A Zarya station with nuclear reactor that power Ion engines could do Venus-Mars Flyby mission
but with reduce crew of 2 cosmonauts with TKS filled to max with supplies.
What is the value of a manned flyby?
Last edited:
A Zarya station with nuclear reactor that power Ion engines could do Venus-Mars Flyby mission
but with reduce crew of 2 cosmonauts with TKS filled to max with supplies.
Bragging rights, political capital, public standing,What is the value of a manned flyby?
I'll bet that having a nuclear reactor powering -4 will be a dealbreaker for ESA and JaxaAlthough I still imagine it's post-Columbus. ESA and Jaxa decide to construct an MIR-style station around Zarya 4.
Its political suicide to fly another one, RBMK reactors were axed due to western political pressureI do hope Zarya 4 will still have a nuclear reactor but with improvements (and if possible with Western input)
Isn't the Zarya module built with interplanetary travel in mind? Maybe Glushko could pull a stunt like that for a Venus-Mars flyby? Zarya 3 worked for 4 years without problems so... It would also expand on the OTL of how a cosmonaut went to space under the Soviet Union flag and returned under the Russian one.
Nuclear reactors in space will be HIGHLY controversial and political after Zarya-3A Zarya station with nuclear reactor that power Ion engines could do Venus-Mars Flyby mission
but with reduce crew of 2 cosmonauts with TKS filled to max with supplies.
Nothing but pictures, prestige and astronauts with bone density issuesWhat is the value of a manned flyby?
Bragging rights, political capital, public standing,
The assertion that your space program went....
Farther
As a kind of sum it up in onePropaganda.
Rendevousing with a pre placed tank is hard to do with a flyby, borderline impossible with given fuel constraintsYou can always, like GB-1, fire the braking element earlier and dock it for braking.
That's three N1 launches, Two for Zarya, who spiral unmanned from low to cislunar space.we are talking AT LEAST 2 N1 launches and then a Vulkan for TKS, and with modifications the ships themselves would be vastly different
PropogandaWhat is the value of a manned flyby?
Second from left.Rendevousing with a pre placed tank is hard to do with a flyby, borderline impossible with given fuel constraints
And leaving one in Mars or Venus orbit to rendevous with and use is risky, if the tanks don't work or somethings wrong (computer fried to exploded), the crew will have no way to slow down and be dead due to their ship flying past earth too fast. In the Martian the MAV's and base are preplaced on Mars, if something goes wrong the Hermes transport will not brake at mars, so it returns to earth
Mars is only worth it for landing or a orbital flight (way less worth it), and Venus is borderline "why bother" as its mostly clouds anyways, its not like you can SEE anything
(What is GB-1?)
As others have said, the value is most propaganda and one-upmanship. There probably is *some* value in gaining experience sustaining human life over interplanetary distances as well as interplanetary communications, but other goals such as pretty pictures or probes are easily achieved, with much less risk and much less budget, through uncrewed missions.What is the value of a manned flyby?
I thought you were referring to a manned flyby of Mars or Venus, flybys cant rendevous with other vessels (without using a bunch of fuel)
Second from left.
One of the elements of Sweden. The braking element with which LEK encounters in lunar orbit.
He's saying that the L3M (with crew) vehicle goes to the moon, connects to the breaking stage and then enters orbit.I thought you were referring to a manned flyby of Mars or Venus, flybys cant rendevous with other vessels (without using a bunch of fuel)
But lunar orbit rendevous for fuel tanks is fine
A lot of people here talked about flyby missions, which as many of you put it, are pretty much worthless outside of the propaganda. However, if soviets did something like a high elliptical Venus orbit, they could spend around a month on orbit studying the planet.Isn't the Zarya module built with interplanetary travel in mind? Maybe Glushko could pull a stunt like that for a Venus-Mars flyby? Zarya 3 worked for 4 years without problems so... It would also expand on the OTL of how a cosmonaut went to space under the Soviet Union flag and returned under the Russian one.
Okay but what can a crewed mission like that, with all of its life support requirements and extra mass do that an automated probe cannot? Besides look cool, I mean....However, if soviets did something like a high elliptical Venus orbit, they could spend around a month on orbit studying the planet.
That stage is used for decent, not braking into lunar orbitHe's saying that the L3M (with crew) vehicle goes to the moon, connects to the breaking stage and then enters orbit.
Venus orbital or Mars orbital flights require lots of more fuel, in this case you could pre-place fuel tanks in orbit to refuel for the trip home (or build a bigger tank stack)A lot of people here talked about flyby missions, which as many of you put it, are pretty much worthless outside of the propaganda. However, if soviets did something like a high elliptical Venus orbit, they could spend around a month on orbit studying the planet.
Sure, they would need to make a spacecraft that can survive for more than a year and a half in space, but it would be more rewarding trip than just a single flyby.
Here's the link to the study from 1967 about possible crewed Venus orbit mission using Apollo technologies: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19670017910
Sending a atmosphereic skimmer is one thing, having that manned is anotherOkay but what can a crewed mission like that, with all of its life support requirements and extra mass do that an automated probe cannot? Besides look cool, I mean....
(To maybe answer my own question a bit, if the bring along an atmosphere-skimming 'not-quite-a-lander' it might be easier to pull off a sample return with hands on-site to manage the orbital rendezvous. That said, I doubt the drawbacks are worth it.)
Well, given that Glushko is trying to one-upmanship Mishin since the N1 started flying, and the Soviet ministers are looking for propaganda wins (Moon base, French landing) to make people turn away from their economic problems. And given that Zarya was crewed for 4 years without pause is a good onlook for any potential long term missions that might otherwise not have been considered realistically.Ok guys, the timeline is in the late 80s, a Venus flyby is largely off the table for the soviets, the investment in equipment, launches and RnD time are filled by Baikal, Lunar missions and possibly another Station
alot of the idea's for flyby's come from the 60s, Apollo applications was alot of wierd stuff and the Soviets had idea's that the politburo would never approve
Its high risk low reward, why bother, anything outside of bringing back Martian dirt is worthless for the risks
And don't forget the modifications NEEDED for the misson, we are talking 2-3 N1 launches and Vulkan
A probe can do the work of a astronaut, why bother sending a dude that far
Ok guys, the timeline is in the late 80s, a Venus flyby is largely off the table for the soviets, the investment in equipment, launches and RnD time are filled by Baikal, Lunar missions and possibly another Station
alot of the idea's for flyby's come from the 60s, Apollo applications was alot of wierd stuff and the Soviets had idea's that the politburo would never approve
Its high risk low reward, why bother, anything outside of bringing back Martian dirt is worthless for the risks
And don't forget the modifications NEEDED for the misson, we are talking 2-3 N1 launches and Vulkan
A probe can do the work of a astronaut, why bother sending a dude that far
Long duration outside Earth SOI requires tons of extra supplies and spare parts and equipment, one launch for Zarya, likely without a reactor due to political pressures, one for a supply module and fuel, another launch for the booster stage, and a Vulkan for TKSWell, given that Glushko is trying to one-upmanship Mishin since the N1 started flying, and the Soviet ministers are looking for propaganda wins (Moon base, French landing) to make people turn away from their economic problems. And given that Zarya was crewed for 4 years without pause is a good onlook for any potential long term missions that might otherwise not have been considered realistically.
Also, you make a great big deal of launching 3 N1s and a Vulkan, the N1s and Vulkans are relatively cheap compared to their western equivalents. The N1 is probably 30% the price of a Saturn V by this point given how many they built and are still building. I don't think the Soviets have a launcher problem (using more than 1 for a mission/program) but a developmental one, for new probes and modules.
An orbital mission would get more prestige and really fuck with the americans, the risk is the engines not working for the return flight.Well if we're talking just a flyby I'd agree with most of this. (Except maybe probe versus Cosmonaut in the Soviet era ) But there was an idea that became more prominent OTL in the late 90s of a non-landing mission to Mars specifically, (but some studies included a Venus flyby) which concentrated on both retrieving Martian soil samples and an extensive study of the Martian moons as a precursor for ISRU for a landing mission. It would 'fit' into the Soviet "justification" propaganda as a "logical first step" and a blackeye to the American's saying while their program seems lag the American one we too can "leapfrog"
Now whether anyone would buy off on this is of course a question but it might be worth the risk.
Randy
In the case of a mission to Venus, I would like to use it for braking purposes.That stage is used for decent, not braking into lunar orbit