Why Russian cosmonauts never landed on the moon.

[Gary7]

Really interesting. Back during the 1960's space-race, it was presumed that Russia was aiming to send men to the moon. But some interesting circumstances ended up foiling that. A combination of a very instrumental man in their space program dying before his time and a rocket design that proved too unreliable to pull off successfully kept Russia far behind, until Brezhnev decided to cancel the whole program due to the cost and the USA having nearly exhausted public interest in the NASA program. Curious though, what happened to the technologies that Russia developed.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[mirrormatt86]

I watched a documentary on the Russian space program the other day. If the cold war wasn't there and these two weren't bitter rivals, science would've made some incredible leaps forward in that decade.

30 engines strapped to a rocket? Was a long shot at best! But, the design of one of those engines is now used by NASA since the 90's!

 

[Marc]

A combination of a very instrumental man in their space program dying before his time and a rocket design that proved too unreliable to pull off successfully kept Russia far behind,

that would Koralov (sp?) and his N1 which had it worked would have left Saturn V in it's dust.

While the N1 was a very complex design I think it's failure is more attributable to the soviet system with it's poor quality of materials than the rocket design.

 

[Santaman]

The control system was a bit too much for that era's computers, it was indeed very complex and fragile, it would have taken them a lot longer to make it work.
Same with other rockets like Energia the fall of the Soviet Union would have cut all funding anyhow.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

If the cold war wasn't there and these two weren't bitter rivals, science would've made some incredible leaps forward in that decade.

On the contrary, it was the rivalry that lead to great advances in engineering and science and gave rise to the space race. No rivalry would remove any incentive and the US would not have landed a man on the Moon in 1969.

 

[Gary7]

On the contrary, it was the rivalry that lead to great advances in engineering and science and gave rise to the space race. No rivalry would remove any incentive and the US would not have landed a man on the Moon in 1969.

I agree. The Cold War rivalry was a huge motivator. Just Sputnik in of itself helped encourage the USA to get moving into creating it's own official space program (only 1 year later). And once Kennedy had announced the official proclamation that the US would land a man on the moon by the end of the decade, it was an even greater imperative after his tragic death -- to keep the promise.

A 28 small engine rocket with traditional engine technology is just too complicated, mainly because a single engine failure can radically change the navigational capabilities and force an abort. But at least in pursuit of trying to make that happen, the Soviets came up with advanced rocket engine designs that were good enough to be in use even today.

 

[XCV330]

Soviet method of rocket testing in the era of the N1 program was to launch, fix mistakes, relaunch again, until they got it right. The N1 was too complicated and expensive for that. Without the N1, there was no lunar program, really. By the time years later that they had a heavy lift vehicle, Energia, there interests were elsewhere, and it was not really designed with the Moon in mind. That and they were just about out of money. Even at they they weren't close to having a lander ready. They might have made an Apollo 8 flyaround with Zond, but they simply weren't ready in several important items.

 

[XCV330]

A 28 small engine rocket with traditional engine technology is just too complicated, mainly because a single engine failure can radically change the navigational capabilities and force an abort. But at least in pursuit of trying to make that happen, the Soviets came up with advanced rocket engine designs that were good enough to be in use even today.

Falcon Heavy running 27 engines at liftoff I think finally validated the N1 concept of multiple small engines, in a way, but technology had a long time to catch up. (and not without their own incidents such as fuel handling, etc before it reached success with the first Falcon Heavy launch last year.

And even then, Falcon Heavy is most likely an interim project until the BFR is ready with larger, fewer Raptor engines. And yes Antares proved at least in part the NK33 engines would work, even though they failed critically on a launch (in fairness that engine was one of many that had dubious storage records and an interesting history) .

 

[Gary7]

Falcon Heavy running 27 engines at liftoff I think finally validated the N1 concept of multiple small engines, in a way, but technology had a long time to catch up. (and not without their own incidents such as fuel handling, etc before it reached success with the first Falcon Heavy launch last year.

And even then, Falcon Heavy is most likely an interim project until the BFR is ready with larger, fewer Raptor engines. And yes Antares proved at least in part the NK33 engines would work, even though they failed critically on a launch (in fairness that engine was one of many that had dubious storage records and an interesting history) .

It take it "BFR" is Big F'ing Rocket?
Yes, I think fewer larger rocket engines is more sensible, and design them such that failure is only 00.05% likely. But, if the guidance system can be sophisticated enough to compensate for 1 or 2 engines failing out of a 27 engine array, then that could certainly work. Also, if the array is symmetrical such that one failing could trigger an automatic shut-off of a few other engines to maintain symmetry, while still delivering sufficient boost, then that could work as well.

 

[XCV330]

It take it "BFR" is Big F'ing Rocket?
Yes, I think fewer larger rocket engines is more sensible, and design them such that failure is only 00.05% likely. But, if the guidance system can be sophisticated enough to compensate for 1 or 2 engines failing out of a 27 engine array, then that could certainly work. Also, if the array is symmetrical such that one failing could trigger an automatic shut-off of a few other engines to maintain symmetry, while still delivering sufficient boost, then that could work as well.

Yes, though they are now calling it Big Falcon Rocket
I think there's a balance between dozens of engines and one big honking engine. Saturn V had engine out capability (and used it at least once) , something the west would not have again until Falcon 9.

The other problem with engine out would be something far worse like a fuel line rupturing in a cross connected system which would obviously lead to a rapidly cascading failure and Loss of Vehicle, but remote monitoring systems are so much more advanced now than they were this problem is at least somewhat minimized.

this has some information on BFR: https://www.spacex.com/mars

if anyone happens to be around Kennedy Space Center this week, you can actually see them installing the crew access bridge on the old 39A launch tower. It looks pretty cool. will be used for Dragon atop F9. The BFR pads will be very different, taller, obviously, than anything built for space before.

 

[Owain Taggart]

On the contrary, it was the rivalry that lead to great advances in engineering and science and gave rise to the space race. No rivalry would remove any incentive and the US would not have landed a man on the Moon in 1969.

Exactly right. I heard it said recently, either something I read or heard on TV, that the space race was akin to a weaponless war because it produced the same effect of being in a war, with rapid technological progress. If war's got one good thing going for it, it's the rapid state of technological progress. Now, one thing about WW1 that I find fascinating was that when the war started, flight was a brand new thing, having just proven it could work 10 years previously. Just 10 years. At least as far as the U.S government was concerned, they had to be convinced it would work for them. Throughout the war saw a large amount of progress in the stability and speed of airplanes and by the end of the war, there had been rudimentary plans for jet planes. That's bonkers if you think about it. Ten years before the war we had planes that were slow and not considered all that reliable, to something jet-powered. Amazing progress right there.

Now, as far are the Russians go, I saw something fascinating awhile back that suggested they had built shuttles very similar looking to America's Space Shuttles called Burans, and created in response to them during the cold war. They only ever got one of them into orbit and now they're abandoned in hangars. Fun thing is that in 2011, American and Russian scientists apparently had toyed with the idea with bringing the Buran program back, possibly as a solution to get people to the ISS. It kind of makes you wonder what would have been.

 

[Santaman]

Buran worked actually very well, they indeed only launched one, without any crew btw, and it came back and landed on its own, Buran did not have main engines like the shuttle but was carried on a Energia rocket which is was capable of hauling 100 tons into orbit, Buran like Energia were mothballed when the USSR collapsed, the spaceplane that actually went into orbit was destroyed, the second one still seems to exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_programme

 

[Marc]

Buran worked actually very well, they indeed only launched one, without any crew btw, and it came back and landed on its own, Buran did not have main engines like the shuttle but was carried on a Energia rocket which is was capable of hauling 100 tons into orbit, Buran like Energia were mothballed when the USSR collapsed, the spaceplane that actually went into orbit was destroyed, the second one still seems to exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_programme

There are some pictures on the net of the Buran rotting away in it's hanger taken by some people who snuck in (dangerous not only as it was a forbidden location but hangars were collapsing).

 

[XCV330]

Buran worked actually very well, they indeed only launched one, without any crew btw, and it came back and landed on its own, Buran did not have main engines like the shuttle but was carried on a Energia rocket which is was capable of hauling 100 tons into orbit, Buran like Energia were mothballed when the USSR collapsed, the spaceplane that actually went into orbit was destroyed, the second one still seems to exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_programme

I don't think there was ever anything to the idea of resurrecting Buran. Certainly the US had/has no interest in it. In 2011 NASA was transitioning from Constellation to "Program of Record" and the SLS. Helping another country rebuild a launch system that was designed for weaponizing space (see Polyus, the real reason for Energya rocket) seems problematic?

There were rumors the Buran landed hard and the airframe was damaged on landing, but I doubt that anyone who knows for certain will say. It was a fascinating if odd system. If they'd had time and money they might have designed a shuttle that looked very different but they "borrowed" aerodynamic data from the STS program and just used that. (you can see the direction they were going for a spaceplane prior to Buran by looking at Bor4) Easier that way. In any case it was able to fly remotely, something the STS fleet never could.

If they'd had their way, Buran fleets would have helped build and crew Mir 2, an ambitious follow on to the original Mir. But instead the work that did go into Mir 2 found a place aboard ISS. There would be no ISS without Mir 2. It's not impossible to imagine an Energya multi-launch program being able to finally get them to the Moon, but obviously that did not economically work out. The main problem for Energya/Buran was that it was still a throwaway system. Only the launcher was reused so there would be no economic savings to use it, vs Protons or the (then) proposed Angara family of launch vehicles.

Soyuz continued on with continual upgrades and, until whatever temporary stand-down will have to occur over the incident this month, it was one of two active human spacecraft, the other being Shenzhou which is not flown very often. The Shenzhou itself is based in many ways off Soyuz.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Exactly right. I heard it said recently, either something I read or heard on TV, that the space race was akin to a weaponless war because it produced the same effect of being in a war, with rapid technological progress. If war's got one good thing going for it, it's the rapid state of technological progress. Now, one thing about WW1 that I find fascinating was that when the war started, flight was a brand new thing, having just proven it could work 10 years previously. Just 10 years. At least as far as the U.S government was concerned, they had to be convinced it would work for them. Throughout the war saw a large amount of progress in the stability and speed of airplanes and by the end of the war, there had been rudimentary plans for jet planes. That's bonkers if you think about it. Ten years before the war we had planes that were slow and not considered all that reliable, to something jet-powered. Amazing progress right there.

Now, as far are the Russians go, I saw something fascinating awhile back that suggested they had built shuttles very similar looking to America's Space Shuttles called Burans, and created in response to them during the cold war. They only ever got one of them into orbit and now they're abandoned in hangars. Fun thing is that in 2011, American and Russian scientists apparently had toyed with the idea with bringing the Buran program back, possibly as a solution to get people to the ISS. It kind of makes you wonder what would have been.

I'm not sure about jet engines being conceived of as early as WW1 -- the early 20s, certainly. However, it wasn't until the 30s, when materials science and precision engineering had advanced enough, that people such as Frank Whittle could make a reasoned case for development funding. Of course, by the end of WW2, jet fighters were a reality, but in insufficient numbers to make much difference.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Whittle

 

[Gary7]

Buran... Baran. Can't separate the two.

 

[Owain Taggart]

There are some pictures on the net of the Buran rotting away in it's hanger taken by some people who snuck in (dangerous not only as it was a forbidden location but hangars were collapsing).

Yeah, and I can't even imagine the risk undertaken. Seems kind of stupid to do just to get a glimpse. I find it fascinating just how similar they are to the Space Shuttle.

I'm not sure about jet engines being conceived of as early as WW1 -- the early 20s, certainly.

Yeah, I think maybe you're right. I think they definitely were thinking of it by the end of the war though. I think it was in David McCullough's The Wright Brothers where I had read they were thinking of it. They may not have had any proof of concepts. But it's still really fascinating to think of how much flight had evolved in those early days.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Yeah, I think maybe you're right. I think they definitely were thinking of it by the end of the war though. I think it was in David McCullough's The Wright Brothers where I had read they were thinking of it. They may not have had any proof of concepts. But it's still really fascinating to think of how much flight had evolved in those early days.

I expect the realisation of how you could get as much thrust to weight as possible stemmed from experience with steam-powered naval turbine engines at the end of the 19th century. The technology just had to be transplanted to high-energy fuels and internal combustion, which required materials that could handle extreme forces and temperatures as well as high tolerance machining.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbinia

 

[XCV330]

Yeah, and I can't even imagine the risk undertaken. Seems kind of stupid to do just to get a glimpse. I find it fascinating just how similar they are to the Space Shuttle..

They copied the Shuttle so they didn't have to do their own aerodynamic work. Designing a large controllable hypersonic reentry vehicle would have been beyond their capabilities at the time. The shuttle was REALLY advanced, and much larger than the original plans had called for (had to be increased when DoD came on board as a user.. ) I don't think the STS deisn was necessarily optimal for whatever it was they had planned for Energya, but it worked and it allowed the Soviets a "We built one too!" moment, even though Soyuz and Progress did everything they needed.

 

[Owain Taggart]

I expect the realisation of how you could get as much thrust to weight as possible stemmed from experience with steam-powered naval turbine engines at the end of the 19th century.

And it is amazing just how much thrust you can get out of steam-power. At least in terms of cars, from what I'd been watching on Jay Leno's Garage, they had a lot of horsepower for their day and quite capable, perhaps more than we give them credit for. So, I believe it. They just likely weren't capable of achieving their ideas of jet propulsion as the science and technology wasn't there yet.

They copied the Shuttle so they didn't have to do their own aerodynamic work.

Yep, I'd read about that. It's kind of eerie if you think about it, that something could look so similar yet be so different in its systems and built by a foreign power. I've only heard of it recently, and was amazed at the whole story of the program.