myths of apollo-soyuz

The Space Review:

The real lessons of international cooperation in space

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/413/1

by James Oberg // Monday, July 18, 2005



Significant anniversaries bring out veterans of the past events to
reminisce and celebrate, and last week was no exception, especially with
space news attracting so much attention. The thirtieth anniversary of the
Apollo-Soyuz space linkup (July 17, 1975) and the tenth anniversary of the
first shuttle-Mir docking (the shuttle landed on July 7, 1995) were fitting
calendar marks to contemplate the significance of those events and their
legacy for today's International Space Station.
With the US-Russian space partnership at the heart of current human
space activities, both the general public and space professionals are giving
a lot of thought to an architecture for partnership on future American space
missions beyond Earth orbit, out towards the Moon and Mars. Here, a good
grasp of the historical basis of such policies is essential.
However, just as it can be frustrating and misleading to try to
reconstruct World War 2 history from stories told at an American Legion
picnic, so too should caution be exercised in giving much credence to
celebratory boasts and grand advisories that have been coming out of the
current celebrations. Certainly the public can celebrate the courage and
skill of the men who carried out the first international space docking, and
can admire the warm personal relationships that sprang up and have endured.
But that's as far as reality extends: beyond that, it's all just fancy talk.
All veterans of life-threatening experiences-in the military, in
emergency response, in law enforcement, and especially in space-deserve a
life-long "blank check" for narrative license whenever they want to recount
the way that they enjoy remembering their accomplishments. They deserve
access to any podiums-and to any journalists-to express their opinions. They
just don't deserve automatic credibility and honorary expertise in topics
beyond their immediate experience base.

Jim Oberg wrote:
The Space Review:

The real lessons of international cooperation in space

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/413/1

by James Oberg // Monday, July 18, 2005

I don't disagree with your basic premise, but I'm not
sure I fully buy into these paragraphs:

"However, history paints a far different picture, and
Leonov, especially, knew it. The Soviet space program
was in shambles, its drive to land men on the Moon
literally in ruins and rubble (Leonov was to have been
the commander of that mission). Its backup plan to regain
the lead in the "Space Race" was to build a small orbiting
space station, but linkups failed and one space crew died
..=2E."
"Only with the Soviet program at a standstill did Moscow
agree to fly a joint orbital mission. Its fallback position
was that if it couldn't be Number One in space, it could at
least pose as the equal partner of the new Number One, the
United States. It was better than letting on how far behind
its space program had fallen."


If the Soviet program of the time was "in shambles", then
wan't that also true of the U.S. program? Apollo had come
to a crashing halt, the U.S. had abandoned its space station,
no additional U.S. manned missions were planned for years to
come. So couldn't one also say that NASA's fallback
position in the mid-70s was to agree to pose as an equal
partner of the Soviet Union's ongoing space program?

In my view, ASTP was entirely a political/public relations
exercise, the result of the d=E9tente-era Nixon/Brezhnev
post-Vietnam meetings. The joint space mission concept was
an idea originally posited by Eisenhower when Nixon was his
VP. I think that the Soviets agreed to the mission for the
same reason that the U.S. did - because, since the Moon Race
was over, a joint mission might peak the public interest one
more time enough to keep program funds flowing.=20

- Ed Kyle

"Jim Oberg" wrote
The real lessons of international cooperation in space
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/413/1
by James Oberg // Monday, July 18, 2005

I've been asked who the 'purged cosmonaut' was: here's what I think I know:

Boris Andreyev had a caustic anti-govt wit that he apparently shared with
Vance Brand (who told me later) and perhaps too many others. He remained in
the program for a number of years but eventually was quietly retired.

Two other men, the prime crew of Soyuz-13 in 1972, were accused by informers
of being "anti-Party elements" and were grounded only a few weeks before the
flight, and soon afterwards expelled.

There was at least one other man purged in the late 1960s, who also had been
reported to political authorities by other cosmonauts (Nikolayev was one of
the main informers in the space team, it turned out -- the man who was
purged, named Kuklin, had been a contender for a flight assignment he had
wanted).

This goes a long way to explaining why the Russians on Apollo-Soyuz thought
it prudent "to not discuss politics" with the Americans.

Leonov, on the other hand, impressed the Americans by one incident during a
cultural tour of an old cathedral, converted into a museum. The tour guide
went into her usual vitriolic spiel about the blood-sucking clergymen who
enforced tsarist tyranny over the superstitious peasants, yada yade, when
Leonov suddenly stood up and shouted, "My guests here are believers -- cut
the atheistic propaganda!" The tour guide, knowing the powerful status of
the cosmonaut-hero, literally shook with shock and went white with fear,
according to my source, the chief ASTP interpretor Nick Timacheff.

Jim Oberg ) wrote:
: The Space Review:

: The real lessons of international cooperation in space

: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/413/1

One can't help feel that all this piece is, is we=good, they=bad. The
problem I have with it, is that sure the USSR was a bad system, but it
fell in on itself. I know many folks, such as yourself like to give Reagan
credit, but I think it was going to die regardless of who was at the
helm. They certaianly aren't doing our bidding as seperate individual
countries.

That said, focusing on their ills tends to gloss over ours. In short, just
because they were bad doesn't mean we are inherently good. You still can't
get the white hate/black hat (good guys/bad guys) mentality out of your
head.

We are better off believing that since the USSR has split up that we have
changed for the better rather than claiming that they were wrong and we
were right all along. That we just keep chugging along like before as if
what we do now has always been our way and will always work and continue
to be our way. Countries like corporations, people and any other living
entity must reinvent themselves from time to time or end up on the scrap
heap of history, to borrow from your hero.

Eric

: by James Oberg // Monday, July 18, 2005



: Significant anniversaries bring out veterans of the past events to
: reminisce and celebrate, and last week was no exception, especially with
: space news attracting so much attention. The thirtieth anniversary of the
: Apollo-Soyuz space linkup (July 17, 1975) and the tenth anniversary of the
: first shuttle-Mir docking (the shuttle landed on July 7, 1995) were fitting
: calendar marks to contemplate the significance of those events and their
: legacy for today's International Space Station.
: With the US-Russian space partnership at the heart of current human
: space activities, both the general public and space professionals are giving
: a lot of thought to an architecture for partnership on future American space
: missions beyond Earth orbit, out towards the Moon and Mars. Here, a good
: grasp of the historical basis of such policies is essential.
: However, just as it can be frustrating and misleading to try to
: reconstruct World War 2 history from stories told at an American Legion
: picnic, so too should caution be exercised in giving much credence to
: celebratory boasts and grand advisories that have been coming out of the
: current celebrations. Certainly the public can celebrate the courage and
: skill of the men who carried out the first international space docking, and
: can admire the warm personal relationships that sprang up and have endured.
: But that's as far as reality extends: beyond that, it's all just fancy talk.
: All veterans of life-threatening experiences-in the military, in
: emergency response, in law enforcement, and especially in space-deserve a
: life-long "blank check" for narrative license whenever they want to recount
: the way that they enjoy remembering their accomplishments. They deserve
: access to any podiums-and to any journalists-to express their opinions. They
: just don't deserve automatic credibility and honorary expertise in topics
: beyond their immediate experience base.

The 'Kuklin' name is incorrect, it was a guy named Kugno who was purged
earlier.

We are BEST off believing what is true, not what you find convenient.

And you're right, I somehow can't get away from my conclusion that we were
the good guys
during the Cold War, like we were in WW2 and mostly elsewhere -- exceptions
can be found.

Sorry that's inconvenient to your point of view -- which, by the way, I
appreciate
hearing in these threads, I'm grateful for your contributions.

"Eric Chomko" wrote i
That said, focusing on their ills tends to gloss over ours. In short, just
because they were bad doesn't mean we are inherently good. You still can't
get the white hate/black hat (good guys/bad guys) mentality out of your
head.

We are better off believing that since the USSR has split up that we have
changed for the better rather than claiming that they were wrong and we
were right all along.

Jim Oberg wrote:

We are BEST off believing what is true, not what you find convenient.

And you're right, I somehow can't get away from my conclusion that we were
the good guys
during the Cold War, like we were in WW2 and mostly elsewhere -- exceptions
can be found.

Sorry that's inconvenient to your point of view -- which, by the way, I
appreciate
hearing in these threads, I'm grateful for your contributions.






One thing the USSR did do was come up with a very workable space station
program on a budget that used a lot of standardized components to
incrementally grow over a period of decades, unlike our Skylab program-
which like our Moon program accomplished great things...and then just
vanished.
This photo still awes me for what it shows- you have a multimodular
space station with a robotic cargo vehicle attached to it, a crew ferry
also attached, another cargo vessel backing away from it, and being
photographed from another crew ferry on approach:
http://www.cosmoworld.ru/mirstation/photos/mir_1993.jpg
This is the sort of stuff that Chesley Bonestell used to paint made
real- Tsiolkovsky's "Cosmodrome in the Cosmos" in full operation. We
could have accomplished something like this in the late 60's- early 70's
on a comparatively shoestring budget if we had gone with a modest
carefully thought out long-term manned space program, rather the ASAP
approach we went with in regards to Apollo- leaving Skylab being another
dead-end project using Apollo leftovers. We could have had something
along these lines using nothing larger that Titan IIIs.

Pat

Jim Oberg ) wrote:
: We are BEST off believing what is true, not what you find convenient.

It is based upon interpretation! You can't treat a social science like a
truth table or a logical circuit.

: And you're right, I somehow can't get away from my conclusion that we were
: the good guys
: during the Cold War, like we were in WW2 and mostly elsewhere -- exceptions
: can be found.

Well you know what they say about winning and treason. Can you even name a
war that the loser wasn't the bad guy? Vietnam?

: Sorry that's inconvenient to your point of view -- which, by the way, I
: appreciate
: hearing in these threads, I'm grateful for your contributions.

Yes, we can agree to disagree and not take it too personally. But really,
inconvenience has nothing to do with it.

Eric

: "Eric Chomko" wrote i
: That said, focusing on their ills tends to gloss over ours. In short, just
: because they were bad doesn't mean we are inherently good. You still can't
: get the white hate/black hat (good guys/bad guys) mentality out of your
: head.
:
: We are better off believing that since the USSR has split up that we have
: changed for the better rather than claiming that they were wrong and we
: were right all along.

Placing these two rusemasters encharge of continually dog-wagging and
thus snookering thy humanity is our best way ever of getting the likes
of WW-III underway.

Exactly what part(s) of the US/Russian LLPOF perpetrated cold-war do
you still not understand?
~

Life upon Venus offers a Township, Bridge and ET/UFO Park-n-Ride
Tarmac: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) at ME-L1
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus an updated topic list; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Chomko"
Well you know what they say about winning and treason. Can you even name a
war that the loser wasn't the bad guy? Vietnam?


You've got to be kidding. Does this explain why leftists wanted
the US to lose in Vietnam, and want it to lose in Iraq -- as
some sort of post hoc validation of their moral inversions?

The 'good guys' lost lots of wars, prominent among them
the Russian Civil War and the Chinese civil war. And the
Tibetan uprisings.