Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's all it is. And that's really the problem with the hoaxers. They don't have any actual technical knowledge to back up their assertions. They just whip up some improbably scenario based on their worldview, and keep repeating it in hopes of it getting traction.
Both countries wanting to keep their people enthusiastic about the space race. Also, there is some evidence showing Yuri Gagarin wasn't the first in space.
This is just semi-wild speculation on my part.
I just noticed post #199 about cosmonaut deaths in space and insufficient redundancy.
The USSR cheated with the Vostok program in that the cosmonaut ejected before landing.
I don’t doubt that Gagarin was first in space, but Alan Shepard was the first to go into space and land inside the spacecraft.
The initial Soyuz capsule was as much of a lemon as the Block I Apollo command module. Read about Komarov’s issues during Soyuz 1, and his (approved) demand before launch for an open casket funeral. Pictures show just charred remains.
We literally need air bags to bounce Rovers off the surface of Mars when we send something up there now.....
BUT somehow in the 60's we had the technology to smoothly land a rudimentary vessel (at best) gentle as a feather..... AND have it smoothly take off again, have enough fuel to get back and program the capsule to land exactly on Earth where we wanted in to..
Why use air bags when there is a pilot on board? Why use expensive, heavy, unnecessary technology to land a craft on Mars when airbags will. And when the craft with airbags lands it bounces around before settling. Why do you think that would be a good thing to do with a craft holding astronauts?
We literally need air bags to bounce Rovers off the surface of Mars when we send something up there now.....
You're behind the curve. Curiosity soft-landed using a skycrane back in 2012.
The airbags were cheap, lightweight and way less complicated, and good enough - which is what engineering is about.
Quote:
BUT somehow in the 60's we had the technology to smoothly land a rudimentary vessel (at best) gentle as a feather...
Well, we had a very complex pattern recognition and course correction system known as an "astronaut" in the loop. Neil Armstrong was a piloting demigod, take a look at his career.
Quote:
AND have it smoothly take off again, have enough fuel to get back and program the capsule to land exactly on Earth where we wanted in to..
Don't think anyone ever described the lunar ascent as "smooth", and again - with astronauts making course corrections (backed by massive mainframes right here on Earth doing the math), it's not a crazy hard problem to solve.
But in the interest of full inquiry: Which particular technology do you feel wasn't up to the task, and why?
We literally need air bags to bounce Rovers off the surface of Mars when we send something up there now.....
BUT somehow in the 60's we had the technology to smoothly land a rudimentary vessel (at best) gentle as a feather..... AND have it smoothly take off again, have enough fuel to get back and program the capsule to land exactly on Earth where we wanted in to..
Just sayin'...
The moon has no atmosphere and has a gravitational pull less than 42% that of Mars. Plus, unlike the Mars Rovers, we had the luxury of carting more equipment to what was a celestial body next door.
Just sayin'...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.