2001: A Space Time Odyssey (Version 2)

[Michel Van]

Some in deep View on „Nositjel“ and how i design it for ASTO 2.0

i make sure that the Korolev's R-9 ICBM got Kuznetsov engine and they work as „Nositjel“ are take by MoM
next the NK-15 have higher Thrust, reducing to ring of 16 engine in Block A later it became 22 engine in 1966
but i make sure there were NO engines in center of Block A base like OTL

The Original N3 had to use the third and fourth stages of the N1, and the second stage of Korolev's R-9 ICBM.
I replace it by Block D in 1966, what increase the Payload especial with restart of Block D after cruse to destination orbit.
a surprise was for me that N1 in fact skinned it self after stage separation, by jettison the Aerodynamic engine cover !

more information read the best Book about N-1 rocket
N-1: For the Moon and Mars
Matthew Johnson, Nick Stevens, Alexander Shliadinsky, Igor Bezyaev and Vladimir Antipov
Arapress
ISBN 978-0-9899914-0-7


on Dathi THorfinnsson remark "why to replace the R-7 ?"

The R-7 was original a ICBM what became launcher with allot of problems, especial in 1964 with R-7 Molniya version.
but there was no alternative for it in 1960s and it's 1990s successor had to be the Zenit rocket, but the Collapse of USSR made that a Ukraine rocket and Russia stay on R-7 Soyuz-2 until Angara finish it's test flights.
Also was problem to production cost and launch cost of R-7 version together UR-500 how need it own infrastructure for it Toxic fuel.

in ASTO the „Nositjel“ modular approach is take instead,
while using Kerosene and Liquid oxygen infrastructure already installed, dropping the expensive "Toxic Bandwagon" UR-500 infrastructure.
and Production cost on one modular rocket system reduce the manufacture cost and Launching cost compare keeping the R-7 and UR-500 together !
also play the R-7 Molniya problems and Chelomei arrooancy also a little role, in the decision over to take N1/N2/N3 family in 1962.


on Dathi THorfinnsson remark " Umm... They admit to shit floating around the cabin (worst case), but not to the cosmonauts having broken bones? That seems ... improbable to me."
Apollo 10 had similarly problems with feces floating around the cabin what became public, while the LM malfunction was play down by NASA...

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

OK. Thanks for the info, and corrections.

 

[fasquardon]

What are the advantages of using the N-3 as opposed to fitting the R-7 with NK-33s? OTL's Soyuz 2.1v uses a modified R7 with NK-33s on the first and second stage successfully, so it could be done...

And it is very interesting that the N1 skinned itself. What boost to performance did jettisoning the engine covers give?

Speaking of the N1 molting... Recently I was reading about American Saturn variants where the 1st stage would have 3 F1 engines, two of which would be jettisoned (and parachuted to the ground) mid-way through the 1st stage burn as a sort of half-way house to liquid fueled booster rockets. Ever since reading that, I've been wondering if the N1 could pull a similar trick, molting engines from the first stage as it climbed in order to squeeze every last bit of performance out of the rocket... Anyone know if that would be practical?

fasquardon

 

[e of pi]

What are the advantages of using the N-3 as opposed to fitting the R-7 with NK-33s? OTL's Soyuz 2.1v uses a modified R7 with NK-33s on the first and second stage successfully, so it could be done...

Production streamlining. If all the rockets use one line of tanks as well as one line of engines, you save money through economies of scale.

Speaking of the N1 molting... Recently I was reading about American Saturn variants where the 1st stage would have 3 F1 engines, two of which would be jettisoned (and parachuted to the ground) mid-way through the 1st stage burn as a sort of half-way house to liquid fueled booster rockets. Ever since reading that, I've been wondering if the N1 could pull a similar trick, molting engines from the first stage as it climbed in order to squeeze every last bit of performance out of the rocket... Anyone know if that would be practical?

Practical? Sure. Atlas did it, and the Saturn 1-D 1.5STO was proposed to. It's more complexity, though, and the N-1 was already arguably more complex than its control scheme could handle. Moreover, it's unlikely to be a major boost--the designs I've seen propose it IOTL were stage-and-a-half, which otherwise would have been single stage--every few tons saved was extra tons of payload. Sometimes the only tons. For a first stage, it makes a lot less difference--it's about in the ballpark of 4:1 or 10:1 ratio at every staging event. Jettisoning half the first stage engines of a 3-stage N-1 might buy you all of half a ton of payload increase, and you'd eat that in failure risk increase with adding 15 new staging events or increasingly complex plumbing.

 

[fasquardon]

Production streamlining. If all the rockets use one line of tanks as well as one line of engines, you save money through economies of scale.

But in this case the cost of that is shutting down the old R7 production line, expanding the N1/2/3 lines and then there is the cost of altering the N3 to keep up with any significant alterations to the N1 and N2 (or not altering the N3, and thus ending up with a separate production line anyway).

I've been reading up on why it has been so rare to rationalize production in this way in OTL. Almost always it has been because the costs of rationalizing production were more than the gains that could be made from rationalizing production. In other cases, it has been because while efficiency could be gained in costs of production, the cost of that was a loss in the efficiency of the rocket to meet the needs of its main customer.

As such, I am a bit dubious than a theoretical N3 could ever be good enough for it to be worthwhile for the Soviets to completely abandon the R7 which was proven technology, fairly inexpensive, easy to transport, easy to launch, highly reliable and perhaps most importantly, already had all the infrastructure required to manufacture it in sufficient numbers already in place.

OTL the only thing that has come close to displacing the R7 in the last 63 years has been the Zenit.

Practical? Sure. Atlas did it, and the Saturn 1-D 1.5STO was proposed to. It's more complexity, though, and the N-1 was already arguably more complex than its control scheme could handle. Moreover, it's unlikely to be a major boost--the designs I've seen propose it IOTL were stage-and-a-half, which otherwise would have been single stage--every few tons saved was extra tons of payload. Sometimes the only tons. For a first stage, it makes a lot less difference--it's about in the ballpark of 4:1 or 10:1 ratio at every staging event. Jettisoning half the first stage engines of a 3-stage N-1 might buy you all of half a ton of payload increase, and you'd eat that in failure risk increase with adding 15 new staging events or increasingly complex plumbing.

Hmm, yes, that all makes sense. My instinct was that this approach would be better for rockets with more engines, but I hadn't considered the complexity angle.

fasquardon

 

[Shevek23]

I've been mulling over several things related to this TL for some days now, but I keep bogging down writing the posts.

In the spirit of the US holiday today let me throw this out first--I think that if the Soviet space program had its act together better than OTL, that US (and other Western, notably British) intelligence would have some clue of it. There's satellite pictures for one thing, which have been mentioned already in the canon posts. And other sources as well, which would be murky. The tricky thing about human intelligence is that the agency gathering it has to be very careful who it releases its findings to, since the content that the KGB can infer it is gathering can point to the Soviet sources and thus cause them to be arrested.

Still--if Korolev is in charge with Khrushchev's own son on his team, and the Soviet government is acting with energy to pursue a coordinated plan that will get the N-1 and its derivatives operational while the Soyuz spacecraft is also being developed without the shilly-shallying of OTL, the US President (I've lost track of whether Kennedy survives his first term or not here) at least will be apprised of this progress, and the danger that the Soviets will achieve key milestones such as the first manned circumlunar flight or even a first orbital mission around Luna will be known to him, and probably then in some filtered form to NASA leadership.

This being the case, I'd think the OTL objections von Braun and other NASA high mucky-mucks had to Lunar Gemini will be set aside, at least to the extent of developing the translunar version of the Gemini capsule, at first on paper but as rockets such as TTL's Proton (aka N-2) emerge, actual metal will be cut to prepare for the contingency of sending American astronauts around the Moon on an emergency basis.

None of the exact proposals I've found on Encyclopedia Astronautica seem to quite fit the bill, but I think it is clear that the Saturn 1B is perfectly capable of boosting as much as 18 tons to LEO, and that a stack with a 5-ton Lunar Gemini capsule, a hypergolic transstage, and a cut-down Centaur stage using the RL-10 hydrogen-burning engine is quite capable of sending the Gemini around the Moon, with some maneuvering margin in the transstage. The Lunar Gemini I refer to would be modified to enable ballistic reentry at translunar speeds, as described in appropriate EA entries.

If the Soviets managed to get their own lunar flyby in before the Americans could get this one-launch Lunar Gemini-Centaur flight going, or if the Americans do beat the Russians to that goal but then the Russians seem ready to send a Soyuz into Lunar orbit (which I think could be done with two "Proton" launches) the American answer could then be to devise a mission with two Saturn 1B launches--the first one to put up a Gemini with a really heavy Transstage, that's over 10 tons of hypergolic fuel available, and an extended Centaur on the second launch. The heavy Gemini could dock with the big, 18 ton Centaur, at least 15 tons of which would be oxygen-hydrogen fuel, and the hydrogen rocket could boost the whole thing most of the way to TLI, leaving the Gemini able to finish the task of reaching TLI and have enough hypergolic fuel remaining to brake into Lunar orbit, remain there some days, and then return itself to Earth.

I think NASA would draw the line, correctly, at refusing to develop either of the proposed Gemini lunar landing missions. One version involved developing an extremely ultralight lander that would not even enclose the single astronaut making the landing in a hull--basically a flying lawn chair that would allow a suited astronaut to touch down, step onto the Moon, plant a flag and then hightail it right back to the orbiting Gemini. It would make Korolev and Mishin's OTL LK look plush and luxurious in comparision! And be risky as all hell, while demonstrating quite starkly the criticism that the American lunar landing is a stunt and nothing more.

Also, while the one-man lander would be absurdly tiny, it still would probably mass enough to cut deeply into the mass margins that even two Saturn 1B launches would bring to the mission; not only the landing itself but the whole mission would be marginal on even two launches; three or more might be required to do it halfway right.

The other version involved a Gemini capsule fitted with direct Lunar landing equipment that would bring both astronauts down, with no LOR--but overall due to the inefficiency of direct descent/ascent, despite the much lighter mass of Gemini versus Apollo, the overall mass would be as great as the Apollo package and require a Saturn V to launch it. Since the Saturn V was a major pacing item (the other one turning out to be the Apollo LEM, despite the setback of the Apollo 1 fire for the CSM) it wouldn't save a lot of time over Apollo, Mark Wade at EA estimates maybe 6 months.

Clearly then Gemini is no substitute for Apollo for Lunar landings. But it could in a pinch substitute for non-landing Lunar missions, and I think in a TL where the Soviets threatened to actually get cosmonauts to Lunar space before 1968, the contingency would be provided for and Lunar orbital Gemini missions could be ready to go as early as the start of 1966. And maybe earlier in 1965.

 

[Shevek23]

I've checked my math again and I stand by the two versions of Lunar Gemini. Assuming that the Saturn 1B can reliably place 18 tonnes in LEO, a single launch with a cut-down Centaur and Lunar Gemini on top should work just fine with substantial mass margins to be allocated to hypergolic fuel for the Gemini and/or crew supplies or possibly Lunar mission equipment such as a telephoto camera with tracking equipment to take high-quality photos. With two launches, although the almost-full-sized Centaur that could be orbited would not quite contain enough fuel to send the whole 36 ton compound stack all the way to TLI, and would in fact fall short by some 700-800 m/sec, an extended Gemini with about 5 tonnes for the capsule itself and the remaining 13 providing as much as 11 tonnes of hypergolic fuel should have plenty of margin to make up that difference, then brake into Lunar orbit and escape it again, and still have a tonne or so margin for heavy mission-related equipment--that telescopic camera again for instance.

The Americans can send men around the Moon as early as late 1965 then, if they spend more money than OTL on parallel development of a Lunar Gemini plus the auxiliary rocket modifications (two versions of Centaur, one major modification of the Gemini transstage). All of these strike me as probably doable on slim budgets, being modifications of spacecraft NASA is developing other versions of anyway.
----
Back in the USSR I agree that it doesn't seem all that wise to prematurely junk the R-7 rocket lineage. The N system is certainly worth developing, but I think the program should work "middle-out," starting with getting the N-2 "Proton" version going, developing a third stage for it that is designed mainly to optimize the Proton's LEO payload. Then the N-1 design should focus on enabling that third stage plus a payload sized for what this stage could send on a Hohmann translunar trajectory to reach orbit untapped.

If the result is rather less than Korolev and Mishin's rather grandiose 95 tons to orbit including unburned fourth stage propellant--well I say even that 95 tons, which could not be realistically achieved anyway, is too scanty for a really good lunar mission, as long as the fourth stage is burning kerosene anyway. The plan as laid out in Red Star, to use two N-1 launches and LOR without EOR, seems very good to me--with N-1s even less capable than the 70+ tons Bahamut figured quite a solid mission is possible with two launches.

It would only be at this point that the exact proportion of sizes of the N system standard stages would emerge. It would be possible, within certain limits anyway, to introduce variations to optimize the stage sizes for various missions--but this defeats the purpose of devising standard stages! I have my doubts that the "N-3 Soyuz" rocket that would emerge by taking the V, G, and D blocks from the full N-1 (if indeed the D-blok as we know it OTL would emerge from this process at all) would be a good match for orbital Soyuz missions.

We know from OTL the R-7 is a flexible and reliable rocket system. ITTL already a substantial investment has been made in them; it seems wrong to just toss them aside.

I would suggest that the N-3 is too inflexible, even if it has adequate throw-weight, to replace the R-7s. Instead of abandoning them, I suggest that a new system of smaller launch rockets based on standardizing modules in the R-7 family be developed.

To wit: redesign the central stage to be able to take up to 6 booster units. It should then be possible to launch versions with either 3, 4 or 6 boosters, the latter would enable either a stretch of the central stage or heavier upper stages. I haven't attempted the math to verify that 3 boosters (and possibly, 2?) might work out, but if they can then we have a very flexible and economical system for launching masses on the low end of manned orbital missions--but on the high end of unmanned routine LEO missions.

Aside from continuing to use legacy tech already in place and achieving a flexible range of low-end masses to orbit, another advantage of extending the Semyorka in this fashion is that it will tend to fool the Americans about Soviet intentions. If the major activity the Yankees see is tinkering around with the old rocket, they might be lulled into thinking that Soviet Lunar capabilities are very marginal and remote, enough so that when it at last becomes plain that the Proton works and can enable Soviet lunar orbital missions, it may be too late to prepare Gemini for the challenge.

And the N-1 may come as a very nasty surprise indeed, and become functional far sooner than OTL due to most issues being worked out on the N-2

 

[Michel Van]

Thank for thinking over, Shevek23

Kennedy is killed in Dallas 1963 and LBJ become President
in 1967 the USA got several Problems
The Apollo one fire and X-15 crash killing Astronauts
The Chinese get involve in the Vietnam War
next to that LBJ focus also on Social plans for USA

Oh yes, there were Lunar Gemini proposals
like launch Saturn IB with Centaur to launch modified Gemini on fly by Curse
or ram a Agena stage in rear of Gemini to do lunar orbital flight
a another proposal was to use Titan IIIC with two Transtage and Titan II with modified Gemini, who rendezvous in orbit for lunar orbital flight

All those program were consider at NASA administration, as waste of money, resource and man power, even as threat to Apollo Programm
next to that in beginn 1967 the Gemini program was terminate premature with Mission 12, (already in 1964 NASA channeled Gemini 13,14 and 15)
and McDonnell Gemini team and Douglas were working for USAF MOL Program that got top priority.

now in 27 January happen the Apollo one Fire and the investigation why and how start this report was publish on April 5, 1967.
what then start was modification of Apollo hardware were NASA belieft it would take 12 months to April 1968
in realty it had take 20 months and army of hired workers of Martin company, to get bugs out Apollo Hardware for launch in October 1968.
next to that was the Political fallout, from February 27 to 9 june made Capitol Hill investigations on Apollo 1
chaired by Senator Clinton P. Anderson. NASA manager Seamans, Administrator Webb, Manned Space Flight Administrator Dr. George E. Mueller, and Apollo Program Director Maj Gen Samuel C. Phillips were called to testify before Sen. Anderson's committee.
and certain young Senator Walter F. Mondale start to profiling himself as Anti Spaceflight in Sen. Anderson's committee.


So what can NASA do for moment ?
Get the Bugs out Apollo Hardware for estimated April 1968 launch and look that Grumman get those "110 problems" on Lunar Module clear, until winter 1968 manned test flight in Low Orbit.

reactivating Titan Gemini for Lunar mission sure is a possibility if USAF push back MOL (what they not do) and if Capitol Hill give them money for that (in 1967 they refused NASA 68 budget !)
even if that is settled and McDonnell & Martin company ( who missing engineers, who working on Apollo modification) it will takes Months for first test and actually mission
They estimate that Titan Gemini would needed 13 months R&D until first launch to moon taken on April 1967 that would be Gemini 13 in may 1968

but look on Soviets
the CIA know the Soviets working on New rocket seen there gigantic new Launch Complex
with Puny Rocket and the bigger one what soviet called Proton
that launch series of Satellite and Heavy Probes in high orbits to Moon, so they will conclude that is something to do with Moon Race
until 1967 the CIA reconnaissance group stared to gape on a Picture, were the soviets pulled out a Huge Rocket… one in size of Saturn V !

with SOILERS they witnesses that SPOILERS also the KGB SPOLIERS lead to SPOILERS

to that CIA is confident that Soviet union not will attempt a Manned Launch to moon so soon
but unfortunate the Soviet teste the Soyuz not only unmanned in Low orbit, but als Zonds in high Orbit an Lunar fly by
so it total surprise for the CIA and NASA that manned Soyus 3 taking a De tour around Moon !
even on price that the Cosmonauts end in Hospital for months...

on NASA next reaction and Capitol Hill goes ballistic will be reveal in next chapters of ASTO

 

[SpaceGeek]

Humans have always been wanderers, but unlike any other age of discovery our species has known the age of spaceflight is the only one in which we could now send robotic emmissaries to explore distant worlds first. Though unfeeling they are cold and precise, giving humanity it's first glimps at worlds yet to be seen directly by human eyes. In 1961, the Mariner 1 and 2 spacecraft were launched by NASA with the intent of becoming the first spacecraft to flyby the planet Venus. While this feat had technically been already achieved by the Soviet Venera-1 no data was gained about this encounter. Venus was stubborn to give up it's secrets as Mariner-1 failed to even reach orbit while Mariner-2 was met by a blanket of impenetrable clouds obscruing the surface below.

A mere two years later Mariner-3 and 4 launched with the aim of reaching another world, well known in popular liturature, culture and science fiction, Mars. Mariner-3 failed during the TLI burn. Once again, the universe wouldn't give up it's secrets without hardship and struggle. Luckily Mariner-4 would make it's way to this strange new world, radioing it's most interesting results back to earth. What it showed was somewhat dissapointing, no civilizations, princesses, empires, or even ruins of a civilization long past. Not even simple plants or animals were discovered. Just impact craters and an atmosphere thinner than the cruising altitute of U-2 pilots between the Earth and Space.


​

Beginning in 1967 the unmanned exploration of the planet Venus began in earnest with both efforts from the United States and Soviet Union yielding stunning results. In that year both the American Mariner 5 spacecraft and the Soviet Venera 4 spacecrafts reached the planet within a single day of each other on October 18-19th, 1967. While Mariner 5 was more focused on planetary observations and remote sensing via flyby as with the previous Mariner Mars & Venus missions, But Venera 5 attempted something quite different.
It drop a probe into the atmosphere of Venus and took inSitu measurements of the Venusian atmosphere, relaying data about temperature, barometric pressure, wind speeds, altitude and other information to scientists in Moscow. The probe continued to transmit data until at an altitude of 25 kilometers it was crushed by the immense atmospheric pressure. With temperature readings far above the boiling point of water and atmospheric pressures dense enough to crush a submarine like a tin can,
If there was any hope about Venus was a earth-like world, it was crushed with Venera 4. Venera 5 & 6 arrived two years later in 1969, each transmitted atmospheric data and information to scientists on Earth for about 20-50 minutes down to an altitude of about 26-10 km.

Meanwhile the quest to understand Mars was being taken up by both Spacefaring nations. The United States had been the first to reach the Red Planet in 1965 with the Mariner 3 probe (killing the hopes and dreams of many science fiction fans with it). Mars was pronounced to be a cold, dead world little more than a discolored copy of the Moon with impact craters and little to no atmosphere. This conception of Mars was also discovered to be inaccurate however with the launch of Mars 2 & 3 orbiters (also known as by their technical titles Mars 1969A & Mars 1969B) on March 27 1969 and April 2 1969 onboard two N2 Proton rockets (which had now found themselves a new role as unmanned medium lifters with the completion of their manned service career). While NASA launched their own set of flyby probes to Mars (Mariner 6 & 7), these spacecraft did not bring back any information thrilling or interesting to the wider public, while the bold discoveries by the new class of Soviet planetary orbiters (an important first to be gained in the history of spaceflight after the first unmanned Lunar flybys, orbiters, landers and Venusian entry probes) set the stage for Mars to return as a world of fascination, wonder and mystery.

The twin Soviet orbiters provided ample evidence of dried up rivers, lakes, streams, channels and possibly even oceans remains. In addition the Grzhimaylo Canyons[1], gigantic Mount Lenin[2] and Tolstoy plains[3] were all mapped and detailed by the sturdy robotic emissaries, giving the Soviet Union naming rights. Immediately Mars became a world, with a landmass the same as all the continents of the Earth, a world with geology, morphology, chemistry, weather, and possibly in the ancient past, biology. Mars was a once thriving earth like world that died the Russian and American press exclaimed. Romantic images of Astronauts treading the Red Planet, discovering ancient fossils of prehistoric alien life on a once grand extraterrestrial shoreline now had popular appeal once again. Coming in July & August 1969 in the wake of the first manned landing on the Moon, it was clear to everyone gazing at the images, that mankind has entered the space age. Men were walking on the Moon, robots were exploring Mars & Venus, where people would surely one day follow. With the unmanned and manned space program between the US & USSR at their most competitive, the CIA and KGB revealing the ambitious plans and proposals of the other side, a supportive Vice President and the Vietnam war winding down, it was in this environment that Wherner Von Braun sat down with newly elected President Richard Nixon to discuss the future.

Notes
[1] The Grzhimaylo Canyons on Mars Equator is named after famous Geologist/Explorer Grigory Grumm Grzhimaylo best known for his expeditions to the Russian Far East, Central Asia, were he discover one of lowest points on earth: Ayding Lake.
[2] The biggest Vulcan in Solar system is called after Vladimir Lenin leader of Communist revolution and First chairman of USSR.
[3] plateau west of Mount Lenin named after Aleksey Nikolayevich Tolstoy and Leo Tolstoy, the first is a famous Soviet Sci-Fi Author, know for his Novel "Aelita" and a remote relative of Leo Tolstoy, the greatest novelist of all time.
Other feature: the three Volcano east Mount Lenin, are labeled Mount Marx and Mount Engels (after Karl Marx and Friedrichs Engels founder of Communism)
and mount Brezhnev after Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev nominal Head of State of the USSR, who died on February 9, 1961 as his plane was shot down by French Air-force by mistake.

 

[SpaceGeek]

Apollo Manned & Unmanned

The launch of AS-501 was originally planned for late 1966, but this was pushed back by stage development problems to April 1967. The S-IVB third stage became the first piece to arrive at the Kennedy Space Center, on August 14, 1966. The S-II second stage, built by North American Aviation, experienced even more development delays without making it's delivery in 1966. Meanwhile, the vehicle assembly continued using a dummy stage in the place of the second S-II. The CSM, also built by North American Aviation, arrived on December 24, 1966, followed by the S-II second stage on January 21, 1967. Not even one week later, the Apollo 1 fire occurred, placing all schedules in question.

Then, problems requiring rework were discovered in the North American components. An inspection of wiring in the CSM found 1,407 problems, and it was removed from the stack on February 14 for repair. Worse still, cracks were found throughout the S-II liquid hydrogen tank. Although these were repaired and the S-II was finally stacked on february 23rd the CSM repairs required another four months until it was ready to be re-mated to the rocket on June 20. On August 26, the complete launch vehicle, now designated Apollo 4, finally rolled out of the VAB.

The vehicle's on-pad, pre-launch tests started in September, and encountered several problems with propellant loading and various equipment failures, pushing the launch into November, almost an entire year after the originally scheduled launch date. Finally, on November 9th 1967 the Saturn V successfully performed it's first unmanned flight with flying colors. This gave NASA an enormous boost making them seem completive with the Soviet's Manned circumlunar flight.

The Apollo Lunar Module was also facing considerable delays, threatening the 1970 deadline.
The first unmanned launch was originally planned in April 1967, requiring delivery at the Cape around September 1966. But even longer delays than those faced by Apollo 4 kept occurring. Although the Lunar Module was fully designed, there was trouble fabricating many of the specialized and custom made parts. The engineers also faces significant issues with the LM's engines as the descent engine were not burning smoothly, and the ascent engine were having fabrication and welding difficulties.
In the end, these problems were overcome, but it was only after several months resulting in the vehicle not making it to the pad until June 23rd 1967. After four months of tests and repair the LM was finally mated to the Saturn IB launch vehicle on November 19, 1967. Further delays prevented the vehicle from launching within the year. On January 22nd, 1968, once again nearly a year after it was originally planned Apollo 5 launched into the cold winter sunrise. The mission lasted just 11 hours and 10 minutes as the Ascent and Descent stages simulated a real lunar landing in a 167 x 222 km orbit. However more tests were necessary on the Saturn V and CSM as NASA management realized the near-fatal outcome of the Soviet's second Manned circumlunar launch attempt. With a cautious soviet leadership redeveloping the UR-500 and the mounting Soviet launch failures following the Manned flight the Americans could clearly see a fundamental flaw in the UR-500 that they had narrowly avoided on their only Piloted flight and that significantly delayed their program. Delays, NASA hoped they could exploit, if it wasn't for their own delays.

After Apollo 4, officials in NASA management were confident a second Saturn V launch would qualify the booster for man-rating. This flight would be Apollo-6, launching on April 4th, 1968. Unfortunately, problems developed almost immediately after liftoff. Two minutes into the flight, the rocket began experiencing severe Pogo oscillations. In part due to the vibrations, the spacecraft adapter that attached the CSM to the rocket and housed the mockup Lunar Module, started to have some structural problems. Airborne cameras recorded several pieces falling off it at T+133 seconds. Following the jettison of the first stage the S-II stage began to experience its own problems. Engine number two had performance problems from 225 seconds after liftoff, which abruptly worsened at T+319 seconds, and then at T+412 seconds the Instrument unit shut it down completely. Following just two seconds later, engine number three experienced a shut down too. The Instrument Unit was barely able to compensate, and the remaining three engines had to burn for 58 seconds longer than normal. The S-IVB third stage also needed to burn 29 seconds longer than usual. This prevented the vehicle from reaching full TLI speed resulting in a flight profile being reverted to that used on Apollo 4.

Apollo 7 would be both a test flight and confidence-builder for NASA. Apollo 6 had been a hair-raising experience for everybody in the Agency while the Soviets were beginning to have success in their unmanned LK-1 flights. Further, after the Apollo-1 tragedy in January 1967, the Apollo CSM had been extensively (and almost completely) redesigned leading both to significant safety improvements and delays within the program. NASA's last Manned spaceflight was the Gemini 12 mission almost two years ago and the American public was eager to see American Astronauts in space once again. Apollo 7 was crewed by two rookies and a star, Commander Walter M Schirra who had flown in Mercury, Gemini and now Apollo, along with Donn Eisele and Walter Cunningham.

The impressive Saturn 1B rocket soared to the heavens for the first time with the first manned Apollo CSM perched on top.Following orbital injection and separation from the SV-IB, the crew turned the CSM around using its Reaction Control System thrusters and practiced a simulated Lunar Module rendezvous and docking. A C type mission, it's goal was to perform an 11-day Earth-orbital test flight, using the first Manned Saturn IB launch vehicle to put a crew into space, test and checkout of the redesigned Block II CSM with a crew on board, the first live TV broadcast from an American spacecraft, and the first three-person American space mission. It was successfully launched on October 11, 1968, from Cape Kennedy Air Force Station, Florida. Despite tension between the crew and ground controllers, the mission was a complete technical success, giving NASA the confidence to launch Apollo 8 six months later. However, the flight would prove to be the last NASA space flight for all of its three crew members when it splashed down in Atlantic Ocean on October 22, 1968.

The CSM and Saturn V were all set to go for Apollo 8, now all that was needed was the lunar module, and it would be subborn beast to bring along.

 

[Astronomo2010]

another Great update , NASA is taking all the safety measures it can think to guarantee a safe landing on the moon . I Do wonder what they will find that will lead to establish A moonbase . Cant hardly wait for the next part.

 

[SpaceGeek]

The Moon Race Heats Up

The Moon Race Heats Up

Beginning in 1967 a series of N2-Proton launches began sending probes to the Moon. Not the first time, but what was unusual was the high mass of those probes, around 5 tons!
Some were Flybys, other went into orbit and took picture of lunar surface, others tried to land but crashed.

The N1 Rocket made it’s first ever launch on July 6, 1967.
After lift off problems started for the N1-L3, engine 12 suffered problems, in response the autopilot KORD wrongly shutdown a working engine on the opposed side!
54.5 seconds after launch the KORD reported engines 11, 12 and 13 were shutting down and a rise of temperature show there was a fire on board.
Then 68.87 second after launch the fire burned the wire harness of engine bay, KORD shot down all engines of first stage, crashing the rocket down range while the launch escape tower rescued the boilerplate crew capsule.
The failure analysis was difficult, one problem was KORD's faulty plotting, after Engine 12 went in trouble, another mystery was what happened to engine 11, 12 and 13 and where had the fire started ?
Flight data show that engine 12's turbo pump suddenly started violently vibrating at 51 second, followed by the turbo pumps of engine 11 snd 13.
The Soviet Academy of sciences independent investigation board had this theory:

That liquid oxygen line were too brittle because, they had lifted off much with cooler propellant than originally designed.
It ruptured under the harsh conditions of launch and the pogo oscillations produce by the engines. The liquid oxygen poured out onto the running engine starting the fire.
Meanwhile the engine turbo pumps started running dry leading to violent vibrations, beginning the fatal chain reaction which lead to the destruction of N1-L3
It was a bad surprise for OKB-1, before the launch of the next N1 they had to replace the Stage's liquid oxygen lines, overwork KORD and install better Pogo dampers.

In the mean time the CIA had photographed the launch preparation and found later on Satellite picture the N1-L3 impact crater. Figuring out that the Launch Attempt was a complete failure they came to the conclusion that Soviet would not attempt a manned Lunar flight in 1967 but that they were certainly developing such a program.

Then in June 1968 one of Heavy probes manage to land safely on the lunar surface. That Probe transmitted signals on 130 and 190 kHz, much to surprise of CIA analysts, it was of TV Cameras. Their new probe was a remotely controlled rover ! It was intriguing for CIA analysts and NASA engineers to secretly watch on their equipment, the attempts by controllers in USSR to drive the Rover in search of... something.
After it reach a flat area it stop and turned it's cameras off, switching to a 1000 kHz signal that repeated itself until it was interrupted by the lunar night. The Soviet labeled the probe as Lunokhod 1, another Triumph of USSR.

Then on July 1968 the N1-L5 was launched. The flight went good until the 104 second were engine 4 having trouble and a overzealous safety range officer activated the N1 self-destruct mechanism. The failure analyst Repot showed clearly that despite the failure of engine 4, the N1-L5 could have bring the payload in lower orbit had safety range officer not acted.

The CIA made the wrong conclusion, that the Soviet Union would not attempt a manned Lunar flight in 1968 do to the loss of their Moon rocket, this view was also supported by misinformation the KGB scattered to fool the CIA into relaxing their schedule and slowing the program down. On September 15 1968, launched the Soviet Zond 8 spacecraft, the first manned Lunar flyby with Bykovsky and Rubkavishnikov on board. Then Lunokhod 2 successfully landed on Moon in same region where Lunokhod 1 lost contact with Earth, after an exploration drive, it also started to transmit a 1000 kHz signal.

On October 1968 the N1-L6 was launched despite problems with KROD and premature stage separation, the payload reached Low Earth Orbit
25 hours after it’s launch, the unmanned L3-Complex test model made the Trans Lunar Injection toward the Moon. 101 hours later the L3-Complex reach the moon where... nothing happened. The Block-D failed to re-ignite as the L3-Complex passed by the moon and returned back to Earth on it's circumlunar trajectory.

On November 10 1968, Zond 9 was launched to the Moon with Alexei Leonov and Oleg Makarov on a second circumlunar flyby just a month before the Americans could launch their Apollo 8 mission into the Moon's Orbit.

Jaunary 20 , Zond 10 with Kolesnikov and Popovich was the last of the Soviet Manned Lunar Flyby missions (having been surpassed by the American Apollo-8 lunar orbital mission), from here testing would now begin on the L3-Complex mission for lunar orbital and lunar landing missions. There was a major struggle within the agency over whether to launch the mission given the fact it was considered obsolete for propaganda value. Ultimately the decision was made to launch the mission anyway for hardware testing purposes and for crew training ahead of the L3 missions.

February 1969 Lunokhod 3 landed in Oceanus Procellarum just like it two predecessors, after it mission it also began to transmit this 1000 kHz signalThe CIA and NASA were questioning "what is if about these Lunokhod mission", why the same region on Moon and why this constant signal and why is there always Big Soviet Moon rocket launched a month later?

On March the N1-L7 was ready for launch, Vasily Mishin praise it as "Fool proof and Incapable of errors“ (a phrase that would later find it's way into advanced computing when machines began surpassing human intellect in areas such as chess). It became a complete success, the unmanned L3-Complex simulate by remote controlled the Lunar mission around the Moon. But it showed a dangerous consumption rate for fuel on the Block-D during Moon Orbit phase. Meaning the Mission profile had to be adapt to lower the Fuel consumption on the Block-D.

Finally in June, 1969 the First Manned "Luna rocket“ (N1-L8) was launched, on board was Vladislav Volkov and Viktor Gorbatko for the first manned test of L3-Complex Zond 11. The mission went into a Low Lunar parking orbit and pinpointed the location of Lunokod 3 and landed an unmanned LK with help of a 1000 kHz signal radio beacon. Everything was ready for first Soviet to land on moon: a backup return stage and an unmanned rover to help the cosmonaut map out the landing site and pinpoint scientific sample sites. The cautious MoM (centralized Soviet Space Agency) wasn't confident in the LK lander's reliability and weren't about to risk the life of their heroic lunar cosmonaut without redundancy.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Finally in June, 1969 the First Manned "Luna rocket“ (N1-L8) was launched, on board was Vladimir Komarov and Victor Gorbatko for the first manned test of L3-Complex Zond 11. The mission went into a Low Lunar parking orbit and pinpointed the location of Lunokod 3 and landed an unmanned LK with help of a 1000 kHz signal radio beacon. Everything was ready for first Soviet to land on moon: a backup return stage and an unmanned rover to help the cosmonaut map out the landing site and pinpoint scientific sample sites. The cautious MoM (centralized Soviet Space Agency) wasn't confident in the LK lander's reliability and weren't about to risk the life of their heroic lunar cosmonaut without redundancy.

Cool. The Soviets are actually providing redundancy, worrying about Cosmonaut survival! (How unSoviet of them. )

 

[Michel Van]

Cool. The Soviets are actually providing redundancy, worrying about Cosmonaut survival! (How unSoviet of them. )

What you expecting, that i and SpaceGeek send Cosmonauts in there certain death ?!

it's testimony what Khrushchev manage with his reforms...

 

[Shevek23]

Now I'm getting very confused! The prior two updates on Apollo and the American program in general showed a slip in the schedules worse than OTL--Apollo 6 was not flying until October 1968; at last writing there Apollo 8, which was waiting for the LM to be completed, implying a mission of completely different character than OTL--a reversion to the original plan of OTL in fact where there would be no lunar orbital Apollo mission at all until the time of the last test flight mission had slipped to "six months after Apollo 6" that is to say late March early April 1969.

I was wondering about that; why is ATL Apollo even more messed up than OTL?

But then here's the latest post focused on Soviet progress--and it seems to be taking place in a completely different timeline, one where the American program and progress is exactly the same as OTL! You mention Apollo 8 here as a lunar orbital mission, happening in December 1968.

I have to say the latter makes more sense to me than the former; with the US program pushed back 6-9 months relative to OTL, and the Soviet one being more advanced as per the latest post, I'd think there would indeed be wailing and gnashing of teeth in Washington DC and throughout the US press--and either the political coalition supporting NASA collapses amid recrimination and protests over bloated budgets for a boondoggle--or more likely at this stage where the grand prize is still up in the air, a different kind of panic involving reckless throwing of money and reckless advances in schedule to catch up would be invoked.

It would be in that context that I'd have thought some sort of Lunar Gemini would have been approved in the mid-decade, as an extra expense over and above the Apollo budget. Or failing that--now that the Soviets can do
N-2 based flybys, a lot of anger and recrimination that Lunar Gemini was not developed.

But the American situation looks better in the Soviet-oriented updates; no worse than OTL, and no reason to doubt we could make the July 1969 moon landing date. (Whether that is good enough considering that the Soviet analog to OTL Apollo 10 is here Zond 11 and that happens in June of that year is another question--it is a question of, one, are the Americans really still on schedule relative to OTL, and two, can the Soviets manage to send up another N-1 launched mission in less than three weeks from their last one and beat Neil Armstrong or whoever is scheduled ITTL to hold his place to the Moon's surface?

With Zond 11 in June it doesn't look good for the Soviets getting there first--unless the Americans are just a little bit behind OTL. But if they were as far behind as the prior posts implied, with Apollo 8 not even being a moon-circling mission and postponed to April of '69, with the Soviets having already beaten the Americans to flying by the moon with earlier Zond missions...well, if it were that bad the Soviets would clearly be about to win in a cakewalk.

Sort of. Apollo remains the superior spacecraft system, landing more astronauts for much longer endurance and returning more samples than LK-Soyuz can.

Just how marginal LK is though depends on the exact details of its launch. To wit, Space Geek's prior attempt, Red Star, abandoned the idea that a single N-1 could possibly send a suitable suite of spacecraft for a lunar landing mission with decent odds of success. And this was wise, because even if the Soviets of this TL can reliably get 95 tons of payload into orbit with this timeline's version of N-1, without a hydrogen-burning upper stage in place of the kerosene burning G block, the load that can be sent to the Moon is much lower than what Apollo's Saturn V can send with its 100 ton hydrogen-oxygen burning third stage (itself launched atop another hydrogen burning second stage). Saturn both puts more mass, by ten or fifteen tons anyway, into orbit and then uses it more efficiently. One might not need the full 45 tons plus of an Apollo stack to do a successful Lunar landing and return--but every ton they take off marginalizes and eventually jeopardizes the mission. Therefore I think the earlier TL made the right call in rejecting the idea that a single N-1 launch can do the trick.

On the other hand, with two N-1 launches, in any configuration--the deed can be accomplished in style and with great safety margin.

Now reading the latest post, it generally seems that nevertheless, not only will you have the Soviets achieving successful launches with the N-1, but you claim a single one of these can send a cosmonaut to the surface of the moon and return him back to Earth.

Sometime after the dramatic reveals are all done, and we know who gets to the Moon and back to Earth safely first in this TL, I think you should put the cards on the table and show us the masses and engine performance parameters of the stages on that N-1, including whatever it takes to put the LK and return Soyuz or Zond into LLO, and land the LK and bring it back up, and then push the manned return vehicle on back to Earth.

With the two separate N-1 launches of Red Star, the Block D mass needed to first orbit the LK and then serve as a crasher stage turned out to be remarkably close to the right size, used on a second launch, for braking a large Soyuz into LLO--with mass left over to then boost it back to Earth again--meanwhile the Soyuz would be so large that it could probably boost itself to Earth from Lunar orbit without the Block D helping at all.

It so happens that your latest post is illustrated with pictures that look a lot like two N-1s on launching pads simultaneously, which would fit in the Red Star scenario that I approve--but why would they do that if your intent is to have a single N-1 get the job done?

 

[SpaceGeek]

Now I'm getting very confused! The prior two updates on Apollo and the American program in general showed a slip in the schedules worse than OTL--Apollo 6 was not flying until October 1968; at last writing there Apollo 8, which was waiting for the LM to be completed, implying a mission of completely different character than OTL--a reversion to the original plan of OTL in fact where there would be no lunar orbital Apollo mission at all until the time of the last test flight mission had slipped to "six months after Apollo 6" that is to say late March early April 1969.

Expect details to change as the timeline progresses.

I have to say the latter makes more sense to me than the former; with the US program pushed back 6-9 months relative to OTL, and the Soviet one being more advanced as per the latest post, I'd think there would indeed be wailing and gnashing of teeth in Washington DC and throughout the US press--and either the political coalition supporting NASA collapses amid recrimination and protests over bloated budgets for a boondoggle--or more likely at this stage where the grand prize is still up in the air, a different kind of panic involving reckless throwing of money and reckless advances in schedule to catch up would be invoked.

It would be in that context that I'd have thought some sort of Lunar Gemini would have been approved in the mid-decade, as an extra expense over and above the Apollo budget. Or failing that--now that the Soviets can do
N-2 based flybys, a lot of anger and recrimination that Lunar Gemini was not developed.

I can imagine.

But the American situation looks better in the Soviet-oriented updates; no worse than OTL, and no reason to doubt we could make the July 1969 moon landing date. (Whether that is good enough considering that the Soviet analog to OTL Apollo 10 is here Zond 11 and that happens in June of that year is another question--it is a question of, one, are the Americans really still on schedule relative to OTL, and two, can the Soviets manage to send up another N-1 launched mission in less than three weeks from their last one and beat Neil Armstrong or whoever is scheduled ITTL to hold his place to the Moon's surface?

I'm not revealing that at this time, all I'm going to say is that there can be two N1 rockets on the pad ready for liftoff at roughly the same time and that this was actually carried out by the Soviets in OTL.

With Zond 11 in June it doesn't look good for the Soviets getting there first--unless the Americans are just a little bit behind OTL. But if they were as far behind as the prior posts implied, with Apollo 8 not even being a moon-circling mission and postponed to April of '69, with the Soviets having already beaten the Americans to flying by the moon with earlier Zond missions...well, if it were that bad the Soviets would clearly be about to win in a cakewalk.

Just to clear up, the American Program is proceeding at the same rate as OTL and the prior Post has been retconned. It's tight.

Just how marginal LK is though depends on the exact details of its launch. To wit, Space Geek's prior attempt, Red Star, abandoned the idea that a single N-1 could possibly send a suitable suite of spacecraft for a lunar landing mission with decent odds of success. And this was wise, because even if the Soviets of this TL can reliably get 95 tons of payload into orbit with this timeline's version of N-1, without a hydrogen-burning upper stage in place of the kerosene burning G block, the load that can be sent to the Moon is much lower than what Apollo's Saturn V can send with its 100 ton hydrogen-oxygen burning third stage (itself launched atop another hydrogen burning second stage). Saturn both puts more mass, by ten or fifteen tons anyway, into orbit and then uses it more efficiently. One might not need the full 45 tons plus of an Apollo stack to do a successful Lunar landing and return--but every ton they take off marginalizes and eventually jeopardizes the mission. Therefore I think the earlier TL made the right call in rejecting the idea that a single N-1 launch can do the trick.

In this timeline the N1 design isn't significantly altered compared to OTL, however two major differences allow the N-1 to have successful launches in this timeline. The first is that development on the N1 starts in 1961/1962 not 1964 as in OTL and the second is that the Soviet space program is centralized into a single agency rather than spread over multiple design organizations, the army, the airforce etc. This in addition to the reforms of Khrushchev and Kosygin allow greater flexibility for schedules and greater quality controls to be put into place. To clarify, this is going to be a single launch architecture, that way we're not just copying Red Star. Given that it seems like nobody has tried the idea of a centralized Soviet Space Agency, I thought I might aswell. Not only does this allow the USSR to reach the Moon, it allows the kind of efficient use of resources necessary for our post 1969 objectives...

Sometime after the dramatic reveals are all done, and we know who gets to the Moon and back to Earth safely first in this TL, I think you should put the cards on the table and show us the masses and engine performance parameters of the stages on that N-1, including whatever it takes to put the LK and return Soyuz or Zond into LLO, and land the LK and bring it back up, and then push the manned return vehicle on back to Earth.

Alright.

It's a single launch architecture (but double launch in the sense that a second LK is landed for redundancy), I'l edit that out.

 

[Michel Van]

thx for remark Shevek23

Apollo 6 in October 1968 ?
That was Saturn V second problematic test flight on April 1968

Or do you mean Apollo 7 ?
That was launch on October 1968 to test the new CSM Block II, 21 months after Apollo one fire in January 1967
after this test NASA was sure that was save to fly to moon in CSM.
original had Apollo 8 a test flight for the Manned LM, but Grumman was unable to get "101 problems" under control
and since the Soviet "kick the US in Balls" with Zond 8 in September, NASA goes for Manned Moon Orbit flight in December. because Zond 8 was a fly by
sadly they can't Not speed thing up, just like Soviets they have there timetables and Problems to solve

Apollo 9 in march 1969 tested the manned LM in Low orbit
N1-L7 in same time brings L3-Complex unmanned in Moon orbit to qualify it for Manned flight. and test remote L-3 Complex in Moon orbit.
Apollo 10 in May 1969 made necessary test flight of LM in real condition
N1-L8 in June, 1969 bring first Cosmonauts in Moon orbit and land the backup LK for next Mission. (our original TL plan was for only two backup after that single mission launch)
acutely it was original plan envision for Soviet Moon landing !

L3-Complex Mission

Launch of N1
during stage separation it drop it Aerodynamic load-baring structure off, during Block B burn, the Aerodynamic cover of L3-Complex jettison.
L3-Complex reach low 200 km orbit (Block G/D, LK in load-baring structure and LOK)
during 17 orbit or 25 hours L3_complex is check true and prepare TLI
Block G makes it TLI burn and is jettison. if needed Block D makes additional burn to match speed
next 101 hours L3-complex on way to moon, with two mid curse correction on at 8 hours second at 21~10 hours before reaching the Moon
126 hours after launch or 5 days and 6 hours Block-D burn and enter L3-complex in 150 km Orbit around Moon
stay in Moon orbit is for 77 hours, first were to find the Lunokhod, then Block-D burn to bring L3 in 100 km x 20 km moon orbit.
After 11 orbit the LK pilot make EVA to LK enter it and detach from LOK and load-baring structure, so LK/Block-D is free
then LK Block-D make final burn down to Moon it goes. support by LOK
4 km above lunar surface Block-D is jettison, and LK pilot start landing maneuver and touch down, using the signal radio beacon of Lunokhod rover

Mission time on Moon were 6 hour up to 24 hours
were the Cosmonaut spent inside his Krechet suit because it also his Life support ( NOT INCLUDE In LK )
while Lunokhod drive toward landing site. Is Cosmonaut first task was 2 hour EVA, planned Action are

-Erect the Flag of USSR
-Deploy the Scientific equipment package "DALS"
-collect samples of Lunar soil
-Take photos
-make report to a Television camera

then he return into LK and fill up with air so he can open the suit face plate for drinking or eating, check lunar samples then himself and suit, then rest
if needed more EVA is made and if possible cosmonaut to hitchhike the Lunokhod rover (in case if LK malfunction, He is driven to backup LK)
in mean time LOK jettison LK load-baring structure and the LOK pilot take picture from Moon Surface.

LK upper part return to 100 km x 20 km moon orbit and is passive, while LOK do active part of Rendezvous docking
the LK do only rotation for proper orientation for docking mechanism
after docking the LK pilot make EVA with Photo and Lunar sample back into LOK utility module.
203 hours after launch the LK and utility module of LOK are jettison and LOK return to Earth (Decent/service Module)
It take 82 hours to return with two mid curse correction on at 24 and 44 after leaving Moon orbit.
2 hours before return the LOK rotate into correct angle and separate service Module
Decent Module make a Skip maneuver to slow down and reenter earth atmosphere to land in USSR or Indian Ocean
285 hours after Launch.

information from the best Book about N-1 rocket
N-1: For the Moon and Mars
Matthew Johnson, Nick Stevens, Alexander Shliadinsky, Igor Bezyaev and Vladimir Antipov
Arapress
ISBN 978-0-9899914-0-7

there source is Russian book
"Recollection of Lunar ships" by Filin Vyacheslav, who was engineer on LK during Soviet Moon Race.

 

[Athelstane]

Just a quick interjection

Proceeding from this clarification:

Just to clear up, the American Program is proceeding at the same rate as OTL and the prior Post has been retconned. It's tight.

....as it was in our timeline. NASA was running the program pedal to the metal.

That said, the Soviet successes are going to have butterflies on the American side. The whole point is not just to beat Kennedy's deadline, but to beat the Soviets as well. Now, despite a remarkable string of successes with fundamentally superior hardware, NASA is at risk for losing the race.

And that being the case, we have to look at Apollo 10. In our timeline, Apollo 10's mission was not without disagreement among NASA planners. As Charles Murray and Catherine Cox note in Apollo: The Race to the Moon (p. 244):

The F Mission, a lunar flight like Apollo 8, but with a LEM that would be manned and flown to within 47,000 feet of the lunar surface, came next. It was a controversial mission. Many in the space program—George Mueller among them—thought it foolish to go all the way out to the moon, take all the risks associated with the journey, and then stop nine miles short of the surface. If everything looked good, why not be prepared to take advantage of success and go all the way down?

Owen Maynard hadn’t included an F Mission in his original schedule. As far as the hardware was concerned, there was no need for it. D and E—or, as things worked out, C’ and D—had exercised all the systems under all the conditions they would have to face for a landing. But Maynard was part of ASPO. Over in the Flight Operations Directorate, Rod Rose and Carl Huss had been discussing the same problem and were insistent on having an F Mission. “We said that operationally we’d like to have everything else S.O.P, from beginning to end so that [the astronauts] had a storehouse of experience and knowledge,” Rose remembered, and there was a good reason for it. Learning to take the LEM from the command module down to 47,000 feet was a big job in itself, and Rose and Huss felt that the less that was new when the time finally came for the first landing, the better. So despite some spirited arguments within NASA itself, Apollo 10 with a crew of Tom Stafford, Gene Cernan, and John Young blasted off on May 18, 1969.

It does seem from the record that there was serious debate that Apollo 10 should do the landing, which makes it plausible that, under different circumstances, NASA might have taken the risk, with Rose losing the argument to Maynard and Mueller. And these are different circumstances.

Apollo 10's LM-4, as flown, could not have done a landing; the LM was too heavy (Grumman did not subject it to its Super Weight Improvement Program), lacked critical equipment, and was short-fueled. LM-5, however, *was* intended to land. And I have read that George Low apparently came up with a plan for Apollo 10 to use LM-5 for the flight since it was capable of landing to give them an earlier shot at landing on the Moon. However, Stafford turned down the idea saying there were too many unknowns to do a safe landing. As I understand it, however, using LM-5 would require delaying the mission into June, at least, to have it ready for use. Perhaps that could have been accelerated - but I doubt by very much.

If indeed, the Soviets have accomplished what they have in this timeline, I'd urge Spacegeek to give very serious consideration to NASA altering its plans, and having Apollo 10 attempt a first landing in June using LM-5. Of course, that would be a higher risk mission than our Apollo 11, given that it will not benefit from the lessons of the historical F Mission (Apollo 10). I don't think it's a slam dunk that this would have happened (the risks would certainly have been higher than with keeping an F Mission); but a well-contested dispute would have faced a stronger argument on the landing side. There would likely have been pressure from Washington, too.

 

[Shevek23]

All right, I've been checking over numbers as well as I can, considering I'm collating from diverse sources and that since the program never went forward OTL a lot of numbers remain speculative. But given the high ISP ker-lox engines developed OTL (around 350 for vacuum-firing engines, such as for the Block D and presumably Block G and for that matter blocks B and V) I can agree it is doable with the 95 ton to orbit payload given for a nominal N-1. Mind, I still don't like the "nominal" N-1 because of that pesky 6 engine cluster in the center that burns for only 30 seconds and yet can apparently wreck the whole stack. But IIRC you did get rid of that--I'm not sure you can then hit the 95 ton target.

But then again, some of the assumptions I made were pushing things a bit; if everything were squeezed down to bare bones margins except the engine ISPs I suspect that in a pinch a mission could be carried out with less than 90 tons placed in orbit. Vice versa, with the full 95 tons, there is margin to upgrade certain aspects of the mission above OTL targets, at least as they were settled down to late in the OTL program before cancellation. The LK for instance might be made toward the high end of its given mass ranges and maybe a bit more, so that in orbit after leaving the moon it masses the same as Apollo LM's dry ascent stage. (It still might not then be possible to include a second cosmonaut because the operational version of LK was going to be cluttered with all sorts of auxiliary equipment. Also mass balance considerations were a design nightmare; much of the clutter of LK of OTL was restraints to pin the cosmonaut in place!) Aside from opening up room for a second cosmonaut your own account points the way to upgrades that would be wanted for better performance and endurance such as;

A shirtsleeve LK environment for the single cosmonaut. This means either adding on an airlock also, or venting all the air and replacing it with reserves--the latter would mass less and the LK is already designed to have the interior exposed to vacuum so it is a matter of eliminating the clutter inside. The sources for OTL LK already give 5 cubic meters "habitable" volume for the LK which is more than two American astronauts needed (4.5) to take their suits off and put them back on. I daresay that the difference then is that the Americans stowed a lot of stuff that clutters that 5 meters in separate equipment bays, and that the LM had ample maneuvering thruster reserve to compensate for astronaut movement

Docking port to allow the LK to dock to the Soyuz orbital module and thus allow a transfer tunnel to eliminate the spacewalk to and from the LK.

Adding just a couple tons to the LK ought to enable a shirtsleeve environment and direct transfer for two cosmonauts. Another ton attached to the landing gear assembly would allow them to match consumables and Lunar surface equipment to match the endurance and mission capabilities of the LM.

Even when I upgraded the mass of the LK according to these, it did seem that the N-1 as given could orbit enough mass to send the upgraded L3 stack to the Moon.

I was however assuming Hohmann orbits and thus the delta-V to brake into low Lunar orbit and later escape it in the Soyuz would only be 850 m/sec instead of a thousand or more as per Apollo and its faster transfer orbit. But I did that because online sources suggest that Hohmann orbits were indeed going to be the Soviet plan, for missions that would orbit the Moon or land on it. Aside from the time lost in a longer transfer, this makes sense because the L3 architecture allows for backup in engines not found in Apollo. L3 uses the high-ISP ker-lox engine of the Block D for orbital insertion as well as the crasher for the LK; if it were to fail during attempted lunar orbital insertion the Soyuz main engine would still be available to escape a botched insertion and reorient toward an Earth return flight. Apollo would attempt the same sort of thing, in case of failure of the SM main engine, using the LM landing engine.

So it does seem that if the Soviets start out with the more severely limited LK, they have emergency margin in several forms to assure mission success, given they only attempt the limited mission the first draft LK could accomplish.

I did overlook that in a sense, y'all are doing something a little bit like Red Star, in that the "Apollo 10" type Zond-11 mission has pre-positioned a backup LK at the designated landing site. I guess this means that if the actual first manned LK main engine develops a fault during the final descent, and the cosmonaut is forced to activate the backup engine to land safely, then he'd ride the Lunokhod over to the other LK; with a proven main engine and also having its own backup engine he ought to be confident of reaching Lunar orbit.

So it is really not a one-launch mission nor even a two launch mission, but a three-launch mission--first the Lunokhod was sent up on a "Proton" N-2 nd landed to scout out the landing site and prepare the navigational beacons; then a manned L3 mission launched on an N1 prepositions the backup LK, finally the manned landing L3 mission is ready to go with navigational assistance for an efficient landing at a scouted landing site. Also, although the Lunokhod is only to be ridden in case of emergency, obviously the way is paved for future landing missions to avoid burdening the manned landing with extra equipment like a Moon Rover; that can be sent on separate, previous launches instead.

 

[Michel Van]

oh i'm sorry, Shevek23
i forgot to mention that ASTO L3-Complex not enter circular 150km moon orbit, but a in elliptical orbit of 150 x70 km for lower fuel consumption on Block-D

on LK yes it got 5 cubic meter volume but that is ENTIRE Craft, LK Crew compartment is pokey

A shirtsleeve environment for Comosnaut had LK NOT
because it missing the Life-support system, it got only Oxygen bottle to fill up Crew compartment after EVA, that's all
for carbon dioxide removal and temperature regulation was the responsibly of his Krechet spacesuit !
There vage plans to squeeze a second cosmonaut in Krechet spacesuit into LK, but that mean 3 man L3-Complex and i Have my doubt that N1 were feasible to bring that additional mass to the moon.

the reason for EVA in L3 Complex mission profile has two reason
Korolev consider EVA to be adequate and for Mass reduction dropping the Docking tunnel out the design, hey the cosmonaut is already in Spacesuit why need a docking tunnel ?
i love the elegance of Red Star L3 Complex, who circumnavigated those problems. while original and ASTO version of L3 Complex runs on Limit of realizable under that Launch mass.
i can already say that "Ministry of General Machine-Building Industry of USSR" is looking for second-generation Lunar lander, that has not problems of LK Crash program.

Just like NASA MoM run the program pedal to the metal, the soviet style...

On Apollo 10 it was necessary to flight test LM in real condition
year 1969 was still in the analog age, there were no high end computer simulation of LM possible, to see if spacecraft design with a slide rule work, you had to fly it.
the LM-4 was last orbital Test models to heavy for lunar landing, equipment was missing and fuel tank were were only partial filled to match LM operational mass.

before some mention why not launch Apollo 11 earlier ?
they have to get Hardware to kennedy Space Center (KSC) check it, install and assembly all together:
January 1969
LM-5 two parts arrive at KSC after acceptance test
S-IVB and CSM-107 parts arrive at KSC after acceptance test
LM-5 parts mated and integrated systems test
February
S-ii and S-CI arrive at KSC after acceptance test
IBM Saturn-IU arrive at Kennedy after acceptance test
combined CSM-107 integrated systems test
March
LM-5 and CSM-107 altitude testing in vacuum chamber and additional testing
April
CSM-107 and LM-5 is ready and move to VAB
assembly of Saturn V stages last integrated systems test on component
May
LM-5 and CSM-107 are put on Saturn V SA-506
integrated systems test on entire SA-506
rollout to launch pad 39 A, integration of SA-205 into launch pad infrastructure.
june
flight readiness test
June 26 Countdown Demonstration Test

now wait until Moon is right position for launch
and that is July 16, 1969; 9:32 a.m. EDT.