WI Pedro Paule Went Public

Suppose Pedro Paulet's successfully tested a liquid fuel rocket in 1885 and got a lot of publicity at the time. How does this affect rocket science and space travel?

Do we see a V1-like program during WWI? And after, does this mean a space program under Stalin, a Nazi program, and/or a New Deal space program in the US?

EDIT ADD: Yes, this is a PoD prior to 1900, but only by five years, and it's the really big butterflies start later in the 20th Century

Maybe the best way to get publicity would to have him take the rocket off his test bench and fly it, preferably somewhere with many, many journalists.

Anyway, this is 31 years earlier than Goddard's flight so it isn't at all ASB to move rocket develop up three decades. If that were to hold true, we would have rudimentary space ships by the mid-twenties. Unfortunately, history doesn't work that way but it's a neat thought.

About V1 rocket's and WWI, it really depends on a number of factors.

1. Do the WWI Generals and Admirals view it as a good investment of money? Remember, at the start of WWI, many admirals scoffed at planes and predicted they would never outshine the importance on battleships.
2. What nations can pay for a such a program?
3. Which of the above nations that have the most foreward-thinking Generals actually have the money to pay for this?

There are surely more I missed. I think you may see limited use of them by one side or the other by the end of the war as both sides are desperate to break the other's trenches. Then, accuracy becomes a problem. By WWII though, missiles will probably be used by both sides (assuming WWII or an analogous conflict still occurs).

One interesting POD would be if the German Spring Offensive of 1918 involved rockets newly shipped to the front that by some great stroke of luck, proved accurate enough to clear allies out of whole sections of trenches. How does the peace after an even stalemate or close CP victory look? This could avoid the Great Depression and World War II.

Just some thoughts.

So no V-1 like program needed to, say, get to the moon by 1940?

Well it would be interesting to see where he ended up. Who would take the most interest in him. Might not the United States or Britain be first to attempt to persuade him to move?

now granted that other nations would pick up quickly on this new idea.
One might think that the russo-Japanese war might be the first place someone tries out this new technology or it gets used in one of the Balkan wars. I would think that by the time WW 1 takes place you might see some form of early gyroscopic guidance systems for more accurate usage.

It may also spur the development of new military tactics as trench warfare would quickly fade away as more technologies would be brought to bare to move the rockets, as well as defend against. horses are not going to cut it and with the Automobile being born as well you may see more development in stronger faster military vehicles from the start.

war spurs development faster then anything. so if you still have a WW 1 by 1914-1918 and it lasts 3 or 4 years then maybe by the late 20's early 30's you may see rudimentary space ships taking shape. In other words you could move the world tech wise forward 20-30 years.

Just depends on how fast infrastructure changes take place. can you get Airplane development on the fast track, manufacturing, scientific advances, all to take place at the right pace?

It could be treated as a toy and as such not be worth much for the first 10 years. remembering that it took WW1 to make the airplane really get advancing.

How would such a change in how WWI is fought affect the political and other outcomes? And is it necessary to have the technology used to such a level to have the technology outcomes you described?

It could be treated as a toy and as such not be worth much for the first 10 years. remembering that it took WW1 to make the airplane really get advancing.

Click to expand...

Can I take that to mean rockets may be developed but not (or hardly) used in WWI?

Well the outcome of WWI depends on which side utilized the new technology first. You do have the problem that at first military commanders might view them as little more than toys (the same way the telephone was thought about when first unvealed). But then again, if one side or the other has a visionary commander than you might see their use.

You would need some kind of a missile program to drive the development towards rockets and thus get to the moon by the forties, I don't know enough about the V-1 program other than it was a german missile defense program to say for sure.

That's the thing -- I'm not entirely sure which side would utilize the new technology, if any.

John Fredrick Parker said:

That's the thing -- I'm not entirely sure which side would utilize the new technology, if any.

Click to expand...

The British had a history with using rocket artillery, like the Hale rocket, for example, so, if I were to wager as to who shows an inclination towards developing/using this hypothetical rocket, I'd say either the British or the U.S., based on those nations past use of artillery rockets.

That's not to say that if the French or Germans were the ones to build them, they wouldn't use them. I'm just not sure if the French or German armed forces would be interested in developing such weapons as I'm not familiar with any rocket use by either prior to WW2.

Thing about Germany and France in all of this is that I'm almost positive if one starts development of such weapons, the other will follow in short order and an arms race would ensue.

As to just how sophisticated the rockets would or could be...remember one thing: There's a sizable difference in both the industrial process and availability of materials of the world between the late 19th century and the 1920s and the world from about 1930 on- another factor that has to be considered for any technological leaps. If the machines and materials aren't there, the tech remains on paper and stays there until such time as the rest of the tech tree catches up to it.

Sigma7 said:

As to just how sophisticated the rockets would or could be...remember one thing: There's a sizable difference in both the industrial process and availability of materials of the world between the late 19th century and the 1920s and the world from about 1930 on- another factor that has to be considered for any technological leaps. If the machines and materials aren't there, the tech remains on paper and stays there until such time as the rest of the tech tree catches up to it.

Click to expand...

That is a very good point; anyone want to take a whack at illustrating it (i.e. just how would this technology be used)?

Imagine a Space Race in the 30's!!!!!

Could start earlier, in the late 20's or so -- though I'm drawn to Stalin, Hitler, FDR, and maybe Hirohito and/or Chirchill pushing space programs in their respective countries.

If they did, what are the prospects for WWII?

Bumping...

John Fredrick Parker said:

That is a very good point; anyone want to take a whack at illustrating it (i.e. just how would this technology be used)?

Click to expand...

My first thought is a melding of the Paris Gun and poison gas, producing fun for all the family. Range of the weapon is a limitation. It's more expensive and difficult to produce than artillery shells, and guidance is bound to be a problem initially. So throw it at something the size of a city with something nasty in it, and bang go a few civilians. If accuracy is good enough, then lob it into the enemy's rear echelons. If you can deny the enemy the use of his railway lines to shift reserves, you greatly increase your troops' chances of seizing an objective and holding it.

I think, like you said, accuracy is going to be a problem; as such I'm skeptical that they would even be able to hit a city unless they were already pretty close.

At most, it's looking like a more effective (if not cost effective) poison gas delivery system...

Ok, so it sounds like rocmet science gets developed in WWI, but is used little enough that the butterflies, at least politically, are minimal.

That's good by me, cause that means we get -- NAZIS... IN... SPAAAAACE...

Range and accuracy...

The reason that rockets weren't valuable in WWI (and solid-fuel technology, whatever its inefficiencies and limitations, had been around for quite some time by then) was that manufacturering and materials technology simply hadn't developed to a useful level. It probably would have been possible to build something like the equivilient of a Nebelwerfer or a Stalin's Organ for WWI (and these might have been quite useful in some ways), but their range and accuracy would have limited them to area bombardment and chemical warfare, both of which were adequately covered with existing technologies.

Liquid fueled rockets, on the other hand, could have been developed with much longer rangers, though with atrocious accuracy. If this happened, the one niche use that might come up is strategic bombardment with Chemical or Biological weapons. Chemical weapon bombardments lost their effectiveness as the war went on and defensive measures (and preparation) improved, but this might not have been the case with regards to civilian targets. The result on the Western Front is that while rockets wouldn't have broken the trench deadlock, they might have been used to crack civilian morale and production, thus rendering the trenches irrelevant.

As for manned spaceflight...not a chance. Without substantial advances in manufacturering, materials, precision construction techniques, and electronics, no manned spaceflight for quite some time...possibly by the late 40s, but extremely unlikely before that...

f1b0nacc1 said:

The reason that rockets weren't valuable in WWI (and solid-fuel technology, whatever its inefficiencies and limitations, had been around for quite some time by then) was that manufacturering and materials technology simply hadn't developed to a useful level. It probably would have been possible to build something like the equivilient of a Nebelwerfer or a Stalin's Organ for WWI (and these might have been quite useful in some ways), but their range and accuracy would have limited them to area bombardment and chemical warfare, both of which were adequately covered with existing technologies.

Liquid fueled rockets, on the other hand, could have been developed with much longer rangers, though with atrocious accuracy. If this happened, the one niche use that might come up is strategic bombardment with Chemical or Biological weapons. Chemical weapon bombardments lost their effectiveness as the war went on and defensive measures (and preparation) improved, but this might not have been the case with regards to civilian targets. The result on the Western Front is that while rockets wouldn't have broken the trench deadlock, they might have been used to crack civilian morale and production, thus rendering the trenches irrelevant.

As for manned spaceflight...not a chance. Without substantial advances in manufacturering, materials, precision construction techniques, and electronics, no manned spaceflight for quite some time...possibly by the late 40s, but extremely unlikely before that...

Click to expand...

Even so, the significance of this is that human spaceflight will be around before robotic space probes can exist (the miniaturization problem). That means that there might be a lot more interest in human spaceflight than IOTL, since until the mid-60s (ie., 20 years after the first flight) you will need humans to do a lot of interesting things that people already knew could be done in space. That will lead to significant changes in space development, to say the least.

So, in this analysis, the most likely outcome in WWI is chemical attacks on civilian populations?

Gotta say...

Hey, I don't like it either...

I don't like the idea of mass chemical strikes on civilians either, but given the lousy accuracy of long-range missiles (and without HUGE advances in electronics, that isn't going to change) and the need for BOTH sides in WWI to find some way to finesse the deadlock in the trenches, it seems pretty clear that someone one one (more likely both) sides is going to see this as a viable option...

Still, I don't see it necessarily having major butterflies in how the war is fought and won, especially if the technology is developed during the war instead of before (so we see maybe the gassing of German cities starting in 1917 or so...

As for manned spaceflight...not a chance. Without substantial advances in manufacturering, materials, precision construction techniques, and electronics, no manned spaceflight for quite some time...possibly by the late 40s, but extremely unlikely before that...

Click to expand...

Well manufacturing, materials, and precision construction may actually be developed at an accelerated rate with help from the space programs themselves; as to electronics, if you're talking about wiring, same thing, if you're talking about "computer" functions...

Even so, the significance of this is that human spaceflight will be around before robotic space probes can exist (the miniaturization problem). That means that there might be a lot more interest in human spaceflight than IOTL, since until the mid-60s (ie., 20 years after the first flight) you will need humans to do a lot of interesting things that people already knew could be done in space. That will lead to significant changes in space development, to say the least.

Click to expand...