Mitchell Hundred wrote:
Around the time of the first moon landing NASA did state that Mars landings were expected by the 1980's. Assuming the space race stayed hot would that have at all been feasible?
Simple answer is yes, short answer is no, long answer is... Well... long
There were a lot of assumptions wrapped up in the thinking for Mars in the 1980s and one assumed a similar effort as Apollo with similar support and financing. That was already obviously not what was happening even before July 1969, in fact funding AND support had been falling since 1965. Part of this was because the Space Race was no longer "hot" as the US was no longer obviously behind the Soviets, (in fact we looked to be ahead) and part was because Vietnam was taking up more and more financial and physical resources. There were other factors of course, (like a distinct lack of faith in NASA management and loss of confidence in its ability after the Apollo-1 fire) but these were the primary ones.
Straight up technology wise improvements in life support would be required and nuclear propulsion would have been the preferred method but chemical was possible. (Note to fraa Jad; Nuclear propulsion was in fact NOT addressed in the NTBT it only covered nuclear weapons, ROVER/NERVA wasn't shut down fully until 1973) The main problem was it would be anywhere from twice to five times the cost of Apollo depending on who was doing the accounting. While this was long before Zubrin's "Mars Direct" concept, (proposed in the 1990s) there had been planning done on using locally sourced resources to reduce the cost and complexity of the mission, however the number of unknowns about Mars itself limited the viability of such ideas until well into the 80s.
(Strangely enough one of Zubrin's complaints about the massive NASA proposed missions prior to Mars Direct was "that's not how we did Apollo" when in fact that WAS how we did Apollo with the major difference that the NASA plans built up additional orbital and Cis-Lunar infrastructure which would better support many things as well as Mars missions. MD while it does expand somewhat on-Mars infrastructure does nothing to enhance the ability to explore anyplace other than Mars, which at least Zubrin admits since he had no interest in anywhere BUT Mars. The main issue is that Zubrin has a very simplistic view of why Apollo succeeded and it appears almost no idea why it failed. His expectation that simply offering a "low-cost" mission architecture will bypass the need for political and public support as "once we go why would we stop" which was the same fallacy NASA ascribed to in Apollo)
In order for the Space Race to remain "hot" you absolutely have to have it be closer than OTL, which means an earlier and more robust amount of support given to the Soviet space program AND a lot less in-fighting and wasted effort. While single events might generate a short term burst of funding/support, (say the Soviets are successful in performing a Lunar flyby before Apollo-8) they won't generate enough long term support for the US space program. And even if the Soviet efforts are closer it is questionable that even them getting to the Moon first would generate the needed pressure to push the US to Mars. (Being second when we were promised first would be a major blow but it is more likely there would be LESS desire to push on to Mars than one would think even if the Soviets were obviously planning on doing so. Vietnam was a crisis for American morale and this would be even more so which would call into question the basic premise of American Exceptionalism)
And this assumes the Soviets can even think about pushing on which isn't as likely even under the circumstances. They were actually further behind in the needed technologies than the US and for the US this goal is marginal. I'd question the idea that the Soviets would make the effort which would lower the pressure for the US to do so. Further if you have a similar political progression to OTL then the trend will be less to confront the Russians but more to cooperate which would trend towards any 1980s Mars effort being based on a joint mission which frankly is not to the Soviet advantage. Most likely both sides would drag their feet pushing the actual mission into the 1990s and beyond even before Reagan arrives on the scene and likely cancels all cooperation and sends NASA back to square one.
If Vietnam isn't as much of a 'thing' as OTL, (quite possible if Nixon wins over Kennedy in 1960) there might probably be less time pressure on the Lunar goal because Nixon isn't as obligated to make a bold statement as Kennedy was. On the other hand we might have Cuba instead of Vietnam given Nixon's focus and funding might still be an issue. Even without a war on the US plate the President DOES have to stand up to the Russian lead in the space race so we can assume the Moon will be on the table. Sputnik and Gagarin would have made it inevitable that the US would need a clear goal that was obviously beyond the Soviets ability to do with what they had on hand.
One thing to consider is if the US had been the first to put a man in space with Alan Sheppard's suborbital flight which almost happened OTL. While it would reduce the political pressure to "do" something it was also very obviously a "lesser" achievement than Gagarin's orbital flight. Even when Glenn flies into orbit Mercury is obviously less capable than Vostok and this will be showcased as the Russians move to two man flights and space walks. Keep in mind that Gemini was an interim program designed to bridge the capability gap between the "actual" programs of Mercury and Apollo. If the Soviets are more or less as willing to move ahead as OTL then both they and the US might slow the pace as they move from the first generation space vehicles to the next being in this case orbital versions of Soyuz and Apollo and a general cooling off of the overall race itself.
But the OP suggests the Lunar goal is on the table so that obviously happens, (and it could as easily have come from Nixon as it did from Kennedy) but funding and support for Apollo itself had been falling since around 1965 and by 1968/69 Congress had already denied funding for more Saturn's or Apollo spacecraft so your "POD" has to happen before somewhere around 1965. And keeping the Space Race "hot" enough to push a Mars mission is questionable itself.
While achievements in space had been a prestige enhancement in the late 50s and early 60s by the mid-60s being 'first in space' was a lot less obviously a show of a nations "superiority" compared to more 'tangible' and 'real-world' achievements on Earth. The Soviet Union had shocked and frightened the world with their early achievements but once the US had the Saturn-1 and Saturn-V the field appeared much more even and attention focused on more Earth-bound issues. Politics and earthly moves in the Cold War held much more interest to the majority of the public and governments so that once there was any excuse to begin lowering the commitment of funding and effort towards the space program became available reductions began.
This is one of the hardest things for most space advocates to understand even today, most people have only a small interest in space and activities there. Since neither significantly impacts their lives, (even though it arguably does so much more today than in the past) directly there are always other priorities to consider. It was why once "space" had to take an equal place among the other requirements and priorities it has consistently never been as high as during Apollo. To change that requires much more than just the Space Race staying "hot" but includes a personal stake for a much higher percentage of the public, a realistic expectation that they themselves could go, cheap access to space and a compelling reason for continued higher public and governmental interest.
Sparky42 wrote:
If the space race did stay hot and Mars ended up as the goal, given the cost could you see the US trying to expand it to a "Western" space program to spread the costs? An IMM rather than an ISS (obliviously without the Russian involvement)?
One would think so, in fact that was an assumption for a long time but integration and cooperation has a cost as well and often it's higher than going it alone. I would assume we'd see some 'inclusion' of other Western nations for bits and pieces but as they'd not have major inclusion they would be disinclined to invest heavily in the project. Then again the late-60s and early-70s saw a thawing of the Cold War and a joint Mars program would appeal in such a case. However the USSR had always had more to "lose" with the close examination such cooperation would require so it is questionable if they'd agree to actually undertake such a mission. The and the US would probably dabble but put off actual commitment until "later" which probably never comes.
Probably the hardest part of the scenario to achieve is getting the US to commit to a Mars mission as it was always clear the Lunar mission would be a hugely expensive and resource intensive goal in and of itself. Anything beyond that would be massively more so, requiring equally more support and requirement. And they just weren't really there.
To review the points that had brought the US and Kennedy specifically, but Nixon would be in a similar situation, to the point of considering sending men to the Moon when at that point we hadn't even flown one in space. First there was the loss of China to the Communists, followed by the Russian's getting the bomb, then Korea which showed how unprepared the US was to confront a "minor" Communist power let alone the main ones, then the Soviets put up Sputnik and our own 'effort' blew up on the pad live on TV, and finally Gagarin. Arguably most of what the Soviets were doing was pretty limited but in truth the US was actually behind and would not be able to catch up for at least a few more years during which the Soviets would continue to hold the attention of the world. The thing was the US WAS going to catch up and probably surpass the Soviets very soon not only in actual missile capability and probably orbital lift capacity with the Saturn-1. Apollo, still in the planning stages, is going to have far more capability and utility than either Mercury, (an admitted "test" vehicle rather than an operational one) or Vostock but was years away at best.
So the US needed to do "something" to show the world it was not behind the Soviets in science and technology and though Kennedy thought long and hard about adopting a non-space related goal in the end it had to be a direct competition with the Soviets in space. Mercury was too small to cram more people into it and it was very limited by design. A space station was possible with the Saturn-1 to lift it but that was something the Soviets could easily counter by orbital assembly of smaller components. So the Moon looked to be the only goal where the ability of the US to harness industry, resources and finances would be sufficient to achieve it before the Soviets could.
Randy