Russia & India to send joint manned mission to Moon

Michael Petukhov wrote:

(Jack Linthicum) wrote in message . com...

(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message . com...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...

"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
le.com...

http://lenta.ru/russia/2003/11/12/moon/

(in russian)

Today russia's agency for aviation and space research and india's
organization for space research signed a deal to prepare
joint automatic and manned missions to Moon by 2008.

Michael

But Michael you have bene telling us for years that such
a thing is impossible due to radiation in the Van Allen belts
and from Cosmic sources.

Keith, you know very well that I was telling that it was impossible
with US technologies used in 60s. Clearly still it will be very
difficult with modern technologies. Whole array of completely new
technologies will be required, including real protection against
radiation you have mentioned. At least we will try.



And, how, are the Soyuz, Zenit and Proton launchers doing, the newest
is the 20 year old Zenit with a 30,000 lb earth orbit capability. The
others are 46 (15,000 lb) and 38 years old (44,000 lb), respectively.
Doesn't sound like anything we didn't have back in 1969, but man-rated
in our case. http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/rsa/rockets.html



You seems conviniently forgot about "Energia". Although indeed
several good old Protons would be just enough to intergrate necessary
weight in LEO to fly safely to Moon.

Michael

You could also mention that the Russian boosters are much less likely to
blow up.

John

"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
news:bp53hm$l06$1

Disagree. The last one is not very nice. I would say it
is misleading to very significant extent. As for Spaceflight
vol.32p.104-106 (1990). I'll will look at but I strongly
doubt it worth the efforts. In 1990 this subject was closed
matter. No way before say 92.


Translation

I decline to examine any evidence that may run contrary
to my theory.

Keith

"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...
"Pete" wrote in message
...
"Michael Petukhov" wrote


Hinting? nice crediable evidence! I can predict what
would happend with Neal if he starts hinting he did not
went on the moon. He would be declared as mad person.


Not really, he could do so from anywhere on the planet and
make a fortune selling his story.

Keith

What if he is a good fair guy who was forced to and do not
want to sell the story?

Michael

How would you force him ?

He's a free man who could leave the program or
country at any time, indeed he and his family
have travelled all over the world.

The simpler explanation is that he is telling the truth.

Keith

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
Michael Petukhov wrote:


You could also mention that the Russian boosters are much less likely to
blow up.


Which would turn out to be inaccurate in the time frame under discussion

You may wish to read about what happened to the Russian
launch vehicle of choice. Hint it involved a VERY large explosion
on the pad.

http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2002-000188.html
http://www.ukra.org.uk/newsletter/volume6issue1/22.html

Keith

Keith Willshaw wrote:
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

Michael Petukhov wrote:


You could also mention that the Russian boosters are much less likely to
blow up.



Which would turn out to be inaccurate in the time frame under discussion

You may wish to read about what happened to the Russian
launch vehicle of choice. Hint it involved a VERY large explosion
on the pad.

http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2002-000188.html
http://www.ukra.org.uk/newsletter/volume6issue1/22.html

Keith


Sure, which is why the Sovs abandoned the N1 and lost the race to the Moon.

But the Soyuz, Zenit Energia and Proton boosters Michael was talking
about have excellent safety records. The STS OTOH has two fatal crashes
in 100 missions.

John

In article ,
John Mullen writes:
Keith Willshaw wrote:
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

Michael Petukhov wrote:


You could also mention that the Russian boosters are much less likely to
blow up.



Which would turn out to be inaccurate in the time frame under discussion

You may wish to read about what happened to the Russian
launch vehicle of choice. Hint it involved a VERY large explosion
on the pad.

http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2002-000188.html
http://www.ukra.org.uk/newsletter/volume6issue1/22.html

Keith


Sure, which is why the Sovs abandoned the N1 and lost the race to the Moon.

But the Soyuz, Zenit Energia and Proton boosters Michael was talking
about have excellent safety records. The STS OTOH has two fatal crashes
in 100 missions.

As, roughly, has Soyuz. The accident/abort rates for the two systems
(Spacecraft and Booster) are about the same. The Soyuz has killed its
crew on two flights. One was a parachute failure, (after a number of
other problems), and the second was a Cabin Pressure Dump Valve that
opened before reentry. (The crew wasn't in suits). There have been
other Soyuz flights where crew survival was a matter of luck.
Overall, the safety records are pretty much equivalent.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
Keith Willshaw wrote:


But the Soyuz, Zenit Energia and Proton boosters Michael was talking
about have excellent safety records. The STS OTOH has two fatal crashes
in 100 missions.

John


The Proton booster has a 98% success rate, two failed
in 1999 for example , this puts the failure rate at about the
same level as the Shuttle, fortunately the explosions happened
with unmanned launches.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:.
|
| "John Mullen" wrote in message
| ...
| Keith Willshaw wrote:
|
|
| But the Soyuz, Zenit Energia and Proton boosters Michael was talking
| about have excellent safety records. The STS OTOH has two fatal
crashes
| in 100 missions.
|
| John
|
|
| The Proton booster has a 98% success rate, two failed
| in 1999 for example , this puts the failure rate at about the
| same level as the Shuttle, fortunately the explosions happened
| with unmanned launches.

Only 12 launch failures in 300+/- attempts since the mid 1960's?

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
news:bp53hm$l06$1

Disagree. The last one is not very nice. I would say it
is misleading to very significant extent. As for Spaceflight
vol.32p.104-106 (1990). I'll will look at but I strongly
doubt it worth the efforts. In 1990 this subject was closed
matter. No way before say 92.


Translation

I decline to examine any evidence that may run contrary
to my theory.

Keith

Certainly no. this paper will find its place in my files.
Afterall Mishin was an important guy and whatsever he says
is an important factor.

As a matter of facts sometimes in 98 I have seen in russian
TV 1h program discussing russian moon program with many
important guys involved present: Leonov, the commander of
the first moon crew and the chief designer of soviet LM
(sorry forgot his name). I was shocked how little they
have to say on the most important question from jornalists.
So I afraid that Mishin interview belongs to the same department.
Why I am not really sure. perhaps they do not know exactly
what is and is not state secrete any more.

Michael


Michael

John Mullen wrote in message ...
Michael Petukhov wrote:
(George William Herbert) wrote in message ...

Michael Petukhov wrote:

[...]
The funny side that even time delays would be just fine
not to speak that the signal does come from the moon.
The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world.

Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush
me on? Right? Little naive boy...

So, would you mind explaining from the start for those of
us who missed your earlier postings, what makes you think
that this was faked at all?



This is very big field full of false claims and contra claims.
I cannot give you a complete list but in my view there
are lots of very strange things in NASA official pictures
and particualrly in movies (wrong shadows, untouched dust
directly under LM engine, clouds of dust from under rover
wheels etc.), strange elements of LM design like
inward opening hatch, space and van-allen belts radiation
which was largerly ignored etc.

On radiation you can start with:

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm

it has references on valid nasa documents and measuremrnts.

As for the pictures there are many sites on internet.
Try "moon hoax" you would have tons of that with pictures
refernces etc. Both pro and contra, false and true.
So be careful you can be mislead.

As IMO you have been!

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

gives a useful summary of the true explanations of the fallacies
mentioned by you above.

Of course, as with holocaust deniers and UFO believers, psychological
factors are more important than historical or scientific ones in
understanding why people hold these beliefs.

Sometimes yes sometimes no. as for "true explanations" well
as usual, John anyone have to decide what is more credible the
facts or its "true explanations".

Michael


John