First Moon landing was nearly a US–Soviet mission
nature.com
nature.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Space Shuttle and ISS operate at 14.7 PSI -- normal sea level atmospheric pressure.
Byford Dolphin incident
This is also why all but one post-Columbia mission either went to or was within range of the ISS. The only mission for which this wasn't true was the final repair of the Hubble, and for that they had a second shuttle on stand-by for a potential rescue launch on short notice.
If Luna-15, the previous one, succeeded, that would be another story :) but it didn't.
It's funny, my Russian friend and I were playing Timelines and the moon landing came up. We couldn't agree on the date; she insisted that "the moon landings" were in 1966, when the first robots landed on the moon. Apparently in Russia that's what they teach as the key milestone.
And when I think about it, it's no less valid.
Apollo missions where IMO the most massive projects without direct benefit beyond basic research throughout human history. In aggregate the Internet for example is a larger investment, but there is direct utility and ROI. Honestly, only the ISS really compares.
Only later did performance increase enough that space hardware could be conservative.
The integrated circuit first won a place in the military market through programs such as the first computer using silicon chips for the Air Force in 1961 and the Minuteman Missile in 1962.
It was very much cutting edge for the time, but not really more innovative than other similar examples.
When you mission planning and construction takes several years, you can’t just go in and swap parts for “cutting edge” and “best-of-breed”. Mission parameters are locked several years before the actual mission takes place and are based on tech that was considered safe, sound, and stable by the time parameters are locked.
So, when the mission flies, you get 6-8 year old tech that flies in it.
The combination of all the components is usually bigger than the sum of its parts (that is it could be pushing the envelope of what mankind can achieve), but it’s usually built on top of some very boring things.
In researching, it appears this was less true at the beginning of the space program, by necessity.
It's fair to say that the Apollo guidance computer was revolutionary.
PS: The enigma cracking for example is very well known now. But, that’s a surprisingly recent revelation... After the end of World War II, the Allies sold captured Enigma machines, still widely considered secure, to developing countries. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma_machine. This meant keeping the machines that could crack these codes secret was important for decades.
So, sort of but not really. NASA has associated the space race with all kinds of tech advancements. But, tight deadlines has meant the focus was less on research than integrating existing technology that was at worst almost ready for use. We had existing huge rockets, they kept scaling them even more.
In the end the majority of this stuff is mostly PR. Much like how research papers include hand wavy this is good for X, Y, and Z sort of if you squint.
Certainly would have been nice if the lunar plaque had been sincere in a wider context.
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.
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.