A cup of tea in orbit.

ccdsah

Donor
You ever read Ministry of Space?

POD is 1945, when the British grab von Braun and the other Nazi scientists and technology at Peenemunde ahead of either the Americans or Soviets. The British still lose their colonies on Earth, but with the expertise at their disposal, the head of the new Ministry of Space gets approval from Churchill to set out to form a new British Empire in space.

As always, published alternate history is a lot looser with plausibility, though.
Yeah, as plausible as frak. Britain was starving post WW2, but had the finances to build a Space Empire /sarcasm
 
I think the original poster is onto something when he talks about an ~1880 PoD. A lot of the reasons it was the US and Russia, and why grabbing German scientists and engineers was so important was due to the economics of the 19th Century.

In particular, what's called the Second Industrial Revolution. This was the second half of the 19th Century, where the innovative fields where alloys, chemicals, and electrification, as opposed to the First half of the century, where the dominant fields where railroads, textiles and iron. Britain lead the First Industrial Revolution but lost ground in the Second, while Germany and America lead the second.

The English maintained their position by moving even more heavily into finance in the Second Industrial, which will build a lot of gilded age palaces but fund very few innovations. Throw on to of that the German invention of, and American adaptation of, the big scientific research university, a trend the British avoided.

When you think where those 2nd IR techs lead - materials sciences, fuels, computers, at those same research institutes - you can see why you need an early, and substantial PoD in the 19th for an English space program. This isn't a case where the right kind of weapon, or the Mark II version instead of the Mark I version of an airplane will give you UNIT. It's underlying economics and not weapons procurement here.

Maybe have the British get on the research uni bandwagon?
 
You might want to read "Ministry of Space". This was a comic that suggested exactly what you are describing.

In this universe, the only POD is that the British get hold of Von Braun and a number of the other German rocket scientists etc during WW2. What happens then is Britain withdraws from certain military posturings, EG it does not respond to the Suez crisis.

In the book, they fund the initial projects (a satellite, followed by a space plane) using a "black budget" - IE Holocaust Gold. I'm not sure how much of another divergence that is, if at all. I know that plenty of the wealth of the Holocaust victims was plundered by the Nazis, but where it went after that, I don't know.

Either way, I would say it is possible with a quite late POD. Britain was developing things like the Vulcan, Valiant, and the Victor in the 1950s. Britain might have taken a severe beating after the war, but it was far from unable to pursue advanced projects like this.
 
Second we continue by avoiding the world wars. There may be European wars, but Britain in can't be involved, or at least not enough to drain its manpower and financial solvency (and confidence). The problem, however, is that it was precisely the world wars that spurred aeronautical technology enough to make space travel happen as soon as 1957.

This is not a problem.
The first flight in orbit can be in any year from 1960 to 2013.
 
In particular, what's called the Second Industrial Revolution. This was the second half of the 19th Century, where the innovative fields where alloys, chemicals, and electrification, as opposed to the First half of the century, where the dominant fields where railroads, textiles and iron. Britain lead the First Industrial Revolution but lost ground in the Second, while Germany and America lead the second.

The English maintained their position by moving even more heavily into finance in the Second Industrial, which will build a lot of gilded age palaces but fund very few innovations. Throw on to of that the German invention of, and American adaptation of, the big scientific research university, a trend the British avoided.

This is interesting.
 

amphibulous

Banned
You might want to read "Ministry of Space". This was a comic that suggested exactly what you are describing.

Yes, but this was a comic. Not a history book or feasibility study. It means zip; the author's explanation of "Nazi Jewish Gold!" is pure hand waving.

Britain was developing things like the Vulcan, Valiant, and the Victor in the 1950s. Britain might have taken a severe beating after the war, but it was far from unable to pursue advanced projects like this.

Have you compared the cost or technological scope of these to a space launcher program? A manned launcher program would be much more challenging, and lacks the strong motive the British had for the v-bombers.
 
Yes, but this was a comic. Not a history book or feasibility study. It means zip; the author's explanation of "Nazi Jewish Gold!" is pure hand waving.

It's oversimplistic I agree. But I would argue that it's not impossible.

Have you compared the cost or technological scope of these to a space launcher program? A manned launcher program would be much more challenging, and lacks the strong motive the British had for the v-bombers.

Yes, but Britain didn't have clear motive to develop the S.S. Great Britain either. I would argue that with the colonies collapsing, Britain would want to look for another way to be above other nations. If they avoided large scale foreign entanglements (IE Suez) then they could have a significant portion of the finances needed.
 

amphibulous

Banned
It's oversimplistic I agree. But I would argue that it's not impossible.

You can argue anything like. Stating this in itself will not convince anyone.


Yes, but Britain didn't have clear motive to develop the S.S. Great Britain either.

Britain did not develop the SS Great Britain. The private enterprise that did had a very clear motive for doing so - profit.

I would argue that with the colonies collapsing, Britain would want to look for another way to be above other nations.

You obviously don't understand anything of British history of the period: the colonies were lost after WW2 because the UK was in dire economic straits. And the British political class wouldn't see a space program as restoring the influence of empire - because sanely, it wouldn't.

If they avoided large scale foreign entanglements (IE Suez) then they could have a significant portion of the finances needed.

Suez was a short operation; no forces were created for it. You'd have to cancel British commitment to NATO to free up significant cash by space program standards. And then you'd have to explain why the British put into a space program instead of their investment starved industrial base.
 
@lounge 60

It's one of the reasons (besides those Hugo Boss uniforms) that the Nazi's always seemed to have the best toys in terms of tanks, aircraft, etc. You have more scientists, in institutions designed to be good research areas for them, with an industry that could churn out the latest materials by the ton so they could make their doodles reality.

Fortunately, the US was in a similar position, so the world didn't get royally boned...

<this added after edit>
Thinking of a Pod, what if the UK develops its hard science research base, while keeping that intellectual flexibility that lead to people like Turing et al. at Bleachley park? Maybe throw in no Great War (there enough plausible ideas on that floating around here)? You have a 1920s say with some rocket research, a very powerful Britain, and that Edwardian confidence is still there. 'Course, you probably have some kind of Revolutionary state in Russia, colonies that are more prosperous and thus agitating even harder for independence. Plus, butterflys mean you've gotten rid of most of the cast of characters of the 20C.
 
Last edited:
Britain did not develop the SS Great Britain. The private enterprise that did had a very clear motive for doing so - profit.


Yes, and Britain still had private industry after the war, and in fact MoS points this out

the colonies were lost after WW2 because the UK was in dire economic straits. And the British political class wouldn't see a space program as restoring the influence of empire - because sanely, it wouldn't.

They wouldn't see it as restoring the influence of empire, no. But they would see it as a means of making Britain superior in some way, thereby maintaining its great power status.


Suez was a short operation; no forces were created for it. You'd have to cancel British commitment to NATO to free up significant cash by space program standards. And then you'd have to explain why the British put into a space program instead of their investment starved industrial base.

You'd have to reduce, not cancel, British NATO commitments, and you'd have a good reason for developing a space program. To give the industrial sector something to do. Add to that the fact that the uses of satellites for weapon deployment were well known.
 
This is not a problem.
The first flight in orbit can be in any year from 1960 to 2013.

I get that.

It's just that the farther out you push the date, the more uncertainty enters the equation. Britain by 1880 was already losing ground to Germany and the U.S.; in the next century, Japan and Russia were likely to catch up as well. The longer it takes Britain to launch the first satellite, the greater the likelihood that another great power will have the means to do so at the same time or sooner, too.
 
Wasn't there a BIS plan to take a captured V2, put a man with an oxygen mask (and presumably a good deal of padding) in the space where the warhead would normally go, and launch someone into space that way?

There's a bit about it here, but I can't seem to find any more about it on the BIS site apart from the same picture in the gallery.
 
Wasn't there a BIS plan to take a captured V2, put a man with an oxygen mask (and presumably a good deal of padding) in the space where the warhead would normally go, and launch someone into space that way?

There's a bit about it here, but I can't seem to find any more about it on the BIS site apart from the same picture in the gallery.
That wwould have been an interesting stunt, but tthe OP ddoes call for 'in orbit', not 'in space'. Quick, name the first American in space - bet you cant witthout looking it up. How about the second? I dont remember the second. Only the third....
 
You obviously don't understand anything of British history of the period: the colonies were lost after WW2 because the UK was in dire economic straits. And the British political class wouldn't see a space program as restoring the influence of empire - because sanely, it wouldn't.
It was very much an either-or situation. To quote John Boyd Carpenter who was Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 1963 and wrote in a note on 22nd July that "I suggest we cannot begin to build a vertical empire if our colleagues insist on our continuing to provide for the defence of a horizontal one." If people are seriously interested in the history of Britain's rocket and space programmes I'd highly recommend reading C.N. Hill's book A Vertical Empire on the subject.


If they avoided large scale foreign entanglements (IE Suez) then they could have a significant portion of the finances needed.
Suez was a short operation; no forces were created for it. You'd have to cancel British commitment to NATO to free up significant cash by space program standards. And then you'd have to explain why the British put into a space program instead of their investment starved industrial base.
If anything I would say the opposite, since as Amphibulous says it ustilised already exisiting forces so there wouldn't be much in the way of extra costs for it. Suez was one of the major events and capstone that saw the British lose their influence in the Middle East, if successful they could maybe extend that out another ten to maybe fifteen years and keep the economic benefits of it. Of course it's just putting off the inevitable and when the wheels do finally come off things are liable to be even more interesting that in our timeline.


It's one of the reasons (besides those Hugo Boss uniforms) that the Nazi's always seemed to have the best toys in terms of tanks, aircraft, etc. You have more scientists, in institutions designed to be good research areas for them, with an industry that could churn out the latest materials by the ton so they could make their doodles reality.
I would argue, apologies Amphibulous ;), that when it came to utilising and implementing science during the war that Germany outside of a few areas was actually rather rubbish at it, with the UK the US being able to beat them rather handily.
 

amphibulous

Banned
@lounge 60

It's one of the reasons (besides those Hugo Boss uniforms) that the Nazi's always seemed to have the best toys in terms of tanks, aircraft, etc. You have more scientists, in institutions designed to be good research areas for them, with an industry that could churn out the latest materials by the ton so they could make their doodles reality.

This is nonsense.

Firstly, read Tooze's "Wages Of Destruction" - British economic output compared very favourable to that of Germany in the war. (Hint: Germany was blockaded, and a shortage of raw materials does reduce one's ability to build things.)

Secondly, the Germans only had "the best toys" by the standards of war fan boys rather than professionals. The Germans had the Tiger; the Allies had radar fuzed AA and artillery shells. The Tiger looks much cooler on a poster on your bedroom wall, but it's a pussy cat compared to a T. Rex for killing power - radar fuzed arty kills several times more infantry per weight of shell. The Allies had an overwhelming advantage in weapon system effectiveness - you just don't know it, because e.g. a Squid ASW mortar (increased hit rates against subs by 5x compared to depth charges) isn't as exciting as a Me262 (destroyed a pair of engines every 10-20 hours.) However, the Me262 makes a much more exciting subject for the History Channel, so people get the impression that the Germans had better technology.

In fact, developing technology for its fan boy factor rather than its usefulness was one of the German's worst problems - Hitler was the ultimate fan boy (just think about his addiction to cos play) and favoured weapon systems that, honestly, should never have been contemplated out of the pages of manga. The Tiger was bad enough, the Maus worse... but giant jousting tanks are pure Evangelion.
 
Last edited:

amphibulous

Banned
I would argue, apologies Amphibulous ;), that when it came to utilising and implementing science during the war that Germany outside of a few areas was actually rather rubbish at it, with the UK the US being able to beat them rather handily.

I am fine with people saying "I would argue" when they go on to say what the actually bloody argument is! And I agree completely. The Allies had

- Radar interception control

- Radar fuzed shells

- The UK equalled the Germany in jet technology (which people forget, because the British weren't in a desperate air battle for survival, so kept theirs back, away from Russian eyes)

- Enigma

- Long range escort fighters

- ASDIC/sonar and ASW weapons that far out-classed U-Boat technology

- Enormous logistics capacity - most significantly trucks, but also the pipelines and harbours of D-Day

- Long range bombers; not just the four engine heavies, but airframes like the Mosquito and Black Widow that could hit precise targets and outrun fighters

- Better ECM and guidance

Instead of all these, the Germans had little more than a large tank that broke down a lot, V2s that hurt the German economy more than their targets, and a jet fighter that sucked resources from building saner aircraft.
 
Not so much around here, on some other sites though... and it can get a bit annoying. Some people seem to latch on to the various wunderwaffe and try to argue the 'But if only the war had gone on for longer then Weapon X or Device Y would of decisively turned the tide for the Nazis' line, seemingly ignoring that the extra time would also allow the Allies to bring on their more advanced models as well. And that unlike the Nazis the Allies had all the strategic materials they needed and weren't being bombed to fuck practically around the clock on top of their massive production advantage. Combine it with the idea that the Nazis were the most advanced and had the best science and it all just gets somewhat tiring like I said.
 
Top