Well I'm not aware of any potential thruster issues and I can't recall what incident your referring to, aborting the lunar mission and returning to Earth should be relatively speaking "easy" enough to do...
I'd assume a lot of secondary cocooning with some sort of boundary between the capsule and the interior because the hypergolic propellants for the RCS will leak slightly no matter how 'sealed' they are and in a 'contained' area they will build up.
Well the leadership may be an complete mess of disinterest and Military influenced programs with plenty of infighting and backstabbing but at least the Lunar Program will still always be supported by the Academy of Sciences no matter what happens in the 1970s, The Military will be interested in the massive Space Stations (MKBS) that the rocket could launch into low Earth orbit which will certainly help to keep the N1 rocket alive in the Brezhnev era and forced the US to respond with their own Space station.
And there's the problem because it's an "either/or" situation since they can have a "Big Space Station" OR they can "Go To The Moon" they can't do both.
Speaking of the leadership they are likely to get terrified from the American Space Shuttle, so a mountain of workers and resources will be throw into the Space Program to build the ATL Buran Shuttle, which will logically be launched on top of the N1 Rocket, even if their are some complains from the Leadership wanting to copy the American Space Shuttle its likely that a
MTKVP design type Soviet Space Shuttle will be built instead of OTL Buran.
They might but that would depend on background factors because "if" the Soviets have a "heavy rocket" then there is incentive for the US to keep a "heavy rocket" of some type which itself feeds into the design of TTL's "Shuttle" which might therefore be very different from OTL Shuttle. (All things being equal there might NOT be enough incentive but a "Saturn Shuttle" could well be in the cards which will have different effects on the Soviet leadership)
The ATL Buran will unfortunately delay the L3M missions for a few years but will ultimately pay off in the 1980s with a Space Shuttle that is more impressive than the one in OTL and ultimately cheaper without bankrupting the USSR with developing the costly Energia Rocket, although launching the entire DLB Lunar base won't be cheap...
By the mid-80s the Soviet economy is going to still be in trouble and if they haven't gone to the Moon before that they won't be going no matter how 'cheap' TTL's "Buran" is.
President Reagan is likely to focus on defeating the Soviets on planet Earth and not on the moon, so NASA will likely not suddenly be given a surge between the Carter and Reagan years at all. At best they will be given a budget increase to make the Shuttle safer after a inevitable disaster happens and along with money required to build the Shuttle-C and Space station, but that will overall slow down the entire Shuttle program by months, the end of the Cold War will worsen the situation for NASA and likely lead to Congress slowly draining the surge, with underfunding and cost overruns to become far more prevalent over the decades, the possibility of poor decisions eventually being made with occasional Congressional interference and ultimately outright program cancellations will occur sooner or later until private Space flight takes off in the 21st century.
If the Soviets are going to the Moon then Reagan has to respond, now how willing Congress is to support that it an open question (without some significant butterflies likely not but again having the Soviets actually GO to the Moon is a major butterfly, Congress was after all willing to support a competing Space Station to match the Soviets... Just not Freedom and what NASA really wanted
) but there has to be a response given the rhetorical and confrontational nature of the Reagan administration.
Yes very much Reagan was out to 'defeat' the Soviets on Earth but them going to the Moon is a direct challenge to American 'supremacy' in space which effects things on Earth as we well know and at a time where appearing 'weak' anywhere was a 'win' for the Soviets. Congress can balk but given the Moon was seen by one and all as an "American Triumph" challenging that if going to have outsized effects on the American psyche, especially if it happens while we're 'between' Apollo and what comes next. That's going to very much feed into American insecurities that developed in the mid-to-late 70s and propelled Reagan into the White House in the first place.
If the Soviets go with the original LK plan and land a couple of Cosmonauts a couple of places and bring back some small samples that's not going to be thought of much. But again if they appear to do it "better" than the US that's a direct challenge and danger to our legacy which will not stand.
Yeah um, Workable Goblin already explained why it would not work. With the Space station and the orbital transfer vehicle missing.
No I took it as him noting how my assertation that the "plans" would not be 'similar' as I suggested since those plans included other aspects to overcome the shortcomings in the systems. But you could still do it with orbital rendezvous and no space station, (I was actually thinking "
Early Lunar Access" concept not FLO) if we had to and we'd have to since we had no space station at the time the Shuttle first flew. (And again it would be an either or decision for the US as well as public and political will would only likely support one of the other IF there was enough incentive to try and 'math' the Soviets)
If the Soviets don't go to the Moon then the US will still see itself (as will most of the world) as the premier Space power so as per OTL we won't likely change much in our response to the Soviets having the N1. We might pursue the Shuttle-C to get a higher payload to orbit than the Shuttle alone but then again, like OTL we may not do much of anything until the late 80s. If the Soviets do and do so in a manner that seems to threaten the US legacy then there will have to be a response.
Randy
