Notsure wrote:
What if the United States had pushed hard on developing rocketry from the 20's on? Where would the US be by the time of WW2?
There would have to be a major change in attitude towards “rocket” propulsion was not considered a very ‘viable’ propulsion system. Keep in mind the ONLY reason Germany put ANY significant money, (hundreds of millions in terms of today’s money) was they saw it as a way around the Versailles Treaty restrictions on standard artillery. By the time war actually broke out funding had been reduced because artillery re-armament had already been on-going. The US had no such restrictions or reason to pursue high powered rockets of any type.
Is it feasible that by 1945, missile subs could be prowling the waters of Japan?
Not really. Submarines carried missiles had many problem before SLBM was perfected using solid fuel and inertial guidance systems.
What about rocket assisted airplane take offs from carriers?
Both the GALCIT, (Von Karman, Parsons, etc) and Goddard were given large contracts in the late 30s and early 40 to develop “JATO” take-off units and had tested and demonstrated them by the time the US entered WWII. The former had developed several solid propellant JATO units and the latter a fully throttling liquid propellant unit that could have been deployed but their utility and questionable operability ship board precluded their use. (Not to mention taking up space that could be “better” utilized by storing more munitions)
Earlier than 1918? You did know Goddard under US Army contract developed the “rocket-propelled-shell” for trench and bunker busting but it was not pursued by the Army and then all contracts were canceled at the end of WWI. Further all Goddard’s work was confiscated and he was forbidden from working on “small, solid rockets capable of propelling high explosive charges” till the mid-20s. (There was a reason it took a NAVY contract and a LOT of convincing to bring him back to work for the US government
) The main reason the ‘bazooka’ was not ready from the start of WWII was the need to develop an armor penetrating warhead NOT the launcher or rocket itself.
Air to ground ROCKET as those don’t use guidance systems, missiles do. (Technical nitpick
) The delay here was the low technical state of solid propellant till the early 40s when better solid fuel mixes and casting techniques were available.
Can the US put a satellite up by 1950?
Arguably, yes but the main question isn’t just the satellite (mass) itself but both the political and social environment at the time. The US OTL was deep into rocket and missile design in the late 40s but budget cuts and social/political movement away from their development, (the very influential Von Karman report “Towards New Horizon’s” recommended air-breathing cruise missiles as an extension of known aircraft development and the development of supersonic manned bombers as the primary means of atomic bomb delivery) all combined with a social attitude that ‘rockets’ and missiles for general use were “Buck Rodgers” stuff not to be taken TOO seriously right up until the Soviets put up Sputnik. Truman was all about ‘normalizing’ the US budget which meant huge cutbacks in military funding. Further his belief that ONLY the US Air Force and the Atomic Bomb were really needed for future US military needs, (in fact his Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson flat out said the US Navy was obsolete and both they and the Marines would be shut down ‘soon” right before Korea kicked off) and that the rest of the military could be reduced to pre-WWII levels of below. Eisenhower wasn’t much better once Korea was over he also reduced military spending and while not directly responsible for the decision was very influential with the panel that chose who would launch the first US satellite.
He made it clear he didn’t like the idea of “that damn ex-Nazi” getting the job, nor did he want to the project to be a strictly “military” show. Since the only marginally “civilian” project that could do the job, the US Navy Research Laboratory, (nominally a mixed military-civilian organization), was left as the only ‘viable’ choice under the guidelines given…
Von Braun and the Army’s “Project Orbiter” was the only program to use off-the-shelf, already proven parts while the Navy’s “Vanguard” used an existing booster, (albeit a heavily modified “Viking” sounding rocket) all its upper stages were new build. The Air Force meanwhile still hadn’t even BUILT it’s Atlas missile launch
Randy