How would the space race be under Nixon?

If Nixon won 1960, how would the space race go? Does the US still land on the moon? Do the Soviets get there first? What year would the first lunar mission be? How does NASA develop under Nixon being the 35th President?
 
I doubt it would have happened as early as it did, but it still would have happened. The Apollo Project was around before Kennedy got elected. Who knows, if there's no Cuban Missile Crisis it might turn into a joint project. But the US was already pulling ahead technologically.
 
I doubt it would have happened as early as it did, but it still would have happened. The Apollo Project was around before Kennedy got elected. Who knows, if there's no Cuban Missile Crisis it might turn into a joint project. But the US was already pulling ahead technologically.

The Big difference is that Nixon didn't run on the "missile gap." A 1961 President Nixon, likely has NASA and Military continue with the existing programs (with a information campaign to inform the public "we are doing something...", Projects, APOLLO and Project MERCURY (successor to the Air Force's "Man In Space Soonest"), with more (not a lot more) money, if the Democrat controlled Congress goes along.... There'd still be the media reaction (likely less), and but a the Nixon Administration wouldn't have the same pressure to "go big....
 
The_Russian wrote:
If Nixon won 1960, how would the space race go? Does the US still land on the moon? Do the Soviets get there first? What year would the first lunar mission be? How does NASA develop under Nixon being the 35th President?

The key question is does everything ELSE go as per OTL and that in and of itself is questionable. “Apollo” as the manned spaceflight effort after Mercury was already in planning though it was to be mostly orbital with some around the Moon utility built in. There was no plans for anything like Gemini at this point.

First of all it is likely that the invasion of Cuba is different though I’m seeing mixed results for when and who changed the initial landing site and why. Nixon as he was one of the original planners is likely to be more willing to send in US assets if things go wrong though I should note the original plan that he and Eisenhower approved called for a landing in a place where the forces could go to ground in the mountains should things turn bad. However as I noted the planning seems to have changed prior to the election and may in fact have been changed to the more risky “Bay of Pigs” by the CIA in order to increase the chance of failure and attempt to force US intervention. (This despite both Eisenhower and Nixon being adamant that any outcome should be plausible for the US to deny which direct intervention would not allow)

No “Bay of Pigs” disaster hanging around his neck, (either he intervenes, it goes better than OTL and/or the rebels can retreat into the mountains) and there is less political pressure for Nixon to “match” the Soviets in space. (Note if the US invades Cuba to support the “rebels” or if they escape into the mountains this butterflies away the Cuban Missile Crisis since there is no ‘good’ reason for the Soviets to put missiles there)

I don’t know that Nixon had the same issues with Von Braun that Eisenhower did but Nixon might be willing to ‘push’ Von Braun on getting Alan Sheppard into space first. So that unlike OTL where Von Braun asked for another test flight after MR-2 had issues during its flight. Had Sheppard flown a suborbital hop in March or early April before Gagarin on 12 April 1961 that also would have reduced the political pressure for the US to “do” something in response to the Soviet space efforts.

Despite being a ‘suborbital’ as compared to ‘orbital’ flight of Vostok, Mercury was a significant flight which demonstrated such things as full pilot control and capsule orientation maneuverability which Vostok could not do and the US would play this to the hilt. (Note that while Vostok had manual controls they were locked for the mission due to medical concerns about the Cosmonauts ability to function in free-fall. Gagarin had been given the codes to unlock them but was instructed not to do so unless told to by ground command or a loss of communications)

You’d see a much less ‘high-pressure’ political/public need to be seen doing something ‘significant’ to beat the Soviets in such a case so it’s highly unlikely you’d see the “Moon Race” we know of from OTL. Without that pressure and without having to commit to anything like OTL Lunar program then both the US and USSR will continue to slowly but steadily make progress on the Space Race in general.

As it is the USSR will still gain more than a few ‘firsts’ along the way, (duration, number of people in orbit, etc) but without the requirements of the OTL Lunar Program it is likely that Apollo is the next US manned spaceflight vehicle with all that implies for delays and missions. (Similar to how Soyuz was the follow-on to Vostok. Since Mercury is unable to be used in an expanded manner as Vostok became Voshkod the US will either have to do more Mercury missions or wait for Apollo to be ready)

As such it is unlikely you will see a circum-Lunar flight before the early 70s. The US will likely put up the first “space station” using the Saturn-1 launch vehicle, (while they had the ‘payload’ lead on the USSR) using the Apollo-X/XX/SLA laboratory concepts. (https://www.history.nasa.gov/SP-4225/documentation/early-station/early.htm,http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/File:SLAWorkshop.png, www.oldrocketforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=24346) And without the Lunar goal (in under a decade) it is unlikely you’d see either the Saturn-V or the N1 (or other ‘super-booster’ designs) getting built. So any Lunar orbital or landing mission may not happen until the 80s if at all. (Any such missions will require Earth orbital assembly of such a mission to allow the use of smaller boosters which would be the ‘standard’ in TTL)

Randy
 
Stevej713 wrote:
I doubt it would have happened as early as it did, but it still would have happened. The Apollo Project was around before Kennedy got elected. Who knows, if there's no Cuban Missile Crisis it might turn into a joint project. But the US was already pulling ahead technologically.

Yes the US was in fact pulling ahead technologically and the USSR was aware of this fact. They also knew they could not ‘win’ a straight up contest with the US in technology but like the US they underestimated the PR value of gaining technological space ‘firsts’ as a means. So they devoted a good amount of effort to gaining as many ‘firsts’ as possible with as little effort as possible. In other words the majority of the Soviet ‘firsts’ in space were “low hanging fruit” they could gather with minimum effort and costs but they were hesitant to put more effort and resources into keeping such a ‘race’ going. This is why they did not take the US declaration of going to the Moon seriously as they expected the US was going to hesitate to spend the needed resources and effort just as they would. The Soviets have no real incentive to enter into a ‘joint’ mission with the US to go to the Moon as doing so would reveal how far behind the US they actually are in space technology and science. If things run similar to OTL then the early 70s would see a bit of thawing in the Cold War and the first feelers being put out towards cooperation in space between the US and USSR. (This took Nixon and Kissinger to work out OTL and similar personalities on the Soviet side)

And it took a lot of work to pull off JUST a ‘docking’ in orbit OTL (Apollo-Soyuz) though I’d imagine it might be easier to pull off TTL given both the US and USSR will both have small “space stations” in orbit. (Salyut and SLA/MORL)

Something to think about on “No Cuban Missile Crisis” is that putting missiles in Cuba was a marginal decision by Khrushchev. He’d been hesitant about deploying nuclear weapons so far away from Russia but did so since the US was deploying IRBM missiles in Turkey and Italy. If Cuba had active ‘rebels’ as a security risk they probably would not have deployed the missiles there at all. It also complicates moving Cuba under the Soviet missile/nuclear umbrella. More likely, as both Eisenhower and Nixon saw deployment of the IRBM’s as useless and complicated, Nixon would find a way to ‘trade’ them away sooner thereby gaining diplomatic points early in his Presidency.

Randy
 
WCDouglas wrote:
The Big difference is that Nixon didn't run on the "missile gap."

No he didn’t but it’s still a ‘valid’ issue as far as the American voter is concerned and likely the Democrats won’t let it go after the election either. LBJ would likely be Majority leader again and running the Senate and I doubt either he nor Nixon will forget, (or forgive) the election. And he’ll likely still head the “Preparedness” committee and keep pushing the “Missile Gap” as long as possible.

A 1961 President Nixon, likely has NASA and Military continue with the existing programs (with a information campaign to inform the public "we are doing something...", Projects, APOLLO and Project MERCURY (successor to the Air Force's "Man In Space Soonest"), with more (not a lot more) money, if the Democrat controlled Congress goes along.... There'd still be the media reaction (likely less), and but a the Nixon Administration wouldn't have the same pressure to "go big....

Well Mercury was already going on and as I noted above had things been only a little different, (Ham’s MR-2 flight gone smoother or Von Braun been ‘convinced’ by higher pressure to launch Sheppard “on-time”) the US would have racked up a clear ‘first’ (suborbital yes but still “space”) and so pressure to do “something” will be almost non-existent. (Mind you Johnson will still be making a lot of media hay over the whole situation and pushing for more but I don’t see the Lunar goal being on the table under the circumstances)

Randy
 
I agree it's still a issue, just not to the level it was under JFK, (OTL, I believe some that was in JFK's head, being the "young" President and the having campaigned on the "missile gap....") and President Nixon is in better position to "assure" the public that the Soviet manned mission does be we're behind were it counts. Also agree the Congressional (Democratic) leadership will try to use it, put it will look a lot more partisan and they may back themselves into a corner, support the President Nixon's plans (assuming Nixon goes for more money (accelerated programs) for MERCURY and APOLLO), or "be the men who ceded space to Soviets....").

So still tough/bad for President Nixon, just not the levels of the Real World.
 
I agree it's still a issue, just not to the level it was under JFK, (OTL, I believe some that was in JFK's head, being the "young" President and the having campaigned on the "missile gap....") and President Nixon is in better position to "assure" the public that the Soviet manned mission does be we're behind were it counts. Also agree the Congressional (Democratic) leadership will try to use it, put it will look a lot more partisan and they may back themselves into a corner, support the President Nixon's plans (assuming Nixon goes for more money (accelerated programs) for MERCURY and APOLLO), or "be the men who ceded space to Soviets....").

So still tough/bad for President Nixon, just not the levels of the Real World.

Along these lines I'll note one needs to also keep in mind how many 'firsts' came through the Gemini program which in TTL would be delayed until Apollo flew and how that would effect things. Soyuz flew in 1966 (unmanned, manned in 1967 bu that was a failure) while due to Apollo-1 OTL Apollo didn't fly manned till 1968. One could argue that without the Lunar goal pressure Apollo-1 might not happen but keep in mind that due to the inherent capability of Vostok over Mercury the Soviets still appeared "ahead" by flying multiple people in orbit (Vostok) and in the same spacecraft (Voskhod) before the Americans would so there would still be pressure to get Apollo flying.

And it might be more open to question WHICH Apollo gets built under the circumstances. North American Aviation's Apollo design was not in fact the 'winner' of the Apollo competition but Martin's design (http://www.astronautix.com/a/apollomartin410.html, https://falsesteps.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/the-martin-410-apollo-of-santa-ana/) and everyone was surprised that the NAA design had been chosen instead. MSC's Max Faget and Jim Chamberlin had worked closely with NAA to tailor its proposal towards the standardized 'capsule' they wanted but it was mostly due to MSC having designed the successful, (if only a few flights by that time) Mercury and follow-on Gemini capsules that had set the 'standard' for US capsules.

Therefor working so closely with the office that would make the decision on who actually would build Apollo NAA had learned from missing the "MISS" (Mercury) contract who to cater to to win Apollo. Of the three entries only the NAA design kept to the outline of what NASA (MSC specifically, Faget and Chamberlin actually) wanted rather than what they SAID they wanted. (Very much similar to the later Orbital Spaceplane Program would arrive at a "capsule" shape despite supposedly being about designing a "spaceplane" spacecraft) NAA designed a straight-up capsule, GE offered a larger volume capsule, ("headlight") and a forward "Mission Module" where as the Martin base-line design is an M1 lifting body shape with an aft mounted "Mission Module" and Service module. (http://www.astronautix.com/a/apollocsm.html)

McDonnell, the builder of the Mercury capsule was not considered for the Apollo program because it was, OTL, busy designing and building the Gemini capsule. They may have a different design TTL but likely it would follow the pattern of the other contractors and not adhere directly to the MSC specifications. In all the main reason the NAA design was chosen OTL was due to working so closely with MSC and adhering to a strict capsule only concept. What the other concepts had was actually more appropriate for an "Apollo" program that was not solely focused on the Lunar landing goal as OTL's program was and this is important.

"Apollo" initially was conceived as a "work-horse" spacecraft with a major orbital mission with "some" applicability to later Trans-Lunar flights. Therefore things like on-orbit capability, (reflected by the inclusion of "Mission Modules" in most designs) crew capacity, (reflected by the larger GE and Martin Command Module sizes) and future capability (reflected by the Martin lifting body and GE "headlight" design) were initially primary concerns. On the other hand mass was also important which reflected the US's "low" payload to orbit capability of the assumed launch vehicle, (Saturn-1/1B) so by making their designs 'modular' it was hoped they could be reduced, (or increased) as time went on. (This proved reasonable since even the NAA Apollo CM ended up 'over-weight' from the design specifications)

Arguably with no clear "Lunar" goal to work towards a lot of the mitigating factors, (and MSC oversight) may be less viable than OTL and these other designs may have a better chance to see the light of day.

Randy
 
Nixon as President in 1968 no care much about Space Program, Apollo was success, USSR never landed a Cosmonaut on moon.
but there other problem like Vietnam War were Nixon had to deal with, it took almost 5 years until He made a decision: the Space Shuttle.

Nixon in 1960 President has other bunch of challenge
Cuba, Berlin Wall Crisis, "the issue with Vietnam", the Soviet success in Space.
but here could things go a very different path

NASA had project Mercury to bring US pilot into space and Apollo a three man space ship with laboratory in service module, that had serve in Low orbit and conduct if needed lunar flyby mission.
USAF had Project Dyna Soar a Glider who original had to serve as Bomber-reconnaissance space plane.
and most notorious project Orion in form of USAF "Space Battleships" with each with 1500 nuclear warheads in very high orbit around Earth, ready to annihilate the USSR in case of War.

The Kennedy Administration killed Project Orion and Dyna Soar, the XB-70 and Apollo transformed into form we know and loved.
I guess under Nixon this would be different, Apollo is build like planed with option to launch it around the Moon in second half of 1960s with earth orbital rendezvous.
USAF would have still Dyna Soar program water down to X-20 research space plane, with option of "Manned Anti satellite weapon"
I have no Idea how president Nixon will react on SAC presentation of USAF "Space Battleships", what scared the hell out JFK and McNamara...
 
Nixon as President in 1968 no care much about Space Program, Apollo was success, USSR never landed a Cosmonaut on moon.
but there other problem like Vietnam War were Nixon had to deal with, it took almost 5 years until He made a decision: the Space Shuttle.

Nixon in 1960 President has other bunch of challenge
Cuba, Berlin Wall Crisis, "the issue with Vietnam", the Soviet success in Space.
but here could things go a very different path

NASA had project Mercury to bring US pilot into space and Apollo a three man space ship with laboratory in service module, that had serve in Low orbit and conduct if needed lunar flyby mission.
USAF had Project Dyna Soar a Glider who original had to serve as Bomber-reconnaissance space plane.
and most notorious project Orion in form of USAF "Space Battleships" with each with 1500 nuclear warheads in very high orbit around Earth, ready to annihilate the USSR in case of War.

The Kennedy Administration killed Project Orion and Dyna Soar, the XB-70 and Apollo transformed into form we know and loved.
I guess under Nixon this would be different, Apollo is build like planed with option to launch it around the Moon in second half of 1960s with earth orbital rendezvous.
USAF would have still Dyna Soar program water down to X-20 research space plane, with option of "Manned Anti satellite weapon"
I have no Idea how president Nixon will react on SAC presentation of USAF "Space Battleships", what scared the hell out JFK and McNamara...

The "battleship" didn't scare them half as much as the "1500" nuclear warheads. (Really only 500 as the other 1000 were propulsion bombs but...) The main question would be would Nixon stick to the Eisenhower/Truman logic of inflexible response of the USAF and nuclear weapons? Orion was really all about making nuclear weapons by the thousands per year on an economic basis. Dyna-Soar was about reconnaissance and quick strike capability not really a "spaceplane" other than a side-line. (And far and away from the supposed "research" vehicle the "X" designation implied and everyone knew it) Meanwhile the XB-70 was not seen as really viable even by Eisenhower and on-again/off-again supported by the Air Force. And Nixon comes in from a position of giving the Air Force what it wants and starving the Navy and Army yet expecting them to fight soon either in Cuba or Europe and maybe Asia. It's mostly a budget call on what gets built and what doesn't.

Assuming the same circumstances Nixon would still be under a lot of pressure to push NASA for a clear 'win' against the Russians so the Moon is still on the table but "how" is more of a question because he won't want to be seen ot be backed into a corner. Mercury is just not going to cut it and doing anything orbital if it has to wait for Apollo is going to give the Soviets far to much lead time. Gemini is still possible but if there is no "Lunar" goal it can and will take resources from Apollo with all that implies. The X-20 was clearly not going to be "just" a research vehicle but really that's where it would have been by the mid-60s and knowing what we do now it may not have worked all that well in any case. (The X-3 is a lesson here) And we'd have to assume that NASA is going to be just as resistant (as is the Air Force) to sharing the project, one that competes directly with the Apollo design. Finally the Orion "Battleship" was specifically to pitch a "Deep Space Deterrent Force" on par with the Navy's Polaris Submarine force. In fact the Air Force was quite willing to put a significant amount of their budget towards such a force, (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2714/1) but keep in mind that very much means those monies will then NOT be available for something they were OTL such as interceptor and ground attack aircraft. And frankly the main question Nixon has to answer is he willing to toss aside any possibility of nuclear arms control because building Orion propulsion units makes building nuclear weapons VERY economic in mass numbers and the Soviets can NOT ignore that fact. THAT was what scared Kennedy and McNamara more than anything.

Randy
 
Top