Russia & India to send joint manned mission to Moon

In message - "Stuart Wilkes'
mom" writes:


[snip]


When they get there, they should let us know what the point is.


Although this particular schedule (Moon by 2008) seems totally unrealistic,
the attitude of "what's the point of going there" might prove shortsighted
for US in a long run. Despite the mantra "Apollo missions were only footsteps
and flag missions" perpetuated by idiots at CNN (and their "compatibles",
i.e. most other media) who can't grasp anything beyound footsteps and flags,
there had been LOTS of scientific knowledge gained from the Apollo missions
(those who aren't intimidated by very technical explanations might read
"Apollo Lunar Surface Jounal,
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html").

In particular, regarding the current energy-related world politics, there
are millions of tons of He-3 on the moon (and orders of magnitude more
in gas giants with Uranus being the preferred). Assuming someone will find
a way to sustain De + He-3 or He-3 + He-3 fusion, the Moon (and later
Uranus) can be viewed as sources of almost non-polluting (De + He-3) or
intrinsically non-polluting (He-3 + He-3) energy.

If US will continue resting on their lauras (sp?), they might end up
paying Chineese/Indians/someone else for He-3 in the same way they
pay Saudis today for oil...


************************************************** ****************************
* Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail: *
************************************************** ****************************
NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my domain-name. Sorry, SPAM trap.
___
.__/ |
| O /
_/ /
| | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
| |
| | |
| | /O\
| _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
| * / \ o ++ O ++ o
| | |
| |
\ \_)
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\_|

OFCS, the gravities are different. Somebody would have picked up
on dust falling or whatever decades ago.

Peter Skelton

"Michael Petukhov" wrote

Things along that line. Easy stuff. You'll have at least a couple of
those
right away, correct?

I have many things on that matters (two big files already) but I do not
want to repeat it over and over again. All that was in my view
serious enough was discussed in this NG. So you can easily find out
with Google search engine if you want.

I would suggest also to look very carefully at NASA official moon
movies. Particualrly ones with rover driving. in many there
are dust clouds clearly indicating presence of an atmosphere.
sometimes it is also very visible when astranauts do very
energetic moves. although it does not mean that atmosphere was
always present.

You are a funny, funny man, Michael.
You asked what evidence I might find 'credible. When given a very basic
list, all you can say is "Go find that stuff for yourself".

You and one or two other kooks say it never happened. The other 6 billion
people on this planet (when they happen to think about it) say it did. I
would say the onus is on *you* to prove your point.

Completely, and unambiguously.

Come back when you can.

Pete

(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message . com...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...
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

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
m...
(John Beadles) wrote in message
. com...
"Pete" wrote in message news:Lydtb.7118 ok...I'll
play..


As for moon race with USSR. There was very similar manned
moon program in USSR officially opened until 72-73 I think.
however it was never a priority in USSR. Mainly it was Korolev
personal business. It was receiving some very limited funding only
when he was alive in 64-66. Automatic and H1 booster is a different
story. it was priority. korolev did plan to use H1 for the manned
moon flight, but officially H1 was intented to launch heavy
military station in LEO.


Why would he do so if radiation made such a flight impossible ?

No idea. Perhaps he did not know the full scale of the problem,
However this is my guess only.


Why would the Soviet Academy of Sciences back his mission ?


because of the same reason.

Why did the efforts continue for several years after the death
of Korolev ?

Purely burocratic reasons. It was much easy to close the program
than open it again. Although no funding was assigned for LMs since
at least 66. BTW the Buran program is still officially opened, without
any activities though. Under the program the only activity all
the time since 66 was H1 booster, but as I said it had a different
destination. also due to top secrecy of ALMAZ military station
program. very usefull cover up story for such a poweful booster.
"Russians still want to go to Moon."


However I have to admit designs (unfinished thought) for CM/LM in
USSR were pretty ideologically similar to that in US. It is puzzle
to me why they could believe that **** can be used to fly to moon
and return. The guys here involved in it still hesitate to tell us
how and why in full details.


Well Korolev is dead which would make his testifying
rather difficult but plenty but Vasili Mishin, gave a long interview to
Spaceflight vol.32p.104-106 (1990) and Alexander Yasinsky
wrote an article entitled "The N-1 Rocket Programme."

There's also a nice article in Pravda available on line in English
and Russian at

http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/10188_moon.html

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.

Michael


Keith

"Pete" wrote in message ...
"Michael Petukhov" wrote

Things along that line. Easy stuff. You'll have at least a couple of
those
right away, correct?

I have many things on that matters (two big files already) but I do not
want to repeat it over and over again. All that was in my view
serious enough was discussed in this NG. So you can easily find out
with Google search engine if you want.

I would suggest also to look very carefully at NASA official moon
movies. Particualrly ones with rover driving. in many there
are dust clouds clearly indicating presence of an atmosphere.
sometimes it is also very visible when astranauts do very
energetic moves. although it does not mean that atmosphere was
always present.

You are a funny, funny man, Michael.
You asked what evidence I might find 'credible. When given a very basic
list, all you can say is "Go find that stuff for yourself".

Why do you expect any diffrently? It is a big job by the way to
sort all the crap flying around this subject. If you have
any interest indeed "Go find that stuff for yourself".

Michael


You and one or two other kooks say it never happened. The other 6 billion
people on this planet (when they happen to think about it) say it did. I
would say the onus is on *you* to prove your point.

Completely, and unambiguously.

Come back when you can.

Pete

"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

(Jack Linthicum) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message . com...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...
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

"Michael Petukhov" wrote

Why do you expect any diffrently? It is a big job by the way to
sort all the crap flying around this subject. If you have
any interest indeed "Go find that stuff for yourself".

Michael

"Crap" is indeed the operative word.

Pete

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.

John