50 years ago today - First man in space
Discussion
The Fisher Space pen did actually go into space, with both the USA and the USSR, so it's not just a 'name'. The fact it wasn't developed directly by NASA doesn't really seem too relevant. I went to an IMechE lecture on the Typhoon years ago and the raffle prize was...a Fisher Space Pen.
As for Gagarin being the first man in space: having read the two excellent books "Starman" and "Korolev", there is a significant amount of doubt about that. I think the assertion that Gagarin was the first man to *survive* a spaceflight is much more likely to be true.
As for Gagarin being the first man in space: having read the two excellent books "Starman" and "Korolev", there is a significant amount of doubt about that. I think the assertion that Gagarin was the first man to *survive* a spaceflight is much more likely to be true.
dr_gn said:
The Fisher Space pen did actually go into space, with both the USA and the USSR, so it's not just a 'name'. The fact it wasn't developed directly by NASA doesn't really seem too relevant. I went to an IMechE lecture on the Typhoon years ago and the raffle prize was...a Fisher Space Pen.
As for Gagarin being the first man in space: having read the two excellent books "Starman" and "Korolev", there is a significant amount of doubt about that. I think the assertion that Gagarin was the first man to *survive* a spaceflight is much more likely to be true.
How come it hasn't come out as a verifiable incident or incidents then? Other accidents and deaths in the Soviet programme (including some really terrible ones - such as the Nedelin incident) have been revealed in full detail.As for Gagarin being the first man in space: having read the two excellent books "Starman" and "Korolev", there is a significant amount of doubt about that. I think the assertion that Gagarin was the first man to *survive* a spaceflight is much more likely to be true.
I would think that cosmonauts who were around at the time would also have revealed such matters by now. I've read Alexei Leonov's autobiography and he only mentions the accidents we know about.
I am very much an anti-conspiracy type of person so until someone comes up with proper evidence I will go with the known facts.
Eric Mc said:
dr_gn said:
The Fisher Space pen did actually go into space, with both the USA and the USSR, so it's not just a 'name'. The fact it wasn't developed directly by NASA doesn't really seem too relevant. I went to an IMechE lecture on the Typhoon years ago and the raffle prize was...a Fisher Space Pen.
As for Gagarin being the first man in space: having read the two excellent books "Starman" and "Korolev", there is a significant amount of doubt about that. I think the assertion that Gagarin was the first man to *survive* a spaceflight is much more likely to be true.
How come it hasn't come out as a verifiable incident or incidents then? Other accidents and deaths in the Soviet programme (including some really terrible ones - such as the Nedelin incident) have been revealed in full detail.As for Gagarin being the first man in space: having read the two excellent books "Starman" and "Korolev", there is a significant amount of doubt about that. I think the assertion that Gagarin was the first man to *survive* a spaceflight is much more likely to be true.
I would think that cosmonauts who were around at the time would also have revealed such matters by now. I've read Alexei Leonov's autobiography and he only mentions the accidents we know about.
I am very much an anti-conspiracy type of person so until someone comes up with proper evidence I will go with the known facts.
When attempting to show the world your technical supremacy, you obviously don't want the final achievement marred by publicising possible previous multiple cosmonaut deaths, since each one would be seen as a failure. Gagarins flight is an iconic Russian success story as it stands. I can fully understand why the Russians would potentially want to keep it this way.
I recall reading about IIRC Italian brothers who had recordings of failed and never reported USSR space accidents.
One thing I did find interesting was that the USSR was better a rockets because they were so bad at building atomic weapons.
Theirs were so much heavier than the USA they needed bigger rockets in their missiles.
One thing I did find interesting was that the USSR was better a rockets because they were so bad at building atomic weapons.
Theirs were so much heavier than the USA they needed bigger rockets in their missiles.
Eric Mc said:
scubadude said:
SeeFive said:
So, in addition to ball point pens that write upside down
HA HA, the American "Space Pen", only in America could they spend a million dollars developing a pen that works in zero-gravity rather than follow the Russian example- a pencil, Cheaper, lighter and erasably for better plausible deniability :-)Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 12th April 15:49
I guess that I did not explain myself correctly with some key missing words that meant you did not get what I intended.
I am pro the space program and we should do it all over again and get ready to exit this little orb when it inevitably all goes pete tong.
seefive earlier said:
There have been so many (missing words = space program) research projects that have probably delivered a far better quality of life here on earth that we just don't see being accredited to the space programs.
Edited by SeeFive on Wednesday 13th April 00:01
rudecherub said:
One thing I did find interesting was that the USSR was better a rockets because they were so bad at building atomic weapons.
Not entirely - the rocket designed for the Russian moonshot repeatedly failed. The name escapes me but I think it was the reason the Russians never got to the moon (that and the fact that once the Americans had done it there was little point in coming second). And so the Russians concentrated on manned space stations instead, and did very well at it. And if you can keep a man alive and sane in a tin can for 9 months, you can give it a shove and get him to Mars as well...Eric Mc said:
Gagarin's flight was as much a test flight of the vehicle as well. He only conducted one orbit, which meant the entire flight from lift off to landing barely exceeded 100 minutes. He obviously didn't have a huge amount of time to do anything.
The Russians tend to be cautious and conservative in their approach to technology - which why they have been using the R7 booster for almost 60 years.
Tell that to the families of Valentin Bondarenko and Vladimir Komarov...The Russians tend to be cautious and conservative in their approach to technology - which why they have been using the R7 booster for almost 60 years.
Simpo Two said:
rudecherub said:
One thing I did find interesting was that the USSR was better a rockets because they were so bad at building atomic weapons.
Not entirely - the rocket designed for the Russian moonshot repeatedly failed. The name escapes me but I think it was the reason the Russians never got to the moon (that and the fact that once the Americans had done it there was little point in coming second). And so the Russians concentrated on manned space stations instead, and did very well at it. And if you can keep a man alive and sane in a tin can for 9 months, you can give it a shove and get him to Mars as well...
dr_gn said:
The Fisher Space pen did actually go into space, with both the USA and the USSR, so it's not just a 'name'. The fact it wasn't developed directly by NASA doesn't really seem too relevant. I went to an IMechE lecture on the Typhoon years ago and the raffle prize was...a Fisher Space Pen.
Ah. google is my friend. So the claim that a waste was made where a pencil worked is relevant, though I do like the story.Twonk! said:
Eric Mc said:
Gagarin's flight was as much a test flight of the vehicle as well. He only conducted one orbit, which meant the entire flight from lift off to landing barely exceeded 100 minutes. He obviously didn't have a huge amount of time to do anything.
The Russians tend to be cautious and conservative in their approach to technology - which why they have been using the R7 booster for almost 60 years.
Tell that to the families of Valentin Bondarenko and Vladimir Komarov...The Russians tend to be cautious and conservative in their approach to technology - which why they have been using the R7 booster for almost 60 years.
jmorgan said:
Yeah but the US had a habit of finding out it would seem. From the few memoirs I have read they got the info on events but it may have been a good few months out of date, but it was there eventually. I too would like to see some corroboration, not idea's.
It took them over 30 years to find out about the "Nedelin" explosion. Not saying there's proof, but as conspiracy theories go, it doesn't seem too far fetched given the Russian fetish for changing history.
dr_gn said:
jmorgan said:
Yeah but the US had a habit of finding out it would seem. From the few memoirs I have read they got the info on events but it may have been a good few months out of date, but it was there eventually. I too would like to see some corroboration, not idea's.
It took them over 30 years to find out about the "Nedelin" explosion. Not saying there's proof, but as conspiracy theories go, it doesn't seem too far fetched given the Russian fetish for changing history.
What I will say is that in many cases evidence for Russian space disasters began to come out not long after they had happened. The CIA were aware that things had gone wrong often very soon after the events. WEhat was missing was official Soviet confirmation and technical details.
These began to emerge in the early 1970s - mainly because of the joint Apollo-Soyuz mission which began its planning stage in 1972. NASA in particular were keen to know what thechnical issues there were with the R7 and especially the Soyuz soacecraft - particularly as they were planning to dock with the latter. Their main concern was that they wanted to know PRECISELY what had happened in the Soyuz 11 accident as that had a very great bearing on the Apollo-Soyuz mission. The Russians gave them the full accident report - eventually.
It was also in that mission that better explanations of other incidents began to emerge - often through casual conversations with Soviet engineers and cosmonauts.
A very good book written by space historian James Oberg and published in 1982 (Red Star in Orbit) revealed many of this to the general public for the first time. It was in that book that I first read about the Nedelin disaster - 22 years after the event. I am pretty sure that American security services had known about this much earlier than James Oberg. It was also in that book that I read the deatils of the various N1 failures and of the intended Soviet lunar landing and lunar orbit missions.
BBC's Horizon also ran a documentary which covered similat areas in 1982 which I still have on VHS tape somewhere.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was the point where the final technical details of what had been revealed in Oberg's book were officially confirmed by the Russians.
The Soviet/Russian programme has been a very interesting piece of cultural and technical history and we have known quite a bit about it for quite a long time.
dr_gn said:
This is why I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Russians got a man into space and back in one piece at the first attempt.
And that is precisely why the conspiracists say the Apollo moon landing was done in a studio. The logic runs: 'Well it was too difficult, so it must have been faked'.I am seriously starting to believe that in another 100 years of Facebook, TV celebrity s
te and falling education standards, many more achievements of the 20th century will be forgotten or dismissed.Edited by Simpo Two on Wednesday 13th April 09:39
Simpo Two said:
And that is precisely why the conspiracists say the Apollo moon landing was done in a studio. The logic runs: 'Well it was too difficult, so it must have been faked'.
I am seriously starting to believe that in another 100 years of Facebook and TV celebrity ste, many more achievements of the 20th century will be forgotten or dismissed.
Sadly, I doubt it will be that long!I am seriously starting to believe that in another 100 years of Facebook and TV celebrity s
te, many more achievements of the 20th century will be forgotten or dismissed.All this chat on Vostok has reminded me that 30 years ago I went to a lecture in Dublin by Soviet space programme expert Brian Harvey where he discussed the Soviet programmes up to that point. Harvey told everyone that the Soviets were actually quite open about their programmes - the main reason why people thought they were so secretive was because they didn't have a massive PR machine behind them like NASA did. They were also coy about mentioning failures and slow to divulge facts.
However, he said that if you asked, and were patient, the material would arrive.
I've just Googled Harvey and it appears he has since written a number of authorative books on the Soviet/Russian space programme and I am very tempted to buy a couple of them.
If you want to research a secretive space programme (one with a bigger budget than NASA), try looking up details on the US Department of Defense programmes.
However, he said that if you asked, and were patient, the material would arrive.
I've just Googled Harvey and it appears he has since written a number of authorative books on the Soviet/Russian space programme and I am very tempted to buy a couple of them.
If you want to research a secretive space programme (one with a bigger budget than NASA), try looking up details on the US Department of Defense programmes.
Simpo Two said:
dr_gn said:
This is why I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Russians got a man into space and back in one piece at the first attempt.
And that is precisely why the conspiracists say the Apollo moon landing was done in a studio. The logic runs: 'Well it was too difficult, so it must have been faked'.Edited by Simpo Two on Wednesday 13th April 09:39
dr_gn said:
Simpo Two said:
dr_gn said:
This is why I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Russians got a man into space and back in one piece at the first attempt.
And that is precisely why the conspiracists say the Apollo moon landing was done in a studio. The logic runs: 'Well it was too difficult, so it must have been faked'.Edited by Simpo Two on Wednesday 13th April 09:39
As mentioned above, it would be interesting to see what Brian Harvey or James Oberg have to say on the matter.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff