On the EA - the real moon hoax - and much more...

MOON RACE - THIRTY-FIVE YEARS LATER..new revelations, unanswered
questions...

The Real Moon Landing Hoax - the Soviet Union tried to be first to the
moon - and key facts are still being covered up 35 years later!

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/theghoax.htm

Why did the Soviet Union lose the Moon Race? - the reasons the
Americans were first on the moon - in the words of the the Soviet
officials in charge of the secret program..

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/whynrace.htm

Moon Race! - ...the Americans vs the Russians, toe-to-toe...a
side-by-side day-by-day chronology of the desperate struggle to be
first on the moon!

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/moonrace.htm

Key Soviet Meetings! - blow-by-blow narratives of the secret meetings
where the decisions were made on how to meet the Apollo challenge!

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/keylight.htm

The Kamanin Diaries - ... the major source for the personal struggles
of the men and women within the secret Soviet space program!

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/kamaries.htm

Chertok's Memoirs - ... the view from inside the technical and
management belly of the Russian space program!

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/chemoirs.htm

Updated articles:

Mars 5M - Proton-launched soil return mission of the 1970's

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/mars5m.htm

Manned Orbiting Lab - ... the US military's station in space - in
1971!

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/mol.htm

Mark Wade
Encyclopedia Astronautica
http://www.astronautix.com/

Encyclopedia Astronautica wrote:

MOON RACE - THIRTY-FIVE YEARS LATER..new revelations, unanswered
questions...

The Real Moon Landing Hoax - the Soviet Union tried to be first to the
moon - and key facts are still being covered up 35 years later!

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/theghoax.htm


A very interesting article; is there any more data on the "curved
inflatable airlock" coming up? Is it related to the Voskhod one?
I always thought that the Voskhod airlock took an awful lot of
development time and energy for something that was apparently a dead-end
system with no other uses. If all they wanted to do was put a cosmonaut
outside, then why not just open the side hatch after vacuumating the
interior, like on Gemini? The repressurization gear would have weighed
far less than the airlock.
But an airlock makes sense if it is to be attached to another
spacecraft, and one or more crew members without space suits use it to
get from one spacecraft to another- such as was suggested as one method
of moving the crew from the Gemini to the main MOL module.

Pat

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:51:41 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:



Encyclopedia Astronautica wrote:

MOON RACE - THIRTY-FIVE YEARS LATER..new revelations, unanswered
questions...

The Real Moon Landing Hoax - the Soviet Union tried to be first to the
moon - and key facts are still being covered up 35 years later!

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/theghoax.htm


A very interesting article; is there any more data on the "curved
inflatable airlock" coming up? Is it related to the Voskhod one?
I always thought that the Voskhod airlock took an awful lot of
development time and energy for something that was apparently a dead-end
system with no other uses. If all they wanted to do was put a cosmonaut
outside, then why not just open the side hatch after vacuumating the
interior, like on Gemini? The repressurization gear would have weighed
far less than the airlock.
But an airlock makes sense if it is to be attached to another
spacecraft, and one or more crew members without space suits use it to
get from one spacecraft to another- such as was suggested as one method
of moving the crew from the Gemini to the main MOL module.

Pat

My only idea is that de-pressurising the Voskhod would play havok on
it's systems. The Soviets seemed to have a lot of problems developing
electronics that would work reliably in a vacuum and often pressurised
sections of unmanned craft just so they wouldn't have to worry about
it.

Kelly McDonald

Kelly McDonald a écrit dans le message
: ...
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:51:41 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:



Encyclopedia Astronautica wrote:

MOON RACE - THIRTY-FIVE YEARS LATER..new revelations, unanswered
questions...

The Real Moon Landing Hoax - the Soviet Union tried to be first to the
moon - and key facts are still being covered up 35 years later!

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/theghoax.htm


A very interesting article; is there any more data on the "curved
inflatable airlock" coming up? Is it related to the Voskhod one?
I always thought that the Voskhod airlock took an awful lot of
development time and energy for something that was apparently a dead-end
system with no other uses. If all they wanted to do was put a cosmonaut
outside, then why not just open the side hatch after vacuumating the
interior, like on Gemini? The repressurization gear would have weighed
far less than the airlock.
But an airlock makes sense if it is to be attached to another
spacecraft, and one or more crew members without space suits use it to
get from one spacecraft to another- such as was suggested as one method
of moving the crew from the Gemini to the main MOL module.

Pat

My only idea is that de-pressurising the Voskhod would play havok on
it's systems. The Soviets seemed to have a lot of problems developing
electronics that would work reliably in a vacuum and often pressurised
sections of unmanned craft just so they wouldn't have to worry about
it.

Kelly McDonald

Just for information, there are tussian electronics in the ATV ( for the
docking system ). They are located in the pressurised part of the S/C.
However, the specification are that they must work in vacuum, as
depressurisation failures must be taken into account.

I suspect something similar on Russian S/C

HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa wrote:


Just for information, there are tussian electronics in the ATV ( for the
docking system ). They are located in the pressurised part of the S/C.
However, the specification are that they must work in vacuum, as
depressurisation failures must be taken into account.


On the early Soyuz capsules the docking electronics were carried in a
jettisonable toroidal tank structure at the base of the equipment
module; the main reason that they needed pressure to operate was that
they used helium gas moved by fans for cooling (helium is highly
temperature conductive; a helium weather balloon taken outside in frigid
temperatures will noticeably shrink in size in a matter of seconds). But
most of the electronics in the reentry sphere of Vostok/Voskhod appear
to be switches, and not the sort of vacuum-tube devices that would
develop much heat- other than the radio systems; and one would think
that developing a pressurized radio case for cooling would be far easier
than an inflatable airlock.

Pat

HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa a écrit dans le
message : ...

Kelly McDonald a écrit dans le
message
: ...
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:51:41 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:



Encyclopedia Astronautica wrote:

MOON RACE - THIRTY-FIVE YEARS LATER..new revelations, unanswered
questions...

The Real Moon Landing Hoax - the Soviet Union tried to be first to the
moon - and key facts are still being covered up 35 years later!

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/theghoax.htm


A very interesting article; is there any more data on the "curved
inflatable airlock" coming up? Is it related to the Voskhod one?
I always thought that the Voskhod airlock took an awful lot of
development time and energy for something that was apparently a
dead-end
system with no other uses. If all they wanted to do was put a cosmonaut
outside, then why not just open the side hatch after vacuumating the
interior, like on Gemini? The repressurization gear would have weighed
far less than the airlock.
But an airlock makes sense if it is to be attached to another
spacecraft, and one or more crew members without space suits use it to
get from one spacecraft to another- such as was suggested as one method
of moving the crew from the Gemini to the main MOL module.

Pat

My only idea is that de-pressurising the Voskhod would play havok on
it's systems. The Soviets seemed to have a lot of problems developing
electronics that would work reliably in a vacuum and often pressurised
sections of unmanned craft just so they wouldn't have to worry about
it.

Kelly McDonald

Just for information, there are tussian electronics in the ATV ( for the

Should read Russian electronics, obviously.

docking system ). They are located in the pressurised part of the S/C.
However, the specification are that they must work in vacuum, as
depressurisation failures must be taken into account.

I suspect something similar on Russian S/C

Kelly McDonald wrote:

My only idea is that de-pressurising the Voskhod would play havok on
it's systems. The Soviets seemed to have a lot of problems developing
electronics that would work reliably in a vacuum and often pressurised
sections of unmanned craft just so they wouldn't have to worry about
it.

A practice that the Russian continue to this day. (I'm certain
whether they have aquired or developed quote-trimming technology yet.)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

Derek Lyons wrote:

The Soviets seemed to have a lot of problems developing
electronics that would work reliably in a vacuum and often pressurised
sections of unmanned craft just so they wouldn't have to worry about
it.



A practice that the Russian continue to this day.


And which goes clean back to Sputnik1; it really is surprising that they
stuck with it anywhere near this long, considering the weight and
complexity it adds to their spacecraft. All you've effectively done is
add two whole new failure modes to your spacecraft design- lose pressure
or your cooling fans quite, and you can kiss your electronics good-bye.

Pat

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
And which goes clean back to Sputnik1; it really is surprising that they
stuck with it anywhere near this long, considering the weight and
complexity it adds to their spacecraft. All you've effectively done is
add two whole new failure modes to your spacecraft design- lose pressure
or your cooling fans quite, and you can kiss your electronics good-bye.

Historically, they did it because it's difficult to build vacuum-tube
electronics which can run without cooling air. (It can be done -- there
were some tubes in the Mercury electronics -- but it's hard.)

The main reason for sticking with it is lower development costs,
especially if you have limited access to modern low-power components.
Vacuum-compatible electronics have gotten dramatically easier to build
(in the West) since the Apollo days. With modern microelectronics, a
bit of care to avoid certain types of components and keep everything
low-power will pretty much suffice to make electronics vacuum-compatible.
With discrete transistors or older ICs, it's a lot harder.

Note that the shuttle electronics are air-cooled and won't run in vacuum.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

Henry Spencer wrote:

Historically, they did it because it's difficult to build vacuum-tube
electronics which can run without cooling air. (It can be done -- there
were some tubes in the Mercury electronics -- but it's hard.)

The failure to develop solid-state electronics was a major failing on
the part of the Soviets; to some extent the problem can probably be
traced to the greater throw weight of first generation Soviet ICBMs
compared to ours; they really didn't need to watch every ounce the way
we did. But in exchange for better EMP tolerance they paid a very high
price in regards to weight, size, reliability, cooling requirements, and
power requirements. Since space exploration doesn't really need EMP
protection the whole situation really worked against them for a very
long time.


The main reason for sticking with it is lower development costs,
especially if you have limited access to modern low-power components.
Vacuum compatible electronics have gotten dramatically easier to build
(in the West) since the Apollo days. With modern microelectronics, a
bit of care to avoid certain types of components and keep everything
low-power will pretty much suffice to make electronics vacuum compatible.
With discrete transistors or older ICs, it's a lot harder.

Note that the shuttle electronics are air-cooled and won't run in vacuum.

But the Shuttle's electronics are required to do several orders of
magnitude more than the Vostok/Voskhod gear did.
A view of Vostok's interior shows just how spartan it was in regards to
instrumentation:
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/v/vosintk.jpg
I get the strong impression that most of the spacecraft's electronics
were in the service module, and even Voskhod shouldn't have been that
difficult to modify into a pressurized form:
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...man/SP20G5.jpg
If worst came to worst, the instruments could have been sealed and
pressurized for cooling in the normal Soviet manner, with considerably
less effort than it took to develop that airlock; I think there is
something about that whole piece of machinery that we aren't getting the
full story on; and I would not be at all surprised if it involves the
movement of one or more cosmonauts, sans suits, into some other
spacecraft. The problem with that scenario is that it would seem to be a
clumsier means to accomplish crew transfer than using a standard "probe
and drogue" docking system and tunnel; was it intended to be hooked on
the exterior of a space station- to minimize interior air loss when part
is depressurized for EVA as well as saving interior space?

Pat