AHC : Soviet Moon Landing With Or Without Korolev Between 1968 and June 1969

[22000 Kevin]

Certain other people in the Soviet space program had big plans (Mikhail Tikhonravov) and a working N1 would be a major step towards the planned interplanetary missions that were proposed.

Yeah their were a lot of plans for the N1 rocket if it had worked.

I'll generally summarise what missions we likely would have seen with an working N1.

The large space stations and orbitial Nuclear reactors projects would have certainly be launched on top of an N1, with military funding being obviously required to actually get the expensive things off the ground.

The Soviet moon landings will happen either with the L3 or L3M landing profile alongside with the construction of the Zvezda moon base likely being attempted in the 1980s with political support coming from the Soviet Academy of Sciences and the Government for prestige and Communist propaganda reasons.

The Soviet interplantary robotic Mars plans with the N1 had the proposed 4MN mission that would land "Marsokhod" rovers (modified Lunokhod rovers) on Mars in order to test the technology and equipment that would later be used on the far more ambitious 5MN Mars Sample Return mission that requires a two stage rocket to get back to Earth in the span of over 10 months to deliver just 200 grams of Martian dust.

However if the US decides to retire the Saturn V and move on to the Space Transportation System (Space Shuttle) then its possible that the Soviet leadership and military will still gaslight themselves into believing that the Shuttle will somehow become a Nuclear Space Bomber and demand that the Soviet Space Program must develop their own similarly sized Space Shuttle (the Buran Shuttle for example). This will undoubtedly divert resources from the maned Lunar and robotic Mars missions with the N1 rocket being likely chosen to launch the Soviet Space Shuttle since their would be no justification to waste a ridiculous amount of resources and money to develop the Energia Rocket, this means that the Soviet Shuttle will have to ditch the aerodynamic shape of the OTL Buran Shuttle and be a more orginal desgin.

I'll end this comment here since their are plenty of possibilities of what the N1 could have done if the Soviets had put the moon rocket into mass production in the 1970s instead of the OTL result of cancelling it and wasting over a decade developing what would eventually become the Energia Rocket only for it to be immediately killed off years later by the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

 

[RanulfC]

Who needs the wimpy N1 when you can have this:

(From RussianSpaceWebdotCom)

And before we consider THIS the 'most toxic' possible configuration lets keep in mind that they considered a version with the upper stages powered by the RD-350 engine which used liquid fluorine as an oxidizer

Much as I dislike the toxic propellants used the UR-700 DESIGN philosophy actually fit the abilities of the Soviet Union far better than that of the N1. Maybe find a way to have Glushko and Korolev actually work together instead of being at loggerheads.

Randy

 

[Seandineen]

Brillant. I know Kosyigin wanted to keep Sergegi, and Beria's son, a brillant air craft designer, working together.
Mokionyan I know i miss spelled it, then an exiled ambassador, though the Soviets should take Kennedy up, on his offer of a joint mission.

 

[RanulfC]

Brillant. I know Kosyigin wanted to keep Sergegi, and Beria's son, a brillant air craft designer, working together.
Mokionyan I know i miss spelled it, then an exiled ambassador, though the Soviets should take Kennedy up, on his offer of a joint mission.

In context (at the time) the Soviets didn't gain anything from teaming up with the Americans. In fact doing so would show how marginal their 'technology' was compared to the Americans so of course they rejected the idea. Once they have advanced enough to the Soyuz, (or even the TKS which is I think a better 'path' ) then they will feel more confident about 'showing' off to the Americans.

Reading up more on the whole background I find that initially there was a point where it was Chelomei who initially sought engines from Kuznetsov and Tumansky, both of whom offered to design and built high-powered kerolox engines for him. (Arkhip Lylka, the head OKB-165 bureau was offering to build a hydrolox engine for Cheomei's rockets upper stage even )

Now in OTL Korolev immediately jumped in with his own plans and sought support from Glushko who insisted on designing a high powered booster using storable propellent which Korolev rejected, eventually moving on to work with Kuznetsov on kerolox engines for the N1 while Glushko then joined forces with Chelomei to develop the UR-500/Proton and work on the UR-700 concept. But what if...

Let's say that Korolev dies early and Glushko pushes for and gets control over his bureau but still has to deal with the fact that Chelomei has Khrushchev's 'favor' which OTL almost lead to Chelomei being the one who directed and planned the Soviet Space Program. Here it does but Chelomei is spreading the 'wealth' as it were of the Soviet rocket and missile program to many sectors of the aircraft industry that were being left out in the cold with the switch from Air Force to missiles. And Glushko is no Korolev so he's not as likely to force the compromises and changes that Korolev did OTL.

So you have Chelomei developing the UR-500 but it's more akin to the proposed UR-500MK rather than the "Proton" we all know and loath based on what is essentially the NK-33/43 engines of OTL's N1 without the baggage that came with the N1. Further Glushko is desperately trying to push Korolev's "Soyuz" including an "upgraded" R7 (using storable propellants and new engines) to loft it while Chelomei is pushing what will be OTL the TKS.

Ideally I'd like to see Khrushchev manage to last long TTL while supporting Chelomei in this scenario, maybe Nixon gets elected in 1960 and we end up with no Cuban Missile Crisis but he and Khrushchev find a way to negotiate the missiles out of Turkey and Italy anyway giving Khrushchev a political 'win' to keep him in power? As a problem though I don't see Nixon having any good reason to push for a lunar landing like Kennedy did so there's a motivational problem right from the get go in this case.

It's also possible that both Glushko and Chelomei might be able to convince the leadership that the American's are serious about going to the Moon or that Chelomei with a more successful "UR-500" under his belt might have enough 'cred' to push a more successful Soviet Lunar program with some real progress, (especially if Glushko is forced to develop a decent hydrolox engine earlier) that can actually compete with the Apollo program. It will still be close but again a more 'modular' big rocket might have succeeded where the monolithic N1 did not.

Thoughts?

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

Addendum:

LK-700: The Soviet Union’s Other Road to the Moon

What it was: Vladimir Chelomei’s plan for a direct-descent lunar lander. While never the forerunner for a Soviet Moon landing, it was always a strong alternative that Chelomei and his supporters ke…

falsesteps.wordpress.com

Lunar Orbit OPS

Lunar Orbit OPS

www.astronautix.com

LK-700

LK-700

www.astronautix.com

LK project

History of the LK-1 project by Anatoly Zak

www.russianspaceweb.com

UR-700 launch vehicle

The history of the UR-700 rocket by Anatoly Zak

www.russianspaceweb.com

Randy

 

[Insane Ranter]

You said landing. Do you need the guy to come back? Because a one-way trip might - just - be doable.

If we are building a base... Why do they need to come back? They will have everything they need on the moon! When the other rockets bring it. They will hold out for months!!

 

[RanulfC]

UR-500MK in Legos:

For reference (from "Rebrickable")

And a model from RussianSpaceWebdotCom:

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

If we are building a base... Why do they need to come back? They will have everything they need on the moon! When the other rockets bring it. They will hold out for months!!

Ya the American's proposed that back in 1962:

Space Race: The Notorious 1962 Proposal to Launch an Astronaut on a One-Way Trip to the Moon

The story of spaceflight told through missions and programs that did not happen - that is, the great majority of them.

spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com

One-Way Space Man (1962)

Most Apollo-era mission proposals had astronauts landing on the moon and returning home days later, but one idea in the stack was a one-way ticket to the lunar surface. Space historian David S. F. Portree describes this infamous case of desperation to win the space race and the idea's surprising...

www.wired.com

Missions that Weren't: One-Way Mission to the Moon

[/caption] When President Kennedy promised America a lunar landing in 1961, he effectively set the Moon as the finish line in the space race. In the wake of his speech, NASA began scrambling to find a way to reach the Moon in advance of the Soviet Union, which at the time held a commanding lead...

www.universetoday.com

If we're being honest they DO need to come back at some point because the whole point is not just to get there and die but to show you can get there, work there and then come back to do it all over again. A base is not a colony it's only an outpost you visit and it's not going to be either easy or cheap to build something that can sustain people on the Moon for any length of time, even for short periods.

Needless to say it's a LOT more complicated than you might think and the risk is very, very high. Failure is a good way to get your entire program canceled and neither side was really willing to risk people like that. Keep in mind that at first you're not even sure you can keep someone alive in space long term, let alone the Moon and it turned out the Lunar surface was going to be a lot more difficult and dangerous than they though in ways they hadn't anticipated.

Randy

 

[Insane Ranter]

Ya the American's proposed that back in 1962:

Space Race: The Notorious 1962 Proposal to Launch an Astronaut on a One-Way Trip to the Moon

The story of spaceflight told through missions and programs that did not happen - that is, the great majority of them.

spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com

One-Way Space Man (1962)

Most Apollo-era mission proposals had astronauts landing on the moon and returning home days later, but one idea in the stack was a one-way ticket to the lunar surface. Space historian David S. F. Portree describes this infamous case of desperation to win the space race and the idea's surprising...

www.wired.com

Missions that Weren't: One-Way Mission to the Moon

[/caption] When President Kennedy promised America a lunar landing in 1961, he effectively set the Moon as the finish line in the space race. In the wake of his speech, NASA began scrambling to find a way to reach the Moon in advance of the Soviet Union, which at the time held a commanding lead...

www.universetoday.com

If we're being honest they DO need to come back at some point because the whole point is not just to get there and die but to show you can get there, work there and then come back to do it all over again. A base is not a colony it's only an outpost you visit and it's not going to be either easy or cheap to build something that can sustain people on the Moon for any length of time, even for short periods.

Needless to say it's a LOT more complicated than you might think and the risk is very, very high. Failure is a good way to get your entire program canceled and neither side was really willing to risk people like that. Keep in mind that at first you're not even sure you can keep someone alive in space long term, let alone the Moon and it turned out the Lunar surface was going to be a lot more difficult and dangerous than they though in ways they hadn't anticipated.

Randy

Lots of good information!
I was trying to be silly in the vein of stories of Soviets sending troops into battle with pikes and being told to pick up rifles to fight. In other words, Soviets were being uncaring for their troops or in this case cosmonauts.

 

[RanulfC]

Lots of good information!

Your welcome

I was trying to be silly in the vein of stories of Soviets sending troops into battle with pikes and being told to pick up rifles to fight. In other words, Soviets were being uncaring for their troops or in this case cosmonauts.

Well in context front-line "troops" are arguably a "dime-a-dozen" (not sure what the Russian equivalent is but you get the idea ) whereas the Cosmonauts were both higher investment and higher 'status' as it were so it would literally be a 'silly' idea. NOT, mind you, that they might not consider it. After all the Americans (unofficially) did and despite what many people think both the military and civilian side were a lot more risk averse even back then.

The thing is I've got notes on the idea of the US doing a 'one-way' mission in a context where is makes sense but given the Soviet aversion to 'bad-press' (and especially with their space program) I just can't see a way to justify them seriously considering the idea.

Randy

 

[neopeius]

In my Sputniks timeline (q.v.) it required two major PODs, one in 1960, the other in 1963.

1) Korolev fired Glushko earlier and brought on Kuznetzov. This was born from (unwarranted) suspicion. Kuznetzov rolled really well and got the N-1's kinks worked out earlier.
2) A weak, conciliatory conversation with Koslov emboldened him to launch a coup attempt. Khruschev knocked it down with ease, and he ended up in a stronger position such that he was able to ease a transition to Brezhnev. The Soviet economy was cast into less disarray as a result (though not none).

The Soviets still don't beat the Americans to the moon, but they do land in October 1969, which is significant in and of itself. However, fatal flaws inherent in their transstage cause them never to repeat the feat. As a result, the space race peters out a la OTL (though a bit more advanced, and water on the moon is discovered).

There is no way the Soviets get to the moon first with a POD so late that the American program remains completely unchanged. That was my problem with FaM's premise.

 

[22000 Kevin]

As a result, the space race peters out a la OTL

Skimming through the timeline I'm not sure if the space race would truly peter out after skimming through the TL since the Soviets would have likely returned humans to the moon with an improved N1.

OTL if I remember correctly the Soviets were committing themselves to "leap frogging" the Apollo mission after losing the race to the moon with developing the much improved L3M lander and the DLB Lunar base that they were building in the early 1970s OTL, the moon base project was able to receive serious funding from the Ministry of Defense as they backed project in 1969 after losing the race to the moon, with even Secretary Ustinov agreeing that the project should go ahead after a lengthy 6 hour meeting with the Chief Designer of the Moon base in 1971.

Of course I have no idea of what the POD's in your story did to the entire Soviet space program, from what I've seen things are radically different with the 1960 POD and its possible that something happened in the story that effectively killed any chance of the Soviets returning to the moon.

 

[aaronupright]

For all Mankind depicts ironically perhaps the only "realistic" way the Soviets will beat the Americans to the moon. Do full Hail Mary to get to the moon before Apollo 11 (which as some have postulated was being done OTL during the June 1969 N1 launch).
Except it wasn't just a Hail Mary. It was a Hail Mary, leaving 3 seconds on the clock, a two point conversion followed by an onside kick recovery and another successful Hail Mary and two point conversion.
Theoretically possible? Yes. Likely? Eh, there probably is a universe where it happened.

 

[jlckansas]

Liquid Fluorine? Why not F2O2, good ol'fashioned FOOF, the bane of propellent engineers everywhere. Use that with some Chlorine TriFluoride and you might have something.

 

[Juumanistra]

Liquid Fluorine? Why not F2O2, good ol'fashioned FOOF, the bane of propellent engineers everywhere. Use that with some Chlorine TriFluoride and you might have something.

I mean, sure, FOOF spontaneously explodes in the dark of its own accord or for no reason at all. But it's dark inside a propellant tank! And an explosion resides in the same conceptual neighborhood as what happens in a rocket engine, so I'm sure it will be fine.

 

[Seandineen]

For all Mankind depicts ironically perhaps the only "realistic" way the Soviets will beat the Americans to the moon. Do full Hail Mary to get to the moon before Apollo 11 (which as some have postulated was being done OTL during the June 1969 N1 launch).
Except it wasn't just a Hail Mary. It was a Hail Mary, leaving 3 seconds on the clock, a two point conversion followed by an onside kick recovery and another successful Hail Mary and two point conversion.
Theoretically possible? Yes. Likely? Eh, there probably is a universe where it

I know it won;t but i'd love to see a timeline of a joint mission. Korlev, and Von Braun as partners.

 

[RanulfC]

I know it won;t but i'd love to see a timeline of a joint mission. Korlev, and Von Braun as partners.

It'd be great but the background to achieve it is pretty close to ASB given the circumstances. The Soviets were literally being 'ducks' here with a calm and clear 'approach' above water while paddling like hell below the water line They'd (and frankly no one else did either) never considered the propaganda windfall of being 'first' into space and they needed everything they had to keep that going AND to not have anyone look too close at their (advanced) technology.

A slower paced race might have ended up in a joint Lunar mission by the mid-70s, or we could have just ended up sniping each other into keeping things going.

And what the hey, lets just toss in Hazygrayart's UR-700 video for fun:

Randy