What if no Vietnam War?

Rule of cool said:
I don't think anyone would be saying 'since we don't have to spend $20b on a war in S.E.A. let's throw a few bucks to NASA. However, there would be somewhat less pressure on both the budget and on the politicians coming out of the war. Additionally, the absence of a proxy war the Apollo programme is part of the Cold War competition, so a touch more funding and a later decline isn't an outrageous suggestion.
Click to expand...
That's how I see it happening in this what-if.

Significantly less budgetary pressures and Apollo as a larger part of the Cold War competition equals either larger NASA budgets, longer run of Apollo, or possibly both.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That's how I see it happening in this what-if.

Significantly less budgetary pressures and Apollo as a larger part of the Cold War competition equals either larger NASA budgets, longer run of Apollo, or possibly both.
Click to expand...
No need for larger and Apollo wasn't going run longer regardless of the availability of budget
 
Scott Kenny said:
......if the Soviets actually beat the US to the Moon.
Click to expand...

Without the Vietnam War, particularly the US withdrawal, the Soviets might see their Space Programme as part of Cold War competition and complete their manned Lunar programme. This alone would justify a later NASA moon mission so the US would be the last on the moon.
 
Rule of cool said:
I don't think anyone would be saying 'since we don't have to spend $20b on a war in S.E.A. let's throw a few bucks to NASA. However, there would be somewhat less pressure on both the budget and on the politicians coming out of the war. Additionally, the absence of a proxy war the Apollo programme is part of the Cold War competition, so a touch more funding and a later decline isn't an outrageous suggestion.
Click to expand...
As it happens, people did say that from 1961 to 1965 and from 1965 some were saying "now we are spending $20B on a war in S.E.A., there's no need to throw a few bucks to NASA and we need those bucks to fight the war in S.E.A.".

In the 1990s I read a book called “JPL and the American space program: a history of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory” by Clayton R. Koppes. According to him, there were two underlying reasons for the massive increase in space spending in 1961 and the decline in space spending from 1965 onwards.

The increase in spending on NASA was because the Kennedy Administration had cut the USAF and putting a man on the Moon avoided unemployment in the American aviation industry. Then the Vietnam War happened and spending on the USAF and the aviation branches of the US Army, USN and USMC increased massively. The reason for the civilian space programme ceased to be in 1965 because the Vietnam War was providing the American aviation industry with more work than it could cope with. Furthermore, the civilian space programme consumed resources (scientists, engineers, factories and their workers, not just money) that America badly needed to fight the Vietnam War.

The other reason was the Cold War. President Kennedy's decision put a man on the Moon was a month after the Soviets put a man into space, but it was also a month after the Bay of Pigs. Space was a front in the Cold War and America appeared to be loosing the war in general and on the space front in particular. The increase in space spending in 1961 was a way to fight back in the Cold War in general, the space race in particular and to take attention away from recent failures like the the Bay of Pigs. Then the Vietnam War happened and all of a sudden the USA had a real war to fight.

Look at the table in Message 197. Total space spending increased from $1.8 billion in FY 1961 to $3.3 billion in FY 1962. NASA's space budget was nearly doubled and the DoD's space budget increased by more than 50%. NASA's peak years were FYs 1964 to 1966 when an average of $5.1B was spent after which there was a steady decline to an average of $3.0B for FYs 1971 to FY 1976. The decline was more in real terms due to inflation and economic growth. Meanwhile, DoD spending, which had been about $1.6B p.a. from FY 1963 to FY 1965, increased by 25%to $ 2.0B in FY 1970. It declined to S1.4B in FY1972, but was back at nearly $2.0B in FY 1976, although that sum bought less than it did in FY 1970 because of inflation.

Therefore, without the Vietnam War it's rather likely that between 1965 and the early 1970s more than a few people would be saying "Let's throw another billion or two at NASA since we're not spending $20B on a war in S.E.A".
 
Last edited:
There's also non-military spending upon the Vietnam war. According to this article.
The USAID effort in Vietnam, which was but one of many poor countries around the globe, took on something of a showcase quality. Between 1962 and 1975, South Vietnam received by far the largest portion of USAID economic assistance. In 1967 alone the agency's budget allocated more than $550 million out of its worldwide budget of more than $2 billion for a nation of some 17 million people.
Click to expand...
https://afsa.org/sites/default/files/vietnamArchivedContentFromFSJ008.pdf
 
Scott Kenny said:
Disagree, I could see a push for actual permanent bases on the moon, as well as some space stations.

Especially if the Soviets actually beat the US to the Moon.
Click to expand...
Nah.
a. The Soviets were way behind. 1974/75 was the earliest they would have got there
b. The US gov't wasn't never going all in on bases and stations
 
Man-on-Moon was not the key to whif no Vietnam.: Space was intended to, ah, Make America Great Again after Sputnik and Y.Gagarin., both a military Threat - Big ICBM, we thought, and a cultural one - we, not the Sovs, set World Values-Leadership.

LBJ escalated from Laos just as the Brits came to DC 12/64 to extract subsidy for worldwide Defence presence that we could not afford. LBJ said sure, here's a price/credit package; please now spillout of Malaysia and help us in 'Nam - visibly, wirh cadavers. US' conventional wisdom was of Interdependence, USSR+PRC, to subvert (our definition of) Democracy everywhere. USA, colony-virgin, confused Freedom Fighter with Terrorist. France and UK knew of centuries of mutual mistrust, nay hatred on most colonial borders, which were settled when fights ran out of steam, but did not match ethnic realiites, The only tribes PRC held in greater disdain than Vietnamese were Slavs-in-Asia.

As historically has been the wont of Brits when dealing with our cousins, we did try to mentor and guide, telling any that would listen that our success of putting down the efforts of the Han race in Malaysia to put the Malays in their rightful place was...hearts and minds.

So: OP asks: Whif no US entanglement in this Foreign War after CM Ho booted out France:
Case A: domino: on through Cambodia and Laos, Peril widespread, dragging US, UK and many into long pain.
Case B: CM Ho achieves his legacy of Unification, Socialism in One Country, and reaches out for Western alms, like ex-Brit colony heroes did in Cyprus, Ghana, Kenya...
 
Last edited:
Apollo 13 truly scared the living crap of everyone - from Nixon to NASA leadership at HQ, Johnson, Marshall... The faulty LOX tank with the burned electric wire isolation inside, slipped through all the safety checks : and detonated in space. Well what's actually worse, it was a flawed ground test ( = safety check) that turned the tank into a ticking bomb. It really was a freak incident.

More generally, Saturn V with the Apollo stack on top was seven different rocket vehicles with three different propellants in six propulsion stages (S-IC = kerolox; S-II & S-IVB : hydrolox; SM, LM-descent, LM-ascent : storables).

The Apollo stack was not an efficient lunar transportation system - no shame, it wasn't built for that. It cost $2 billion a flight, was not reusable nor low cost nor built in large numbers. By air transportation standards, it was a Ford Trimotor : cannot make money in commercial service, unlike the DC-3 / Constellation / 707 / 747 that followed. But one has to started somewhere.
 
Archibald said:
The Apollo stack was not an efficient lunar transportation system - no shame, it wasn't built for that. It cost $2 billion a flight, was not reusable nor low cost nor built in large numbers. By air transportation standards, it was a Ford Trimotor : cannot make money in commercial service, unlike the DC-3 / Constellation / 707 / 747 that followed. But one has to started somewhere.
Click to expand...

Which is why I wouldn't suggest it as a long-term basis for US manned spaceflight, even OTL Shuttle is better for that.

However, the Saturn/Apollo system was developed and produced and can be more than be a one trick pony. At the very least Skylab B might be a bridge to the Shuttle, giving the latter purpose from day 1.
 
Archibald said:
The Apollo stack was not an efficient lunar transportation system - no shame, it wasn't built for that. It cost $2 billion a flight, was not reusable nor low cost nor built in large numbers. By air transportation standards, it was a Ford Trimotor : cannot make money in commercial service, unlike the DC-3 / Constellation / 707 / 747 that followed. But one has to started somewhere.
Click to expand...
Is that $2B a flight at current prices? According to Tim Furniss in "Jane's Manned Spaceflight Log" Apollo 11 cost $355 million, Apollo 14 cost $392 million and I thought he said that Apollo 17 cost in the region of $500 million (when that was a lot of money) but when I checked there weren't costs for any of the Apollo J missions. However, he did write.
The Apollo programme was at times bitterly criticised on account of its political origins and immense $24,000 million, cost. But the fact remains that it achieved a great deal for science. Twelve men spent 160 man-hours on the Moon, covering 60 miles on foot and by LRV and collecting 2,196 samples of rock weighing a total of 850lb and varying in age between 3,100 and 4,700 million years old. The samples, divided into over 39,000 pieces kept scientists in 19 countries all over the world very busy for many years. More than 30,000 photographs of the Moon were taken, and 60 major experiments were placed on the surface and 30 carried out from lunar orbit.
Click to expand...
So it cost $2,000 million to put each of the 12 men on the Moon. Each man hour cost $150 million. Each mile travelled on foot and by LRV cost $400 million. Each piece of rock cost $11 million. Each pound of rock cost $28 million. Each photograph cost $0.8 million.

Each of the 6 successful landings cost $4,000 million. That reduces to $3,429 million if Apollo 13 is included and $2,182 million if all 11 manned Apollo launches are included. That includes fixed costs like R&D, building the ground infrastructure like LC-39 and the factories, which remain the same regardless of the number of launches. Therefore, the marginal costs of Apollos 18 to 20 would have been a lot less than that, especially as the the hardware was complete or at an advanced stage of construction when they were cancelled.
 
Don't panic lol. What I meant: it was built for first landing and preliminary exploration of the Moon. Not viable for a lunar base or a colony.
 
Archibald said:
Don't panic lol. What I meant: it was built for first landing and preliminary exploration of the Moon. Not viable for a lunar base or a colony.
Click to expand...
Ah, Gotcha.

The Lunar game by Black Site Studios typically has you using the solid-boosted Saturn 5 ELV or a Sea Dragon... plain Saturn 5 is cheaper but can't effectively haul oxygen to you (one of the resources in the game, I suspect that in-situ oxygen extraction would be the better option IRL)
 
Archibald said:
Don't panic lol. What I meant: it was built for first landing and preliminary exploration of the Moon. Not viable for a lunar base or a colony.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, this was, thanks to Gerry Anderson and Brian Johnson.
IMG_8268.jpg
Source: https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235126993-space-1999-eagle-transporter-mpc-172/

FWIW Saturday (13th September) is the 26th anniversary of Breakaway Day and last Thursday (4th September) was the 50th anniversary of "Space: 1999's" debut on British television, i.e. 7.00 PM on Thursday 4th September 1975.

Source: https://moonbasealpha.fandom.com/wiki/Space:_1999_(Series)

The excellent Stam Fine YouTube channel uploaded Part One of its "Space:1999" documentary on the 25th anniversary of Breakaway Day (Friday 13th September 2024) and it was superb. I am reliably informed that Part 2 will be uploaded tomorrow (Friday 12th September 2025).
 
NOMISYRRUC said:
Therefore, the marginal costs of Apollos 18 to 20 would have been a lot less than that, especially as the the hardware was complete or at an advanced stage of construction when they were cancelled.
Click to expand...
they weren't cancelled for cost.
 
Everybody was scared about Apollo 13 but there was another reason - Skylab A.
With Skylab B they needed a couple Saturn V but production had been capped to 515. Since everybody was scared by Apollo 13 a few landings were canned to repurpose their boosters.
Plus, with Apollo 14 delayed by nine months to early 1971, and Skylab which was to fly in November 1972, with four-five months intervals the sequence of landings no longer fit.
NASA refused to fly Apollo missions AFTER Skylab because they were too different while the workforce was going away fast. And on top of that was the Shuttle, started by Nixon on January 5, 1972 : allocated $5.15 billion up to 1978, at a time when the NASA budget was crashing down to rock bottom in FY1974.
Skylab was eventually delayed to May 1973 so Apollo 18 might have been shoehorned back, but for a host of reasons it was not possible. Scientists requested six months intervals between landings to digest the results from the advanced J-class missions.
 
Archibald said:
Everybody was scared about Apollo 13 . . .
Click to expand...
I'd be less scared of travelling in Apollo 13 than an Eagle Transporter.

The Apollo CSM had a better safety record than the Eagle Transporter. The Apollo one fire and Apollo 13 v umpteen Eagle crashes.

This is the Year One title sequence with the most famous Eagle crash of all.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SpX8bVEmJo


The YouTube channel run by Jamie Anderson catalogued them in these videos written and narrated by Chris Dale, who has his own YouTube channel called Chris Dalek.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fit_HiE4PQY

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E5nPr2QMIw


And just for you here is "Stingray'" title sequence in French.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHMAX_9SQXw


It looses a lot in translation. Here's the English version.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45NtEXv7DZs
 
And there's the Lunar Module from "UFO" designed by Derek Meddings and Mike Trim, whose safety record was exemplary in comparison, as it crashed once in 24 episodes and the Eagle Transporter crashed umpteen times in 48 episodes.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/3202767443232505EDIT: 12.09.25

Correction: The SHADO Lunar Module in "UFO" crashed twice. That is one crashed trying to land at Moonbase in "The Dalotek Affair". The other was destroyed during re-entry in the episode "Flight Path".

The model was sold to the BBC who used it in several of their programmes. Including this one from 1975.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saxhV4gzm5c&t=1878s

See the section from 25:55 to 30:45.
 
Last edited:
What would the Soviets do with no Vietnam war? I know they regularly gave Communist countries a fraternal socialist price on exports like oil, did they spend much propping up NthV? Would they have put more effort into their own lunar programme without Vietnam, perhaps with a moon flyby? On that tangent, could they have arrange a moon landing, especially if in the absence of Vietnam the US AAP was bigger as discussed here?
 
Rule of cool said:
What would the Soviets do with no Vietnam war? I know they regularly gave Communist countries a fraternal socialist price on exports like oil, did they spend much propping up NthV? Would they have put more effort into their own lunar programme without Vietnam, perhaps with a moon flyby? On that tangent, could they have arrange a moon landing, especially if in the absence of Vietnam the US AAP was bigger as discussed here?
Click to expand...

Zond plan was a lunar flyby for the October Revolution 50th anniversary... October 1967.
 
Rule of cool said:
What would the Soviets do with no Vietnam war? I know they regularly gave Communist countries a fraternal socialist price on exports like oil, did they spend much propping up NthV? Would they have put more effort into their own lunar programme without Vietnam, perhaps with a moon flyby? On that tangent, could they have arrange a moon landing, especially if in the absence of Vietnam the US AAP was bigger as discussed here?
Click to expand...
It was discussed earlier in the thread.

My guess is that they'd adhere to the domino principle and try to topple Vietnam's neighbours. Maybe Cambodia and Laos would become communist sooner. There might be a Thailand War in place of the OTL Vietnam War. Maybe more support to Burma, North Korea to destabilise South Korea, China to destabilise Taiwan and Indonesia in the confrontation with the British Commonwealth in Malaysia. That's with a POD of 1964-65. If it's a POD of 1954 (i.e. no Partition of Vietnam) there's more Soviet support for the communists in the Malayan Emergency and the Indonesians against the Dutch in western New Guinea.

Maybe we should be careful what we wish for because the consequence of no direct American involvement in the Vietnam War may be a communist Thailand and East Indies (with the Philippines teetering on the brink) that was preceded by a South East Asian War every bit as horrid as the one of OTL. Just think what that may have done for the Australian Defence Force after 1975 to defend Australia itself and PNG?

I intended to say that some of the civil and military aid that the USA poured into South Vietnam IOTL would be available for NASA and civilian aerospace projects ITTL. In fact I did allude to that because I wrote several times than no Vietnam War means more money for NASA 1965-ish to 1975 when America pulled out of Vietnam in 1972 and the extra money NASA receives 1972-75 ITTL is some of the money the USA paid to South Vietnam 1972-75 IOTL. However, now I think that all the civilian and military aid that went to South Vietnam IOTL is spent on propping up the other non-communists states in South East Asia.

By the same token no Vietnam War doesn't mean more money for the Soviet space programme. (Ditto for for China's.) Even if the USSR did put the money into its space programme my guess is that their first Moon landing it wouldn't be until around 1975 at the earliest as a shortage of money was the least of its problems, which included:
  1. The Soviet's didn't start their Moon programme (including Soyuz and the N-1 rocket) until May 1964 (because they didn't believe Kennedy when he announced America's Moon programme) which gave the American a head start of exactly 3 years.
  2. There were umpteen changes of plan in the 1960s Soviet Space programme, which wasted more time. This continued into the 1970s with the cancellation of N-1 in favour of Energia in 1974 and arguably the 1980s with the cancellation of TKS.
  3. Related to the above were the competing space programmes of the chief designers, particularly Chelomey and Korolev.
  4. In the 1960s Soviet quality control was rubbish to non-existent. It didn't improve until they adopted American quality assurance techniques.
  5. Korolev dying in 1966 and his successor not being up to the task.
  6. The N-1 launch pads were too close together. The launch pads at LC-39 were that far apart from one another and the VAB so an explosion at one wouldn't destroy the others. The N-1 launch pads weren't and the launch failure of July 1969 destroyed the pair of them. The next launch wasn't until June 1971 as a consequence.
Returning to reason Number One: 1961 was also the year of the Sino-Soviet Split, which was the beginning of the end for the USSR as the cost of maintaining armed forces strong enough to fight NATO and China were what did for its economy. I think there'd be a lot more money for the Soviet (and Chinese) space programmes in a timeline where that didn't happen. However, much of the extra money spent in the 1960s would have been squandered if the other things listed above still happened.
 
Archibald said:
Zond plan was a lunar flyby for the October Revolution 50th anniversary... October 1967.
Click to expand...
Rule of cool said:
Given the Proton rocket eventually because operational I'd suggest a lunar flyby or two is certainly achievable.
Click to expand...
It would help if they'd taken Kennedy seriously in May 1961 and started their Moon programme there and then instead of May 1964. That would have given the Soviets more time to develop the hardware and there'd have been no need to launch Soyuz 1 and the N-1 rocket years before they were ready and with disastrous results.

If they had, maybe non-manoeuvrable Soyuz spacecraft would have flown 1964-66 and performed the missions actually flown by Voskhods 1 and 2 plus those planned for Voskhods 3 to 6. Meanwhile, manoeuvrable Soyuz spacecraft perfected RV and docking in unmanned missions in preparation for a successful Soyuz 1 & 2 mission early in 1967. My wish list also includes launching Vostoks at the rate of 3 or 4 a year instead of 2 per year so they launch Vostok 13 in the second quarter of 1964. Furthermore, N-1 might have been man-rated early enough to attempt a lunar flyby by a N-1 launched Soyuz carrying a crew of 2 or 3 cosmonauts and there'd be no need for the stripped-down Proton launched Zond.

I also think it would have helped if the Soviets had developed Chelomey's UR-family or Korolev's N-family instead of UR-500 from one and N-1 from the other in the short, medium and long terms.

There have been over 430 Proton launches since 1965. If there had been over 430 N-11 launches in their place the N-1 might still be flying too as N-1 is an N-11 atop a new first stage using the same engines as the N-11. Conversely, UR-700 might still be flying if it had been built instead of N-1 due to what it has in common with the UR-500.
 
There are two interesting, all-important Soviet anniversaries that bracket Apollo. First one is October revolution 50th years : October 1967. Second one, April 21 1970 is Lenin 100th birthday.

Fun fact 1 : before the Apollo 13 drama the Soviets were complaining that Apollo 13 landing and return has been specifically timed to embarass them and eclipse Lenin centenary (and also, on April 12: nine years since Gagarin !)
https://www.nytimes.com/1970/04/13/archives/will-apollo-13-upstage-moscows-lenin-centennial.htmlAin't that amazing ? :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
Mishin wanted to fly a Zond for that Lenin anniversary, but Soviet leadership vetoed it: since Apollo 8 going in orbit and Apollo 11 landing, flybys were just pathetic.

Fun fact 2 : had that Zond 9 flown, its free return flyby trajectory would have been very similar to Apollo 13 own flyby (post disaster).
Mishin plan was to recover the Zond crew in time for a parade in Moscow the day of Lenin, which mean the Zond mission would have launched almost the same day as Apollo 13.

Bottom line : there would have been two manned ship underway to the Moon when the O2 tank blow up. Of course Zond couldn't have rescued Apollo 13 in any way, it is just that the coincidence of dates is amazing.

And no, the americans did not plotted Apollo 13 launch and return dates to ashame the Soviets: as Apollo landings were constrained by specific launch windows, each month. So it was just celestial mechanics and the Murphy law having fun with the Soviets. :p:p:p
 
Last edited:
NOMISYRRUC said:
My wish list also includes launching Vostoks at the rate of 3 or 4 a year instead of 2 per year so they launch Vostok 13 in the second quarter of 1964.
Click to expand...
What would be the point of that? Would have served no useful purpose much like extending Mercury past MA-9. They did all they could with the Vostok/Voshod spacecraft.
 
NOMISYRRUC said:
Fortunately, this was, thanks to Gerry Anderson and Brian Johnson.
View attachment 784405
Click to expand...
Almost..... Kent Joosten's ILREC spacecraft "and its spent TLI stage would have a mass of about 34 metric tons. This substantial mass reduction would permit use of a launch vehicle smaller than the Apollo Saturn V, potentially slashing lunar mission cost."
https://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2017/07/sei-swan-song-international-lunar.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Lunar_Resources_Exploration_Concept
BTW At least one N-1 pad was used for Energia.

I wish Zond-9 had flown with cosmonauts during Apollo 13---maybe that could have re-sparked some things by itself.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
Almost..... Kent Joosten's ILREC spacecraft "and its spent TLI stage would have a mass of about 34 metric tons. This substantial mass reduction would permit use of a launch vehicle smaller than the Apollo Saturn V, potentially slashing lunar mission cost."
https://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2017/07/sei-swan-song-international-lunar.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Lunar_Resources_Exploration_Concept
BTW At least one N-1 pad was used for Energia.

I wish Zond-9 had flown with cosmonauts during Apollo 13---maybe that could have re-sparked some things by itself.
Click to expand...
Some alternative historians have no sense of humour.
 
NOMISYRRUC said:
  1. The Soviet's didn't start their Moon programme (including Soyuz and the N-1 rocket) until May 1964 (because they didn't believe Kennedy when he announced America's Moon programme) which gave the American a head start of exactly 3 years.
  2. There were umpteen changes of plan in the 1960s Soviet Space programme, which wasted more time. This continued into the 1970s with the cancellation of N-1 in favour of Energia in 1974 and arguably the 1980s with the cancellation of TKS.
  3. Related to the above were the competing space programmes of the chief designers, particularly Chelomey and Korolev.
  4. In the 1960s Soviet quality control was rubbish to non-existent. It didn't improve until they adopted American quality assurance techniques.
  5. Korolev dying in 1966 and his successor not being up to the task.
  6. The N-1 launch pads were too close together. The launch pads at LC-39 were that far apart from one another and the VAB so an explosion at one wouldn't destroy the others. The N-1 launch pads weren't and the launch failure of July 1969 destroyed the pair of them. The next launch wasn't until June 1971 as a consequence.
Click to expand...

That's a LOT of obstacles to overcome. Still, a Soviet moon flyby would be cool.
 
Rule of cool said:
Damaged is a spectrum from scratched paint to melted into the dirt. Was the other pad damaged enough to make it unusable for long enough to delay a realistic launch schedule?
Click to expand...
On the face of it, yes.

The points of having 2 launch pads instead of one are: a) a faster launch rate and b) you have a backup launch pad in case the the other one is out of action for long periods or destroyed outright.

The gap of nearly 2 years between the failure of Serial 5L on 3rd July 1969 and the failure of Serial 6L on 26th June 1971 suggests that the other pad was put out of action for a long time too. If it hadn't been it's likely that they'd have attempted to launch Serial 6L several to many months earlier than they did.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****​

The above was written before I read the Wikipedia article on Baikonur Cosmodrome Site 110. According to that 5 launches was made from it. They were the 4 N1 failures and one of the 2 Energia launches.

Site 110/38 was used for the launches of 21st February 1969 and 3rd July 1969. It took over eighteen months to rebuild the pad.

The 3 subsequent launches were from Site 110/37. That is the N1 launch failures of 26th June 1971 and 23rd November 1972 and the successful launch of Energia-Buran on 15th November 1988.

The other Energia launch (the successful flight of Energia-Polyus on 15th May 1987) was made from Site 250, which according to Wikipedia was built in the late 1970s.

The Wikipedia article cites Mark Wade's astronautix.com as its source.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****​

According to Mark Wade (http://www.astronautix.com/sites/baic110r.htm) the chronology of what he called Launch Complex 110R and Launch Pad 110 East was:
  • 31.08.1967 - N1 Launch Pad 110 East completed.
  • 07.05.1968 - N1 booster 4L erected at Launch Complex 110 East.
  • A September 1968 flight test was planned.
    • However the first stage LOX tank developed hairline cracks during ground tests.
    • 4L was removed from the pad in June 1968.
    • The first stage was cannibalized; the upper stages were incorporated into the 1M1 mockup for further training of the launch crews.
  • 15.11.1968 - N1 1M1 mockup erected on pad with L1S payload Spacecraft: Soyuz 7K-L1.
    • The N1 mockup was again erected on the pad, in order to conduct tests of the L1S payload in advance of the availability of the 3L launch vehicle.
  • 26.12.1968 - N1 launch vehicle 3L erected on launch pad The 3L vehicle, without its payload (which was on the 1M1 mockup), is erected on the pad to test engine systems.
Then there were the failures of N1 3L on 21st February 1969 and the failure of N1 5L on 3rd July 1969. The latter destroyed Launch Pad 110 East and it took over 18 months to repair.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****​

And according to Mark Wade (https://web.archive.org/web/20081031104701/http://www.astronautix.com/sites/baic110l.htm) the chronology of what he called Launch Complex 110L and Launch Pad 110 West was:
  • 21.03.1963 - Design work starts on N1 launch complex.
  • 01.09.1963 - Construction begins of N1 launch complex.
  • 01.09.1964 - Construction starts on N1 Launch Complex 110 East
  • 01.02.1966 - Construction starts on N1 Launch Pad 110 West.
  • 25.11.1967 - N-1 mockup 1M1 rolled out to launch pad.
    • It remained on the pad until 12th December for facilities checks.
    • It was photographed by a US reconnaissance satellite on 11th December.
    • The 1M1 mockup scrapped in 1975.
  • 31.12.1968 - N1 Launch Pad 110 West completed.
  • 24.09.1969 - N1 on Launch Pad 110 West.
    • This was the first new launch vehicle erection activity detected by US reconnaissance satellites after the destruction of pad 110 east in the July launch failure.
    • The all-white launch vehicle, with no payload, is believed to be either N1 mockup 1M1 or flight vehicle 6L.
  • 18.05.1970 - N1 erected on Launch Pad 110 West.
    • US reconnaissance satellites detects N1 being installed on the pad.
    • It remained there, without payload, until at least 4th June.
Then he does the N1 launch failures of 26th June 1971, 23rd November 1973 and the Energia-Buran launch of 15th November 1988.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****​

So I was wrong. The failure of 3rd July 1969 didn't destroy both launch pads. Therefore, the gap of nearly 2 years between it and the next launch attempt must have been for another reason or reasons.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom