|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: If the Russians had beaten us to the moon...
|
mensax
Member Posts: 861
From: Virginia
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 05-14-2005 09:10 AM
   
I thought the recent comment made by John Young that "if the Russians had beaten us to the moon, both countries would stll be there" was very interesting.I wonder if... and why... that would be true? IF Russia could have ever put people on the Moon, how could they have afforded to maintain a lunar program? I suppose the reason the US would still be there would be just to keep from being in second place?
Noah
|
Matt T
Member Posts: 1369
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 05-14-2005 12:37 PM
Regardless of space treaties you can bet there'd be Russian and American territories up there. Complete with pictures of Lunin and the Statue of Lunarty respectively  Cheers,
Matt ------------------
www.spaceracemuseum.com [This message has been edited by Matt T (edited May 14, 2005).] |
KenDavis
Member Posts: 187
From: W.Sussex United Kingdom
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 05-14-2005 03:11 PM
I guess it all depends on what is meant by 'the Russians beating the Americans to the moon'. If the Russians had achieved a manned circumlunar flight prior to Apollo 8 (which nearly happened) then this would have just spurred the Americans to land a man on the moon first - which they would have done -and history would have carried on as is now. It's very unlikely the Russians would have beaten the Americans to be the first to land a man on the moon, it would have needed major problems on Apollo 9 & 10 or big slippages on the delivery of the LM and for the Russian N1 launcher to have been successful. Even then the Russian capabiltiy would have been very limited, one man, plant a flag, pick up a few rocks, come home. They were unlikely to have been able to support anything like an Apollo lunar landing science/extended stay programme so the Russian manned lunar programme could well have been just one mission/one man. If the Russians has got there first it would have again spurred the Americans to go one better. They would have sorted out whatever had caused the delay, landed two men in 1970/1971 and then moved as quickly as possible to the J-Series Apollo's to argue a man on the moon was only justified if there was scientific benefit. I imagine Apollos 18, 19, & 20 would have remained in the schedule, but that would be about all. In 1969 the US was already starting to think about the Shuttle so if they had lost the manned landing moon race they would have down-played the lunar landings (even though more US astronauts would have walked on the moon than Russian cosmonauts) in favour of more 'economical' space utilisation via Space Shuttle and Space Station. It made have created the odd situation where there were more US lunar missions but less subsequent interest or percieved historical relevence. |
eurospace
Member Posts: 2615
From: Berlin, Germany
Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 05-15-2005 01:29 AM
It might be interestig to note that following the formula Young used both countries ARE actually still there. The United States of America still exist, and so does Russia.Russia, btw, never had any plans to fly a Man to the Moon. That was a plan of the former Union of Socialist Soviet Republics (USSR) that has indeed vanished. The terminological imprecision reveals the phrase as what it is: babble and pure speculation. What about those Americans who claim that the US, also, never went to the Moon in the first place?
------------------
Jürgen P Esders
Berlin, Germany
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Astroaddies |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3117
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 05-15-2005 01:57 AM
Although they weren't really that close to landing a man on the surface it wouldn't have taken that many problems to slow the US program enough to give the USSR a chance. If the Apollo 10's tumble had been more serious, if the Apollo 13 service module's faulty tank had gone in an earlier flight... all kinds of things could have gone seriously wrong.In any case it's still an interesting waste of time to wonder how the US would have reacted to the USSR landing a man first, escpecially given the way the US lunar program struggled for funding and public recognition even when it was so successful. One result might have been just one moon landing to prove the US could do it too (and with two men on the surface) then to move onto a new challenge/race (Mars maybe?). I think this would have been a more likely reaction than dozens of landings to prove they could do it again and again. The funding just would not have been there. |
Stephen Clemmons
Member Posts: 108
From: Wilmington, NC, New Hanover
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 05-16-2005 10:22 AM
I think John Young is right. Russia definitely had solid plans of landing men on the moon and establishing a moon base complete with Nuclear weapons. They felt that there were enough minerals that could be mined to justify the cost.
They were certainly trying hard enough with the N1 booster.
From what I have read, it seems that the Russians had different ideas as to the type of mooncraft needed and how they would use the surface of the moon.
We cannot discount the events of the sixties as being a half hearted effort on Russia's part. Believe me, they were serious.
If they had not lost their entire upper echelon of management and designers on the pad when their Moon Rocket blew up, the race to space would have been an entirely different story.
Russia was always willing to take chances to achieve their goals and they were willing to go for the gold, no matter the sacrifice it took. and as for funds, under the Communist rule of furnishing only the necessary items, that would have been no problem, as long as it was in the national interest.
No, I don't believe that our military leaders, managers and strategists were wrong in those days, but once the threat of a Russian moon landing disappeared, so did our reason for landing on the moon.
It then became just something we wanted to do. The American citizens lost interest in the space program because they could not understand why we were spending all that money in space. Since our national security was not at stake, why waste all that money.
They felt it was better spent on social programs and bringing our boys home from Viet Nam.
Our illustrius leaders in Congress heard the masses and began to cut funds. Even the rockets to the moon became a back page item, witness the news efforts on Apollo 13. Only one news TV program, and no major network covered the launch.
They were more interested in what was happening in Viet Nam, or the race riots and Viet Nam protesters. We had big problems and a trip to the moon was put on the back burner.
Plans for the shuttle program began in 1965 with a call for preliminary design from the major Aircraft Builders. The year following the fire in January 1967, North America, now North American Rockwell was awarded the biggest preliminary contract in history to build four shuttles, outbidding both Boeing and General Dynamics Astronautics.
There was some talk of collusion as a result of the fire but that was smoothed over with the awarding of major contracts to Boeing for other major parts of the Shuttle program.
This doomed the Saturn V and Apollo Spacecraft as NASA began to cut the number of flights to save what little money they could for the Shuttle Program, touted to be the grand daddy of all spacecraft, able to do everything.
I've also often wondered where our space program would have been if Russian had remained in the game.
The catastrophe of the Russian moon rocket explosion changed the landscape of space travel forever. If it had not happened, we would be launching the Saturn V,Apollo Spacecrat and unmanned freighters to the moon as fast as we could get one ready. The shuttles would orbiting the moon supplying several moon stations with hundreds of workers. KSC would be a major player in a daily race with Russia and Russia would still be a powerhouse under the control of the Communists.
I think that the explosion of the N1 changed the face of the Space race forever and it's sad that we allowed our program to fall into its present state even without the Russian threat. |
Stephen Clemmons
Member Posts: 108
From: Wilmington, NC, New Hanover
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 05-16-2005 12:44 PM
I need to clarify several points on my last post. The pad accident that killed over 120 top engineers and technicians occurred on October 24, 1960. In addition to the technicians was the head of the Russian Space Program Field Marshal Nedelin and his entire staff. They were incinerated when the rocket blew up on the pad and destroyed the pad as well as the control room.
Chief designer, Sergei P. Korolev and his deputy were in a blast shelter and survived the blast, but many of his engineers were among the dead.
The N1 Rocket, a giant almost as big as the Saturn V flew four short flights, either exploding shortly after flight or some seconds afterward. It was finally cancelled in May, 1974. This ended their moon program and Russia's hopes of landing men on the moon.It was a well developed system, spacecraft, lunar landers, trained astronauts very similar to the American Program.
Hope this clarifies a few points. |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1051
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 05-16-2005 01:36 PM
http://img252.echo.cx/img252/3851/45ay6hn.jpg [This message has been edited by collectSPACE Admin (edited May 16, 2005).] |
star61
Member Posts: 294
From: Bristol UK
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 05-16-2005 04:25 PM
I find it very odd to keep hearing comments about the "masses" complaining about the expenditure on spaceflight. NASA was and is high profile, so $10billion of NASA funding probably has the same impact as $100billion on other less dramatic programs.
If there was ever a referendum on spending for spaceflight, i`ve yet to hear of it. Considering the excitement generated by Sci-Fi and Aliens etc , over the past 50 years , i find it hard to believe the public does`nt in general support manned spaceflight. I think it more likely that the "media" is to blame for lackluster reporting of incredible events. You can bet the next shuttle launch will have the largest media coverage since.......um let me see....STS26 perhaps.
In 1971 i watched 2 men driving a car on another celestial body for the first time in the history of mankind. During the transmission the BBC cut to a sports program!
The endeavour of exploring other planets and maybe star systems, has no comparison in human history. Mankind has enabled itself to explore outside the habitable sphere. I believe most people do understand and support the venture.
If the powers that be, could look beyond the next election and exibit some real leadership we could be on the Moon in 5years and Mars in 10.
Unlike Apollo the technology exists now. There are people willing and desperate to do it. I`ve said it before and will say it again. Billions of dollars are always on hand when there is a war to fight. So i dont believe money is a real reason not to do it anymore.
Politicians just do`nt have the nuts to do it. Phil |
Stephen Clemmons
Member Posts: 108
From: Wilmington, NC, New Hanover
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 05-22-2005 06:05 PM
Phil, it's true that most politians don't support NASA, they say they do, but look at what happens when they get NASA's Budget. Chop, chop Chop. Look at their voting record when it comes to NASA.
A big percentage of the American voters don't really support NASA because they are more involved in things that are happening here on earth, just trying to make a living. Things like Iraq, middle east, oil, high cost of medicine, high cost of automobiles and housing occupy much of their daily work day.
A recent poll in our town showed less that twenty percent supported our space efforts or at least was in favor of increasing the budget. Most did not know what was going on in NASA, who the astronauts were and what they were doing. The only time they knew anything about our space program was when a shuttle would take off.
The politicians certainly look at the polls to show them which way the wind is blowing This has caused a big gap in our space program.Look at how they gutted the shuttle program over the years. When they should have been adding money for safety upgrades, they cut it.
Our space program has generated so much, not necessarily in what they brought back from the moon, but in the massive spinoffs. particularly in medical research. When you look at the large amounts of research money that is scattered out around the country, probably more than half the NASA Budget, and all the medical schools,colleges, universities and research facilities partially funded by NASA grants, the Real Story of NASA emerges.
But the American public doesn't hear about this,only their failures.
Every Politician likes "Pork." Money they bring home to their constituants. They need this to keep their cushy jobs but they can't claim or control the money that NASA spends on grants.
So we have a lackluster attitude in Congress about Space. The fiddle player can take some of what they cut from NASA and send it home to build another huge building with his name on it.
Another group that always has a say are the ones that use the social services and welfare programs and they say, why spend all that money in space when it could be better spent on social welfare checks. We need mo money.
They don't seem to realize that there are NO department stores, supermarkets, gas stations in space, it's all spent right here in the Good OL USA.
But there's no voting citizens living in outer space so who do those lop sided Fat Butts from insided the beltway listen to. you guessed it, that group that already gets 50% or more of the national budget.
Who suffers, those who are trying to get our program back on track. NASA as a federal Agency only gets one to two percent of the Federal Budget and they should be getting at least ten percent.
We have spent more than 20 times the NASA budget over in the middle east, Iraq and Afganistan in the time that we have been flying the shuttle. And what have we gotten back. Nothing that we can take to the bank.
I have always said that if we can't send our men in space safely with a good chance of getting back. NASA should get up on their hind legs and let the AMERICAN PUBLIC know that there will be no more flights until they can assure the fine Astronauts that they have more than a 1-50 chance of getting home. THEY DESERVE BETTER THAN THAT.
The loss of two shuttles (odds 1-2) is proof that we really do have a problem and no band aid fix is going to work. The shuttles should be completely overhauled at least every five years with all new equipment which would include decent computers. BUT there's no money
Something is wrong and most of it can be traced back to LACK OF FUNDS and why the lack of funds, ask our congressman why they try and cut the NASA Budget to bare bones.
I've often said in my talks around the country that NASA should have a Fixed Budget that will properly support the Shuttles flight system upgrades with more funds if needed, we used to call it the IRAN program. (If repairs are needed), and crew training that is not subject to the Congressional chopping axe. It should be as automatic as their raises that they get every year.
If there is enough of a demand from the voters for a safer shuttle, then we might have a viable space program again. It took two shuttle losses and fourteen dead Astronauts to get the message across this time, what will it take the next time?
Look at the outpouring of rage when NASA said that servicing the Hubble was out of the question.That decision is still being studied and we should know soon what the final decision is. I think they will service it one way or another.
No we can't blame it on our newspapers or writers, cause they write what they see. and right now, there's not much to see cause the NASA PR folks are silent. |
Rodina
Member Posts: 836
From: Lafayette, CA
Registered: Oct 2001
|
posted 05-22-2005 08:13 PM
I've made this point before -- but it bears repeating. When I worked as a Legislative Correspondent on Capitol Hill in 1993 (the year the Roemer Amendment was defeated by one vote), in six months I recall reading (and I read *all* the mail) exactly TWO letters in support of the space station.Two letters from a constituency of 600,000. So if there's no grass-roots support -- and you haven't written your Congresscritter lately -- you've only yourself to blame.
|
WAWalsh
Member Posts: 809
From: Cortlandt Manor, NY
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 05-23-2005 10:51 AM
I feel the need to echo Rodina here. During my nearly two years working on the Hill as a LC/LA for a U.S. Senator, whose state had a huge stake in NASA, I do not recall more than a handful of letters coming in expressing support for the space program. |
Obviousman
Member Posts: 438
From: NSW, Australia
Registered: May 2005
|
posted 05-24-2005 03:03 AM
Perhaps the last two posts says something to you Yanks - if you support the space programme, write to your elected officials and SAY SO (if you haven't already done so). |
star61
Member Posts: 294
From: Bristol UK
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 05-24-2005 01:42 PM
Normally people only write to politicians to complain. If they`re happy about something, or content, whats to write about.
I`d be interested to hear how many letters of disapproval of the space program were sent. Phil [This message has been edited by star61 (edited May 24, 2005).] |
Stephen Clemmons
Member Posts: 108
From: Wilmington, NC, New Hanover
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 05-24-2005 01:45 PM
I think the last three posts says it all. No one is very concerned and certainly haven't made Congress aware of their wishes.
If you want a space program, let your congressman know and send letters to the editors in your local mewspapers. I do to as many papers as I can, but none ever get published. The reason given is that our space program in not in the mainstream of National Affairs. It's so far down on the totem pole that its in the cellar.
When was the last time that we heard any congressman, senator or even the president talk about our current space program?
Even in my talks at the various schools, I find a sad lack of knowledge by many of the students. We have a certain percentage of youth that are interested, but it's very small. | |
Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts
Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a
|
|
|
 advertisement
|
