Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Dec 31, 2010 17:28:10 GMT -4
I'm currently working on a new web page that takes on the hoax theory from a different angle. Rather than responding to each hoax claim, I'm trying to be proactive. Here's a link to what I have so far: www.braeunig.us/space/race.htmThe page is organized like a slide program that you click through. So far I've only completed part 1 of 4. The four parts will be: Chronology - A chronological history of the space race. Technology - An explanation of Apollo technology, i.e. how they did it. Photography - An examination of selected photos explaining the observed details and phenomenon. Conspiracy Theories - Shows how silly the hoax is compared to previous presentations. It's my intention that Parts 1 through 3 will debunk the hoax without even mentioning the hoax. I will simply provide facts and real explanations, however keeping in mind the hoax as I select the topics and prepare the explanations. When I get to part four I only have to say look how stupid these hoax theorists are because I already explained this back in a previous slide. I think this may be a more powerful way to present the information because it gives the reader a complete and comprehensive understanding of what really happened before they ever hear the hoax claims. If I can make a presentation that makes sense to them, the hoax claims will sound more silly and slipshod than if they heard that side first. I know this will do nothing to convince the determined hoax believers, but maybe it will help the doubters. Most HBs who come here have a really dreadful understanding of just what Apollo was all about, so maybe this is something we can point them to for a quick tutorial. What do you all think? I'm open to your comments and suggestions. Can anyone find any typos or errors in what I've completed so far?
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Dec 31, 2010 18:29:08 GMT -4
Still reading through it, but so far? Excellent work!
|
|
|
Post by chew on Dec 31, 2010 20:07:44 GMT -4
Excellent!
The links for "cancellations" and "Houston, we've had a problem" are backwards.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 31, 2010 20:19:44 GMT -4
Looks good.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 1, 2011 7:51:05 GMT -4
It's looking pretty good!
On the page "Building the first ICBM" you mention that the US detonated its first thermonuclear test in 1952. This is true, but it was not the reason for the drop in specified US ICBM throw weights. That 1952 test was the 62-ton Ivy Mike, which used liquid (cryogenic) deuterium and non-fissile (but still fissionable) U-238 as main-stage fuels. It was more of a physics experiment than a weapons test.
It wasn't until the Castle Bravo test in 1954 that the US tested its first full scale *solid fuel* thermonuclear weapon. While that device was also very large and heavy, it demonstrated that a thermonuclear weapon could be delivered by a large bomber, and that there were no serious obstacles to designing one to be carried by an ICBM.
All through this time the US was rapidly improving its fission weapons through the use of "levitated pits" and fusion boosting. They greatly increased the efficiency of the fission yield, reduced the amount of fissile materials required, and also allowed them to be made much smaller and lighter. But no pure fission bomb of the day was ever really powerful and light enough to make a practical ICBM warhead; it took small, compact fusion weapons to make the ICBM a real threat.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 1, 2011 8:15:13 GMT -4
Some more comments...you should briefly explain the alternatives to Lunar Orbit Rendezvous and the advantages of LOR that led to its selection. The #1 advantage is that you need not land on the moon the mass of the fuel and rocket engine you need for the return to earth, only to launch it right back off the moon later. It was far more economical to leave it in lunar orbit until it's needed for the trip home. And just as you point out, the increased complexity of LOR led to Project Gemini.
Regarding Apollo 7, Wally Schirra had already served notice before the flight that he was retiring shortly thereafter. All three astronauts, not just Schirra, developed colds. Also, Schirra was ticked off by the ground's violation of an agreement he had made with them to not launch unless the winds were from the west, blowing offshore. In case of an abort from the pad or early in flight, he wanted to be sure of landing in the water, not on land.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 1, 2011 13:39:13 GMT -4
The links for "cancellations" and "Houston, we've had a problem" are backwards. I’ve fixed it. Thanks. It wasn't until the Castle Bravo test in 1954 that the US tested its first full scale *solid fuel* thermonuclear weapon. While that device was also very large and heavy, it demonstrated that a thermonuclear weapon could be delivered by a large bomber, and that there were no serious obstacles to designing one to be carried by an ICBM. According to the Atlas timeline that I’ve been following, A 3000-pound warhead was "anticipated" in 1952, and by April 1953 they were already downsizing the missile. It looks to me that, although the Bravo test wasn’t until 1954, they were already planning ahead in anticipation of it. To be more specific I’ve revised the wording as follows: "In 1952 the U.S. exploded its first hydrogen bomb, which, along with subsequent improvements in bomb design, lead to the lowering of the payload requirement to 3,000 pounds"Some more comments...you should briefly explain the alternatives to Lunar Orbit Rendezvous and the advantages of LOR that led to its selection. The #1 advantage is that you need not land on the moon the mass of the fuel and rocket engine you need for the return to earth, only to launch it right back off the moon later. It was far more economical to leave it in lunar orbit until it's needed for the trip home. And just as you point out, the increased complexity of LOR led to Project Gemini. The advantages of LOR will be discussed in the "Technology" section. Regarding Apollo 7, Wally Schirra had already served notice before the flight that he was retiring shortly thereafter. All three astronauts, not just Schirra, developed colds. Also, Schirra was ticked off by the ground's violation of an agreement he had made with them to not launch unless the winds were from the west, blowing offshore. In case of an abort from the pad or early in flight, he wanted to be sure of landing in the water, not on land. You're correct, that paragraph needs to be better written (I got a little sloppy with the facts). Here is how it now reads: "Apollo 7 was marked by considerable tension between the crew and ground controllers. Contributing to the crew's irritability was a decision to launch despite less than ideal wind conditions for abort, motion sickness (likely caused by Apollo's more spacious cabin), unhappiness about the food selections, and severe head colds that started with Schirra and spread to the others. These difficulties led to Eisele and Cunningham being rejected for future missions – Schirra had already announced his planned retirement before the flight."
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 1, 2011 14:30:45 GMT -4
Out of everything I’ve written so far, the thing I’m most uncomfortable with is on the "After Apollo..." page, in which I wrote:
"To assure the Saturn V would not be resurrected as a competitor to the Space Shuttle, Saturn V production capability was destroyed."
The only place I've heard this fact is in this forum, where Jay mentioned it. I've never been able to find corroboration. Can anybody here confirm this and/or tell me more about it. My recollection of the story is that Nixon wanted to provide peace of mind to the Space Shuttle contractors who feared Saturn V production might be resumed, possibly putting the Space Shuttle program in jeopardy. Therefore, Nixon order destruction of jigs and other equipment used to manufacture the Saturn V so it could never be restarted.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jan 1, 2011 19:50:54 GMT -4
I think this may be a more powerful way to present the information because it gives the reader a complete and comprehensive understanding of what really happened before they ever hear the hoax claims. If I can make a presentation that makes sense to them, the hoax claims will sound more silly and slipshod than if they heard that side first. It's an excellent idea. Youngsters at school should have it this way around too. It's much more difficult when they have got acquainted to hoax theories, because explaining at that point tend to seem like damage control. The Space Race....an examination of the hoax... Er what hoax? I guess you mean the claims of a such. Building the first ICBMThe acronym is not explained. I guess you meant to do that? IGY an Vanguard... a series if coordinated... if -> of NASA and project Mercury... man's ability to function is space... is -> in. Project GeminiBecause is its greater size... Maybe you mean "Because of its ..." Lunar landers and orbitersThe United Sates -> The United States Apollo 4, 5 and 6It lifted of on 22 January -> "lifted off"? Around the Moon and back...should no solar flare occurs... occurs -> occur (?) An historic flight...the gravity if another... if -> of After Apollo...resulting the in the loss... In the slide Cancellations you mention the J-missions without explaining the expression which you do in the later slide Going for a drive. Maybe that should be turned around? I'm looking forward to following your work.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 1, 2011 23:40:32 GMT -4
Thanks for the corrections. I think I've got them all fixed.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 2, 2011 2:36:35 GMT -4
Bob,
I've spent the day looking looking through online resources regarding the Saturn V production being ceased. I can't find anything regarding a deliberate attempt to ensure Saturn V production could not be restarted, but there are some notes of interest:
- Even as early as 1967, Marshall was trying to envisage what its post-Apollo role would be. There was concern that the various facilities were too specialised for Saturn production, that they were a "one trick pony". NASA was well aware that the long range plans vis a vis Apollo Applications were unlikely. Long term moon bases were out, a Mars mission was out, but the space station could still be in. This meant there was no role for any further Saturn Vs beyond the launch of an orbital station.
- It had been noted that they had to reduce the costs of launch vehicles. The Space Shuttle was hoped to be able to do this but Saturn production methods were just too expensive, and the cost of the Saturns could not be brought down significantly unless a wildly artificial launch rate was proposed (sound familiar?).
- The cost of a shuttle could be reduced by modifying existing facilities instead of constructing them from scratch.
- Werner Von Braun did feel as though the Nixon government was killing any chance for long term manned space exploration.
I think the cessation of Saturn production came about with a memo that is not online but available from the NASA History Office at NASA HQ. That memo was from Dale D. Myers to James C. Fletcher, titled “Saturn V Production Capability” and dated 3 August 1972.
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Jan 2, 2011 8:48:05 GMT -4
I like the slide show style. Makes it feel more digestible. I liked the factoid about how warhead sizing drove initial ICBM development and that it was the Americans' more advanced technology that led to them have a smaller arsenal of rockets at the beginning. On the technical side you may want to have a read of this. Some devices and software may have trouble with your markup.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 2, 2011 13:58:18 GMT -4
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 2, 2011 15:46:05 GMT -4
It might be in the code I'm using. Clicking on Home should back you up one folder to "braeunig.us/space" from "braeunig.us/space/race". Generally this can be done be preceding the file name with "../", which is a command to back up one folder in the hierarchy. Maybe your Browser doesn't recognize this code. It's a pain in the neck to go back and change it now because I have to do it in every slide, which now numbers more than 70. Is anybody else having a problem with this?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 2, 2011 16:26:53 GMT -4
I've spent the day looking looking through online resources regarding the Saturn V production being ceased. I can't find anything regarding a deliberate attempt to ensure Saturn V production could not be restarted, but there are some notes of interest: Thanks for the information. I've decided to change the sentence about canceling the Saturn V to read: "With no foreseeable role for the Saturn V in NASA's future plans, the Saturn program was terminated."I like the slide show style. Makes it feel more digestible. Being "more digestible" is the reason I went with that format. Sometimes when I see one really long web page I'm turned away from it because I don't want to take the time to read it all. Seeing little bits at a time is less intimidating. I also like having a picture that ties in with each point being presented. I liked the factoid about how warhead sizing drove initial ICBM development and that it was the Americans' more advanced technology that led to them have a smaller arsenal of rockets at the beginning. I think that is a very important fact. The R-7 and Atlas were developed as weapons, not space launch vehicles. In the role for which they were developed, the Americans had the superior technology. When the role changed, however, the Soviets fortuitously found themselves in an advantageous position.
|
|