What if: The US and USSR worked together to send a man to the moon

I think going to the moon should have been a joint US-Soviet effort. The two major superpowers working together to send a man to another world would be one of the most moving events in human history.

think about it: two powers that normally hate each other and at each other's throats setting aside their differences to achieve a common goal.

What would happen if this were the case: What would happen of the US and USSR worked together to send a man to the moon?
 
They did collaborate on the Apollo-Soyuz missions after the Moon race was finished.

[ perhaps in this ATL they collaborate during the race itself, because we both picked up a clearly artificial signal from Tycho crater ... ]
 
Chattanoogan Panda wrote:
I think going to the moon should have been a joint US-Soviet effort. The two major superpowers working together to send a man to another world would be one of the most moving events in human history.

think about it: two powers that normally hate each other and at each other's throats setting aside their differences to achieve a common goal.

What would happen if this were the case: What would happen of the US and USSR worked together to send a man to the moon?

In any ‘lower pressure’ Space Race scenario, (where the US isn’t panicked into going for the moon in a ‘decade or less’ timeframe) the likelihood of this happening goes up significantly as it would ‘appeal’ to both sides over trying to go it alone. Despite the rhetoric the US and USSR didn’t ‘hate’ each other and despite the rivalry and chaos of the 1950s by the early 60s they were moving towards normalizing relations. Not smoothly and with a lot of hiccups but a more ‘paced’ space program on both sides could have the discussing a joint lunar mission by around 1965.

Despite Space Cadet legend Kennedy was in fact never comfortable or supportive of the Lunar goal and would have greatly preferred to choose something, (anything) else given a choice. The loss of China, the Soviet Atomic and then Hydrogen bomb development, Korean War, Sputnik and finally Gagarin had all combined to leave him little choice though. Anything where it was less than perfectly clear that the US could not only challenge but beat the Soviets in would not be an acceptable response. Changing something as simple as Sheppard going up before Gagarin and Kennedy likely does not choose the Moon in a decade or less as a goal. And without that level of national commitment of money and resources the US likely doesn’t go to the Moon before the Late-70s at least.

Randy
 
To what end? The Moon race was a war by proxy in space.

If it doesn't occur, it means there's a significant détente, which in turn means that Khrushchev didn't fall and the Thaw continued.

But then, why would they spend that insane amount of money (I don't think it would be split anywhere near half) for a mission that neither party really needs?
 
I think it could be spun as a joint effort for peace and scientific progress. Sergi korlov The then anonymous Chief Designer spoke of his admiration for Jim Webb nasa’s overlord and even rocket guru Werner von Braun. I think it might lower the world temperature.
 
And sing Kumbaya while holding hands on Mare Tranquillitatis.

If it were like the Apollo-Soyuz mission, then each side would send its spacecraft and then leave separately (which the Soviets couldn't do). If they were to join forces with shared designs, it would be espionage galore. If they mixed existing crafts e.g. N-1 launcher and Apollo-LEM, NASA wouldn't trust their counterpart's safety record.

In short, borderline ASB.
 
I’m not saying that total utopia is possible. President Kennedy obviously had some reason for making the offer.
 
Kennedy’s ‘reconsideration’ idea of trying for a joint Lunar effort was strictly because, (as I noted) he really never wanted to go there in the first place. By the time this comes up it’s becoming clear the US isn’t that far behind, (if it every actually was) the USSR and it’s not inconceivable that he can somehow ‘walk-back’ the initial rhetoric. Then he gets whacked and it’s now a martyrdom thing with NO chance anyone can stop it. Unfortunately once it’s clear we ARE going to be first and there’s nothing the Soviets can do to stop us the moment quickly dies and the cuts begin. (NASA’s budget begins falling four {4} years before the first landing)

THE thing to keep in mind is even if Kennedy lives and DOES manage to de-escalate the “race” and propose a joint mission the Soviets are likely to refuse simply because they know they will be the ‘weak-link’ in any such plan and they will no longer be able to obfuscate or hide how marginal their actual ability is. There is no ‘upside’ for them in such a deal so they’d likely politely decline and keep ‘focusing’ on Orbital operations which would leave the US to either follow suit or keep going for the Moon and frankly once the ‘pressure’ is off we’d likely cut back ourselves.

Once the Saturn-1 becomes available the Soviets have ‘lost’ the payload race and they knew it which was the reason the UR-500 (Proton) was greenlighted. But it turned out to be much harder to make operational than they thought, (not having the N1 probably would have helped) and was far less reliable than originally thought. “Worse” from their perspective was the US was developing the Saturn-V, (though again without an actual Lunar mission in less than a decade Its ‘utility’ is questionable at best) which was going to blow the UR500 out of the water. EVEN worse upgrading the Saturn-1 was going to be ridiculously easy so even without the Saturn-V the ever present ‘gorilla’ in the room of US productivity and industry had already been unleashed.

There’s just not any way to make a plausible ‘upside’ to such a cooperative effort. “Apollo-Soyuz” was an embarrassment to the USSR and any ‘joint’ lunar mission is going to be worse unless the US effort and operations are curtailed down to the same level as the USSRs. Actually I CAN see one (1) possible ‘upside’ but it requires the US leadership and NASA be rather stupid; By joining in a ‘joint’ mission the USSR can degrade the US effort to the point where they cannot possibly reach the Moon before the mid-70s to late 80s by insisting they are given important development and operational subsets of the mission… And then consistently fail to meet any of the goals or milestones and cite “more important” goals which would play well during the US technology ‘backlash’ of the late 60s and early 70s.

“Going to the Moon of course is a laudable goal but we have decided that we need to feed people/alleviate 3rd world poverty/address the problem of pollution/etc” will play VERY well worldwide around that time and the US will look rather selfish and arrogant, (not like we’ve not been THERE before but still…) for insisting the Soviets stick to the program. And if we’ve ‘agreed’ to go with them we certainly won’t find the support, resources or money to do so alone…

Randy
 

Deleted member 94680

Wasn’t the race to the moon born from the Cold War?

Positing that it could be a joint Soviet-US venture rather misses the point as it to why a race to the moon began in the first place.
 
Wasn’t the race to the moon born from the Cold War?

Positing that it could be a joint Soviet-US venture rather misses the point as it to why a race to the moon began in the first place.

Yes that is why this race to the moon was due to the cold war competition. The big Advantage for Russia is it would make it a lot easier for them to steal the technology.
 

Deleted member 94680

Yes that is why this race to the moon was due to the cold war competition. The big Advantage for Russia is it would make it a lot easier for them to steal the technology.

So where is the advantage or benefit for the Americans to agree to this? I may be missing the point but this only reinforces how unlikely (impossible?) a Soviet-US joint venture would be
 
So where is the advantage or benefit for the Americans to agree to this? I may be missing the point but this only reinforces how unlikely (impossible?) a Soviet-US joint venture would be
I didn't mean to imply that there was an advantage to the US I think the joint venture would have been one of the biggest mistakes in the space race. Sorry if I post wasn't clear about that.
 

Deleted member 94680

I didn't mean to imply that there was an advantage to the US I think the joint venture would have been one of the biggest mistakes in the space race. Sorry if I post wasn't clear about that.

Ah, ok. Yeah, that’s the way I see it too. If the race to the moon was billed as a way to diffuse tensions in the Cold War, I doubt funding would have been forthcoming from the American side. It was, after all, seen as a way of proving American superiority to many.
 
Khrushchev has thinked about accepting the American's offer for a joint manned lunar mission:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/russia-97h.html

That being said, it was derailed after Kennedy was killed. The Space Race was all about national prestige for both sides but that didn't necessarily mean that risk aversion will not caught up to them so a combination of Gagarin dying while in space and Kennedy survives Dallas might "lower the pressure" as Randy puts it and increase the chances for a joint lunar mission assuming that they can't cover up the former.
 
Last edited:
Top