WI: The Soviet Union Beat the US to the Moon?

[SomeGuyOnline]

We all know about the "Space Race" between the Soviet Union and the United States. On July 20th, 1969, the US launched the Apollo 11 to the moon, making it the first human landing on the moon. But what if instead of the US, it was the USSR who made the first successful human landing on the moon? How would this happen, and how would it change the outcome of the Space Race as a result?

(This could also become a collab TL project if anyone is interested in the idea of doing so)

 

[Fratsup]

Have the Russians go for a different rocket design. A lot of their problems came from trying to cheap out.

 

[e of pi]

The Soviet program has a lot of problems that make this challenging. First, they didn't really think the US was serious until about...1964 or so, which lost them multiple years right at the start. Second, they went with a single-launch architecture for the Soyuz/LK system, which meant N-1 had to grow a lot which ate away at reliability margins, and even so the vehicles were perpetually struggling with weight, even more than Apollo/LM. (Hence the "give me back 800 kilograms" quote @nixonshead includes in "Sound of Thunder".) Third, their funding was never nearly as high as Apollo and their ability to test on the ground was critically impaired as a result. Fourth and also somewhat related to funding, the leading design bureau chiefs were in a lot of cases working at total cross-purposes and parallel projects, nearly to the level of actively sabotaging each other in the name of competition instead of Apollo's lavishly funded, extensively coordinated program. Not everyone was always pulling the same direction, but there was nothing like the strangeness of the attempts by Glushko and others to get UR-700 going and RD-270 tested as an entire backup heavy lifter to N-1, instead of focusing efforts on the rocket they were actually using for lunar.

The Soviets might have, if Proton and Soyuz had experienced fewer issues, perhaps have done a circumlunar Soyuz before Apollo 8, but landing before June 1969 would have been quite a serious stretch that's hard to make hold up when examined in details. (Note how, for instance For All Mankind simply says "it happened" and then doesn't go into details.)

That said, the most likely thing is that Apollo and Saturn V production isn't terminated in 1968/69, the flight rate isn't cut back in 1970, the budget cuts are still present but less severe and you get to see some of the dual-launch Apollo minibase concepts and such fly, versus the very limited capabilities of LK. By the middle of the decade, you get double and triple launch Apollo and LESA compared to the follow-up Soviet L3M (a proper 2-launch system which actually outclassed Apollo but wasn't even approved until the early 70s). The main impact becomes what happens with Shuttle, and if a lunar competition is sustained.

 

[DougM]

In many respects the US space program was the better program from the start, The Soviets were frankly cutting corners everywhere they could. If they had lost someone along the way. oh well lots more where he came from kind of mentality. This is much of the reason they were ahead on various things. They didnt plan and test as much and took bigger risks. This reduced the safety margins . And you get tgings like the explosion with staff being way way to close and other various options. The USSR was always going with a good enough for now, lets built a bunch of the mentality. Case in point look at various problems they have had with Subs and the so called “Concordski”.
This paid off well in the early space race stage, But the USAs more expensive slower approach paid off in the end. Going to. the Moon is significantly harder to pull off then getting into low orbit. So the USSRs space craft/rockets which tended to be built with less of a safety margin ran into the point that they went from barely getting the job done to cant get the job done.

zso in order to get the USSR to build a system able yo actually get to the moon they need to change the attitude of the program. This probably slows them down enough that the US gets there first anyway. If you slow the US Programe enough to let the USSR get there first you probably kill the US program outright.

 

[ric350]

I always wondered what if the Apollo 1 fire had happened after its scheduled launch. Houston would get a panicked “Fire in the spacecraft! “ transmission, then nothing. Even if the capsule survived reentry, the ability to find out what went wrong would have taken considerably longer, (not to mention one less Saturn V vehicle). This may have delayed the Apollo program enough for the Soviets to get time to work out the problems with the N1 (especially if the 7/69 explosion didn’t occur).

ric350

 

[e of pi]

I always wondered what if the Apollo 1 fire had happened after its scheduled launch. Houston would get a panicked “Fire in the spacecraft! “ transmission, then nothing. Even if the capsule survived reentry, the ability to find out what went wrong would have taken considerably longer, (not to mention one less Saturn V vehicle). This may have delayed the Apollo program enough for the Soviets to get time to work out the problems with the N1 (especially if the 7/69 explosion didn’t occur).

ric350

The fire would have had a lot more trouble being sustained in space, because the pressure was bled off during launch down to the roughly one third of a standard atmosphere used in space, allowing time for response. This pure-oxygen lower-pressure atmosphere was the same used in later Apollo flights, the switch was that instead of providing 1 atmosphere pure-oxygen on the ground, they had a mixed-gas atmosphere at 1 atmosphere on the ground, and as the pressure was bled down during launch, the gas was backfilled with pure oxygen until only pure oxygen at the lower pressure remained.

 

[ric350]

The fire would have had a lot more trouble being sustained in space, because the pressure was bled off during launch down to the roughly one third of a standard atmosphere used in space, allowing time for response.

But wasn’t a byproduct of OTL fire, a reduction in flammable materials in the spacecraft? Further, if they were at a point with helmets off (or visors up), the time to respond might have been shorter. At any rate, I believe any fire in space, even if the crew survived, would have had greater consequences to the program.

ric350

 

[nixonshead]

I suspect your best bet would be for Apollo to get cancelled. If your PoD is after Apollo starts, and if it proceeds as per OTL, there's no way the Soviets are catching up for a landing.
If Apollo was cancelled after N1-L3 was approved 1964 (say, some ealy Saturn V launch blows up at the Cape c.1966 and Johnson's enemies use it as an excuse to pull the plug), the Soviet effort would likely continue on autopilot (once a programme got into a Five Year Plan, it was almost impossible to cancel), and they might then have a chance to reach the Moon with a 2-launch scenario in the mid-70s.

 

[Garrison]

I suspect your best bet would be for Apollo to get cancelled. If your PoD is after Apollo starts, and if it proceeds as per OTL, there's no way the Soviets are catching up for a landing.
If Apollo was cancelled after N1-L3 was approved 1964 (say, some ealy Saturn V launch blows up at the Cape c.1966 and Johnson's enemies use it as an excuse to pull the plug), the Soviet effort would likely continue on autopilot (once a programme got into a Five Year Plan, it was almost impossible to cancel), and they might then have a chance to reach the Moon with a 2-launch scenario in the mid-70s.

I'm not sure anyone would dare pull the plug after Kennedy's assassination. It might be easier to cut it if Kennedy lives and its just another expensive government program.

 

[Gth]

(Note how, for instance For All Mankind simply says "it happened" and then doesn't go into details.)

Though I dont remember the show itself going into it, IIRC they had said the POD is that Korolev lives. Which isn't really much elaboration at all, but given thats been a common starting point for the period I can't say its a cop out per say.

But as for enabling a Soviet landing before Apollo 11, I would contend that you either need to get rid of Glushko outright (like, before he had Korolev thrown in the gulag) or otherwise get him into Korolevs camp.

Everything Ive read on the period always comes back to Glushko in one way or another, and even if you still end up with Sergei dead before the new N1 comes around, a Glushko thats either not around to put pressure on the cancel button or is actually supportive of the effort is what ends up making it work.

And whether or not they succeed in the end is actually more dependent on beating Apollo 8 than it is Apollo 11. The Soviets by late 1968, if nu-N1 is flying, would likely not waste time on separate Apollo 7, 9, and 10 equivalents, and would likely fly only twice before going for the Moons surface.

Once to shake out their Soyuz and LK, once to beat Apollo 8, and then everything gets thrown at beating 11 if Apollo 8 losing the race doesn't knock the wind out of the US.

It would also interestingly open up the question of NASA taking the risk to let Apollo 10 land, even despite their reasonings not to IOTL, as well as whether or not they skip a circumlunar flight to beat Apollo 8 or go straight for a landing.

 

[Polish Eagle]

Maybe something out of left-field...could the Soviets have developed an earlier interest in propellant transfer? IOTL they developed the ability to transfer hydrazine and N2O4 for Progress-Salyut-Mir. If they do that in the 1960s, could they have pulled off an EOR-type architecture?

 

[e of pi]

Maybe something out of left-field...could the Soviets have developed an earlier interest in propellant transfer? IOTL they developed the ability to transfer hydrazine and N2O4 for Progress-Salyut-Mir. If they do that in the 1960s, could they have pulled off an EOR-type architecture?

Maybe, though it has the reliability issues with Proton. With even a 50/50 failure rate, how many launches do you need to get, say, 5 tankers assembled successfully? With hypergols or kerolox, it's not impossible to make it wait that long, but...it's a lot.

 

[Polish Eagle]

Maybe, though it has the reliability issues with Proton. With even a 50/50 failure rate, how many launches do you need to get, say, 5 tankers assembled successfully? With hypergols or kerolox, it's not impossible to make it wait that long, but...it's a lot.

Counterpoint: this being the Soviet Union, if their flight rate with R-7s is anything to go by, they could just try again the next day.

 

[nixonshead]

Counterpoint: this being the Soviet Union, if their flight rate with R-7s is anything to go by, they could just try again the next day.

Korolev had a circumlunar mission plan using R7 launched tankers in the early ‘60s, but abandoned it as too complicated. You could imagine it being evolved into a lander mission, but probably not on the timescale of Apollo. For me it all comes back to the fact that when the world’s largest and most technically advanced economy goes through with a project with effectively unlimited budget it’s pretty much impossible to beat.

 

[RanulfC]

I suspect your best bet would be for Apollo to get cancelled. If your PoD is after Apollo starts, and if it proceeds as per OTL, there's no way the Soviets are catching up for a landing.
If Apollo was cancelled after N1-L3 was approved 1964 (say, some early Saturn V launch blows up at the Cape c.1966 and Johnson's enemies use it as an excuse to pull the plug), the Soviet effort would likely continue on autopilot (once a programme got into a Five Year Plan, it was almost impossible to cancel), and they might then have a chance to reach the Moon with a 2-launch scenario in the mid-70s.

I'm not sure anyone would dare pull the plug after Kennedy's assassination. It might be easier to cut it if Kennedy lives and its just another expensive government program.

Oddly enough I have notes on this scenario, sort of

I have Johnson being elected with Kennedy as VP, (ugly and unlikely yes) with Johnson going all-in first with Cuba and then in Asia (Laos instead of Vietnam at first) and while he essentially sets the goal as the Moon his timetable is a bit looser and initial ramp-up is slower. Worse when he goes to Dallas (and meets his fate) Kennedy is more than willing to listen to possibly "cheaper-and-easier" alternatives to the expensive Apollo program.
(And yes this is mostly a way to point out that Kennedy was a lot less 'pro-space' than people tend to think he was)

Hence he latches on to "Lunar Gemini" and cuts back Apollo causing delays and set backs which might give the Soviets the chance they need.

I'm not sure anyone would dare pull the plug after Kennedy's assassination. It might be easier to cut it if Kennedy lives and its just another expensive government program.

Kennedy himself was looking to cut back Apollo once the initial 'rush' was over. With the Saturn 1 the US now had more payload capability than the Soviets and as Gemini ramped up it looked to easily match if not out-match Vostok/Voshkod so he was apparently having second thoughts about the cost and complexity of Apollo hence his offer of a "joint" Lunar mission which the Soviets ignored. (Just like the ignored the original lunar goal itself) Had he lived it's possible that Apollo would have been slowed down as he was likely the only one who could have slowed it down. (Not that it's likely the Soviets would have every gone for a joint mission given how it would have exposed their programs limitations and issues)

Maybe something out of left-field...could the Soviets have developed an earlier interest in propellant transfer? IOTL they developed the ability to transfer hydrazine and N2O4 for Progress-Salyut-Mir. If they do that in the 1960s, could they have pulled off an EOR-type architecture?

Maybe, though it has the reliability issues with Proton. With even a 50/50 failure rate, how many launches do you need to get, say, 5 tankers assembled successfully? With hypergols or kerolox, it's not impossible to make it wait that long, but...it's a lot.

Counterpoint: this being the Soviet Union, if their flight rate with R-7s is anything to go by, they could just try again the next day.

Korolev had a circumlunar mission plan using R7 launched tankers in the early ‘60s, but abandoned it as too complicated. You could imagine it being evolved into a lander mission, but probably not on the timescale of Apollo.

I was always a bit surprised/wondered why the Soviets didn't use an EOR scheme given their 'success' with Salyut to just do a 'better' lunar mission at some point but I get the economic and political issues at the time and how by "not-playing" they could back out of the Space Race, which was getting expensive and difficult by that point.

Still I kind of wonder if given enough incentive a 'simplified' (and yes I know how that's likely NOT a thing ) EOR using Proton and the R7 could have put them on the Moon in a similar time frame.

For me it all comes back to the fact that when the world’s largest and most technically advanced economy goes through with a project with effectively unlimited budget it’s pretty much impossible to beat.

Probably both the biggest and boldest "issue" any proposed TL has to address When the US 'choses' to go someplace and hang the cost it's not likely you can match them without actually MATCHING them in all aspects and that's not something the USSR could really do.

Though on that note you can also look at the US actually being 'first' (such as in Kolyma ) either in orbit or "man-in-space" and a LOT of the incentive to go to the Moon so soon drops away which gives the USSR a 'chance' to catch up themselves. The US has a very bad habit of letting things slide if they think they are too far ahead... See Sputnik for a wonderful example Of course then you need to find an incentive for the USSR to WANT to play the game which they did OTL only because they had the R7 and its payload utility whereas the US was struggling due to its missile designs.

Have the US be first and it's what every was expecting to happen anyway so it's more "meh" than anything else and you'd look at the funding and support for US spaceflight to continue it's boom-and-bust cycle.

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

We all know about the "Space Race" between the Soviet Union and the United States. On July 20th, 1969, the US launched the Apollo 11 to the moon, making it the first human landing on the moon. But what if instead of the US, it was the USSR who made the first successful human landing on the moon? How would this happen, and how would it change the outcome of the Space Race as a result?

(This could also become a collab TL project if anyone is interested in the idea of doing so)

How would it happen? As noted there were several concepts for other ways to reach the Moon before the US but essentially they need to take the US program more seriously, (they dismissed the announcement as hyperbole and didn't take it seriously, and then Kennedy's unexpected suggestion of a joint mission seemed to support that idea) and start their own effort earlier.

If they can reach the Moon first then it's kind of a 'win' but in truth the US effort is immediately going to be an overall 'win' given the disparity in capability. The US program was just more capable than the planned Soviet one and the Soviet's were very much closer to the margins. Even coming in 'second' it could be viably argued the US did it 'better' with putting two men for every one the Soviet's landed, having them stay there longer and actually do more on the surface.

The eventual 'outcome' would likely be similar to OTL though it's much more likely that NASA does not propose a grandiose. overreaching plan such as IPP but instead opts for a very modest near-Earth program.
Unfortunately coming in second, even if we do it better opens up the possibility of even less post-Apollo support from all quarters, plus the fact that NASA is organized around "Apollo-like" programs and will still tend to have the hubris problem it had OTL with maybe some edge taken off so they will likely still be looking at pushing for the "next Apollo" program.

Failing to meet the stated and no less the expected goals of Apollo will however resonate with the public and politicians and this will likely mean a lot of scrutiny on NASA's purpose, budget, and likely questions of it's very existence. I suspect that a media and political circus will ensue with Congressional panels and trial-by-media, all at a time when public confidence in authority and science were already dropping.

And keep in mind the 'saving grace' here is that the OTL mission success carry over but what if they don't?
- Apollo 12 is a LOM due to lighting strikes on lift off
- Apollo 13 still happens but is a LOM and what about if the crew does not survive?

The case could be made right here to shut down the Lunar flights "until we're actually ready" and never start them up again. It's unlikely the Soviets will fly to the Moon very often and if it looks like the US program is shutting down then they can stop before they have an accident or LOM/LOC event. NASA will likely push for Apollo 14 but as safe and tame a landing area as possible. Politically this might fly, and it's possible the public would back the flight but it doesn't really matter as the political decision is the most important. A good argument by NASA on needing a 'win' might get the flight authorized but I suspect at the cost that it will BE the last flight if it succeeds and NASA will be made a vague promise of a future renewed Lunar program "once we have all the bugs worked out".

On the Soviet side I assume they will attempt to at least math the US flights so where as the US sends Apollo 11 but the Soviet flight gets there first they will schedule a second around the same time-frame and Apollo12. Assuming no problems that puts them even with Apollo 11 with two Cosmonauts on the Moon but it took them twice as long and two flights to do it. The same with Apollo 13 and if they succeed that puts them one Cosmonaut and some hours of surface time ahead.

But if the US hesitates the Soviets have several options:

Send another flight which would put them ahead two Cosmonauts and surface time so that if Apollo 14 flies they American's would be 'even' but not really ahead and if 14 fails also then Russia remains ahead. If they can get a couple of flight in during the period so much the better but this is weighed against the possibility of their own failures and LOM/LOC situation. Every flight increases the chances of of any number of failures.
They can announce a similar 'reassessment period', possibly with an offer to 'coordinate' or even a joint future mission with the US which is likely to be rejected but will server the propaganda machine They can announce that having made it to the Moon 'first' and 'won' the so called Race they will be stopping such currently wasteful and dangerous flights (as the American's have proved) in favor of building up Earth orbital operations and infrastructure building. They will announce plans to keep sending robotic probes and rovers to the Moon and return people to the Moon once a more robust system is in place.
While this may sound like ceding the Moon to the American's it actually puts them in an awkward position in that if they don't go they look like they were afraid to continue, but if they do go they are simply repeating 'stunts' the Soviets have already shown they can duplicate. (Somewhat) So this would probably push for Apollo 14 but encourage the US to shut down Apollo after that and also concentrate on Near Earth Operations. Of course this will likely result in a more 'robotic' space race taking place, (which means the Soviets are likely screwed in the Mars 'race' category ) as manned operations are scaled back to LEO.

What comes after that will depend on the outcome of the public and political wrangling on the future of NASA and the US space program. In this timeline Russia will have even less incentive to make any bigger plans as they can drive a much closer to home competition and always fall back on being the 'first' to the Moon. While the US can claim and support they did it 'better' (especially if Apollo 12 is still successful and if the US continues the sequence to OTL's Apollo landing flights or more) the sting of not being first is going to carry through and as noted heavily affect future work and public/political support ends up being the main driver.

Randy