Apollo 11 Conspiracy Questions (Couldn't find answers at Clavius)

[Mobyseven]

Hey all.

This is just a quick few questions, I'm hoping someone (probably R. Mackey) can point me in the right direction.

My friend and I were discussing the Apollo 11 conspiracy theory, and he brought up claims I hadn't heard of before. Furthermore, I wasn't able to find the answers at Clavius. They are:

1) He finds it suspicious that NASA were supposedly not making any progress right up until a year or so before Apollo 11, and then there was suddenly a 'boom' in progress so that just over a year later NASA could land a man on the moon. I suppose the best thing to counter this would be a timeline of some description.

2) That somebody was able to match a mountain range in Arizona exactly to a photo of mountains on the moon. I find this claim suspect, for obvious reasons, and was wondering if anyone had heard of it before.

Thanks all!

[~enigma~]

Hey all.

This is just a quick few questions, I'm hoping someone (probably R. Mackey) can point me in the right direction.

My friend and I were discussing the Apollo 11 conspiracy theory, and he brought up claims I hadn't heard of before. Furthermore, I wasn't able to find the answers at Clavius. They are:

1) He finds it suspicious that NASA were supposedly not making any progress right up until a year or so before Apollo 11, and then there was suddenly a 'boom' in progress so that just over a year later NASA could land a man on the moon. I suppose the best thing to counter this would be a timeline of some description.

2) That somebody was able to match a mountain range in Arizona exactly to a photo of mountains on the moon. I find this claim suspect, for obvious reasons, and was wondering if anyone had heard of it before.

Thanks all!
The team that imaged a really large mountain range on Titan was from NASA/JPL/University Of Arizona so apparently your friend is very far removed from reality. As far as no progress goes, he has his or her head pretty far up his or her anal cavity.

[Corsair 115]

1) He finds it suspicious that NASA were supposedly not making any progress right up until a year or so before Apollo 11, and then there was suddenly a 'boom' in progress so that just over a year later NASA could land a man on the moon.Well, first you have to define what progress means in this context.

The biggest setback the Apollo program suffered was the Apollo I fire in January of 1967. The investigation of that incident and the subsequent redesign of the Command Module in light of the investigation's report caused a long stoppage in U.S. space flights.

Once Apollo 7 was successful in getting the new CM flight tested, that part was back on track. The original plan for the Apollo missions called for Apollo 8 and 9 to test the LM and CM together in Earth orbit, with the former flight scheduled for a late 1968 flight and the latter an early 1969 flight. Apollo 10 would test the LM in lunar orbit, and Apollo 11 would be the first attempt at a manned landing.

As it happened, delays in the development of the LM threatened to unravel that schedule; it looked like Apollo 8 would be delayed until early 1969, pushing back the timelines for all the subsequent missions. That's when the bold plan of sending Apollo 8 to the Moon and into lunar orbit without the LM was born. It would allow for valuable flight experience to be gained while development of the LM continued. Testing the LM and CM in Earth orbit was also reduced from the original two missions to just one, since it was eventually decided that two such missions was an unnecessary duplication of effort.

So, there was no "boom" in progress; rather, there was a reordering of the missions in response to the conditions which prevailed at the time. The key decision was Apollo 8, which was a huge step forwards. By the time that mission had been completed, the LM's development was back on track and it was ready for Apollo 9's flight.

The launch dates of the manned Apollo lunar missions:

Apollo 1 accident - January 27, 1967
Apollo 7 - October 11, 1968
Apollo 8 - December 21, 1968
Apollo 9 - March 3, 1969
Apollo 10 - May 18, 1969
Apollo 11 - July 16, 1969
Apollo 12 - November 14, 1969
Apollo 13 - April 11, 1970
Apollo 14 - January 31, 1971
Apollo 15 - July 26, 1971
Apollo 16 - April 16, 1972
Apollo 17 - December 7, 1972.

[qarnos]

I'll just add to Corsair's post that test flights for Apollo go all the way back to late 1961 with the Saturn I tests.

The Saturn I was used for various test flights until it was replaced by the Saturn IB in 1966. The IB was capable of putting the CSM or LEM into Earth orbit and was used for most Earth-orbit testing. The only manned mission launched with the IB was Apollo 7. The Saturn V first flew in November, 1967 (Apollo 4).

In all, there were 28 missions/tests (most unmanned) carried out for the Apollo program between October 1961 and the launch of Apollo 11.

Number of Apollo missions 1961-1972

1961 : 1
1962 : 2
1963 : 3
1964 : 5
1965 : 5
1966 : 4
1967 : 2 (inc. Apollo 1)
1968 : 4
1969 : 4 (2 prior to Apollo 11)
1970 : 1 (Apollo 13)
1971 : 2
1972 : 2

Note: 1973 saw the final flight of the Saturn V (Skylab - not Apollo).

[Obviousman]

I'd probably recommend a couple of the history papers:

The Apollo Spacecraft - A Chronology

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4009/contents.htm

Chariots for Apollo - A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/cover.html

Moonport - A History of Apollo Launch Facilities

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/cover.html

And an excellent reference source for the technical history of Apollo is the NASA Technical Reports Server

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp

[Devil's Advocate]

Hey all.

This is just a quick few questions, I'm hoping someone (probably R. Mackey) can point me in the right direction.

My friend and I were discussing the Apollo 11 conspiracy theory, and he brought up claims I hadn't heard of before. Furthermore, I wasn't able to find the answers at Clavius. They are:

1) He finds it suspicious that NASA were supposedly not making any progress right up until a year or so before Apollo 11, and then there was suddenly a 'boom' in progress so that just over a year later NASA could land a man on the moon. I suppose the best thing to counter this would be a timeline of some description.

2) That somebody was able to match a mountain range in Arizona exactly to a photo of mountains on the moon. I find this claim suspect, for obvious reasons, and was wondering if anyone had heard of it before.

Thanks all!

Do you have a link or photograph to prove the claim of matching terrestrial mountain ranges? Does he?

[qarnos]

Do you have a link or photograph to prove the claim of matching terrestrial mountain ranges? Does he?

Actually, I'd like to see this, too.

[The Doc]

The mountain range claim is interesting if it can be backed up. Did he give you any evidence?

[Mobyseven]

The team that imaged a really large mountain range on Titan was from NASA/JPL/University Of Arizona so apparently your friend is very far removed from reality. As far as no progress goes, he has his or her head pretty far up his or her anal cavity.

Hang on - so they IMAGED a mountain range on Titan and compared it to the moon?

[Mobyseven]

Do you have a link or photograph to prove the claim of matching terrestrial mountain ranges? Does he?

Actually, I'd like to see this, too.

The mountain range claim is interesting if it can be backed up. Did he give you any evidence?

No. "It was on a documentary I [he] watched years ago."

[qarnos]

Hang on - so they IMAGED a mountain range on Titan and compared it to the moon?

Well, I guess it is a possibility, but there is no evidence to suggest that your hoaxer made this particular mistake. I'd like to think that no-one could be that stupid. Then again, I am often wrong!

I'd still like to see the photo he/she claims is of an Arizona mountain range. Did you get to see it at all or what it just his/her assertion?

EDIT: Just read Moby's latest post.

[SpitfireIX]

. . . 1) He finds it suspicious that NASA were supposedly not making any progress right up until a year or so before Apollo 11, and then there was suddenly a 'boom' in progress so that just over a year later NASA could land a man on the moon. I suppose the best thing to counter this would be a timeline of some description.


This is discussed on the Soviet Technology (http://www.clavius.org/techsoviet.html) page:

Conspiracists focus on the late 1950s and early 1960s when comparing U.S. and Soviet space technology. They ignore the middle and late 1960s when the Soviets clearly faltered and the U.S. made some key advances. According to the Encyclopedia Astronautica, the U.S. had accumulated 1,864 hours in space prior to Apollo 11 compared to the Soviet Union's 697 hours at the completion of Soyuz 5 (the last Soviet mission prior to Apollo 11). . . .

The Gemini program perfected the art of rendezvous with manned and unmanned spacecraft. It also set records for endurance, for altitude, for spacewalk duration, launch turnaround, and other important records. These records, however, were not the glamorous ones and so they don't attract a lot of casual historical attention. But in terms of preparing the American space program for a landing on the moon they were vital. By 1967 these early Soviet records were no longer relevant.

The ability to set records is not equivalent to the ability to create lasting, working technology. And that's why the Soviet space program eventually fizzled. They were trying to set records, while the United States was trying to get to the moon. [emphasis added]


2) That somebody was able to match a mountain range in Arizona exactly to a photo of mountains on the moon. I find this claim suspect, for obvious reasons, and was wondering if anyone had heard of it before. . . .


This may be a mangled version of the following, from a 1994 Wired article (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.09/moon.land.html?pg=4&topic=&topic_set=), possibly conflated with various claims of identical backgrounds in moon photos:

But when Knight Newspapers . . . polled 1,721 US residents one year after the first moon landing, it found that more than 30 percent of respondents were suspicious of NASA's trips to the moon. A July 20, 1970, Newsweek article reporting the results of the poll cited "an elderly Philadelphia woman who thought the moon landing had been staged in an Arizona desert" and a Macon, Georgia, housewife who questioned how a TV set that couldn't pull in New York stations could possibly "receive signals from the moon." [ :faint: ]


The identical background claims are dealt with by Phil Plait (AKA The Bad Astronomer) in his debunking (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html) of the Fox moon hoax "documentary," and here (http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm) by Ian Goddard (who is referenced by Phil).

You ought to email Jay about this one (webmaster@clavius.org). If anyone's heard of it, it's probably he.

[grmcdorman]

It's worthwhile pointing out, as well, that the claims of "huge advances" are pretty much bogus. If you look at the Mercury and Gemini programs, there is a clear step-wise advance in capabilities: sub-orbital, orbital, multiple orbits, two-man flights, rendezvous in orbit, spacewalks, etc.

Even in Apollo, there's a progression, from unmanned SV-IB and S-V launches, through earth-orbit operations (testing LM, for example), and finally, with Apollo X, lunar orbit. There were some planned test missions that were skipped since the tests went so well (if you want, I can look up the specifics - I have a weighty tome here titled The History of Manned Spaceflight that gives details).

There isn't any astounding leap in capabilities when you look at the full record; the hoax believers don't. They only look at Apollo, and ignore the preceding Mercury and Gemini programs.

[Tirdun]

I'd add that "huge advances" happen all the time in other fields. Look at medicine, computers, even something as simple as light bulbs. Apply enough pressure (desire, funding, need) to a technological situation and humanity has shown repeatedly that it can and will advance quickly.

[Alferd_Packer]

Conspiracists focus on the late 1950s and early 1960s when comparing U.S. and Soviet space technology. They ignore the middle and late 1960s when the Soviets clearly faltered and the U.S. made some key advances.

our ex-Nazis were better than their ex-Nazis

[~enigma~]

Hang on - so they IMAGED a mountain range on Titan and compared it to the moon?
That isn't what I said is it? I said your friend has his facts confused.

[twinstead]

[The mountain range claim is interesting if it can be backed up. Did he give you any evidence?

Never heard the Arizona one, but there have been claims that backgrounds were reused, but this is dealt with very well here:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#backgrounds

[grmcdorman]

our ex-Nazis were better than their ex-NazisYep. The Americans got the rocket scientists; the Soviets got the technicians and workers. In particular, the Americans got Von Braun.

One comment I saw recently was comparing the Soviet rocket engine (nozzles, if you will) to American. The American designs were better, so they could put fewer individual engines on the rocket; this, apparently, leads to fewer failure modes (i.e. higher reliability). Not being a rocket scientist, I can't explain this further, unfortunately.

The other interesting thing was that the initial Soviet lead was actually due to a deficit in their technology: the Soviet warheads were bigger, so they had bigger boosters. The Americans had to upgrade the boosters for manned missions, so they were playing catch-up for a while.

[CptColumbo]

One problem with CTers, in regards to the moon missions, is they tend to focus only on the manned missions. Before Gemini ended and during the hiatus between manned missions, after Apollo 1, there were unmanned missions to test the Saturn V rocket and other Apollo components.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions#Unmanned_missions

New documentary coming out:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/thinkfilm/intheshadowofthemoon/trailer/

[Stellafane]

Not that it was needed -- the moon hoax conspiracy has so many nails in its coffin, the wood is probably gone -- but I recently learned of yet another irrefutable proof that we went to the moon. You see, the Apollo astronauts took a picture of Earth and background stars through an ultraviolet camera. The reason they did this is that UV doesn't penetrate Earth's atmosphere worth a damn (at least as long as the ozone holds out). The photo showed a bunch of stars that were faint in visible light, but very bright in UV. This was unprecedented, since such a picture was impossible from Earth.

A few years later we launched a UV camera aboard a satellite. It eventually photographed the same starfield as the Apollo astronauts had done. Guess what? The pictures matched: the exact same visibly dim stars that showed up bright in UV from the moon also were prominent in the satellite photos -- thus confirming a discovery made earlier on the moon, which was unknown at the time and could not have been reproduced any other way!!

I invite any moon hoax CTers (the ones who don't have their fingers in their ears at the moment anyway) to explain how NASA could have faked a discovery like this, years ahead of devising any other possible means to do it.

[Dr Adequate]

More moon hoax stuff here: Moon hoax.

[Mobyseven]

That isn't what I said is it? I said your friend has his facts confused.

Sorry. You talked about a picture taken of Titan by a team at the UoArizona. His claim is that a picture of a mountain range in Arizona exactly matches up with a picture taken on the moon. I combined your answer with his claim and came up with that midway piece of nonsense that I interpreted you as saying. My bad.

To everyone else: Tequila and vodka make one unable to properly comprehend articles. When I sober up, however, I'll print them out and give them a read. Many thanks again!

[Horatius]

I invite any moon hoax CTers (the ones who don't have their fingers in their ears at the moment anyway) to explain how NASA could have faked a discovery like this, years ahead of devising any other possible means to do it.




Oh come now, do you really believe we can launch satellites? LOL! They faked the moon missions, then faked the "satellite" that "proved" it!



There's nothing you can't explain away if you're allowed to make up your facts!

[Corsair 115]

Yep. The Americans got the rocket scientists; the Soviets got the technicians and workers. In particular, the Americans got Von Braun.Let's be fair though: Sergei Korolëv, from everything I've seen, was pretty much Wernher von Braun's equal when it comes to rocket design and development. Korolev could have gotten the Soviets to the Moon had he had access to the kinds of resources made available to von Braun and NASA. But Korolev never got that kind of support from the Soviet government, nor was Korolev entirely trusted due to his political background.

[AgeGap]

Slightly off topic but I always smile at this last reply- google "xkcd youtube". Sorry but I'm too young to post links!

[SpitfireIX]

Let's be fair though: Sergei Korolëv, from everything I've seen, was pretty much Wernher von Braun's equal when it comes to rocket design and development. Korolev could have gotten the Soviets to the Moon had he had access to the kinds of resources made available to von Braun and NASA. But Korolev never got that kind of support from the Soviet government, nor was Korolev entirely trusted due to his political background.


The fact that he died in January 1966 (purportedly from a botched operation) didn't help either.

[grmcdorman]

Yeah, the Soviets had lots of home-grown very bright rocket scientists. The failures of their space program - although they had many successes - were largely due to political interference. For example, they had the first 3-man mission - but it was done by just stuffing a 3rd couch in what was basically a 2-man Soyuz capsule (Voskhod 1, 12 October 1964). However, it was so cramped that they could not wear space suits. (Voskhod 2, a 2-man flight, did include space suits for them - especially since it involved the first space-walk.)

ETA: This 3-man flight was done under Kruschev's pressure, basically just to get a "first". There was no scientific or technical basis for the flight, unlike most of the American flights.

[Source: The History of Manned Space Flight, David Baker, PhD., p 188.]

[Dr. Lao]

Soviets couldn't build the engines large enough for a reliable moon rocket. They couldn't manufacture the bells large enough. As a result, their monster N1 Rocket had 42 seperate rockets on them, and all it took was one to not work. Which is what happened every time they launched.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/russia/n1-1.jpg

[CptColumbo]

Soviets couldn't build the engines large enough for a reliable moon rocket. They couldn't manufacture the bells large enough. As a result, their monster N1 Rocket had 42 seperate rockets on them, and all it took was one to not work. Which is what happened every time they launched.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/russia/n1-1.jpg

But they always looked cool. Like putting a racing stripe on a Ford Pinto.

[Pope130]

A great source for the hardware, history and chronology of spaceflight is Mark Wade's "Encyclopedia Astronautica" at www.astronautix.com .
There are several articles spot on topic.

Robert

[Mobyseven]

Thanks all. I'll print some stuff out and have a read.

I may get to watch this video soon...apparently his mum and dad have it at home, so he will be getting it sent up. This worries me a tad, mainly because his mother is a history teacher, who also shows JFK in her class when teaching that section of the course.

My edumacation hurts in the brain right now.

[kimota]

To everyone else: Tequila and vodka make one unable to properly comprehend articles.

I think you may have stumbled upon a reason for so many CTs in the first place.

[Apollo20]

grmcdorman:

When you say of the Voskhod 1 mission that "This 3-man flight was done under Kruschev's pressure, basically just to get a "first". There was no scientific or technical basis for the flight, unlike most of the American flights."

Do I detect an anti-Soviet bias?

Surley Apollo 11 was similarly done under the late President Kennedy's pressure, basically just to get a first?

If getting to the moon was of any scientific or even technological/economic benefit then why have the americans not bothered to go back there for 35 years (and counting)?

Apollo 11 was ONLY about being first to the moon!

[SpitfireIX]

grmcdorman:

When you say of the Voskhod 1 mission that "This 3-man flight was done under Kruschev's pressure, basically just to get a "first". There was no scientific or technical basis for the flight, unlike most of the American flights."

Do I detect an anti-Soviet bias?

Surley Apollo 11 was similarly done under the late President Kennedy's pressure, basically just to get a first?

If getting to the moon was of any scientific or even technological/economic benefit then why have the americans not bothered to go back there for 35 years (and counting)?

Apollo 11 was ONLY about being first to the moon!


I presume the point grmcdorman was trying to make was that Voshkod wasn't actually designed to accomodate three cosmonauts; the Soviets just shoe-horned a larger crew into their existing capsule. From the Soviet Technology (http://www.clavius.org/techsoviet.html) page of Clavius:

This would be a good example [of the Soviet Union's having beaten America] if the Soviets hadn't simply stuffed a third man into their two-man capsule just to set the record. To make room for the third cosmonaut, they had to take away the crew's space suits and remove other safety equipment. Although the Apollo capsule came a bit later than the Soviet Vokhshod, it was designed for three people and was superior technology.


From the same page, on the issue of Kruschev's and Kennedy's ideas about the space race:

If Kennedy viewed Apollo as primarily a political tool, Khrushchev viewed the Soviet space program as a political weapon. He constantly angered his scientists, engineers, and cosmonauts with demands for foolhardy stunts in unproven technology. Some historians cite this obsession with firstmanship in space as a key factor in his removal from power.

[grmcdorman]

grmcdorman:

When you say of the Voskhod 1 mission that "This 3-man flight was done under Kruschev's pressure, basically just to get a "first". There was no scientific or technical basis for the flight, unlike most of the American flights."

Do I detect an anti-Soviet bias?

Surley Apollo 11 was similarly done under the late President Kennedy's pressure, basically just to get a first?

If getting to the moon was of any scientific or even technological/economic benefit then why have the americans not bothered to go back there for 35 years (and counting)?

Apollo 11 was ONLY about being first to the moon!The main driving force for the Apollo program was about being first, yes. However, they also did a lot of science - and engineering - along the way. Virtual every flight, if not all of them, had a goal in providing the knowledge for the next steps.

What's more, most flights - especially the Apollo flights - included a substantial amount of science research.

Only post-Apollo 11 did the flights turn into, basically, pure science.

Conversely, many of the Soviet flights - and Voshkod 1 and 2 are examples - served no further purpose than to one-up the Americans. Both of those flights provided no science, and no engineering data to speak of for further flights. They were only about being first. Nothing else was considered or included.

Essentially, the Americans were setting a long term goal: get to the Moon. The way to get there was given to the engineers, and for the most part they executed a superb job of doing that. The Soviets' goals were to do each single item before the Americans - without an overall plan or long term goal.

Where the Soviet program was not interferred with greatly by the politicians, it did succeed - for example, the two Venera landers and Mir.

ETA: This was clear even at the time. For example, a book in my possession, The History of Manned Spaceflight, which was published both before the breakup of the Soviet Union and the first shuttle launch, is pretty clear that Voshkod 1 was a rush, unsafe job.

ETA 2: Something I was not aware of until quite recently was that, apparently, Apollo was proposed before Kennedy chose it as his centerpiece. Rather than picking a goal that NASA hadn't considered, he went looking for something that had been proposed that would suit his political purposes. So Apollo wasn't created out of whole cloth in response to his famous speech.

ETA 3: The reason for the cessation of the Apollo program - and the reason no one has been back - is that 1) it's bloody expensive and 2) there is, or was, a substantial public apathy. Even starting with A12, the public basically lost interest. As such, it's actually suprising that they got four more landings in after A12 (excluding the failed A13 mission). Something as expensive as that must be a public (i.e. government) operation, and therefore requires public support (except in dictatorships, of course).

[DarkMagician]

Slightly off topic but I always smile at this last reply- google "xkcd youtube". Sorry but I'm too young to post links!

http://xkcd.com/c202.html

[PhantomWolf]

Dang I take a weekend off and the board goes Apollo without me. :(

Soviets couldn't build the engines large enough for a reliable moon rocket. They couldn't manufacture the bells large enough. As a result, their monster N1 Rocket had 42 seperate rockets on them, and all it took was one to not work. Which is what happened every time they launched.

The N1 had 30 rockets in the first stage, not 42 (you can count them in that photo if you want. ;))

Also it wasn't the rockets every time.

Launch 1 failed when the engines lost synchronization, resulting in a detonation of the fiirst stage,

Launch 2 failed when a screw dislodged and jabbed a fuel pump, causing a shutdown of a central engine and the loss in power resulted in the rocket failling to liftoff.

However

Launch 3 failed due to the craft going into an uncontrollable roll, requiring the rangemaster to destroy the rocket,

and

Launch 4 failed after excessive pogo reputured the stage 2 fuel cells and caused an explosion.

[PhantomWolf]

When you say of the Voskhod 1 mission that "This 3-man flight was done under Kruschev's pressure, basically just to get a "first". There was no scientific or technical basis for the flight, unlike most of the American flights."

Do I detect an anti-Soviet bias?

No anti-Soviet bias needed. It's well established in the public record that the Soviets were more interested in being first and oneupmanship, so much so that they took extraordinary risks to achieve them. The Vostok capsule was used before it was ready, meaning that the crew had to eject rather than risk injury in a hard landing that the capsule was not capable of handling. This was against the FAI rules, but the Soviets tried to keep it quiet. The Voskhod capsules were just the Vostok with extra seats squeezed in (unlike the Gemini Capsules which were totally new spacecraft) and the three man crew were unable to wear any pressure suits because they were packed in so tightly. Even their first spacewalk was done in a dangerous manner and almost resulted in the loss of the cosmonaut, a stunt that wasn't attempted a second time, meaning that the second successful spacewalk by a Soviet was well after the Gemini missions had been completed and the US was up to Apollo. Even their "first" rendezvous was a cheat. They fired two capsules so that they would pass near each other in their orbits, the first real rendezvous wasn't until Gemini 6a and 7, space ships that could actually manoeuvre in space.

Surley Apollo 11 was similarly done under the late President Kennedy's pressure, basically just to get a first?

Nothing could be further from the truth. A quick study of the history of Apollo would show you that Apollo was being planned in 1958 and was approved by Eisenhower in January of 1960, being publicly announced in July that same year. Kennedy nearly killed Apollo when he got in, in 1961. He wasn't interested in the slightest. It was only after the embarrassment of the Bay of Pigs and his need to have something that would take Americans' minds off of his failure that, with Johnson's urging and NASA's promises that they could really do it, that Kennedy was willing to back and fund Apollo to the level that NASA wanted. NASA had already determined that they were able to get there by the end of 1970 all the way back in 1958, they just needed the money and political support. Kennedy finally gave them that, after he nearly canned the project. There was no pressure from Kennedy or anyone else. NASA had their own timetable and worked to that. As it was they got there two years early (Dec 1968) and landed seven months later with a mission that was firstly a test run for the later missions, and secondly, actually had a small amount of science onboard for the crew to do while they were there.

[Dr. Lao]

The N1 had 42 engines.

30 were on the first stage.

8 on the second stage.

4 on the third stage.

I stand by my statement.

More engines = more chances for failure.

[Dr Adequate]

Nothing could be further from the truth. A quick study of the history of Apollo would show you that Apollo was being planned in 1958 and was approved by Eisenhower in January of 1960, being publicly announced in July that same year. Kennedy nearly killed Apollo when he got in, in 1961. He wasn't interested in the slightest. It was only after the embarrassment of the Bay of Pigs and his need to have something that would take Americans' minds off of his failure that, with Johnson's urging and NASA's promises that they could really do it, that Kennedy was willing to back and fund Apollo to the level that NASA wanted. NASA had already determined that they were able to get there by the end of 1970 all the way back in 1958, they just needed the money and political support. Kennedy finally gave them that, after he nearly canned the project. There was no pressure from Kennedy or anyone else. NASA had their own timetable and worked to that. As it was they got there two years early (Dec 1968) and landed seven months later with a mission that was firstly a test run for the later missions, and secondly, actually had a small amount of science onboard for the crew to do while they were there. Thank you, this is stuff I never knew.

[PhantomWolf]

The N1 had 42 engines.

30 were on the first stage.

8 on the second stage.

4 on the third stage.

I stand by my statement.

More engines = more chances for failure.

Well since the N-1 was only the first stage (the second was the N-3 and the third the D-Block) the N-1 itself had only 30, and I did note that the first stage had 30 whereas your initial post made it sound like it had 42. It'd be the same as posting that the Saturn V had 11 rocket engines because there were 5 on the First stage, 5 on the second and 1 on the third. Also since the 2nd and 3rd stages never lit, the only engines that counted were the N-1 first stages, thus the 30.

Having said that, yes the more engines the greater the chance of failure, however again 50% of the N-1 failures were not engine problems, but structural and guidance.

[Mobyseven]

Whew! Had a look through some of the information - I can't imagine him looking through the history given here and still thinking there was no progress til the last minute! I'm not going to be able to print it out...too much information. I'll just get him to look at it on my computer.

Now if only he were actually able to SHOW me the dang photo!

PS: Thanks to all who have posted in this thread, it's been incredibly useful and interesting!

[PhantomWolf]

Moby, I'm not sure that anyone mentioned it, but it's rather important. There was an entire set of training and staging missions prior to Apollo where the Astronauts learned to fly in space and do all the things they needed to do on Apollo (apart from the landing.) This was Gemini. Then on top of the lessons learned in that programme, the first 4 missions of Apollo set the stage for 11 to occur. Walk him through the US space programme one mission at a time from Al Shepard's flight to Armstrong stepping onto the moon, it is an obvious pathway all laid out from start to finish, one mission pushing the boundaries slightly further than the last until the final goal was reached.

[PhantomWolf]

Here's a short list of NASA's stepping stones from the Earth to the Moon (with one Soviet one for good luck.)

(Note: First here means first for the US, not first first)


First missile reaches space – BUMPER 5 (24 February, 1949)
First satellite – Explorer 1 (31 January, 1958)
First space launch and recovery of living creatures - Jupiter missile AM-18 (28 May, 1959)
First man launched into space – Freedom 7 (5 May, 1961)
First manned orbit - Friendship 7 (20 February, 1962)
First lunar impact probe - Ranger 4 (23 April, 1962)
First manned flight of two-man capsule – Gemini III (23 March, 1965)
First EVA – Gemini IV (3 June, 1965)
First weeklong mission duration – Gemini V (21 August, 1965)
First two week mission duration – Gemini VII (December 04, 1965)
First rendezvous of spacecraft – Gemini VII/Gemini VIa (December 15, 1965)
First docking with a target in space – Gemini VIII (16 March, 1966)
First Probe to land on Moon – Surveyor 1 (30 May, 1966)
First manned journey into the VA Belts – Gemini X (July 18, 1966)
First Probe in lunar orbit – Lunar Orbiter 1 (10 August, 1966)
First long duration stay of manned craft in VA Belts – Gemini XI (12 September, 1966)
First unmanned Saturn V test – Apollo 4 (9 November, 1967)
(First lunar flyby and recovery of living creatures) – Zond 5 (14 September, 1968) [Soviet Mission]
First manned flight of three-man Capsule - Apollo 7 (11 October, 1968)
First Lunar Orbit by manned craft – Apollo 8 (21 December, 1968)
First manned test of Lunar module – Apollo 9 (3 March 1969)
Lunar Landing Dress rehearsal – Apollo 10 (18 May, 1969)
First Lunar Landing – Apollo 11 (16 July, 1969)

[grmcdorman]

PhantomWolf, I believe I tried to point that out in one of my posts. However, your post is substantially clearer (and you obviously have the knowledge; I'm more of a dilettante).

[grmcdorman]

It may also be worth pointing out that there were no less than 22 unmanned Apollo tests of one sort or another before the first Apollo launch (at least according to my History of Manned Spaceflight): SA-1 through SA-10, PA-1 and 2, AS-201 through AS-204, and AS-501 and AS-502, plus four tests listed as "abort tests". Only the last three of these tests had official Apollo designations: AS-501, Apollo 4; AS-204, Apollo 5, and AS-502, Apollo 6. AS-502 was followed by Apollo 7, the first manned mission.

ETA: one of the abort tests (designated A-001) was the only failure in the sequence. It was to be a high altitude abort test; the launcher (a Little Joe II) broke up.

[Mobyseven]

Here's a short list of NASA's stepping stones from the Earth to the Moon (with one Soviet one for good luck.)

(Note: First here means first for the US, not first first)


First missile reaches space – BUMPER 5 (24 February, 1949)
First satellite – Explorer 1 (31 January, 1958)
First space launch and recovery of living creatures - Jupiter missile AM-18 (28 May, 1959)
First man launched into space – Freedom 7 (5 May, 1961)
First manned orbit - Friendship 7 (20 February, 1962)
First lunar impact probe - Ranger 4 (23 April, 1962)
First manned flight of two-man capsule – Gemini III (23 March, 1965)
First EVA – Gemini IV (3 June, 1965)
First weeklong mission duration – Gemini V (21 August, 1965)
First two week mission duration – Gemini VII (December 04, 1965)
First rendezvous of spacecraft – Gemini VII/Gemini VIa (December 15, 1965)
First docking with a target in space – Gemini VIII (16 March, 1966)
First Probe to land on Moon – Surveyor 1 (30 May, 1966)
First manned journey into the VA Belts – Gemini X (July 18, 1966)
First Probe in lunar orbit – Lunar Orbiter 1 (10 August, 1966)
First long duration stay of manned craft in VA Belts – Gemini XI (12 September, 1966)
First unmanned Saturn V test – Apollo 4 (9 November, 1967)
(First lunar flyby and recovery of living creatures) – Zond 5 (14 September, 1968) [Soviet Mission]
First manned flight of three-man Capsule - Apollo 7 (11 October, 1968)
First Lunar Orbit by manned craft – Apollo 8 (21 December, 1968)
First manned test of Lunar module – Apollo 9 (3 March 1969)
Lunar Landing Dress rehearsal – Apollo 10 (18 May, 1969)
First Lunar Landing – Apollo 11 (16 July, 1969)


Wow...thanks. That's more than I could have hoped for - the information I asked for reduced to the important milestones in one short post!

I think this will be the obvious starting point to talk to him, with references to the other information sources as he asks for corroboration.

[Dr. Lao]

Yeah, but everyone called it the N1 rocket, not the N1 with the N2 with the N3 rocket.

You tried to get picky to look smart, and you just end up looking really freaking picky.

[PhantomWolf]

Yeah, but everyone called it the N1 rocket, not the N1 with the N2 with the N3 rocket.

Well there was no N-2, and it is actually far from unusual to see it referenced as the N-1/N-3 rocket in the literature, both Soviet and Western, so the claim that everyone just called it the N-1 isn't exactly true either.

You tried to get picky to look smart, and you just end up looking really freaking picky.

No, unlike some I don't need to be picky to look smart, I corrected what would have been inaccurate information to the uninformed reader. For someone that hasn't read up a lot on the Soviet program and was looking at the image, they'd have assumed you meant that the 42 engines were in the first stage, they weren't, only 30 of them were. Now I could suggest that you included the second and third stage engines in the total to try and look smart, but since I don't think that is very polite, I won't make such an accusation. What I will say if that you made a highly misleading statement and now appear to be attacking me simply because you didn't like being called on it. Again I doubt that you would say that the Saturn V had 11 engines and the simple fact of the matter is that only the 30 engines stage were ever used on all four N-1 flights anyway.

[R.Mackey]

Well since the N-1 was only the first stage (the second was the N-3 and the third the D-Block) the N-1 itself had only 30, and I did note that the first stage had 30 whereas your initial post made it sound like it had 42. It'd be the same as posting that the Saturn V had 11 rocket engines because there were 5 on the First stage, 5 on the second and 1 on the third. Also since the 2nd and 3rd stages never lit, the only engines that counted were the N-1 first stages, thus the 30.

Having said that, yes the more engines the greater the chance of failure, however again 50% of the N-1 failures were not engine problems, but structural and guidance.

The failure modes of the Soviet Moon Rocket are pretty interesting, actually...

The N-1 Rocket (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n1.htm) was powered by quite reliable rocket engines, such as nearly all Russian designs are. Having 30 of them increases the odds of failure, of course, but the overall design theoretically could tolerate one or multiple engine failures and still have enough thrust to get it done. The actual failures (the N-1 went 0 for 4) are of a system engineering nature rather than simple brute force.

The first N-1 launch failed due to a computer error -- it responded incorrectly to an on-board fire, and shut down all the engines. Fault protection was in its infancy in those days...

The second failed because of poor quality control, destroying an oxidizer pump, leading in turn to a cascading shutdown of engines. The computer correctly shut down the FODed engines, but this rippled a pressure wave through the fuel system and caused other engines to hiccough. They were shut down. Soon the rocket was power negative, and it got worse from there.

The third failure appears to have been aerodynamic in nature rather than any fault of the engines. Hasty redesign plus inability to conduct proper tests equals bad things.

The fourth and final failure was similar to the second, except not initiated by quality control -- as the rocket flies it gets lighter due to fuel consumption, but thrust stays the same, so it accelerates faster and faster. In many cases one throttles down the thrust accordingly (the Shuttle does this; the thinning atmosphere versus the increasing acceleration defines the "Max Q" point at which SSME's are throttled back to avoid damage). The N-1 throttled down by turning off its engines on a fixed schedule, this again led to ringing and cavitation in the fuel and oxidizer lines, except this time so bad that it shook the vehicle apart.

Don't be too hard on the Russians, though -- their engines are, by themselves, surprisingly reliable. We had our own difficulties with engines, and with systemwide effects too. Several Apollo missions had engine troubles, notably Apollo 13, which got into "pogo" so badly that one of the engines shut down. Saturn was a pretty sturdy bird, fortunately. Space flight is hard. :D

[Corsair 115]

For someone that hasn't read up a lot on the Soviet program and was looking at the image, they'd have assumed you meant that the 42 engines were in the first stage...For what it's worth, that's how the statement came across to me.

[Mobyseven]

The failure modes of the Soviet Moon Rocket are pretty interesting, actually...

The N-1 Rocket (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n1.htm) was powered by quite reliable rocket engines, such as nearly all Russian designs are. Having 30 of them increases the odds of failure, of course, but the overall design theoretically could tolerate one or multiple engine failures and still have enough thrust to get it done. The actual failures (the N-1 went 0 for 4) are of a system engineering nature rather than simple brute force.

The first N-1 launch failed due to a computer error -- it responded incorrectly to an on-board fire, and shut down all the engines. Fault protection was in its infancy in those days...

The second failed because of poor quality control, destroying an oxidizer pump, leading in turn to a cascading shutdown of engines. The computer correctly shut down the FODed engines, but this rippled a pressure wave through the fuel system and caused other engines to hiccough. They were shut down. Soon the rocket was power negative, and it got worse from there.

The third failure appears to have been aerodynamic in nature rather than any fault of the engines. Hasty redesign plus inability to conduct proper tests equals bad things.

The fourth and final failure was similar to the second, except not initiated by quality control -- as the rocket flies it gets lighter due to fuel consumption, but thrust stays the same, so it accelerates faster and faster. In many cases one throttles down the thrust accordingly (the Shuttle does this; the thinning atmosphere versus the increasing acceleration defines the "Max Q" point at which SSME's are throttled back to avoid damage). The N-1 throttled down by turning off its engines on a fixed schedule, this again led to ringing and cavitation in the fuel and oxidizer lines, except this time so bad that it shook the vehicle apart.

Don't be too hard on the Russians, though -- their engines are, by themselves, surprisingly reliable. We had our own difficulties with engines, and with systemwide effects too. Several Apollo missions had engine troubles, notably Apollo 13, which got into "pogo" so badly that one of the engines shut down. Saturn was a pretty sturdy bird, fortunately. Space flight is hard. :D

Woohoo! We got our own NASA guy!

:D

[Dr. Lao]

Soviets made some great stuff considering what they had to work with at the time. Case in point was the Tu-144 "Concordeski", the design was solid (at least by the last versions), but the engines were not efficient enough to give them the range they needed. And the noise was atrocious, for the few passenger flights they offered, they had earplugs for the pax.

Great book on Tu-144 by Howard Moon, if you can find it.

[ihaunter]

Regarding the mountain range photo, I seem to recall seeing photos of people in the space suits in a rocky environment on earth for testing the suits, training in how to move, or something like that. A mis-identified photo from that might account for the claim.

According to here (http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/About/AstroHistory/astronauts.html) they did some of this training in Arizona. (link includes one photo of a space suited man surrounded by grass and bushes)

ETA: Here's (http://www.astro-auction.com/auct-photos/1195503108.jpg) another image of training on earth. Still can't find the one I'm thinking of.

[slyjoe]

Attached is the picture of the simulated lunar surface. It was created in Cinder Lakes area (near Flagstaff Arizona) for astronaut training.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_15842469bd4387e2df.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7053)

ETA: Not sure this is what was mentioned, as there isn't really a range in the photo.

[Monza]

...According to here (http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/About/AstroHistory/astronauts.html) they did some of this training in Arizona...

Yes, some of the training was done at Arizona's Meteor Crater (http://www.meteorcrater.com/index.php). If you ever get the chance, it is worth a visit.

[PhantomWolf]

Soviets made some great stuff considering what they had to work with at the time. Case in point was the Tu-144 "Concordeski", the design was solid (at least by the last versions), but the engines were not efficient enough to give them the range they needed. And the noise was atrocious, for the few passenger flights they offered, they had earplugs for the pax.

Great book on Tu-144 by Howard Moon, if you can find it.

You want noisey, try the Tu-95. The only bomber that can be tracked on SONAR!