
First Moon landing was nearly a US–Soviet mission - bristleworm
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02088-4
======
Faark
Wait, soviets already did automated sample returns while apollo was still
ongoing [0]?! That's quite a surprise to me... don't think I ever came across
this, and I do follow quite a bit of space news. E.g. this [1] recent set of
videos how Apollo moon rocks are stored did not mention it at all, and I'd
certainly expect them to have exchanged some samples.

Now I'd really love to learn more about what kind of tech that long ago
achieved the precession necessary for an automated sample return.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_16](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_16)

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxZ_iPldGtI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxZ_iPldGtI)

~~~
deepnotderp
If you think that's interesting, check out the buran shuttle which landed
autonomously from orbit, a feat only replicated in the us decades later with
the x-37.

~~~
edouard-harris
The American space shuttle orbiter at the time had exactly the same autonomy
capabilities as the Buran. The only constraint was computer memory: the
astronauts had to manually load magnetic tapes into the flight computer that
had the takeoff and landing programs in them.

~~~
trothamel
The American shuttle also had a few things that needed to be done by hand,
like deploying the landing gear and the air data probes. These were actions
that are irreversible (once the Shuttle drops its gear, they can't be raised
without outside help) and would lead to destruction if they happened too
early.

During the early Shuttle program, there was a worry about these events
happening due to a software problem, so the decision was made to isolate them
from the computer.

Post-Columbia, cables were made that allowed the shuttles to be re-wired to
allow these events to occur under the control of the computer, to allow a
damaged shuttle to attempt a return without crew, or to dispose of itself
safely.

~~~
ethbro
_> Post-Columbia, cables were made that allowed the shuttles to be re-wired to
allow these events to occur under the control of the computer, to allow a
damaged shuttle to attempt a return without crew, or to dispose of itself
safely._

As grisly of a question as this is, are there launch failure scenarios that
involve complete loss of crew but successful orbit?

IANARC, but it seems if something goes bad in the launch sequence, it's
normally catastrophic.

~~~
nullwasamistake
> are there launch failure scenarios that involve complete loss of crew but
> successful orbit?

Explosive decompression. Not sure if shuttle crews wore pressure suits.
Happened on a Russian mission once, during reentry. They opened the capsule on
landing and everyone was dead.

~~~
darkpuma
Soyuz 11. It wasn't an explosive decompression _per se_ , merely a rapid
decompression, but no less lethal to a crew without oxygen masks.

Decompression can be explosive, but in space you'd only be dropping from 1
atmosphere to 0, which isn't that far to drop. For decompression to truly be
explosive, a greater pressure differential is required. In the infamous Byford
Dolphin incident, four saturation divers were depressurized from 9 atmospheres
down to 1 in an instant, and that was a sufficient pressure differential to
explode them.

~~~
dredmorbius
NB: The Apollo Command Mudule operated at 5 PSI in spave, about 34% og
atmospheric sea level pressure. Over 25,000 feet / 7600 meters elevation. The
LM operated at 3.5 PSI.

The Space Shuttle and ISS operate at 14.7 PSI -- normal sea level atmospheric
pressure.

~~~
darkpuma
Mir, the Soyuz fleet and the Salyut stations were operating at sea level
pressure too. I'm not sure how influential that was in the Shuttle's design,
but it certainly simplified docking the Shuttle to Mir. The pressure
difference between Apollo and Soyuz was a source of complication for the
Apollo-Soyuz Test Program.

------
SiempreViernes
It is always healthy to be reminded that the seemingly insurmountable
divisions of the now are often simply the results of short time choices long
ago that had to be defended.

Certainly would have been nice if the lunar plaque had been sincere in a wider
context.

~~~
arethuza
I always rather liked the 'Fallen Astronaut' which features US astronauts and
Soviet cosmonauts and placed on the moon in secret by one of the Apollo crews:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_Astronaut](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_Astronaut)

------
sandworm101
Would never have happened. There were far too many protected technologies,
weapons technologies, involved in getting to and from the moon. At some point
the plug would have been pulled.

~~~
avmich
The 1975 flight did happen, and before that extensive familiarization with
each other technologies needed for that. So I don't think it that obviously
would never happen; however, historically speaking we have what we have...

~~~
sandworm101
Two ships meeting in space is altogether different than two teams working on a
single rocket/program to the moon. Apollo-Soyus involved learning of each
others abilities, a critical part of cold war/mad deterrence. It did not
involve sharing how those abilities were created. The americans didn't give
the russians a copy of the guidance computer.

~~~
avmich
> It did not involve sharing how those abilities were created.

Same approach could be used for cooperative Moon flights.

In fact, after Apollo-Soyuz we've had Shuttle-Mir and then ISS, and there are
plenty of cooperation and cross-studying in those projects. From some point of
view, technologies on both sides of Atlantic were similar - there were
exceptions, of course, but for professionals working on projects for years the
inevitable knowledge osmosis tells a lot.

In another sensitive area, achievements in thermonuclear studies, cooperation
did happen.

------
rayiner
The Soviets beat is to nearly every space milestone. If it wasn’t for the
untimely death of the architect of their space program, they would’ve beaten
us to the moon too.

~~~
utopian3
Well, they also had spacecraft issues at the end of 1968 that they had to
resolve before putting humans into it.

------
c-smile
> Kennedy’s assassination on 22 November 1963 scotched the plan

Not just that plan, but quite many other options.

Whoever did this was knowing quite well where we were going…

"cui prodest" is the answer I think.

