We beat the Russians to the moon because our Nazis were better than their Nazis.
They beat you in everything else (space related) cause their Nazis were better there.
As an aside SLS was suppose to be the next Saturn V, hope it doesn’t end up being the next N1.
(Which was a damn fine looking rocket and I wish the Russkies could have gotten it to work).
N1 was a shitty rocket in most respects. Its only positive was the efficient (staged combustion) NK-33 engine, but even those had serious design limitations–namely, they could only be started once, which meant they could not be individually tested. They could only sample from batches, which wasn’t so great since the first stage had 30 of them and batch testing only gets you so far.
The whole stack had more thrust than the Saturn V, but about half the lunar payload. That was largely due to it being fully kerosene/oxygen, as opposed to the S-V having hydrogen upper stages.
The Soviets deserve credit for their early wins, but they sacrificed having a sustainable program to get there. The only thing they really properly invested in was engine tech. Everything else was half-assed, and has been ever since.
There are a few people out there that hope SLS fails so dramatically that it takes out the pad and all surrounding infrastructure with it (like the N1’s second failure). That would reliably end the SLS program for good and NASA could shift focus to purely commercial providers. I’m personally not that against SLS, though it would be quite a dramatic event.
Sacrificed a sustainable program? Look, I know current politics is one thing, but come on, it shouldn’t inform arguments, they have been going to space continuously since Gagarin, and then has the Salyuts and MIR.
Everything I have read is that it’s quite the opposite. James Webbs single minded focus on the moon landing meant that while Apollo was a spectacular success it hindered the man space flight program going forward.
The US has had a number of successful programs in that time. Despite my numerous complaints about it (and its failures), the Shuttle program was ultimately very successful, lifting the Hubble and ISS and numerous other satellites. The US planetary exploration program is completely unmatched; just look at the list of Mars missions and compare the “operator” vs. “outcome” columns to see how vastly more successful the US has been. Not to mention the Voyager probes and many others.
Russia still flies Soyuz. It’s a rocket long past its prime, and while it’s impressive that it’s stuck around for so long, it is badly in need of replacement. Even the Russians understand this, but so far seem incapable of following through.
They’ve had any number of other failed programs, like the Buran, which made it to orbit once before being essentially canceled (and then the orbiters were left to rot in various hangars). There was the Energia rocket that only flew twice (once with Buran).
There’s the Proton rocket, also quite old, that has an abysmal 89% success rate and uses toxic propellants. Oh, and the reliability seems to be going down.
A sustainable program isn’t keeping your rickety old vehicles just barely working, while new programs never quite get off the ground, and at best producing minor variations of the old stuff.
I noticed you missed the Salyuts, MIR, and their ISS contribution. It’s pretty disingenuous to do so.
Buran failed since the Soviet Union collapsed and also since it turned out you did not need a Shuttle to make a modular Space Station.
Proton, yeah no arguments there.
Well, I’m not gonna recount the entire history of space for both nations in a short forum post. I didn’t mention Skylab either, even though it came shortly after the first Salyut but had 3.5x the volume. Anyway, Russia had some successes, but they were definitely a junior partner on the ISS throughout its development.
And now, well–the whole thing is falling apart. It was doing so even before the Ukraine nonsense. Rogozin was incompetent at everything except funnelling Roscosmos money into his own bank account. Their vehicles are getting less reliable; they’ve blamed American female astronauts for drilling holes in their segment of the ISS, even though it was obviously their own drunken workers; their display models for upcoming projects have gotten even more detached from reality.
It might not be so bad if they had invested properly along the way. But they failed to train the next generation of engineers and the current generation is retiring. It’s going to fall apart at an even more rapid rate now.
I would recommend this excellent book (although it’s about 15 years old now):
The BBC made a documentary series around this book but not sure how easy it would be to find.
This might be it on Youtube:
Ah yes that looks like it but it’s not one of the really interesting early eps.
There are 4 episodes there.
That’s weird, the original preview went to ep4. Thanks for finding these, I might rewatch them!
If that isn’t NASA in a nutshell: you’ve very publicly botched a couple of launch attempts already, you’re years behind schedule, and billions over budget, so what do you do when you finally get your best chance to launch the damn thing? Do it at a time when casual watchers will already be asleep and that’s massively inconvenient for those that really do want to watch.
What botched attempts? This is a test flight, so now is the time to find these issues. How many times did Musk and Bezos have to scrub launches while in the test phase?
Lots. If you’re interested in the early development of the Falcon 1, I recommend this book by Eric Berger (Ars Technica space correspondent):
Scrubs are the least of the issues they faced.
That said, SLS is very, very late. Especially since it was pitched as being easier to develop, given that it is made from mostly already-developed components (boosters, main engines, external tank, upper-stage engines, etc.).
They didn’t put it on the pad and announce the launch 6 years late and $10 BILLION (at least) over budget. Especially given that this was a program that “reused” components and was supposed to be cheaper. The check for any scrubs was written by Musk or Bezos. This debacle is paid for out of a budget that you and I paid for and from an agency that can’t afford it.
Look, I get it. Space is hard. The problem is that every time this shit happens, NASA’s funding gets endangered. Everything you read is about how late it is and much extra it cost. NASA is actually really bad at developing launch systems/spacecraft cost-effectively. It’s not the staff’s fault, it’s that their contracts are always cost+. NASA-controlled space flight isn’t about science or doing or accomplishing anything, it’s about “how many jobs can I create in my Senate/Congressional district”. So take out the middle-man. NASA’s contacts should always be “I want X lbs in orbit at such-and-such a speed with Y delta-v available. Put your money down and place your bet.”
FTR, this is backwards. The single-minded focus on putting men on the moon as a national priority came from JFK and was opposed by Webb, at least initially. Webb argued for a more orderly strategic approach to manned space travel, whereas Kennedy saw it as politically essential to beat the Russians to the moon. Webb was simply overruled. At that time, dominance in space was also seen as a military priority, one that was also strongly championed by Werner von Braun and other important influencers.
The high winds were due to Hurricane Nicole.
Artemis is just cursed. It was designed to meet political goals rather than mission goals and it shows.
As mentioned in another thread, for all his faults Elon Musk got it right. Let the engineers engineer by giving them goals/objectives (as opposed to top-down directives that constrain them to a fixed decision) and letting them figure it out. Be willing to try something and abandon it if things don’t pan out.
At this point, I will honestly be surprised if the SLS makes it to Artemis III as the selected launch vehicle. I am increasingly pessimistic that there will even BE an Artemis III mission.