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.
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.