Militarised US space programme

Thande

Donor
Although the US military was never quite detached from the American space programme, of course the bulk of it was and is handled by a civilian agency, NASA. In many ways, though, this is a historical anomaly, and can perhaps be traced due to the embarrassing failures of several early launches under the auspices of the armed forces, such as the Vanguard programme and the Able space probes (the early Pioneers).

What if these hadn't been so unsuccessful? A POD for this might be that the Soviets' Sputnik fails and they don't get a satellite into orbit for another few months or a year, thus preventing the panicked rush of the Americans to try and match it, and leading to further refinement of those projects.

What would the space race be like if the American end of it had been dominated by the armed forces?
 
Well, the entire reason for the civilian space program to Ike was to provide a legitimate cover for the Corona spy program. Even today, the military space budget is about equal to NASA's and NOAA's combined.

I don't think it likely that there would have been military space exploration program. There isn't really much of military interest beyond LEO, and thus any exploration would have been civilian (maybe more or less university-lead). The closest was the proposals to build a nuclear missile base on the Moon invulnerable to first-strike; the ballistic missile submarine killed this ambition. The two semi-serious proposals along this line from circa 1959 were Project Horizon (US Army, designed by von Braun and genesis of the Saturn rockets) and Project Lunex (USAF, used lifting bodies, and rockets larger than the eventual Saturn V).

Simon ;)

refueling.jpg
 

Archibald

Banned
One of my 18 (!) alternate space timelines :) have Nixon president in 1960 and more USAF in space.

There's no lunar landing program; in brief NASA has its Apollo CM around 1966, and use it in a way similar to today's Shuttle, 8 flights a year to a space station.

Something interesting for USAF would be sharing the Saturn program with NASA.

As there's no lunar program I think the Saturn C-3 would be enough.

This mean that USAF manned space program develops in the 60's.
Probably early shuttles, something like enlarged DynaSoars.

I've defined four generations of Shuttles, all with a 30 000 Ib payload.

- 1 A glider launched by a two stage Saturn C-3 (S-IC + S-II)
This would be from 1960 to 1975

- 2 An external tank + 4*J-2 Shuttle on top of the S-IC stage.
The S-IC is reusable : it fall on the sea by parachutes and is recovered.
1975-1990

- 3 A shuttle with internal tank + Annular aerospike J-2s still using the "reusable S-IC" as first stage.
1990-2005
- 4 The same shuttle with smaller, flyback boosters (such as Hu Davis Starbooster) 2005- ?
 
It would help a lot if you killed off (or at least removed from power) Robert McNamarra. He's responsible for killing a number of military space programs (the DynaSoar in particular) during his reign of terror.:mad:
 

Archibald

Banned
The Space launching system and lunex - USAF to the Moon! :)

It seemed that Lunex was much too ambitious, but the smaller rocket - Phoenix 388- is more interesting.
Sadly it was rejected in favor of the Titan III in late 1961.

A mistake, the Phoenix had much more growth potential... big SRB + J-2 upper stage...
 
next to LUNEX and HORIZON
were also USAF Orion (Nuclear Puls engine) Nuclear weapon platform
outside Lunar orbit, in case of War they go low earth orbit and drop Nukes

(also idea was Orion "Doomsday" with a very very very big H-Bomb)

Blue Gemini

manned spysat
Low latitude earth surface photography with one Man for 7 day mission
the "right hand" Seat is replace by A unpressurized camera system the Crew comparment is Sealed from camera.

fighter
Gemini with Transtage (from Titan III)
equit with Rockets and guns

they check enermy sats and destroy them if nessary

US military would have also Nuclear weapon test on moon !
the no use of Nuclear weapon in space killt that idea

in 1970s the USAF play with Idea to install the MX-Icbm on moon

and of curse SDI in 1980s

if you wanted so a TL in 1960
get lost of Robert McNamarra
during his reign of terror he killt alot important Prgramms
like Dyna Soar, Blue Gemini etc...
 
It would help a lot if you killed off (or at least removed from power) Robert McNamarra. He's responsible for killing a number of military space programs (the DynaSoar in particular) during his reign of terror.:mad:

More like he's the one who finally brought the ax down on various wastes of money that developed a cult following.
 
Militarized space and the USN

I have been following this thread with interest. WI the US Navy had bee more heavily involved in the militarization and exploration of space? WI the USAF
stays as the USAAF and the USN takes a more active role. This thread might be combined with another recent thread about a more surface missile reliant navy. I know the USN experimented with some water launched systems like
"Sea Horse." Maybe the USN wants to keep better tabs on Soviet shipping so they look into manned spystations like the MOL and then eventually spy satellites. They might begin science programs as acover but eventually the science/exploration programs become part of the "space race."
 
More like he's the one who finally brought the ax down on various wastes of money that developed a cult following.

In some case yes, he killed questionable programs. Unforunately he also killed a lot of research and development, McNamarra didn't scale back, or reduce programs he kill everything associated with them, and especially any additionally R&D. Example, he was right about the XB-70 being not ready for operations then if ever, BUT canned the whole program. There were USAF and NASA folk who wanted to scale back the progam to X-Program status.

Basically, SECDEF McNamarra brought the 1950s Detroit mentality to DOD, (1) if it didn't roll out of the plant running fine day one, if was a failure CANX it. (3) Plus the bean-counter only approach to decisions, missle cheaper than bombers? Bomber gone missle only, who care that bombers have other missions in additon to STRATCOM. Navy and USAF have differnt requirements for a fighter who cares, everyone uses the same type of sedans and who needs competiton anyway. (3) Finally the lack of interest in R&D period, V-8 had worked for year, who need new jet engines...

BTW, one of these example is an actual McNamarra quote.
 
Well, US military does currently dominate space...

I doubt much different... just a slower program, SKYLAB first, etc...

If your thinking of a "manned" 1950's SCIFI style military program your POD needs to include either something that gives the US relatively inexpensive, safe, rapid orbit lifting capibility early 59 or 60 or you need to retard the development of electronics.

What ended a major manned/very visibal military program was techonlogy (with help from SECDEF McNamarra but less than he is blamed or credited for). The techonlogy advanced faster than the manned systems, by the time you have a good enough launcher and manned vehicle, you don't need man or "big" stations and ships to do the things done in space (recon, comms, early warning, GPS, Weather OBS). Even engaging (ie destroying) the adversies SATS is easier done from the ground, at least for the US.
 
In some case yes, he killed questionable programs. Unforunately he also killed a lot of research and development, McNamarra didn't scale back, or reduce programs he kill everything associated with them, and especially any additionally R&D. Example, he was right about the XB-70 being not ready for operations then if ever, BUT canned the whole program. There were USAF and NASA folk who wanted to scale back the progam to X-Program status.

It was already at X-program status and it wasn't entirely canned, AV-1 went off for more flight research at NASA. Restarting production for AV-3 would have been far more expensive than it was worth and the Valkyrie wasn't worth having as anymore than what it historically was. For what its worth, Kennedy and McNamara actually had a larger XB-70 program than Eisenhower had reduced it to.

Basically, SECDEF McNamarra brought the 1950s Detroit mentality to DOD, (1) if it didn't roll out of the plant running fine day one, if was a failure CANX it.

Weapons systems that are brought into service inoperative are failures.

(3) Plus the bean-counter only approach to decisions, missle cheaper than bombers? Bomber gone missle only, who care that bombers have other missions in additon to STRATCOM.

McNamara didn't scrap SAC's bomber fleet and SAC's bombers didn't have a role other than the SIOP until 1965 with Operation Arc Light. That's when they were finally fitted out and trained for conventional war as well as nuclear.

Navy and USAF have differnt requirements for a fighter who cares, everyone uses the same type of sedans and who needs competiton anyway.

F-111 was definitely a mistake, though the F-111B might have made for a nice attack plane. And while TFX was a failure, forcing the USAF to adopt the F-4 Phantom II and the A-7 Corsair II was definitely a success.

(3) Finally the lack of interest in R&D period, V-8 had worked for year, who need new jet engines...

The F100, which was years ahead of its time, started during McNamara's time. If you're going to criticize him, at least do it correctly.
 
It was already at X-program status and it wasn't entirely canned, (snipped)

I'll have to look at that, much of what I've read, points at McNamara's decision post accident (using the accidnet as an excuse), and ending any hope of following test beds.

Weapons systems that are brought into service inoperative are failures.

I was referencing his reported inability or maybe unwillingness to understand complex cutting edge systems didn't work like the new year's model of a Mustang on day one... As well as the later point of his cost over all other factors approach.

McNamara didn't scrap SAC's bomber fleet and SAC's bombers didn't have a role other than the SIOP until 1965 with Operation Arc Light. That's when they were finally fitted out and trained for conventional war as well as nuclear.

He did end the B-58 without a replacement and opposed deveolpment of replacements for it and the B-48. To be clearer I should have stated, he only saw the nuclear follow on strike role for bombers.

F-111 was definitely a mistake, though the F-111B might have made for a nice attack plane. And while TFX was a failure, forcing the USAF to adopt the F-4 Phantom II and the A-7 Corsair II was definitely a success.

Agree, re F4 and A7 but those were exceptions and short term fixes only. He bascally delayed an entire generation of aircraft development.

The F100, which was years ahead of its time, started during McNamara's time. .

Yes it was, finally. I used V-8 has an auto example, of basic working tech that Detroit didn'y improve, other than powerwise for years. Even to this day, when he isn't blaming Vietnam on others, he still pushes the idea R&D isn't important once a system works. I listen to him argue on a panel (had to, was in a class) that the F-15 and F-14 would be the only figher needed well pass 2050... and that we shouldn't even be tring to develop a next-gen planes because they would fly forever, and no one would make anything better. Much like the F4F Wildcat.

Break, never forget we're all only as good as our primary sources...
 
Bah, it was an old Army rocket that put the US into space with half the effort and a fraction of the cost than the White Elephants that were the Navy and Airforce projects. The Redstone Rocket (which evolved into the Saturn V) was ignored in favor of the Navy and Airforce programs for too long. If US space program stays militarized on the basis of results, it becomes an Army program under Von Braun.

And for a seriously ASB WI, if Congress doesn't demand that most all work be done by over-charging incompetant contractors and let's it remain under Government construction and supervision, many things become much cheaper, smoother, and safer. No Saturn V built around the nation without a single standard blueprint, for example.
 
Top