there must have been a crew.
          I'm not interested in what you think is fiction. It was prepared under Stalin. Under Khrushchev, the Armed Forces were sawn down, the peasant economy, small and medium industry were destroyed, Crimea was transferred to Ukraine and Alaska was not taken back. There were two crises on the brink of war on his initiative, and another discord with China. Many pro-Stalinist demonstrations were shot.
          The USSR did not allow the moon to reach only a political decision. Soviet LK looked normal and were ready much earlier than the Apollo. By the way with the toilets ...

          Energy flew, but not for long, while the USSR was. Then her engines were remembered only now, although they were used all the time by the Americans.
          Unions work on the move, an American company has Proton launches, they negotiate with customers and most of the money is left to them.

          I don’t know where you could see the first samples and how and with what they were compared.
          Energy-Buran became such, these systems did not allow the installation of "managers".
          The cost is always known, as well as the fact that space pays off.
          They wrote something about the investments themselves, but about operating per kilogram of the load displayed, feel free to divide the Shuttle by 5.
          1. Wingilot
            Wingilot 24 August 2016 16: 16 New
            And who needs automatic docking when you can manually? At the same time, the United States has never had problems with docking. I advise you to recall how much the USSR was busy with its automatic system.
            Khrushchev just began to cut planes for the sake of rocket science. So within the framework of the topic under discussion - a full plus. It's funny about Alaska, how would he take it if there is a sales agreement? According to the executions, Khrushchev was just a kitten and did not stand next to Stalin. And of course, when you want, you’re ready to call Khrushchev’s muscle flexing, when he made the whole world go pale, his shoals.

            It’s interesting how one can call LK normal, given that it was for one person (which for this reason would have to carry a hoop on it), a lesser life support resource and made the astronaut move to and from LOC back and forth through space (which the United States was only for the most critical cases). I do not know anything about the presence of a toilet in the LC. Yes, and he flew off in unmanned mode only in the 1970s, so that by the time he landed on the moon he was unprecedented. Yes, and all the well-known sources of those years directly say that politicians are guilty of the complete failure of the Soviet lunar mission only in that they sniffed early. And then there was already a lag in economics, engines, a quarrel between Korolev and Glushko, Korolev’s rivalry with Chelomey (from which there were two programs), failures with H1.

            Manned space does not pay off. Almost never can He tell except about the influence of space on man himself and bring political dividends. Everything else is cheaper to do with automatic weapons.

            About the history of the creation of "Buran" is well known. Just give tip "OS-120"
            1. Connie
              Connie 24 August 2016 17: 35 New
              Smart people need it. It is now used by the Americans on the ISS (purchased from smart Russian).
              Khrushchev began to cut everything for the sake of America, the Storm rocket and others, too, were cut, and so far there was no R-7.
              There was an agreement on the sale of Alaska for 99 years, that is, a lease.
              Then they turned pale with missiles from Cuba from shame. It wasn’t like that under Stalin, people’s demonstrations would be shot.

              What kind of hoop? It was more than normal compared to Gemmini's lunar module. It was necessary to climb only two times and the Americans so took the lunar soil from their own. On the surface of the moon is also open space.
              It is precisely known about the availability of a toilet has not yet climbed. He was ready in 1962.

              All these sources are known by whom they are written and why. And about the "backlog" (and did the Americans sit down at least once on Venus with its lead puddles, sulfuric acid and a pressure of 90 atm?), And about the "quarrels", about anything, but not about where almost all Soviet cosmic secrets starting with kerosene RP-1, and about the fact that before the discharge of the Khrushchev moon they were going to fly there in Gemini on Titan-2 with UDMH / HNO3
              Korolev collaborated with Chelomey, until the fake N-1 lunar ship was to be launched in parts by missiles of both types.

              But how can one dock without a crew? bully

              Did they get everything from there? I somehow know better.
    2. Connie
      Connie 24 August 2016 02: 06 New
      This happened with the inefficiency of the American shuttles (or rather the STS space transport system) precisely because the 2nd-stage engines were located on the shuttle itself ... We had to place them at the bottom of the tank, "disposable" as it is now on their SLS, or reusable in a small compartment sheathed with thermal protection like this should on the "Energy". That is, it is simply that the Americans had a heat-proof shuttle compartment with them moving from its tail to the bottom of their "tank".
      By the way, this was not a suspension tank, but an external tank, because solid fuel boosters were attached to it, and not to the shuttle. That is, it was a very solid construction.
      There would be a weight gain from this - this protected compartment with engines in orbit cannot be brought into or out, it simply cannot be reduced back, just falling into the Indian Ocean as an external tank that burned down fell, after undocking from which these engines were still without fuel and more not used in flight. The engines in the compartment of the 2nd stage would remain intact, and after parachuting, he would be picked up from the water.
      But, most importantly, and more obvious - STS would have the universality of its application, because then it became no longer necessary to carry the entire shuttle (cabin, wing, cargo compartment) with additional cargo to this small engine compartment for easy launching of the payload into orbit, which flights were the majority. And so the shuttle was initially created not for this at all, but supposedly to work as a large cargo taxi / shuttle because it was called that. Not only withdrawing but also lowering loads. In fact, he lowered almost nothing and they could fly to fix the Hubble telescope on Apollo.
  30. Wingilot
    Wingilot 24 August 2016 07: 26 New
    No, the Buran killed the fact that he was not needed.
    1. Connie
      Connie 24 August 2016 09: 25 New
      And the military said what was needed ... and non-military too.

      The one that flew killed that the Tajiks somehow strangely fixed the roof over him, and she fell.
      1. Wingilot
        Wingilot 24 August 2016 15: 45 New
        Buran was needed only by the military and the government, like a bluff. For all the rest, Proton came up.
        1. Connie
          Connie 24 August 2016 17: 05 New
          Buran was needed for very specific military and economic-technological purposes, for this there should be concepts about them, and not just about Ponte.

          Now Amers need an automatic X-37, it’s small because it’s simply not rising to Atlas-5 with one halved RD-180 from Energy.

          For the show-offs, a shuttle was needed, which carried itself in general. And something else for something ...
          1. Wingilot
            Wingilot 24 August 2016 20: 56 New
            Only during development did the military say “do it, but we will see”, without giving clear parameters. They practically did not need him. So yes, show off, that would be "like the Americans." After birth and the first breath, "Buran" died.
            If the United States wanted something more than the X-37, Shuttle S could have been born. Well, or X-37 dragged into the orbit of Delta-4-Heavy. A purely American rocket, by the way.
            The shuttle was for show-offs, but flew more than any manned spacecraft and gave birth to the ISS. There would be no Shuttle, there would be no ISS. And most likely Russia would also not have manned space exploration.
            1. Connie
              Connie 25 August 2016 09: 35 New
              If Buran had done poorly, he would not have been needed. Nothing is done without TK.
              We are not “like the Americans”, we have Buran 1,5-2,5 times better than the Shuttle and Energy is 5 times better than the STS (tank / accelerated Shuttle), which in this configuration raises less than the Proton ... So yes - you are just for the Americans, who have show-offs, to carry shuttles by shuttles. And then they can’t.
              They can only instruct Tajiks to repair roofs over the Burany in hibernation for more than 10 years. later.
              Nothing could appear more than the X-37, because they have nothing more than the Russian RD-180 engine. Delta can not run everything.

              Well, he was and sailed with his ice piercing the thermal coating. They like to hang out, as you write nonsense, he gave birth to a mouse. The hardest on the ISS was launched by Proton. If there were no Protons, there would be no ISS.
              There would be no Unions, there would be no American manned space program.
      2. ccsr
        ccsr 30 March 2019 16: 13 New
        Quote: Connie
        And the military said what was needed ... and non-military too.

        The military did not need it - the operational capabilities of this system did not fit into the concept of nuclear war, when the time from a decision to the launch of missiles took hours or tens of minutes. So this was a dummy that industry was pushing through D.F.Ustinov.
  31. Wingilot
    Wingilot 24 August 2016 21: 11 New
    The trouble is in the quinoa garden. There would be no R-7, there would be no Gagarin. Or are you going to throw him into space on the winged "Bure"?
    It was precisely the contract for the sale of Alaska. No rent, this is a "patriotic" invention.
    The Gemini lunar module never existed, there was only a project of some zealous engineers, which was pushed in favor of the Apollo. And if you don’t know that the Soviet cosmonaut was supposed to wear a hoop on the moon, then what to talk about with you? All sources have about him, and he was supposed to help the astronaut stand up. Unlike the Americans, there was nowhere to wait for help from.
    The Americans, on the other hand, had a full-fledged manhole and didn’t climb through space (an exception was the pilot of the command module, which obtained information from scientific instruments). Gemini did not fly to the moon. This program was entirely preliminary for Apollon. Piloting, docking, testing nodes.
    In 1962, they had just started designing the Soyuz, what kind of ready-made LC was there?
    And did the USSR land at least once normally on Mars? Did the planets reach the giants?
    So I think that you know better about your own, imaginary world.
    1. Connie
      Connie 25 August 2016 09: 22 New
      R-7 with the storm did not compete for anything. On the winged Bure in your USA, without hours of preparation, you could throw what you wanted.
      About perpetual sale is the invention of liberoids. It was like with Hongkog, Macau Louisiana and many others, according to the general legal scheme at that time.
      Gemini's lunar module (without hoops) can be google. The hoop needs to be worn by someone else, otherwise the foil cap slides at 6 times greater gravity.
      The Americans even on Apollo did not have a push and climbed to go to the lunar module as needed. When he was. When he was no longer then, as usual, they crap for themselves.
      Gemini's program was entirely for the moon. In the course of it, even for them it turned out that walking for themselves for 2 weeks was beyond the power of even one of the two astronauts, which means Bolivar could not stand the two.
      The nodes, and therefore, piloting and docking, at Gemini and Apollo are completely different.

      In 1962, the Soviet was already ready, they began to redesign.

      It is naturally unknown to pioneers and traveling salesmen that in the real world it is harder to work under pressure and in heat than in cold, and that flights to the inner planets of the solar system are more difficult than to outer ones.
      1. Wingilot
        Wingilot 25 August 2016 20: 51 New
        Oh yes. Liberoids. Just do not argue with the documents, sad, right?
        About the project of the lunar module based on "Gemini" I know even more than you and it was only a paper project. So what do we have there with the lunar Soviet spacesuit? You don't know that either? So twist the hula hoop, feeling like a Soviet cosmonaut.

        Oh, did you come up with an unknown Soviet lunar ship in history in 1962? Are you ready, right? From what, from the "East"?

        The pioneers then know who investigated Mercury, and how the USSR did not work out with Mars.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 26 August 2016 03: 37 New
          Laugh at the word "hula hoop", but only so that the foil hat of the sleepwalkers remains in place ... the bourgeois-Trotskyist circle can of course look at the documents on the wiki about the whole "Gemini", and disagree with the fact that "Dawn" with its weight was launched not by a shuttle or a delta, but by Proton, or to come up with the idea that in 1962 the first modification of Soviet modules was not ready, and even correct it as the date of Katyn and about the ceiling of the Su-25.
          In the delta, three engines give a thrust of about half of the Soviet in Atlas.
          Pioneers know when they happened with Mercury and why they have not sat on Venus yet? And didn’t you even try?
          1. Wingilot
            Wingilot 26 August 2016 10: 27 New
            Pioneers also know that an American probe, not adapted for landing, successfully transmitted data from the surface of the planet for some time.
            Also, pioneers know how to count and know that three RS-68s give traction in 884 tf. And the RD-180 gives 390 tf.
            So what do we have there with a Soviet hoop and a “good” moon ship?
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 26 August 2016 11: 47 New
              Inadequate details really interest ... lol
              Only a boy scout could believe in a lunar hoop. They adapted with him three times, suckers go to the toilet so as not to fall into the elephants point.

              The ship was all right. Now you need to at least multiply 390 by 2 since this is half of the Soviet, about which the “Quenians” did not notice.
  32. HAM
    HAM 25 August 2016 09: 10 New
    The devil is in the smallest details: the whole praised American space program is breaking ..... on the toilet. tongue
    1. Connie
      Connie 25 August 2016 09: 42 New
      Not quite so, they are familiar. They are emigrants from Europe, where even in Amsterdam, London and Paris they wore wide-brimmed hats so as not to get slop, urine and poop by the scruff of the neck when pots poured from windows from above. And still do it sometimes. And they began to wash (especially if horrible) only in the 20th century.
      1. Wingilot
        Wingilot 25 August 2016 20: 53 New
        But for some reason, in Great Russia, very often point-type toilets are common.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 26 August 2016 03: 20 New
          It is very predictable. liberoid remark ... Now in the cities too?

          Only for some reason, astronauts from poop (musketeers such musketeers) is not disgusting, but on the contrary it was fun.
          1. Wingilot
            Wingilot 26 August 2016 10: 28 New
            But the astronauts are not fun. Even with a toilet on the moon, they could not.
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 26 August 2016 11: 44 New
              Cosmonauts because Khrushchev did not apply for a visa. But it was fun with the American.

              The Americans seemed to be able to, but only in the presence of the Soviet RP-1, life support systems and even more than half of all the little things that the same Khrushchev gave them. In the exchange of experience ...
  33. Wingilot
    Wingilot 25 August 2016 20: 46 New
    All clear. Buran is better than the Shuttle, and Energy is better than the STS because "CCCP is the birthplace of elephants."
    Delta -4 Heavy is the most powerful booster in use in the world. Shuttle's Solid Fuel Booster is the world's most powerful rocket engine.
    You can open Wikipedia and see how many ISS blocks the Shuttle brought and how many Proton.
    If there wasn’t a Soyuz, the United States simply didn’t fly into space, or accelerated the development of a Shuttle replacement. Given that three different ships are on the way, no problem.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 26 August 2016 03: 28 New
      The shuttle is the most pontificant and spectacularly launched and bad with its engines inside, with the "most" boosters and with the "most" tank ...
      The most launched and most withdrawn was and is Proton.
      R-7 is even more launched.
      You can compare the weight of the elephant and the mammoth (this was also predictable), and also see what they belong to the elephant squad. lol
      You can compare the weight of the ISS modules.

      A buran is better than a shuttle, because it can fly higher and better turn away.
      1. Wingilot
        Wingilot 26 August 2016 10: 34 New
        Buran could not fly better since he died after the first launch. At the same time, the understaffed flew.
        You can compare the mass and number of nodes delivered to the ISS. Read here
        What do we have there with quantity and total mass?
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 26 August 2016 11: 42 New
          Buran could and flew. The one that flew crushed the roof more than 10 years after launch. This has already happened.
          It can be compared block by block. You can start with Dawn and Unity. bully
          What about the mass and the hermetic volume?

          There are still warehouses in the farms, then they stuffed every shit there like empty modules equipped, since the shuttle barely dragged itself to the ISS height. But not dragged mostly. Therefore, this circus required many times more launches than Proton.

          The shuttle breathed so strange that they write such things about him:

          1. The Shuttle killed more people than any other space vehicle in history.
          2. It was extremely expensive
          3. It never went very high.
          4. It never worked according to parameters.
          5. It's going to be replaced by something much better.

          Just how bad was the Space Shuttle? Even former NASA administrator Michael Griffin called it “a mistake.”

          And item 5 probably means SLS which should output 130 tons and not also promised and never reached 25
          1. Wingilot
            Wingilot 26 August 2016 19: 46 New
            Of course, the Shuttle killed more people than any other spacecraft. Because no spacecraft pulled out so many people at a time and in general. And such screams are like saying that buses are bad, we’ll transfer to cars.

            The declared loading capacity of the Shuttle is 24 400 kg. The maximum load removed by him is

            Do not forget to subtract the mass of the propulsion system and fuel from the ISS Russian modules.
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 27 August 2016 00: 15 New
              Because no other manned spacecraft had a disaster percentage of 1,5 with the maximum allowable even at that time 0,5%
              The reliability of buses should be better than that of passenger cars, or at least not less, but here - vice versa.

              With such declared load capacity, the first shuttle (as the very first and heaviest) to the ISS never even flew empty.

              How much does it make for example at Dawn?
  34. Wingilot
    Wingilot 26 August 2016 19: 54 New
    Oh, so sweet that you yourself do not remember what you yourself wrote.
    "In the delta, three engines give a thrust of about half the Soviet in Atlas"
    I told you that you were stupid. Now you say
    "Now you need to at least multiply 390 by 2 since this is half of the Soviet"
    Well, why multiply? After all, all pioneers know that the RD-170 has a thrust of 740 tf. As for the notorious 884 tf, again, it falls short. And it certainly does not reach 1272 tonnes of SRB.
    Of course, of course, how can it be a proud Soviet cosmonaut, alone, on the moon, can walk in a hoop so that he doesn’t fall sideways.
    Funny hallucinations, funny.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 27 August 2016 00: 21 New
      Then what was written there was “about how” and “half”. But since it’s really difficult for some, you can multiply these 740 by 3 and compare the result (without TTU) with your 880. Then, with your 1272 with TTU which work for cheating for very short time.

      hallucinations of Tolkienists about hoops, sniffing their toxic exhaust (SRB) in half with rock powder, and pissing with delight in the Simpson Museum on a moon rover on a wheel.
  35. Wingilot
    Wingilot 27 August 2016 11: 20 New
    Because no other manned spacecraft had a disaster percentage of 1,5

    The Soviet manned spacecraft Soyuz had an even higher percentage of accidents at the time the Shuttle program closed. The same two crashes for fewer flights. Learn the topic, not the slogans.
    With such declared load capacity, the first shuttle (as the very first and heaviest) to the ISS never even flew empty.

    Empty with declared payload? Empty but loaded? Are your thoughts confused?
    How much does it make for example at Dawn?

    The FGB was launched with 3800 kg of fuel on board. Due to the engines, this mass can easily exceed 4 tons. Only 2 11D442 weigh per 100 kg.
  36. Wingilot
    Wingilot 27 August 2016 11: 44 New
    RP-1 - American aviation kerosene, nobody gave it to them / And it was already used in the PGM-17 Thor ballistic missile,. So you're lying again. In the USSR, the T-1 brand was used as a rocket fuel. Having opened any directory on brands of kerosene, you can see. that these are different brands.
  37. Connie
    Connie 27 August 2016 13: 46 New
    RP-1 is a Soviet rocket fuel from the P-7. In your favorite USA, the first American satellite was launched with alcohol guinea. Naturally in the USSR it is called differently. Gemini then flew to UDMH. It is strange that this is not in the manual of the Tolkienist.
    The Soyuz spacecraft is launched on a Soyuz rocket, the most frequently used and most reliable launch vehicle in the world to date. [1] [2] ... Soyuz is widely considered the world's safest, most cost-effective human spaceflight vehicle, [4] established by its unparalleled length of operational history.

    Dawn's weight is indicated in the ISS. Empty it is without cargo. And that did not fly off. Do not study these topics, there will be no reason or reason for joy for you.
    1. Wingilot
      Wingilot 27 August 2016 15: 56 New
      I repeat once again. RP-1 (used in the USA) and T-1 (used in the USSR) are different brands of kerosene.

      1. Connie
        Connie 27 August 2016 18: 59 New
        You’re not looking there,
        Hydyne was used as the fuel for the first stage of the Juno I rocket that launched Explorer 1, the first successful satellite launch conducted by the United States.
        The percentages are left, nothing is written about the substances themselves even here
        but it’s also written about RG-1, and which of them is better.
        The right substances are here:
        1. Wingilot
          Wingilot 27 August 2016 21: 17 New
          Of course, for you this is left interest. Because they destroy your imagination, that someone has transmitted something there. After all, the USSR and the USA used different brands of kerosene. And your thoughts are confused. And here Explorer-1 and gidin? I brought the American ballistic missile Thor, already at 59 put into service and worked on the RP-1.
          1. Connie
            Connie 28 August 2016 00: 41 New
            Percentage of what?
            About Thor, they wrote to you. And before that, she worked on alcohol.
            R-7 long before that, not only was but also brought out Sputnik.

            They wrote that the Tolkienists "did not understand"! There was such a "missile gap" in the 1950s. Because in the USA for a long time there were no oxygen-kerosene missiles. Attempts to make and run them were but they exploded. So far, the secret of additives to aviation kerosene JP- about which you "accidentally mentioned" at the beginning. Which turned him into a rocket "RP-" (according to the American classification). And it doesn’t matter who called him in CCCC before that, and then renamed it.
            Prior to that, it was no coincidence that the aircraft were refueled and exploded. Those. the United States did not have an ICBM. Therefore, there were many bombers, with one small satellite and 0 astronauts.

            The American satellite weighed 10 times less, but they lifted it for the press
            like a flag on iodzhim three and with an undocked 4th step to look bigger and there was something to hold on to. It was withdrawn later than the Soviet one and not on ICBMs but on the BDSD with lotions, which was an enlarged copy of the Nazi V-2. Which, as expected, V-2 was refueled with an alcohol mixture rather than kerosene. Which was slightly better than the one that poured into the same V-2 of the same fonbrow. And on which astronauts wet their asses for another year doing suborbital jumps into the Atlantic Ocean to the public, instead of normal orbital flights.

            Speaking of bombers and ICBMs. I peed on the rover’s wheel, climbed on a bad shuttle — shake off their rock powder from their narrow trousers, and go down with even greater enthusiasm to take a picture (still in the same museum) in an embrace with the B-29. From which not all the soot from 200 thousand Hiroshimtsev got off.
            1. Connie
              Connie 28 August 2016 01: 49 New
              Well, yes, here you wrote about Thor, in the same place where it is no coincidence that about "aviation" kerosene instead of rocket. lol I just didn’t know and forgot that it was a BRDS (which is mentioned on Wikipedia). And also that after receiving RP-1 for civilian purposes, the Americans tried to launch Thor instead of alcohol on kerosene directly in England without making changes to the engine, so they also exploded for the first time. laughing
              There was also an Atlas infantry fighting vehicle with inflatable tanks. Because she, too, was first alcohol. For maximum relief with the same low fuel. But after replacing the alcohol with kerosene and making changes to the dviglo, at least it became an ICBM from the BRDS.
              But Thor even stayed on kerosene.

              The American satellite flew with alcohol in 1958, and not in 1959. Soviet in 1957 on kerosene, and the R-7 was ready a couple of years earlier.
              Tolkienists, of course, can argue that the Americans invented the RP-1, although many years later than the Russians themselves, but it’s just looking for something that is not quite easy. And it is understood from the fact that when they had what kind of missiles were built, or rebuilt, or even so, they quickly refueled stupidly ...
              And the fact that all American aircraft use only Soviet titanium (even in the SR-71) is even easier. So RD-180 is not an exception but a rule.

              Even in AMC Surveyor was a donated Soviet automatic soft landing system to the moon. It is more complicated than the automatic docking system purchased by the Americans many decades later. laughing But of course, the Americans, like this docking, were not needed all the way, because it was possible to launch without it ... lol

              Not percentages, but formulas of specific chemicals are important.
              ttps: //
              Well, where are they? laughing
            2. Connie
              Connie 28 August 2016 02: 29 New
              Moreover, these supporting Atlas inflatable tanks (that is, it is all inflatable) by the Americans are issued as an "achievement". Although then not a single kerosene rocket had them. Because with normal fuel energy, they simply are not needed. laughing But how would we, as Carnegie taught, give out our shortcomings for our achievements, or who else?
              Some of you are all blown through. Not only sprinkled with shuttle rock powder.
              I imagine the reaction of the Soviet cosmonauts who (Glory to the CPSU!) Cannot week without a Russian bath, when the hatch between the Union and Apollo opened and from there first the smell of expensive deodorants, and then poop and spray of urine flew. Like from the Middle Ages, only multiplied by weightlessness. Then - the same thing on the ISS from the American ISS segment in the first place. Until they took advantage of ours and then bought the same outhouse. Bought by the way for 20 million, and in the statement is 20 times a large amount. laughing It seems that they were not allowed to use them for free, but FORCED to use them for free. As in the "World" before, sniffing from the Shuttle their rock powder.

              And if so, before Dornberger V-2 hadn’t exploded with kerosene before, they would fly to New York, and not just alcohol to London.
  38. Wingilot
    Wingilot 28 August 2016 08: 35 New
    "if you're so smart, why are you so poor": D
    Of course, the United States bought a landing system from the USSR, of course, just don’t worry. It only bothers me how many vehicles beat the USSR, and how many the USA, when landing. It also bothers me how many failures there were during docking, with a cool tricked-out system of automatic docking to the USSR and manually to the United States. It also bothers me that the cool USSR was never able to land normally on Mars. Single LC also bothers me. Dead cool "Buran".
    No, of course, Russia is the birthplace of elephants, but on the rug you personally Obama shit. Live with that. But you still tie with coprophagy, otherwise you mention too often. Is this your fetish?
    1. Connie
      Connie 28 August 2016 18: 18 New
      To the Venus and these own systems of the poor (and much more) bothers too much ... Another country of a strange dream that you got in England is the sound of STOVL, and in Russia it is supersonic, as usual almost nothing has been done about it. The X-37 also flies with automation from the steep Buran (which not all were crushed by the roof) and is displayed on the Atlas-5 with the Russian RD-180. Which are reusable for some reason not in it but outside in the Atlas ... So exist and pee on the rover wheel and lick Hiroshima soot in the same museum with the B-29.
      This is their essence and yours, since I didn’t see it with my rugs in them ...
    2. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 29 August 2016 02: 56 New
      Khrushchev and the USSR’s moon didn’t let people send them with a stroke of the pen. Just like Gorbach, the USSR, with one stroke of a pen, ruined it. Pontiff forbade Americans to land on Venus? laughing

      There is no docking node between the LOC and the LK because before the development of N-1 according to the early plan of flight to the Moon, they had to dock for the astronaut to transfer only in the near-moon orbit. The LC was delivered there in advance by the Chelomey or Yangel LV and was waiting there for the LOK with the crew. The heavier LOC was first launched into low Earth orbit by the Korolev rocket, and docked at the stage intended for its launch to the Moon, which was launched before this with another rocket.

      LOK this is Soyuz spacecraft, when remodeling, then they removed the excess heat protection necessary for direct entry into the earth's atmosphere when returning from the moon with the 2nd space speed, and added a third astronaut with his life support systems.
      The technology for landing on the moon was worked out on the Turbolet, which flew for the first time in 1956 under the program for the creation of the USSR air defense system.
      H-1 began to be developed (late such, late) after the discharge of the Moon, therefore, the LOK-LK docking station is not there. They had to fly there separately.

      About the same was Lunar Gemini's flight plan. In which there was a leaky LM, which against the background of the LC does not look at all. Well, throughout the smallest Gemini "flew", so after hanging out for 2 weeks on Gemini-7 in space near the Earth, they did not dare to fly to the Moon even with just one astronaut.

      Well, what is a hermetic docking unit (its technology was also transferred to the Americans for Apollo), the Soviet astronautics with a toilet / airlock, etc. in a separate hermetic undocking compartment, knew before the Americans, who had only one poorly-inhabited compartment on Gemini. From which astronauts crawled out even without a lock chamber, as from a double convertible toilet ... Moreover, each astronaut through his wing is a great automobile power ... (quote from Lavrov).

      And why did the Shuttles dock and sit only by hand when Surveyor gently sat down? And did the sidewinders of the 1950s or the homing torpedoes of the 1940s hit?

      Without a sealed module, an American landing on the moon would have looked something like this
      only without Apollo's lunar module in the distance.
      He went down with a pulse for 260 like Armstrong’s, without changing diapers (if the spacesuit did not shake the flying regolith) from these “moon sleighs” Gemini cried, stepped two steps to the side, stuck the American flag (peed on the rover wheel) I took a couple of stones, and without changing the diapers back, I almost certainly lost touch with the ship from the stress.

      and now the Tolkienists look here
      look for "single-launch" there and then try to prove that separate-launch is not
      planned ... laughing

      otherwise why mention single at all?

      They may still ask what year the Yak-36 pilot could throw a pen hovering in meters above the ground and read a magazine (all the same in 1963, the Americans began to buy Harrier from the British later, then they stole it, and they fought even better than them).

      Spin your hoop on! lol
      1. Wingilot
        Wingilot 30 August 2016 08: 28 New
        How glorious that your nonsense about the same Soviet cosmonautics completely contradict what the creators of Soviet cosmonautics wrote.
        Stop shoving your own hallucinations already, okay?)
        1. Connie
          Connie 30 August 2016 10: 15 New
          Who wrote what? Kamanin’s diaries are not to be offered, this is a crudely cobbled-up fake, even the CIA couldn’t declare this.
          With the help of rocket modules docked in low Earth orbit, they wanted to fly to the moon even on the canceled Vostok spacecraft. They write to this that they caught on time because he has the wrong capsule shape ... Although no one forbids making a round square one for quick.
          1. Wingilot
            Wingilot 31 August 2016 13: 43 New
            For example, wrote Chertok and Feoktistov. Yes, and full of documents.
            Of course they were, you can recall the North project. Only it would not fly anywhere, if you recall that at that time the USSR was not able to dock. The first docking was for the USA. And when they learned, the automatic systems constantly failed, again, unlike the Americans.
            But of course, this is all fake. Just calm down. And no one flies into space now, except Great Russia. Do not be nervous the main thing.
            1. Connie
              Connie 31 August 2016 22: 07 New
              What did they write and what kind of documents? They wrote that they were not going to fly to the moon with a separate launch?
              The Americans gathered at Gemini, and then at Apollo to Saturn 5.

              There is something they wrote about, there is something about which they were silent. They wrote and were silent as the party ordered, and the KGB.
              Where can I read something sane about the North project? The USSR was able to dock during the "East". At that time, the USSR was able to use the Yak-36 that the United States then bought from Russia for the F-35.
              Again, how many times did automatic docking systems fail? Unlike the Americans, they were in the USSR. Unlike the Americans, their USSR didn’t buy from the ISS much later. lol
              Nervous and breathing like a Trotsky you, tolkienist. Follow the training manual with a plastic sword, and turn the hoop. laughing
  39. Wingilot
    Wingilot 1 September 2016 16: 48 New
    What is the dock during the "East"? She was gone. They only started joining when the Union appeared
    The automatic docking system of the USSR refused many times, which led to the disruption of missions at orbital stations. The United States did not have a single docking failure.
    The Americans were not going to the moon on Gemini. No need to attribute the wet fantasies of a pair of engineers with their multi-starter Gemini-Booster block to NASA. Jmini worked entirely for the future Apollo.
    But you can recall that the "Great Russians" are now pushing for just such a topic, with separate output of modules and booster blocks, all in four launches.
    Chertok wrote his memoirs already in the 90s, so here you sat in a puddle, from which you can’t get out, hysterical. Let you dunk into it again. US ISS modules and unmanned aerial vehicles use their own Common Berthing Mechanism and Hermo adapters: D Also, a similar Hermo adapter was docked to the Mir station and Shuttles docked with their own docking station: D So run, wipe away tears and learn the materiel
    1. Connie
      Connie 1 September 2016 23: 39 New
      Look at the North project or at LK.

      How many failures were "missions"? The United States did not have a single automatic docking system. We bought a Soviet one. They could not do this themselves. Because the Tolkienists. Then they hired other Tolkienists to hang noodles on people's ears here.

      The Americans were going to the moon on Gemini. "Moon Gemini" is Gemini.
      Gemini could not work for Apollo because iron is too different. It is if without these wet dreams.
      You’ve been dipped into this pool of your fantasies for more than a week.

      Where did the great Russian / Soviet people say that they were not going to fly to the moon with a separate launch of the USSR? Or do they even write the opposite in memoirs about this? What was going to?

      Dunk again, the rapprochement system to the docking position is Soviet.

      Go still spin the hoop, urinate on the rover wheel and lick the Hiroshima B-29 in the same museum to the brilliance of 200 Japanese soot.
      1. Wingilot
        Wingilot 2 September 2016 01: 00 New
        Soyuz-10, Soyuz-15.
        The Americans were not going to the moon on Gemini. It is only in your gloomy fantasies. They immediately set their sights on the Apollo, and on the Gemini worked out the docking, the duration of the flight, and the VCD.
        Well, the N-1, which never flew, was supposed to deliver two Soviet cosmonauts to the orbit of the moon with one launch, after which one poor astronaut had to lunar.
        Wash yourself in your puddle, dreamer. Shuttles docked independently, manually, they did not give up the Soviet docking system.
        So the march to pray for Putin and lick the “Union” and “Proton” 50 years of freshness. Yes, remember when Russia launched its own AMS.
        1. Connie
          Connie 2 September 2016 02: 39 New
          Why so little? This is manned docking and nonsense compared to what the Americans had at the docking of Gemini.

          Going once needed Lunar Gemini. And once manned dockings were worked out in orbit with steps-accelerators of Agen. For flights around the Earth, a single Mercury was enough. There was nowhere to fly with an accelerator other than the moon.

          Your stupid dirty cartridges in their double toilet-Gemini did not have a tight-fitting assembly, as well as the opportunity to get into it because of the tightness inside the capsule. Therefore, the MOB orbital station with Gemini is out of work. Only the moon. Where one Americans is waiting in the toilet in orbit, and the second flies to the moon in the open sled from Surveyor, crap there in diapers and then does not get to the point of their change back.

          If they immediately aimed at Apollo then this Gemini would not have happened. It makes no sense to work out something on Gemini for Apollo, because on Apollo everything is different iron.

          Instead of the N-1, it was easy to fly with a separate launch to the R-7 and UR-500 (Proton, the leader even in commercial launches).
          N-1 was simply not needed, it was invented later only to merge the moon with your Americans. See the beginning.

          If the docking system did not give up to the Americans, then why now have it been bought for transport ships and the ISS? See the beginning.
          If "not needed" was a system from Buran, then they would launch the X-37 with dwarf blacks. As previously experienced a manned shuttle, risking at once 2 test astronauts when they launched it for the first time. See the top

          Your puddle you are in it and wash, crouching on the Proton as a cactus.

          Almost all AMS are running on Russian engines and most of them are Russian or European devices.

          Go twist the hoop and write on the rover wheel and lick to shine Hiroshima B-29 from the soot of 200 thousand Japanese in the same museum. In the country of cannibalistic Tolkienists, you will be yours there.
  40. Old shoe
    Old shoe 27 October 2016 05: 36 New
    Mdaaaa ... I met a lot of evidence about the flight of Americans to the moon. But this...! And I want to repeat the well-known phrase: "Maybe this is the homespun truth?" I say this without banter. You can be smart and theorized as much as you like, but one simple question puts everything in its place: but cf., excuse me, where did they go ?! wassat The author is a plus!
  41. Jack-b
    Jack-b 25 January 2017 07: 37 New
    Heh, how is Elon Musk going to send a hundred people to Mars? After all that has been read, a sad picture appears ((((((