Sorry, Ron D. Moore... the Soviets were never going to beat the US to the Moon

[kerbiloid]

On 10/28/2023 at 7:42 AM, TheSaint said:

What if Korolev had not been imprisoned by Stalin

What if Glushko was not imprisoned, as was thinking, for the denunciation by Korolyov?
Probably, the USSR would have liquid fuel engines several years sooner.

What if the GIRD was not merged with solid fuel rocket department?
Probably, nothing would happen to the liquid fuel engines, again.

What if Korolyov and Kostikov were not pretending the same boss position, and Kostikov not had written a denunciation on Korolyov, Langemak, and others?
Probably, Kleymionov would be working on solid fuel rockets.

What if Korolyov was not assigned on the ballistic rocket chief position?
Probably, Yangel and Glushko would follow the proper way of hypergolic ballistic rockets, and money and time were not spent on R-9, GR-1, N-1, and useless struggle.

On 10/28/2023 at 7:42 AM, TheSaint said:

I think there are ways that the Soviet Union could have made it to the Moon first.

The question is, was it actually going to.
Another question, if the USA were going to spend the cost of Manhattan project on six flags nowhere and half-tonne of regolith.

Or both sides were giving no freak on the TV picture, and the second Manhattan project had a serious purpose, equivalent to the first one.
Kennedy just fired a implementation start pistol. The projects were started by Eisenhower before even first humans in space.

On 10/28/2023 at 10:49 AM, Codraroll said:

Arguably, the Moon landing was more about a demonstration of capability than about the results.

An expensive demonstration needs corresponding viewers.
The USSR leaders could be impressed by the military purpose achievements, not by a show for crowd.
And as we can see, the lunar odyssey didn't impress them as much as Minutemans and Poseidons.

Impress the taxpayers?
What's the purpose of inspiration if it doesn't fruit into something material?
Did the Americans begin working more for smaller salary? No.
Did the Americans storm the draft office to join the army and go into jungles? No.
Did it extinguish the interracial problems of that time? No.
Just a minute of vanity, and the things got same. And sold plastic rockets, of course.

Greedy capitalist sharks couls spend 25 bln USD without calculating a ten-some profit...
I'll beter believe that it was filmed in a studio.

On 10/28/2023 at 10:49 AM, Codraroll said:

The US didn't start spaceflight until Von Braun got involved, and they managed to design new types of rockets and successful missions after he retired. Contrast again how the Soviet space program stagnated after Korolev died.

Von Braun did not appear from nowhere.
While the free world enthusiast Goddard was patenting his rockets, finally fruiting into nothing practical, an official pedant von Braun was serving evil as much as he could, exploitating to death thousands of POW, and it later fruited into the both American and Soviet space programs, what an irony.

On 10/28/2023 at 10:49 AM, Codraroll said:

If Dear Leader makes all the big decisions

Indeed. The POTUS even doesn't have to consult about the red button pressing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_football#Recent_times

While in the Soviet times there was at least a Politbureau for important solutions.

***

The E-1..E-5 craft families of the lunar probes were as clear as possible steps on the Moon nuking. Just step-by-step.

The E-6 (the funny alien egg with four antennas), and its twice larger M-2 ancestor, were a pretty good remotely controlled fougasse.
(E-6 conceptual, M-2 full-sized). It made E-4 obsolete, E-3..5 had been cancelled.

Since the E-8 family had been successfully tested, E-6 became obsolete.
The KT platform had twice delivered a lunokhod, a global lunar rocket, and a heavy spysat with a pair of telecameras.

The sample return rocket was hardly able to reach the Earth, even it was 300 kg reserved (lunokhod ~800 kg - rocket ~500 kg).
But with a standard warhead of that time it was able to reach any point of lunar surface from any othe point.
It was equipped with a rather primitive set of command tools: the local vertical, the gyroscope to keep the fixed zero angle from vertical, the accelerometer with speed integrator to set off the engine, and a cross of four antennas for a beacon to find it in the sky.
It was remotely operated from Earth, and could land at the opposite side of the Moon from the opponent radars, and launch from 360°  unexpected direction.
I.e. it could follow the predefined angle and azimuth, reach the predefined speed, and have a radioaltimeter to fuze at the predefined altitude, set up by the Earth crew.
Even if it missed by a couple of kilometers, the opponent lunar base would be also not made of concrete to withstand the 30 kt.

Lunokhod had 2x5 crew, restlessly piloting in 12-h shifts, and physically exhausted by the end of its run, because silly military generals were whipping the personnel, rejecting the scientists' asking to stop, look around, and do science, like they were in hurry.
This forced march obviously demonstrates the ability of the crew and the vehicle of making forced march from point B (base) to point A (aim), bringing gifts to the fellows' home.
As Lunokhod was designed to be an escape rover or one, or a taxi rover for two, it could probably carry about 300 kg of gifts instead of the scientific things.
Well enough for a 500 kt of love and pleasure.

Of course, it could be a self-propelled electric source with a solar panel for a battery of the landed rockets, if have a simple lunar base next to it.
Like the Almaz-derived DLB and LK-700 with a crew of two on it. Just to replenish the gas pressure, manage the cables, etc.

The perfect heavy moonsat with KT as service module, and the lunokhod's head with a steropair of fine cameras, could find any hide on the lunar surface, still not gifted, or check the gifting results.

As the M-2 (Mars-3), having enough room for 100+ kg of gifts, had sucessfully landed on Mars (doesn't matter if it failed to do science), it was a ready-to-use fougasse to nuke any target on Mars or on Phobos, if required.
If the lunar sample rocket would be landed on Phobos, it could nuke any point on Mars.

So, the E-8 family together with Mars-3 made Proton a ready-to-use interplanetary ballistic missile.
Always ready to launch due to hypergolics, widely manufactured, with all features of an ICBM by design.

Since that moment, there was no need in spending money on any other anti-lunar rocket, especially as expensive as N-1.

The features of heavy and global ICBM had been stolen from N-1 by R-36 orb, and thousands of UR-100N, R-36M, and R-29RM.

So, the lunar project had been abandoned on the primary objective completion (prevent the ability of the opponent on building invulnerable lunar infrastructure). The secondary objective (flagplanting, spaceracing, huzzah-huzzah!) was always optional, and was not even ever declared or known to the people.

  

On 10/28/2023 at 10:49 AM, Codraroll said:

Contrast again how the Soviet space program stagnated after Korolev died.

Soviet space program just came into fruition after his dismission. Exactly because romantic fantasies had been scrapped for the sake of practical purpose.
Most part of rocket launches and almost all rockets and crafts were developed by Yangel, Chelomei, Glushko, Salyut.

Edited October 29, 2023 by kerbiloid

[SunlitZelkova]

On 10/27/2023 at 9:42 PM, TheSaint said:

I also think that different circumstances in Soviet leadership could have changed things on that side as well. What if Korolev had not been imprisoned by Stalin, and therefore never developed the kidney disease that ultimately claimed his life? What if Khrushchev had played his cards better and hadn't been ousted by Brezhnev? There's all sorts of possibilities on that side of the pond.

The problem with these proposals is that it requires people acting completely different from how they did in real life.

If we are getting Korolev not imprisoned, and Khrushchev not making the mistakes that cost him the leadership, we might as well turn the USSR into a functioning democracy like it was on paper. It would become a superpower run by the people.

I actually have done that in my stories sometimes- one time I had the Ming dynasty discover China, and then entire world become a cosmopolitan utopia (no mass dying of natives in the Americas, invention of airplanes in the 1600s, Moon landing in the 1800s). But for the purpose of the story I was intending to use the research for, I wanted things to be a bit more limited. This decision is made then, this decision isn't made then, etc.

On 10/28/2023 at 12:49 AM, Codraroll said:

The US didn't start spaceflight until Von Braun got involved, and they managed to design new types of rockets and successful missions after he retired. Contrast again how the Soviet space program stagnated after Korolev died.

The USSR built the world's first modular space station, and simultaneously built a super heavy lift launch vehicle and reusable crewed spaceplane- feats no other country besides the US has done, and even the world's richest country did one after the other.

I'd argue the American program actually stagnated, as it was never able to build its own space station and the Shuttle was limited to two weeks flight maximum, resulting in the USSR having much more data on the effects of long term spaceflight than the US- one of the reasons NASA was so eager to cooperate after Space Station Alpha was nearly cancelled by Congress.

On 10/28/2023 at 12:49 AM, Codraroll said:

Dear Leader

This is actually a stereotype, at least when it comes to the Soviet space program.

By the time of Sputnik, Soviet decision making required the approval of dozens of different entities. Khrushchev couldn't make decisions without approval and support from the Ministry of Defence, for example. Korolev and Chelomei needed the support of the RVSN for their projects at times.

This is part of why the Soviet Moonshot failed. Nobody could agree on anything.

On 10/28/2023 at 1:32 PM, wumpus said:

Another point is that post Apollo funding for NASA withered and died.  Skylab was launched (and crewed) with Apollo hardware, and after that they sat around and designed a millstone to tie themselves to called "STS/Shuttle" (this lead to great political success with Congress easily budgeting for sunk costs, but often seen as a technical loss).

If Soviet rocketry had spent the money needed, how long could they maintain it?  And when the Kremlin/military was no longer interested, would they still be capable of creating all those space stations, crewing said space stations, and developing the Energia engines?

I think it was very feasible for both sides to sustain a presence on the Moon if they wanted to.

Let's say there is no 60s nuclear arms race, and each side builds about 600 bombs and then settles on a no first use policy. The US nuclear arms build up would be over by 1952, and the Soviets would be finished by 1963. This would free up millions or billions of funding. If the US and USSR were historically able to sustain massive nuclear arsenals, they were probably capable of maintaining a lunar base.

I'd say the fact that Russia still has a solid nuclear deterrent after the collapse of the USSR shows even the 1990s Russian Federation could have maintained its own lunar base.

[ItanMark]

I can actually recommend a really good podcast on spotify on the topic of space race. I am currently halfway through it, it is really detailed while being easy to understand. They talk there about USA and the soviets.

https://open.spotify.com/show/28QHTa6Asoh6ETNZ6dNtSB?si=MWSwXZSaRrGgeW3VoDXrhA

[SunlitZelkova]

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ef8124031cfcf448b11db32/t/5f1c3d55d311d6348af232b6/1595686238201/Siddiqi+What+if+Korolev+Had+Lived+2019.pdf

Article from Quest magazine by leading American historian of the Soviet space program Dr. Asif Siddiqi. He paints a picture of what he thinks would have happened if Korolyov lived (For All Mankind's premise) based on his years of research.

Even if he survived the surgery, he probably would have only lived for a few months. But for the sake of the scenario he assumed he lives 2 to 3 years longer.

1. Voskhod-3 and Voskhod-4 fly, with Voskhod-3 having two crew and breaking the spaceflight duration record again and Voskhod-4 having an all female crew.

2. There is an attempt to launch a 7K-L1 (Zond) with a crew in early December 1968 ahead of Apollo, but it would probably fail because historically the booster that would have been used had issues and failed to launch the payload it had IRL.

3. The N1 might have flown in 1968 on schedule due to better quality control under Korolyov's management, but it would still explode anyways, the only difference is when. At a "maniacal pace of work" the N1 might have had a successful flight by the end of 1969 but not in time to beat Apollo.

That assumes a lot of luck, something the Soviets didn't have much of. IIRC both the Soyuz-1 and Soyuz-11 disasters' investigations stated the circumstances that allowed the accident to happen were almost inexplicable. This might have been a way of saving the workers responsible for the spacecraft, but the details do make it seem that way.

(The following is my speculation) It's a cool scenario though, because if the N1 succeeded, it probably would have continued development despite not allowing them to be first, leading to a three man Soviet lunar landing around 1974 or a little later. The Soviets then might build their own lunar base instead of embarking on the pointless Buran project, prompting the Americans to return to the Moon in the 1980s or 1990s.

[mikegarrison]

I still remember the time before the breakup of the USSR when the official story from the Soviet Union was that there had never been any attempt to make a manned lunar mission.

[darthgently]

48 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

I still remember the time before the breakup of the USSR when the official story from the Soviet Union was that there had never been any attempt to make a manned lunar mission.

Yes, going well beyond mere opacity, the official lines out of the USSR were an ongoing stream of active propaganda that no one really believed but were often entertaining. 

Related, it is about the same currently with the CCP currently when it comes to internal economic, health, and  human rights transparency.  That said, the CCP seems to have realized that it is pointless these days to try to distort perception of space program activities as everyone can see what is actually happening for the most part.  That, and the fact they generally have good news to report, seems to have resulted in a lot more transparency from the PRC wrt space activity.  So that is different than the USSR 

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

1. Voskhod-3 and Voskhod-4 fly, with Voskhod-3 having two crew and breaking the spaceflight duration record again and Voskhod-4 having an all female crew.

Voskhod has been cancelled for the sake of more robust Soyuz, which was able to maneuver, let the crew get in/out, carry a pack of missiles (7K-PPK) or a autocannon (7K-VI and probably 7K-P).
The militaries were agreed for a while to keep having Voskhod in hands rather than Soyuz in clouds, but Korolyov was among the main Soyuz proponents, as it was following his idee fixe of the Martian (after the Lunar) expedition, and was compatible with his lunar plans.

So, two more planted flags would play no role.

Also, the next Voskhod was to carry Yuri Senkevich, the cult figure of the Soviet paraspace and paraesoteric propaganda, the Soviet TV narrator, the official top of the medical part of Korolyov's space program, who would undertake a surgery over a rabbit in zero-g.
As we know now, only Yulia Peresild (I would give her two Hero Stars, for the flight, and for the b...hurt canonade which it caused) can do surgery in zero-g without the patient's bleeding.
So, it would be a doubtful flag next to those ones, like the Laika death was.
(Though, I would add "The Herbs and Stewed Rabbit" orbital experiment, to make happy at least the tolkienists.)

3 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The N1 might have flown in 1968 on schedule due to better quality control under Korolyov's management

A kind of oxymoron.

It would fly due to better quality control in Kuznetsov bureau, having upgraded the pathetic NK-15 to the excellent NK-33, so that even Chelomei was going. to use NK-33/NK-43 in his UR-500MK kerolox Proton.

3 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

At a "maniacal pace of work" the N1 might have had a successful flight by the end of 1969 but not in time to beat Apollo.

Nobody but specially dedicated people in the USSR was aware of the Space Race is even happening, N-1 ever existed, and Soyuz had any relation to the Moon.

The official story was that after the Luna-16 and -17 have delivered some ground and had riding across the Moon, the race is over, and "who needs it anymore?"

3 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

if the N1 succeeded, it probably would have continued development

This flying snowman was another dead end of the Soviet rocketry, like R-7, having lousy 95 t (modified) payload. Too much for daily needs, pathetically low for lunar trips (needing at least ~150 t).
Both Korolyov's N-1 and R-7 were totally unupgradable due to their conical shape, handworked curvatures, lack of waffling of the internal surfaces due to the shape, weak (RD-107)  or unstable (RD-111) engines.

That's why immediately after the N-1 had been finally cancelled, Glushko and Yangel immediately had to start a new rocket family  (Energy/Zenith) from scratch, and were still limited with the factory equipment left from the N-1.

A successful flight of N-1 would be slowing any further development of alternatives at all and the orbital stations in particular.

3 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

leading to a three man Soviet lunar landing around 1974 or a little later.

N-1 was able to deliver one, and had no reserves for upgrade.

It's like all Korolyov's designs, brilliant for a barn rocketry of the GIRD times, but weird for mass engineering.

Edited March 18 by kerbiloid

[SunlitZelkova]

11 hours ago, darthgently said:

Related, it is about the same currently with the CCP currently when it comes to internal economic, health, and  human rights transparency.  That said, the CCP seems to have realized that it is pointless these days to try to distort perception of space program activities as everyone can see what is actually happening for the most part.  That, and the fact they generally have good news to report, seems to have resulted in a lot more transparency from the PRC wrt space activity.  So that is different than the USSR 

-snip-

It got too political so I’ll PM you.

Edited March 18 by SunlitZelkova

[kerbiloid]

I would highly recommend to read Битва за звёзды by Антон Первушин / Battle for stars by Anton Pervushin, in 2 volumes, about various early space programs, including the Soviet one, including the N-1 storyline.
But I can't find it in English, so I'm not aware, if it has an official English translation. It's widely available online in Russian, though.

Btw, it describes that when the widely known version N-1 project was presented to the government committee, it was "for military tasks, blah-blah, as a lunar L-3 flight complex", while the L-3 complex was not even started being designed.

Upd
(Of N1 and L1/L3/L... in Russian, with pictures).
https://tech.wikireading.ru/646

Upd 2
Of N1
https://www.litres.ru/book/aleksandr-zheleznyakov/car-raketa-n-1-lunnaya-gonka-sssr-22197490/otzivi/

Upd 3.
And the classic forum
https://forum.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/index.php?topic=7844.0

Edited March 19 by kerbiloid

[SunlitZelkova]

On 3/18/2024 at 4:51 AM, kerbiloid said:

A successful flight of N-1 would be slowing any further development of alternatives at all and the orbital stations in particular.

On 3/18/2024 at 2:09 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

I was gonna hold off on replying but I feel like this could be a fun discussion.

So,

Successful flight of the N1 might not have allowed a lunar landing (apparently all of the ones that flew but the last one did not even have a throw weight high enough to even carry both the LOK and LK), especially considering that given the L1 had all the problems it did with solar panels, who knows how many issues the LOK would have had with its fuel cells.

On the other hand the LK was tested in LEO in 1971 and worked perfectly.

But anyways, what a successful N1 flight would allow would be the launch of MKBS, the modular space station made of roughly two Skylab sized modules.

So stations would not have slowed down, especially considering a number of DOS and OPS failed during or shortly after launch in the 70s.

On 3/18/2024 at 4:51 AM, kerbiloid said:

N-1 was able to deliver one, and had no reserves for upgrade.

They had plans for the L3M complex, launched on a variant of the N1 with a hydrogen upper stage.

Because of the death of Isayev and potential problems with fuel cells, it probably wouldn’t have succeeded, but in theory, the N1 could be upgraded.

On 3/18/2024 at 4:51 AM, kerbiloid said:

It's like all Korolyov's designs, brilliant for a barn rocketry of the GIRD times, but weird for mass engineering.

The 60s was basically barn yard rocketry anyways. Saturn V was never meant to be sustainable and neither would N1 be. They were both way ahead of their time.

It’s very possible that even if the N1 did have a successful flight, say around 1971, it would have been cancelled anyway like the Saturn V was.

So my 80s Moon base tale at the end of the post was a fantasy. But it’s fun to dream.

[kerbiloid]

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Successful flight of the N1 might not have allowed a lunar landing (apparently all of the ones that flew but the last one did not even have a throw weight high enough to even carry both the LOK and LK)

The next planned flight was to use a modified N1 with NK-33 instead of NK-15, so it had chances. Also it had increased capacity (95 vs 85 t in LEO, so +~10%).
But was cancelled due to the whole program cancellation.

Also the RD-270 engine had a planned kerosene modification for N-1 to replace NK-33.
If it was finished, it would give aanother chance.

But in any case, the N-1 capacity was 1.5 times less than SaturnV's or Energia with 8 boosters, and barely was able put onto the Moon something safe or useful. It was an illusion of lunar rocket, not a lunar rocket.

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

On the other hand the LK was tested in LEO in 1971 and worked perfectly.

It was tested three times in LEO, and never on landing, which it was purposed for.

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

But anyways, what a successful N1 flight would allow would be the launch of MKBS, the modular space station made of roughly two Skylab sized modules.

Which was to be designed by the bureau which had never practically designed any orbital ship bigger than Soyuz, just "took" two ready-to-use unbuilt Almaz instances and applied changes, which were, if look at the further expanded Almaz, planned by the Salyut bureau long before it happened.

(The electronics had become better and allowed direct photo transmissions from orbit, the optical telescope was considered auxiliary and reduced, while the large radar became the main tool of Almaz, and was permanently being improved, so the photocapsules got obsolete, and it was no more need in the torpedo tube, sticking out down from the spherical compartment behind.
A nose docking part was planned (and unplannedly added to the OPS instance from museum, and it's an interesting things, as it's described as "for Soyuz", but has nothing common with the Syromyatnikov's Soyuz port. It's of Almaz native standard, geometrically and physically compatible with Soyuz-4/5, lol.)
Thus the whole spherical chamber was obsolete to that time, as the EVA hatch could be put into the added 2 m wide nose compartment, like it was there on "Salyut".
This made the rear part flat, and as VA was planned to be extended, becoming 3.5 m wide 6-crew instead of 2.788 m of the 3-crew, it would allow VA be attached to the wide end, like in Excalibur-Almaz picture, with launching the station upside-down to let the VA be on top.

The thing which Korolyov's OKB did to the unfinished 20 t Almaz was adding to it the engine section from 6 t Soyuz, lol.

Of, course, all of them were put in LEO by OKB-52's UR-500K Proton, as Korolyov's OKB never had successfully built a rocket more capable then 6 t.
Even that R-7 was improved by Kozlov's OKB for their 7K-VI, not by Korolyov/Mishin bureau.

 All OKB-1 megaprojects were based on numerous dockings in LEO and LLO long before the first successful docking was performed.
While LK-700/UR-700 was direct accent to avoid any docking at all, because it was based on actually existing solutions.

So, the MKBS would become another TMK-1 (the OKB-1's Martian ship project with an agricultural farm and rotating mirror for it, lol).
What they actually were able to realistically plan as orbital station, was http://www.astronautix.com/s/soyuz7k-s.html
Notice, that the OIS part is derived from early Kozlov's design.
The whole Almaz project was started exactly to make something bigger than OKB-1 can provide.

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

So stations would not have slowed down

Yes, they would be cancelled at all for the sake of great design ideas.

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

especially considering a number of DOS and OPS failed during or shortly after launch in the 70s.

They were designed by OKB-52 and Salyut bureaus and launched with a rocket from OKB-52, which was made out of ICBM UR-500 exactly when and because N-1 development got stuck, and Korolyov put all efforts to kill UR-500 unborn.
Later he became the UR-500 proponent exactly because was failing N-1 and needed something for the Zond lunar flyby, lol.

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

They had plans for the L3M complex

They had plans for L-5 complex
https://antonkachinskiy.livejournal.com/11621.html
https://antonkachinskiy.livejournal.com/14314.html

And plans for this one, too.

Spoiler

And this one:

Spoiler

Panically avoiding hypergolics, but trying to put a nuclear reactor or engine into everything (and yes, the nukes were successfully used by others, not by OKB-1 ever)

R is for Realism, really.

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Because of the death of Isayev and potential problems with fuel cells, it probably wouldn’t have succeeded, but in theory, the N1 could be upgraded.

The KBKhM bureau is successfully working till now, the death of Isaev didn't stop its work.

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

but in theory, the N1 could be upgraded.

It was considered unupgradable officially, that's why it was cancelled, and the industrial hardware was repurposed for Energy, a 7.75 m miscarriage of original (8.8 wide + laterals) Vulcan with hydrogen upper stage Vesuvium, cut down because of the N-1 factory limitations among other reasons.

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

a variant of the N1 with a hydrogen upper stage.

The only Soviet hydrogen engine was RD-0120, derived from the nuclear RD-0411 project (the used RD-0410 is its 1:10 prototype).
It was developed much later for Energy.

Same маниловщина / manilovism _{when you are dreaming of obviously unrealistic things seriously, like "Let's build a bridge from our village to Moscow, and let the vendors be standing on it and trading, while we are passing by on carriages"}, as almost any OKB-1 gorgeous plan.

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The 60s was basically barn yard rocketry anyways

The 60s were completely industrial outside of the Korolyov's reign, as well as 40s were.

Everyone else's solutions were standardized, based on cylindric sections, scalable, modular, storable.
Not handmade curves, non-scalable and non-modular due to their shape and technology.

Industrial = 1 000 silos with UR-100 in several years, rather than 5 failed R-7 on ground.

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Saturn V was never meant to be sustainable

Saturn family is an example of industrialism, like the UR and Energy families were.

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

It’s very possible that even if the N1 did have a successful flight, say around 1971, it would have been cancelled anyway like the Saturn V was.

It would be anyway cancelled due to 95 t max payload (when they need <70 and >150), but would be a false alternative, slowing down any other development.

Edited March 20 by kerbiloid

[SunlitZelkova]

Thank you for the informative post.

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

 All OKB-1 megaprojects were based on numerous dockings in LEO and LLO long before the first successful docking was performed.
While LK-700/UR-700 was direct accent to avoid any docking at all, because it was based on actually existing solutions.

Good point.

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

R is for Realism, really.

I think most of their plans were feasible in theory but matched up with neither the political commitment or economic feasibility, along with underlying issues with Soviet technology.

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The KBKhM bureau is successfully working till now, the death of Isaev didn't stop its work.

I didn't know that, that's interesting to know.

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

It was considered unupgradable officially, that's why it was cancelled, and the industrial hardware was repurposed for Energy, a 7.75 m miscarriage of original (8.8 wide + laterals) Vulcan with hydrogen upper stage Vesuvium, cut down because of the N-1 factory limitations among other reasons.

The N1 was mainly cancelled because the CPSU and military did not care for it after the Americans beat them. Three days before Mishin was even dismissed, Grechko signed an order forbidding further launches. Glushko also desired to spite Korolyov's work because of his bad relationship with him.

Actual questions of whether it was useful played little role in deciding to cancel it.

Former VPK head Smirnov said in 1991 that the leadership was afraid it would succeed, and that's why they cancelled it.

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The 60s were completely industrial outside of the Korolyov's reign, as well as 40s were.

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Saturn family is an example of industrialism, like the UR and Energy families were.

Saturn rockets were so expensive they had to be cancelled, I think Delta would be a better example of industrialism.

Even Titan wasn't launched that often.

UR series is an example of industrialism, but we'll never know if Energia could have been because there wasn't a healthy economy to fund it.

We'll never know if N1 was industrial or not. It was crafted in segments in Kuybyshev and then shipped to Baikonur for assembly. But they never really had a regular production line like Saturn did, instead producing a couple rockets at a time only.

15 Saturn Vs were ordered and all were built between 1965 and 1968, but 16 of the N1 were ordered and only three were on hand after 1966-1969, and then one at a time over the next couple years. The 10th one wasn't even complete by 1974.

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

It would be anyway cancelled due to 95 t max payload (when they need <70 and >150), but would be a false alternative, slowing down any other development.

If it worked they would have used it for something, and the upgrades with better upper stages were viable. Blok SR could take 24 tons to the Moon. It still would require a docking though.

Like I said, the 60s was barnyard rocketry. Saturn V, N1, Vulkan were all too ahead of their time. The economy wasn't there to support such a large program.

Apollo and L3 might as well have been the GIRD-09s of the 1960s. They weren't feasible in the long term.

Vulkan was a crazy proposal on Glushko's part considering he just cancelled a lunar base program.

Even Energia was questionable for lunar missions. The Energia based Moon mission still had a separate LOK and LK, just like L3M, that needed to dock in orbit around the Moon. On the other hand, there was more experience with dockings from Salyut by that time, so maybe it wouldn't be as dangerous.

[kerbiloid]

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I think most of their plans were feasible in theory but matched up with neither the political commitment or economic feasibility, along with underlying issues with Soviet technology.

Most of their plans were having anything common neither with technological/economical reality, like the original lunokhod on tracks (hi, lunar dust, 40 km ever) and with nuclear reactor or the rover train, following the lunar terminator in a travel around the Moon (hi again, lunar dust, 40 km ever), nor with engineer's common sense, like these ones

Spoiler

So, while it's theoretically feasible to make a spaceship shaped as a statue of Icarus, more dull designs are usually preferred.

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

9 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The KBKhM bureau is successfully working till now, the death of Isaev didn't stop its work.

I didn't know that, that's interesting to know.

You are welcome.
http://kbhmisaeva.ru/

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The N1 was mainly cancelled because the CPSU and military did not care for it after the Americans beat them. Three days before Mishin was even dismissed, Grechko signed an order forbidding further launches.

The N1 was cancelled because it was too handcraftish, unreliable, and limited in payload due to its spherical tanks, enormous cross-section and countless engines.
A cylindric rocket can be made (and it was done many times) longer, shorter, narrower, double-diameter bottle or cylindriconical, have lateral boosters to vary the payload.
A cylindric shell of UR-200 first stage can be made a launch container for UR-100, the UR-100 made narrower to have a narrower container, of same cylindrical sections like R-9 stages, and when the engines and the gap obturator have gotten better, UR-100 can be replaced with wider UR-100N in original UR-200-wide containers. And all of that on the existing equipment, from standard section, just having them repurposed. And having every rocket matching the railroad car standards until the very late Energy central body.
That's what an industrial way is.
This spherical-conical snowman was able only to incompletely fill the tanks to launch less than the 95 t max. It wasn't able to carry more than that.

So, Glushko just had burnt the heresy with fire, and started making a proper thing.

The Space Race was a purely American shadow boxing.
The Soviet people were aware of Soviet achievements when they happened, but knew nothing about failures. So, Sputnik, Lunnik, human spaceflights, and orbital stations were actively forced by the official propaganda, but I remember the very late 1980s, when the articles "Do you know that the USSR had its own lunar flight program?", "Look! We had a project of N1 superrocket" began to appear and were looking conspirologically.
The official version was: "Meh! While they have sent the people to the Moon, we have done the same even without sending people, so what? Better look at our orbital stations, which they don't have."
Also, every second believe that the Apollos were filmed in a studio, because of no stars on lunar sky and radiation belts killing everyone.

The space doesn't occupy most part of human mind.

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Former VPK head Smirnov said in 1991 that the leadership was afraid it would succeed, and that's why they cancelled it.

Can't understand, sorry. They were afraid of success of what?

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Saturn rockets were so expensive they had to be cancelled, I think Delta would be a better example of industrialism.

It doesn't matter. The very way of the Saturn family engineering is typically industrial, like Henry Ford blesses.

The Titan and Delta as well. Like UR and Energy, too. All of them are unified and standardized, all of them use existing parts of predecessors, all of them are made of lego.

How do the engineers do?

They take an alumagnesium alloy standard slab from the metallurgical plant, polish it with a milling machine, cut into standard panels, bend them to a standard curvature, weld fixed amount of them into a cylindrical ring, make its inner surface waffled with another milling machine, send it to the storehouse.
They do the same for vessel heads of standard sizes, and for power set elements.
They use standard industrial equipment for that, the more common - the better. The less experienced staff is required - the better. The less staff is needed - the better, ideally only automated machines. And this in turn means, the simpler are shapes - the better. Only cylinders, short wide cones, small hemispheres. No long cones like R-7 lateral boosters or the ... anticone? like the R-7 central body, or N-1 stage hulls, large spheres of different diameters like N-1 tanks (six diameters for 3 stages, almost all wider than a railroad car, and one or two wider than a regular river barge).
Very excellent, when you can take ready-to-use parts from several different part manufacturers.

They take as many cylindric rings of assigned diameter from the storehouse, vessel heads welded into shorter rings of the same diameter, stack them and weld together, making a cylindric tank of required diameter. When they need to make it shorter, instead of two rings with opposing vessel heads they take one with a double hemisphere inside, and make the tank ends nested.

When they need longer, they add a standard section, when they need shorter, they take a section less.

To reinforce it from inside, they use power sets elements of standard curvature and length, not bend thm ogively.

When they need an ogive fairing, they don't bend it out in Tin-Tin rocket style. They stack a set of short cones. Looks worse, made easier.

When they need the lower stage wider than they have or the transport allows, they make a bunch of existing narrower cylinders like in Proton or Saturn IB, instead of growing a 16 m wide something like for N-1.

They always remember that the local (especially military) specialists are monkeys with grenades, and the farther from the rocket they keep their hands, the better for everyone.
Ideally the rocket should be hidden in a faceless cylindric container, delivered by train, put onto the launchpad, and forgotten.
Its self-control (leaks and so on) is also better to self-control by the rocket, lighting a red lamp if the pressure between the rocket and the container is changed, or some electric resistance or capacity is changed.
Originally the plan was to deliver the rockets already fueled, but after realising that the experienced military hands will more probably crash a fueled rocket than splash the fuel while fuelling, the idea was rejected. So, they deliver it empty, put in, and fuel.
To make a container for a smaller rocket, they take sections from the bigger rockets (UR-100x / UR-200), because they are.
To make a command post, they take a container from the big rocket, put the post inside instead of a rocket, and hang it in similar silo (R-36M family).

To make an orbital telescope, they take a spysat and overturn it (Hubble/KH-11).

They follow same dimensional requirements forced by the railroad, so the Shuttle cargo bay ideally matches Almaz station, even when they don't relate to each other.

They don't hesitate taking each other's designs to let the things be easy, thus ISS and Shuttle international docking port standard is a Soviet docking port for Buran with changed electric cable positions (while originally the Shuttle was going to dock to Skylab using Apollo-like port), while OKB-1 and OKB-52 designs sometimes have treacherously unusual diameters or perimeters in integer feet.
(Actually, they have integer or semi-integer number of aluminium panels per cylindric sections, but somehow the panel sets match integer feet, lol).

The way used in N-1 design is a typical barn rocketry. "Let's take all those water tanks, stack them like a snowman, fill with petrol and liquid air, and attach thirty rockets from dragsters. If we need more, let's just buy more metal sheets, cut and weld them manually, like we made the water tower."
It's ideal for the barn rocketry, but absolutely bad for mass production.
It would be normal for mass production if they were using mass manufactured tanks of standard size, attaching NK-33 developed from NK-15 after testing that in a dragster rally and mass produced. But all those part were not mass manufactured, they were dedicated. So, to make the N-1 kind of rational, they should be producing the set of its tanks as normal industrial vessels for liquids. To do that, in 1920s they should think: "We are going to standardize fuel tanks for farms and fuel stations. What if in the future we will want to stack them and make a rocket. Let's now calculate which diameters we need."
It would be possible, as the N-1 tanks have integer capacities in cubic meters, but it didn't happen.

The R-7 tricky shape is caused by the RD-107/108 engine. It's weak (80..<100 tf) and bulky (~2.5 m together with attitude thrusters).  So, it requires a 2.7 m wide rocket, but can't lift a cylindric one, only the carrot, 2.7 meters at the wide end.
It happened because after making RD-103M for R-5M, Glushko bureau failed for various reasons (high-frequency pulsations, too thick chamber wals, etc.) RD-105,106,110 of ~100 tf thrust, and he decided to make the kerolox engine of the lowest adopted thrust, 25 t (like V-2, but more robust and on kerolox). Combining a quad, and adding the 100 tf turbopump from the failed projects, he made the original RD-107 without attitude controls, ~100 tf.
But as the attitude controls from 3rd party would crash the harmony, he developed the known RD-107 with 2 and RD-108  with four attitude thrusters, thus the engine became 75..80 tf, so too weak even for IRBM.

So, the way they chose was to take a central booster as inverted carrot with RD-108, attach four boosters with RD-107, and thus R-7 appeared,
It was three times overpowered (4 t warhead instead of the required 1.5 t), but it was even better because originally the warhead had 10x30 km error.

Though, as the warhead department was failing the warhead re-entry, and there was declared an International Geophysical Year (the USSR, the USA, and the PRC had loudly declared their intention to launch the first satellite in that year, and immediately screwed it), Korolyov suggested Khrushchev to spend one headless R-7 from the storehouse to troll the 'Muricans with sat. Khrushchev was glad and agreed.
Thus the first satellite flew into space.

After putting five R-7 on military service and realizing that they are a total failure as ICBM, (they ordered to Korolyov / Korolyov asked them for) make a R-9A rocket. Korolyov was not punished for R-7 because the governmental order on R-7 creation was signed by the best people of the Soviet state, so whom should they accuse in that case.
Kuznetsov bureau was making the NK-9 engine for it, and Glushko was making RD-111 as post-RD-107 with 4x40 tf chambers (like in the most powerful alcoholic RD-103M, but based on RD-107 design). Glushko was first, and R-9A was equipped with RD-111, raw and untested, so unstable.
NK-9 appeared later and were used in the experimental global GR-1, based on the R-9A, and in the upper stages of N-1.
Based on NK-9, the Kuznetsov bureau developed NK-15, and then NK-33 and its further family.

Glushko suggested Korolyov to make R-7 bigger, give it six lateral booster, and replace RD-107 with RD-111, to make it 20 t capable, but to that time the UR-500 was more perspective and sane than another bunch of carrots on a huge rotating "Tulip", while the RD-111 was not properly finished, so the further R-7 and RD-107 upgrades were done by other bureaus.

***

Now let's imagine that in mid-1950s the Soviet Governmental Commission had listened to the Korolyov description of R-7 and tulip launchpad, made a cuckoo sign, deciding that no ICBM and saved money is better than no ICBM and spent money, and totally dismissed him from rocketry and space, sending him to the rocket factory as a manager (the post where he was good).

Obviously, no sat or Vostok is flying somewhere, Zenith spysat (closer to Corona or Sputnik-3) keeps being developed (irl replaced with Zenith-2 aka Vostok). Maybe the 'Muricans are the first in space, let them be happy, but more probably that in absence of Russkies in Space they keep screwing that space and finally lose the race again, lol.

There is already 1.65 m Yangel's middle-range R-12 on pseudokerosene and nitric acid, replacing R-5M, and short-range SLBM R-13/R-21, all of them derived from R-11, derived from Wasserfall, derived from A-4.

Next step is R-9B on UDMH and nitric acid, cancelled (due to then-weak engines and Korolyov's opposing to Yangel, who was formally his deputy) and turned into a family of IRBM and ICBM, i.e. R-14 and R-16.
The size is the same as in real history. Thanks, railroad, for your 325 cm wide cars, causing R-16 1st stage 290 cm. Thanks, Thor, for your 8 ft (aka 244 cm) as the R-14 only stage. Thanks, R-14, for your 244 or 246 cm as the R-16 2nd stage.
IRL also thanks R-9A for your 268 cm as R-14 shirt, compatible with the R-9A launchpad.

Btw by taking a metal sheet 174x70 cm (or in case of Proton 200x80 cm), we can easily get some perimeters and diameters.

Spoiler

3x175 /pi ~= 165 cm for A-4 family, R-12, Redstone.
4x70 /pi ~= 88 cm for Wasserfall and R-11 (R-17)
8x70 /pi ~= 180 cm for R-29
9x70 /pi ~= 200 cm for UR-100 and original UR-100 upper stage, also for lateral boosters of UR-700 thrid stage
10x70 /pi ~=222 cm for original UR-100 first stage, and UR-200 second stage
11x70 /pi ~= 246 cm for Thor, R-14, R-16 upper stage
11.5x70 or 10x80 /pi ~=250+ cm for UR-100N
12x70 /pi ~= 268 cm for R-7 low end, R-9 stages, R-14 shirt, UR-100 launch container, all parts of LK-700 but capsule
12.5 x 70 /pi ~= 275+ cm for R-7 upper stages
13x70 /pi ~= 290 cm for R-16, UR-200 first stage, UR-100N container, R-36 and 36M stages.
16x70 /pi ~= 350 cm for the R-36M launch container and command post
16x80 /pi ~= 410 cm for UR-500 and UR-700 all stages.
17x80 /pi ~=435 cm for UR-500 shroud.
20x80 /pi ~= 510 cm for bigger UR-500 shroud
22x80 /pi ~= 560 cm for R-56 first stage
The later ones use full-sized slabs 4.4x1.7 (or 4.35x1.74)
7x174 /pi ~= 390 cm for Zenith stages and Energy lateral booster
3x435 cm ~= 415 cm for Soyuz-5 central body
12x174 /pi ~= 670 cm for Energy-M shroud.
14x174 /pi ~= 775 cm for Energy and Energy-M central body, Vulcan upper stage.
16x174 /pi ~= 880+ cm for Vulcan central body, UR-700 extended upper stage, and UR-700M lateral booster.
18x174/pi ~= ~1200 cm for UR-700M central body.
 

From the railroad dimensions, we have 290 cm of max diameter inside a car, and 448 cm oversized.
Thus, the widest part of Proton is 435 cm, but by splitting a shroud in quarters, we can have 570 cm wide shroud.
Also, that's why the Shuttle cargo bay is 4.5+ m wide, exactly matching Salyut. Yes, thanks to the Roman horses.

The A-4 is 165 cm in diameter, but twice as wide ~325 cm in wing span, so transportable straight by a railroad, or diagonally by a trailer which is transportable by the railroad.

For wider stages only barges are appropriate.
Barges can contain integer number of the Intermodal Containers of fixed size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container#Specifications.
Basically, they are 2.438 m wide.
Taking intercontainer gap as 5 cm, we have standard barge payload zone widths:
2 containers = 2x2.438 + 3x0.05 = 5 m
3 containers = 3x2.438 + 4x0.05 = 7.5 m
4 containers = 4x2.438 + 5x0.05 = 10 m (most common)
5 containers = 5x2.438 + 6x0.05 = 12.5 m
6 containers = 6x2.438 + 7x0.05 = 15 m (river-sea class barge, avoid it for its renting price)
24 containers = 24x2.438 + 25x0.05 = 60 m MSC Gülsün
(Notice the perfect match of the sizes and the Metric units. It's probably done by French or Germans to troll the Anglosaxons).

The same dimension limits are also clearly visible in the automobile trailer sizes, and bridge standards.

The railroad car is 22..25 m long, thus all rockets or rocket stages are shorter than 22 m. If they are longer, they consist of two parts, assembled after the railroading.

The central UR-700 (9-block) booster and the additional boosters of UR-700 (15- and 18-block) consist of two main 4.1 m wide parts: fuel tank and engines, and oxidizer tank. Each is delivered by its own car.
The lateral UR-700 (9-block) boosters has a third part on top, transfusion tank, consisting of 12 m high tilted cone and ~10 m cylinder.
The central and lateral booster tanks of UR-700 (15- and 18-block) are longer by one 2-m high section, 7 and 5 instead of 6 and 4 rings.
All of them are shorter than a railroad car.

That's the engineers' way of doing things.
Science is for nerds, who live in their Mathematrix.
True engineers measure in train cars and barges by hands. That's the Way.

***

So, in absence of R-7 and R-9 the R-14 and R-16 pair appears by several years earlier, and has same dimensions.
The they are taken and used by OKB-52 in their development of UR family.

UR-200 is a standard launch vehicle for 2.5 t orbital payloads (IS/US sats), and in this reality becomes the first rocket to put in LEO all three first sats, and something like Mercury (1.7 t), if they decide.
Actually, it would be a 0.8 sized single-seat cabin of further LK-1 with some lifesupport aggregate attached below, like they prefer, with 2..6 orbits lifespan.
Non-maneuverable, pure Mercury.

By implementing the intermediate concept which led from 3 m wide UR-200 to 4 m wide UR-500, they would attach four lateral booster of then-coming-UR-500 with engines from UR-200 (nailed, not jettisonnable, like in UR-500, but with their own fuel tanks in every), enlarge the second stage to 2.9 m, and get a rocket with 5 t payload, ideal for Vostok (4.8 t) or simplified LK-1 (standard 2.511 capsule, but no maneuvering).

Vostok is basically a stratospheric balloon cabin, used in many ways since Piccard created it first for FNRS-1, so its usage in a spaceship looks obvious, either as a cabin, or as a habitat. Basically, this gives Vostok/Voskhod and Soyuz.
So, even if the very first ship was based on LK-1 design, it's very possible that Vostok would be repeated in this reality as the first day-to-week flight ship for basic experiments. The Mercury-like cone would anyway be airbreaking ballistically, at the same 10 g.

Once RD-253 come into scene, a UR-500-compatible, 4.1 m wide, 250 t heavy rocket with twin RD-253, third stage of UR-500 as 2nd stage, with payload capacity of 6+ t, i.e. a total alternative for R-7 appears. It would be launching Soyuzes and LK-1.
Btw, LK-1 has a triple purpose. Its rear booster (delta-V ~ 3 km/s) can put it in LEO, or send it from LEO to the lunar flyby, or return it from the lunar surface to the Moon (they called it LK-3). Actually, a rather multifunctional ship with that booster as integral part.
It was replaced with LK-700 to increase it volume, to add two lunar EVA suits. Otherwise they should be getting out in undies rescue suits, and have just several minutes to plant a flag, listen the anthem, make a selfie, grab several nearest stones and jump back to the cabin.

This would happen in early 1960s.

In absence of N-1 distraction, the RD-270 is developed, the UR-700 appears first 9-block, then 15- and 18-block, up to 270 t payload.
The UR-500 adopts NK-33 family as UR-500MK, then grows up twice, becoming a 70 t capable kerolox rocket.
The next step is 8.8 m central booster with four expanded parablocks from UR-700 (15-block), followed by UR-700M of 12 m central body and seven lateral 8.8 m boosters, 700+ t of payload.

As RD-170 was designed from the RD-270 turbopump and, they say, NK-33 ancestry, a RD-170 or quad NK-33+ still appears to make the rocket kerolox.

Probably, the further progress would be possible only as a combination of Sea Dragon and Nexus, so they would wait for wiki article with its DIY pdf on it.

Edited March 20 by kerbiloid

[SunlitZelkova]

17 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Can't understand, sorry. They were afraid of success of what?

If it succeeded they'd be forced to use it a little bit, but by cancelling it before it could have a successful flight they could write off the program as hopeless.

It was probably a good thing though, because if N1 succeeded there might not have been Mir, only more failed lunar flights.

17 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

It doesn't matter. The very way of the Saturn family engineering is typically industrial, like Henry Ford blesses.

I see what your thinking.

17 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The R-7

Wasn't the R-7 mass produced though? There were like a thousand launches in the 70s because of that satellite mapping program I forget the name of.

17 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Now let's imagine that in mid-1950s the Soviet Governmental Commission had listened to the Korolyov description of R-7 and tulip launchpad, made a cuckoo sign, deciding that no ICBM and saved money is better than no ICBM and spent money, and totally dismissed him from rocketry and space, sending him to the rocket factory as a manager (the post where he was good).

I think this is feasible if Stalin died a little earlier, and wasn't able to sign the decree authorizing the development of the R-6. Maybe Chelomei wouldn't have lost his bureau then too.

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Wasn't the R-7 mass produced though?

Because it was put in production early, and there was no other human-rated rocket until Proton.
Also because its expensive launchpads with the tulip were already built and had to be used.
Later it keeps being used because it's already being used, with minor improvements of engines and tanks.
Dismissing it means a replacement of the launchpads. Thus, one early version of Angara had lateral fuel tanks on top, to let using it from the Soyuz launchpad.
Also, thanks to R-7 we now have the main spaceport in Kazakhstan, as its early control system was requiring two navigation stations at 150 km to the left and to the right from its path, and one more at 500 km behind, so Kazakhstan was the place where all of them were on the USSR territory.
What place could be better for cryogenic fuel than hot desert? Obviously not SubArctic Plesetsk.

But Baikonur had a significant advantage. While other developers were having their factories near Moscow and Dnepropetrovsk, and had to deliver rocket parts via railroad, Baikonur allowed Korolyov have his own reign right at the place and also use the factory in Samara, at the Volga coast.

So, while Korolyov was dismissed from the military development, declassified, and became the official frontman of the Soviet cosmonautics, the serious developers were forcedly focused on ICBM, SLBM, and spysats, leaving the manned space flights limited with Soyuz/R-7. Except the orbital stations and Proton for them, which are not Korolyov's.

There were several more military cosmonaut groups (for Almaz, for 7K-VI, for Buran), being trained for speaceflights, some of them including people from the original cosmonaut team, but none of them had flown on purposed ships due to the corresponding programs cancellation.

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I think this is feasible if Stalin died a little earlier, and wasn't able to sign the decree authorizing the development of the R-6. Maybe Chelomei wouldn't have lost his bureau then too.

Stalin died in the year of R-5 test flights. The post-V-2 rocketry and cosmonautics in whole is totally Khrushchiov's times.

The imprisoned Korolyov was assigned as Glushko's deputy when Glushko had asked for an aviation engineer, and Sevruk (the main proponent of hypergolic combat ballistic rockets, and thus the natural Korolyov's opponent) suggested to him to take Korolyov, as it's a lot of work with hypergolic engines, so they can't distract.
Then due to unknown reasons Korolyov from Glushko's deputy quickly became his boss, even while there were already two groups, adopting the of German ancestry. He's mentioned by his colleagues as a great administrator of Chaotic Good alignment, harsh but not cruel, but at the same time the memoirs of different persons, not his proponent Chertok, let compare this love to the stories about dolphins. We know stories of those people, whom the dolphins were pushing to the coast, but never the stories of those, whom they were pushing to sea.
Some memoir talks about a case, when a department boss was moved to another place after Korolyov had flown on the first helicopter of four, so had to wait others.

Also, most part of payload tonnage and total launches had no relation to R-7.
They were made by Proton, R-14, R-36, R-36M, R-29RM, R-12.

If also distract all launches of Zenith-2 spysats, which are the main R-7 payload in numbers, the R-7 part becomes even smaller.
The only reason of its usage (Zenith-2 = Vostok) was poor vacuum electronics.

If they were focused on the electronics improvement, R-7 would be required several times less.