I love For All Mankind until it got derailed with the whole North Korea landing. I'm like... how? How did the Kim regime did that?
Red Moon: What if the Space Race continued?
- Thread starter aoisnwiwij the gpuser
- Start date
Helium 3 fusion is...not really the panacea of lunar resources some people make it out to be. You can see some discussion here of the difficulties of HE-3 fusion compared to other fusion, and the issues of extracting and retrieving it here: "The helium-3 incantation" by Dwayne Day
So the space and military will be much mroe intertwined in this timeline? Very interesting
. I imagine that the US would do much more military stuff in space. Maybe that plan to nuke the moon mightve gone through:
Me too, it suck a LOT. If there mightve been a surprise fourth party on Mars it would most likely be either China or maybe Japan, since they ouwld have the economy and expertise to do such a thing and not worry about their people starving
Maybe an alternate NASA a bit down the line but we should take a chance and explore a NASA-less senario at least in the beggining of the space race
I don't know about you, but it feels wrong starting an alternate history project about something at the very beginning of the thing that caused that something, especially 10 years before the main focus
So we can't have Sergei Korolev not dying as the POV. But then what is the POV? And what causes Russia to land on the Moon first?
I will say that the TV series threw science and realism under the bus in the later seasons so I don't usually count it as a plausible story for a Red Moon.
Well it could be one of the POVs but it might not be enough to push the Societ Space program over the edge because the Societ space program was somewhat slcurrupt and inefficient, and many good rocket scientists went to the Americans
Something that might be just as important might be something like the Lunar Gateway, since it would save much fuel needed to land and take off of the moon, and make further journeys to other planets easier.
The Soviets in the 1960s and early 1970s were actually building one during the development of the ill-fated N1 rocket officially called the Zvezda moon base, unfortunately the project was ultimately killed off alongside with the N1 program when Valentin Glushko (the arch-rival of Sergei Korolev) was able to consolidate control of the Soviet Space Program in 1974.
Zvezda (moonbase) - Wikipedia
For more detailed information click here.
The Soviets in the 1960s and early 1970s were actually building one during the development of the ill-fated N1 rocket officially called the Zvezda moon base, unfortunately the project was ultimately killed off alongside with the N1 program when Valentin Glushko (the arch-rival of Sergei Korolev) was able to consolidate control of the Soviet Space Program in 1974.
Zvezda (moonbase) - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
For more detailed information click here.
Pretty interesting so if USSR land on the Moon, a base will soon follow. This will push USA to build it own moon base.
In a scenario where the Soviets beat the Americans to the moon then NASA might be able to convince Congress and the President to reopen/maintain the Saturn V production line to allow for the lunar base proposals of the Apollo Applications Program to be successfully funded then the Lunar base will happen.
However if the economic problems that plagued the USA in the late 1960s and the 1970s still rear their ugly head then NASA will likely fall victim to the Congress budget cuts it faced in OTL and be only able to partially complete its Apollo Lunar base plans before being forced to halt Saturn V flights by the mid to late 1970s, although the technology of the Apollo program will be maintained longer and not be abandoned in favor of the Space Shuttle in that scenario, provided that Nixon doesn't become President.
If the Soviets however land on the moon later after Apollo and Saturn V has been already abadoned in favor for the Space Shuttle in the around the mid 1970s to early 1980s then NASA will have a painful time trying to return to the moon, while also struggling to even get Space Station Freedom funded by Congress in the 1980s.
Unless NASA rolls a few Natural 20s with Congress and avoids the Challenger disaster then its unlikely that they will ever receive the funding needed to bring Astronauts back to the moon in time before the end of the Cold War drains the need to go back to the moon.
Last edited:
Furry Fractal Multitude
Banned
Granted are more investments into Semiconductor and Quantum Computing Research, more "SpaceXs" and hence, earlier Starships. My estimate is that in a scenario where the Soviet competition is higher and it simply doesn't fall as in 1991, and continue a China like pathway, Space Technology development can be around 20-25 years faster than the one we have. Which reasonably means, strong and established private Space agencies (multiple) exist by 2000, Starship like launch vehicles developed soon after, Lunar bases by 2005 or around that, and a Mars Base by 2010s, with a Mars settlement by 2020s or the 2030s, though it could take a couple of decades more to have a thriving Mars settlement. My estimate for us, in a World without this, is that a thriving Mars settlement is likely by 2070s. In that timeline, subtract around 20 to 25 years. These also entail developments outside the Space field because Space Stations and Bases provide resources and incentives for massive Research into High Energy Physics, unlocking Nuclear Fusion Power (even the Compact versions, with the incentives and the High Energy Research possible), very advanced Quantum Computing that could be used to give us better health and augmentations, and there are many more fields where Space Technology will help.
A 20-25 year earlier developments in Space Technology means vast and cascading improvements. I like this topic.
A 20-25 year earlier developments in Space Technology means vast and cascading improvements. I like this topic.
What if the Space Race never ended? What if the Space Race continued? What if NASA didn't land a man on the Moon first? What if Soviet Russia did? What if Sergei Korolev never died, causing Russia to land on the Moon, which in turn causes the United States to try and out compete Russia, in turn continuing the Space Race? What would happen?
I'm aoisnwiwij the gpuser, and this is Red Moon.
P.S.: I haven't gotten any ideas yet, apart from Sergei Korolev not dying and Soviet Russia landing on the Moon first, so some, if not all suggestions would be welcomed greatly
As noted you need the USSR's space program to be more than it ever was OTL to start with. Keep in mind it was essentially run by the military which saw no real advantage to having a Lunar program. You also have to avoid 'embarrassing' the US into spending whatever it takes to 'beat' the Russians because in the end the US can always afford to do just that whereas the USSR can not.
The main issue is to try and keep the 'race' as even as possible within the means of the various players so that the Soviets landing on the Moon is "just" another step with the US close behind. In most cases the 'race' being closer and being less in need of a 'big' step which OTL was the Lunar landings. In such a case you'd see initially more LEO efforts with the first 'space station' being the goal followed by slowly extending effort towards the Moon.
NASA wasn't inevitable but it was highly likely as even without having Eisenhower's (justified) worry about the military opening of another 'front' in the Cold War, (note how the USSR didn't reciprocate the gesture and retained military control of their space program) there were many other factors that drove the creation of a single unifying "space program" in the US. (Unlike the USSR the US "military" space program was being attempted by ALL the branches initially with the main players ending up being the Air Force, Army and Navy in a distant third place) This would likely mean keeping the US space effort under the umbrella of an expanded ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) though to be fair that's also contingent on who puts up the first satellite.
As for avoiding Von Braun and having Wiley Ley remain the main 'spokesperson' for the US one needs to keep in mind VB almost died several times during the war, (the "easiest" is probably have his car accident prior to capture being fatal instead of just 'almost' fatal) but his contribution OTL was initially being far more charismatic and persuasive than Ley or any of the other 'homegrown' Space flight advocates. No WVB and we likely don't see the "Colliers" series or the Disney adaptation there of and so the US is a lot less 'space minded' during the late 50s and probably even MORE shocked by Sputnik TTL.
Of course if you have no WVB then the US Army "Project Orbiter" (if it still happens TTL) is less likely to be opposed (as Ike can't complain about the "damn Nazi" in charge
) so you have a much better chance that the US will either orbit a satellite first, (same issues as OTL still apply so letting the Soviets go first is still possible) or doing so very soon after with a 'better' chance of success unlike OTL's "Vanguard" program.Which in all means the US program could be slower due to the REAL "space race" rivalry between the USAF and the US Army taking funds from each other and slowing US progress.
Welcome to Alternate History
It may "feel" wrong but it's not actually that much of a stretch because of course 'factors' are different. As I noted above the 'original' purpose for creating "ARPA" was to coordinate the US military space program and try to draw together the various efforts but this was still rife with inter-service rivalry and other issues. The creation of NASA was specifically aimed at taking the MANNED effort away from the military while leaving most of the unmanned effort to the services so it's not really a stretch to see something like ARPA re-organized to fulfill the same function.
Randy
The issue here is that there's not a lot in 'space' to drive that effort and a lot less incentive for early commercialization without some out-of-place investigation and investment. Secondly we already know what the USSR's response to increased commercialization would be with their efforts for the 1979 "Moon" treaty. That was specifically to hinder the development of commercial space efforts and the main reason no actual 'space' launching power signed or ratified it.
See there's a problem with relatively 'cheap' launch in that it takes away one of your main economic incentives for off-world development. Part of the economic reasons for developing the Moon for example is to deliver cheaper raw materials from there to infrastructure in LEO than it would be to launch those same materials from Earth. If it's cheaper to launch from Earth then no one bothers with developing the Moon, or Mars or much of anything beyond LEO. You end up with Antarctic levels of people off-earth instead of settlements or resource exploitation.
OTL never developed a need or use for off-world resources and we're only moving in that direction because launch costs are coming down and we already know that such development will NOT be used for Earth but for more 'local' use at a much smaller scale. And that won't provide enough of an economic driver to be effective without continued and large scale outside support.
In a timeline where space development traveled a more sustainable and more effective path we'd actually be more 'behind' where we are now with a likely first lunar landing in the late 70s to early 80s but a more developed LEO infrastructure with multiple space stations and a more complex LEO/MEO/GEO infrastructure. Likely launch prices will be lower, (but not as low as they could be
) but overall there will be early incentive to increase use of off-Earth resources to continue to cut prices so that an early (by the late 80s, early 90s) Moon base and then resource extraction base will be plausible. (Keep in mind, OTL "Apollo" had actually "shown" that due to a lack of "water" on the Moon that resource extraction was less desirable and this wasn't reversed till the early 2000s. A more comprehensive exploration program would not have made that mistake)Randy
I should point out that in context the Soviet's didn't USE the scientist they got all that much anyway. They used them more as a 'check' on their own peoples work than any real work and the German's were aware of this. The US 'started' out that way, using WVB and his team to assemble and launch captured V2's but the general US progress in 1946/47 was already advanced beyond what the Germans had done or were doing. The general 'plan' had been to keep the Germans till the late 40s early 50s and then release them back to Germany (or industry) once their knowledge was no longer 'up-to-date'. Post-war budget cuts in the American rocket program changed this as (the Army specifically) found the German's cost less to work with than US industry and finally the Korean war opened up the budget again.
Really to keep the US 'relevant' but not overpowering you need a changed attitude that makes US rocket development more a priority but not funded enough to really do more than keep on-par with the Soviets. (Not having Truman for two terms would help greatly, having Dewey beat him in '48 would boost the budget)
Randy