Pokrovsky theory

[gillianren]

You know, while NASA was getting started, my dad was in Vietnam, teaching the people there how to fight Communists. (Dad was an early advisor, though I have no details; he died when I was six.) One of the reasons the Soviet Union collapsed was that the US was capable of both fightin' Commies and sending people into space. The Soviet Union was trying to keep up with US spending and couldn't.

[sts60]

Dec 15, 2011 9:01:35 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

...

The issue is that von Braun argues that Saturn V was capable of transporting 118 ton to LEO and 47 ton to Moon orbit.

It's not just one man; it's thousands and thousands of engineers, technicians, and scientists who were involved in the design, manufacture, test, and operation of the Saturn V, plus all those similarly involved in the Apollo spacecraft, plus the same for Skylab, plus the engineers since Apollo who have studied the design and used its technologies.

Soviet inteligence

Unsourced, unsupported appeal to magic.

says that the capacity of rocket was not more than 27 tons to Moon orbit.

Soviet engineers on the record disagree, and acknowledge the Saturn V was capable of doing what it was claimed to do. They trump your pretend "intelligence" agents.

NASA says that Skylab was 77 tons which indicates that the rocket was rather strong (even if major pogo vibrations occurred). My calculations propose that Skylab was not at all so heavy.

Your calculations fail a sanity check.

It would be easy to draw a compromising conclusion - Saturn V was indeed capable of transporting 77 tons to LEO and this means that about 27 tons to Moon orbit was possible. But if we accept that, we must understand that the figures are exceptionally high - anomalies - in rocket engineering. Today we cannot even imagine a rocket as strong without external boosters.

Speak for yourself. I can, and I'm a practicing space engineer.

Then the big problem remains - we cannot explain how the 47 ton Apollo system could have been transported to the Moon orbit...

One cannot explain reality if one diverges from it as badly as you have.

Saturn V F-1 engines were indeed dead end and major failures in rocket engineering - that is why they were not further developed and were completely abandoned.

Those engines demonstrably lofted the Apollo CSM stacks to the Moon and Skylab into orbit. The rest is merely your layman's characterization.

If they did what was told, they would certainly be today the most celebrated rocket systems used by all the space countries - but they are not even considered in rocket planning. RD-170 and RD-180 are engines used by all ... including US.

Your lack of understanding. "Celebrated" does not require "still used", especially when mission goals changed as they did after Apollo.

F-1 engines always had major problems with pogo - especially after about one minute from start (where Skylab was also damaged). In NASA reports it is mentioned that all the Saturn V test and flights were successful, but this is not true ... all they had pogo problems

You have no idea what you're talking about.

First, pogo is not an engine problem, it is a vehicle problem. Second, your claim of "always... major problems" is refuted by the observed flight characteristics of the Apollo missions, as well as Skylab. Third, again, Skylab was not damaged due to pogo.

(Pokrovsky said that they had to reduce the performance 20 %).

Pokrovsky is demonstrably incompetent, and his assertions are at odds with, well, all the world's aerospace engineers.

...I must repeat that Soviet politicians did not have any interest to deny the success of Apollo. But the space scientists knew exactly what the reality was (and maybe informed politicians).

Soviet "space scientists", the engineers and cosmonauts who were trying themselves to get to the Moon, did indeed know what the reality was, and acknowledged that Apollo did go to the Moon.

<snip laughable sociopolitical fantasy>

PS - it is not very nice to call experts having probably more knowledge on space research as hoaxers or conspiracy theorists - those other people who are repeating Wikipedia or NASA/Apollo sketches are parrots ... nothing more - so leave out such wording.

First of all, "conspiracy theorist" is simply someone who theorizes a conspiracy - which is exactly what you and Pokrovsky are doing*. It is a descriptive term, not a pejorative one.

Second, you don't have more knowledge. I am a practicing space engineer with two decades in this field and a decent collection of science and engineering degrees, and I am outshone here by several other engineers. There are non-engineers on this board who themselves have amassed significantly more Apollo knowledge as well; several have quite a bit more Apollo-specific knowledge than me.

*Calling what you are doing "theorizing" is being generous. Neither you nor Pokrovsky has a theory; you have speculation, some bad measurements, various factual errors, counterhistorical claims, and an inability to account for all the piles and piles of other evidence for Apollo.

[ka9q]

Dec 15, 2011 9:01:35 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

The issue is that von Braun argues that Saturn V was capable of transporting 118 ton to LEO and 47 ton to Moon orbit. Soviet inteligence says that the capacity of rocket was not more than 27 tons to Moon orbit. NASA says that Skylab was 77 tons which indicates that the rocket was rather strong (even if major pogo vibrations occurred).

118 tonnes to LEO is close to correct. 47 tonnes to lunar orbit is not close to correct; the figure is 45.4 tonnes to translunar injection. The propulsion needed to decelerate into lunar orbit must be taken out of that figure.

You are confusing the LEO ratings of the Saturn V as a 3-stage vehicle with the 2-stage configuration used to launch Skylab. You also have to be careful with the allocation of miscellaneous masses; some of them, such as the Apollo Launch Escape System (LES, 4,200 kg), Apollo LM Adapter (1,840 kg) and the Skylab fairing (11,794 kg) are not so small. The LES was jettisoned early in 2nd stage flight while the Skylab fairing was carried into orbit.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Dec 15, 2011 9:01:35 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

The issue is that von Braun argues that Saturn V was capable of transporting 118 ton to LEO

Which is confirmed by the design, which by the way anyone can look at, as well as actual performance.

Dec 15, 2011 9:01:35 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

Soviet inteligence says that the capacity of rocket was not more than 27 tons to Moon orbit.

Repeating a unsubstantiated claim doesn't make it any less unsubstantiated.

Dec 15, 2011 9:01:35 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

I must repeat that Soviet politicians did not have any interest to deny the success of Apollo.

They didn't want to win the Cold War?
Now, that's funny.

Dec 15, 2011 10:14:18 GMT -4 echnaton said:

The burden of proof is on you, Tsialkovsky. Show is that your "experts" are truly experts first.

Heck, show that they exist.

[Tsialkovsky]

I wrote: (Pokrovsky said that they had to reduce the performance 20 %).

"sts60" wrote: Pokrovsky is demonstrably incompetent, and his assertions are at odds with, well, all the world's aerospace engineers.

Maybe you want to speak on behalf of WORLD's engineers (Bush was using "international community" - pls, remember that there is also land on the other side of the ocean), but if you are one of those, please, summarize here where he failed in his calculations and we can evaluate your science. And remember that he was not dependent on US TV footage only, but the use of that public material demonstrates his points.

Russian space scientists do not publish in western media - as Wikipedia, but in Russia they have published a lot. Cit:
Dr Alexander Ivanovich Popov (b. 1943) is a Russian senior research associate, doctor of physical-mathematical sciences, and author of more than 100 scientific works and inventions in the fields of laser optics and spectroscopy. Helped by more than forty volunteers, most of which with scientific degrees he wrote the book "Americans on the Moon" (2009). In it, Popov placed the burden of proof on NASA, and denied all Moon landing evidence, dividing it to five groups:
1. Visual (photo, film and video) material that can successfully be made on Earth, in cinema studios.
2. Obvious counterfeits and fakes, when visual material from ordinary space flights on Earth orbit is presented as Moon material.
3. Space photos, attributed to the astronauts but which by that time could already be made and were made by space robots, including American ones.
4. Devices on Moon (e.g., light reflectors)—by that time both American and Soviet automatic "messengers" had sent on Moon several tens of similar devices.
5. Unfounded, unprovable claims, e.g., for about 400 kg of soil, overwhelming part of which NASA keeps safe and gives only grams for checking.
Thus he concluded that the NASA claims on Moon landings are left unproven, and pursuant to science rules, in the absence of trustworthy evidence, the event, in this case the American Moon landings and their loops around the Moon, cannot be considered real, that is, having taken place. He also confirmed Pokrovsky's results for the speed of the Saturn V at S-IC staging time. Popov accused the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee of trading the 1970s Détente for covering up the US Moon hoax and stopping the Soviet Moon programme.
wikispooks.com/wiki/Moon_Landings_Hoax

Who can shortly tell me what is the evidence that US astronauts have visited Moon? We can analyze those points then - I have presented a list earlier telling what issues speak against (I can renew it later).

[Bob B.]

Dec 16, 2011 12:27:04 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

Popov placed the burden of proof on NASA

That's not the way it works in the real world. All of NASA's information regarding Apollo is already in the public domain. If you want to try to prove it all fake, then have at it.

[twik]

OK - but first, please provide evidence of your "proof". You say you have information from "Soviet intelligence". Well, anyone can say that - I told you about my inside info from Canadian intelligence, right?

PROVE that "Soviet intelligence" says what you say it does. Not just "I read it on line" or "someone told me". Names, dates, references, so we can check it all out ourselve.

Because it's absolutely obvious that vague rumours about what the spy community *might* have been saying is MUCH easier to fake than thousands of photos, samples, and first-hand accounts. I'll not even go into your supposed pre-Photo Shop software that can make photos and videos that are undetectable as fakes.

You want evidence? Please provide your own.

[Bob B.]

Dec 16, 2011 12:27:04 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

1. Visual (photo, film and video) material that can successfully be made on Earth, in cinema studios.

I don't believe this to be true, but even if it were, it's irrelevant. Having the ability to do something by some other means is not proof that it was done using the alternative method. The burden of proof that the alternative method was actually used is on the person making the claim, i.e. you/Popov.

2. Obvious counterfeits and fakes, when visual material from ordinary space flights on Earth orbit is presented as Moon material.

All efforts I've seen to proof that the visual material is counterfeits or fakes has failed miserably. It is simply not a creditable claim. However, if you think you can prove otherwise, then please present your evidence.

3. Space photos, attributed to the astronauts but which by that time could already be made and were made by space robots, including American ones.

Irrelevant. See answer to #1.

4. Devices on Moon (e.g., light reflectors)—by that time both American and Soviet automatic "messengers" had sent on Moon several tens of similar devices.

Irrelevant. See answer to #1. All evidence supports that the equipment was placed by human astronauts. There is no evidence that an alternative method was used.

5. Unfounded, unprovable claims, e.g., for about 400 kg of soil, overwhelming part of which NASA keeps safe and gives only grams for checking.

What have you done to verify whether or not the samples exist in the quantities claimed?


edit grammar/spelling

[JayUtah]

Dec 16, 2011 12:27:04 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

Maybe you want to speak on behalf of WORLD's engineers ..., but if you are one of those, please, summarize here where he failed in his calculations and we can evaluate your science.

I am an engineer. Sts60's opinion is congruent with mine on the subject. My analysis appears in this thread and elsewhere on this board. Further, I have worked with a number of former Soviet engineers and they agree that the Saturn V worked as advertised. It appears that Pokrovsy, in addition to being wrong, does not represent the Russian engineering community.

Since he is distinctly in a very small minority of the relevant professionals, he bears the burden of proof. And it has been shown clearly how he failed to carry it.

Who can shortly tell me what is the evidence that US astronauts have visited Moon?

There is no small amount -- it is a huge, overwhelmingly convincing body of evidence. You must explain all of it, not just the parts you think you can. And your alternate explanation must provide more solidity that mere Soviet nostalgia.

[Bob B.]

Dec 16, 2011 12:27:04 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

Who can shortly tell me what is the evidence that US astronauts have visited Moon?

All the evidence is public domain. All you have to do is go study it. Overwhelmingly, qualified individuals who have studied this evidence agree that it adequately proves Apollo landed astronauts on the Moon. Only a relatively small number of non-qualified people or kooks believe otherwise.

Since it is impossible to prove the authenticity of something, but it is possible to prove something fake, authenticity must be the default position until it is proved to be fake. The burden of proof is yours and those who claim Apollo fake.

[Bob B.]

Dec 16, 2011 13:09:54 GMT -4 JayUtah said:

Dec 16, 2011 12:27:04 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

Maybe you want to speak on behalf of WORLD's engineers ..., but if you are one of those, please, summarize here where he failed in his calculations and we can evaluate your science.

I am an engineer. Sts60's opinion is congruent with mine on the subject.

I'm an engineer as well, though I don't work in the space industry. Nonetheless, I've studied the Saturn and Apollo technology to the best of my abilities my opinion agrees with sts60 and JayUtah. I've also demonstrated mathematically earlier in this thread that Pokrovsky's claims are impossible to reconcile with the measured acceleration of the rocket at liftoff and the measured duration of flight. Pokrovsky's claims are simply not believable as they fail to pass the verification tests.

[Tsialkovsky]

We are on a side track now in this thread from Pokrovsky and rocket technology, so I don't reply to those points above (I just wanted to introduce Popov's book where he and other Russian space scientists tell their views on Apollo - I have my own counter-arguments).

I think that we have in these pages a big team of NASA staff who are paid to:
1) collect information that the opponents have in order to counterattac;
2) provide lousy answers to any critical opinion presented in the discussion board.

I hope that anybody can really see, how nervous and desperate those Apollo defenders really are. Somebody is e.g. saying that there is evidence that light reflectors were placed by human astronauts. What is that evidence? Fingerprints? Russians have put tens of those to Moon and several planets without a need to kiss them good-by by anybody at place.

I happen to know something about the early rock samples of Apollo (unfortunately geologists have not had access to the later samples). They are usually meteorites probably picked from Antarctica (contaminated with Earth materials as water with Earth's oxygen isotope contents), tectites (impactites from Earth), old lava stones with signals of Earth magnetic field, etc. Why 90% of the stones are secret and 500 samples have been lost?

Apollo became a very expensive program for US taxpayers. Somebody said that Saturn V was abandoned because Shuttle was cheaper - no way. Shuttle was able to transport only 15 ton to LEO ... Saturn V ten times more 118 ton (which I don't believe a single second). Construction of space stations was the next step after Apollo and heavy rockets were definitely needed - but S-V and its F-1 were pieces of crap and therefore they were thrown to bin. Wernher von Braun was kicked out just before the Apollo-11 and so was the NASA director James Webb and many other leaders. FBI's statement was that v Braun was a "phony". In Russia, successful rocket designers are celebrated and end up to Kremlin wall.
v33v.tripod.com/ww3.html

I cannot present any "proof" on behalf of Soviet inteligence agency. I am listening the others and publishing my own investigations (with relevant references included). So it would be better to discuss about substance issues ... not just to look for external support. Internet is not a reference anyway.

An interesting question is why Soviet political leadership did not reveal the facts about US space program. Some people in Russia argue that there was a secret political deal which came up only later (like Gorbatshov's politics) - others say that USSR needed food and wheat because of catastrophic weather disasters and poor crop yields - again others say that USA bought the silence. Who knows....

[twik]

I cannot present any "proof" on behalf of Soviet inteligence agency.

Great! That means we can completely ignore it as a fantasy on your part.

[JayUtah]

Dec 16, 2011 13:50:30 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

I have my own counter-arguments.

Unconvincing ones. You tried to pass off Pokrovsky and Popov as learned experts, until you found out that their critics are just as learned -- and better able to support their argument from fact. You are the one changing horses.

I think that we have in these pages a big team of NASA staff...

Prove it.

collect information that the opponents have in order to counterattac;

That's the purpose of debate. If your claims cannot stand up to scrutiny, then too bad.

provide lousy answers to any critical opinion presented in the discussion board.

You haven't shown that the answers are lousy.

I hope that anybody can really see, how nervous and desperate those Apollo defenders really are.

What is your evidence that we are nervous and desperate? You're the one trying any and every argument. We are clearly in the majority, and we have every single qualified expert on our side. Why would we be nervous?

Somebody is e.g. saying that there is evidence that light reflectors were placed by human astronauts. What is that evidence?

Let's see: we have the names of the astronauts, who are on record with their claims. We have the ship they traveled in, the names of the people who built it, the rocket that propelled it, and a detailed history of the development, testing, and operation of that equipment.

What commensurate body of evidence exists for your theory?

Somebody said that Saturn V was abandoned because Shuttle was cheaper - no way.

Hearsay. The Saturn V program was intentionally terminated in part to keep it from competing against the shuttle. The shuttle contract bidders would only accept the risk if the U.S. government would commit to it as a primary launch system.

Construction of space stations was the next step after Apollo and heavy rockets were definitely needed...

No. The U.S. space infrastructure as envisioned in the 1960s and 1970s was interplanetary missions constructed in orbit at a space station that was to be built with a space shuttle.

I cannot present any "proof" on behalf of Soviet inteligence agency.

Then stop claiming them as an authority.

An interesting question is why Soviet political leadership did not reveal the facts about US space program. Some people in Russia argue that there was a secret political deal which came up only later (like Gorbatshov's politics) - others say that USSR needed food and wheat because of catastrophic weather disasters and poor crop yields - again others say that USA bought the silence. Who knows....

Hearsay.

[abaddon]

Dec 16, 2011 13:50:30 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

We are on a side track now in this thread from Pokrovsky and rocket technology, so I don't reply to those points above (I just wanted to introduce Popov's book where he and other Russian space scientists tell their views on Apollo - I have my own counter-arguments).

I am also an engineer, and I concur with JayUtah, Bob.B and sts60.

Dec 16, 2011 13:50:30 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

I think that we have in these pages a big team of NASA staff who are paid to:
1) collect information that the opponents have in order to counterattac;
2) provide lousy answers to any critical opinion presented in the discussion board.

Got any evidence?

Dec 16, 2011 13:50:30 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

I hope that anybody can really see, how nervous and desperate those Apollo defenders really are.

Nope. Not at all nervous. It's amusing how often HB types make this allegation. It is to laugh.

Dec 16, 2011 13:50:30 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

Somebody is e.g. saying that there is evidence that light reflectors were placed by human astronauts. What is that evidence? Fingerprints? Russians have put tens of those to Moon and several planets without a need to kiss them good-by by anybody at place.

Bzzt! Wrong. Russia put two on the moon, and lost one. LRO found it. That is hardly "tens".

And doubly wrong, none on other planets.

And just exactly who is "somebody"?

Dec 16, 2011 13:50:30 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

I happen to know something about the early rock samples of Apollo (unfortunately geologists have not had access to the later samples).

Wrong.

Dec 16, 2011 13:50:30 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

They are usually meteorites probably picked from Antarctica (contaminated with Earth materials as water with Earth's oxygen isotope contents), tectites (impactites from Earth), old lava stones with signals of Earth magnetic field, etc. Why 90% of the stones are secret and 500 samples have been lost?

Wrong again.

Dec 16, 2011 13:50:30 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

Apollo became a very expensive program for US taxpayers.

Yup. It was expensive.

Dec 16, 2011 13:50:30 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

Somebody said that Saturn V was abandoned because Shuttle was cheaper - no way. Shuttle was able to transport only 15 ton to LEO ... Saturn V ten times more 118 ton (which I don't believe a single second).

Again with the infamous "somebody".
Who exactly said this?

Dec 16, 2011 13:50:30 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

Construction of space stations was the next step after Apollo and heavy rockets were definitely needed - but S-V and its F-1 were pieces of crap and therefore they were thrown to bin. Wernher von Braun was kicked out just before the Apollo-11 and so was the NASA director James Webb and many other leaders. FBI's statement was that v Braun was a "phony". In Russia, successful rocket designers are celebrated and end up to Kremlin wall.
v33v.tripod.com/ww3.html

Wrong. Is there no limit to the amount of wrong you can put in a single post?

Dec 16, 2011 13:50:30 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

I cannot present any "proof" on behalf of Soviet inteligence agency.

So you have zero evidence. Colour me unsurprised.

Dec 16, 2011 13:50:30 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

I am listening the others and publishing my own investigations (with relevant references included). So it would be better to discuss about substance issues ... not just to look for external support. Internet is not a reference anyway.

Why do you use it as a reference then?

Dec 16, 2011 13:50:30 GMT -4 Tsialkovsky said:

An interesting question is why Soviet political leadership did not reveal the facts about US space program. Some people in Russia argue that there was a secret political deal which came up only later (like Gorbatshov's politics) - others say that USSR needed food and wheat because of catastrophic weather disasters and poor crop yields - again others say that USA bought the silence. Who knows....

And finish off with wild speculation.
Where is the evidence for any of this?