AHC: The US Army and Navy space programs keep going

If any country could afford having more than one space program, it was the United States. I've always wondered what the space race would have looked like if, for example, the main competition had been between the US Army and the US Air Force (rather than being between NASA and Korolev as OTL), or if the US had kept 4 programs going (NASA, USAF, Navy and Army) or if NASA had never been formed, and all the US space efforts of OTL had been done by the military space teams...

But then, even if there had been no Eisenhower presidency and military spending had not been cut, I have difficulty seeing the US being happy to leave its efforts balkanized. So I thought I'd see if anyone else had any thoughts of how to achieve this?

fasquardon
 
It could be achieved if the United States adopts space ambitions earlier on. This could lead to a race between US military branches to gather Germany's rocket scientists. The problem with this is that the Air Force was created out of WWII and the US largely adopts space ambitions as a reaction to Sputnik. Eisenhower warned us of the military industrial complex, but if a less skeptical president sat in his place then the military would have more trust and willingness by the executive branch for space exploration funding.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
If any country could afford having more than one space program, it was the United States. I've always wondered what the space race would have looked like if, for example, the main competition had been between the US Army and the US Air Force (rather than being between NASA and Korolev as OTL), or if the US had kept 4 programs going (NASA, USAF, Navy and Army) or if NASA had never been formed, and all the US space efforts of OTL had been done by the military space teams...

But then, even if there had been no Eisenhower presidency and military spending had not been cut, I have difficulty seeing the US being happy to leave its efforts balkanized. So I thought I'd see if anyone else had any thoughts of how to achieve this?

fasquardon

Actually, there is a military space program - very effective as well.

Different alphabet soup, however.

Best,
 
I think Army vs Air Force would be the most interesting aspect of this. The Army probably had the most advanced missiles in the late-1950s, with von Braun's team apparently ready to go orbital with Jupiter by 1956. Meanwhile, the Air Force was working on two large boosters, Titan and Atlas. So I could see the Army stealing an early lead in getting to orbit, with the Air Force surpassing them in raw lift when Atlas and Titan come online at the start of the '60s.
For manned spaceflight, the Air Force were ahead with their Dyna-Soar work, whilst the Army didn't really have a firm plan. However, had the Army decided to go for a man in space, they'd be more likely to settle for a simple ballistic capsule (even if they weren't pushed that way by payload constraints on their launchers) rather than a complex airplane that would keep USAF fly-boys happy, so they could come from behind to get the first man in space.
The Navy would be a very poor relation in all this, as their Vanguard launcher was much smaller than Jupiter or Atlas/Titan. They'd not have much incentive to build them bigger either - they'd be more interested in cruise missiles and IRBMs.
For this whole scenario to work, I think you'd have to either butterfly NASA altogether, or have them as a launcher user rather than developer, building satellites to go on Army/Air Force rockets (which is how they started out). Otherwise the Army effort suffers its OTL brain drain.
 

Archibald

Banned
with von Braun's team apparently ready to go orbital with Jupiter by 1956
They were very close (September 10, 1956) but the Ike administration ensured the fourth stage was loaded with sand and not propellants (bangs my head against a wall).
 
The Navy would be a very poor relation in all this, as their Vanguard launcher was much smaller than Jupiter or Atlas/Titan. They'd not have much incentive to build them bigger either - they'd be more interested in cruise missiles and IRBMs.

Yeah, keeping the Navy in the game is the hard part of this challenge. I have a feeling that part of keeping the Navy in space would need to be the USAF isn't made a separate service, meaning the Navy and Army compete for the role of primary nuclear weapon deliverer...

I must say, the US Navy getting into cruise-missile derived launchers like some of the designs Chelomei proposed on the other side of the curtain would be awfully interesting... Maybe even practical if they can get a ramjet main stage working.

Another possibility is for the USN to continue to hold responsibility for most foreign intelligence gathering in the wake of WW2, meaning that TTL's equivalent of the NRO is part of the Navy.

For this whole scenario to work, I think you'd have to either butterfly NASA altogether, or have them as a launcher user rather than developer, building satellites to go on Army/Air Force rockets (which is how they started out). Otherwise the Army effort suffers its OTL brain drain.

The idea of NASA remaining a payload-only agency is an interesting one. I suspect you are right that NASA existing is bad for the army though.

fasquardon
 
In a sense this occurred, the USAF maintained the DOD launch capability in parallel with NASA and the Army program became a significant part of NASA with NRO developing into a very significant space program in its own right for the DOD. As we know the Eisenhower administration created NASA to de-militarize space so without Eisenhower we might not have seen a civilian space program. My thoughts are that if the SM-64 Navaho had succeeded a little better and if the Army kept to tactical and theater level surface-to-surface missiles the two programs might co-exist, assuming the USAF is unsuccessful in gaining a monopoly over space in the DOD. Part of the equation was nuclear warhead size, if the theory or development on reducing warhead weight is delayed the Army might have chosen to focus on precision conventional munitions and shorter ranges, i.e. more practical "Army" weaponry that does not compete with the SAC primacy in strategic warfare. Lemay viewed missiles as a mere adjunct to his bombers and the USAF bias was towards "cruise missiles" and manned space flight, i.e. the X-15 and Dyna-Soar path towards space. If the USSR is delayed in developing their A-bomb and Sputnik then pressure is off the NASA birthing and the demise of the Army missile program. So one could postpone the turf fight until when bombers are recognized as vulnerable and ICBMs (and SLBMs) become the better deterrent, now USAF and USN have the Army sitting on their new technology imperative.
 
Just get Eisenhower out of office, it it may very well happen. In particular, if he died in, say 1955, and Nixon took over, I suspect strongly that the latter wouldn't have any problems with the space program being military.
 
I think a PoD would need to be before the Revolt of the Admirals, at the least. From what I understand, that event marked the ascension of the Air Force as the "first among equals" of the armed forces as far as the civilian government was concerned, and gave the AF almost all strategic responsibilities - which it's pretty easy to spin space as.

Since that was already happening in 1949, you don't have a super large amount of time to do it.

I guess you could maybe kill the USAF in general, keeping it under the Army.
 
I think a PoD would need to be before the Revolt of the Admirals, at the least. From what I understand, that event marked the ascension of the Air Force as the "first among equals" of the armed forces as far as the civilian government was concerned, and gave the AF almost all strategic responsibilities - which it's pretty easy to spin space as.

Hmm. Maybe the Navy sells itself as the branch best able to project nuclear power against enemies (either with submarines as would later develop or with carrier-borne strike bombers? That might appeal to the Truman administration more than the OTL line that the Navy was needed to fight any future occurrence like the Pacific war.

fasquardon
 
one way is US Army goes for ICBM as "advance artillery" and keep Von Braun team
other way US navy goes SLBM and i want Admiral Heinlein as part of it

on long term Army could go for Project Horizon a scientific / military base on the Moon.
while Navy goes for Bigger Solid rockets to launch there Space infrastructure into orbit
it must be not UGMO Super launch rocket...
 
Hmm. Maybe the Navy sells itself as the branch best able to project nuclear power against enemies (either with submarines as would later develop or with carrier-borne strike bombers? That might appeal to the Truman administration more than the OTL line that the Navy was needed to fight any future occurrence like the Pacific war.

fasquardon

That is literally what happened OTL, and the Air Fore won, leading to the Revolt of the Admirals (it was with carrier-based bombers, by the way - the technology for submarine-launched ICBMs was a decade distant)
 

Delta Force

Banned
The Navy would have an obvious interest in GPS systems for its ships and ballistic missile submarines. They might also have interest in naval reconnaissance satellites akin to the US-A series, which notably were nuclear powered due to their role. If early events are more favorable the Navy would also be a prime candidate for nuclear aircraft and rocketry propulsion systems due to the Navy's experience with nuclear powered ships. Nuclear powered rockets are supposed to be capable of using a smaller rocket to lift more payload (at least with multi-stage spacegoing rockets), so that feature could be useful in the constrained space of a nuclear missile submarine.
 
i wonder if this is realistic option

The USA had TWO ICBM systems, one prime and it's Backup: Atlas and Titan I later Minutemen I and Titan II,
So what if US Army get one and US Navy the other ?
also the Backup (Titan II) became Satellite launcher, so let say Navy got Titan I and make it a versatile launch vehicle ?
 
Top