|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On the EA - the real moon hoax - and much more...
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On the EA - the real moon hoax - and much more...
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On the EA - the real moon hoax - and much more...
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On the EA - the real moon hoax - and much more...
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On the EA - the real moon hoax - and much more...
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On the EA - the real moon hoax - and much more...
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On the EA - the real moon hoax - and much more...
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. | |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On the EA - the real moon hoax - and much more...
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|