5 ms·

It's impressive what the Soviet Union achieved with "analog" technology. I did not know they had landed a rover on the moon. Imagine all the automation this req

by isolli 6y ago

It's impressive what the Soviet Union achieved with "analog" technology. I did not know they had landed a rover on the moon. Imagine all the automation this requires, but without any advanced electronics. Was it all relays and switches? They were also the first to photograph the other side of the moon. Imagine what it took to develop the photos in space and beam them back to earth. I can't possibly imagine doing this without a digital sensor. PS. Not a Soviet Union fan otherwise...

p_l 6y ago
One of the engineers on the failed (and later covered up) soviet moon program supposedly said that if not for soviet focus on automation, they would have been first on the moon - and that in comparison, Americans "eyeballed it". Not entirely true on american side, but there was a definite trend on US side to depend more on human in the loop.
- isolli 6y ago
  Required viewing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1J2RMorJXM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1J2RMorJXM
- nine_k 6y ago
  Soviet moon mission had real trouble with the booster, which had many engines; this is not something you can realistically control by hand. In short, the boosters kept blowing up: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket) (That setup was later avenged for all its tragic mishaps by SpaceX's Falcons.)
  - p_l 6y ago
    That's one of the options they had for moon flight, and arguably the critical part that closed their chance to get there first. But a lot of other options, doable earlier, would have been possible if there was less perfectionism applied to automated flight - that's the argument I've heard. N.B. Currently used Soyuz spacecraft (not the carrier rocket) is derived from the moon program capsule.
    - avmich 6y ago
      Space booster stage flying on Proton and Zenith, Blok D, is also derived from the fifth stage in the Moon expedition stack. Its engine is also the predecessor of the main engine of Buran. Lunar spacecraft technology helped with later creation of space probes, like Vega, and flying today space booster Fregat.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    No, it was a great messup with Kremlin messing up the space programme big time, appointing talking heads, and "micromanaging the launch proceedures all the way from Moscow"
    - p_l 6y ago
      Well, yes. Had Korolev lived, he would have probably kept control over it, same way he led USSR to being first with Sputnik and Voskhod.
      - inglor_cz 6y ago
        When I studied life and work of Korolev, I could not help but meditate on the idea that great individuals really do make a difference. His death was a major setback for the Soviet space program. Arguably they never found a real replacement for him.
        avmich 6y ago
        No, they didn't. I sometimes think Elon Musk - with all the differences - is a comparable figure.
  - avmich 6y ago
    It's not as much the number of engines, which troubled N-1. For example, when Soyuz launcher starts, it has 32 chambers - not engines - running simultaneously, and it's a rather robust and reliable rocket. What was the probable reason is the lack of testing of the huge system of the first stage of N-1 all together - test stands required lots of money and also time, both were in short supply (N-1 is surprisingly a rather inexpensive rocket, in comparison, say, to a better flown Energiya). Engines on the first stage were also untested, by design - they were single-start engines, so they couldn't be tested on a test stand before actual launch. Both of these problems were taken into account when Energiya was developed. It had a huge "stand-start", both for testing and for launching, and engines were fully reusable, with the idea of later returning the first stage of the launcher (horizontal landing, with parachutes) and flying it again.
MagnumOpus 6y ago
> Imagine all the automation this requires, but without any advanced electronics. Was it all relays and switches? Yes, basically. My understanding is that it was a very fancy RC car with extra strong antennas to be able to give video feeds from the 4 cameras and receive commands live from Earth. (Plus bells and whistles like solar panels and a plutonium heater, see [0].) The moon is only 1 light second away, so remote controlling a car that moves at 1 mph is not too much of an issue. (Though with bad video quality it is still a challenge, see the fate of Lunokhod 2.) [0] https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2011/03/rovers-learning-from-lunokhod/ https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2011/03/rovers-lea...
baybal2 6y ago
Not really, back at the dawn of semiconductors, union's space programme was spoon fed best components from all over the world. Original Vostok had higher engineering standards than crafts that were launched more than a decade later, after the hype subsided below the level needed to keep the space programme a top level state project.
KuiN 6y ago
The Soviets/Russians were still flying with analog tech on-board Soyuz until 2010 (TMA-M variant was the first "all digital" Soyuz). And of course, Soyuz is effectively "just" an upgraded Vostok/Sputnik/R-7. No parts in common between them anymore, but philosophically the same rocket design has been flying since 1957.
conistonwater 6y ago
> Imagine what it took to develop the photos in space and beam them back to earth. For one type of satellite that I heard about, the US were dropping the film canisters and catching them in flight, to develop later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_(satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_(satellite)
mixmastamyk 6y ago
Their Venus photos are amazing.

by isolli 6y ago

p_l 6y ago

One of the engineers on the failed (and later covered up) soviet moon program supposedly said that if not for soviet focus on automation, they would have been first on the moon - and that in comparison, Americans "eyeballed it". Not entirely true on american side, but there was a definite trend on US side to depend more on human in the loop.

isolli 6y ago
Required viewing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1J2RMorJXM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1J2RMorJXM
nine_k 6y ago
Soviet moon mission had real trouble with the booster, which had many engines; this is not something you can realistically control by hand. In short, the boosters kept blowing up: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket) (That setup was later avenged for all its tragic mishaps by SpaceX's Falcons.)
- p_l 6y ago
  That's one of the options they had for moon flight, and arguably the critical part that closed their chance to get there first. But a lot of other options, doable earlier, would have been possible if there was less perfectionism applied to automated flight - that's the argument I've heard. N.B. Currently used Soyuz spacecraft (not the carrier rocket) is derived from the moon program capsule.
  - avmich 6y ago
    Space booster stage flying on Proton and Zenith, Blok D, is also derived from the fifth stage in the Moon expedition stack. Its engine is also the predecessor of the main engine of Buran. Lunar spacecraft technology helped with later creation of space probes, like Vega, and flying today space booster Fregat.
- baybal2 6y ago
  No, it was a great messup with Kremlin messing up the space programme big time, appointing talking heads, and "micromanaging the launch proceedures all the way from Moscow"
  - p_l 6y ago
    Well, yes. Had Korolev lived, he would have probably kept control over it, same way he led USSR to being first with Sputnik and Voskhod.
    - inglor_cz 6y ago
      When I studied life and work of Korolev, I could not help but meditate on the idea that great individuals really do make a difference. His death was a major setback for the Soviet space program. Arguably they never found a real replacement for him.
      - avmich 6y ago
        No, they didn't. I sometimes think Elon Musk - with all the differences - is a comparable figure.
- avmich 6y ago
  It's not as much the number of engines, which troubled N-1. For example, when Soyuz launcher starts, it has 32 chambers - not engines - running simultaneously, and it's a rather robust and reliable rocket. What was the probable reason is the lack of testing of the huge system of the first stage of N-1 all together - test stands required lots of money and also time, both were in short supply (N-1 is surprisingly a rather inexpensive rocket, in comparison, say, to a better flown Energiya). Engines on the first stage were also untested, by design - they were single-start engines, so they couldn't be tested on a test stand before actual launch. Both of these problems were taken into account when Energiya was developed. It had a huge "stand-start", both for testing and for launching, and engines were fully reusable, with the idea of later returning the first stage of the launcher (horizontal landing, with parachutes) and flying it again.

MagnumOpus 6y ago

> Imagine all the automation this requires, but without any advanced electronics. Was it all relays and switches? Yes, basically. My understanding is that it was a very fancy RC car with extra strong antennas to be able to give video feeds from the 4 cameras and receive commands live from Earth. (Plus bells and whistles like solar panels and a plutonium heater, see [0].) The moon is only 1 light second away, so remote controlling a car that moves at 1 mph is not too much of an issue. (Though with bad video quality it is still a challenge, see the fate of Lunokhod 2.) [0] https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2011/03/rovers-learning-from-lunokhod/ https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2011/03/rovers-lea...

baybal2 6y ago

Not really, back at the dawn of semiconductors, union's space programme was spoon fed best components from all over the world. Original Vostok had higher engineering standards than crafts that were launched more than a decade later, after the hype subsided below the level needed to keep the space programme a top level state project.

KuiN 6y ago

The Soviets/Russians were still flying with analog tech on-board Soyuz until 2010 (TMA-M variant was the first "all digital" Soyuz). And of course, Soyuz is effectively "just" an upgraded Vostok/Sputnik/R-7. No parts in common between them anymore, but philosophically the same rocket design has been flying since 1957.

conistonwater 6y ago

> Imagine what it took to develop the photos in space and beam them back to earth. For one type of satellite that I heard about, the US were dropping the film canisters and catching them in flight, to develop later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_(satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_(satellite)

mixmastamyk 6y ago

Their Venus photos are amazing.