How to get the Soviets first AROUND the Moon (not to the surface)

[Archibald]

It wouldn't be too hard to have the Soviets first around the Moon early 1969.

Let's suppose the second Saturn V, April 4, 1968, blew up in flight. OTL the flight was a disaster, none of the three stages working too well (S-IC pogoed, S-II lost engines, S-IVB did not restarted).
George Low decision of sending Apollo 8 around the Moon without a LM would be even harder, if not impossible.
In fact Apollo 8 might be a hybrid of Apollo 7 and Apollo 9 - low Earth orbit with a Saturn V but without a LM.
First Apollo to orbit the Moon would be Apollo 10 in May 1969.

Meanwhile on the other side of the Iron Curtain, Zond 7 was to carry Leonov and Makarov around the Moon in March 1969.
http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/craft/soyz7kl1.htm

I wonder if the Soviet first around the Moon could turn the tide of the Moon race...

 

[brovane]

It wouldn't be too hard to have the Soviets first around the Moon early 1969.

Let's suppose the second Saturn V, April 4, 1968, blew up in flight. OTL the flight was a disaster, none of the three stages working too well (S-IC pogoed, S-II lost engines, S-IVB did not restarted).
George Low decision of sending Apollo 8 around the Moon without a LM would be even harder, if not impossible.
In fact Apollo 8 might be a hybrid of Apollo 7 and Apollo 9 - low Earth orbit with a Saturn V but without a LM.
First Apollo to orbit the Moon would be Apollo 10 in May 1969.

Meanwhile on the other side of the Iron Curtain, Zond 7 was to carry Leonov and Makarov around the Moon in March 1969.
http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/craft/soyz7kl1.htm

I wonder if the Soviet first around the Moon could turn the tide of the Moon race...

Apollo-8 entered lunar orbit. A free return trajectory around the Moon is not the same thing as dropping into Lunar Orbit and then getting back out to come home.

You might very well has this scenario. Apollo-7 launches on schedule as a test of the CSM in Earth Orbit using a Saturn-1B. Apollo-8 launches in December as another un-manned test of the Saturn-V rocket (SA-503). If Apollo-8 goes well at this point you have a couple of options.

#1- Does Apollo-9 get moved from a Earth Orbit mission to a Lunar Orbit, not likely considering the LM had not been tested in Earth Orbit.

#2- This means Apollo-10 occurs as historical but it is the first lunar orbit mission.

#3- If the Soviets get a Capsule on a free return trajectory around the Moon before the US I am not sure how this would be viewed. I am sure the Soviets would take about how they reached the Moon first.

#4- For the US this really screws up the Apollo crew selection because if Apollo-8 gets moved to a un-manned mission what happens to the Apollo-8 crew of Borman, Lovell and Anders. The Apollo-9 crew with McDivitt isn't going to get bumped since they are the LM experts. Not sure if Deke would bump all the crews back one which means you have Borman, Lovell and Anders flying Apollo-10 and Stafford, Young and Cernan flying Apollo-11.

 

[nixonshead]

The single biggest thing you could do to get them around the Moon first is cut out the in-fighting and duplication of effort between the Chief Designers. Get them to agree one approach and stick to it. Soviets first around the Moon then becomes relatively simple, which is why Kennedy specified the lunar surface first - a much better chance of ensuring a US victory.
The technical challenge is less of an issue, as they basically had the tools available for a flyby (either Proton or N-II with Zond/Soyuz or LK-1), but lost development time to political fights.
How you solve the in-fighting is another question, and not an easy one, as the Soviet power structure in general in the 50s and 60s seemed to like keeping factions squabbling amongst themselves (divide-and-rule).

 

[Michel Van]

The Soviet could have launch Zond earlier had it not so much Problem

1967
Cosmos 145 Boilerpate manage complete mission.
Cosmos 154 Boilerplate because Block D failure, probe remain low orbit
Zond 67A Failure in Proton Rocket First stage, because a A cork plug came loose...
Zond 67B Failure in Proton Rocket second stage, it's engines failed to ignite.
1968
Zond 4 almost normal flight but on re-entry the L1's guidance system failed. the APO destruct system automatically blew up the capsule near africa coast.
Zond 68A Failure in Proton Rocket second stage, it's engines explode 260 second after ignition.
Zond 68B Block D stage exploded on pad, killing three people.
Zond 5 First flight manage complete mission, but on re-entry the L1's guidance system failed, capsule land in Indian ocean.
Zond 6 Second flight capsule depressurized during flight
December 1968, Apollo 8 orbit the Moon, the Politburo cancels the manned Zond program
1969
Zond 69A Failure in Proton Rocket second stage, it's engine shutdown to early
Zond L1-S1 Failure in N1 Moon rocket first stage.
Zond 7 Third flight manage complete mission
1970
Zond 8 Four Flight manage complete mission

you see the culprit here is the Proton rocket with three lost and Block D with Two lost and L1's guidance system problem
what let to long series of unmanned Test flights
Had N2 used and it was bug free. The Soviet could launch in 1968 in September or November a manned Soyuz L1-1 around the Moon merely a fly by
So Apollo 8 would be first in Moon orbit,

But what if Apollo 8 would have delay to March 1969 ?
This was original plan as Grumman was unable to get 110 problems out LM-3

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

How about launching only the Block D on the Proton. When it is clear that the Block D is working properly the Soyuz/Zond is launched by R-7 to dock with the Block D in Earth orbit.

It's a more expensive mission than launching them together and there is the risk that the docking attempt could fail. However, if the batteries in the Block D last long enough a second Zond can be sent up. The Americans did that with some of the Agena targets during the Gemini programme so the Russians might "have the technology" to do that too. However, it has some attractive advantages.

1) Proton was very unreliable at this time. The Soviets don't loose 2 cosmonauts if it fails because they are launched separately on the more reliable R-7.

2) The Zond spacecraft can be the standard Soyuz 7K-OK instead of the lightweight version used in the real world. More oxygen, more fuel, extra backup systems, less testing required due to standardisation with the "official" Soyuz and possibly cheaper to build because of standardisation.

3) The Block D can carry more fuel and more backup systems to improve its reliability if it is launched separately.

 

[Michel Van]

How about launching only the Block D on the Proton. When it is clear that the Block D is working properly the Soyuz/Zond is launched by R-7 to dock with the Block D in Earth orbit.

It's a more expensive mission than launching them together and there is the risk that the docking attempt could fail. However, if the batteries in the Block D last long enough a second Zond can be sent up. The Americans did that with some of the Agena targets during the Gemini programme so the Russians might "have the technology" to do that too. However, it has some attractive advantages.

1) Proton was very unreliable at this time. The Soviets don't loose 2 cosmonauts if it fails because they are launched separately on the more reliable R-7.

2) The Zond spacecraft can be the standard Soyuz 7K-OK instead of the lightweight version used in the real world. More oxygen, more fuel, extra backup systems, less testing required due to standardisation with the "official" Soyuz and possibly cheaper to build because of standardisation.

3) The Block D can carry more fuel and more backup systems to improve its reliability if it is launched separately.

It seems that someone in USSR had same idea
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/theoblem.htm

Alternative, Korolev planed original Soyuz with Rendezvous with several stage launch by R-7

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

How about launching only the Block D on the Proton. When it is clear that the Block D is working properly the Soyuz/Zond is launched by R-7 to dock with the Block D in Earth orbit.

It's a more expensive mission than launching them together and there is the risk that the docking attempt could fail. However, if the batteries in the Block D last long enough a second Zond can be sent up. The Americans did that with some of the Agena targets during the Gemini programme so the Russians might "have the technology" to do that too. However, it has some attractive advantages.

1) Proton was very unreliable at this time. The Soviets don't loose 2 cosmonauts if it fails because they are launched separately on the more reliable R-7.

2) The Zond spacecraft can be the standard Soyuz 7K-OK instead of the lightweight version used in the real world. More oxygen, more fuel, extra backup systems, less testing required due to standardisation with the "official" Soyuz and possibly cheaper to build because of standardisation.

3) The Block D can carry more fuel and more backup systems to improve its reliability if it is launched separately.

Sounds good to me.

If the Soviets do a 'free return flight', does the American public understand the difference between that and OTL's Apollo 8's lunar orbit?

If the USSR is 'first to the moon' (free return flight), does that give them the impetus to iron out the N-1's problems to up the US on another lunar spectacular? Like a 'lunar base' (OK, so just a logistics module landed earlier so the landing crew can spend a month+ exploring.)

Which leads to a real US base? Maybe?

 

[Athelstane]

Apollo-8 entered lunar orbit. A free return trajectory around the Moon is not the same thing as dropping into Lunar Orbit and then getting back out to come home.

In the popular perception, however, there won't be all that much difference between a circumlunar flight and a lunar orbit flight. The point is, the Soviets would have gotten to cislunar space first. They had "gone to the Moon," just not all the way down to the surface.

And that would be a major achievement, just as Apollo 8 was.

Technically, of course, insertion into and and out of lunar orbit *is* a more impressive feat, and a necessary one (given the technology of the day) for a lunar surface mission. But if the Americans do that after a Leonov circumlunar flight, it will look like just a marginal one-up-manship achievement.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

It seems that someone in USSR had same idea
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/theoblem.htm

Alternative, Korolev planed original Soyuz with Rendezvous with several stage launch by R-7

That's where I got the idea from. I suggested exactly the same thing on the Make Proton More Reliable thread. I also wrote an alternative timeline about it years ago and posted part of it on the Make Proton More Reliable thread.

 

[Athelstane]

As it was, even with all the infighting in Soviet space efforts, the USSR appears to have come much, much closer than most people realize to beating the U.S. to cislunar space. The best public work on this is that of Peter Pesavento and Charles Vick in an epic two-part article in the scholarly space journal Quest (2004 issues Volume 11, numbers 1 and 2) - not available online, unfortunately.

But Astronautix has a summary article that explains much of it.

Even after the Soviet Union collapsed, there was still some very strange holes even in the revised narrative of what the Soviets had been doing:

A simple, powerful, and long-known example is found in Kamanin's diary. Kamanin was the commander of the cosmonauts, and the only participant who left behind what are purportedly contemporary diary entries. Kamanin worked tirelessly to beat the Americans in the space race. He worked every Sunday, never took more than a few days real vacation from 1960 on. He attended nearly every key State Commission meeting and launch related to the Soviet manned space program during the moon race.

In his diary entry for November 26, 1968, Kamanin identifies the last Soviet L1 launch window before Apollo 8 as December 8-12, 1968. At this crucial point in the space race, his diary entry for 29 November suddenly notes that there is to be an L1 State Commission meeting 'that will consider many fundamental questions of the program' -- but that he will be unable to attend since he has to go to a reunion of his World War II regiment in the Far East (!) The diary entries resume on 7 December, and then only concern cosmonaut centre administrative matters, and perhaps retroactively interpolated diatribes as to why the Soviets are losing the moon race.

More specifically:

...Using this and many other elements, Pesavento and Vick put together a strong case of additional evidence connecting the Soyuz program with the L1 and L3 programs. They then move on to provide independent evidence of frantic Soviet efforts, not mentioned in any memoirs, to launch both an L1 and a Soyuz spacecraft in December 1968.

Studying declassified Corona spy satellite photographs,Vick is able to show that there was substantial unexplained activity at the Baikonur cosmodrome during December 1968. Although no photographs exist during the 8-12 December launch window, images made during a pass on 15 December show a Soyuz spacecraft - booster combination mounted on its pad and the Proton pad gantry in position, although no booster is mounted. A week later, the Soyuz booster is being removed from its pad, but now a Proton - L1 combination is on the Proton pad. This seems to clearly indicate that attempts were being made, right up to and beyond the day Apollo 8 was launched, to beat the Americans to the moon. The authors theorise that an attempt at a manned launch to the moon using the two-launch podsadka scenario was attempted, but that some serious spacecraft problem must have resulted in the Proton launch being scrubbed.

With the successful return of Apollo 8 from lunar orbit at the end of December, the race to put a man around the moon was won by the United States. Further manned L1 flights were cancelled as pointless.

If this is indeed the case, the Soviets came very close to putting up a cislunar flight just days before Apollo 8 (whether it would have been a successful mission is, of course, a separate question, and an even riskier proposition than Apollo 8 was). And if that's the case, you don't necessarily need a big or very early point of departure to make it happen.

Of course, the reality is that we still don't know just what all the problems were with the Proton and L1/L3 at that point in time - and we may never know. But it certainly does seem to be the case that the Soviets thought they were close enough to having the problems fixed that it was worth the effort to get rockets out to the pad at Baikonur right up to the last minute.

 

[Athelstane]

Sounds good to me.

If the Soviets do a 'free return flight', does the American public understand the difference between that and OTL's Apollo 8's lunar orbit?

If the USSR is 'first to the moon' (free return flight), does that give them the impetus to iron out the N-1's problems to up the US on another lunar spectacular? Like a 'lunar base' (OK, so just a logistics module landed earlier so the landing crew can spend a month+ exploring.)

Which leads to a real US base? Maybe?

As I said above, I think that, while efforts to explain the difference in popular media would have some effect, in the popular perception, it won't amount to much difference. "The Reds got to the Moon first." The only way to really trump them now is boots on the ground first. Getting to lunar orbit first, conducting docking in lunar orbit first, doing low orbit passes - all the stuff that Apollo 10 did, for example - would be nice, but rather minor triumphs compared to the first cislunar flight. Apollo 8 was a tremendous triumph because it got there first (and was opened up to such good news coverage).

A scenario where a Posadka-type flight gets to cislunar flight first COULD increase the odds of extending Apollo to the point of a man-tended base, at least. A lot would depend on how the Nixon Administration decided to handle it, but perhaps even more would depend on how the Politburo reacted - because in the end, it was really the Soviets who were the drivers in the Space Race. If the Soviets really do appear to be trying to mount a serious lunar surface program, the pressure will grow to expand Apollo into some of the Apollo Applications proposals. And you might get, say, a successful hearing for a LESA man-tended base to be launched in the mid-1970's.

 

[Archibald]

That was my point doing this thread - indeed public opinion won't do the difference between Zond and Apollo 8, between flyby and orbit. Overall, history will retain that the Soviets flew around the Moon first, but Apollo 11 landed first, too. The way I see it - a less complete American victory, although still a victory.

I selected no Apollo 8 as the POD to give the Soviets more time - until May 1969 and Apollo 10.

But, as said above, there is indeed an alternate scenario. By virtue of celestial mechanics, Apollo 8 launch windows opened on December, 21 in the USA but on December, 9 in USSR !

Alexei Leonov and Oleg Makarov had been selected, and trained, to fly around the Moon in March 1969. That was the plan. So they might have beaten Apollo 10 around the Moon had Apollo 8 been an unmanned Saturn V test (or a repeat of Apollo 7 using a Saturn IB).
But on November 12 NASA officially announced Apollo 8 would go the Moon next December. Leonov and Makarov were ready to take the risk and fly on December 9. Some technician even send a letter to the Kremlin expressdly asking for that, but was rebuffed. Meanwhile Zond 6 lifted off on November 10, overflew the Moon without a glitch on November 14 and then on November 17... crashed and burned at landing. Yet Leonov was ready to try.

On January 20, 1969 another Zond was betrayed by its Proton rocket and landed in Mongolia.

It would have been very hard for the Soviets, even without Apollo 8, either because of the Proton total lack of reliability or the Zond own dangerous failures (skip reentry).

Another possible POD would be to stand down the damn Proton for six months in 1967 or 1968 to try and make it more reliable. In fact it happened OTL, but in spring 1970, after three Luna sample return ships were lost in a row ! Babakin complained to Afanasyev and the Proton was grounded, it flew a suborbital test, was checked entirely, and things vastly improved afterwards.

As for the butterflies...

Who knows, Paine was a democrat in a Republican administration, so as of January 1969 he really wanted to resign. Nixon kept him per lack of successor, and the result was the Space Task Group disaster.
Now if the Soviet get first around the Moon, Paine head might roll, thus no STG. Then Nixon reminds Charles Townes transition team report. Townes expressedly pushed for more Apollo. The Soviets, having invested billion of rubbles into the N1-L3, where not ready to give up the Moon even after Apollo 11. Glushko, Chelomei, Mishin - they all wanted a lunar base (be it the L3M, LEK, or LK-700).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

It would have been very hard for the Soviets, even without Apollo 8, either because of the Proton total lack of reliability or the Zond own dangerous failures (skip reentry).

Did the real Soyuz A have enough fuel in the Soyuz B/Block D for it to slow the complex down and put it into Earth orbit before attempting re-entry. That was another reason for the separate launches in my proposal.

 

[Athelstane]

Hello Archibald,

Certainly if Apollo 6 is a total loss, it's going to set back the program. At a minimum, it's going to require at least one more unmanned Saturn V launch. A lot will depend on the investigation into what went wrong, and how long that takes.

Apollo 7 can still go ahead, of course, especially if the critical faults do not appear to lurk in the IVb stage.

If NASA can get off a successful Saturn V launch, they'll have two under their belts, and the confidence to go ahead with a manned launch. How long would that take? It's hard to say, but I'd guess that they'd be able to manage it in the fall. That makes a December Apollo 8 mission unworkable, and normally, you'd think, they would simply wait until the LM was ready, and we're on track for the original McDivitt-led Apollo 8 LOE mission.

But what happens if NASA does learn that the Soviets really are on track to put a Zond around the Moon in March? Would that change the plan? Would they try a "Hail Mary Pass" by altering the mission profile for what Apollo 8 actually was in our time in order to beat the Soviets?

To date, no one has uncovered any real evidence NASA mission planners were primarily driven by the Zond program in their Apollo 8 decision. And after all, NASA was already going all out as it was. But solid evidence that the Soviets were preparing for a cislunar flight in March in this scenario might put that attitude to the test. A lunar orbit flight, even without significant testing of the LM, would still accomplish a lot of critical objectives for the program, and there would still be time to achieve a lunar landing by year's end.

That's a fascinating scenario to explore.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Did the real Soyuz A have enough fuel in the Soyuz B/Block D for it to slow the complex down and put it into Earth orbit before attempting re-entry. That was another reason for the separate launches in my proposal.

You don't enter earth orbit. You go straight into the atmosphere. Of course, that means you need a beefed up heatshield, but that's still a lot cheaper than all the extra fuel you'd need to slow down.

 

[Archibald]

That's indeed a fascinating scenario. I would stuck with Apollo 9 - 10 - 11 as per OTL for two reasons
a) the need to test the LM in Earth orbit in spring 1969
b) NASA couldn't miss the landing, not with the Soviets first around the Moon...
Then imagine if the damn Ruskies managed to stole a little of Apollo 11 thunder with a working Luna 15 !
"We first send men around the Moon. And we were first to bring back samples"

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Originally Posted by Archibald
It would have been very hard for the Soviets, even without Apollo 8, either because of the Proton total lack of reliability or the Zond's own dangerous failures (skip re-entry).

Originally Posted by NOMISYRRUC
Did the real Soyuz A have enough fuel in the Soyuz B/Block D for it to slow the complex down and put it into Earth orbit before attempting re-entry? That was another reason for the separate launches in my proposal.

You don't enter earth orbit. You go straight into the atmosphere. Of course, that means you need a beefed up heat shield, but that's still a lot cheaper than all the extra fuel you'd need to slow down.

The point of going into Earth orbit before re-entry was to avoid the dangerous skip re-entry and do a standard Soyuz re-entry over Soviet territory.

Instead of trying to launch a lightweight Soyuz and under-fuelled Block D on one Proton (or N-11). I proposed:

1) Launch a fully-fuelled Block D by Proton (or N-11) into a parking orbit around the Earth;
2) If the launch is successful a standard Soyuz capsule (including the normal heat shield) is launched by a R-7 rocket to dock with it.
3) If the docking is successful the Block D engine is fired to send the Soyuz to the Moon. If it isn't a free return, the Block D is also fired to put it in and out of Lunar orbit.
4) Then the Block D is fired again to put the complex back into Earth orbit so the crew can perform a re-entry over Soviet territory.

 

[Athelstane]

That's indeed a fascinating scenario. I would stuck with Apollo 9 - 10 - 11 as per OTL for two reasons
a) the need to test the LM in Earth orbit in spring 1969
b) NASA couldn't miss the landing, not with the Soviets first around the Moon...
Then imagine if the damn Ruskies managed to stole a little of Apollo 11 thunder with a working Luna 15 !
"We first send men around the Moon. And we were first to bring back samples"

I tend to think that Paine and Low would make the same decision - and so would I. The risk margins are high enough as it is - and that of the Soviets would be even higher.

Still, the temptation would be there.

The Soviets can't beat the U.S. to the lunar surface with that late of a point of departure - they simply can't. But they could possibly have beat us to cislunar space (albeit on a very high risk flight), and that would have muddied the waters enough to potentially change the dynamics of both space programs in very big ways in 70's and beyond.

 

[SactoMan101]

Let's say the Soviets did succeed with their circumlunar flight in early December 1969. Propaganda triumph yes, but scientific triumph, no. Not when the Apollo missions (let's say Apollo 8 became the second Saturn V test flight and Apollo 9 became the first lunar orbit flight) would have been a far superior technical triumph since the Apollo spacecraft would have successfully demonstrated actual orbiting around the Moon, a major prerequisite for a manned lunar landing.

 

[Athelstane]

Here's another twist

Let's say this happens:


April 4, 1968: Apollo 6 unmanned test flight of Saturn V. Launch vehicle SA-502 disintegrates two minutes into flight. NASA Review Board later determines that cause to be structural failure resulting from severe pogo oscillations.

Sept. 14, 1968: Zond 5 technology demonstration for planned manned missions. Made a closest approach of 1,850 kilometres (1,150 mi) on 18 September before returning to Earth. Landed in the Indian Ocean on 21 September after guidance system failiure.

Oct. 11, 1968: Apollo 7 launches on successful 10 day mission test of Apollo CSM on Saturn IB rocket. (W. Schirra, W. Cunningham D. Eisele)

Oct. 26, 1968: Soyuz 3 manned flight, rendezvous with unmanned Soyuz 2, failed docking. (G. Beregovoy)

Nov. 10, 1968: Zond 6 technology demonstration for planned manned missions. Flyby occurred on 14 November, with a closest approach of 2,420 kilometres (1,500 mi). Reentered Earth's atmosphere on 17 November, however recovery was unsuccessful after parachutes were prematurely jettisoned.

Nov. 16, 1968: Apollo 8 unmanned test of SA-503 Saturn V. Mission successfully completes objectives, and demonstrates correction of pogo oscilation problem.

Jan. 14-15, 1969: Soyuz 4 and 5 successful launch, docking and crew transfer - first such docking and transfer in space. (Vladimir Shatalov, Aleksei Yeliseyev, Yevgeny Khrunov, Boris Volynov)

Feb. 21, 1969: First launch of N1 rocket; intended to orbit the Moon and return to Earth. First stage prematurely shut down 70 seconds after launch; launch vehicle crashed 50 kilometres (31 mi) from launch site.

Mar. 3, 1969: Apollo 9 successful manned low Earth orbit test of complete Apollo spacecraft with LM. (J. McDivitt, S. Scott, R. Schweikart)

Mar. 13, 1969: Zond 7 circumlunar flight achieves first manned trip to cislunar space. Spacecraft and crew lost on skip reentry after communications failure on day 6 of mission. (A. Leonov, O. Makarov)

...

So what happens now? The Soviets have gotten to cislunar space first, but they've lost the crew. NASA is on track at this point to launch Apollo 10 to lunar orbit for a dry run for a lunar landing, with Apollo 11 to follow in July, and Apollo 12 in September if there's a (non-catastrophic) failure in either of the two previous missions.

But how would it affect Soviet and American lunar efforts going forward? The Soviets can no longer pretend that they were never trying to reach the Moon; and they now have the heroic deaths of Leonov and Makarov to redeem by redoubling their efforts. They can't beat the Americans to the Moon (the surface, that is), but it will be harder for them lay low and not try to match the feat, despite how far behind they are with their own program.