WI: Soviet Moon Flight

IOTL, the USSR launched an unmanned flight around the moon in a Zond capsule (Soyuz, but stripped down). The capsule would have been also capable of launching 2 cosmonauts to the moon and back, but the September 1968 flight around the moon had a flaw: the reentry to the earth's atmosphere was so hard that it would have killed the cosmonaut, and thus the Soviets postponned a manned test until after Apollo 8 flew around the moon and it was too late anyway. So, let's say a POD during the Zond 5 circumlunar mission. The craft reenters much more easily, and the Soviets launch a manned circumlunar mission in November 1968. The Zond 6 manned flight, ITTL, flies around the Moon and returns, with the cosmonauts singing the praises of the Communist Party all the way. What happens next?
 
Well, the USA could still win the race. The USSR ITTL would only circle the moon, not land. Landing on another celestial body is, IMHO, a much bigger feat than circling it.
 
Unless the Soviets can followup with an lunar orbitable and lunar landing mission, not a lot of changes from OTL.

So the Soviets loop around in NOV 68, boradcasting all the way. DEC 68 AS-8 orbits, maybe in reaction to the Soviet mission, they stay more than 10 orbits, possiblity 24-48 hours. Outside possiblity the standup EVA is put back on the task list (the standup was to confirm before AS-9, the CSM end of the hatch to hatch transfer backup). The standup does give great pictures.

So one month after the Soviets the US show it can get to the moon and orbit, and do things. Everbody but the Communist Bloc and a few western leftists forget the Soviet mission.

Course come NLT JUL 69 (I'll concede NASA might convince POTUS Nixon to advance he AS-9, 10, and 11 tmelines in this OTL) US lands, walks, and returns, US "wins," US space program still stumbles into a post moon landing wilderness.
 
A possible POD might be Korolev surviving his ass-surgery (what a way to go :() and is able to perhaps defeat the "many little thrusters" policy and make a more stable and reliable Saturnesque design.

I've always wondered if fears of a "Red Moon" might keep the Apollo program alive longer...or kill the shuttle.
 

Sachyriel

Banned
Why do they need a lunar landing? Can't you have an orbiting station around the moon and say that it would be a moon base?:confused:
 
Why do they need a lunar landing? Can't you have an orbiting station around the moon and say that it would be a moon base?:confused:

As they said in the miniseries From the Earth to the Moon, "We're not going to the moon to take pretty pictures." They need to land and plant a red flag on the lunar surface.

@Geekhis: That is an interesting POD, and it led me to do some research. It seems the "many little thrusters" policy emerged in 1962, when Korolev, after a falling out with rocket engine designer Valentin Glushko (arguing over which fuel to use), recruited an aircraft designer who had limited experience with rockets and came up with the use of a small engine. So, a better POD for a successful N-1 rocket would be in 1962.
 

Sachyriel

Banned
As they said in the miniseries From the Earth to the Moon, "We're not going to the moon to take pretty pictures." They need to land and plant a red flag on the lunar surface.

@Geekhis: That is an interesting POD, and it led me to do some research. It seems the "many little thrusters" policy emerged in 1962, when Korolev, after a falling out with rocket engine designer Valentin Glushko (arguing over which fuel to use), recruited an aircraft designer who had limited experience with rockets and came up with the use of a small engine. So, a better POD for a successful N-1 rocket would be in 1962.

Plant a flag... why not send the inanimate objects first? A mass driver sounds like a good communist project, seeing their large territory it might be great to build a launch loop.

800px-LaunchLoop.svg.png
 
Top