The next station: The Moon and Mars

In the 60's, by the end of the space race it was obvious the the U.S. is winning, and the Apollo 11 mission and the fall of Khrushchev in 1965.

I wonder what would have happened is the USSR didn't abandoned it's space program, but kept trying until they would have landed on the moon.

In my opinion, after a successful moon landing by the U.S, the USSR would have aimed to a manned base on the moon.

A base on the moon, even with small amount of people, will look like a threat to the U.S government, leading to a very intense continuation for the space race.

If the space race had continued, by 2015 a human settlement on Mars is probably an acceptable idea, maybe even earlier.

But, I believe that if the space race would have continued, the cold war would not stop, and a two superpowers based humanity would be in a state of neverending cold war, maybe even in the space settlements.

What do you think would have happened if the space race had continued?
 
When you stop to think about it, properly look into why the USSR Lost the Space Race, the question changes from "Why did they lose?" to "How did they expect to Win?".

IOTL, not only did the Soviet Response only begin in earnest in 1964, three years after the US had already started, but they had to make do with about 10% of the resources that NASA enjoyed.

Combine this with how they operated, whereas NASA was a monolithic government agency, the USSR had a number of competing groups, fighting with each other for vital funding, with Military Requirements usually the prime means of attaining it.

Then there's the Force-of-Personality Management Style that while a help during the early days, acted against them as the projects increased in size and scope.

Korolev's Death during Surgery in 1966 didn't help, Mishin soon proved to be inadequate to the task, relying heavily on alcohol to deal with the stress.

The Short & Simple is that a lack of funding and priority, poor management, infighting and the late start all acted to make the Soviet Manned Lunar Landing Effort an utter failure.

So for the USSR to succeed in Landing a Man on the Moon, and then return him safely, I see the following as required:

  • For Kennedy's Pledge to be taken seriously at the moment it's made, this will serve to add three more years to develop and debug their equivalent system
  • Provide the needed funding so that they can work on it and have their system built and tested in time
  • Improve their management and structure, difficult as the failure in part served to force it on them, but a clear command chain and lines of responsibility are needed so everyone knows who to report to

As for what would be the result of the USSR succeeding? That depends heavily on the margin of victory. Should they land very shortly before or after the US, they will know that it's still close, which can compel them to keep going at it, especially if the US still land first. A wide margin makes this less likely.

While a Manned Lunar Base that is staffed regularly - if not continuously - would be possible by the Century's End.

Mars? I'm less sure about.
 
The Soviet try that option after Apollo 11

First step with L3M concept were two Cosmonauts stay 14 day on lunar surface
next step had be to instal a Moon base.
but sadly there N1 rocket not worked and it successor Energia came to late, the Soviet union imploded in 1991

SpaceGeek and I play with this concept in 2001: A Space-Time Odyssey
here the Soviet land first on Moon on 4 July 1969,
New President Nixon has to answer this fiasco, He goes for a large space program: Space station, Orbital Moon base and for 1978 option for manned Mars mission in 1980s.
 

jahenders

Banned
In general, you're right, though it's hard to compare resources in an apples-to-apples comparison -- a dollar in Russia bought way more labor than in the US.

I think Russia could have reached the moon with some luck, though it'd probably be in the early 70s.

If the Russians did reach the moon, it'd probably create some additional US interest in the moon

However, unless the Russians actually start establishing a base, we're not likely to rush to build a base. Them building a sustained based is unlikely before the mid/late 80s and the US would know it years beforehand.

So, unless the USSR remains stable long past until nearly 1990, them building a base is unlikely.

What they might have done that WOULD really spur the US to increase the race in space would be the USSR opening deploying weapons tere.

When you stop to think about it, properly look into why the USSR Lost the Space Race, the question changes from "Why did they lose?" to "How did they expect to Win?".

IOTL, not only did the Soviet Response only begin in earnest in 1964, three years after the US had already started, but they had to make do with about 10% of the resources that NASA enjoyed.

Combine this with how they operated, whereas NASA was a monolithic government agency, the USSR had a number of competing groups, fighting with each other for vital funding, with Military Requirements usually the prime means of attaining it.

Then there's the Force-of-Personality Management Style that while a help during the early days, acted against them as the projects increased in size and scope.

Korolev's Death during Surgery in 1966 didn't help, Mishin soon proved to be inadequate to the task, relying heavily on alcohol to deal with the stress.

The Short & Simple is that a lack of funding and priority, poor management, infighting and the late start all acted to make the Soviet Manned Lunar Landing Effort an utter failure.

So for the USSR to succeed in Landing a Man on the Moon, and then return him safely, I see the following as required:

  • For Kennedy's Pledge to be taken seriously at the moment it's made, this will serve to add three more years to develop and debug their equivalent system
  • Provide the needed funding so that they can work on it and have their system built and tested in time
  • Improve their management and structure, difficult as the failure in part served to force it on them, but a clear command chain and lines of responsibility are needed so everyone knows who to report to

As for what would be the result of the USSR succeeding? That depends heavily on the margin of victory. Should they land very shortly before or after the US, they will know that it's still close, which can compel them to keep going at it, especially if the US still land first. A wide margin makes this less likely.

While a Manned Lunar Base that is staffed regularly - if not continuously - would be possible by the Century's End.

Mars? I'm less sure about.
 
In the 60's, by the end of the space race it was obvious the the U.S. is winning, and the Apollo 11 mission and the fall of Khrushchev in 1965.

I wonder what would have happened is the USSR didn't abandoned it's space program, but kept trying until they would have landed on the moon.

In my opinion, after a successful moon landing by the U.S, the USSR would have aimed to a manned base on the moon.

A base on the moon, even with small amount of people, will look like a threat to the U.S government, leading to a very intense continuation for the space race.

If the space race had continued, by 2015 a human settlement on Mars is probably an acceptable idea, maybe even earlier.

But, I believe that if the space race would have continued, the cold war would not stop, and a two superpowers based humanity would be in a state of never ending cold war, maybe even in the space settlements.

What do you think would have happened if the space race had continued?

As Bahamut-225 noted the USSR really had a lot going against it for a Lunar Program. That being said though they really had by the mid-70s, early 80s at least a capability of flying to the moon using orbital assembly/rendezvous and existing spacecraft. But again the lack of political will and funding didn't allow that. Mars is right out realistically for either super-power up through the 90s and by that time the USSR is falling apart already.

Not to hijack your thread but one possible scenario I'd been considering, (I was going to put up my own thread but since YOU brought it up :) ) as Bahamut-225 noted:
So for the USSR to succeed in Landing a Man on the Moon, and then return him safely, I see the following as required:

While again it would take a SERIOUS commitment on the part of the leaders of the USSR, (recall that MOST of their "firsts" and seeming lead was simply because they had such a heavy booster and were willing to risk major failures as long as the west didn't know about them but were unwilling to actually SUPPORT extending and developing more capability in and of itself until it was far to late) but it would seem possible to pull off something like a Soviet "Pilgrim Project":
http://www.amazon.com/Pilgrim-Project-Hank-searls/dp/0671814168
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2541834.The_Pilgrim_Project

A "bit" but not to far of stretch given the proper motivation. It was never seriously considered in the US but it WAS suggested at least:
http://www.wired.com/2012/04/one-way-space-man-1962/

And it wasn't really a "one-way-trip" after all since they did (and would) be working towards the goal of eventually returning the person "safely to the Earth".... Eventually.

A question would be how WOULD the general US public react to being "beaten" (again) by the Soviets? And even with our Apollo mission(s) landing two men we still only stay a few hours to a day or so while the Russians are there (even if only on person) for days/weeks/months?

Considering that by the time you're looking at (between Apollo 8 and Apollo 11) it is very clear that the US is so far ahead of the Soviets no one really considers it a "race" anymore. (In fact there are grumblings already about NASA racing themselves and it's budget is already being cut in Apollo follow on areas) I'd think if the Russian's managed to pull off a landing, even one that is almost a suicide mission in the long run that is going to come as a very hard shock to the American public and leaders.

Desperate? Oh hell yes it is, but the chutzpah not to mention the sheer daring of carrying it off to any degree of success is going to play VERY well to the rest of the world. But to do it would (again) require a very cold blooded but very significant degree of commitment by the Soviet leadership which was frankly not in evidence at the time. More so it's going to cost more and that too has to come from someplace.

Now it's doubtful that such an undertaking would actually "blindside" the US but as noted in The Space Review:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2885/1
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2889/1

What we actually "knew" about any Soviet effort to land on the moon was often dicey at best. In this case there's also the fact that it's NOT an idea that would lend itself to being something that any analyst would think of right off the bat. (They were basically "assuming" that the Russians would go about a Lunar Program the same way we did and looking for signs of the same)

The Russians sending multiple "probes" to the same spot on the Moon would probably raise some flags but if it looked like a fully unmanned effort and didn't seem to be moving any manned effort forward would those doing the looking actually put it together in time for an effective warning? Further, what can anyone DO in any case? Moving up the "landing" to use Apollo 10 only moves the possible landing date to May instead of July and that only if everything can be accelerated/modified in time. (Not a given since even it the LM hadn't been short-fueled it was still heavier than the ones used in subsequent landings and therefore had a significantly reduced safety margin)

Taken in context at the time, I don't think it's impossible that being "beaten" again wouldn't cause the US to NOT continue on with the Apollo program and to even question the utility or need for a manned space program at all.

Randy
 
Top