What If the Soviets Had Been First to the Moon?

I'm referring more to the cultural impacts of the Soviets being the first to orbit/land on the Moon, as opposed to the often discussed technical and crew aspects.

The Space Race was a major event in the lives of many people who lived through the era, with Sputnik, the early manned missions, and the lunar landing being especially prominent, at least in the United States. Apollo 8 (first lunar orbit) and Apollo 11 (first lunar landing) were given extensive media coverage and are still prominent in American (and likely global) culture. The Moon landing is also notable for Neil Armstrong giving a politically neutral speech, and despite planting a flag the United States has never made a claim to the Moon, simply declaring it to be part of the common heritage of humanity. It's also notable for being broadcast live, at least in the West, while the Soviets gave muted coverage.

So, what would it have been like if the Soviets had been the first to orbit and land on the Moon? Would it have been seen as an exciting moment in human history, or would it have been a proud moment for the Soviet Bloc and a moment of intense national doubt and fear for the rest of the world (especially the West)? Would it have had an impact on the relative standing of the Soviet Union/communism and the United States/capitalism in the world? Would the Soviets had issued a speech proclaiming the glories of the Soviet Union and communism, perhaps even claiming the Moon? Would the Soviets have broadcast live television and/or radio of the landing or have otherwise recorded the events for posterity - and propaganda?

Simple, we'd just be the first to Mars. Maybe in the 70's. Although that'd probably be a suicide mission. Maybe Nixon would get an even worse rep as having sent Americans to die on another planet.

Weirdly enough, I agree-it might have pushed Nixon, who would otherwise declare victory and start focusing on other things-to want to beat them elsewhere, in the middle of the Cold War. In 1957, he saw Sputnik as a failure of Western civilization as opposed to Eisenhower, who was more calm about it.

But would the funding and will be there, in 1970s America? In 1960, the USA was a far more "national pride" based and stable place, with a well defined enemy to beat. "We will pay any price to defend freedom" vs "America will not fight every battle at every place". Not to mention more economically stable.

I have my doubts, much as I think going to Mars is a great idea and wish that we would have done it already!!!

Nice thread so far! The only thing I want to add:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

Excerpt from the article:


"The treaty explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet, claiming that they are the common heritage of mankind."


The US and USSR both signed the treaty.

However, the Soviets reaching the moon first would certainly have a major impact on world history. I hope to see more in this thread!

Iguana said:

Nice thread so far! The only thing I want to add:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

Excerpt from the article:


"The treaty explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet, claiming that they are the common heritage of mankind."


The US and USSR both signed the treaty.

However, the Soviets reaching the moon first would certainly have a major impact on world history. I hope to see more in this thread!

Click to expand...

Outside a propaganda coup I doubt it would have much impact. If there were no Outer Space Treaty that would be another matter but the treaty basically makes space exploration little more than a scientific curiosity.

But what if that "successful" first moon landing by the Soviets then ends in tragedy becaue it turns out that (because of cutting corners to get that far that fast?) they can't actually get their cosmonauts safely back to home?

Question: what did the Soviets do after America landed on the moon?

They issued a sigh of relief and finally cancelled the N1.

Slowpoke said:

They issued a sigh of relief and finally cancelled the N1.

Click to expand...

Not until they test-launched it a few more times. The last N-1 flight was launched only two weeks before Apollo 17.

The Soviets didn't give up the goal of a moon landing until the US officially terminated its program.

EDIT: That, or there was some serious bureaucratic inertia going in the USSR. Which wouldn't be surprising.

It's likely that the Americans would attempt to send humans to Mars and the Space Race would continue. In my opinion the problem with OTL was that you essentially had the Soviets become uncompetitive.

If the Soviets landed on the Moon first (let's say in 1969) the United States would immedietly respond with landing Apollo missions months later.

When the Soviets launch the Salyut-1 space station in 1971 (assuming there's no fatal accident like Soyuz-11) it would be seen as another propaganda victory for the USSR. The US would follow up with Skylab in 1973.

Assuming the USSR has a working N1 rocket we could imagine a large OS-1 type space station and an L3M type lunar shelter (14 days on the Moon, three person).

A Human Landing on Mars in the 1970s really isn't feasible. But if a commitment was made then NASA could launch Humans to Mars in 1981, 1983 or 1986 (depending on annual funding level).

Culturally, for the Soviet and Americans it would seem like a Yuri Gagarin moment.

HOW do the Soviets get to the moon first?

That's the big problem. They didn't have the technology, really. The N1 was a massive kludge, and the UR700 would have been worse - with toxic hypergolics.

Or is it because the US never even tries? Then the Soviets could make it to the moon by, oh, say '74 or so. But then, why would the Soviets try, if the US wasn't doing it?

It's a huge cost (and gamble) and almost useless for anything except PR, really.

Kooluk Swordsman said:

Question: what did the Soviets do after America landed on the moon?

Click to expand...

After the Apollo landings, the Soviets continued developing and testing the N1 rocket before suspending the program in 1974 and canceling it in 1976 in favor of the Energia rocket system. The Soviets then dismantled and/or repurposed various components and systems developed during the course of their manned lunar program while denying that they had ever had one to begin with, and began basic research for a manned martian program that has continued to this day. It wasn't until the glasnost period that the Soviets even acknowledged having attempted a manned lunar program.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

HOW do the Soviets get to the moon first?

Click to expand...

That's a big question too, but I think choosing something other than the N1 would be a good start. It had 30 rocket engines in the first stage, far too many!

Delta Force said:

After the Apollo landings, the Soviets continued developing and testing the N1 rocket before suspending the program in 1974 and canceling it in 1976 in favor of the Energia rocket system. The Soviets then dismantled and/or repurposed various components and systems developed during the course of their manned lunar program while denying that they had ever had one to begin with, and began basic research for a manned martian program that has continued to this day. It wasn't until the glasnost period that the Soviets even acknowledged having attempted a manned lunar program.



That's a big question too, but I think choosing something other than the N1 would be a good start. It had 30 rocket engines in the first stage, far too many!

Click to expand...

Yea every engineer knows to use the easiest solution that will reliably get the job done hence less engines would seriously reduce the complications of building any rocket.

"And now, for the glorious rise of Comrade Moon..."

In OTL, the U.S. got to the Moon first, but the Soviets had their Salyut Space Station and could claim they were doing serious work in space while we had done just a high-priced stunt. Both sides could claim victory!

If the Soviets had gotten to the Moon first, the two roles might have been reversed regarding who does the Moon missions and who does the longer term space stations.

Legofan4 said:

Yea every engineer knows to use the easiest solution that will reliably get the job done hence less engines would seriously reduce the complications of building any rocket.

Click to expand...

The UR-700 had nine engines in the first stage, although it was actually two stages as six boosters launched a three engine core, which I think was supposed to air start. The boosters are listed as stage 1, not stage 0.

The fact that concerns about what would happen to the UDMH fuel if the rocket failed on takeoff were written off in a rather Soviet manner (from here):

Chertok asked Chelomei what would happen if, God forbid, such a booster exploded on the launch pad. Wouldn't the entire launch complex be rendered a dead zone for 18 to 20 years? Chelomei's reply was that it wouldn't explode, since Glushko's engines were reliable and didn't fail. Aside from that, these propellants had been used in hundreds of military rockets, deployed in silos, aboard ships and submarines, with no problem. Fear of these propellants was irrational. Related propellants were used by the Americans on the Apollo manned spacecraft.

Click to expand...

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

HOW do the Soviets get to the moon first?

That's the big problem. They didn't have the technology, really. The N1 was a massive kludge, and the UR700 would have been worse - with toxic hypergolics.

Or is it because the US never even tries? Then the Soviets could make it to the moon by, oh, say '74 or so. But then, why would the Soviets try, if the US wasn't doing it?

It's a huge cost (and gamble) and almost useless for anything except PR, really.

Click to expand...

Here's how we did it in Red Star.

1. Begin development of the N1 in 1962 rather than 1964.
2. Keep to it's original 75 tonne to LEO capability rather than the haphazard modification (which increased it's payload to 90 tonnes at the expense of reliability). This forces you to launch the Mission in to parts. Launch 1 delivers the LK lander to Lunar Orbit, Launch 2 sends the crewed Soyuz 7K-LOK.
3. Develop the N11 (a 22 tonne to LEO LV using the third and second N1 stages) in order to improve the reliability of the upper stages before the N1 first stage launches in All up launches. This provides the added bonus of a more Reliable and less toxic launch vehicle than the UR-500 Proton. This N11 could launch manned circumlunar Soyuz 7K-L1 missions in 1967 and 1968.

This is how Red Star achieved a Soviet Lunar Landing in 1969, slightly before Apollo-11.

In 2001: A Space Time Odyssey (a collaberation between Michel Van and I) the UR-700 is developed begining in 1962. The first Soviet Manned Lunar Landing is in late 1970 (after Apollo-11) while the UR-700 continues to suffer a very high failure rate. The advantage being that long duration, multi-person missions and eventual base building is faster, better, cheaper.

I think you are right. If the US never made the commitment to reach the Moon, Russia wouldn't have either.

One other possibility is the R-56 rocket proposed by Yangel. His launch vehicle design could send 12 tonnes into Low Lunar Orbit. A single launch would be sufficient for a Manned Lunar Orbital mission (delivering a Soyuz 7K-LOK with a crew and fuel to retun) and two would allow a Manned Lunar Landing (launch 1 sending a LK lander into Lunar Orbit and Launch 2 sending a crewed Soyuz 7K-LOK to lunar orbit ).
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/r56.htm


I wonder what the cultural impact of a Soviet Manned circumlunar flight would be in say, 1967 or 1968 (before Apollo-8).

The smaller rockets would have required docking, which for some reason the Soviets didn't focus on much in the 1960s. However, the Soviets had some impressive unmanned rovers and other systems, such as the Lunokhod lunar rovers. When the Soviets began docking they decided to go with automated systems (NASA had relied on the pilots for early docking) and developed the Progress unmanned cargo spacecraft to supply Salyut and other space stations. The Soviets also designed the Buran to be capable of flying unmanned, and even flew it unmanned during its only flight.

Given the developments elsewhere in the Soviet program, would docking have been a problem for the Soviets if they had required it in the 1960s/early 1970s?

Alternatively, what about direct ascent, the method preferred by the Soviets? Ignoring how uneconomical it is, is it actually a feasible option in terms of being able to land safely on the Moon? I've read that NASA calculated that a direct ascent mission would have involved landing something the size of an Atlas missile on the Moon, and it seems it would be extremely difficult to safely land something like that vertically.

Basilisk said:

Simple, we'd just be the first to Mars. Maybe in the 70's. Although that'd probably be a suicide mission. Maybe Nixon would get an even worse rep as having sent Americans to die on another planet.

Click to expand...

A very late ‘70s Mars mission isn’t completely infeasible.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

HOW do the Soviets get to the moon first?

Click to expand...

Well, they'd have to make the decision to go there three years earlier than they did.

By the time the Politburo signed off on it, it was too late to catch up with the U.S.