With a POD no earlier than 1950 wank NASA (or whatever equivalent is formed ITTL) to the largest extent possible. Basically, wank space exploration, moon base, possible mars landing, etc. as much as you can.
AHC: NASA Wank
- Thread starter SlyDessertFox
- Start date
Prevent Nixon from getting elected. He is the one who started cutting the budget for NASA and ending the rush from the Space Race. Apollo was originally to have 20 missions, until Nixon cut the budget to where only 17 could be launched due to SpaceLab (which was a step back, in my opinion).
If you remember some of the optimistic predictions of the sixties, there would be a mission to Mars in the mid-eighties and no doubt a moon base. Now, if RFK had not been shot, he could have defeated Nixon. But would it really have created public support for the space program? Once the goal of the moon was achieved, critics turned attention to earth-based issues. You need a good lofty goal to keep the momentum going.
The Soviet and United States fail to find an agreement on the militarization of space.
The Importance of "Nuclear Mines" and "Dropboxes" in nuclear war means that placing nuclear weapons in orbit is obvious. It also means that maintaining such positions is critically important.
Outer Space becomes a military frontier, a frontline of orbital bombers, nuclear launch positions, and critical for national defense. As these developments continue, efforts like a manned mission to the Moon stop being full expenses in their own right and have more synergy with what the United States is already doing.
The consequences of an orbital presence and the acceptance of space as a potential theater of combat might be a large negative, however, NASA would need far more resources to do these things.
The Importance of "Nuclear Mines" and "Dropboxes" in nuclear war means that placing nuclear weapons in orbit is obvious. It also means that maintaining such positions is critically important.
Outer Space becomes a military frontier, a frontline of orbital bombers, nuclear launch positions, and critical for national defense. As these developments continue, efforts like a manned mission to the Moon stop being full expenses in their own right and have more synergy with what the United States is already doing.
The consequences of an orbital presence and the acceptance of space as a potential theater of combat might be a large negative, however, NASA would need far more resources to do these things.
Orville_third
Banned
To get that, simply have Bush beat Clinton in 1992. We not only fund SEI, but we have a peace dividend that can pay for it. Add in the fact that Bush winning in '92 prevents the Gingrich revolution in 1994, thus no pressure to cut NASA, and it's a win-win!
Most of the Real Push during the 1960's with regards to the Lunar Race was thanks to the perceived lead that the USSR held over the USA at the time with regards to spaceflight. Not an unreasonable position to hold given how many Firsts they'd attained by the mid-60's thanks to the massively over-designed RV ICBM which only needed minor upgrades for their initial growth.
To keep it going, you need the USSR to stay very much in the Race, and this requires a far less toxic relationship between the various competing Bureaus, far better overall management, clear defined goals for them, much-improved quality-assurance and more funding.
With all that, even if they're not First to put a Man on the Moon, they shouldn't be far behind, and that will provide the Drive for NASA to keep on going. At the very least, you can see semi-permanent manned presence on the Lunar Surface alongside LEO Space Stations. Manned Missions to Mars should be looked at more seriously during the 70's-80's, but given the difficulties with getting both there and back, combined with a mindset of taking everything you need with you, I don't really see such an event happening until at least the early-2000's.
One thing that this could result in is an earlier collapse in the USSR, given that they're going to be stretched even further economically, unless said improvements in their Rocket Design Bureaus can be transferred over to other groups and industries which might offset it to an extent.
To keep it going, you need the USSR to stay very much in the Race, and this requires a far less toxic relationship between the various competing Bureaus, far better overall management, clear defined goals for them, much-improved quality-assurance and more funding.
With all that, even if they're not First to put a Man on the Moon, they shouldn't be far behind, and that will provide the Drive for NASA to keep on going. At the very least, you can see semi-permanent manned presence on the Lunar Surface alongside LEO Space Stations. Manned Missions to Mars should be looked at more seriously during the 70's-80's, but given the difficulties with getting both there and back, combined with a mindset of taking everything you need with you, I don't really see such an event happening until at least the early-2000's.
One thing that this could result in is an earlier collapse in the USSR, given that they're going to be stretched even further economically, unless said improvements in their Rocket Design Bureaus can be transferred over to other groups and industries which might offset it to an extent.
Have their been any timelines done that focus on wanking (or at least significantly improving) NASA and space exploration?
ETS is the most obvious example, written by E of Pi and Workable Goblin.
A significant improvement over OTL's NASA in that different decisions allowed them to leverage more of their Apollo-era hardware which has made getting back to the Moon a simpler task - and thus politically feasible.
Well, he only initiated the moon missions to beat the Soviets. He'd probably begin scaling it down over the 60's.
I suppose, the full adoption of the Apollo Application Program (not just Skylab, but the moonbase and manned Venus flyby), or a Mars mission, could lead to a reasonable Space infrastructure.
so that Wank works you need two thing
one: a Shorter or none Vietnam War
Two: The Soviet have to land cosmonaut on the Moon
The Main reason Nixon not opposed the NASA budget cuts by Capitol Hill was simple,
Apollo Mission accomplish and soviet not manage to launch Humans to Moon
Next to that Johnson had order the production stop of the Saturn rockets.in 1968.
one: a Shorter or none Vietnam War
Two: The Soviet have to land cosmonaut on the Moon
The Main reason Nixon not opposed the NASA budget cuts by Capitol Hill was simple,
Apollo Mission accomplish and soviet not manage to launch Humans to Moon
Next to that Johnson had order the production stop of the Saturn rockets.in 1968.
I suppose, to go along with that, have Sergei Korolev live longer, to allow him to work on the N-1.
I would offer my own timeline "The Journey's of the Saturn" that focuses on wanking NASA and US space exploration.
http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/doku.php/timelines/the_journeys_of_the_saturn
The Icarus cycle has a massively wanked NASA more or less weaponizing space. It's done believably though.
Since no-one else seems to have suggested it yet I'd say kill off the shuttle. Built on wildly optimistic claims that should have been treated sceptically even at the time, massively overcomplicated and horrendously expensive. For all of their being a marvel of technological achievement NASA would have been better off sticking with rockets in my opinion.
2001: a Space-Time Odyssey
by SpaceGeek and Michel Van
here 1969 soviet land on moon and Nixon follow Spiro Agnew advice and goes for the "Integrated Program Plan" !
zillion Dollar program with Saturn INT-21, Shuttle, Space station, Moon station and manned flight to Mars in 1980s
The Shuttle is a hard one. Does the technology exist in the 70's to create a reasonable re-usable space vehicle? Then it also becomes what are you going to re-use?
In my opinion SSTO just doesn't pencil out when you do the math. You really need a leap in material or propulsion technology.
This leaves me with the next best option, TSTO. Certainly by the 90's the technology was their to build a reasonable TSTO vehicle that was fully re-usable. Was the technology their in the 70's to do this? Maybe, but then it becomes how much do you want to spend to get their? In order to really drive down costs and get here.
You need a full re-usable vehicle. However can you accept landing some place in-between?
The first possiblity, just a re-usable spacecraft. Maybe something like the DreamChaser. You have a rapidly re-usable spacecraft and no service module thrown away after each flight. That get's you some savings but you still have all the rocket cost.
The second possiblity, re-usable spacecraft with the 2nd stage engines on the spacecraft. So you are re-using the 2nd stage engines. Something like if you stacked shuttle on a Saturn-V. Remove the 3rd stage and place the Shuttle on the 2nd stage. You remove the engines from the 2nd stage so it is just a fuel tank so it just becomes a fuel tank for the Shuttle. The initial push off the pad is managed by the S-IC. However you are still throwing away the S-IC (F1 engines) and the 2nd stage tank with each launch. However your technological challenges are not that big and you are re-using hardware.
The third possiblity. The 1st stage becomes a re-usable booster with a crew. (Don't trust 1970's technology for a re-liable flyback for the booster to a runway). The 2nd stage is still just a tank with the engines on the spacecraft itself. You have now introduced the challenge of the flyback booster which is a hard technology leap, not impossible but hard. The 1st stage booster is 1,000,000+ lbs hypersonic vehicle that we can assume at separation will be hauling at around 50 miles up and mach 8-10. This will require test flight work to figure out how the vehicle will behave. You also have to decide for boost back to a landing site do you come back into the atmosphere and then have air-breathing engines igniting to get you back to the launch site? Or do you reserve some fuel for boostback and use the rocket engines to get you back? Not sure which is best. For me the boostback using the engines is intriguing because it removes the complication of air breathing engines and separate fuel tanks. At this point you are dumping the tank for each flight but you are re-using just about everything.
The fourth possibility. As above but the fuel for the 2nd stage of launch is moved into the spacecraft. At this point you are not throwing anything away but you have a lot of technology risk. You not only have to develop a 1,000,000+ lb hypersonic booster stage you have a orbital stage that is attempting to deal with the large volume of a LH2 tank (assuming you are using LH2 to get into orbit). You then have to bring back this volume into the atmosphere with all the weight of the rest of the equipment. Also to be successful the equipment has to be easily re-usable. Which for example the SSME's were not easily re-usable. This cares of lot of technology risk and high price tag for doing this on 1970s' tech.