A little on the topic of "the moon plot"
A little on the topic of "moon conspiracy." Any dispute is the expression and advocacy of individual opinions. The dispute is the lack of objective information in one form or another. Of course, a person who denies objective data is not determined by the word “debater”, but somewhat differently, characterizing the type of mental illness. But it will not be about them, but about those who have an opinion. Including about what happened at the junction of the 60s and 70s of the last century in the sphere of the space race between the USSR and the USA. Who cares - welcome under cat. If you don’t, you can immediately finish off my karma. There is still a little left.
Almost immediately after the launch of the first Saturn there appeared doubts about what was presented and what it really was. In the USA itself. In the USSR, for obvious reasons, such if there were, then in negligible quantities. But time goes on and in addition to contact and contra, the Internet gives us access to information. And any information requires reflection (and even rethinking).
Did I doubt that the Americans flew to the moon? Until recently, no. Let's just say, I took it as a fact. We flew and flew, let's continue. But about two years ago, I read a very interesting book that shook my fundamental world views and made me look at this very world with other eyes. This book was called "Science to manage people." Author Yuri Ignatievich Mukhin (I’ll say right away that yes, he is an ardent opponent of the truth of the flights of Americans to the Moon. But in this case it does not matter.). If we discard 50% of the series “how we can equip Russia” (however, Mukhin is interesting to read precisely from the point of view of concept formation, since he decides in his own way about working issues, which most likely refers him to freaks rather than people of science and for this reason 50% or more must be constantly discarded; then, in my book, there are given quite interesting, in my opinion, techniques for determining key points. In short, the phrase “look to the root” takes on the form of an index in the above work — where exactly to look and how to look for it.
Before turning to the substantive part, it is also worth noting that quite often the dispute becomes personal. And also Leonardo da Vinci noticed that - discussing an opinion, discuss an opinion, and not the one who expressed it. But sticking with this is extremely difficult. Again, for one reason or another. And here it is necessary to clearly understand how the scientific approach (survey approach) differs from the unscientific one (the approach “one grandmother said”). The main difference of the scientific approach is impartiality. For example, when we study bees, we see that different bees live in the hive: the queen bee, the worker bees, the drones bees. But we in scientific research on the study of the hive do not take sides. Those. we do not claim that drones are bad, and workers are good, and the queen is generally bourgeois. We come to the question of studying the hive in general. But when we take sides we believe in the goodness of the one and the badness of the other, then the scientific approach becomes ideological. Since connects the subjective value judgment. When this happens, you can safely end the dispute. Truth is not found.
Therefore, we must clearly distinguish between what we know and what we believe in and be able to isolate one from the other. I personally believe that in the modern scientific world a big problem in the work lies in the fact that scientists know and what they believe.
')
Professional logician Alexander Zinoviev once said: “The task of science is to supply the public with knowledge, to develop methods for obtaining and using knowledge. The concepts used in science tend to be clear, definite, unambiguous. And the statements formulated in science according to the idea (and in the tendency) admit the possibility of verification, i.e., confirmation, proof, refutation. Religion deals with the manifestations of the soul, with the religious feelings of people, with faith. Ideology, unlike science, is constructed from indefinite, multi-meaningful language expressions that presuppose a certain interpretation. The claims of ideology cannot be proved and confirmed experimentally, and it cannot be refuted - they are meaningless. In contrast to religion, ideology does not require belief in its postulates, but formal recognition or acceptance of them. Religion is impossible without believing in what it proclaims. Ideology can flourish with complete disbelief in its slogans and programs. It is very important to distinguish. "
So, in the debate on the "lunar" theme, the vast majority of debaters are, on the one hand, that on the other, they rely solely on faith. Those. it all comes down to “Americans were on the moon. Because it could not be otherwise "and" the Americans were not on the Moon, because they are spiritless Americans. " The argument that the first that the second zero. Only emotions.
However, if you return to the Mukhinsky labor, then you should highlight the main condition for the possibility of the implementation of a particular event and consider it.
Therefore, below I will try to adhere to the scientific approach.
The main controversy in the "lunar" theme revolves around the accuracy of photos. And sometimes they add a flag, "waving" in a vacuum. What is the main problem? The fact that the shooting on the moon and / or the installation of the flag on it is discussed from the point of view of the accomplished act. That is, those who deny that there were Americans on the Moon and those who are sure that they were arguing over whether this could or not be done in terms of “taking a camera / flag, putting it on the Moon and ...” and Further options are possible. The spores are epic and long lasting. But does it make sense to talk about it? Most likely no. Because the photograph of the moon is possible only in one case - if the camera was on the moon. He made a photo there or not - this is the second time. Whether they took this photo later in the pavilion or not - this is also secondary. After all, the photos themselves do not prove anything and do not deny anything. They are only one of the arguments, weights for scales, if you will, on this or that bowl of opinion. And this argument is either in favor or to the detriment of what has already been accomplished. In our case, this is the flight of Americans to the moon. And the root of the flight is not photos, but a rocket as a means of delivery. Without a rocket, the rest is irrelevant. So it is necessary to consider exactly the rocket.
What is the most important thing in a rocket? Without which, everything else just as well does not have any value? This is definitely the engine. And here begins the most interesting. Namely, the fact that the F-1 engine by its existence contradicts the rest. In other words, if we assume that the F-1 engine exists in our real world since the late 60s of the last century, this logically forces us to deny everything else in rocket engineering to at least the United States. What makes me draw such conclusions? First of all, launching a rocket is a lot of money. Those interested can see, for example, the price of launch preparation and a kilogram of payload here
There is another source of data (although I could not find the original, but there is something there) Space Systems of Engineering, ENGR 235A, Winter 1999, Prof. Bruce Lusignan, p.27, where some other data are indicated:
PH "Proton" - 3,250 $ / kg
"Space Shuttle" - more than $ 42,553 / kg
RN "Saturn-5" - $ 11.273 / kg
RN "Energy" - $ 1,250 / kg
What can we unambiguously derive from this data? That the Space Shuttle program, which existed from 1976 to 2011, was the most expensive at the price of outputting one kilogram of payload into space. It is argued that in the period from 1966 to 1973 in the United States was the delivery system is four times cheaper in the implementation of Saturn-5. Is it possible from a logical point of view to explain two points:
1. The use of more expensive technology in the Space Shuttle with the presence of perceptibly cheap technology in Saturn-5.
2. Non-use of technology Saturn-5 after 2011 and the transition to technology (and, more importantly, the mechanisms) of the potential adversary.
I fail. Therefore, I argue above about the logical contradiction: either there is a technology used in the F-1 engines and there is no Space Shuttle technology, or vice versa. The coexistence of two technologies at the same time is absurd.
To assert that such an engine as an F-1 is not needed at this moment in time is more like an argument of the level “I do not believe” than a scientific argument. And that's why. First of all, any mechanism is a set of technologies. Rocket engine - a set of unique technologies. The F-1 rocket engine is not even a set of unique technologies. For its time, this set of technologies is not even a new generation, in my opinion, but through generations. Therefore, the loss of drawings directly on the engine itself can in no way affect the loss of a set of revolutionary technologies. Of course, we have examples when the result of the lost technologies is. For example, it is the Egyptian pyramids. But the construction technology of the pyramids were lost along with the builders. In the case of the F-1, it is doubtful that something similar happened.
Once again I ask you to pay attention that I do not rely "on the Americans - goats". I only reason from the point of view of an outsider to the hive, where there are “RD-180 bees” and, as some colleagues believe, there are “f-1 bees”. An analogue of the Saturn-5 rocket was built in the USSR only 20 years later. On engines RD-180, which are currently purchased by the United States for manned flights. And this analogue successfully completed the start. The analogue of the Saturn-5 rocket of its time is the Soviet H-1 rocket of five stages and thirty engines of similar tractive characteristics to the RD-170 and RD-180 engines.
Those. based on the facts, we can conclude that you can create a rocket and conduct its successful launch with the stated characteristics of Saturn-5. But on technologies that lag behind F-1s like the VAZ 2101 and F-1 car. And if we continue the automotive analogy, is it possible to build a Lada, having the knowledge to build an F-1? Definitely possible. And vice versa? It turns out that either the F-1 never existed, or one of the two ... But at the same time - never.
And what do we have in the bottom line? Breakthrough and revolutionary technologies, declared both in the F-1 engine and in the Saturn-5 rocket, and in the entire lunar program of the USA were lost along with the loss of interest in the conquest of space. This is on the one hand. On the other hand, the conquest of the nearest orbital spaces continues on technologies that do not go to any comparison. And both declared outsiders in the lunar race, and awarded winners. From the point of view of logic, it is impossible to explain.
And the last. The United States had six successful launches to the moon and returns. You can make a mathematical calculation of the probability of successful completion of these activities. Suppose that a flight to the moon and back consists of only four points:
1. Launch into orbit
2. Flight to the moon
3. Landing on the moon
4. Start to Earth
Suppose that the probability of successful completion of each item is 0.99. Those. one failure per 100 launches. At the same time, accident statistics in trials in the lunar program says that 0.99 is a fantastic probability. For there were explosions and people burned in bulk, etc. But nevertheless we make such an assumption. Then the probability of successful completion of all six starts is 65%. On the one hand, it is the majority. On the other hand, the assumptions made by us are unacceptable even for walking.
That's all. This is what makes me doubt the veracity of the events described. And not a patriotic frenzy, or hatred of the United States. As I indicated at the beginning, I was not questioned by the fact of the flight of the USA to the Moon, and did not trigger kvass attacks. They flew - and well done. But this is only if they flew. Is not it?
Almost immediately after the launch of the first Saturn there appeared doubts about what was presented and what it really was. In the USA itself. In the USSR, for obvious reasons, such if there were, then in negligible quantities. But time goes on and in addition to contact and contra, the Internet gives us access to information. And any information requires reflection (and even rethinking).
Did I doubt that the Americans flew to the moon? Until recently, no. Let's just say, I took it as a fact. We flew and flew, let's continue. But about two years ago, I read a very interesting book that shook my fundamental world views and made me look at this very world with other eyes. This book was called "Science to manage people." Author Yuri Ignatievich Mukhin (I’ll say right away that yes, he is an ardent opponent of the truth of the flights of Americans to the Moon. But in this case it does not matter.). If we discard 50% of the series “how we can equip Russia” (however, Mukhin is interesting to read precisely from the point of view of concept formation, since he decides in his own way about working issues, which most likely refers him to freaks rather than people of science and for this reason 50% or more must be constantly discarded; then, in my book, there are given quite interesting, in my opinion, techniques for determining key points. In short, the phrase “look to the root” takes on the form of an index in the above work — where exactly to look and how to look for it.
Before turning to the substantive part, it is also worth noting that quite often the dispute becomes personal. And also Leonardo da Vinci noticed that - discussing an opinion, discuss an opinion, and not the one who expressed it. But sticking with this is extremely difficult. Again, for one reason or another. And here it is necessary to clearly understand how the scientific approach (survey approach) differs from the unscientific one (the approach “one grandmother said”). The main difference of the scientific approach is impartiality. For example, when we study bees, we see that different bees live in the hive: the queen bee, the worker bees, the drones bees. But we in scientific research on the study of the hive do not take sides. Those. we do not claim that drones are bad, and workers are good, and the queen is generally bourgeois. We come to the question of studying the hive in general. But when we take sides we believe in the goodness of the one and the badness of the other, then the scientific approach becomes ideological. Since connects the subjective value judgment. When this happens, you can safely end the dispute. Truth is not found.
Therefore, we must clearly distinguish between what we know and what we believe in and be able to isolate one from the other. I personally believe that in the modern scientific world a big problem in the work lies in the fact that scientists know and what they believe.
')
Professional logician Alexander Zinoviev once said: “The task of science is to supply the public with knowledge, to develop methods for obtaining and using knowledge. The concepts used in science tend to be clear, definite, unambiguous. And the statements formulated in science according to the idea (and in the tendency) admit the possibility of verification, i.e., confirmation, proof, refutation. Religion deals with the manifestations of the soul, with the religious feelings of people, with faith. Ideology, unlike science, is constructed from indefinite, multi-meaningful language expressions that presuppose a certain interpretation. The claims of ideology cannot be proved and confirmed experimentally, and it cannot be refuted - they are meaningless. In contrast to religion, ideology does not require belief in its postulates, but formal recognition or acceptance of them. Religion is impossible without believing in what it proclaims. Ideology can flourish with complete disbelief in its slogans and programs. It is very important to distinguish. "
So, in the debate on the "lunar" theme, the vast majority of debaters are, on the one hand, that on the other, they rely solely on faith. Those. it all comes down to “Americans were on the moon. Because it could not be otherwise "and" the Americans were not on the Moon, because they are spiritless Americans. " The argument that the first that the second zero. Only emotions.
However, if you return to the Mukhinsky labor, then you should highlight the main condition for the possibility of the implementation of a particular event and consider it.
Therefore, below I will try to adhere to the scientific approach.
The main controversy in the "lunar" theme revolves around the accuracy of photos. And sometimes they add a flag, "waving" in a vacuum. What is the main problem? The fact that the shooting on the moon and / or the installation of the flag on it is discussed from the point of view of the accomplished act. That is, those who deny that there were Americans on the Moon and those who are sure that they were arguing over whether this could or not be done in terms of “taking a camera / flag, putting it on the Moon and ...” and Further options are possible. The spores are epic and long lasting. But does it make sense to talk about it? Most likely no. Because the photograph of the moon is possible only in one case - if the camera was on the moon. He made a photo there or not - this is the second time. Whether they took this photo later in the pavilion or not - this is also secondary. After all, the photos themselves do not prove anything and do not deny anything. They are only one of the arguments, weights for scales, if you will, on this or that bowl of opinion. And this argument is either in favor or to the detriment of what has already been accomplished. In our case, this is the flight of Americans to the moon. And the root of the flight is not photos, but a rocket as a means of delivery. Without a rocket, the rest is irrelevant. So it is necessary to consider exactly the rocket.
What is the most important thing in a rocket? Without which, everything else just as well does not have any value? This is definitely the engine. And here begins the most interesting. Namely, the fact that the F-1 engine by its existence contradicts the rest. In other words, if we assume that the F-1 engine exists in our real world since the late 60s of the last century, this logically forces us to deny everything else in rocket engineering to at least the United States. What makes me draw such conclusions? First of all, launching a rocket is a lot of money. Those interested can see, for example, the price of launch preparation and a kilogram of payload here
There is another source of data (although I could not find the original, but there is something there) Space Systems of Engineering, ENGR 235A, Winter 1999, Prof. Bruce Lusignan, p.27, where some other data are indicated:
PH "Proton" - 3,250 $ / kg
"Space Shuttle" - more than $ 42,553 / kg
RN "Saturn-5" - $ 11.273 / kg
RN "Energy" - $ 1,250 / kg
What can we unambiguously derive from this data? That the Space Shuttle program, which existed from 1976 to 2011, was the most expensive at the price of outputting one kilogram of payload into space. It is argued that in the period from 1966 to 1973 in the United States was the delivery system is four times cheaper in the implementation of Saturn-5. Is it possible from a logical point of view to explain two points:
1. The use of more expensive technology in the Space Shuttle with the presence of perceptibly cheap technology in Saturn-5.
2. Non-use of technology Saturn-5 after 2011 and the transition to technology (and, more importantly, the mechanisms) of the potential adversary.
I fail. Therefore, I argue above about the logical contradiction: either there is a technology used in the F-1 engines and there is no Space Shuttle technology, or vice versa. The coexistence of two technologies at the same time is absurd.
To assert that such an engine as an F-1 is not needed at this moment in time is more like an argument of the level “I do not believe” than a scientific argument. And that's why. First of all, any mechanism is a set of technologies. Rocket engine - a set of unique technologies. The F-1 rocket engine is not even a set of unique technologies. For its time, this set of technologies is not even a new generation, in my opinion, but through generations. Therefore, the loss of drawings directly on the engine itself can in no way affect the loss of a set of revolutionary technologies. Of course, we have examples when the result of the lost technologies is. For example, it is the Egyptian pyramids. But the construction technology of the pyramids were lost along with the builders. In the case of the F-1, it is doubtful that something similar happened.
Once again I ask you to pay attention that I do not rely "on the Americans - goats". I only reason from the point of view of an outsider to the hive, where there are “RD-180 bees” and, as some colleagues believe, there are “f-1 bees”. An analogue of the Saturn-5 rocket was built in the USSR only 20 years later. On engines RD-180, which are currently purchased by the United States for manned flights. And this analogue successfully completed the start. The analogue of the Saturn-5 rocket of its time is the Soviet H-1 rocket of five stages and thirty engines of similar tractive characteristics to the RD-170 and RD-180 engines.
Those. based on the facts, we can conclude that you can create a rocket and conduct its successful launch with the stated characteristics of Saturn-5. But on technologies that lag behind F-1s like the VAZ 2101 and F-1 car. And if we continue the automotive analogy, is it possible to build a Lada, having the knowledge to build an F-1? Definitely possible. And vice versa? It turns out that either the F-1 never existed, or one of the two ... But at the same time - never.
And what do we have in the bottom line? Breakthrough and revolutionary technologies, declared both in the F-1 engine and in the Saturn-5 rocket, and in the entire lunar program of the USA were lost along with the loss of interest in the conquest of space. This is on the one hand. On the other hand, the conquest of the nearest orbital spaces continues on technologies that do not go to any comparison. And both declared outsiders in the lunar race, and awarded winners. From the point of view of logic, it is impossible to explain.
And the last. The United States had six successful launches to the moon and returns. You can make a mathematical calculation of the probability of successful completion of these activities. Suppose that a flight to the moon and back consists of only four points:
1. Launch into orbit
2. Flight to the moon
3. Landing on the moon
4. Start to Earth
Suppose that the probability of successful completion of each item is 0.99. Those. one failure per 100 launches. At the same time, accident statistics in trials in the lunar program says that 0.99 is a fantastic probability. For there were explosions and people burned in bulk, etc. But nevertheless we make such an assumption. Then the probability of successful completion of all six starts is 65%. On the one hand, it is the majority. On the other hand, the assumptions made by us are unacceptable even for walking.
That's all. This is what makes me doubt the veracity of the events described. And not a patriotic frenzy, or hatred of the United States. As I indicated at the beginning, I was not questioned by the fact of the flight of the USA to the Moon, and did not trigger kvass attacks. They flew - and well done. But this is only if they flew. Is not it?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/367185/
All Articles