Bart's 5:1 Russian superiority claim

[margamatix]

sts60 said:

I change my signature every week or so. That was one, ephemeral, signature.

Does that you mean you no longer believe the claim you used in your signature? Or that you didn't agree with it in the first place? Or you did agree with it, but you don't think we should challenge it?

No, it just means that I change my signature every week or so.

[Al Johnston]

To paraphrase Kipling:

The point is the point and Margamatix is Margamatix

And never the twain shall meet

[Bob B.]

Very nicely done, sts60. I've reviewed your logic and calculations and can find no fault with them. Funny how all these hoax claims just melt away when a little proper science is applied.

[JayUtah]

Did he? Well then I'll have to stand corrected.

Quit screwing around.

Sibrel's precise claims and the discussion and refutation that followed are contained within this thread. Please read the thread and comment on it. That's what I asked you to do six hours ago. You are dragging your feet with these distractionary objections and requests.

Like I have said, about a dozen times now, I haven't read Bart Sibrel's claim and so am not qualified to comment on it.

Irrelevant. You said earlier that you had, because you had read every post. Now you're saying you have not read it. That too is irrelevant because you are being asked to read it, and the discussion that follows. Your dozenfold repetition of the same irrelevant objection is exactly why you are being described as evasive. You are being asked to become qualified. Your continued refusal to do so is tiresome and supports our contention that you refuse to examine evidence.

[sts60]

margamatix, despite Jay's insistence, we can't make you do something. If you don't want to read the account of Sibrel's claim, and how it was thoroughly demolished - fine, than don't. Whatever. It's just one more example of Sibrel's comic ineptitude.

I won't hold you to your oath that you read (past tense) every post here beyond the time you made it. I'll take you word that you haven't read this claim, either in your perusals of Sibrel's stuff or on this site.

I imagine the regulars will be happy to discuss the details of any of the claims you have read, or made. I will.

[sts60]

margamatix said:

sts60 said:

I change my signature every week or so. That was one, ephemeral, signature.

Does that you mean you no longer believe the claim you used in your signature? Or that you didn't agree with it in the first place? Or you did agree with it, but you don't think we should challenge it?

No, it just means that I change my signature every week or so.

OK. So what you quote may or may not reflect what you actually believe.

In the case of Sibrel's derogation of the LM, however, the quote did actually reflect your belief, because you have said much the same thing yourself.

(edit - fixed markup tag)

[sts60]

Very nicely done, sts60. I've reviewed your logic and calculations and can find no fault with them. Funny how all these hoax claims just melt away when a little proper science is applied.

Thanks, Bob. I'd like to expand on this a bit more, so I'll now revisit margamatix's post.

Run it by me again. On descent, the LM cut out its engine six feet above the moon's surface.

Eh, not really. The engine thrust didn't go instantaneously to zero, and not really at six feet either. But it's not important here.

margamatix is here making a technical attempt to back up a specific claim (LM flimsiness - yes, m., I know that wasn't your exact wording, hold the tangent, please), which we've often asked him to do. That's good, and it's the second time by my count he's atttempted it - the first was his ill-fated "fulcrum" argument - so let's give him credit for it.

It weighed 11 tons

No, it didn't. The loaded mass of the LM was roughly 15,000 kg, about 16.5 tons if you weighed it on Earth. The mass on the surface, after most of the descent engine propellant was used, was in the ballpark range of 8,000 kg, closer to 9 tons if weighed on Earth. So he starts off with the wrong number. But that's not the most serious problem.

margamatix has confused weight with mass. Unfortunately, he doesn't understand basic physics principles like this, so his claim immediately sets off in the wrong direction.

So it fell to the moon's surface with the same force as an object weighing nearly two tons would do if it fell six feet onto the Earth's surface, without coming to any harm.

I demonstrated quite clearly that the LM landing load was well within its design limits. But it's worth pointing out that his claim of equivalent loading is also quite wrong - given a similar 9" deceleration travel, the landing load for margamatix's two-twon object on Earth would be almost fifty percent higher (about 8300 lbs per leg)

You can't simply divide Earth weight by one-sixth, as margamatix apparently did with his bogus "11 ton" value, and get the impact loading as he did. Physics doesn't work that way. Just as it doesn't work to talk about "the temperature" on the Moon as if everything was sitting in a one-atmosphere environment - another fundamental misconception held (or at least pushed) by HBs and apparently shared by margamatix.

The failure of margamatix's example isn't really the issue, though, even though he basically got every part of it wrong, and still would have been wrong if he had used the right numbers.

The real issue is that, while I'm an engineer and Bob is an engineer, it doesn't take an engineer to see right through such claims. All it takes is high school physics - basic kinematics, really - and a willingness to spend a few minutes looking up a couple of numbers. And that was all done with a few web searches and downloading the LM structures book from a link found on a web site. No pilgrimages to JSC or dusty Raiders of the Lost Ark-style government warehouses. No fancy degrees or years of experience in aerospace. Just a high school understanding of physics, a half hour or so of time, and a desire to examine an issue critically rather than make dogmatically.

[PhantomWolf]

margamatix said:

• First manmade satellite in earth orbit…

I've just covered this one on my website. Wernher von Brun's Army Ballistic Missile team had the ability to launch a satellite in 1955, 2 years before the USSR did it, but they were told that they were not to attempt a launch under any circumstances, that "honour" being given to the Naval Research Lab's Vangaurd Project. ABMA asked and pleeded for the opportunity to launch a satellite a number of times, and in April 1957 they were still pointing out that they could launch in September that year. Sputnik 1 was launched in October. That allowed them to ask again and they were granted the ability to prepare a launch as back up to Vangaurd, but still not allowed to attempt a launch. It wasn't until the Head of ABMA, Major General J.B. Medaris, along with von Braun, and William Pickering, director of JPL, all threatened to resign if they weren't allowed to launch, that they were given permission. 3 months later they launched Explorer 1.

The USSR didn't have an technological advantage in launching first, in reality the ABMA team was well ahead of them, but hamstrung in their opportunities and efforts simply because of politics.

• First man in space…

Yuri Gagarin was a very lucky man. While it's generally accepted that the USSR rockets were bigger and capable of getting him into orbit, whereas Shapard was only sent into space, the Vostok capsule was not ready for use and had no capablity for a soft landing as did Freedom 7. Sergei Korolev was a huge risk taker and as a result, Gagarin had to bail out prior to the landing or he would have been seriously hurt, if not killed when the capsule crashed. None of the Mercury flights suffered that problem, so it is highly debatable whose technology was superior at the time and since the independant rules of getting a man into space specified a safe landing in the vehicle, it could even be claimed that Gagarin's flight didn't count due to his not landing with the craft intact.

• First man to orbit the earth…

Padding of the list as this flight was also Gagarin's.

• First woman in space…

Not an technlogical advance in any way shape or form, just a change of sex of the passanger.

• The first crew of three astronauts onboard one spacecraft…

Again a very risky venture to get a first. The Voskhod craft was designed as a two man craft. Wanting the first three man crew, a extra couch was squeezed in and the crew didn't wear space suits so they had the room to operate. The Apollo Command Module was the first space craft truely to be designed to hold three men.

• The first space walk…

Another major risk that nearly cost a cosmonaunt his life just to get a first. Unlike the Gemini craft, the Soviet Voskhod used vacuum valves instead of transisters. This meant that the craft could not be evacuated because the valves would overheat in a vacuum. They had to install an airlock for the space walk to occur and due to the suit ballooning during the walk, Leonov was unable to get back into the airlock. He ended up having to decompress his suit and nearly died before getting back onboard. The next soviet space walk would not be for 4 years in January of 1969. The USA's first space walk happened without incident on Gemini 4 just a few days after Leonov's, and they proceeded to complete space walks on nearly even manned Gemini and at least one of the the early Apollo missions as well.

• The first of two orbiting space craft rendezvousing…

This is not even true. The Soviets launched two craft so that they would past within several miles of each other due to their orbits. The Vostok 3 and 4 craft were unable to change their orbits to meet up. The first true rendezvous was Gemini 6 and 7 which used their ability to change their orbit to come within metres of each other.

[sts60]

• First man to orbit the earth…
Padding of the list as this flight was also Gagarin's.

I disagree with the "padding" remark, PW. Attaining an orbit is a much more significant accomplishment than a ballistic hop into space; they should count as two different things. But I agree with the rest of your comments, and the uselessness of the "firsts" list as some sort of evidence against Apollo.

[PhantomWolf]

sts60 said:

• First man to orbit the earth…
Padding of the list as this flight was also Gagarin's.

I disagree with the "padding" remark, PW. Attaining an orbit is a much more significant accomplishment than a ballistic hop into space; they should count as two different things. But I agree with the rest of your comments, and the uselessness of the "firsts" list as some sort of evidence against Apollo.

Well yes and no. To get a man into orbit you need to get him into space. I don't think that anyone would disagree with the fact the in 1961 the Soviets had the bigger rockets. Even their satellites were larger, Sputnik 3 was 1.4 tonnes. They always had because the US had smaller nuclear warheads and relied far more heavily on SAC and their bombers. As such the Redstone that launched Shepard wasn't powerful enough to get him into orbit whereas the Atlas for Glenn was. So they were able to lift Gagarin into obrit without having to do the ballistic shot into space first. There isn't a debate about that.

Claiming both slots as a technlogical advantage when it was one flight is simply designed to expand the list and make it look bigger rather then to allow the reader to understand the real situation, just as adding the first women into it does.

It's also interesting to note that every single one of the events listed occured prior to the first manned Gemini flight, and that the Soviets did not launch any manned flights for 2 years during the time of Gemini. Their next flight after Voskhod-2 in March, '65, was Soyuz 1in Apirl 1967, and that resulted in the death of Komarov and a futher year and a half long delay to the Soviet program.

Meanwhile NASA had completed a totally successful Gemini program and were heading into Apollo with gusto.

[Al Johnston]

phantomwolf said:

The USA's first space walk happened without incident on Gemini 4 just a few days after Leonov's, and they proceeded to complete space walks on nearly even manned Gemini and at least one of the the early Apollo missions as well.

There was also a spacewalk on Apollo 15 to retrieve an experiment package from the Service Module on the way back to the Earth.

While Ed White's EVA was, as you say, without incident, the subsequent spacewalkers had considerable difficulties attempting to do anything other than float around until Buzz Aldrin demonstrated the importance of proper handholds and anchor points on Gemini XII.

[PhantomWolf]

The first's argument is quite silly really because it basically says, the USSR were ahead at the 1/3 mark so they should have been ahead at the finish. Anyone with two active brain cells would know that in any race the leader at the 1/3 mark isn't necessarily going to be the winner of the race. Look at F1. I've seen someone lead from the start right through the final lap, only to breakdown with half a lap to go. The firsts claim basically ignores the fact that the Soviets spend nearly four years sitting on the side lines of manned flight while the USA was making tracks to the moon, and when they did get back into the game, they took shortcuts that ended up killing people.

[gwiz]

General Kamanin was in charge of the cosmonaut corps throughout the 1960s. He kept a diary;

www.astronautix.com/articles/kamaries.htm

which makes fascinating reading if you have the time. He was continually frustrated by the under-resourcing of the Soviet manned programme, and believed that they had lost the lead as early as 1964.

[ottawan]

Point of order again.

There were spacewalks on all three of the "J" missions to retrieve film canisters from the SIM Bay. The spacewalks were conducted by Al Worden(15), Ken Mattingly(16) and Ron Evans(17).

The first Apollo spacewalk was Rusty Schweickart testing the PLSS on Apollo 9 while Dave Scott did a stand-up EVA in the hatch of the CM.

[Bob B.]

The only advantage I see that the Soviets had over the Americans in the early 1960s were bigger rockets. And it can even be argued that this is because US technology was better than the Soviets, i.e. their bomb-making technology. The US didn’t need big rockets because they were able to make smaller nuclear warheads. (Early rockets all started out as ballistic missiles.)

The big rocket advantage allowed the Soviets to put a man in orbit and to build a bigger capsule that could hold a multi-man crew. Other than lifting capacity, the Soviets really held no advantage at all. One could argue that Mercury was a better spacecraft than Vostok or Voskhod (although smaller), and Gemini was most certainly a superior spacecraft than anything the Soviets had at the time. Once the Americans got their Atlas and Titan missiles man-rated they rapidly surged ahead. After the first couple Gemini flights in 1965, the US had caught up with the Soviets in virtually every regard. And by the end of the Gemini program in 1966 the United States was far ahead, having completed many of their own space firsts.

People like Bart Sibrel simply ignore history and paint a very misleading picture of what actually happened.