For want of a V2 (a rocketry WI)

[fasquardon]

The V2 rocket was a terrible weapon system, but a brilliant rocket. All major space launch vehicles ultimately descend from the V2 and the psychological impact of the V2 on the Allies made for a much higher profile for rocketry in the post war world.

So WI the V2 isn't deployed - say either the war ends too (in late 1943 say) early or Hitler never orders the V2 to go into production.

How does American, Soviet, British and French rocketry evolve in the absence of the V2?

I imagine that all the powers would see less investment in rockets as compared to OTL, though my gut feeling is that the Soviets will not be too far behind OTL, since there really isn't any way for them to equal the US bomber fleet and rockets are the only other practical delivery system for their nuclear weapons. Not to mention the whole obsession the Bolsheviks had with the latest technology.

And how much interest would the Allies have in German rocket research if they haven't been on the receiving end of the V2? Would paper clip and its British and Soviet equivalents still have as high an interests in capturing the German rocket research and researchers?

fasquardon

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Depends, does this mean the Germans instead get their rail gun working? What the Wunderwaffe gods take with one hand they have to give with the other

 

[fasquardon]

Depends, does this mean the Germans instead get their rail gun working? What the Wunderwaffe gods take with one hand they have to give with the other

If the Allies are lucky, yes. Alternatively, Germany might do the practical thing and invest the resources in boring fighters.

In any case, given how large the other effects of the potential PoD are, I'd like to focus on what the lack of flying V2s would do. (For those who'd like more background: I originally thought of this WI while thinking about a Stalin being smarter in the first weeks of Barbarossa, resulting in the European war ending in mid-late 1943.)

Thought: Does this effectively end Von Braun's chances of becoming one of the great rocket designers of history, or is his charm and political skill sufficient to ensure he ends up being remembered by history regardless?

fasquardon

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Depends on what work is done, he would still do a ton of theoretical work anyway, but minus the horrific war crimes that came with V-2 production sullying his name/reputation/soul. So though they Allies aren't aware of it and perhaps don't bomb it, Peenemunde then still gives them all the V2 goodies with none of the smoking London rubble. If they do make the rail gun, which was viable as a weapon, they'd just need to make the power plant to actually run it. It would be expensive, but then so was the V2 with less utility. Having an extremely high performance AAA gun in 1944 instead would have been a lot more useful.

 

[Archibald]

As Nasaspaceflight.com experts would tell you, von Braun was NOT that decisive . The V-2 however was important for both Rocketdyne S-3 (Navaho and beyond) and Korolev R-7 R-107/ 108 engines. I think ICBMs are quite unavoidable for the reasons you noted, but they might be delayed by some years.

It should be noted that the definite US ICBMs (Polaris and Minuteman) were solid-fueled, and solid-fuel was largely independant from the V-2. From memory, early work on solid propellant started at JPL, thus was 100% American in origin.

I wish to see a TL where the super cruise missiles (Navaho and Burya) become operational. They would have been amazing flying machines (nothing less than ramjet + rockets + unmanned + intercontinental range)
While Navaho never really worked correctly, Burya had a better start, but ICBMs killed both.

Maybe a mix of solid-fuel boosters with Navaho ?

 

[Workable Goblin]

I imagine that all the powers would see less investment in rockets as compared to OTL, though my gut feeling is that the Soviets will not be too far behind OTL, since there really isn't any way for them to equal the US bomber fleet and rockets are the only other practical delivery system for their nuclear weapons. Not to mention the whole obsession the Bolsheviks had with the latest technology.

The Soviets will indeed not be too far behind OTL; they were already studying long-range rockets before the beginning of the war, though only at a very theoretical level for obvious reasons, and of course they had a galaxy of truly brilliant engineers who were highly interested in the subject. They didn't get all that much from the personnel they captured, but they did benefit from the hardware, particularly in guidance IIRC. Overall, you'd likely see a delay, but most because they're trying to get their missiles to go where they want them to. Certainly by the late 1950s, when it will be obvious that Soviet bombers and cruise missiles aren't going to be effective delivery systems, the missile men will get their day to shine.

I suspect the United States will also not be as far behind OTL as you might think, because the key breakthroughs that made ICBMs practical--precision inertial navigation systems and miniaturized hydrogen bombs--were developed for bombers and cruise missiles, not ICBMs. Before then, everyone could see that you could build an ICBM, it was just that it could not possibly hit a reasonably-sized target area with a bomb big enough to damage it. A considerable amount of underlying research into propulsion was already taking place because of requirements for tactical missiles, and the Navy, certainly, is still going to want something better than cruise missiles (which, at least in the '50s, made the launch platform too vulnerable) and carrier-based bombers (fundamentally limited in size and range) for nuclear weapons deployment. Hence, missiles. If anything, the biggest effect is probably skipping the first-generation kerolox missiles for hypergolics and solids, since the United States had a good home-grown technical base in the latter two fields developed for JATO/RATO and tactical missile applications, but not a lot of experience in cryogenic rockets, and any delays are likely to push the beginning of the first ICBM programs into a range where it won't really make much sense to go for kerolox. Again, I think by the late 1950s or early 1960s, if not a bit earlier, the United States is likely to have begun a major ICBM development program.

Really, the biggest loss here is the loss not of the V-2 per se, but the loss of the engine. That was the crucial part; it really did model rocket engines for everyone for quite a long while afterwards.

 

[Archibald]

The first Soviet ballistic missile (the R-1 that entered service in 1951) was a carbon-copy of the V-2. even with that, development from 1947 was a very troubled affair. I remember reading that the first test in 1947 out of Kapustin Yar went banana and nearly hit the town of Saratov, with a very pissed-off NKVD threatening the rocket scientists.

 

[fasquardon]

Really, the biggest loss here is the loss not of the V-2 per se, but the loss of the engine. That was the crucial part; it really did model rocket engines for everyone for quite a long while afterwards.

So the engine was more important than the example the V2 set of what rockets could do?

Does that mean that if Paperclip and its equivalents go as per OTL and all the Allies end up in possession of the V2's engineers and design drawings that the development of rocketry would go much as OTL?

fasquardon

 

[Obergruppenführer Smith]

So the engine was more important than the example the V2 set of what rockets could do?

The engine was important because scientists knew what rockets could do, but not the best way to do it. For all the waste that the V-2 program resulted in, it did help brute force quite a few problems that a loner like Goddard or the purged researchers in the Soviet Union could not have been doing at the same time.

 

[Workable Goblin]

So the engine was more important than the example the V2 set of what rockets could do?

Does that mean that if Paperclip and its equivalents go as per OTL and all the Allies end up in possession of the V2's engineers and design drawings that the development of rocketry would go much as OTL?

fasquardon

As Smith says, engineers interested in rockets knew that they could be built to have a very long range. The trouble, however, was actually building them, and developing the engines was (and remains) one of the hardest tasks in doing so. Rocket engines have a very tough job, and don't fail gracefully, so it tends to require a lot of trial-and-error or practical experience to do so effectively--and, obviously, the latter didn't exist until the V-2 came around. At least not for engines of that size.

Getting the engineers and design drawings won't much help, because the real benefit of the V-2 engines was the embedded experience in how and how not to build a large rocket engine, which otherwise would simply not have existed. Not that the V-2's engine was perfect--it was heavily improved upon after the war--but it was still more than had previously existed.

 

[fasquardon]

The engine was important because scientists knew what rockets could do, but not the best way to do it.

As Smith says, engineers interested in rockets knew that they could be built to have a very long range.

How important were V2s landing on London in the process of making rockets more interesting to the politicians who could fund the engineers?

Getting the engineers and design drawings won't much help, because the real benefit of the V-2 engines was the embedded experience in how and how not to build a large rocket engine, which otherwise would simply not have existed.

Hmm. Good point.

So a situation where the V2 completes development, but WW2 ends before it can be deployed, would see the V2 being as important to rocketry as it was in OTL?

fasquardon

 

[Obergruppenführer Smith]

How important were V2s landing on London in the process of making rockets more interesting to the politicians who could fund the engineers?

Just enough for the US to start calling Goddard and get Korolev free, but all in all it really was a matter of how early rocket development accelerates, not a matter of it it would accelerate. JPL was founded in 1936.

Hmm. Good point.

So a situation where the V2 completes development, but WW2 ends before it can be deployed, would see the V2 being as important to rocketry as it was in OTL?

fasquardon

Maybe slightly less, since it being deployed contributed to it being developed further.

 

[PSL]

Depends, does this mean the Germans instead get their rail gun working? What the Wunderwaffe gods take with one hand they have to give with the other

What rail gun?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

What rail gun?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#History

In 1944, during World War II, Joachim Hänsler of Germany's Ordnance Office proposed the first theoretically viable railgun.[16] By late 1944, the theory behind his electric anti-aircraft gun had been worked out sufficiently to allow the Luftwaffe's Flak Command to issue a specification, which demanded a muzzle velocity of 2,000 m/s (6,600 ft/s) and a projectile containing 0.5 kg (1.1 lb) of explosive. The guns were to be mounted in batteries of six firing twelve rounds per minute, and it was to fit existing 12.8 cm FlaK 40 mounts. It was never built. When details were discovered after the war it aroused much interest and a more detailed study was done, culminating with a 1947 report which concluded that it was theoretically feasible, but that each gun would need enough power to illuminate half of Chicago.[15]

Based on what I've been able to find they did all the theoretical work and had a working small prototype that was testing and achieved 2000mps firing, but by 1945 they couldn't build one or the electrical equipment to make it work. Having actually had one operating in say 1944 would have enabled it it to hit bombers at any altitude, as it's shells would reach altitude in 2-3 seconds, pretty much point and shoot. Given that the Germans had microwave FLAK radar that was unimpeded by Window in service in 1944 in small numbers they could guide it accurately and shoot up some bomber formations.

 

[PSL]

The politics of peace dictate that it will not happen unless the public feel the fear. VE day in 1943 then VJ day will be earlier maybe before the A Bomb. No A Bomb = no cold war panic & no costly high tech special weapons since the war would have been won by basic arms.

 

[PSL]

Wiking the electric gun is no rail gun, and the problem of power generation would still persist. Higher MV could lead to greater dispersion @ altitude which could defeat its purpose.

No V-2 development could lead to more PGM development , which might mean Wasserfall SAM development instead of V-2.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...

It should be noted that the definite US ICBMs (Polaris and Minuteman) were solid-fueled, and solid-fuel was largely independant from the V-2. From memory, early work on solid propellant started at JPL, thus was 100% American in origin.

What did Goddards previous thirty years work on solid fuels & rocket/missile guidance contribute to this?

 

[That Damned Fool]

Without the V2, what becomes of von Braun? Does he develop the skills that would later make him the foremost rocketman of the Cold War, and the reputation that would persuade the American government to build his designs?

Because if the answer to that is "no," then how does the Apollo program develop? No von Braun almost certainly means no F-1 rocket engine, and no F-1 means no Saturn V. No Saturn V doesn't necessarily mean we don't go to the moon, but without the heavy lift vehicle, we're using Earth orbit rendezvous instead of lunar orbit rendezvous. That may have been better for our space program in the long run, because some of the technologies and procedures that would have had to have been developed for EOR would have been more conducive to true space exploration, rather than the public relations sideshow that was the Apollo program.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Wiking the electric gun is no rail gun, and the problem of power generation would still persist. Higher MV could lead to greater dispersion @ altitude which could defeat its purpose.

No V-2 development could lead to more PGM development , which might mean Wasserfall SAM development instead of V-2.

Call me foolish, but it is listed as the first practical railgun on the railgun article. Sure, power generation is the key issue, doesn't mean the concept didn't work. How would increased MV with an arrow shell lead to greater dispersion at altitude? Given the increased speed it would cut down on dispersion as it could reach the target it was aimed at in 2-3 seconds, which actually means very littler room for dispersion.

Wasserfall could well get more resources as it was effectively a smaller V-2...but it's guidance system was still not practical with WW2 technology.

 

[Workable Goblin]

What did Goddards previous thirty years work on solid fuels & rocket/missile guidance contribute to this?

Basically nothing? Goddard didn't really work on solid rockets as far as I know, he was focused on liquids mostly. Quite rightly, too, because liquids, at the time, could offer interesting performance, whereas solids were still basically black powder or a little bit better, with utterly atrocious specific impulse (and hence performance). The solid work that Archibald is referring to took place at JPL beginning around 1940--maybe a few years earlier, maybe a year or two later--and involved the invention of composite solid propellants that could (eventually) match liquid-fuel ISPs.

How important were V2s landing on London in the process of making rockets more interesting to the politicians who could fund the engineers?

Very little, so far as I can tell. Although they proved that you could build a rocket that could hit a target hundred of miles away, they also proved that the technology of the time just wasn't up to the task of making such rockets useful. The V-2 couldn't lift a nuclear bomb, and even if it could have it wasn't accurate enough (especially if the same techniques were applied to longer ranges) to reliably hit even a large area target. Immediately after the war, most of the interest was either in incrementally improving the V-2 and maybe making something useful out of it--the kind of low-grade R&D everyone works on--or in shorter-ranged missiles. The former kind of work would probably take place anyway, just because it might be useful sometime, and once, as I said, better navigation systems or lighter bombs came about, then you would see heavy investment in the concept.