• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

JayUtah said:
The space suit design that Leonov used was completely scrapped. As I wrote above, Leonov's near-fatal mission caused Brezhnev to turn his predecessor's reckless policy around 180º. Rather than rush half-baked ideas into production, the Soviets started doing very rigorous review and testing at the expense of breaking records. The eventual result of this, as far as space suits are concerned, was the legendary Orlan space suit, the most reliable and longest-serving space suit in spaceflight history.
Click to expand...
Two things can be true at the same time: USSR cutting corners and cheating like hell - Allen claims there are at least seven Russian astronauts floating about Space but which has never been publicised - the Space Race epitomises the reckless behaviour of two super powers desperate to demonstrate sovereignty over the other. So, yeah, we have the gung-ho belief that everything the USA did was good and the Soviets bad. But the Soviets had the first satellite (Sputnik) the first LEO (Gagarin [and some claim he cheated]) and the first Space Station (Mir, iirc). I'm glad you acknowledge politics came into it re Brezhnev and his glasnost.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I'm glad you acknowledge politics came into it re Brezhnev and his glasnost.
Click to expand...
I've never said otherwise, however glasnost was Gorbachev, not Brezhnev. Brezhnev's space policy was chiefly internal.

Now that it has been explained to you how the space suit designs evolved and adapted, do you understand how Aldrin was able to operate in his space suit where Leonov had trouble?
 
Last edited:
Hands up all those who undertook science or engineering degrees in which "debate" was used as a means of assessing evidence? Rather than as an occasional bit of flummery.

Anyone? Anyone at all?

I mean, just think of all the time we wasted carrying out experiments, making observations, doing field work, statistical analysis, long, detailed write ups, literature searches, repeating experiments and all that...And we could have just had a "debate" and sorted it all out without getting our hands mucky or using nasty chemicals'n'that...What fools we have been.
 
Vixen said:
Two things can be true at the same time:
Click to expand...

Also, two things can be true at different times and under different circumstances. For example: spacewalks were once deadly perilous ordeals for which astronauts were poorly prepared (at one point in time), and also spacewalks were eventually manageable challenges for which the astronauts who performed them were typically well-trained and -equipped (at a different point in time).

Vixen said:
USSR cutting corners and cheating like hell - Allen claims there are at least seven Russian astronauts floating about Space but which has never been publicised - the Space Race epitomises the reckless behaviour of two super powers desperate to demonstrate sovereignty over the other. So, yeah, we have the gung-ho belief that everything the USA did was good and the Soviets bad. But the Soviets had the first satellite (Sputnik) the first LEO (Gagarin [and some claim he cheated]) and the first Space Station (Mir, iirc). I'm glad you acknowledge politics came into it re Brezhnev and his glasnost.
Click to expand...

The politics was a sideshow to his post. His actual point was: the Soviets rushed their first spacewalk before they were really ready, before they had a handle on the technical and logistical challenges such an operation posed, and that was what made Leonov's ordeal so harrowing. The politics explains why they made a bad decision, not what made the decision bad. Once space programs took the time to address those challenges and find solutions, spacewalks were far more manageable.

The relevant contrast is not: "USSR bad, US good"; it is: "rush job bad, preparation and planning good"
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I was simply remarking on Aldrin's great sense of competitiveness.
Click to expand...
No, you seemed to be surprised at Aldrin's mobility given Leonov's difficulty. This is a common conspiracy claim, which is no doubt why you raised it. Do you agree that there is a perfectly acceptable technical and historical explanation?

We need a clear answer from you, so that there will be no question whether you're proposing a conspiracy theory and therefore no reason for your critics to wrongly accuse you of proposing one. You seem so very concerned that your critics accuse you wrongly, so let's get your answer clearly in writing.
 
Debating was what would happen in the students' union meetings when decisions needed to be made over policies or actions. Or within organisations such as the debating society.

And then, being as I was at Sheffield, most of us would head back to our departments and get on with science-ing and engineering; some of the arts types (assuming they had surfaced by early afternoon) might do a bit of debating in their departments, as most of what they were dealing in was opinion...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom