3 ms·

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 f

by 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.

by p_l 6y ago

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.