The original Soyuz 11 crew, who were replaced 3 days before launch, due to medical concerns.

[nick_stevens_graphics@mastodon.art]

The original Soyuz 11 crew, who were replaced 3 days before launch, due to medical concerns.

Valeri N. Kubasov, Aleksei A. Leonov, and Pyotr I. Kolodin

The replacement crew all died when the Soyuz capsule depressurised during re-entry.

[zebulonmysterioso@mas.to]

@Nick_Stevens_graphics I'd never heard about this. Are there any popular conspiracy theories about this?

[cstross@wandering.shop]

@zebulonmysterioso @Nick_Stevens_graphics We know exactly what went wrong: a design flaw in the Soyuz/Almaz pressurization system and a missing item that should have been on a checklist. (On undocking, the Soyuz began leaking through a pressure equalization valve that took a couple of minutes longer to close by hand than it did to vent all the air to vacuum.)

[nick_stevens_graphics@mastodon.art]

@cstross @zebulonmysterioso

People always focus on the big N1 rocket when looking at why the USSR lost the Moon race.

But it seems to me that this deadly error was what stopped them beating Apollo 8 to the Moon.

Time lost reworking the Soyuz, and a long moratorium on crewed flight.

[cstross@wandering.shop]

@Nick_Stevens_graphics @zebulonmysterioso Mmph: what about the Soyuz 1 disaster? (Soyuz 11 was 1971; Soyuz 1, in contrast, was 1967 ...)

For the current moon race, I think what's going to throw it to China is the USA's focus on Starship/Superheavy and 100% reusability. Falcon Heavy in all-up disposable has the payload for a multi-launch mission. Starship/Superheavy v1 could probably do it too, as an all-up disposable launch vehicle.

The emphasis on reusability from the start isn't helping.

[nick_stevens_graphics@mastodon.art]

@cstross

And worth noting that with docking in orbit pretty much routine these days, multi launch missions are a LOT more practical than they were in the Apollo days.

[cstross@wandering.shop]

@Nick_Stevens_graphics

I think it's high time we admitted the Space Shuttle was a Mistake. And attempts to build on its legacy are an even worse mistake.

(Starship *might* eventually go fully reusable, but it'll always have a drastically smaller payload than a pure disposable TSTO superheavy lifter.)

[isaackuo@spacey.space]

@cstross @Nick_Stevens_graphics For the Space Shuttle to be a mistake, there has to be some better alternative.

So the question is ... what might that alternative have been? I think in retrospect, we can say probably something without wings on its upper stage, and without a reusable upper stage...

[cstross@wandering.shop]

@isaackuo @Nick_Stevens_graphics They could have just productized Saturn IB. Kept it going, 6/year, plus a couple of extra stages to turn into SVs when needed. Aim for first stage reusability by parachute, maybe?

[nick_stevens_graphics@mastodon.art]

@cstross @isaackuo

There was a proposal to add SRB's to a Saturn 1, which would give it the capacity to send a crew to lunar orbit.