German Rockets, British Astronauts.

I was browsing the BBC when I came upon a very interesting atricle detailing British contributions to the space race. One section in particular stood out to me, stating:

“The design was totally practical,” says space historian and editor of Spaceflight magazine David Baker, who has studied the Megaroc designs. “All the technology existed and it could have been achieved within three to five years.”
Baker, who was trained on V2 technology in the States and has spent most of his career as a Nasa engineer working on the Space Shuttle programme, says Megaroc was 10 years ahead of its time. “By 1951 Britain could have been routinely putting people into space on a ballistic trajectory,” he says.
Nuclear, not rockets
Smith submitted his spacecraft design to the British government’s Ministry of Supply in December 1946 but a few months later it was rejected. Smith abandoned the project, moving on to design spaceplanes and giant orbiting space stations.
Despite its head start with Operation Backfire, Britain decided to abandon V2 tech and focus its limited research resources instead on aviation and nuclear technology.
In an alternate reality, where the Ministry of Supply had said yes, the world’s first astronaut could have been British.
I propose this: What if the Ministry of Supply or whatever Ministry was responsible decided to cut funds from another project (lets say nuclear) in favour of rocketry? What realistic developments do you think we could see? Would it be a money sink? A waste of time? Or perhaps a success?

Your opinions, please :)

Here is some side reading for any interested.
 
Last edited:
I've sort of expressed my opinions the first time this article came up, in these two threads. The US Redstone was basically the same thing, and came into testing by about the schedule they're talking about. It took longer to be fully operational, and this and without a nuclear warhead the missiles wouldn't have much military value--a lot of pounds spent to very little practical effect. It also wouldn't lead to a vehicle capable of reaching orbit, so the result is that the UK would be very rapidly lapped by the US or Soviets, and would spend a lot of money doing it.
 
I propose this: What if the Ministry of Supply or whatever Ministry was responsible decided to cut funds from another project (lets say nuclear) in favour of rocketry? What realistic developments do you think we could see? Would it be a money sink? A waste of time? Or perhaps a success?

Your opinions, please :)

The only real place it can be cut is nuclear development, so for this to happen either:

a) Ernest Bevin has to not be Foreign Secretary
b) Ernest Bevin has to be less pissed off when he goes into the big meeting

since it was his voice that got an atomic bomb made on grounds of cost, memorably stating: "I don't want any other Foreign Secretary of this country to be talked at or to by the Secretary of State of the US as I have just been... We've got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs ... We've got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it."

This is an easy POD as Attlee was originally going to make Bevin the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Hugh Dalton, who though the bomb cost too much, the Foreign Secretary. (This changes a LOT more than just nuclear weapons too!) You would then need the Attlee government to be convinced space rockets are a good use of money when the ultimate weapon of war, at a time when the USSR is near the gates, is not. That could be doable for Megaroc's use as a spy weapon (as mentioned at your original article) and for the sheer fist-pumping glory of an exhausted Empire getting to say "LOOK WHAT WE DID". Expect a really British name for the rocket. "HMR Beagle", let's say.

I don't believe we'd have much money to send up more than a handful of Beagles though. Eventually, even if we badgered the rest of the Commonwealth to chuck in a few bob, we'd have to "put it on hiatus" and the Soviets and Americans, with a fire lit under them, would be catching up fast. The scientific knowledge would be good, the spying work would be very good for us, and things like Dan Dare would be even bigger, but I think we'd be eclipsed soon. After that, we'd either start partnering with NASA or - rather than be the junior partner - partner with people like France, so we can be the senior figure to make up for needing their cash to keep going. If the second article is correct about the moon landing being dependent on a British man's fuel cell designs though... well, better hope an American can figure out a way too or the moon landing will be long delayed despite the space race being earlier!

Putting the first man into space would be a massive boost for the Attlee government though. Labour only narrowly lost in 1951: putting a man in space that year, they'll romp home.
 
Harry E Ross and R.A. Smith proposal was costly, the V2 had be heavy modified, capsule installed
had they taken standard V2 and only works on capsule and rescue system, it would have a lot cheaper for Ernest Bevin

megaroc.jpg

Megaroc

megarocflight.jpg

flight profile
 
I don't know how much of Megaroc could have been paid for with the money saved from these projects, but it would be a start:

-Bristol Brabazon
-Saunders Roe Princess
-All the rocket powered fighters (Avro 720, S.R.53 and S.R.177) and their engines.

IIRC about £15 million was spent on the Brabazona and Princess, which was the same as the building cost of the aircraft carrier Eagle completed in 1951.

As the engineers at Saunders Roe and the rocket engine department of Armstrong-Siddeley now have nothing to do it would be logical to give development of Megaroc to them.

It would also be logical to give development of Megaroc to them as these were the firms that built Black Knight and Black Arrow.

Did the BIS and Kenneth Gatland have any input into Megaroc? I haven't read the article.
 
Last edited:
What's the point?

Nuclear was a no-brainer at the time. If you're talking power, it was supposed to produce electricity 'too cheap to meter'. If you're talking weapons, it was the only way to deter the Soviets.

A manned rocket gets what? A huge expenditure of money, and no economic or strategic benefit.

WHY would Britain have done this?
 
Top