Soviets are first to flyby/orbit the Moon

[torten]

After Apollo 8, the Soviet leadership went very cold on the Proton-Soyuz Zond flybys, and a manned flyby never took place.

What would it have taken for the Zond programme to be safe enough by 1968, or 1969, for the Soviets to consider a manned flyby.

Alternatively, was an alternative architecture, such as Korolev's A-B-V Cirumlunar Complex more likely to succeed?

 

[RanulfC]

After Apollo 8, the Soviet leadership went very cold on the Proton-Soyuz Zond flybys, and a manned flyby never took place.

What would it have taken for the Zond programme to be safe enough by 1968, or 1969, for the Soviets to consider a manned flyby.

Alternatively, was an alternative architecture, such as Korolev's A-B-V Cirumlunar Complex more likely to succeed?

The Soviet leadership was ambivalent about going to the Moon, especially by the mid-to-late-60s since it was clear the US was both willing and able to push the goal whereas they were not so much. The main issue with a manned flyby or orbit was that it would admit they WERE actually in the "race" whereas not doing so left them the option of saying they were never in any such 'race' which is the tact they took OTL.
They could pretend they were not being as brash and reckless as the US (again what they did OTl) as long as it didn't LOOK like they were being "brash and reckless" and they would not lose 'face' if they didn't look like they were in a 'race' to the Moon with the US.

A Circumlunar flight pretty much negates either position.

Now if they HAD gone ahead and done a flyby or orbit then it likely means the "current" (timeframe) NASA budget cuts will stabilize a bit and there may be some room to push for some more possible "post-Apollo" projects but if they do ONLY that then it's likely the funding dropping sharply resumes the minute Apollo 11 lands, maybe even deeper cuts to make up for 'lost time'.

Any Soviet "pressure" put on the US is likely to extend Apollo or it's follow up program (which can be argued either as good or bad ) but the Soviets have no real "incentive" to play that kind of game just as they did not OTl. They made a lot of early strides but by the end of the '60s were running out of steam, (and money) as all the low hanging fruit was taken. To keep playing deep-space/large project games they would have to commit to an expanded budget and resource intensive program just as the US had with Apollo and it's arguably they could really afford that. They needed to overhaul their tech base and program as a whole and chose to do so with the aim of orbital (space station) operations as it was arguably cheaper and easier than going to the Moon and more 'direct' applicability to the main sponsor of the Soviet Space Program; The military. By not doing a Lunar flyby they could make the US look like it had been racing itself while they were moving forward into space in slow but progressive steps in a self supporting and sustainable manner. As long as they could sweep the N1 under the carpet then they would still be able to maintain the illusion of parity with the US without the 'side-track' of trying to go to the Moon in such a short period for an exorbitant cost and effort.

OTL it worked too as many pundits and talking heads bashed Apollo for being a magnificent achievement that ended up being abandoned (which it was) because there was never any 'race' to begin with. We didn't really know different until after the USSR fell. So the decision of the time seems to have made some sense in context.

Randy