American space flight without Kennedy

Perhaps Nixon beats him in 60, or Johnson somehow wins at the Convention, or he meets an assassins bullet sooner - what if Kennedy never has the opportunity to propose landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth. How does the US space programme develop? Just how critical is Kennedy?
 

Archibald

Banned
In spring 1961 JFK made a series of political mistakes that gave the Soviet Union an edge. Bay of pigs among them. Gagarine was also an humiliation.
To get away from that morass, JFK started Apollo.

Nixon would be different
- More political experience as Ike VP, no Bay of pigs
- he was not interested in space
- at least just like Ike, he didn't wanted an "all out war effort" spending $25 billion (more than $100 billion today)

The space program would have been
- Mercury
- No Gemini (no Apollo: no pressure on learning orbital rendezvous)
- Block I Apollo for Earth orbit, launched by a Saturn IB
- no Block II Apollo, no Saturn V, no LM
- a space station by 1970
- eventually, a circumlunar flight by 1970 but no landing
- robotic probes
 
In spring 1961 JFK made a series of political mistakes that gave the Soviet Union an edge. Bay of pigs among them. Gagarine was also an humiliation.
To get away from that morass, JFK started Apollo.

Nixon would be different
- More political experience as Ike VP, no Bay of pigs
- he was not interested in space
- at least just like Ike, he didn't wanted an "all out war effort" spending $25 billion (more than $100 billion today)

The space program would have been
- Mercury
- No Gemini (no Apollo: no pressure on learning orbital rendezvous)
- Block I Apollo for Earth orbit, launched by a Saturn IB
- no Block II Apollo, no Saturn V, no LM
- a space station by 1970
- eventually, a circumlunar flight by 1970 but no landing
- robotic probes


Nixon might have been forced to go into
space whether he wanted to or not. Remember that in April 1961 IOTL the USSR's Yuri Gagarin became the 1st human
ever to orbit the earth. There was no panic
in the U.S. IOTL as there'd been 4 years
previously when Sputnik went up but
nonetheless JFK felt impelled to promise
to put a man on the moon by the decade's
end. These political pressures would have
still existed if Nixon was President instead-
& you can bet your bottom dollar Democrats
would have siezed on this as an issue to crit-
icize Nixon(further proof the U.S. no longer # 1, etc.). I'm think you're absolutely
right Archibald when you state Nixon was not interested in the slightest in space-
but he also was always a, shall we just
say, "flexible" guy & in these circumstances
have concluded he'd better get interested in
space after all! What exactly would have then happened I'm not going to venture to
say(much would have depended on what
Nixon would have done in Vietnam)but I
respectfully disagree that the space program
would have been cut back to the degree you
outline above. Who knows, we might have
landed ITTL on the moon in 1969, just as
we did IOTL.
 
Last edited:
In spring 1961 JFK made a series of political mistakes that gave the Soviet Union an edge. Bay of pigs among them. Gagarine was also an humiliation.
To get away from that morass, JFK started Apollo.

Nixon would be different
- More political experience as Ike VP, no Bay of pigs
- he was not interested in space
- at least just like Ike, he didn't wanted an "all out war effort" spending $25 billion (more than $100 billion today)

The space program would have been
- Mercury
- No Gemini (no Apollo: no pressure on learning orbital rendezvous)
- Block I Apollo for Earth orbit, launched by a Saturn IB
- no Block II Apollo, no Saturn V, no LM
- a space station by 1970
- eventually, a circumlunar flight by 1970 but no landing
- robotic probes

Space wasn't a distraction. Space was because the Soviets had gained an edge that was shameful, and the Eisenhower administration was frankly too apathetic about space, which let the Russians get that edge. Kennedy was rather apathetic about space outside of the political and social benefits of it, but unlike Eisenhower, that was exactly the thing. He saw the global socio-political benefit in catching up to and outdoing the Soviets in space, or to otherwise ally with the Soviets in space. Space was a corollary to other policy and global concerns in the Cold War. It wasn't so we could explore. It was so we could say to our allies and ourselves, and the Third World that we were technologically on par and outpacing the Communist world. Or so we could use it as a theater for negotiation and overtures with the Communist sphere to foster global peace and relations. The Eisenhower administration had not risen to that challenge as it should have. Kennedy sought a way to make America's mark in space. Apollo was just one of the possibilities. The other was a circumlunar mission or a space station, neither of which Johnson nor the administrator at NASA felt was sufficient. Hence, the moon landing.

On the other points, I agree that Nixon was not as likely to be interested in space. He would have to do something. And if he let the Russians keep on, it's frankly likely to become a political embarrassment with big ramifications. So to avoid that potential political fallout in 1962 and 1964, he would need to do something to show the US was competitive with the Communists. Plus, space means jobs and industry.
 
On a more practical level, the space program was also a politics-friendly way of appropriating large sums of money to be spent on building and researching what was essentially ballistic missile technology. Kennedy grasped the glamorous and prestige aspects of the space program, but he also grasped this essential truth of it. I suspect Nixon would have understood this as well. And as a member of the prior administration that allowed the Soviets to get ahead, he would be eager to close the gap. While Nixon may not have been as enthusiastic about it, a moon race may have been forced upon him by circumstance, as it was one goal that was clear and well-defined. There really wasn't a similar goal with anything involving orbital flight. Going to the moon was something the public could understand in a way that a space station or reusable vehicle could not be. On top of that, reaching the moon was an ancient and theretofore impossible human dream.
 

Archibald

Banned
I would say that Nixon would fund a modest upgrade of Apollo (Block I to Block II) for a lunar flyby, and that would be it. It wouldn't be too hard. ITTL Apollo CSM would be far lighter than OTL, perhaps twice as heavy as a Gemini, 20 000 pounds.
Sending such a ship in a loop around the Moon wouldn't be that hard.
- Launch Apollo to the space station
- Launch a Centaur B with a docking collar
- stick the Centaur on Apollo nose
- fire the Centaur, then Apollo main engine, and voilà, three days and a loop around the Moon.
no need for Saturn V, nor Rocketdyne F-1. No need for $25 billion. No landing on the surface, but the Soviets won't do it either, not without Korolev and without OTL Apollo.
 
If they were not in such a hurry, perhaps Apollo 1 tragedy would not have happened...
 

Archibald

Banned
Hard to tell. Part of Apollo 1 related to rushed shedule, but there were also design flaws. Apollo is far less complex a vehicle in this scenario, maybe they dodge that bullet but still gets an Apollo 13 close-call.
 
Perhaps Nixon beats him in 60, or Johnson somehow wins at the Convention, or he meets an assassins bullet sooner - what if Kennedy never has the opportunity to propose landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth. How does the US space programme develop? Just how critical is Kennedy?

What's really critical is that Kennedy got shot. He made the moon landing untouchable by making it the legacy of a martyr. And I think Johnson also deserves due credit, he saw the space program as a way to boost the economies of the poor Souther States by placing high-tech industry in them (and IMO we're still seeing the ripples of that decision - without it I think the South would be very different).

Had Kennedy not gotten shot, the program would have been getting cuts and likely it would have been a circum-Lunar jaunt launched by a Saturn IB or (if Congress had cooperated, which is very unlikely) a joint program with the USSR (which may have not gone for a landing either). Had Johnson died of his 1955 heart attack, NASA may not exist and there is no longer one of the best Congressional persuaders in US politics getting people to back such a large program.

Also, Johnson winning at the convention is still likely to lead to a fairly big US effort in space - it may not have been a moon landing without the martyrdom of Kennedy though.

On a more practical level, the space program was also a politics-friendly way of appropriating large sums of money to be spent on building and researching what was essentially ballistic missile technology.

Apollo certainly used plenty of technology from the ballistic missile programs and the spy satellite programs. However, Apollo didn't produce a whole lot of technology that could be used by the military. Also, when the US started Apollo, they were ahead in missile tech and numbers, which everyone with appropriate clearances knew.

Nixon might have been forced to go into
space whether he wanted to or not.

Nixon could have instead chosen a circum-Lunar flyby or a space station though. The moon landing was the easiest way to prove absolute superiority in space technology, but I don't think it is pre-determined or even that likely that a US administration would decide that being sure to demonstrate superiority was worth quite so much money as Apollo took. The Americans could be reasonably sure that they'd have the edge in putting up the first real space station or the first circum-Lunar jaunt.

fasquardon
 

Archibald

Banned
Oh, then you could have prevented the Apollo fire if it had had a better design

No velcro in every corner would help, for a start. More generally, flammable materials were everywhere, and Apollo 1 burned like a bonfire. Also much less complex vehicle = far less wiring, reducing the risk of sparks. Long term: drop pure oxygen, go for Soyuz air, which is far less flammable.
All three reduce the risk of Apollo 1 happening.
 

Archibald

Banned
Nixon could have instead chosen a circum-Lunar flyby or a space station though.

Or a combination of the two. Build a space station as the main goal (think Skylab), with cheap circumlunar capability as a I described above. That should calm the Soviets for the foreseeable future.
If the Soviets want to land on the surface, they need a very large rocket and a 10 year+ development program. The CIA should be able to catch such program, or dismiss it as "bluff".
 
RJGFox wrote:
Perhaps Nixon beats him in 60, or Johnson somehow wins at the Convention, or he meets an assassins bullet sooner - what if Kennedy never has the opportunity to propose landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth. How does the US space programme develop? Just how critical is Kennedy?

Sputnik and US leadership's lack-of-response, (especially Ike's attempts to 'down-play' the significance) were among the 'pressures' that drove Kennedy to propose the lunar landing as a goal. He did not WANT to propose such and was well aware of the costs that would ensue but could find no other 'credible' alternative course.

(Despite how much folks here "dislike" McNamara as SoD he argued vehemently that going to the Moon wasn't a big enough goal although he 'only' proposed going to Mars or Venus instead)

Nixon might have had enough political 'clout' left over from Ike to not be pushed into a major decision but as Johnson would be back in charge of the senate after the election, (and possibly out for blood) this isn't a given as he wanted major spending directed to the South as has been noted.

Consider that Nixon may have by this same point already been deeply mired in a Cuban war, (he was at least aware of the Cuban invasion plans and some sources say he was deeply involved, the main question is if he would have still approved when the planning changed to the Bay of Pigs which was much less viable point of attack without direct US involvement*) and a possible intervention in Laos which would preclude a deep US space program.

While Nixon wasn't a 'space cadet' (neither was JFK) he was very interested in "technology" in general (again as was JFK) and admired the astronauts for their courage and as an example of the American 'spirit' of exploration. Unless Nixon decides to directly support the BoP's landings with US military intervention, (or cancels it, see * below) it is going to fail and if he does then the US is going to be directly involved with an invasion and war in Cuba as well as other commitments around the globe. All of which will directly affect any space program of the time.

In all the actually 'pressures' that resulted in Kennedy's "Lunar" program are still going to be there no matter who's President and as an heir to the previous "Administration" (which as has been pointed out will be 'blamed' for the Soviet lead in space) he will be under greater pressure to "do something" about it.

Randy

Differences here would include the ability to credibly discount the "missile gap" that Kennedy ran on, (which I have always felt was ironic given Ike and Nixon had run their initial campaign against Truman on a similarly non-existent "bomber gap" and this was somewhat karmic payback :) ) along with the ability to point to on-going development of similar lift-capability by the US, (Saturn-1) to that of the Soviets and planned development of the 3 man Apollo spacecraft for example.

Unfortunately it's not that much to argue with given the 'obvious' (to the public and a 'panicking' leadership' which no doubt a losing Kennedy and Johnson will pander to) Soviet 'leadership' in space. And the circumstances are still going to be basically the same in that the other options available such as Lunar flyby or a Space Station are at this point possibly 'easier' for the Soviets than the Americans.

Kennedy's decision to go to the Moon in perspective was quite justifiable simply because it would be a similar "starting point" for both the US and the USSR at that time. Should the US announce any 'lesser' goal, (such as the Lunar Flyby or a space station) the USSR could use what capability it already had available to subvert that goal for themselves. (A "bare-bones" Lunar flyby or a couple of modules docked together would suffice to be a credible 'first' by this point in the public mind) It is still very likely that Nixon would also 'chose' to go to the Moon as the most "logical" of the possible goals.

Fasquadron has it right in that the 'key' element was Kennedy getting shot that precluded any reduction in the overall goal and/or timetable. Kennedy was in fact having doubts over the viability of the stated goal and timetable. I think the timetable, ("before this decade is out") was the major area of doubt not specifically technology but the amount of money and resources it would require had by then begun to register and for Kennedy there were very few options for ways to 'back out' of that statement after the fact.
 
Or a combination of the two. Build a space station as the main goal (think Skylab), with cheap circumlunar capability as a I described above. That should calm the Soviets for the foreseeable future.
If the Soviets want to land on the surface, they need a very large rocket and a 10 year+ development program. The CIA should be able to catch such program, or dismiss it as "bluff".

As I noted a "space station" invites a couple of modules linked in orbit being seen as a 'first' which was well within the assumed Soviet capability. Similarly if the US could do it 'on-the-cheap' so could they so Circum-Lunar was also not a clear 'win'.

And it was (and is) not a 'given' that a large rocket was required to land on the Moon. It was done that way OTL simply because that was the quickest way, not the best of the least expensive.

It can be argued, (it was and is) that US intelligence dropped the ball on Soviet capabilities and both under and then over estimated them as time went on. Further it was 'obvious' that going to and landing on the Moon could take several forms but the most 'important' was always rendezvous and docking technology which the US managed with Gemini OTL but would have had to wait on Apollo in a slower time line. Much like the Soviet development OTL without the 'pressure' of the Lunar goal and timetable it is quite possible US development would have been vastly slower.

Granted that orbital assembly would have a longer time factor than OTL's Apollo program but keep in mind that without that same artificial "time table" time is far less a factor than such things as cost. Kennedy specifically and purposefully 'side-stepped' the expected path by choosing to go to the Lunar surface in a short time. It was a gesture that played to basic American strengths in industry and research with a tight schedule to ensure rapid development. I suspect that he would have found a way to 'back-off' the timetable had he not died but having that happen, (as noted) pretty much ensured the "martyr" effect didn't allow that. That deadline coupled with American 'embarrassment' over Sputnik and Gagarin would at worst push any succeeding administration to consider the 'sunk-costs' over the previous eight years in considering slowing the pace and funding.

And assuming he had eight years in office he could always put on the brakes when enough progress or time had passed to be acceptable to the American public. Again once the "martyr" effect kicked in that wasn't going to happen but it made sense at the time.

Nixon could hem and haw over the expenditure and point to Saturn and Apollo as equaling the Russians but I suspect that with Johnson, (and probably Kennedy as well) back in Congress they'd be pressing him hard to "commit" to something. While I don't see the "Lunar decision" of OTL as inevitable, (especially the time frame) given the situation and circumstances the only way I don't see Nixon coming to a similar conclusion is a war on Earth that takes attention.

Randy
 
No velcro in every corner would help, for a start. More generally, flammable materials were everywhere, and Apollo 1 burned like a bonfire. Also much less complex vehicle = far less wiring, reducing the risk of sparks. Long term: drop pure oxygen, go for Soyuz air, which is far less flammable.
All three reduce the risk of Apollo 1 happening.

And also: weren't there problems getting to
the vehicle? (so that the rescuers on that
fateful day couldn't get to the Apollo 1
quickly enough)
 
And also: weren't there problems getting to
the vehicle? (so that the rescuers on that
fateful day couldn't get to the Apollo 1
quickly enough)

Due to the accidental activation of the "blow hatch" equipment on MR-4 the hatch on Apollo was specifically designed to require more 'manual' activation. Needless to say the hatch was specifically re-designed again to fix THAT problem.

Randy
 

Archibald

Banned
Gus Grissom, nearly drowned because of a deffective hatch, made sure the next hatch would be solidly bolted in place... and it killed him. The bitting irony.
 
Top