“The success of Luna-16 raised the inevitable comparison with the Apollo program. Soviet commentators naturally made much of their recent accomplishment. Academician Boris N. Petrov told TASS on September 24 that automatic exploration cost one-twentiety to one-fifth as much as piloted space exploration. TsKBEM Department Deputy Chief Raushenbakh was more specific in his comparisons, suggesting on September 28 that the cost of the samples returned by Luna-16 were considerably less than those brought back by the Apollo missions. [Soviet Space Programs, 1966-70, p383.] While the two programs are difficult, if not impossible, to compare, it is a fact that the two Apollo missions up to that point had returned a far greater amount (sixty kilograms) of lunar rocks and soil than Luna-16 (0.105 kilograms). Based on the per capita cost [Sic.] of a kilogram of lunar soil from the Luna mission versus the Apollo missions, there is no doubt that the latter were far superior. But, the amount of lunar soil returned is clearly [a] poor measure of the true scientific value of a mission. In purely scientific terms, the U.S. astronauts conducted a wide array of experiments on the surface while the Soviet controllers were extremely limited in their choice of research. The Apollo astronauts, for example, had a much greater ability to choose particular samples from a very large area compared to Luna-16. Finally, the costs of Apollo were associated with numerous intangible benefits — primarily associated with prestige — which clearly cannot be measured in the traditional sense. Luna-16 was certainly a remarkable technological accomplishment, but it was probably not, as Soviet officials of the day touted, a “cheaper and better” alternative to Apollo.

“Challenge to Apollo: the Soviet Union and the space race, 1945-1974,” Asif A. Siddiqi, NASA SP-2000-4408,
page 740.

Interesting, and actually very logical when you think about the total mass of an Apollo sample return vs the small mass the Luna robotic retun vehicles could manage.

I’ve spent the last six months or so plowing through Asif A. Siddiqi’s one-thousand pages of fine print on the history of the Soviet lunar program. (An outstanding tomb, albeit in need of a few more proofreading passes.)

Just before going to sleep last night, I read an interesting point. He argued, if I remember correctly, that if you compare the mass of lunar samples returned by Apollo-12, with the mass returned by Luna-16, and compare the total cost of each sample, it is not at all clear that the human flight cost more per unit returned science. This is true even if you ignore the much wider distribution and more intelligent collection strategy for the Apollo samples.

If anyone is interested in the exact quote, I’ll try to post it tomorrow.

— Donald

I think the biggest argument in favor of the feasibility of interplanetary colonization is that the scientists are saying they won’t learn anything. Now do we have the political will to leave the cradle?