A Sound of Thunder: The Rise of the Soviet Superbooster
- Thread starter nixonshead
- Start date
Bragging rights, political capital, public standing,
The assertion that your space program went....
Farther
I'll bet that having a nuclear reactor powering -4 will be a dealbreaker for ESA and Jaxa
Its political suicide to fly another one, RBMK reactors were axed due to western political pressure
A venus or mars flyby would be pure propaganda and risky as all hell due to critical failure points, and as a scientific mission its worthless as a probe can do the mission, the only valuable science is the biological effects of deep space
Nuclear reactors in space will be HIGHLY controversial and political after Zarya-3
A lot of storage will be needed for a year of food, doubt Zarya and TKS can fit it
Nothing but pictures, prestige and astronauts with bone density issues
As a kind of sum it up in one
A flyby is only good for the prestige but without orbiting or landing it basically becomes a year long trip for only a few hours near the planet
I remember reading a book where Buzz Aldrin, Alan Shepard and another astronaut do a flyby of venus, it describes how boring it is
Without orbiting or landing the actual data recovery is similar to probe's
I do not see the Soviets launching a flyby in this timeline
Not to mention that the modifications for Zarya and TKS to go beyond earth orbit, and to have endurance for 2 years in hard space and the weight of radiation protection
Plus the added modifications for earth reentry at Venus or mars return speeds (or add enough fuel to brake)
we are talking AT LEAST 2 N1 launches and then a Vulkan for TKS, and with modifications the ships themselves would be vastly different
it would be alot of investment for a few pictures
Plus the added modifications for earth reentry at Venus or mars return speeds (or add enough fuel to brake)
we are talking AT LEAST 2 N1 launches and then a Vulkan for TKS, and with modifications the ships themselves would be vastly different
it would be alot of investment for a few pictures
Rendevousing with a pre placed tank is hard to do with a flyby, borderline impossible with given fuel constraints
And leaving one in Mars or Venus orbit to rendevous with and use is risky, if the tanks don't work or somethings wrong (computer fried to exploded), the crew will have no way to slow down and be dead due to their ship flying past earth too fast. In the Martian the MAV's and base are preplaced on Mars, if something goes wrong the Hermes transport will not brake at mars, so it returns to earth
Mars is only worth it for landing or a orbital flight (way less worth it), and Venus is borderline "why bother" as its mostly clouds anyways, its not like you can SEE anything
(What is GB-1?)
That's three N1 launches, Two for Zarya, who spiral unmanned from low to cislunar space.
because with Ion drive it takes up to 120 days and Zarya is in Van Allen belt, not good for health of Cosmonauts.
one out side Van Allen belt the Crew follows with TKS launch with N1
Propoganda
Be the First to do it
take pretty pictures
drop probes on Mars and Venus
recover Sample return container from Probe
Radar Scann from surface of Mars and Venus.
Second from left.
One of the elements of N1-L3M. The braking element with which LEK encounters in lunar orbit.
Last edited:
As others have said, the value is most propaganda and one-upmanship. There probably is *some* value in gaining experience sustaining human life over interplanetary distances as well as interplanetary communications, but other goals such as pretty pictures or probes are easily achieved, with much less risk and much less budget, through uncrewed missions.
I don't really see the Soviets pulling such a stunt, because:
1.) they are reeling from a space catastrophe partially caused by a reckless stunt (putting a nuclear reactor in space with no failsafe for retrieval).
2.) They have already leapfrogged the US and have no reason pivot away from the moon
3.) They gain very little utility from it, considering they would have no plans for further crewed interplanetary missions which can reuse the technology.
Personally, I'm much more interested in the Soviet uncrewed space science program, but as Nixonhead has already said that these have been unfortunately cut for time, so I guess we can only reasonably speculate on what kind of missions would be launched. I'm hoping they at least did a re-do of Marsokhod, and perhaps heavier and more capable Venera missions.
Last edited:
I thought you were referring to a manned flyby of Mars or Venus, flybys cant rendevous with other vessels (without using a bunch of fuel)
Second from left.
One of the elements of Sweden. The braking element with which LEK encounters in lunar orbit.
But lunar orbit rendevous for fuel tanks is fine
He's saying that the L3M (with crew) vehicle goes to the moon, connects to the breaking stage and then enters orbit.
A lot of people here talked about flyby missions, which as many of you put it, are pretty much worthless outside of the propaganda. However, if soviets did something like a high elliptical Venus orbit, they could spend around a month on orbit studying the planet.
Sure, they would need to make a spacecraft that can survive for more than a year and a half in space, but it would be more rewarding trip than just a single flyby.
Here's the link to the study from 1967 about possible crewed Venus orbit mission using Apollo technologies: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19670017910
Last edited:
Okay but what can a crewed mission like that, with all of its life support requirements and extra mass do that an automated probe cannot? Besides look cool, I mean....
(To maybe answer my own question a bit, if the bring along an atmosphere-skimming 'not-quite-a-lander' it might be easier to pull off a sample return with hands on-site to manage the orbital rendezvous. That said, I doubt the drawbacks are worth it.)
That stage is used for decent, not braking into lunar orbit
Venus orbital or Mars orbital flights require lots of more fuel, in this case you could pre-place fuel tanks in orbit to refuel for the trip home (or build a bigger tank stack)
this would need 4 N1 launches
Sending a atmosphereic skimmer is one thing, having that manned is another
You go from modifying current hardware to developing a totaly new thing, and said idea is already dangerous as fuck, go too low and your dead, too high and not good enough data, i wouldn't do it
Ok guys, the timeline is in the late 80s, a Venus flyby is largely off the table for the soviets, the investment in equipment, launches and RnD time are filled by Baikal, Lunar missions and possibly another Station
alot of the idea's for flyby's come from the 60s, Apollo applications was alot of wierd stuff and the Soviets had idea's that the politburo would never approve
Its high risk low reward, why bother, anything outside of bringing back Martian dirt is worthless for the risks
And don't forget the modifications NEEDED for the misson, we are talking 2-3 N1 launches and Vulkan
A probe can do the work of a astronaut, why bother sending a dude that far
Well, given that Glushko is trying to one-upmanship Mishin since the N1 started flying, and the Soviet ministers are looking for propaganda wins (Moon base, French landing) to make people turn away from their economic problems. And given that Zarya was crewed for 4 years without pause is a good onlook for any potential long term missions that might otherwise not have been considered realistically.
Also, you make a great big deal of launching 3 N1s and a Vulkan, the N1s and Vulkans are relatively cheap compared to their western equivalents. The N1 is probably 30% the price of a Saturn V by this point given how many they built and are still building. I don't think the Soviets have a launcher problem (using more than 1 for a mission/program) but a developmental one, for new probes and modules.
Well if we're talking just a flyby I'd agree with most of this. (Except maybe probe versus Cosmonaut in the Soviet era
) But there was an idea that became more prominent OTL in the late 90s of a non-landing mission to Mars specifically, (but some studies included a Venus flyby) which concentrated on both retrieving Martian soil samples and an extensive study of the Martian moons as a precursor for ISRU for a landing mission. It would 'fit' into the Soviet "justification" propaganda as a "logical first step" and a blackeye to the American's saying while their program seems lag the American one we too can "leapfrog" Now whether anyone would buy off on this is of course a question but it might be worth the risk.
Randy
Long duration outside Earth SOI requires tons of extra supplies and spare parts and equipment, one launch for Zarya, likely without a reactor due to political pressures, one for a supply module and fuel, another launch for the booster stage, and a Vulkan for TKS
Thats just for a FLYBY, for a orbital mission it would likely take 5 or 6 N1 launches, such allocation would take nearly 2 years of N1 launches, abandoning the lunar base for this period of time
At most the soviets could railroad 5 N1's per year but current rate is 4, with the economic slowdown happening due to Gorbachev the flight rate might drop to 2 or three
Flyby are next to useless, a mars one would flyby on the NIGHT SIDE, negating good photos
An orbital mission would get more prestige and really fuck with the americans, the risk is the engines not working for the return flight.Well if we're talking just a flyby I'd agree with most of this. (Except maybe probe versus Cosmonaut in the Soviet era
Now whether anyone would buy off on this is of course a question but it might be worth the risk.
Randy
As i noted above it would require movement away from lunar operations for a while to focus on this orbit mission due to the N1 launches required
In the case of a mission to Venus, I would like to use it for braking purposes.