The Space Race Never Ends

Archibald

Banned
Ok, this is a piece of junk marred with gross mistakes. First it dates from 2002. Secondly, there are a lot of people like this who whines about the OST. Others (more clever) tries to find a loopholes in it.

http://www.space.com/22605-nasa-asteroid-capture-mission-legal-issues.html

Three experts, three different opinions ! Looks like Article VI is not a real roadblock. Or maybe the whole treaty is obsolete and noone cares about it. There are plenty of treaties that are ignored.

As for the space race stopping

a) Apollo was not a practical system to reach the lunar surface (7 stages, none reusable)
b) the so-called space race was just like the missile gap before it - an urban legend.
 

Archibald

Banned
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.

The nuclear pumped laser was an early idea by nutty professor Edward Teller. He managed to sell the project to Reagan, but only years after the thing was found to be unworkable. SDI switched to chemical lasers and kinetic interceptors (Smart Rocks, Brilliant Pebbles)

It seems that the OST was not the main concern for SDI. What really pissed both USSR and USA was the ABM treaty of 1972 (Anti Ballistic Missile). There was a peculiar sentence within the treaty that said ABM operationnal weapons couldn't be deployed in space. Reagan answered that SDI was merely a big test program, and that testing was allowed. Of course the Soviets were no fools, and protested SDI wanted an operationnal system - that enormous budget couldn't be wasted just testing things. And then the Soviets launched Polyus laser battlestation, which fortunately never reached orbit.
I've done a lot of research for my space TL. My ITTL 80's are pretty fun.
 
IMO the easiest way of prolonging the space-race is somehow making the moon seem less of a goal. Perhaps if Yuri Gagarin's capsule somehow suffers a fatal fault while in Orbit, making Alan Shepard the first man to survive a space mission, and later Alexey Leonov bleeds off a little too much pressure and dies, making Edward White the first man to successfully complete a spacewalk, then the Americans won't feel so eager to get even, and so won't raise the stakes as high, or at least, not so early on.
 
IMO the easiest way of prolonging the space-race is somehow making the moon seem less of a goal. Perhaps if Yuri Gagarin's capsule somehow suffers a fatal fault while in Orbit, making Alan Shepard the first man to survive a space mission, and later Alexey Leonov bleeds off a little too much pressure and dies, making Edward White the first man to successfully complete a spacewalk, then the Americans won't feel so eager to get even, and so won't raise the stakes as high, or at least, not so early on.

You don't need that scenario
in OTL Alan Shepard was almost launch 4 week before Yuri Gagarin
But Werner Von Braun had some issue with his Redstone rocket and demand another test flight with chimp, delaying Shepard flight...
 
This what I see happening at some point in the future once launch costs etc come down. The Lunar surface will be divided into economic zones of control based on political/population blocs. Hopefully it will not be decided by the UN. Don't misunderstand me. I really think we need an international organization to help settle disputes, organize relief efforts etc. I just don't think we need this UN
 

Ian_W

Banned
Looks like Article VI is not a real roadblock. Or maybe the whole treaty is obsolete and noone cares about it. There are plenty of treaties that are ignored.

Its not so much no one cares about it, but it doesnt do what the caricature version from wannabe Libertarian Space Landlords says it does.

The OTL Outer Space Treaty is completely cool with private commercial activity, as long as you have a state that is responsible for you.

This, OST-free, timeline will have to deal with issues like 'The French abandoned a scientific probe on Ceres, and the Russians grabbed it as salvage once it was in non-working condition'.

Now, on-Earth Law of the Sea makes that legal - there are salvage provisions that an international lawyer could argue extend into space.

The OTL OST says 'You cant do that. Any object you launched into space stays yours' (which is very problematic for space junk, but thats another matter).
 

jahenders

Banned
This what I see happening at some point in the future once launch costs etc come down. The Lunar surface will be divided into economic zones of control based on political/population blocs. Hopefully it will not be decided by the UN. Don't misunderstand me. I really think we need an international organization to help settle disputes, organize relief efforts etc. I just don't think we need this UN

The UN, as an organization, have evolved away from its roots, mostly in a bad way. It's now primarily become a very expensive debate club.
 

Ian_W

Banned
The UN, as an organization, have evolved away from its roots, mostly in a bad way. It's now primarily become a very expensive debate club.

As far as space goes, the ITU works really well. WHO is still doing great stuff.

And I'd also argue about *very* expensive.
 

jahenders

Banned
As far as space goes, the ITU works really well. WHO is still doing great stuff.

And I'd also argue about *very* expensive.

Are you not familiar with the innumerable financial scandals, the numerous bureaucrats and bloated staffs that do little?

Sure, if it ensures world peace and solves world hunger, then it's a bargain, but I don't think they can count a "win" in either of those columns. Instead, you have members from repressive regimes sitting on human rights councils and a bunch of poor, little countries deciding that the US and EU should pretty much give them a bunch of money.
 

Ian_W

Banned
Are you not familiar with the innumerable financial scandals, the numerous bureaucrats and bloated staffs that do little?

Sure, if it ensures world peace and solves world hunger, then it's a bargain, but I don't think they can count a "win" in either of those columns. Instead, you have members from repressive regimes sitting on human rights councils and a bunch of poor, little countries deciding that the US and EU should pretty much give them a bunch of money.

When Im saying *very* expensive, Im talking about something like the US occupation of Iraq.

However, to pull this back to a multilateral space race involving a bunch of different countries and no OST ...

Countries are going to specialise in particular technologies ie RP-1, LHyd, solar electric and so on. This is also going to see proliferation of ICBM technology, as by definition any orbital rocket is a nuke delivery system.

That will probably drive ABM technology as well.

Which is leading to more nuclear proliferation, as more mid-ranking countries see a need for their own deterrents.
 
Countries are going to specialise in particular technologies ie RP-1, LHyd, solar electric and so on. This is also going to see proliferation of ICBM technology, as by definition any orbital rocket is a nuke delivery system.

That will probably drive ABM technology as well.

Which is leading to more nuclear proliferation, as more mid-ranking countries see a need for their own deterrents.
Which further drives SDI-like proposals and thus orbital space travel in a feedback loop.

It seems that the OST was not the main concern for SDI. What really pissed both USSR and USA was the ABM treaty of 1972 (Anti Ballistic Missile). There was a peculiar sentence within the treaty that said ABM operationnal weapons couldn't be deployed in space. Reagan answered that SDI was merely a big test program, and that testing was allowed. Of course the Soviets were no fools, and protested SDI wanted an operationnal system - that enormous budget couldn't be wasted just testing things. And then the Soviets launched Polyus laser battlestation, which fortunately never reached orbit.
I've done a lot of research for my space TL. My ITTL 80's are pretty fun.
It doesn't seem too much of a stretch that the increased political tension in this TL could prevent the ABM treaty from being signed, as well.

If a major SDI program becomes feasible early on that could change the dynamic entirely as maintaining a credible nuclear threat would be all about destroying/disabling your opponents' SDI assets while keeping yours online.
Historically, the Soviets were tentatively exploring SDI-like ideas since the early 70's, but later redirected their efforts towards anti-SDI research. Though it lost momentum with the signing of the ABM, Reagan's Star Wars kicked it back into overdrive. But the project was then reined in by a skeptical Gorbachev, after having already been hampered by tightened deadlines and cut corners.

So it doesn't seem too implausible that a more aggressive tone to the space race (and the lack of the ABM treaty) could have allowed for Soviet program to have been accelerated, pushing the US to respond in turn with their own programs.
If both sides continue the arms race in space, then suddenly near-Earth asteroid mining starts making more sense: why spend all the fuel launching these huge platforms into space when you can use the metal already in orbit to build them?
 

Ian_W

Banned
If a major SDI program becomes feasible early on that could change the dynamic entirely as maintaining a credible nuclear threat would be all about destroying/disabling your opponents' SDI assets while keeping yours online.

Nope. It becomes about keeping a cruise missile submarine off the potentially hostile powers coast, or keeping a viable manned bomber force working.

SDI's biggest problem was that it was only ever about one leg of the triad.

That isnt to say people wont build it, its just that it wont work.

Regarding metal already in orbit, there is a lot there and will be a lot there in TTL - space junk, specifically used rocket upper stages. They are made out of aerospace metals and are in convenient sized lumps, but essentially you need solar-electric propulsion to close the business case on grabbing them (theres no point to using 3t of chemical fuel to grab a 3t rocket stage when you could have just brought up 3t of metal).
 
Nope. It becomes about keeping a cruise missile submarine off the potentially hostile powers coast, or keeping a viable manned bomber force working.

SDI's biggest problem was that it was only ever about one leg of the triad.

Touche.
I suppose there's also the possibility of suitcase nukes.


Regarding metal already in orbit, there is a lot there and will be a lot there in TTL - space junk, specifically used rocket upper stages. They are made out of aerospace metals and are in convenient sized lumps, but essentially you need solar-electric propulsion to close the business case on grabbing them (theres no point to using 3t of chemical fuel to grab a 3t rocket stage when you could have just brought up 3t of metal).

One potential advantage that a captured asteroid might have though is that the rock itself could become part of the structure, basically you could dig bunkers into it at the same time that you were mining metal out of it.
That's just my armchair thoughts, though. Anyone have any idea on the actual feasibility of that?
 

Ian_W

Banned
Touche.
I suppose there's also the possibility of suitcase nukes.




One potential advantage that a captured asteroid might have though is that the rock itself could become part of the structure, basically you could dig bunkers into it at the same time that you were mining metal out of it.
That's just my armchair thoughts, though. Anyone have any idea on the actual feasibility of that?

Okay. This might help - it's JPL's list of near Earth objects.

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/nhats/

You've got a couple of problems with using near earth objects. The first one is they arent that near - you're dealing with a couple of km/sec of delta-vee from earth orbit at minimum. Even if they have water - or at least hydrogen and oxygen - for turning into rocket fuel, it's 50/50 if that water is in easily-extractable form.

For ice, you might have better odds on lunar craters.

Regarding used rocket stages, they are a lot closer and you know what they are made of (nb may have unspent fuel, which would be somewhere between bad and very bad).
 

jahenders

Banned
That will probably drive ABM technology as well.

Which is leading to more nuclear proliferation, as more mid-ranking countries see a need for their own deterrents.

The balance between ABMs and proliferation/deterrence is an interesting one. At present, ABM systems aren't generally very effective relative to nukes. They complicate a nuke planners' job, but can't be expected to reliably stop every nuke (even if only a few are fired). However, that may not always be the case. If/when a country can reliably assume that each $1M ABM they acquire will destroy a $100M IRBM/ICBM, then many countries (especially smaller ones) will opt for ABM systems, coupled with international oversight, instead of their own nuclear deterrent.
 

Archibald

Banned
As Ozimandias notes in Watchmen "The Soviet Unions has 50 000 nuke warheads. Even Dr Manhattan can't stop all of them"
If Dr Manhattan can't do it, pesky ABM systems won't be better. :p
 
As Ozimandias notes in Watchmen "The Soviet Unions has 50 000 nuke warheads. Even Dr Manhattan can't stop all of them"
If Dr Manhattan can't do it, pesky ABM systems won't be better. :p
That's a fair point, but just because a project won't actually work doesn't mean that it won't get funding. And what bureaucrat won't grasp at straws to justify funding for their projects?

The balance between ABMs and proliferation/deterrence is an interesting one. At present, ABM systems aren't generally very effective relative to nukes. They complicate a nuke planners' job, but can't be expected to reliably stop every nuke (even if only a few are fired). However, that may not always be the case. If/when a country can reliably assume that each $1M ABM they acquire will destroy a $100M IRBM/ICBM, then many countries (especially smaller ones) will opt for ABM systems, coupled with international oversight, instead of their own nuclear deterrent.
I could also see it pushing smaller countries into moving towards closer defense alliances with countries that have established ABM systems.

So, my current thoughts on the TL post-Apollo landing.
Without any treaties clearly establishing protocols for ownership/exploitation/weaponization of space and with increased tensions and more confrontational rhetoric, the Soviet leadership pushes to consolidate, streamline, and increase funding for their own space program.
Due to reoorganization time the Salyut-1 space station is launched in 1972 (rather than 1971, as historically,) but with experimental ABM capabilities--and plans to launch more. (Perhaps they could also make moves towards another space milestone for propaganda purposes, such as a moonbase or Mars landing.)
This alarms the U.S. defense apparatus (whether justifiably or not), now concerned about a new potential nuclear imbalance, pushing them to dust off the research from the Project Defender project from the '50's, as well as looking into anti-ABM measures (plus increased development of submarine-based weapons/sub detection.)
With tensions on space weaponization high, nothing like 1972 Agreement Concerning Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes (or the resulting "handshake in space" of 1975) ever takes place.
NASA funding stays a high priority with defense backing, under the reasoning that its civilian research could be a popular way to develop technology/practical expertise useful in a space-based conflict. Continued new accomplishments by NASA keep public enthusiasm for it high. (Perhaps the government could also use influence in Hollywood to nudge public excitement for space exploration via movies? I'm not really familiar with what sort of influence the government had there at the time. Anyone know?)
When a historical analogue of the OPEC oil embargo hits around 1973, the Project Independence analogue the tens of billions ear-marked for alternative energy research include announced long-term plans (whether Nixon actually considers them feasible of not) for a permanent moon base to A. advance research into Helium-3 as a potential cold fusion catalyst (in addition to the Helium-3 produced as a byproduct of nuclear refinement), B. act as a manufacturing base for solar-microwave satellites (which could also, conveniently be repurposed for military applications.)
Ronald Reagan wins the 1976 Republican nomination (he was just narrowly beat by Ford historically. ITTL either the Watergate Leaks are butterflied away leaving Ford with no presidential experience, or Reagan's more strident rhetoric resonates more in this even more tense Cold War environment), and then clenches the presidential election.
Reagan then follows an allohistorical policy course of Soviet brinkmanship and deficit spending on military build-up/development, which in this case includes pushing forward with space development.

How plausible-ish is this looking?
Any suggestions?
 

Archibald

Banned
So you want a Salyut-based ABM system ? Well, there was a project with the name of Kaskad. A Salyut was loaded with kinetic intereceptors.
 

jahenders

Banned
So you want a Salyut-based ABM system ? Well, there was a project with the name of Kaskad. A Salyut was loaded with kinetic intereceptors.

Well, certainly, with no ABM or space demilitarization treaties, both we and the Russians WILL have some ABM systems in space, as well as anti-satellite and satellite defense system.
 
Top