A Delayed Space Race

Historically, the fact of the space race was actually fairly contingent. It depended on Russia successfully placing a satellite in orbit first, and on the country being able to maintain that lead for a substantial period. The Russians did not have the technical strength to play catch-up having fallen behind, not without an investment of effort they were unwilling to make. Once the Americans achieved a clear victory in the space race with the moon landing the Russians essentially pretended they'd never even been in the race. Things quickly wound down and by 1975 the race was over.

Now, the US had a perfectly working orbital vehicle ready in 1956, and successfully launched it on a suborbital flight. The Russians misinterpreted this as a failed orbital launch and sped up their Sputnik program in turn. When Sputnik went up the next year, the US went into culture-shock. Existing launch schedules were panic-rushed, leading directly to the live televised explosion of America's first attempt to enter space. Combined with Sputnik itself, this drove the American space program, giving it the momentum to go to the moon, if that's what it would take to show up the Russians.

So assume that launch schedules are a little different and the Americans narrowly put a man-made object into space first. The Russian's have a failed launch before placing TTL's Sputnik in orbit.

In this situation, I'd argue that there simply won't be a space race as we knew it in OTL, at least not within the ensuing decade. The Russians can't save face without leap-frogging American efforts, and without a clear way to do that, they will only work to "keep up." The Americans, meanwhile, will have much less impetus and slightly less funding to work with. Instead, there will be a gradual development of basic launch technology, with both powers keeping roughly abreast but at a lower level.

At this point, there are two directions this could go. Obviously, if the lack of a space race can be maintained to near the present day, both space and computer technology will severely suffer. The alternative though, is that the Russians eventually get ahold of their magic bullet, and give the US an alternate Sputnik moment. The outcome of a space race starting from a higher technology base would be fascinating.

Of course, first we need a magic bullet, and with the Soviet Union in the 1960s and '70s, it is obvious what that would be: an Orion Drive.

In this period the Soviets were enthusiastically using, or researching the use of, nuclear weapons for all manner of ludicrous projects. I mean, mining makes some small degree of sense under weird hypothetical conditions, but carving radioactive canals?

And it isn't as if this was something that disappeared, either. Right up to the fall of the Soviet Union, there was a distinctly cavalier attitude toward radiation. Radioactive materials were dumped in life-threatening quatities into rivers that supplied drinking water to towns and cities - through general incompetence and in one case to see what would happen to those who drank it.

Given all that, the Virgin Lands campaign, the draining of the Aral Sea, and the vast number of other environmental disasters still plaguing Russia a generation after the source problems disappeared.... I believe it is very fair to say that Soviet environmental policy would have no trouble justifying a launch requiring small nuclear detonations on their own soil. So never you mind the usual environmental constraint on the Orion drive coming into use. It doesn't exist here.

To recap, in this scenario the United States is in the lead in space exploration. The Russians are remaining in the game, but only for two reasons. First, because ICBMs are coming into practical use on both sides of the Arctic. Secondly, I believe it will still be a mark of super power status, especially as British and French nuclear stockpiles remove the other obvious qualifier. In 1961, Yuri Gagarin (or a colleague) likely still becomes the first human being in space. That will be a bit of a shock to the ideal of supreme Yankee ingenuity, creating a sort of quiet, small scale version of the angst Sputnik generated in our own TL.

Overall space exploration from this moment will be slower, and dominated more by tit-for-tat silliness about who can get the first cat or trio of humans or fish or left-handed woman into space. The Russians went for this in OTL anyway, but with a less driven and supported NASA, grandiose projects will be slower coming. In the meantime, they'll generate what attention they can with the resources they have.

Politics will probably be reasonably comparable to what we had for five years or so out from the point of divergence. There will be a much different perspective on the Russian/American struggle, but the only change I foresee is that Kennedy is likely to win by a slightly larger margin in 1960. In OTL he was hampered by the "missile gap," a myth that will be much less an issue in this timeline, if it exists at all. Here is weakness on anti-communist credentials will be less of an issue, Gagarin not having gone up yet. There's just a lot less hysteria in the states at this point. I may, of course, be missing something important from another nation's politics.

Which brings us to the question of Cuba, the first place where the lack of a space race would entail dramatic Earth-bound consequences.

Maybe if they're playing catch up, the Russians launch their version of Orion (yes they had one).

I like the idea, although I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on the details. Just one thing, though: why is it always Orion? Where's the love for NERVA? NERVA got a lot further than Orion ever did, in both the US and the USSR, and an NTR could (at least in theory) be used to launch something similar than a space station.

Admiral Matt said:

In this period the Soviets were enthusiastically using, or researching the use of, nuclear weapons for all manner of ludicrous projects. I mean, mining makes some small degree of sense under weird hypothetical conditions, but carving radioactive canals?

Click to expand...

So were we, with Project Plowshare. And this wasn't quite as crazy as it sounds. They weren't going to vaporize dirt on the surface to dig the canal, they were going to set it off underground, forming a subsurface cavity, which would then collapse. A subsidence crater would form on the surface and the whole process would, in theory, be fallout-free. Of course, if the geology was wrong or you were just unlucky, you got leaks, with radioactive gas escaping. The whole process worked maybe 75%-ish of the time... But they were planning to use hundreds of them in the canal project. That's why even the Soviets decided this was a bad idea, and confined the NENE program to seismic sounding and digging storage cavities for gas condensates.

Asnys said:

I like the idea, although I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on the details. Just one thing, though: why is it always Orion? Where's the love for NERVA? NERVA got a lot further than Orion ever did, in both the US and the USSR, and an NTR could (at least in theory) be used to launch something similar than a space station.

Click to expand...

Was NERVA ever seriously consider for a ground launch? If so, I'm not aware of it. If not, you still need a big chemical booster, so it doesn't help if playing catch-up.

The advantage of Orion is you can leapfrog you chemical competition, by orders of magntitude in terms of payload, if you don't mind a few bombs going off in the atmosphere.

SunilTanna said:

Was NERVA ever seriously consider for a ground launch? If so, I'm not aware of it. If not, you still need a big chemical booster, so it doesn't help if playing catch-up.

Click to expand...

I know NTRs were considered as an upper stage for Saturn-V and the N1, among other things. I want to say the Timberwind project from the 80s used nuclear ground launch, with the SRBs just playing a helper role, but I might be wrong about that. And there was the YaRD ICBM, which was a pure-nuclear, single-stage design.

YaRD would make a great and possibly horrifying PoD for a nuclear space race. Unfortunately, the damned thing makes no sense whatsoever, even compared to the PLUTO. But it would certainly give nuclear rocketry a kick in the pants.

SunilTanna said:

Maybe if they're playing catch up, the Russians launch their version of Orion (yes they had one).

Click to expand...

That's the plan, jack.

Of course, I think it a bit more probable that the result would simply be an earlier plateau such as that we reached post-1975. That is, a lot of satellites with the odd orbital manned mission or robotic probe. No golden age for NASA, just getting done what can be and dealing with a tiny budget. By the modern day we have a less sophisticated version of exactly the same system.

That's more probable, but I'm looking to investigate a delayed space race, so Orion it is. Rule of Cool, where permitted by physical constants and economic realities.

Asnys said:

I like the idea, although I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on the details. Just one thing, though: why is it always Orion? Where's the love for NERVA? NERVA got a lot further than Orion ever did, in both the US and the USSR, and an NTR could (at least in theory) be used to launch something similar than a space station.

Click to expand...

SunnilTanna largely covered it. Orion is more a brute force design, more amenable to ground launch, and to test it you don't have to fire nuclear reactors into the Aral Sea. Since it's all about ground launch, I think it's much more likely that the Soviets would seek to go the obvious route, rather than designing something fundamentally new. They have low-yield bombs - it's just a matter of making more of them.

Of course that's more about their perspective than reality. There also happens to be a massive amount of testing, research, and engineering to be done as well.

So were we, with Project Plowshare. And this wasn't quite as crazy as it sounds. They weren't going to vaporize dirt on the surface to dig the canal, they were going to set it off underground, forming a subsurface cavity, which would then collapse. A subsidence crater would form on the surface and the whole process would, in theory, be fallout-free. Of course, if the geology was wrong or you were just unlucky, you got leaks, with radioactive gas escaping. The whole process worked maybe 75%-ish of the time... But they were planning to use hundreds of them in the canal project. That's why even the Soviets decided this was a bad idea, and confined the NENE program to seismic sounding and digging storage cavities for gas condensates.

Click to expand...

Touché.

I've been digging into this a little more and am taken aback. The misconceptions raised by the launch of Sputnik and their ability to influence the actions of the superpowers.... it is just astounding.

Part of the issue is that the Soviet leadership was deliberately exaggerating its own missile capability to maintain parity with the West. Ironically, the American government actually supported them in this deception, because intelligence on actual Soviet capabilities was top secret. Thus the truth of the matter was not available except to the CIA, president, and a scant handful of cabinet members and congressmen. This was how you could have most of the people in government on both sides believe in '62 that there was rough parity between the US and USSR or even that Russia was well ahead, while in fact the latter was woefully behind.

Absent the combined Sputnik/Vanguard/Gagarin debacles, the entire attitude of the powers toward each other would be altered beyond recognition because both were making decisions based on fiction. Only at the very top were decision makers aware of a clear picture. [Fun fact: A throw-away quote by Khruschev in 1957 that the USSR had "all the missiles it needed" seems to have played a big part in the "missile gap" concept.]

This POD means that the perception of Soviet capabilities will remain much closer to reality (although still inflated) up until the Gagarin flight April 16, 1961. At that point there will be a very sudden panic, and a few hysterical exaggerations will be made, but overall I'd expect the perception is of the Russians gaining ground on the US. That will play a role, but less of one than the idea that the US had actually fallen behind.

It's significant that the Sputnik bit wasn't much blamed on Eisenhower, probably due to the strength of his reputation. Nor was Gagarin's flight Kennedy's fault - the Russians were already ahead. But in this situation Gagarin will certainly be laid at Kennedy's feet, if only because he's perceived (as in OTL) as soft on Communism.

And the very next day, April 17, the Bay of Pigs invasion begins.

The Eisenhower administration put the plans for the Bay of Pigs invasion in motion. That won't change here.

Nor will the Kennedy administration's follow through. There's less pressure to prove anti-communist credentials, but still plenty. There's certainly no reason the new State department will be any smarter about its modifications of the plan. While by now there will be slight alterations in the details of such a complicated and.... hrm.... "unorthodox" operation, none of it is likely to be decisive.

Which is all to say that a very predictable sequence of events will then play out. The invasion will fail badly and in a manner humiliatingly visible the world over. Khruschev will offer Castro the chance to have missiles based in his country, expecting him to refuse. Castro will accept, and tens of thousands of Russian soldiers and dozens of megatons of nuclear potential arrive on the islands. Then the Americans realize the extent of what is going on.

The Cuban Missile Crisis itself will be resolved somewhat differently. Making the assumption that butterflies don't tip the confrontation into nuclear war (not guaranteed given the nonsense that went on, but let's stay focused) the circumstances of Kennedy and Khruschev will be rather different. Khruschev will be under slightly less pressure from below, because of a more accurate perception of Russia's strength by the people under him. There will be less surprise if he has to back down. On the other hand, with Russia not seeming quite as strong, any loss of face will put him even more at risk to early retirement.

Kennedy, though, is in a painful spot. There were enough people pushing at his back to squash Cuba when people thought the Russians had serious inter-continental striking power. In a situation where that power is not so wildly overblown, the existence of nuclear weapons within a short distance of the American south east is a much bigger deal. Kennedy will be under enormous pressure to get the Reds out, and to do it now. While he'll probably stay tough and continue to call the shots, he went under a great deal of mental stress in OTL. I think it's very likely that, in one area or another, Kennedy's hand is forced.

In OTL, Cuban forces were firing at American flights over the country during the crisis, downing a U-2 and damaging a naval recon plane. After the occurrence of the former, Kennedy refused to fire on the SAM sites responsible, but stated that he'd give the go-ahead if a second plane went down. The navy plane seems to have been under fire within minutes of when he was saying that. In this timeline, the navy flight takes place a couple hours earlier and the plane is destroyed, not damaged. Kennedy gets the news in front of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who he's just told his second-plane rule. Finally caving to pressure, he approves the strike, but only against the specific SAM sites in question.

Despite the additional risk, the crisis is still defused. Fortunately, the Russian commanders in Cuba seem to have been very clear on their orders not to fire except in the event of a general war. Khruschev's not stupid enough to try to one-up the bombing of a couple anti-aircraft sites, nor is he under as much pressure from his base to stand firm. Kennedy, meanwhile, still just wants to keep this from coming to war. Thus the main impact of the Cuban SAM raid is that when the crisis is finally over there is an additional issue to consider:

Russian soldiers were killed by American planes.

Prior to the crisis, Kruschev already had a reduced position relative to OTL. The Gagarin flight is great PR, but it's no Sputnik. It can't imply to the popular consciousness that Russia is definitively ahead of its opponent. Khruschev's agricultural policy is already causing him problems. With the Cuban Missile Crisis even more embarrassing for the USSR, Khruschev has a serious problem.

Brezhnev begins talking around his colleagues almost as soon as the crisis passes, hoping to depose and replace the First Secretary. In January of 1963, Brezhnev and Shelepin convince the head of the KGB to arrest Kruschev as he returns from a visit to Eastern Europe.

So. What are the consequences of pushing the coup against Gorbachev up more than a year and a half?

Well, first off, it looks like weakness. Internally, and especially externally, launching the move so quickly after the Caribbean Crisis (as it was known in Russia) leaves the events linked. The international perception of the USSR as internally stable will be tarnished. Within the Warsaw Pact states, this will accelerate a lot of the trends whereby they reevaluated their relationship with the Soviet Union.

Internally, though, the main effect is likely to be a different outcome. In OTL Brezhnev initially planned on arresting Khruschev at the airport, but decided instead to hold back and ensure he had support before acting. In this scenario he's spurred to take the first option by Khruschev's weakness and the country's dire straits. Taking that option could work, but we can forget about the smooth transition of power we saw in OTL - too little is prepared and too few people are in the loop. Further, coming at the First Secretary at that moment is.... well.... obvious. They're not jumping on the man about agriculture out of the blue, they're coming at him about a crisis immediately after it.

All in all my estimation is that the effort would have a high risk of outright failure. If anything went wrong, there'd be no cushion for the resulting chaos. And Khruschev himself would be more defensive and less willing to be played off the stage without a fuss.

So the putsch fails.

The plotters just miss Khruschev at the airport and are left in the awkward position of having made a broad power grab in front of everyone, but without any actual power to show for it. Khruschev hesitates, but he isn't seeing the government asking him to leave - he's seeing a coup attempt. As soon as he decides to put them down the plot unravels. There's more sympathy for the man in TTL due to the greater perception of being outgunned in the Caribbean Crisis and (more to the point) because he's had less time to alienate everyone with his agricultural policies. And, again, there's little desire to make the USSR look weak.

Several higher ups in the KGB have a sudden change of heart, the plotters find themselves arrested less than two days after the whole mess began, and Khruschev continues at the head of the Soviet Union.

[Note: My reasoning here is that Khruschev was a major supporter of the Soviet Space program, and of new ideas in general, whereas his replacements went back to what they knew and just did more of it.

Further, Orion drives are blindingly expensive, so I need the Soviet economy to be less dysfunctional for longer. There are loads of ways to achieve that, granted. But the simplest, given the POD, is to arrange a larger and different reaction against Khruschev's agricultural policy. That in turn requires the man to be implementing it for a longer period.]

Yay! A thread in my field (one of the few...)

America didn't lose the first round in the Space Race by accident. Your TL requires an, "Oops! America just happened to launch first!" incident. I'm not really certain under what circumstances the Americans would launch first. It was a carefully considered decision by Eisenhower to wait until the Soviets launched theirs. Moreover, if the R-7 is completed on time, even a failed Sputnik launch won't slow them down. After all, they don't have to tell anyone about it. All that happens is December 6 or something is remembered as the day the Space Race began.

It's true that the Russians were not in a position to make it to the moon in 1969 (though they weren't that far behind), but in 1957, the Russians are in better shape than we are to throw stuff into orbit. We were the ones coming up from behind, throw-weight wise. The Soviets were not about to give up just because one of their rockets blew up.

And let's say you're right--let's say Vanguard manages a launch in early 1958. Let's say it doesn't even blow up. So America launches the tiniest probe imaginable. And then the Soviets launch Sputnik 3 (calling it Sputnik 1), which weighs 1500 kg. That's not leapfrogging. That's crushing.

The Space Race is still on.

neopeius said:

Yay! A thread in my field (one of the few...)

America didn't lose the first round in the Space Race by accident. Your TL requires an, "Oops! America just happened to launch first!" incident. I'm not really certain under what circumstances the Americans would launch first. It was a carefully considered decision by Eisenhower to wait until the Soviets launched theirs. Moreover, if the R-7 is completed on time, even a failed Sputnik launch won't slow them down. After all, they don't have to tell anyone about it. All that happens is December 6 or something is remembered as the day the Space Race began.

Click to expand...

Hrm.... Didn't know that about Eisenhower. Can you recommend an online source? Hard to do book research in China.

It's true that the Russians were not in a position to make it to the moon in 1969 (though they weren't that far behind), but in 1957, the Russians are in better shape than we are to throw stuff into orbit. We were the ones coming up from behind, throw-weight wise. The Soviets were not about to give up just because one of their rockets blew up.

Click to expand...

Oh, but the Soviets aren't giving up. Sorry, I guess I did imply that with the opening posts. They're just aiming to keep ahead of the Americans - who are not pushing as hard. The Soviets want prestige and have rockets; they're going to be in orbit. It's just that it's not really a race at the scale of OTL. They're still aiming to outdo each other, but as they do so they're not pushing quite as hard.

And let's say you're right--let's say Vanguard manages a launch in early 1958. Let's say it doesn't even blow up. So America launches the tiniest probe imaginable. And then the Soviets launch Sputnik 3 (calling it Sputnik 1), which weighs 1500 kg. That's not leapfrogging. That's crushing.

The Space Race is still on.

Click to expand...

Meh. I happen to disagree.

You're talking reality. I am talking perception. Sure Sputnik was bigger, but to popular imagination space is space is space. That may not stop the odd color diagram in Western magazines depicting the relative sizes of the objects, I admit. The disparity may also create worry, I agree. But I honestly think that order played a much larger role in determining the perception of things by all but a tiny minority of engineers, scientists, and government officials.

Edit: We can also retcon things if necessary so that the Soviet space program is a little behind, but I think the percieved disparity would be tiny compared to OTL, so I'm inclined to leave things as is.

Admiral Matt said:

Hrm.... Didn't know that about Eisenhower. Can you recommend an online source? Hard to do book research in China.

Click to expand...

I don't, but it wouldn't be hard to google.

Oh, but the Soviets aren't giving up. Sorry, I guess I did imply that with the opening posts. They're just aiming to keep ahead of the Americans - who are not pushing as hard. The Soviets want prestige and have rockets; they're going to be in orbit. It's just that it's not really a race at the scale of OTL. They're still aiming to outdo each other, but as they do so they're not pushing quite as hard.

Click to expand...

All that happens is the Space Race starts in earnest in May 1958. The Soviets are not behind. The Americans have delayed really getting started by about 8 months. The Soviets won't sit on their laurels until after Vostok 1. I suspect a TL similar to OTL, though, if the Russians stick with it, perhaps a closer moon race.

Meh. I happen to disagree.

You're talking reality. I am talking perception. Sure Sputnik was bigger, but to popular imagination space is space is space. That may not stop the odd color diagram in Western magazines depicting the relative sizes of the objects, I admit. The disparity may also create worry, I agree. But I honestly think that order played a much larger role in determining the perception of things by all but a tiny minority of engineers, scientists, and government officials.

Click to expand...

Meh. I happen to disagree.

It will be very clear when Sputnik goes up that the Russians have the capacity to put a man in space. You can have the Americans be complacent through the launch of Sputnik, maybe even a little longer, but that goes out the window once the Americans know Vostok is coming.

Moreover, by that time, it's not that hard to get Atlas/Titan up and running for manned launches. Mercury happens in 1963. Maybe no moon race, in which case you get a strong orbital race.

You might get a Space Race with a different character, but you will still have a Space Race.

neopeius said:

I don't, but it wouldn't be hard to google.

Click to expand...

I ask because I tried. It'd explain why the google search keeps coming back about how he was calm about it all, but I've found nothing to back your assertion, meself. If you turn up something, I'd appreciate it.

All that happens is the Space Race starts in earnest in May 1958. The Soviets are not behind. The Americans have delayed really getting started by about 8 months. The Soviets won't sit on their laurels until after Vostok 1. I suspect a TL similar to OTL, though, if the Russians stick with it, perhaps a closer moon race.

Click to expand...

Hrm? Why? There was a massive public reaction to Sputnik. I'm not clear on your argument - how will this be duplicated by a second-place craft?

Meh. I happen to disagree.

It will be very clear when Sputnik goes up that the Russians have the capacity to put a man in space. You can have the Americans be complacent through the launch of Sputnik, maybe even a little longer, but that goes out the window once the Americans know Vostok is coming.

Click to expand...

Point.

Moreover, by that time, it's not that hard to get Atlas/Titan up and running for manned launches. Mercury happens in 1963. Maybe no moon race, in which case you get a strong orbital race.

Click to expand...

Okay, so we're not that far divided in our thinking. We're expressing it differently, but yeah.

To put it in your terms, we have a slightly delayed space race that lacks much of the drive that made a moon landing inevitable.

You might get a Space Race with a different character, but you will still have a Space Race.

Click to expand...

Well, from a certain perspective, yes. That is what it is right now - a space race of a different character. However, a few points:

It's what is a little down the road that will really justify the thread title - the scale of the eventual space race will dwarf the reduced, orbitally-focused creature of this TL's first decade.
I think you downplay the role that the Vanguard explosion played in the early years of the space race in determining American actions.
I think the American moon mission was primarily driven by the need to one-up the Russians after Sputnik.
If the Americans aren't planning on going to the moon, and could potentially beat the Russians there, I think the Russians would be divided about whether to take the risk.

Admiral Matt said:

I ask because I tried. It'd explain why the google search keeps coming back about how he was calm about it all, but I've found nothing to back your assertion, meself. If you turn up something, I'd appreciate it.

Click to expand...

http://history.nasa.gov/monograph10/onesmlbl.html

Project Orbiter was ready to go in 1956. Eisenhower deliberately stopped it so the Soviets would be the first ones up. This would make them unlikely to protest when American satellites passed over Soviet territory.. after all the Soviets were flying over America every 90 minutes!

Hrm? Why? There was a massive public reaction to Sputnik. I'm not clear on your argument - how will this be duplicated by a second-place craft?

Click to expand...

Vanguard will not be a very impressive feat. The Soviet Sputnik will be. And guaranteed, if the Soviets are putting a man up there (and they will--the same rocket that can launch Sputnik can launch Vostok, so it's not like they need much incentive), the Americans will clamor to catch up.

Okay, so we're not that far divided in our thinking. We're expressing it differently, but yeah.

To put it in your terms, we have a slightly delayed space race that lacks much of the drive that made a moon landing inevitable.

Click to expand...

I'm not convinced of that. In fact, we might feel desperate to top the Soviets having been more soundly trounced by them in Round 2.

Well, from a certain perspective, yes. That is what it is right now - a space race of a different character. However, a few points:

It's what is a little down the road that will really justify the thread title - the scale of the eventual space race will dwarf the reduced, orbitally-focused creature of this TL's first decade.
I think you downplay the role that the Vanguard explosion played in the early years of the space race in determining American actions.
I think the American moon mission was primarily driven by the need to one-up the Russians after Sputnik.
If the Americans aren't planning on going to the moon, and could potentially beat the Russians there, I think the Russians would be divided about whether to take the risk.

Click to expand...

It wasn't just Sputnik. It was Sputnik 2, Sputnik 3, Luna 1, Luna 2, Luna 3 and Vostok 1.

The moon is an obvious target. Within one year of Sputnik, America was already trying to make it to the moon with Pioneers 0-2. Almost made it, too. *That* might have blunted the Space Race a little, but probably not much.

For a good history of those missions, try reading the articles on this site. http://www.sdfo.org/stl/

neopeius said:

http://history.nasa.gov/monograph10/onesmlbl.html

Project Orbiter was ready to go in 1956. Eisenhower deliberately stopped it so the Soviets would be the first ones up. This would make them unlikely to protest when American satellites passed over Soviet territory.. after all the Soviets were flying over America every 90 minutes!

Click to expand...

Did you read the link? It doesn't say anything about Eisenhower choosing to permit the Soviets to reach space first.

Does have some good stuff on the psychology and reactions of the time though, thanks.

neopeius said:

Vanguard will not be a very impressive feat. The Soviet Sputnik will be. And guaranteed, if the Soviets are putting a man up there (and they will--the same rocket that can launch Sputnik can launch Vostok, so it's not like they need much incentive), the Americans will clamor to catch up.

Click to expand...

To whom? I guarantee you Vanguard will be a very impressive feat to the vast majority of the human race, up to and including members of the the governments of the superpowers. Again, I'm not clear if I'm missing some aspect you haven't said outright, or if you're missing that this is largely a psychological, not technical, issue.

I'm not convinced of that. In fact, we might feel desperate to top the Soviets having been more soundly trounced by them in Round 2.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt we would. But please explain why this desperation would be equal to or greater than what was experienced in OTL. Because I don't see it.

It wasn't just Sputnik. It was Sputnik 2, Sputnik 3, Luna 1, Luna 2, Luna 3 and Vostok 1.

Click to expand...

Again, to whom? Go ask any given American on the street about the space race. If they know anything at all, it'll be Sputnik, and they'll be thinking about the one flight. Certainly people in NASA, for example, were looking at the technical capabilities of the respective craft and conscious of every succeeding Russian craft that went up. And those privy to intelligence briefings would be aware of which rocket indicated a human or warhead could go up next. But these were a tiny minority, even toward the top levels of the American government.

The moon is an obvious target. Within one year of Sputnik, America was already trying to make it to the moon with Pioneers 0-2. Almost made it, too. *That* might have blunted the Space Race a little, but probably not much.

Click to expand...

It is at that. And yet we've not gone back once.

For virtually the entire history of NASA the American public has believed the organization was getting too much money. The only exceptions have been brief, and the biggest one was the year of the first moon landing. I think it quite likely that we could have been limited only to unmanned probes to the moon even to this date, given correct circumstances.

For a good history of those missions, try reading the articles on this site. http://www.sdfo.org/stl/

Click to expand...

Cool. I'll check it out.

I'm curious, what would you think about a straight retcon - going back and altering the early Soviet space program so that it's not just a matter of Sputnik? Would you still object to a slower or deeply delayed space race if the Russians actually hadn't had the technical lead?

Admiral Matt said:

To whom? I guarantee you Vanguard will be a very impressive feat to the vast majority of the human race, up to and including members of the the governments of the superpowers. Again, I'm not clear if I'm missing some aspect you haven't said outright, or if you're missing that this is largely a psychological, not technical, issue.

Click to expand...

Vanguard tells the world America can launch a grapefruit into space.

Sputnik tells the world the Soviets can nuke Washington D.C.

I don't doubt we would. But please explain why this desperation would be equal to or greater than what was experienced in OTL. Because I don't see it.

Click to expand...

In our world, it was a case of being successively beaten for several years, and then us narrowing their lead, ultimately surpassing them by 1966 (definitively by 1968).

In TTL, we have a little win in 1958, followed by a quick upset, followed by successive Soviet victories that catch us off guard. We may not be more desperate than OTL. The desperation may just come at a different time. I'm just saying it's possible.

Again, to whom? Go ask any given American on the street about the space race. If they know anything at all, it'll be Sputnik, and they'll be thinking about the one flight. Certainly people in NASA, for example, were looking at the technical capabilities of the respective craft and conscious of every succeeding Russian craft that went up. And those privy to intelligence briefings would be aware of which rocket indicated a human or warhead could go up next. But these were a tiny minority, even toward the top levels of the American government.

Click to expand...

You may be right. On the other hand, the Soviets didn't detonate an A-Bomb until 4 years after we did. Didn't make it any less scary...

It is at that. And yet we've not gone back once.

For virtually the entire history of NASA the American public has believed the organization was getting too much money. The only exceptions have been brief, and the biggest one was the year of the first moon landing. I think it quite likely that we could have been limited only to unmanned probes to the moon even to this date, given correct circumstances.

Click to expand...

Maybe. Or maybe we make a more cost-effective program for getting there. You can't get much pricier than Apollo. Maybe Nova-Apollo.

Cool. I'll check it out.

Click to expand...

I'd love to hear what you think.