Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 5, 2008 12:09:44 GMT -4
I think the one biggest advantage the Soviets had in the early days of space was the size of their booster. The R7 dwarfed anything the Americans had at the time. Most of the first space launchers were derived from missiles developed by the military. The United States had a large strategic bomber fleet, so they developed mostly short and intermediate range missiles to complement this. The Soviets were behind the USA in bomber capability, so they were in more desperate need of an ICBM to tilt the military balance in their favor.
Both the USSR and USA started working on an ICBM. In the USSR this was the R7 missile, and in the USA, the Atlas. Originally both countries were looking at a payload of somewhere around 10,000 pounds. This was required because of the heavy atomic bombs that existed at the time. (The original Atlas plans called for a missile much larger than the one that eventually got built.) However, as the USA began to perfect the hydrogen bomb, the mass of the warheads decreased dramatically. The USA was able to reduce the payload capacity of the Atlas down to about 3,000 pounds.
The Soviets continued to require the heavier payload capacity because they were unable to reduce the mass of their warheads. To the Soviets’ credit, they completed their ICBM before the Americans, but even if the Americans had gotten done first, they would have soon been outclassed in lift capacity by the much larger R7. The US military never pursued a missile that big simply because they didn’t need it. Once the space age began, however, the Americans were at a clear disadvantage in their ability to launch heavy payloads. It took some time before the Americans could match the Soviets in this regard.
In fact, it was the gap in payload capability that was one of John Kennedy’s main reasons for supporting a moon landing. A moon landing would require launchers of much greater capability than either the USA or USSR had at the time. This negated the early Soviet lead and assured that both countries were essentially starting from scratch. It was quite a crafty decision by Kennedy.
I suppose one could make an argument that the United States fell behind the Soviets (though not by as much as some people would have you believe) in early space endeavors because the USA actually had better technology in other areas. The USA had better strategic bombers and they had better bombs. The Soviet development of the R7 was a necessary reaction to the USA’s military lead. As is normally the case with military technology, the advantage swings back and forth as each side reacts to what the other is doing. In 1957 the pendulum swung in favor of the USSR and would stay there for several years before it eventually swung back in favor of the USA.
(edit) It is probably also worth noting that despite the R7 launching the first satellite, the Atlas was first to be deployed as a weapons system. The first Atlas ICBM squadrons were deployed and went on combat alert in late 1959. The R7 was accepted into military service in January 1960 and saw only limited deployment. Both missiles experienced a short service life as an ICBM because of their slow reaction time resulting from the use of non-storable propellant. The Atlas was taken off alert in 1965 and the R7 in 1966.
So again we see the USA and USSR where essentially even. Yes, the Soviets made headlines with the launch of Sputnik, but the original goal of the R7 was deployment as an ICBM. In that regard, the R7 was not particularly successful. One could argue that the American effort with the Atlas was the equal to Soviet R7 development.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 5, 2008 20:28:02 GMT -4
Thanks BobB. Very interesting comments, it sure helps clarify the picture for me of what was going on by both the Russians and Americans in the fifties. Would you say that because the payloads for the Americans had to be smaller, that it greatly affected the technological aspects of the satellites? In other words, the Americans developed smaller, more efficient and technological more advanced satellites - or - the other side of the coin, the American satellites were more limited to the Russian ones because of their size limit and couldn't carry as much technology onboard them? I'm still amazed at how small Explorer I was compared to Sputnik.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Feb 6, 2008 3:43:12 GMT -4
Back in June and July 2004 I posted in the previous incarnation of ApolloHoax six months' worth of newspaper headlines and some of the shorter articles about the beginning of the space race, October 1957 to April 1958. Since then I've slowly typed up all the articles from 5 October 1957 to 1 February 1958 -- 175 articles and over 55 pages. Not all the articles are about space -- I've tossed in a few others I found amusing or interesting such as Hillary's race to the south pole and other cold war stuff. They're interesting reading because of the way things unfold over time, and also because some of the reports are based on rumours and some may well have been deliberate misinformation due to the cold war. I also think a few Russian "scientists" enjoyed the chance of getting their names into international newspapers. Even though I lived through most of the cold war and, as a kid, was dead scared that New Zealand or even the whole planet could have been destroyed by atomic warfare, I get a better feel for the situation from these articles than I do from any history book. In fact I feel quite sorry for the Soviets of that time because they made so many comments about wanting peace and not wanting war or an arms race, and I get the impression that the American military simply prolonged the situation as much as possible by making things out to be worse than they were. Anyway, as with some of the other space projects I've got into, anyone who'd like them is welcome to copies. PM me with your email address if so. I liked the contrast in these two articles: Manawatu Daily Times, Thursday 20 March 1958, page 7 Manned satellites within five years? [/b] (Received 9:50 p.m.) Dallas, Texas, March 19[/center] ...In Washington, Army scientist James Edson predicted the United States would fire a rocket to the moon within months, put a man on the moon in the early 1960s and set up a base there about 1975. Mr Edson, assistant to the director of Army research and development, made the predictions in an address to the Civilian Club. He said both the United States and Russia were now capable of shooting a rocket to the moon, adding: "The race will be close." Mr Edson said whichever country controlled the moon would be able to strike any place on earth with armed rockets without much fear of retaliation. He added it would be much easier to hit the earth from the moon than go from the earth to the moon. Manawatu Daily Times, Saturday 22 March 1958, page 7 Plea against programme of "Buck Rogers stunts" Scientists urge peaceful use of space travel technologies [/b] (Received 10 p.m.) Los Angeles, March 21[/center] Dr Lloyd Dubridge, president of the California Institute of Technology said yesterday it was "utter nonsense" to regard the moon as the ultimate military base for launching of weapons on earth targets. Dr Dubridge, addressing the opening session of the 1958 Western space age conference, urged against permitting the United States space programme to develop into a "wild programme of Buck Rogers' stunts and insane pseudo-military expeditions." He urged instead "conducting a bold and exciting programme of research and exploration." Dr Dubridge listed three primary reasons that would discount the military advantages of the moon, despite statements to the contrary by "some military generals who ought to know better." A hydrogen warhead, plus men and equipment, would have to be transported 240,000 miles "just to shoot it 240,000 miles back to earth when the target is only 5000 miles away in the first place." It would take a warhead five days to reach the earth because of space factors. "The war might be over by then. An intercontinental ballistic missile can reach any target on earth in 20 minutes." "If we have rockets good enough to land men and equipment on the moon, the enemy will surely have ones good enough to put a hydrogen bomb at the same spot." Dr Dubridge, whose jet propulsion laboratory at the institute played a major role in developing the United States satellite Explorer I, added: — "Either people will land on the moon for peaceful purposes by mutual agreement — or else we will surely launch the nuclear war here on earth which we are all trying to avoid." He said he thought that the challenge of the space age was to see "whether we can use the great new technologies of space travel for peaceful and scientific purposes — conducting a bold and exciting programme of research and exploration."
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 6, 2008 7:48:21 GMT -4
Would you say that because the payloads for the Americans had to be smaller, that it greatly affected the technological aspects of the satellites? I'm not sure, but remember that the reason American rockets were smaller to start with was that they developed miniaturisation techniques before the USSR did. The US Atlas and the Russian R-7 both had the same function: launch a nuclear warhead over the distance between the continental US and the Soviet landmass. Because the US had minature electronics they could use a lighter, lower-thrust rocket to send an equivalent nuclear payload. Explorer was a true scientific satellite. Sputnik I was little more than an orbiting radio transmitter. Perhaps the biggest difference was that for many years Russian satellites had to be pressurised because their electronics were air cooled and could not operate in vacuum. Another aspect to this is the Zenit series of satellites, which were really quite large. They were based on the Vostok design, and this was because the original effort of getting a man into space was viewed by the authorities as a sideline, not a worthwhile expense. It was only agreed on the condition that the design of the manned capsule could also be used for unmanned satellites, thus avoiding the exclusive cost of a manned spacecraft design project. Zenit satellites were really a Vostok capsule with instruments in place of the cosmonaut.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 6, 2008 11:23:07 GMT -4
Would you say that because the payloads for the Americans had to be smaller, that it greatly affected the technological aspects of the satellites? In other words, the Americans developed smaller, more efficient and technological more advanced satellites - or - the other side of the coin, the American satellites were more limited to the Russian ones because of their size limit and couldn't carry as much technology onboard them? I'm still amazed at how small Explorer I was compared to Sputnik. That’s a good question. I think the American definitely had a lead in miniaturization (Jason T. makes some good comments about this). It seems that Soviet/Russian spacecraft have always been bigger and larger than their American counterparts. Here are some examples from the early days: USA USSR 1957 Sputnik 1 (184 kg) 1958 Explorer 1 (14 kg) Sputnik 3 (1,327 kg) 1959 Pioneer 4 (6 kg) Luna 1 (361 kg) 1961 Venera 1 (644 kg) 1962 Marnier 2 (203 kg) Mars 1 (893 kg) Ranger 3 (330 kg) 1963 Luna 4 (1,422 kg) 1964 Mariner 4 (261 kg) 1965 Venera 3 (960 kg) 1966 Surveyor 1 (995 kg) Luna 9 (1,583 kg) 1970 Venera 7 (1,180 kg) 1971 Mariner 9 (1,030 kg) Despite the consistently smaller mass of the American spacecraft, the United States seemed to be equally adept and returning useful science, that is, we got more out of each kilogram of payload. I’m not quite sure how to interpret this, however. Did the Americans have a knowledge the Soviets lacked that enabled them to build much smaller spacecraft, or was it simply a matter of necessity? Were the Soviet spacecraft bigger just because they could be (a luxury the Americans lacked)? What if the roles had been reversed and it was the Americans with the heavy launchers? In that case, would it have been the Soviets who learned how to do more with less, or would the Americans have just totally kicked butt with their combination of big rockets and miniaturization technology? I don’t have all the answers but it can be fun to speculate.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Feb 6, 2008 12:05:55 GMT -4
And who would have thought ahead of time that heavyweight Soviet probes would require beefing up to survive landing on Venus?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 6, 2008 12:25:46 GMT -4
And who would have thought ahead of time that heavyweight Soviet probes would require beefing up to survive landing on Venus? The aliens from Zeta Reticuli told them.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Feb 6, 2008 12:28:30 GMT -4
Well, no wonder Communism fell apart if they were listening to those aliens. Any fule kno that only aliens from Gamma Reticuli have anything worth hearing... ;D
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 6, 2008 14:15:11 GMT -4
The Soviets had bigger boosters. American spacecraft were smaller and lighter because they had to be in order to get off the ground at all.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 6, 2008 15:42:19 GMT -4
The Soviets had bigger boosters. American spacecraft were smaller and lighter because they had to be in order to get off the ground at all. Do you think the Soviets lacked the fundamental ability to miniaturize their spacecraft down to the size of American spacecraft? Obviously the Soviet had much greater mass budgets to work with because of their bigger boosters. There is no need to miniaturize more than necessary to get the desired functionality within the performance limit of the launcher. But suppose the Soviet designers were told they had to achieve the same functionality in a spacecraft one-third the size. Could they have done it, or did they simply not have the technology? As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention. I'm guessing they would have eventually figured it out, though the delay would have likely cost them some of their early milestone achievements. Any fule kno that only aliens from Gamma Reticuli have anything worth hearing... ;D Plus they really know how to party.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 6, 2008 16:10:35 GMT -4
Do you think the Soviets lacked the fundamental ability to miniaturize their spacecraft down to the size of American spacecraft?
Hard to tell: it's the road not taken. The Soviets in general are very scientifically and technically smart.
There is no need to miniaturize more than necessary to get the desired functionality within the performance limit of the launcher.
That's the sticky wicket. Since they never faced that particular need, it's difficult to say whether they would have come up with a solution.
Could they have done it, or did they simply not have the technology?
In my judgment they could have had they been faced with the need. However, the Soviets where never as generally dependent on onboard electronics as we were. They had no problem locking armies of accountants in rooms with desktop calculators to grind through various scenarios in exhaustive preplanning steps in order to compensate for the relative lack of onboard smarts.
Necessity may be mother of invention, but stupidity is often its drunken stepfather.
So while I think the Soviets could have figured out how to miniaturize their electronics, I think a more amusing question is how far down on the list of alternatives that would have been.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Feb 7, 2008 13:56:12 GMT -4
Speaking of Korolev, his daughter went on a tour of the Kennedy Space Center this week.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Feb 8, 2008 0:49:31 GMT -4
I am reminded (as often happens) about the comparison between Soviet technology and US / western technology.
In 1976, Viktor Belenko defected to Japan in his MiG-25 Foxbat interceptor, landing at Hakodate airport. This was an incredible windfall for the western intelligence services. They immediately put up a wall around the aircraft (which had gone into the over-run of the runway, landing on the last of its fuel) to protect it from prying eyes, and began a diplomatic stalling move while they did a technical assessment of the aircraft.
What they found amazed them.
The MiG-25 had demonstrated incredible performance, Mach 2.8 performance and being able to zoom to height at a rate which impressed (and worried) the USAF. Equipped with Acrid air-to-air missiles, it posed a very real threat to high altitude US aircraft. The US intelligence services believe it was constructed of high-tech exotic alloys, both in the airframe and the powerplant.
When they got the chance to get a first hand look at the aircraft, they were amazed; not by the technology but by the lack of it! A common description was "farm machinery". The airframe was sturdy but heavy; not sleek but made with crude rivets. The engines were not made of lightweight alloys but cast iron. It's fuel consumption was horrendous. The electronics were 1940s, using valve technology.
The assessors were horrified. This was a piece of junk by American standards.
Then it hit them... BY AMERICAN STANDARDS. By US doctrine... not by Soviet doctrine.
What the Soviets had actually achieved made the US once again look at the aircraft with great respect.
The airframe was of crude but rugged construction - that didn't matter; it had a huge powerplant to drive it to the speeds and heights required.
But the engine was crude; it used masses of fuel and had a short lifespan - who cares? It had one job: fly to height, fire it's missiles, and return. Fuel was not an issue. Short engine life? Again, who cares? They were crude... but they were cheap and easy to produce.
The electronics - antiquated! Yes, but valve technology was considered to be far less susceptible to the EMP from a nuclear explosion. The electronics would work after a huge EMP blast.
What the Soviets had done was to have taken a totally different track to solve a military problem. Not the one that US planners would have taken, but one which solved all the problems they faced in a manner which was acceptable to the military forces.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 9, 2008 14:24:37 GMT -4
(If it's okay with everyone, I'm going to post some comments to my own original post that helps me get things straight.) The Russians disadvantage of wearing track suits instead of spacesuits cost the lives of three cosmonauts in 1971 aboard the Soyuz 11, due to their spacecraft depressurizing before re-entry. The mission highlights up until that point: - Successfully docked with the Salyut Space Station.Cosmonauts
- remained on board for 22 days - a record until Skylab in 1973
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 10, 2008 20:34:23 GMT -4
The Russians disadvantage of wearing track suits instead of spacesuits cost the lives of three cosmonauts in 1971 aboard the Soyuz 11, due to their spacecraft depressurizing before re-entry. You might want to recheck that. It is my understanding that the Soyuz crews had spacesuits, but that they weren't wearing them pressurised during the undocking and decsent, the same way the Apollo crews didn't wear theirs pressurised at the time. This changed on Apollo 15 after the Soyuz accident, the new rule was that all crews had to wear their suits pressurised during any undocking event and re-entry.
|
|