WI: Space Race Focused on Space Stations

The thought early on in the space age was that first we'd go into orbit and experiment there, then build a space station for a permanent presence in space and to support space infrastructure for a future moon landing, then we'd orbit and later land on the moon. (And build a moon base for a permanent foothold, and then go out into the solar system). So that was the ABC's. What ended up happening was that we went into space, then set our sights straight for a moon landing to beat the Soviets, and then after that we went back into LEO and thought about building a space station.

What if the Space Race era space policy had focused on construction of (a) space station(s) prior to any focus on a moon landing?

so far i know pup up this idea at Americans and Soviets until may 1961

in USA with Von Braun in 1952 again in 1959, Krafft Ehricke Atlas station in 1954 and 1956 Romick gigantic space station proposal.
also in 1961 as Kennedy was looking for way to counter USSR space success a space station was consider as first option
Vice President Johnson and others advisors found the space station to puny and goes for more ambition goal: THE MOON.
in begin of Apollo program the y look into use of space station as rendezvous point bus eliminated the idea fast in end it became Lunar Orbit rendezvous.

in same time Sergei Pavlovich Korolev was working on study for small space station build from Vostok Hardware and new spaceship.
after May 1961 he focus on soviet Manned Lunar program

As Michel Van has said, following the USSR's Vostok 1/Yuri Gagarin, the US felt the intense need to have something that they could beat the Soviets with. The decision amongst many was that a Space Station Strategy would be to small and near-term and something they could be defeated in by their counterparts, and they needed something truly immense that they could do to come out on top, thus did Project Apollo become a Race to the Moon.

To focus on Space Stations, perhaps if Alan B Sheppard Jr were to make his Sub-Orbital Mercury/Redstone Flight sooner (Butterfly Ham's near-fatal flight) then they wouldn't feel the pressure to push so hard and they could think about going for an LEO Manned Station as opposed to vying for the Moon.

And with the reduced stress on the Soviet Front, well, who knows...

As Bahamut and Michel have said, the moon became the goal in '61 because it was one the US could win at. There's basically two options to make stations a larger part of the space race sooner:

Bahamut-255 said:

To focus on Space Stations, perhaps if Alan B Sheppard Jr were to make his Sub-Orbital Mercury/Redstone Flight sooner (Butterfly Ham's near-fatal flight) then they wouldn't feel the pressure to push so hard and they could think about going for an LEO Manned Station as opposed to vying for the Moon.

Click to expand...

I'd point out this is something like the plot of Nixonshead's Kolyma's Shadow.

Anyway, the other way to do it is to change the premise of why they went for the Moon--that the Soviets had a lead in the heavier launchers a station would have needed which would have let them dominate such a race. It was only by setting a goal that required an entirely new class of superheavy lifter (which the US was already in some ways preparing for, the F-1 had already seen its first test firing, though it would take another 3 years to be deemed flight-ready due to combustion instability!) that time was bought for the "comeback" of OTL. If the US had expected rapid access to what that point in time thought of as "heavies", 5-20 metric tons to LEO, then stations would have been an acceptable focus. Even earlier F-1 work? Use of the E-1 instead of the F-1 and a faster Saturn 1 equivalent (now we're back to Kolyma and Minerva), the Titan family...?

NASA long range plan as of 1959
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/report59.html

NASA MISSION TARGET DATES

1960

• First launching of a Meteorological Satellite
• First launching of a Passive Reflector Communications Satellite.
• First launching of a Scout vehicle.
• First launching of a Thor-Delta vehicle.
• First launching of an Altas-Agena-B vehicle (by the Department of Defense).
• First suborbital flight of an astronaut.

1961

• First launching of a lunar impact vehicle.
• First launching of a lunar impact vehicle.

1961-1962

• Attainment of manned space flight, Project Mercury.

1962

• First launching to the vicinity of Venus and/or Mars.

1963

• First launching of two stage Saturn vehicle.

1963-1964

• First launching of unmanned vehicle for controlled landing on the moon.
• First launching Orbiting Astronomical and Radio Astronomy Observatory.

1964

• First launching of unmanned lunar circumnavigation and return to earth vehicle.
• First reconnaissance of Mars and/or Venus by an unmanned vehicle.

1965-1967

• First launching in a program leading to manned circumlunar flight and to permanent near- earth space station.

Beyond 1970

• Manned flight to the moon. . . .

Click to expand...

I'd prefer space station leading to circumlunar flight rather than the all out Apollo. It's not that complicated: once the space station in place and Apollo flying to it, in order to go circumlunar an Apollo just has to meet and dock with a S-IVB at the space station. The S-IVB send the Apollo in a loop around the Moon, and that's it. A lunar landing is an order of manitude more expensive and complicated however.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZFnTBSRKcg

Listening to the conversation between Kennedy and Jim Webb from late 1962, Kennedy is the key force for the moon program. The conversation gets pretty tense. Kennedy believes the moon needs to be the top priority for the space program; there is no reason to be spending the money the US is otherwise on space, any more than cancer research or any other important goal. The US is behind the Soviet Union, and keeps saying it is the leader in space without anything to back it up and without being able to show that to the world. The Soviets have made it a test between the two superpowers. To Kennedy, everything for the space program needs to be tied into getting to the moon ahead of the Soviet Union.

To Jim Webb, the moon is only one of the top priorities for NASA. There is no idea about if man could survive the weightlessness of space, or if a landing would be even possible. There was no solid knowledge of things like the makeup and soil of the moon. A moon landing could be a disaster. Those all seem valid concerns in 1962. If it turns out the moon is made out of fine dust, or that man physically cannot survive exposed in that environment, the whole thing would be a disaster. And those were valid concerns at that point in time.

The problem is that Kennedy seems extremely adamant on the issue. I don't know if he could be swayed on the issue. I think a major space station program could get the US a high level of prestige. The US was certainly in a position to make some firsts the Soviets were not, such as a multi-person capsule and the first EVA. And a space station would open the door for easier circumlunar navigation and an eventual moon landing. And it would have the benefit over a moon landing of being a long term anchor for the US to space. At the same time, it's probably not as theatrical as a moon landing. Even if it were something out of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Given the sort of Manhattan Project mentality of the OTL moon program, would some sort of grand spacestation out of Von Braun's dreams be possible? That sort of giant spinning wheel with a central hub, which can be built onto. Or would it be just a simpler thing?

I get the feeling a spacestation program rather than a moon landing would not be as interesting and enticing in terms of funding.

Emperor Norton I said:

Given the sort of Manhattan Project mentality of the OTL moon program, would some sort of grand spacestation out of Von Braun's dreams be possible? That sort of giant spinning wheel with a central hub, which can be built onto. Or would it be just a simpler thing?

I get the feeling a spacestation program rather than a moon landing would not be as interesting and enticing in terms of funding.

Click to expand...

i think of they gonna build a space station instead of Moon program
they will build something bombastic, either Von Braun Big wheel or more NASA Space Base of 1970s
huge things of 80 meter long over 50 am crew and spinning parts for Gravity for crew.
powert by 100 kilo watt nuclear reactor.

Michel Van said:

i think of they gonna build a space station instead of Moon program
they will build something bombastic, either Von Braun Big wheel or more NASA Space Base of 1970s
huge things of 80 meter long over 50 am crew and spinning parts for Gravity for crew.
powert by 100 kilo watt nuclear reactor.

Click to expand...

Would such a thing have a long term purpose, though, or would it become a prestige project that no one knew what to do with afterward? The thing about the spinning wheels (#Journey) of the 50s and 60s speculation is that they were supposed to serve functions that other things had taken over. Satellites could watch the weather, and spy, and do all those other things.

I think in the long term, a massive space station is a better thing than the moon landing. The moon landing was a prestige project that was all too quickly abandoned. A space station keeps a permanent presence, especially psychologically, in space. It can be a site for experimentation, and can support a future moon landing. The only problem I can see is if it turns into a sort of "Gargantua-1" situation where no one cares afterward, and its ignored in ways it should not be and allowed to fall increasingly into disrepair and neglect.

Another question:
While the moon program may be criticized as being done without enough scientific concern, and quickly being abandoned, the biggest benefit was technology that came from the program and knowledge of space. The technology from Apollo and the projects that preceded it went into the civilian sector. Its where you get things like miniaturization, memory foam, and quite a lot of other things. What would be the technology benefits and space knowledge benefits derived from a spacestation program compared to a moon landing program?