The Space Race Never Ends

This article in “Comparative Strategy” argues that a driving reason for slowing and ending the momentum of the space race was a series of UN treaties starting in 1967 which declared that all of space was collectively owned by mankind and that space was not to be used for weapons platforms. The logic goes that this stifled the competitive motivation for nations to explore and develop space’s resources if they couldn’t lay national claim to them (a motivation that drove historical exploration and colonization) or use them for defensive purposes.

The first of these treaties actually faced some opposition among Soviet traditionalists, but was ultimately adopted, paving the way for the later treaties.

Let’s suppose that this argument is true and that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty isn’t passed. Either Soviet hardliners win their push against it or some diplomatic scuffle spirals into preventing them from being signed.

Suddenly the tenor of the space race shifts subtly, but deeply.

The 1969 Apollo 13 landing is heralded not as “One giant leap for mankind.”, but “One giant leap for the free people of the world.”

Both the Soviets and U.S. push even harder to realize both the economic and the propaganda potential for space exploration and exploitation. Industrial interests in both lobby for the means to lay claim to near-Earth asteroids for mining. Without treaties against weaponizing space, defense apparatuses push for proto-strategic defense initiatives and orbital weapons platforms. Both governments also eye the moon’s Helium-3 deposits enviously, uncertain whether cold fusion is just around the corner (whether such research ever actually produces results or not.) With the backings of these forces, the space agencies gain more bureaucratic inertia and grow in lobbying power to prevent budget cuts. Both sides in the Cold War continue to fuel public enthusiasm with each new story of their astronauts’/cosmonauts’ exploits. (Most of the early space activities would still be handled by humans as robotics wouldn’t advance sufficiently for some time—and human stories are much more inspiring to the public anyway.)

So the primary issue on which I’d like some feedback is, where would things go from here?


Considerations/Questions:

Technology:

· Another proposed element contributing to the decline of space exploration is that much of the engineering talent that would have gone into the technologies for space exploration instead went into the lucrative and exciting world of computer and software development. If public fascination/funding with space had persisted would this mean more space-oriented engineers but fewer computer engineers—maybe no (or more l`imited) Silicon Valley tech boom and the delayed development of consumer-focused computers/the World Wide Web?

· Conversely, what technologies would be accelerated in their development? Presumably rocket efficiency and aeronautics would be a high R&D priority. Perhaps some of NASA’s spin-off technologies would have come sooner. More pie-in-the-sky, might military funding for space weapons platform technologies allow for development of microwave solar satellites beaming energy down to Earth, like Japan is currently looking into developing? What other ahistorical technologies might come out of it?


International Politics:


· How much would opening up a new front on the Cold War for competition and territorial claims have further aggravated tensions between the superpowers? If SDI-like anti-missile platforms became viable, what would that do to Mutually Assured Destruction?

· Would the increased cost of an ongoing space race have accelerated the collapse of the Soviet Union? Or would it renew a unified sense of collective purpose, strengthening them ideologically and keeping them together (longer or even indefinitely)?

· Would the diversion of more resources towards the space race have reduced spending and build-up of proxy conflicts in Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America? Would space-based military assets have caused these conflicts to go differently?



Economic:


· If near-Earth asteroid mining became viable, what would be the impact of the shock to metal prices? How much asteroid mining would actually be feasible before supply and demand rendered it cost-ineffective?

· What would be the effect of the accelerated development of the aforementioned technologies (and the possible delayed development of consumer-focused computers)?

Other Space Race Entrants
So as to not be left behind by the superpowers, who else might have entered into the space race more intensely than they did in our timeline?

· Western European powers? This could be either individually or perhaps collectively, via the European Space Agency (historically established in 1975), paving the way towards greater unity.

· Japan? Already had three competing space agencies by the end of the 1960’s. Nationalists might see it as a way to regain national pride and reassert themselves on the world stage. The zaibatsu might eye near-earth asteroids as resources for the growing automobile industry, supplementing the country’s poor mineral reserves.

· India? Less of a long-shot than you might think. Historically, India actually had a space agency by 1969 and launched their own satellite into space by 1980. India would certainly be freshly aware of being on the receiving end of colonization and so might have a special cultural incentive to push for its own colonization. A shared national project like space exploitation might also serve as a unifying force for the infamously diverse and divided sub-continent. It could also provide missile defense against Pakistan.

· Pakistan? Surprisingly had a NASA-trained space agency since the 1960’s, with a successful space flight in 1962, continuing in fits and starts since then. Expansion of these programs could have similar motivations to India.

· China? Historically they wouldn’t have a space agency until 1993, but the Party might push for it earlier as a response to USSR/Western/its neighbors’ space propaganda—and for space-based missile defense.


Technical Feasibility Questions.
Assuming only plausible technological advancements in this timeline how quickly would various achievement in space exploration/colonization be possible in this timeline?

· Near-Earth asteroid mining

· Permanently manned Moon outposts (on the surface or in orbit) to stake claims

· Manned missions to Mars

· Exploration/settlement of other bodies in the Solar System (I would assume that even in this alternate Timeline sustained colonization would still only take place post-2010, but I’m certainly open to counter-arguments)


I would be very interested in feedback on any of those issues and generally what a world like this might end of looking like.
 

jahenders

Banned
Interesting thread. Certainly the ability to claim (and weaponize) would tend to keep things going. There would likely have to be some conventions on what it takes to "claim" an area of space. For instance, one Apollo mission can't reasonably claim the moon. Even if you built a permanently manned base, that likely couldn't claim the whole body, but what are the natural boundaries equivalent to rivers, oceans, etc.?

I could see claiming an asteroid just by putting a flag and some tracking stuff on it. But trying to claim Mars just by planting a flag would be like Spain trying to assert a claim to the entire North and South American continent based on some landings in Central America.
 
This article in “Comparative Strategy” argues that a driving reason for slowing and ending the momentum of the space race was a series of UN treaties starting in 1967 which declared that all of space was collectively owned by mankind and that space was not to be used for weapons platforms. The logic goes that this stifled the competitive motivation for nations to explore and develop space’s resources if they couldn’t lay national claim to them (a motivation that drove historical exploration and colonization) or use them for defensive purposes.

I think the authors are deluding themselves. One of the things the US and USSR got from the Outer Space Treaty was protection of their property - hardware launched into space belongs in perpetuity to the state that launched it - that's alot more useful than the possibility of claiming territory if a state can substantiate a legal claim (which generally requires that state to be able to support a population on the territory being claimed), since expensive hardware is protected even if humans aren't there to guard a claim - and it is hardware that will make the dead rocks of space useful.

Also, the Outer Space Treaty doesn't ban weapons in space - it bans weapons of mass destruction. It is quite legal to place machine guns in space, for example.

The treaty that might be problematic - the later Moon Treaty - is not ratified by anyone who can actually get stuff off of Earth (or might plausibly have such a capability) - so isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.

The real stifling influence against space exploitation is just how dreadfully expensive it is to get up there and just how much cheap resources there are down here still.

fasquardon
 

jahenders

Banned
I think the authors are deluding themselves. One of the things the US and USSR got from the Outer Space Treaty was protection of their property - hardware launched into space belongs in perpetuity to the state that launched it - that's alot more useful than the possibility of claiming territory if a state can substantiate a legal claim (which generally requires that state to be able to support a population on the territory being claimed), since expensive hardware is protected even if humans aren't there to guard a claim - and it is hardware that will make the dead rocks of space useful.

The real stifling influence against space exploitation is just how dreadfully expensive it is to get up there and just how much cheap resources there are down here still.

I can see two sides to the Space Treaty point. On the one hand, protection of property such as satellites and such seems fairly "small beer" when the alternative could be claiming the moon, Mars, etc. However, when (eventually) that property may includes hundreds of robots, robotic mines, etc, the picture shifts a bit. Still, that property isn't very useful unless you have a place to put it.

Your last point is largely true -- that's a huge inhibitor. However, the cost of exploiting those space resources will continue to decline and, in some cases, we may find resources that are extremely rare (or even non-existant) on Earth.
 
I can see two sides to the Space Treaty point. On the one hand, protection of property such as satellites and such seems fairly "small beer" when the alternative could be claiming the moon, Mars, etc. However, when (eventually) that property may includes hundreds of robots, robotic mines, etc, the picture shifts a bit. Still, that property isn't very useful unless you have a place to put it.

The Moon and Mars are mostly dead rock. The USA could declare Luna a US territory, but absent the Outer Space Treaty, the law governing their claim is either the law of the gun (which the words on pieces of paper doesn't change) or the laws governing claims of land on Earth. Let's just say that satisfying those laws in outer space is difficult to say the least.

Imagine for a moment that the US did claim the Moon as its territory, set up a couple of Moon bases, including at least one army base, and then 10 years later the Soviets land build their own base on the other side of the Moon. What is the US going to do? Start a war on Earth over the Soviets building a colony thousands of miles from any of their own Lunar facilities? Send a police detachment to arrest the interlopers or charge the Cosmonauts customs duty on the equipment they've landed? Send some men from the army over to have humanity's first battle on another celestial body? Even if the US won the skirmish, the cost would probably bankrupt the colony! And what are the second-tier space powers going to be thinking about this? Most of them are on the US side of the cold war, and yet, letting the US establish a precedent that the whole moon is theirs is not in any of their interests.

It's much easier to get everyone to agree "if we put it there, it's ours, if we dug it out of somewhere, it's ours and if we made it there it's ours". It keeps tensions on Earth down and no-one makes any claims they can't actually enforce.

fasquardon
 
I think the authors are deluding themselves. One of the things the US and USSR got from the Outer Space Treaty was protection of their property - hardware launched into space belongs in perpetuity to the state that launched it - that's alot more useful than the possibility of claiming territory if a state can substantiate a legal claim (which generally requires that state to be able to support a population on the territory being claimed), since expensive hardware is protected even if humans aren't there to guard a claim - and it is hardware that will make the dead rocks of space useful.

Also, the Outer Space Treaty doesn't ban weapons in space - it bans weapons of mass destruction. It is quite legal to place machine guns in space, for example.

The treaty that might be problematic - the later Moon Treaty - is not ratified by anyone who can actually get stuff off of Earth (or might plausibly have such a capability) - so isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.

The real stifling influence against space exploitation is just how dreadfully expensive it is to get up there and just how much cheap resources there are down here still.

fasquardon

However, if it ever becomes feasible Moon property is worthless. Why build a mine when you can't claim the resources coming out of the mine? Mines are worthless in and of themselves, it is what comes out of them that counts. An iron mine without iron is just an expensive hole in the ground.
 
But SDI included XRay lasers fired by nuclear devices, which ARE "nuclear weapons" by any reasonable definition.

That part would be tricky, but I am sure the US, if it got it to work would argue that the nukes were a power source not a weapon. To be honest the best way around that is have it include a nuclear power plant instead. Have one to power the rocket at liftoff and install the other one in the satellite. Since it would be an unmanned mission you don't need to either shielding or a containment vessel. If it melts down it melts down in space so it is no problem.
 

Ian_W

Banned
So the primary issue on which I’d like some feedback is, where would things go from here?


Considerations/Questions:

Technology:

· Conversely, what technologies would be accelerated in their development? Presumably rocket efficiency and aeronautics would be a high R&D priority. Perhaps some of NASA’s spin-off technologies would have come sooner. More pie-in-the-sky, might military funding for space weapons platform technologies allow for development of microwave solar satellites beaming energy down to Earth, like Japan is currently looking into developing? What other ahistorical technologies might come out of it?


Economic:


· If near-Earth asteroid mining became viable, what would be the impact of the shock to metal prices? How much asteroid mining would actually be feasible before supply and demand rendered it cost-ineffective?

· What would be the effect of the accelerated development of the aforementioned technologies (and the possible delayed development of consumer-focused computers)?

Other Space Race Entrants
So as to not be left behind by the superpowers, who else might have entered into the space race more intensely than they did in our timeline?



Technical Feasibility Questions.
Assuming only plausible technological advancements in this timeline how quickly would various achievement in space exploration/colonization be possible in this timeline?

· Near-Earth asteroid mining

· Permanently manned Moon outposts (on the surface or in orbit) to stake claims

· Manned missions to Mars

· Exploration/settlement of other bodies in the Solar System (I would assume that even in this alternate Timeline sustained colonization would still only take place post-2010, but I’m certainly open to counter-arguments)


I would be very interested in feedback on any of those issues and generally what a world like this might end of looking like.

Okay.

Rocket efficiency first. Chemical rockets are about as good as they are going to get, given you need to balance raw fuel efficiency, thrust to weight ratio and how easy the fuel is to handle.

There's three fuels to go with liquid oxygen - hydrogen, which is good but a bitch to handle, RP-1, which is basically jet fuel, and methane, which you can make on Mars. Then you have hypergolics, such as hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide, which store well. Finally, there is what the British were using back in the day, which is hydrogen peroxide, which is lower efficiency than using liquid oxygen, but much easier to handle.

Electric propulsion is interesting, as it essentially requires high efficiency solar panels, or exceedingly good radiators if you want to go down the nuclear path ... right now, nuclear is a terrible option for the inner system, because the damn things mass so much and need so much radiator volume you might as well have used solar panel. The Soviets were using teflon pulsed plasma thrusters and Hall Effect Thrusters in the early 1970s, and moving from ~400s isp with chemical to ~1500s isp with HETs is huge, if you're supplying cargo to a moon base.

Solar panel used to be total crap, but has got better. Early solar panel is maybe a watt a kilo, while today we're dealing with 180 in off-the-shelf Spectrolab product, and thin film promising 1000 watts a kilo on much more surface area.
 
Last edited:
However, if it ever becomes feasible Moon property is worthless. Why build a mine when you can't claim the resources coming out of the mine? Mines are worthless in and of themselves, it is what comes out of them that counts. An iron mine without iron is just an expensive hole in the ground.

My understanding is that the resources coming out of the mine would be the property of the nation (or consortium of nations) who owned the machinery of the mine. (Though one could interpret the treaties more broadly, and say that the investment in the mine gives the investors ownership of the entire ore body the mine was working.)

According to the US interpretation of the law, even if the country ratified the Moon Treaty, the terms of the treaty still give nations and companies a firm legal footing to claim ownership of things they mine.

See here for a more authoritative opinion: http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/spacelaw.html

So it seems, the legal framework actually supports investment and activity in space. And the things that are stopping space industry aren't legal hurdles.

fasquardon
 
Last edited:
Since lasers and the like aren't "weapons of mass destruction" it didn't apply. You aren't going to destroy Moscow with a laser!
But SDI included XRay lasers fired by nuclear devices, which ARE "nuclear weapons" by any reasonable definition.
Yes, Project Excalibur was a Nuke power X-ray laser, but testing the device show that the efficiency factor was very sordid
the concept was to launch the X-Ray Laser from ground into orbit, were it do it's Job.

Ever seen "Diamonds are forever" ? :openedeyewink::biggrin::biggrin:
Not gonna work with Laser of SDI program, not powerful enough !

Maus concept that UN treaty outer space is not accept, has intriguing consequences
that a Space flight Nation can claim there manned Landing site as there territory
and that nation like Great Britain try to gain a "Vertical Empire"

for industrial exploitation will happen but after longer period.
first get there, then do sciences, then Military use, follow by exploitation
and here play the moon bigger role as Asteroid, why ?
first Moon is near by, second it got surface to claim, third it got also resources to exploit, fourth it could be used as launch site for exploration of solar system or as base for launch ICBM toward Earth.
 

Ian_W

Banned
My understanding is that the resources coming out of the mine would be the property of the nation (or consortium of nations) who owned the machinery of the mine. (Though one could interpret the treaties more broadly, and say that the investment in the mine gives the investors ownership of the entire ore body the mine was working.)

According to the US interpretation of the law, even if the country ratified the Moon Treaty, the terms of the treaty still give nations and companies a firm legal footing to claim ownership of things they mine.

See here for a more authoritative opinion: http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/spacelaw.html

So it seems, the legal framework actually supports investment and activity in space. And the things that are stopping space industry aren't legal hurdles.

fasquardon

Yeah. Lack of other countries recognising title to a particular asteroid or whatnot strikes me as a good way to ensure a lack of private investment in space mining.

If TTL wants to encourage space mining, then the best way is to have NASA, or any other owner of a space facility, offer to buy water for cash on delivery.

There is no good reason to believe platinum group metals will be anything other than parts-per-million impurities in nickle-iron asteroids ... a suprising amount of hard rock minerals on Earth are concentrated from biological activity, and those that arent have generally been concentrated from water or volcanic activity.

Carbonaceous asteroids, on the other hand, have water and carbon, and thats the three basic elements of our biosphere.
 

Wallet

Banned
The problem is the Soviets just gave up. Their moon program was hardly anything and they stopped dining it. Compare it to the Nazi atomic bomb program.

Maybe the US makes clear they want to put weapons on the moon. The Soviets then quickly land on the moon. The US goes to Mars. It just escalates but it actually benefits mankind
 

trurle

Banned
I think the problem of space race a more multi-faceted.
The pre-conditions which would ruin Outer Space Treaty in 1966, are also likely to ruin Antarctic Treaty in 1961 (may be even after signing).

And funds are likely to flow more actively to Antarctic compared to space. Rocket bases, airfields, several nuclear stations (instead of just one briefly operational station IOTL), fallout shelters, mines, even towns and greenhouses (hydroponics was used on Wake island from 1930s). And a few spaceport launching a refurbished ICBMs worldwide (Like Titan, Start, or Volna launch vehicles).

Therefore, big funding change for space program is not likely.
 

trurle

Banned
The problem is the Soviets just gave up. Their moon program was hardly anything and they stopped dining it. Compare it to the Nazi atomic bomb program.

Maybe the US makes clear they want to put weapons on the moon. The Soviets then quickly land on the moon. The US goes to Mars. It just escalates but it actually benefits mankind
Soviets had a technically feasible plans for manned Mars flyby back in 1964. The bumping stone for their plans was not performance, but reliability issues due to the bad safety culture and political pressure preventing improvements of said culture. US have largely weeded out reliability issues by 1965, while Soviets only got decent reliability by 1975 despite longer launch manifest. And even that hard-won reliability have started to erode after 1988, as qualified people run away and industrial base have started to crumple (the Russian did not have enough of documentation-driven management to adapt to a high personnel flow rate).
To make a space race really competitive, a large political and societal changes in Soviet Union were necessary.
 
The problem is the Soviets just gave up. Their moon program was hardly anything and they stopped dining it. Compare it to the Nazi atomic bomb program.

Maybe the US makes clear they want to put weapons on the moon. The Soviets then quickly land on the moon. The US goes to Mars. It just escalates but it actually benefits mankind

About Soviet Moon program or better the Lack of it
Official the Soviet Government had NOT a Moon program and there Ministry of Space was underfunded and victims of Intrigues like a play by shakespeare
Instead that OKB Chefs unite there efforts, they fight each other over the control of that non existed Moon Program
Ministry of Space was confronted with three then Two parallel Manned Moon programs while the government ignored the problems,
and as Government made word of Command it was in 1974, long after Niel Armstrong landed on Moon...

yes a large political and societal changes in Soviet Union were necessary for there program to be successful
in TL 2001: a Space Time Odyssey, leonid Brezhnev dies in 1961, letting Khrushchev longer in Power and successor Alexei Kosygin continue the Reformes
With official backed Moon Program were Ministry of Space give the commands.
Here Soviet land first on moon on 4 July 1969, pushing Nixon to accept a proposal for huge Space program: the Intergraded Program Plan aka Odyssey Program


To put Weapon on Moon was one of early idea in Pentagon before even first men went too Orbit
US army had Project HORIZON for Army garrison/outpost on Moon, the USAF had LUNEX project, while US Navy had there ideas with Moon
the USAF even play with idea of a fleet of Nuke power "ORION Battleships" in high earth orbit as counterattack weapon carry 500 nuke on board.
but Eisenhower and Kennedy administration not wanted a escalation of the Cold War into space on this level, So "Civilian" NASA made the Moon race

although under President Nixon (in 1960-1968) could have change that by giving USAF the option to go into Space, first with Dyna Soar and later other hardware like "ORION Battleships"
or President Reagan decide to install the MX ICBM under Moon Surface protected by Lunar SDI
 
Top