What if the USSR reaches the moon first? How would it effect history, would space exploration become more advanced then OTL or less? Would it spark WW3?
We've had this topic before, but I guess it's too interesting for people to not think about it again and again; anyways:
1: No, it would not lead to World War III. Why on Earth (or off of it) would it? The Soviet Union did not launch a war over the United States reaching the Moon first, why would a reversal change things? Furthermore, many important leaders on both sides (correctly) viewed the entire thing as essentially a propaganda stunt, differing mainly in scale and cost from (say) their Olympics team. It would obviously be silly to launch a nuclear war over the US team winning fewer medals than the Soviet team, and the same objections apply to launching a nuclear war over the Soviets reaching the Moon first.
An extra 6 months would have given them an Apollo 8. POD for a lunar landing is a taller order but not insane. In the Sputniks game, Korolev and Glushko had an earlier falling out (Korolev wrongly accused Glushko of sabotaging his rockets in 1960) and Kuznetzov was on the N1 project earlier. He also rolled really well. The result was a Soviet lunar landing in October 1969. The American landing happened in July 1969 (there was no Apollo 1 fire, but the Apollo 8-equivalent burned up on reentry with a similar delay in development)2: In any case, the Soviets reaching the Moon first is only barely possible. It requires everything going right for them and nothing going right for NASA. You realize that the Soviets never even partially duplicated a mission as simple as Apollo 8, let alone one as complex as Apollo 11, thanks to the extreme unreliability of their launch vehicles?
This. In Sputniks, the Soviets, even in triumph, canceled their lunar program to focus on near Earth stuff. But it could be a cool bargaining chip to joint lunar operations, sort of a grander, earlier ASTP.3: The effects on space exploration would be unpredictable. Since the Russians could not really sustain a lunar exploration effort with their OTL architecture, I doubt you would see anything more than a slightly expanded and prolonged NASA lunar exploration and a more interesting post-Apollo program (perhaps as far as Saturn V-launched, Shuttle-serviced stations as originally planned, but that's a bit speculative). Certainly you won't see missions to Mars or lunar bases or other similar very expensive things.
An extra 6 months would have given them an Apollo 8. POD for a lunar landing is a taller order but not insane. In the Sputniks game, Korolev and Glushko had an earlier falling out (Korolev wrongly accused Glushko of sabotaging his rockets in 1960) and Kuznetzov was on the N1 project earlier. He also rolled really well. The result was a Soviet lunar landing in October 1969. The American landing happened in July 1969 (there was no Apollo 1 fire, but the Apollo 8-equivalent burned up on reentry with a similar delay in development)
Well, this isn't a game...
The difficulty is that the Proton was extremely unreliable at this time (about 50% of the launches over the timeframe we're looking at for an L-1 flight before Apollo 8 failed, and the rocket itself wasn't strictly speaking operational until 1974 or 1976, somewhere thereabouts), and of course the N1 never flew successfully, even after several more years of R&D than it would have to have to beat the US. While the N1 failure might be blamed to a certain extent on the Korolev-Glushko conflict and Korolev's untimely death, the Proton's failures really can't (it was a Chelomei project). You might blame them on Brezhnev indirectly (Chelomei was aligned towards Khruschev, and unsurprisingly ran into problems after he was replaced), but getting rid of him would be strong medicine.
The only way the us could rescue the guy would be if it happened before the apollo launch. Theyd have to remove an astronaut and refigure the flightSince the signal is uncoded the Americans learn about it. So what's going to happen next?
Will the Soviets ask the Americans for help or will they try to roswell their failure as they have done many times before. I think if the Americans would officially be asked to rescue the cosmonaut, they could hardly refuse. But how will they act if the Soviets do indeed try to roswell their failure and thus their entire manned mission to moon. Will they simply carry on as if nothing had happened and claim to be the first. Or will they save the cosmonaut and thus achnoledge, that they were only second the put a man on the moon, if only by one day,
Nah, they don't have to reconfigure the flight. They just have to accept that they can take home fewer moon rocks. Worst comes to worst, the guy gets picked up by the rover, or legs it from one lander to the other.
Nah, they don't have to reconfigure the flight. They just have to accept that they can take home fewer moon rocks. Worst comes to worst, the guy gets picked up by the rover, or legs it from one lander to the other.
Armstrong lets him in the lander, and they toss all his equipment out the airlock. It will be a bit crowded, and the take off might be a bit rough on him, but I don't think the ascent vehicle had too many Gs for a "lie on the floor or anywhere else there's room" rescue.
Belushi TD
Well, this isn't a game...
The difficulty is that the Proton was extremely unreliable at this time (about 50% of the launches over the timeframe we're looking at for an L-1 flight before Apollo 8 failed, and the rocket itself wasn't strictly speaking operational until 1974 or 1976, somewhere thereabouts), and of course the N1 never flew successfully, even after several more years of R&D than it would have to have to beat the US. While the N1 failure might be blamed to a certain extent on the Korolev-Glushko conflict and Korolev's untimely death, the Proton's failures really can't (it was a Chelomei project). You might blame them on Brezhnev indirectly (Chelomei was aligned towards Khruschev, and unsurprisingly ran into problems after he was replaced), but getting rid of him would be strong medicine.