If US and USSR worked together to land in the Moon?

If US and USSR worked together to land in the Moon? What the impact?

moon.jpg
 
There would be political issues getting in the way of technical development. Both sides would be paranoid of the other stealing their technology, and so mating and synergising of technologies would be an issue. We saw such problems during the Apollo-Soyuz test program, even though partly the point of the mission was to merge compatibilities and standards.

Kennedy and Khrushchev were both up for a joint mission, in the end. They had the needed rapport to ensure no issues on the executive front (keep Kennedy alive and hopefully get him re-elected, Khruschev didn't trust Johnson enough to marry the space programmes). Detente comes earlier on, and Kennedy potentially throws the water on Americas involvement in Vietnam before it catches fire. The saved money does not necessarily make its way to NASA, I'd think the space program would see even more contention than IOTL, as to many the point was to show that "America is the best and we don't need no stinkin' commies to help us out". I assume the main beneficiary of Dentente is the Soviet Union, which really needs to get that civilian economy going again. If Khrushchev is able to stay in power longer, at least until the end of the '60s, then the Soviet economy may not end up so pear-shaped.

I wonder if the butterflies would affect Korolevs death, he was very much the one keeping the Soviet space effort together. This is what I'm talking about when I say there was mutual paranoia, Korolev was kept a states secret in fear of the U.S. assassinating him. Surely the Chief Designer is going to need to have kind of direct correspondence with the Americans if they are to stage a joint moonshot? Him becoming public knowledge while alive is certainly a big change.

Having multiple launch sites and multiple economies contributing rockets for the mission gives a big push for Earth Orbit Rendezvous, Von Bruan's pet. I think a LEM-style Moonship is still a necessity, but the mission profile is likely to involve an assembly in orbit, perhaps using two or three rockets. Launch the CSM/LEM stack or its equivalent from Kennedy Space Center (probably not called that if Kennedy is still alive), launch the departure stage from Baikonur Cosmodrome, or vice-versa, then head to the Moon. It probably means a more capable mission in total, more equipment, more consumables, maybe even four astro/cosmonauts.

I have full confidence that the engineers and pilots on both sides would be able to meet halfway and finish the mission. Whether it leads on to anything is a more dubious matter. Although, here the space program is a valuable fig leaf that both should want to keep for at least the '70s, so keeping it going and supplanting the defence industry in keeping aerospace afloat could make it more resilient to cuts. America could probably afford it with no Vietnam, and the Soviets could hardly afford to lose face by ditching out.

Could you tell me where you got that image?
 

Archibald

Banned
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/739/1

JFK just did propose a joint manned lunar program in September 1963, in a speech in front of the U.N assembly. Because he was shot only two months later, the proposal remains an enigma even today (also, some JFK papers are classified until the late 2020s or beyond, or at the will of the Kennedy family)

Even today, nobody (not even the best NASA or space historians) really knows if

a) JFK really and sincerely believed a manned lunar program could be done with the Soviets (looks like the idea popped after JFK met K. in Vienna in June 1963)
or
b) if JFK was afraid or embarrassed by the cost burden of Apollo he had committed into two years before, and intended to share that cost with the Soviets

What is sure is that once LBJ sworned in as president the proposal had no chance and was quickly buried.

Surely, it would make for one hell of space ATL. This is a very good POD in the early space race.

We can imagine that Apollo proceed with LOR (the decision had been made and frozen in September 1962, a year before)

I'd say the program could proceed as follow
- NASA keep building the Lunar Module (the Soviet LK stands no chance, it was a one-man tricky piece of junk)
- but the Apollo CSM is replaced by a Soyuz with a LM docking system which allows astronauts transfers without EVA

When I say replaced, it can be replaced as a whole (all Apollo missions use a Soyuz as the manned lunar orbiter) or just for a one-shot deal (as ASTP).

Placing a LM docking ring on the Soyuz wouldn't be too hard - ASTP had the Soyuz modified with a different docking system, Apollo remained untouched.

A major issue (with perfect post 1971 hindsight) is that early Soyuz were unreliable, Soyuz 11 carried three men (unsuited) but they died per lack of space suits, so Soyuz crew was cut to two suited cosmonauts from 1973 until Soyuz-T gets introduced in 1978. What is sure is that Apollo needs three astronauts, not two. So that might be a major issue.

Another major issue, of course, is the N1 troubled flight history.

But imagine if a Soyuz was placed within the Saturn V shroud, just like an Apollo CSM. It would pick the LM just like the CSM did (180 degree turn). The lunar Soyuz was one-third the mass of a CSM - 10 tons versus 30 - so the excess Saturn V payload could be transfered to the LM, with knock-on positive effects.

Then there's the issue of the escape tower, but it was one out of few components of the Soviet lunar stack that worked correctly - most of the time the N-1 exploded, the escape tower pulled out the Soyuz crew module to safety.

A Saturn V with a Soyuz escape tower on top would look a bit strange, but there's no reason it couldn't work. Overall, Soviet and American electronics are of course different, but with a POD as of late 1963, they have five or six years to provide for compatibility.

For the record, ASTP was decided in May 1972 and flew in July 1975 - a bit more than three years.
 
Last edited:
We can imagine that Apollo proceed with LOR (the decision had been made and frozen in September 1962, a year before)

I'd say the program could proceed as follow
- NASA keep building the Lunar Module (the Soviet LK stands no chance, it was a one-man tricky piece of junk)
- but the Apollo CSM is replaced by a Soyuz with a LM docking system which allows astronauts transfers without EVA

When I say replaced, it can be replaced as a whole (all Apollo missions use a Soyuz as the manned lunar orbiter) or just for a one-shot deal (as ASTP).

Placing a LM docking ring on the Soyuz wouldn't be too hard - ASTP had the Soyuz modified with a different docking system, Apollo remained untouched.

A major issue (with perfect post 1971 hindsight) is that early Soyuz were unreliable, Soyuz 11 carried three men (unsuited) but they died per lack of space suits, so Soyuz crew was cut to two suited cosmonauts from 1973 until Soyuz-T gets introduced in 1978. What is sure is that Apollo needs three astronauts, not two. So that might be a major issue.
Another major issue is that Apollo carried out the Lunar Orbit Injection burn for the entire stack, which required about 11 metric tons of propellant, as well as its own TEI burn. The Soyuz 7K-LOK was only intended for the TEI. Replacing Apollo with Soyuz would also require including the Blok D stage to serve for LOI.

I really can't see it included as part of a Saturn launch as the main crew vehicle as a one-off--there's too much work to do. Perhaps you could seek a profile for a mission where a crew flown on a Soyuz/N1 would meet a LM Shelter landed previously for an extended stay?
 

Archibald

Banned
E of pi: good points. The devil is always in the details.

Making the N-1 working correctly push the timeline long after 1975, long after Apollo stopped.
Stephen Baxter Voyage had ASTP happening in lunar orbit, not LEO - but in 1980 !
 
A major issue (with perfect post 1971 hindsight) is that early Soyuz were unreliable, Soyuz 11 carried three men (unsuited) but they died per lack of space suits, so Soyuz crew was cut to two suited cosmonauts from 1973 until Soyuz-T gets introduced in 1978. What is sure is that Apollo needs three astronauts, not two. So that might be a major issue.

Korolev was only just proposing the Soyuz in 1963, so there is a lot of flux on the final design. Multiple N-1/Saturn V sized rockets gives a lot of room to make a workable Soyuz fitting three crew, even four potentially. An effect of working with the Americans is less room to cover up failures, so the Soviets will have to be very careful to not kill their cosmonauts.

Another major issue, of course, is the N1 troubled flight history.

But imagine if a Soyuz was placed within the Saturn V shroud, just like an Apollo CSM. It would pick the LM just like the CSM did (180 degree turn). The lunar Soyuz was one-third the mass of a CSM - 10 tons versus 30 - so the excess Saturn V payload could be transfered to the LM, with knock-on positive effects.

Then there's the issue of the escape tower, but it was one out of few components of the Soviet lunar stack that worked correctly - most of the time the N-1 exploded, the escape tower pulled out the Soyuz crew module to safety.

A Saturn V with a Soyuz escape tower on top would look a bit strange, but there's no reason it couldn't work. Overall, Soviet and American electronics are of course different, but with a POD as of late 1963, they have five or six years to provide for compatibility.

The weak spot of the N-1 was the ridiculous number of engines on the first stage, it appears Korolev and Glushkos working relationship failed completely before they can get done on an engine to match the F-1. Korolev here might be able to force Glushkos hand, if he is able to get the F-1 directly.
 
The weak spot of the N-1 was the ridiculous number of engines on the first stage, it appears Korolev and Glushkos working relationship failed completely before they can get done on an engine to match the F-1. Korolev here might be able to force Glushkos hand, if he is able to get the F-1 directly.

The engines were only one of the many weak spots with regards to the N-1. Amongst its many failings were:

The far-too-simple computers that were prone to malfunction, which in one instance shut down 28 healthy engines, it was some years before the KORD System was redesigned to keep this failing from reoccurring - though plenty of others means did happen.

Lack of ground testing resulted in the N-1 having to be debugged on a flight-by-flight basis, which for smaller ones such as the Proton and Soyuz LVs was acceptable, but for the massive N-1, it helped to doom the project.

The breakdown in relations between Korolev and Glushko certainly didn't help, as Glushko was the go-to for the needed engines, and since they couldn't get along anymore at that point, Korolev was forced to turn to Kuznetsov for alternate engines - it should be noted he did eventually make fantastic engines (the NK-33/43), but by then the N-1 was already condemned.

IIRC the N-1/L3 project was being operated on about 10% the funding that Apollo/Saturn enjoyed. With so little money available, they had to cut every corner they could afford, and a lot that they couldn't.


Back back to the OP. As a joint mission, the Soviets could see an increase in funding, and Direct Orders to put their differences to one side, in the interests of keeping a good front to the US. How this would play out...
 
I suspect that Congress would have been strongly opposed to a combined moon landing.

Kennedy potentially throws the water on Americas involvement in Vietnam before it catches fire.

Very, very unlikely. The odds are that Kennedy gets the US even deeper in Vietnam. Kennedy was more prone than Johnson to wishful thinking with regards to Vietnam before his OTL death. If he'd lived, there are no reasons to suppose that would have changed.

As to the Lunar mission itself, I think the only way it could work is as an EOR/LOR mission, with the Soviets and the US each building a big rocket (able to get 50-80 tonnes to LEO) to put up half of the mission hardware and their part of the crew, mate the two in LEO, then blast off towards the moon.

So say the command module is an alt-Soyuz, the Lunar lander a US-built LEM, the service module is Soviet build and the EDS is US built.

The US launches the LEM, EDS and a Gemini capsule on a smaller Saturn V (a Saturn C-4 say), meets the Soyuz and service module launched by the Soviets by N-1 (said N-1 being the 70 tonne to LEO version Korolev originally wanted, the reduced size making it far easier to develop). The Gemini capsule separates from the American stack, the Soviet stack docks to the American stack and the American crew transfers across to the Soyuz via an EVA. (Though possibly the American crew could have an airlock between the Gemini and the LEM allowing them to transfer from the Gemini to the LEM, have the Soviets dock with the LEM+EDS once the capsule had separated and the American crew could then crawl through the airlock into the Soyuz - I imagine this would not be chosen however, due to the greater difficulty of aborting the mission once the American crew had crawled into the LEM.)

There would be a good deal of scope for scaling that sort of mission architecture up as well, making it easier to place longer-duration missions onto the moon, or even to build simple moon bases.

I wonder if the US and the Soviets would do a solo Lunar landing after the international landings had run their course?

fasquardon
 
Very, very unlikely. The odds are that Kennedy gets the US even deeper in Vietnam. Kennedy was more prone than Johnson to wishful thinking with regards to Vietnam before his OTL death. If he'd lived, there are no reasons to suppose that would have changed.

It is an effect of an earlier détente, which the Moon mission would be a part of. It's not very good for image to explore space with some communists and drop napalm on some others. Ho Chi Minh will keep fighting no matter what, and South Vietnam will still likely fall, but a promise to not escalate Vietnam in exchange for the Soviets to not send aid means that neither Kennedy or Khrushchev is really losing anything.
 
I suspect that Congress would have been strongly opposed to a combined moon landing.
Very much true. And that's a problem considering...
As to the Lunar mission itself, I think the only way it could work is as an EOR/LOR mission, with the Soviets and the US each building a big rocket (able to get 50-80 tonnes to LEO) to put up half of the mission hardware and their part of the crew, mate the two in LEO, then blast off towards the moon.
The issue there is that by 1963, most of the Apollo parts are in motion--the Saturn V is actively under development and Apollo and the LM are specified and in work. I mean, Saturn V's S-IC made its first hotfire in 1965. You'd have to put the brakes on a lot of things at once to go to a joint architecture, unless you basically do Lunar Surface Rendezvous between a US and Soviet portion of a mission which would push the date of first landing out beyond 1970 or so given the state of the N1 and LK projects.
I wonder if the US and the Soviets would do a solo Lunar landing after the international landings had run their course?

fasquardon
Given how much of the US project is already underway, I think it's hard to not see them left with the capability to fly independent missions as well as international flights. Whether those are funded is another point entirely, of course, and one that depends a lot on the program record and costs. As for the Soviets...their capabilities and funding depend a lot more on the shape of any international collaboration, since their stuff was only coming together in architecture in the period around 1963 when this would be being negotiated.
 
The issue there is that by 1963, most of the Apollo parts are in motion--the Saturn V is actively under development and Apollo and the LM are specified and in work. I mean, Saturn V's S-IC made its first hotfire in 1965. You'd have to put the brakes on a lot of things at once to go to a joint architecture, unless you basically do Lunar Surface Rendezvous between a US and Soviet portion of a mission which would push the date of first landing out beyond 1970 or so given the state of the N1 and LK projects.

Considering that a big reason for Kennedy considering a joint mission in OTL was due to having second thoughts about the cost, if Congress can stomach working with the Commies, I suspect that elements would get axed entirely.

Now what would be really cool is if NASA tells the penny pinchers "developing a smaller Saturn V would actually increase costs at this point, so how about we keep our nice big Saturn V and we use the extra mass budget to fit a big LEM".

A LEM able to take 4 person crews for long duration stays (maybe a month long?) with a capable rover and room to carry plenty of scientific experiments would make a heck of a landing.

fasquardon
 
Top