Why didn't the Soviet Union land a man on the moon?

Every documentary you watch on the Apollo missions, they use the phrase "the race for the moon". When the USA started the mission to reach the moon we were well behind the Soviets in the "race for the moon". As history played out the USA was the first country to reach the moon, but this begs a question.

Why did the Soviets not land a man on the moon as well even if it would have been second? Not in the 60's, not in the 70's and not in the 80's. I know they landed a rover on the moon but not a man.

One would imagine that if the Soviets had been the first to place a man on the moon we would not have stopped trying to get there and certainly still would have put our own man on the moon.

You would think that the Soviets would want to know first hand what it is like there and also check out if we put anything there as well. (Especially, considering the paranoia we had for each other at the time.) I understand they may be able to do this remotely, but you would think they would want to put "boots on the ground" as well.

This would be akin to the Spanish coming to the New World and the English deciding to just stay home and listen to stories about it.

In the 30 years past you would have thought that some country would have wanted to land a man on the moon for themselves. I would be interested in hearing anyone's insight on this.

There is no real benefit in "men on the moon" except for propaganda purposes. Once USSR lost - why waste resources to come only second and in this way reminding who came first?
Just as in US moon landing is celebrated and burned in memory, in Russia it is the same with first cosmonaut. What would they achieve by sending men to moon? They send robots for data - cheaper.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge

---

Exactly right...the figured why bother...just like the first race to launch a satellite and man in orbit.Just to say hey i did this first.

I think the OP understands the objective of being first, but his question was why didn't Russia went ahead with their program anyway.

Your own post helps his argument because you mention satellites and man in orbit. And guess what, Russia 'won' both and the US didn't stop with it's own programs.

ATS thread

the didnt land any men... they landed a tank though!!!

Maybe this will explain why.

ROCKET SCIENTISTS PONDER WHY

Those involved in the Soviet moon program still disagree -- often strongly -- about what went wrong. Rocket scientists say they were not even close to landing a man on the moon as they lagged in devising a way of getting a cosmonaut from the moon's orbit to the surface and back. They were close to flying a man around the moon but lost that race to Apollo in December 1968.

Alexei Leonov, the cosmonaut who might have been the first human on the moon if Mishin's efforts had succeeded, is still bitter three decades later about the program's failures.

"Some people today say there wasn't enough money. Nothing of the kind. We had the money but we only needed to spend it properly," Leonov told Reuters. "Mishin says the Defense Ministry didn't give us money. This is not true. We did not properly analyze things. ... That was his mistake."

www.space.com...

You've heard the phrase "Getting there is half the fun"? In the case of a lunar mission, getting there is a *lot* easier than getting there and coming back to Earth, if for no other reason than that you have to carry your return vehicle, its fuel, and life-support consumables for the return trip up from the bottom of Earth's gravity field. The USSR landed rovers and impact probes, and the US landed impact probes and soft-landers, all with relatively small rockets. The increased size of the booster needed for a round-trip mission was a technical challenge, to say the least.

The Americans tried one approach with the Saturn-series boosters...we developed high-thrust engines (the F-1 Kerosene-LOX monster, and the J-series LH/LOX upper stage engines). There were huge developmental hurdles, but relative simplicity. The Saturn-V had a total of 11 engines (5x F-1 in the first stage, 5x J-2 in the second stage, and 1 J-2 in the third stage).

The Soviet approach was to take relatively small engines and use a LOT of them...44 to be exact. 30 in the first stage, 8 in the second, 4 in the third, and 1 in each of the last two. The N-1 was, in short, a massively complex vehicle, even by comparison to the Saturn V. That complexity made development a nightmare, and made the vehicle itself expensive. The continued failures of the N-1, spiraling program costs, a tightening economy, and the loss of the propaganda advantage combined to kill off the Soviet lunar program.



I wouldn't bet on that, frankly, given how fast we stopped going back once we 'won' the race.




The Soviets could already make a fairly good guess about what we were taking to the Moon....despite their failure with the N-1, the Soviets had some of the best engineers and rocket experts in the business...once they saw a Saturn-V, and looked over the open-source details on it, they could back-figure for payload and come to the conclusion that we weren't smuggling secret nuclear weapons up there...then we stopped going, so there was nothing to check on in any case.

The Spanish / English analogy is an interesting one, but it overlooks one of the vital things about the race to the moon. Both the Spanish and the English had the technology (and the hardware) to get to the New World. The USSR lacked the hardware to make the trip.




Lots of countries might want to land a man on the moon, but wanting to do it isn't enough (just ask the Soviets). It takes a combination of massive engineering talent, huge amounts of available money, and a national desire to make the effort. The U.S. lost the national will to support its lunar program, then the money got diverted, and now the technological / engineering base is gone, which is why the "new" lunar mission program is having to start from scratch.

reply to post by Rabmal

---

Hey welcome to ATS. I'm wondering why you thought the aliens/ufo forum is a good place for this post?

As for the question, the answer is probably very simple. It's much more difficult and costly to put a man on the moon vs a man in earth orbit.

The Russians had heavy lift rockets at the start of the "race". America struggled to catch up. Putting things and people in orbit is totally different than sending them off and bringing them back. This has been stated very well in a couple of responses. I can still remember reading the Russians did this or that in big headlines in the local newspaper. They had a series of very good results and reasons to be very proud of their accomplishments. They also had some big set backs not well publicized that held them up from progressing.

The real bottom line, it's not money, Russia had one of its highest priorities in this area for propaganda. It really came down to who captured the better German scientists at the end of WW2. The USA got the better German scientists that had the longer vision.

reply to post by Scramjet76

---

Thanks for the welcome. I really enjoy this site and have been lurking for about a year. Also thanks Stormhammer for your thought out answer, as well as everyone's insight.

I posted it here because of I have seen posts on NASA coverups, possible lunar bases, etc. Thought there might be some untold stories of the Soviet missions as well. Sorry if this is the wrong section.

I would argue the idea of "There is no real benefit in "men on the moon" except for propaganda purposes".

I think there is still much to be gained by traveling to and being on the moon. Just as the men of that time came up with solutions for all these great challenges I'm sure there would have been ideas and solutions to make it less expensive and safer. Yet you have to have these challenges in front of you to do anything about it.

They couldn't afford to at that time Russia's government was being restructured at that time.

I think that the moon is really of limited value at this time. If there was really any incentive to get to the moon other than bragging rights and the geology, the Russians would have gotten there by hook or crook.

The Russians put their money on longevity in space rather than distance. On the whole, the Russians may have been right all along.

Going to the moon was a worthy endeavor and sparked the kind of public interest that NASA needed, but the very fact that since that time we've spent our time and money on the space station for humans, while leaving other worlds to machines really tells the story.

maybe USA hoaxed USSR into a space race to have them lose the cold war by way of bankruptcy default

Are we absolutely sure they didn't? I wouldn't put it past them Commies to have landed a couple of guys on it, only to have them die there and not tell anybody.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

---

OK, I can understand your thinking perhaps. Yet, let us look at it this way. If a probe were to orbit the Earth and look at us from let's say 50 miles up. Would it really get an understanding of the landscape and beings underneath? Little alone the darks side of the moon.???

The moon is a big place and just going over it from above; I don't believe is called exploring it in completion just like the "West Indies" would have been from 50 miles up.

Just an opinion now; These men who are now old men; I believe are the greatest generation to ever live on this earth. What they did to achieve was the GREATEST ACHEIEVEMENT OF MANKIND! It should be treated with more respect. I hope we do. FYI I was born in the mid 60's.

Meaning, I am a child of this generation of Men. I am now 42.


[edit on 8-7-2008 by Rabmal]

[edit on 8-7-2008 by Rabmal]

reply to post by Rabmal

---

I didn't belittle the mission. I'm just saying that there is little need to return to the moon at this time or any time since the Apollo missions ended because there's not enough pay off.

We went several times. We gathered up some rocks and dust. We set up some reflectors and possibly some other instruments and we came home.

If there was even the slightest reason to go back we would have done so.

Now, we are focused on the space station, Mars, orbiting satellites, telescopes, and deep space probes.

I'm 58, so I grew up with the space race.

[edit on 2008/7/8 by GradyPhilpott]

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

---

Grady, thank you for replying to this debate.

My point is I think we learn from going and landing, etc, etc. Don't mean to demean your opinon of there is nothing to learn. I understand what you are saying.

I just believe there is more to the whole thing than just bring back diamons, gold, alien life beings, etc. I think we learn more about our selves and push our selves to the edge. That is the challenge! This Universe is more than we know.

Thank you for your reply.

I just hear that the big issue was have a "Lunar Module" being able to connect againt with a SHIP that was orbiting the moon. I understand this was a turning point for the Americans. Along with the the problems of the N1 would lead one to surmise the answer to the issue.

Yet, you woul think after this long some one would come up with and idea since the WI has come out and your Grandparents can now bowl from their livingroom!

They haven't bothered to go since the aliens told us not to come back?