Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 28, 2008 8:50:59 GMT -4
Oops! Yet another of the eleventy-zillion Apollo acronyms that has been missing from my vocabulary and glossary. I agree with you, though, that the thread title should probably use LRRR instead of LLRE. It is clear inconceivable is referring to the retroreflector devices rather than the experiment in general.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 28, 2008 13:19:30 GMT -4
Thanks for the abbreviation explanation, though--I'm putting together a list, mostly for BAUT, but it could be useful here as well.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 28, 2008 13:45:00 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 28, 2008 14:12:40 GMT -4
Wow. I don't think we'll use all of those, but I think that's handy to reference. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Apr 29, 2008 7:25:04 GMT -4
Excellent glossary Bob, although missing the abbreviations above. Noticed a typo: Lunar module: ...consisted of a decent stage...
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 29, 2008 8:45:14 GMT -4
It mostly came from the book The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology by Kenneth Gatland, though I've added much to it over the years. although missing the abbreviations above. The page was orginally intended as a general space flight glossary, thus there are many Apollo specific abbreviations and acronyms that have been left out, though I've tried to add a few of the more common ones. LLRE and LRRR may be some good ones to add; I'll think about it. Noticed a typo: Lunar module: ...consisted of a decent stage...It is a pretty decent stage, don't you think? But seriously, thanks. I just ran a spell check on the entire page and found a few more mistakes. It seems that no matter how many times I spell check or proof read my site, somebody always to find an error that evaded me.
|
|
|
Post by inconceivable on Apr 29, 2008 15:43:50 GMT -4
The Russians seem to have been more cooperative with NASA during the cold war than people think. Remember Apollo-Soyuz. That project was being put together prior to Apollo 17.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 29, 2008 15:51:09 GMT -4
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The only reason Apollo-Soyuz happened was the fear in each spacefaring nation that one crew would be marooned in space in a broken spaceship while a crew from the other country sat forty feet away in space, unable to help because they couldn't dock. Apollo-Soyuz provided only enough interoperability and cooperation to conduct a coordinated rescue mission if needed. Not until the end of the Cold War was there any subsequent cooperation in space. The high-seas mentality was always alive and well during the Cold War. That doesn't mean the Cold War didn't happen.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 29, 2008 16:48:48 GMT -4
You can’t possibly compare ASTP with the proposition that the Soviets conspired with the USA to perpetrate a hoax. Despite cooperation on some levels, the USA and USSR were still largely enemies. And the cooperation you allude to would make the USA look like conquering heroes at the USSR’s expense. There is zero incentive for the Soviets to partake in such activity.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Apr 29, 2008 16:51:46 GMT -4
Up to the landings I get the impression they (USSR as they were) were very secretive. Even finding out what a launch had achieved took a while. After that I suppose they thought they might gain something.
Is it Deke's book that has some interesting comments on this? Especially the gaining of a pool table and canning someone who was a pain?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 29, 2008 17:50:33 GMT -4
Up to the landings I get the impression they (USSR as they were) were very secretive. Even finding out what a launch had achieved took a while. After that I suppose they thought they might gain something. This is quite correct, the only real information that the Soviets allowed out was that there was going to be a launch (and even this was later in the game, once they knew that the US has surveillance that would pick up a rocket launch, mostly because the last thing you want in a heightened alert situation is a rocket firing that is both unexpected and a possible threat) and if there was a possible conflict with a US mission, then they'd give flight the planned flight path to avoid conflicts (such as Luna 13 and Apollo 11) It is only since the 1980's that we have learned that several "satellites" were in fact the Soviets testing the LK and other components for their own Lunar landing and aspects of missions such as Zond 5 caught the US complete unaware when they heard human voices being transmitted from the moon's vicinity. The Soviets did fuss up in that case pointing out that it was merely a recording. The major evidence against the Soviets knowing of any "hoax" is that if they had, why didn't they hoax their own moon landings? They were trying to get there until early 1974, over a year after Apollo had finished. If they were complicit in any US Hoax, why didn't they demand that NASA help them create their own faked landings?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 29, 2008 17:58:32 GMT -4
Excellent glossary Bob, although missing the abbreviations above. Noticed a typo: Lunar module: ...consisted of a decent stage...Well, I thought it was pretty decent. ;D EDIT: Someone beat me to it I see. Oh well, one man's desert is another man's entree.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Apr 29, 2008 23:47:33 GMT -4
The major evidence against the Soviets knowing of any "hoax" is that if they had, why didn't they hoax their own moon landings? They were trying to get there until early 1974, over a year after Apollo had finished. If they were complicit in any US Hoax, why didn't they demand that NASA help them create their own faked landings? There is that but the whole brinkmanship of the cold war leads me to believe they would have exposed the US. But I suppose a lot depends on the fickleness of the USSR leaders at the time. Brezhnev didn't appear to warm to the west until the early 70's. A subject I have yet to explore properly. Russian leaders that is and the cold war. Still on Mr Cernan's book and a few more tomes to clear away first.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 1, 2008 17:04:06 GMT -4
The major evidence against the Soviets knowing of any "hoax" is that if they had, why didn't they hoax their own moon landings? They were trying to get there until early 1974, over a year after Apollo had finished. If they were complicit in any US Hoax, why didn't they demand that NASA help them create their own faked landings? There is that but the whole brinkmanship of the cold war leads me to believe they would have exposed the US. But I suppose a lot depends on the fickleness of the USSR leaders at the time. Brezhnev didn't appear to warm to the west until the early 70's. A subject I have yet to explore properly. Russian leaders that is and the cold war. Still on Mr Cernan's book and a few more tomes to clear away first. I know this, but what I was proposing was the return argument for the claim that the US and the USSR co-operated and that the USSR knew that the US had hoaxed it and promised to not spill the beans.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on May 3, 2008 2:54:57 GMT -4
Understood. My mind was wandering on another tangent.
|
|