What if: Hammer and sickle on the Moon

[FlyingPete]

Let's assume that, for whatever reason (equipment faults, change of US government, not enough boosters etc) the Apollo program was hit by delays in 1969. As a result, Alexei Leonov becomes the first man on the Moon instead of Neil Armstrong. How would the rest of the space race play out? With a Moon-capable spacecraft nearly ready, I think the Americans would still get to the Moon shortly afterwards, but obviously only claiming 'second prize' to the Soviets.

I think the result would be that a new race would begin- to establish the first permanent surface base, or to be the first to Mars. Or perhaps the Soviet program would lose momentum after they won the Moon race. Either way, I think the Americans would have tried to go one better.

[stellarator]

If you speak Spanish,

http://danielmarin.naukas.com/2012/09/05/una-realidad-espacial-alternativa-2-y-si-los-sovieticos-hubiesen-sido-los-primeros-en-llegar-a-la-luna/

if tou don't, Google Translator could do a quite well job. Its a really enjoyable read!

[billbobjebkirk]

NathanKell did a save like this for the Kerbal Cup a while back.

[xenomorph555]

I very much doubt the space race would have gotten any further then scouting missions on the moon, considering budgets were shrinking on both sides even in 1966. America would have accepted loss and both sides would move onto space stations.

[billbobjebkirk]

I very much doubt the space race would have gotten any further then scouting missions on the moon, considering budgets were shrinking on both sides even in 1966. America would have accepted loss and both sides would move onto space stations.

Well, the soviets getting there first would require changes going back to well before 1966.

[kurja]

Russians did everything else first anyway, I don't see how them going to the moon first would have really changed anything, not for them at least. Especially as far as I know the Soviets never officially said anything about being in a race to the moon anyway, maybe the Americans would have felt the need to come up with another race that they could try and win but probably not. Rest of the world history would have played out the same anyway in the following years with the same outcome as it did, halting the more adventurous space programs.

[Bill Phil]

Russians did everything else first anyway, I don't see how them going to the moon first would have really changed anything, not for them at least. Especially as far as I know the Soviets never officially said anything about being in a race to the moon anyway, maybe the Americans would have felt the need to come up with another race that they could try and win but probably not. Rest of the world history would have played out the same anyway in the following years with the same outcome as it did, halting the more adventurous space programs.

Docking? Effective EVAs? Probe firsts? All USA.

Actually the Soviets went for stations because they lost the Moon race, which they were a part of. Perhaps the U.S. would've gone for stations instead? Making Skylab a modular station capable of being a staging point for the Moon...?

[kurja]

All USA.. yeah, SU didn't have any notable firsts

Right, there may have been more competition on building orbital stations, that's a sensible projection.

Edited April 27, 2015 by kurja

[xenomorph555]

Effective EVAs? Probe firsts? All USA.

"Effective EVA's" really?, are you trying to stretch it out that much to give the US a medal. (While yes they did learn a lot in Gemini, effectiveness does not count as a first).

As for probe firsts they were not "ALL USA" as you say, while they got most for Mars and beyond the Soviets got pretty much every Lunar probe first and many Venus firsts.

[kurja]

"Effective EVA's" really?, are you trying to stretch it out that much to give the US a medal.

As for probe firsts they were not "ALL USA" as you say, while they got most for Mars and beyond the Soviets got pretty much every Lunar probe first and many Venus firsts.

First probe to land on Mars was also Soviet.

[Bill Phil]

"Effective EVA's" really?, are you trying to stretch it out that much to give the US a medal. (While yes they did learn a lot in Gemini, effectiveness does not count as a first).

As for probe firsts they were not "ALL USA" as you say, while they got most for Mars and beyond the Soviets got pretty much every Lunar probe first and many Venus firsts.

Effectiveness of an EVA is huge. Without an effective EVA, you can't do much at all. Connecting certain parts of the ISS was done by EVA. Bottom line, EVA is important. And I'm not trying to give the USA more medals. If the Soviets did an effective one earlier, then they would have that award.

I merely chose not to list all of the probe firsts, since there are so many of them. Flybys, first successful landings on Mars (Vikings 1 and 2) and much more were USA. While many Venusian and Lunar firsts were Soviet, such as the Venera missions and the Luna missions, there were other firsts the USA had.

My point was that the US did more than walk on the moon.

[Brethern]

Docking? Effective EVAs? Probe firsts? All USA.

Actually the Soviets went for stations because they lost the Moon race, which they were a part of. Perhaps the U.S. would've gone for stations instead? Making Skylab a modular station capable of being a staging point for the Moon...?

But we have to remove points for the US making incredibly stupid decisions. Namely the Apollo 1 tragedy and challenger disaster. Both of which can be traced back to human error.

[Reddragon]

If it was really worth it and possible to establish a permanent base there the race wouldn't have stopped just because the "first prize" for landing on the Moon was taken by someone. It it were the Soviets to take it, I believe lunar exploration would have stopped anyway, maybe with even less missions to the Moon. Going for space LEO stations was a logical next step.

Edit: As for the never to be missed 'who did it first' fest arising here, I have to say it's still ridiculous (and childish). I don't care who did what the first time until it is for the benefit of humanity. Besides this if one didn't do something the first time in the space race the other one would have probably been the first...

Edited April 27, 2015 by Reddragon

[Bill Phil]

But we have to remove points for the US making incredibly stupid decisions. Namely the Apollo 1 tragedy and challenger disaster. Both of which can be traced back to human error.

And then not remove points from the Soyuz 1 and 11 disasters? The R-16 explosion? And many mistakes not involving death? The Soviets are guilty, too.

[billbobjebkirk]

And then not remove points from the Soyuz 1 and 11 disasters? The R-16 explosion? And many mistakes not involving death? The Soviets are guilty, too.

Soyuz 1 was an objectively worse decision then either Apollo 1 or STS-51L

[Camacha]

Effectiveness of an EVA is huge. Without an effective EVA, you can't do much at all. Connecting certain parts of the ISS was done by EVA. Bottom line, EVA is important. And I'm not trying to give the USA more medals. If the Soviets did an effective one earlier, then they would have that award.

This underlines perfectly how people deal with the cold war discussion. They point out some arbitrary achievements that fit their liking and call it victory. It is why the whole notion of a space race is broken (despite the the best efforts of the US to mark the moon landing as the finish somehow).

[Bill Phil]

This underlines perfectly how people deal with the cold war discussion. They point out some arbitrary achievements that fit their liking and call it victory. It is why the whole notion of a space race is broken (despite the the best efforts of the US to mark the moon landing as the finish somehow).

No it doesn't. Not at all. It's a milestone.

There is a very large difference between floating in space, and working in space. The US was the first to do more than float in space, or, essentially, work in space. Not a big milestone compared to landing on the Moon or being the first in space at all, but it's very important.

And this is not arbitrary. Working in space is without a doubt more important and more essential than just floating there.

[WinkAllKerb'']

what if is not the matter at all.

The matter is there is no need to invest twice and so on waste such huge amounts of ressources doing the same thing and repart task upthere and downhere partially as it's probably been defined clearly a not so long time ago on a not so far earth. (...*)

*http://comps.canstockphoto.fr/can-stock-photo_csp1991272.jpg

Edited April 28, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''
e.e.p. 1922 CIM-10 A82 nuff said'

[Brethern]

And then not remove points from the Soyuz 1 and 11 disasters? The R-16 explosion? And many mistakes not involving death? The Soviets are guilty, too.

Challenger was caused by faulty O rings, a problem that they knew about before launch and as I believe engineers wanted to postpone.

As for apollo 1 at this point they knew the dangers of pure oxygen since it's been used for quite some time before this, or even why they allowed flammable materials in the module is beyond me.

There's a high difference between something they knew about and a stroke of bad luck.

[Bill Phil]

Challenger was caused by faulty O rings, a problem that they knew about before launch and as I believe engineers wanted to postpone.

As for apollo 1 at this point they knew the dangers of pure oxygen since it's been used for quite some time before this, or even why they allowed flammable materials in the module is beyond me.

There's a high difference between something they knew about and a stroke of bad luck.

The Soviets knew that something was up with the R-16 on the pad. But what's his name kept sending technicians to "fix" it. It had leaks everywhere and finally exploded. It killed over 100 people. That's more than Challenger, Columbia, and Apollo 1 combined.

[YNM]

If the moon things went the other way ? Not so much difference I guess... For certain, US tech isn't as sturdy as soviets, and soviet techs isn't as advanced than US (well, the applied ones, not the proposed or planned). And I think it's quite a think that in any other way, funds would dwindle down as 70s approach (higher fuel prices, no ?)

Anyway, it's quite silly to say "soviet", it really means council... which is somewhat the same for US (union, no ?) !

[stellarator]

In addition USSR spent less money that US. As example, they still use their lunar ship, Soyuz. During this time, US developped another -and not cheap- space ship. The STS. As example of that, the only launch of the USSR Space Shuttle -Buran- cost less than the reutilization process of the main engines of the US Shuttle. And they needed to do one of these after a landing.

Another USSR landmark: Mir. Us never had a modular space station until ISS and i think they wont build another soon.

US did many good things on Space, but they spent more money doing that.

[Kibble]

Here's some fantasies an educated guess!

Lets say Sergey Korolyov manages to convince Valentin Glushko of his belief in non-toxic fuels. Instead of having to rely on Nikolai Kuznetsov's less-powerful NK33, Glushko designs an RD170-like rocket engine for N1. This allows N1 to meet the eventual performance requirements without Korolyov having to fib (leading to the hasty modifications that caused four consecutive failures). When Korolyov and Vladimir Chelomey convince Leonid Brezhnev to pursue a piloted Moon landing, the capable N1 will bee quickly selected as the favored option, and Chelomey's Zond program is cancelled.

The first test-flight happens earlier, possibly before Korolyov's untimely death. Before Apollo 4. Soviet cosmonauts become the first humans to fly a circumlunar mission in 1968. The Space Race winds down quickly as Alexey Leonov becomes the first human being on the Moon in 1969, followed by Niel Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. NASA's proposed budget orders fewer Saturn V's, and shuts down production of all three stages. To preserve launch capability independent of the Air Force Titan rocket (and without the budget for Space Shuttle) the SI stage of Saturn IB is modified to launch as the first stage below a modified Atlas with three sustainer engines. Saturn-Atlas-Centaur becomes a successful launcher, mainly to GTO. Production continues on the Apollo CSM to tend to Skylab, which will become the focus of a less-agressive (but more successful) Apollo Applications Project.

Without a Space Shuttle to draw attention and money, Skylab flies for much longer. Around 1974, as USA-USSR relations thaw, Soyuz makes a visit to Skylab. A few years later (the DM still attached to one of Skylab's ports), DOS-5 becomes a permanent additional module, and Salyut-Skylab becomes an early International Space Station.

[Vanamonde]

OP was wondering about alternate histories should the Soviets have landed on the moon before the US. The arguments about which program was safer or more illustrious are beside the point, and verging on the forbidden topic of politics on the forum. Please restrict the discussion to the actual topic of the thread.

[Nuke]

it would be like iron sky, but with more vodka.