The USSR ran an Espionage Economy during the cold war!

[icantdrawanime]

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=829

The article is a pretty interesting read about American counter-intelligence efforts. But the thing I find most interesting is the fact that a large part of soviet research came from espionage. Now i have not yet had a chance to try out a pure espionage based economy but if history is any example, it would work.

 

[Evil Twin]

Not really, given the high cost of stealing mid to late game tech, the sheer tedium of manually sending Spy units off to other civs, the high chance of failure for spies and the high chance of being nabbed just for walking around in their territory "causing trouble" (methinks all Civ IV spies model themselves after James Bond).

 

[SickCycle]

Yeah cause the Soviet Union didn't get left in the dust technologically and collapse economicly

They do have better rocket technology then the United States I hear, they always did from day one I guess.

Yet we beat them to the moon and they still haven't gone makes you think...

 

[Da_V_Man]

Yeah cause the Soviet Union didn't get left in the dust technologically and collapse economicly

They do have better rocket technology then the United States I hear, they always did from day one I guess.

Yet we beat them to the moon and they still haven't gone makes you think...

But they beat you to space in the first place. I wonder how well a espionage economy would work. Remember if you have spies stationary or have more EP than your enemy, then it costs less.

 

[Gooblah]

Yep. Go to Wikipedia and search for the Orion 13, the new model mission for the US return to the moon. Also, Russia current technology, while duplicable by the US, is superior to NASAs. The EU and Russia have Universal Docking Rings for automatic docking with the ISS and other spacecraft. The Shuttle still has to manually dock, wasting time and energy.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Pretty interesting, though I think in the game just as in real life an espionage economy would fail as it started getting into the industrial and modern era, if not sooner just due to the amount of resources and work needed for it.

 

[SickCycle]

I was implying the moon landing was faked

We were in the middle of a cold war when the whole thing began, the United States and the Soviet Union were competing for who was gonna be the top dog and the Soviet Union was beating the United States as far as the space race..

It doesn't matter if they were faking theres or not, we were getting left in the dust and then all of a sudden we land on the moon and haven't been back yet? We have better technology now then we did then and yet they can't even get to the space station without some kind of error or malfunction. Why do they have a current mission to goto the moon if we have already been and if we have already been why is it so difficult, don't they already know how? They did it sixty years ago, your telling me with sixty years of technological advances they can't just load up a ship or duplicate the crafts and go back without to much trouble?

We never went, it was a deception to win the cold war and show U.S. superiority and it's justified because it worked.

When we finally do goto the moon just wait and see what a big deal they make out of it.

 

[ori]

Pretty interesting, though I think in the game just as in real life an espionage economy would fail as it started getting into the industrial and modern era, if not sooner just due to the amount of resources and work needed for it.

Or would it just check out the RBtS1a and RBtS1b Succession Games - both are out to reach Alpha Centauri with no research - so far it seems a pretty tedious but working Strategy

 

[Evil Twin]

I was implying the moon landing was faked

We were in the middle of a cold war when the whole thing began, the United States and the Soviet Union were competing for who was gonna be the top dog and the Soviet Union was beating the United States as far as the space race..

It doesn't matter if they were faking theres or not, we were getting left in the dust and then all of a sudden we land on the moon and haven't been back yet? We have better technology now then we did then and yet they can't even get to the space station without some kind of error or malfunction. Why do they have a current mission to goto the moon if we have already been and if we have already been why is it so difficult, don't they already know how? They did it sixty years ago, your telling me with sixty years of technological advances they can't just load up a ship or duplicate the crafts and go back without to much trouble?

We never went, it was a deception to win the cold war and show U.S. superiority and it's justified because it worked.

When we finally do goto the moon just wait and see what a big deal they make out of it.

Now I know why Buzz Aldrin punches people like you in the face. Stop being ignorant - ever hear the phrase "use it or lose it"?
The U.S. stopped going to the moon, and they lost the required infrastructure to go to the moon. That's not something you can just duplicate on a whim. Do you honestly think they can just build another Saturn V? Manufacturing a rocket to the specification used in the 1960s and 70s would probably cost more than building one from scratch!

The U.S. went to the moon. It stopped going to the moon because there was no political or immediate financial benefit. Short sighted and stupid, but that's how it was.

Moreover, the U.S. did not suddenly jump to the moon. The U.S. space program lagged behind the Soviet one in pioneering, but it was progressing steadily. Numerous accidents and design faults held the Soviet moon program back, which is what allowed the U.S. to win the race.

 

[SickCycle]

Your saying they had rockets more powerful then the ones we use today on the space shuttle 60 years ago?

Quite the imagination you have there.. you also believe that somehow they lost/misplaced/destroyed whatever they say, all the plans for this magic rocket?

You also believe that a country that was ahead of us in rocket technology didn't have the capacity to do something that another country with inferior rocket technology could?

On top of that.. I know the whole moon landing is faked group brings stuff like this up but when your in the space "station" your exposed to radiation, they actually have signs of it when they come back that can be detected, the farther you go out into space the more radiation there is, it's called the van allen radiation belt or something, now granted the man himself has said that it would not prevent them from going through to the moon but why is it that a craft from 60 years ago was able to "totally" protect the occupants and yet the space station 60 years later.. doesn't have this protection?

If they really went and they really went through the belt they would have radiation poisoning.. at the least in higher dosages then the space station astronauts, yet the astronauts don't?.. and yet the astronauts simply stationed in the space "station" orbiting our planet do..?

Simple, simple, person.

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." -Einstein

 

[Gooblah]

Um, DUH, there's more radiation out there...SOLAR WIND!

Anyways, this radiation is semi-big, yes, but the amount that leaks through normal radiation shields (like those at nuclear power plants), while bigger than levels here at Earth, is non-toxic. Also, the Saturn V had no heat shielding, so its stages disintegrated when removed from the CM/LM. Also, the Saturn V is more powerful than the Space Shuttle rockets (7,648,000 lb of thrust for V, vs 1,180,000 lb for shuttle), about 6 times more powerful. Next, the Saturn V took 4 years to be built and tested for the capability to deliver manned missions. It cost 6.5 billion dollars (USD) to make. The Apollo missions were cut short due to budget problems: NASA received around 4.5 billion dollars in its budget.

Please stop being so rude as to call others "simple". And stop quoting Einstein. Its an insult to him.

 

[Evil Twin]

Your saying they had rockets more powerful then the ones we use today on the space shuttle 60 years ago?

Quite the imagination you have there.. you also believe that somehow they lost/misplaced/destroyed whatever they say, all the plans for this magic rocket?

Ridiculous strawman. A Saturn V can't just be built and launched, it requires an entire infrastructure in place. An infrastructure that doesn't exist anymore. It must be built again. Which requires funding. Which means it has to be cost effective.
Building another Saturn V is NOT a good idea because it uses antiquated technology and it and the Apollo capsule are not reusable. It's a money pit, and with no rival superpower to beat, the U.S. govt is not going to support it in that manner.
And even if it did, it takes *time* to set up a moon program again. Only an idiot thinks that NASA should have rockets in mothballs just waiting to be returned to active duty.

Edit: Honestly, this argument is rather analagous to saying that modern civilisation has inferior production capabilities than ancient Egypt, because it won't build exact duplicates of the Great Pyramid out of stone. They could do it, why don't we?

You also believe that a country that was ahead of us in rocket technology didn't have the capacity to do something that another country with inferior rocket technology could?

The Soviet economy was a joke, and like I said, numerous accidents held their moon program back. The infamous Soyuz accidents and the repeated failure of the N1 rocket meant as the launch vehicle for their lunar project stymied their efforts.
They had bad luck, basically. And after the U.S. landed.. there was no real point in persevering, as unmanned probes were able to gather similar data.

On top of that.. I know the whole moon landing is faked group brings stuff like this up but when your in the space "station" your exposed to radiation, they actually have signs of it when they come back that can be detected, the farther you go out into space the more radiation there is, it's called the van allen radiation belt or something, now granted the man himself has said that it would not prevent them from going through to the moon but why is it that a craft from 60 years ago was able to "totally" protect the occupants and yet the space station 60 years later.. doesn't have this protection?

Because space stations don't *need* such protection, obviously. Not in the sense that the occupants are going to keel over, die and cause a scandal. Thus the space stations are cheaper to make. Economics, heard of it?

If they really went and they really went through the belt they would have radiation poisoning.. at the least in higher dosages then the space station astronauts, yet the astronauts don't?.. and yet the astronauts simply stationed in the space "station" orbiting our planet do..?

And your evidence that the Apollo spacecraft were not adequately protected is..?

Simple, simple, person.

Thanks for revealing your megalomania.

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." -Einstein

Cute. Though ironic, since the moon landings = fake crowd appear to do just that, submit to mob thought without thinking for themselves.
I have little affection for the U.S. I think their government is a joke, their policies contemptible and their abandonment of the moon program as crass and selfish.
However, I've seen no evidence to suggest the moon landings were fake. For one thing, it'd be a stupid gamble. The U.S. wouldn't know the Soviets would ditch their own program after announcing they won the race.
Suppose the Soviets had launched anyway, and decided to land near the coordinates of the "faked" American landing.. and found nothing? Oops! America becomes a laughing stock, Cosmonauts are hailed as the only true heroes.

.. or I suppose you lot think America's alien allies from Zeta Reticuli planted some evidence or something. Keep polishing that tin-foil hat, dood.

 

[Crezth]

The arguments against the U.S. moon-landing are generally unfounded. The extent of them seem to be pseudo-scientific "proofs" (which can be disproved in a second) as well as psychotic conspiracy theories.

The ultimate problem with conspiracy theories is they require conspiracies. Just saying something "could" happen doesn't mean it absolutely did. There is proof that the United States landed on the moon, in the form of moon samples and data, as well as there is probable cause to believe they did (as Evil Twin as already explained.) There is, however, no reason to attribute it to a conspiracy - no reason at all, except paranoid rhetoric designed by people who, quite honestly, don't utilize their full capabilities in the department of mind.

 

[SickCycle]

If they really went why are the photos fake

Dozens of people have taken Nasas own photos from there archives and put them through various photo analysis that wasn't available 60 years ago and all the photos show signs that they aren't authentic.

I mean why are the astronauts moving slower in space and on the moon then they would be on earth?

Nasas own Director during a speech about a possible mission to mars said himsef that because of the reduced gravity on mars the astronauts would be seen moving at "jogging speed" while performing simple movements?

I'm not positive but I believe Mars has 1/4 our gravity, so if at 1/4th our gravity you have the Nasa director saying to an audience that during a mission to mars the astronauts would be moving as if they were jogging without any effort then why is it that on the moon which I believe is 1/8th our gravity the astronauts are seen moving at earth speed or slower?

Re-read that quote by Einstein and think to yourself who is showing violent opposition to a few simple questions, I'm simply saying that it doesn't add up. I don't much care either way but when you put two and two together you shouldn't get five.

Despite what you may of been told if you look into it some you'll learn that the Apollo missions didn't have any protection.

Heres a article about them just now trying to figure out a way to protect the occupants from radiation, meaning the technology doesn't exist yet.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

A team of researchers is looking to the moon to develop the tools future astronauts may need to ward off potentially life-threatening levels of space radiation.

Currently mid-way through their NASA-funded study, the researchers are working to determine whether a set of electrically charged shield spheres atop 40-meter masts could deflect radiation from a populated moonbase.

If it proves possible, such a radiation-proof screen - called an electrostatic shield - could protect astronauts from the long-lasting, and possibly fatal, radiation hazards of spaceflight beyond the Earth's magnetic field.

"The electrostatic radiation shield is a pretty simple idea," said the study's co-principal investigator John Lane, an applications scientist with ASRC Aerospace Corp. at Kennedy Space Center (KSC). "We're concerned about charged particle radiation."

That radiation, high-energy protons and electrons spewed out by the Sun during massive solar storms or traversing the universe as galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), are the main hazard targeted by Lane, his colleagues. ASRC researcher Charles Buhler is leading the study, which is a Phase 1 project funded by the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC).

Not like Apollo

Despite the apparent ease of past lunar exploration radiation-wise, such as NASA's successful Apollo moon landings, without adequate shielding long-term occupation of the moon and space exploration may remain out of reach, researchers said.

 

[meatwad4289]

Yeah cause the Soviet Union didn't get left in the dust technologically and collapse economicly

They do have better rocket technology then the United States I hear, they always did from day one I guess.

Yet we beat them to the moon and they still haven't gone makes you think...

Korelev kicked everyones ass.
---About the moon
Russians went to space first, logic dictates that they would of reached the moon beofre or aroudn the time as America.. but they didn't. As matter of fact some Cosmo naughts came back with radtion posion because they went to far out and they equalto or more protection than the USA.

The United States certainly would have more of an ability to go to the moon now than they did in the 60's.

IDK if we did go, but it's tat we stopped going which causes people to deny it existed. However George W Bush has set up a plan to take Americans Back to the Moon by 2025(or 2012 but i think 2012 was for another mars thing, and 2025 was moon or vice versa.

 

[Evil Twin]

If they really went why are the photos fake

Prove it.

Dozens of people have taken Nasas own photos from there archives and put them through various photo analysis that wasn't available 60 years ago and all the photos show signs that they aren't authentic.

Hearsay. Have any real evidence?

I mean why are the astronauts moving slower in space and on the moon then they would be on earth?

Gee.. why are men in bulky-as-hell spacesuits in an enviroment their bodies are not designed for moving slowly?

Nasas own Director during a speech about a possible mission to mars said himsef that because of the reduced gravity on mars the astronauts would be seen moving at "jogging speed" while performing simple movements?

Because when they WALK low gravity lets them go faster. When they're handling machinery and making surveys, low gravity and spacesuits are a hindrance.

I'm not positive but I believe Mars has 1/4 our gravity, so if at 1/4th our gravity you have the Nasa director saying to an audience that during a mission to mars the astronauts would be moving as if they were jogging without any effort then why is it that on the moon which I believe is 1/8th our gravity the astronauts are seen moving at earth speed or slower?

I suppose you've never seen footage of astronauts jumping around on the moon? Nevermind the fact that NASA people say notoriously stupid things to the press.

Re-read that quote by Einstein and think to yourself who is showing violent opposition to a few simple questions, I'm simply saying that it doesn't add up. I don't much care either way but when you put two and two together you shouldn't get five.

You mean like you're doing? I'm not one to shy away from opposing opinions, but what you don't seem to realise is that you're making claims with NO EVIDENCE other than theories that it all "must" be fake, hearsay and stating opinion as fact.

Despite the apparent ease of past lunar exploration radiation-wise, such as NASA's successful Apollo moon landings, without adequate shielding long-term occupation of the moon and space exploration may remain out of reach, researchers said.

Clearly it is talking about long term occupation. Lunar bases. Of *course* lunar bases are going to require more protection than Apollo, which was only designed for short visits. To conclude that this means Apollo had no protection at all is ridiculous. Stop comparing apples and oranges.

 

[SickCycle]

Dude, the evidence is all over the internet.

Why do I always have to do the research for other people. *sigh*

Heres yet another link for the umpteenth time today.

Apollo Fakery: http://aulis.com/further_findings.htm

Analysis of Original Photos: http://aulis.com/jackstudies_1.html

It seriously takes me like ten seconds to find these websites I don't understand why people can't do there own research.

I recommend the second link..

 

[Evil Twin]

Aaaannd.. he links to a crackpot site.
That's your proof? That's not proof, that's a bunch of silly theories and stupid interpretations.
The no footprint around the astronaut for instance is particularily hilarious seeing as we know the astronauts JUMPED a whole lot. Not to mention the lunar rover which quite clearly skids and jumps along the surface when moving, meaning it wouldn't always leave tracks.
Oh yes and then there's the "photo enhancements". Hey guess what? I can enhance the photo and make it look like there are magic elves working on the lunar lander. Doesn't make it true.

Oh well, at least you didn't post the old "TEH FLAG IS STRAIGHT IN TEH VACUUM" argument. Shame really, that one's *really* funny.

By the way, learn what burden of proof is. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Which YOU must provide since YOU are the one making the claims.

 

[SickCycle]

That crackpot had his documentary aired on Fox..

Were you on fox? To me you seem more like the crackpot..

 

[SickCycle]

I'm done arguing with simpletins.

Please refer to my friend Einstein for any further responses.


"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." -Einstein