Yeah it's possible however with all the work being done by people like Elon Musk I'm sure we'll be back on the moon by the 2030's at the latest. Mars however I could see not happening until I'm in my later years post-40's.

That said I look forward to what we do in space. Even if all the really cool shit is long after my time.
Much agree.. Just would like to go take a selfie on Mars in my life time. But alas by the time we go unless they have opened an old folks home there, don't think I will get to :)
 
Much agree.. Just would like to go take a selfie on Mars in my life time. But alas by the time we go unless they have opened an old folks home there, don't think I will get to :)

Will I'm only in my mid-20's right now. 26 years old at the time of this post. But even so I be an old man before we start any real work on colonizing the red planet. Maybe my nieces and nephews may see such work being done in their lifetimes but even that I'm unsure. The oldest of them should be in or around his/her teen years with the youngest being nearing schooling age. How time fly's. Sometimes I wish to have some of my lost time given back so I may enjoy in seeing what other things we may do both in space and on earth.

But that's just me.
 
How would things develop with an earlier POD, what do you think? Korolev and his crew lost a few years as they were sent to the gulag, some of them were executed, and only in mid 44 were released and able to work on rocketry again.

What if instad of working in Siberian mines they got to develop their rocket project like the German ones had? Unlike the German one they're not getting bombed and dissolved after the war and dont have to spend years hunting German scientists and rocket parts as they'd have plenty of their own to work with. This should speed up the development by years as well as enable them to have more of the old guard scientists in the projects who could replace Korolev when he dies.

Should they succeed getting to the moon years before the Saturn 5 is ready for flight tests how would the USA react? Aiming for Mars until the end of the century as von Braun proposed? This kind of commitment would keep the space race hot for a long time.
 
To make Space Race never to end

You need a Race,
the Soviet lost the race to Moon, because there Hardware Failed and they never landed a Cosmonaut on Moon...
the USA abandon the Apollo program and Saturn V after successful missions.
Had they soviets land on Moon as first or second not matter, but that they flew cosmonauts to moon, that hab push the Space Race further !
 
SpaceOrbisGaming wrote:
No I just used that date due to it being the end of the space race IMH. Sure we send up a few more people to the moon in the 1970s but the main goal was now met it was over more or less.

Yep, pretty much more or less though it’s always possible the USSR could get back into the game, once the US has done a round trip convincing them to keep playing is difficult at best. Especially since their Lunar Program even if it had been closer to success is so obviously inferior to that of the US. One possible POD I’ve considered is a different ‘take’ on a Soviet program where they forgo the “Big Rocket” paradigm and instead concentrate on orbital rendezvous and assembly earlier. Unfortunately that would take some major butterflies to get them the techniques and technology earlier as well as a better organized or at least less cut-throat system. But that way even if they DID land ‘second’ after the US they could demonstrate a broader and deeper program of goals and objectives which in turn would probably force the US to continue as well. The main issue though is neither program is likely all that sustainable over the long run unless you can bring costs down radically.


A few ideas for POD’s could be:

1-Sputnik is launched sooner than OTL prompting a much stronger US response

How much ‘stronger’ can you get than “sheer-panic-throw-money-at-people-and-demand-results” anyway? :) The US was already aware of Soviet development in long range rockets by the mid-50s but the funding and support for missile development had been lacking. After Korea and faced with a more hostile USSR the US finally embarked on a missile development program around 1953 but did so at a very low rate. Sputnik jumped that into overdrive

The early lack of effort stemmed from two points after WWII; Firstly post-War President Truman had emphatically reduced military spending to the point the only branch that was getting funding was the US Air Force, (because the only way to deliver the A-Bomb was by bomber aircraft and it was assumed that any future conflict would be deterred or decided by the use of atomic bombing) and even then the amount was not very significant. (Truman’s budget policy post-War was to distribute all funding to domestic programs and then any money ‘left-over’ would be given to the military with the Air Force primary)

The second was an influential document commissioned by the Chief of the Air Force in 1945 H. H. Arnold to have Dr. Theodore Von Karman’s “Scientific Advisory Group” to outline the “best” course for the Air Force to pursue technology over the next 10 to 20 years. In that report (actually a multi-volume work) while acknowledging rocket and missile development as something to be pursued in the “future” Von Karman and company proposed that a more ‘near-term’ (less than 10 years) priority should be unmanned air-breathing missiles of both the subsonic and supersonic types. They felt that guidance and control of such missiles would be vastly simpler than that needed for a ballistic missile which turned out to be just the opposite in reality. That’s wasn’t actually clear but it could be argued it should have been.

These factors served to “kill” what had by mid-1946 been a very broad and advanced US program in missile development that had spawned the beginning of an advanced Air Force missile called the MX-774 which got as far launching both solid and liquid fueled test missiles along with advanced Army missile development which 'ended' up with the Redstone and arguably Jupiter. It was decided that the Air Force would work towards manned bombers of advanced types including supersonic and unmanned “cruise” missiles and the missile programs were dropped.

Now a this gives a couple of fascinating PODs when one considers that had Dewey in fact defeated Truman in 1948 Dewey’s platform was in fact proposing increased across the board military spending and most American's seemed Ok with that. (When Truman won he took it as a mandate to continue to cut military spending which was only reversed when the Korean war broke out) Arguably with Dewey now in charge both the Air Force and Army could then have afforded to continue some of the more advance research and development programs including solid fuel missiles and the precursor’s to the Titan and Atlas missiles of OTL.

Along those lines if “Towards New Horizons” had actually recommended ballistic missile research instead of the development of cruise missiles the Air Force would have kept Project MX-774 going along with the Army and Navy rocket development. Funding and support would be an issue still but it’s something to consider that the first Air Force Deputy Chief of Research and Development and as such he initiated and circulated the RAND Corporation report on “A World Circling Spaceship” and was an early advocate of missile development. This changed when he was put in charge of SAC but an earlier phase of technical and scientific support (Towards New Horizons) for ballistic missile development might have changed the Air Force and LeMay’s focus as well.

2-German rocket technology is more advanced in WWII. Some of it falls into the hands of the USSR thus the US falls behind

Not to disparage Dr. Von Braun and team but actually the US work by the end of WWII was pretty much on-par with the German work. While we launched captured V-2s using the Paper-Clip scientists by 1946 we were launching improved ‘home-made’ versions that were in some aspects more advanced that the V-2 under the MX-774 program. Arguably if Von Braun had not come to the US, died during the war or been captured by either the British, (“Ministry of Space” graphic novels) or by the Russians the US wasn’t going to fall all that much further behind than we did OTL as the ‘interest’ was there but not the support or funding. In fact the Russians’ didn’t really utilize their captured scientists very much and released them long before the American’s did. It is interesting to note that the USSR fired captured V2 as well as did the Allies but in general because they tore them down to see how they worked and then rebuilt them mostly without German ‘help’ they’re V2s tended to fly successfully whereas the Allies with captured German help tended to simply assemble the vehicles with all the sabotage and flaws still included and then have them fail in flight.

3-The public support is stronger than OTL

That’s tough because while public INTEREST has always been there for the most part “space” stuff has never been a public priority or that important to the average person. To get it to be so takes it directly impacting the average person’s life in a significant way. And despite what many might say even though it DOES do so today with things like communications, weather and such it is more an indirect impact because they don’t see the direct effect. Where is does have a more direct impact, (pardon the pun) like the Chelyabinsk meteor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor) it is only a short term interest or effect. Arguably because it doesn’t cause any great disruptions which is to say had it actually HIT the ground it would have had a much greater (again pardon the pun) impact than OTL. Still probably not that much or that long term though. It has been suggested that greater access by the general public to space or near-space might increase support but I find that argument unlikely as only a small portion of the population considers space a ‘frontier’ of interest. It is vastly more difficult to get to and live in than anywhere on Earth and the incentive to make it personal is always going to be low even with increased cheaper access. It’s not even a ‘nice place to visit’ for the most part :)

Out of the three ideas I like 2 the most. So the POD is post-1945 that should give both sides time to do more with their space programs. I don’t much care who lands on the Moon first. I just want to see how far we can push the Space Race. But I will place a hard end date just in case this thing takes off. Yes that was a joke and I’m keeping it in so. That being 12-31-2099

Post-1945 works, as I said the main ingredient in keeping the Space Race going is first of all not to make it too much of a ‘race’ where one side or the other needs to put huge effort into ‘catching up’ because that quickly leads to the same situation as OTL. Second, (and hardest) is keeping both sides committed to moving forward which due to public and political variable support takes delving into politics and public opinion.

The less your program is in fact dependent on public and political support the better. For example I’d suggested that a slower paced and less well supported “Space Program” will tend to find ways to do things on the cheap with existing hardware and keep operations costs to a minimum. Take the development of the Saturn-1 OTL. It was made from “off-the-shelf” engines and tankage, very robust and took only a few infusions of funding to get to flight status. And it worked really, really well. Now build an entire “Apollo” orbital delivery system around it and with as little advanced development as possible. (You have to have some because the system needs both the hydrolox upper stage and a good orbital and reentry system. Maybe not the “Apollo” we know but something more like the Martin 410 Apollo concept {https://falsesteps.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/the-martin-410-apollo-of-santa-ana/,http://www.astronautix.com/a/apollomartin410.html} because it has some possible different utility than OTL Apollo. See below)

In essence you end up with a possible mostly reusable launch system that can make regular and fairly economic flights to LEO both to establish and support a space station and build up an orbital infrastructure. As I pointed out, in OTL we established that the H1 engines were recoverable, refurbish-able, and reusable so the main question is how much can we reuse the stage as a whole. It seems likely we could recover it as despite the general thinking a well-designed stage can survive salt water immersion pretty well. The second stage, (S-IVB) is less likely to initially be easy to recover, (Phil Bono of the stage’s builder Douglas suggested methods of recovery in a 1966 report, http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/AD0758334{abstract}, or google book https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Saturn_S_IVB_Stage_as_a_Test_Bed_for.html?id=UsTOtgAACAAJ, which could be either on land or at sea and consist of a “kit” massing about 6000lbs/2721kg but his figures may have been a tad optimistic if you consider most of his work) so may initially be simply made ‘cheaper’ and expended.
OTL it was found that both the Gemini and Apollo capsules ‘could’ be refurbished and reused but the cost of doing so was pretty high because they hadn’t been designed to be reused. The Martin Apollo, specifically the M1 and M2 “Lifting Body” capsules actually WERE designed with recovery and reuse in mind. The idea being the outer reentry shell would be distinct from the inner pressure hull so that they could be separated and processed separately allowing easy access to all internal and external systems for maintenance and support. While the LB design allowed some maneuver during reentry and hyper/supersonic flight the lack of compromises that would have allowed subsonic flight as per the M2F2 lifting body are not included so a parachute landing is required. But this also avoids the subsonic and low speed handling and stability issues from cropping up.

Using this system to support a series of small space stations, (based on the Saturn Launch Adapter Section of SLA, see:http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/Future_Expansion#SLA_Workshop, Ignore the Gemini’s and Big Gemini’s for the moment but each “cone” is an SLA modulehttps://www.history.nasa.gov/SP-4011/p135.htm) which can be single or combined into a larger unit. Oh and as an informational note on the idea of building a ‘wet-lab’ from an on-orbit S-IVB stage let me point to this document, (https://history.msfc.nasa.gov/skylab/docs/chronology.pdf) pages 25/26 where the then 56 year old Dr. Von Braun got all suited up and proceeded to ‘test’ entry and maneuver exercises and recommended additional handholds and tether points be installed. It isn’t EASY mind you but it’s not that hard either and for a cash strapped program…

How does this segue to into my original proposition of it being better to not NEED significant public or political support? How’s about this idea:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36040.msg1300793#msg1300793

Because “oddly” enough if you install some propellant tanks and landing gear on an SLA module and maybe fill up the propellant on-orbit you can, I don’t know, pretty much send it around or to land on the Moon and then ask for ‘forgiveness’ from the PTB if they didn’t really appreciate your initiative? (OTL Von Braun and company had a plan to “oops” a satellite into orbit around 1952 by adding a cobbled together ‘satellite’ to the fourth stage of a Jupiter-C missile during a flight test. Instead certain officials are alleged to have caused them to fill the fourth stage with sand instead of rocket fuel so it didn’t happen. It did however work for Explorer 1 :) )

The ‘thing’ is this might not happen until well into the 70s or early 80s without the ‘pressure’ of the “Lunar” goal such as OTL. But given the rather obvious contrasts in capability and capacity of the OTL LM and this concept of a Lunar SLA I’d think ANY landing would be vastly more efficient than OTL Apollo though…

Randy
 
Histor32 wrote:
Then again .. You might not.. Been waiting a long time as is

SpaceOrbisGaming wrote:
Yeah it's possible however with all the work being done by people like Elon Musk I'm sure we'll be back on the moon by the 2030's at the latest. Mars however I could see not happening until I'm in my later years post-40's.

Maybe. While I’d agree that a more commercial interest in space is required I’ve doubts that Musk can actually push it despite what he’s done so far. I’ve complained before, (often I’m told :) ) that his focus is on Mars which does not actually lend itself to the establishment of a robust and sustainable Cis-Lunar infrastructure as he specifically says he does not see a requirement of need for such. Blue Origin on the other hand is committed more to access to LEO and Cis-Lunar space which IMO is more likely to lead to a better outcome.

Musk has admitted to wanting to go to Mars in his lifetime and that it is his primary motivation and unfortunately like so many of the ex-Mars Underground folks that obsession establishes a very hard ‘deadline’ as well as driving design and philosophy for such a goal. Unlike the majority of those folks though Musk at least admits that there might be ‘some’ utility to Cis-Lunar space, (sending billionaires and artists around the Moon on a test flight for example) and that there might be some use for orbital or Cis-Lunar infrastructure, (orbital tanker operations though he keeps avoiding suggestions of a commercial orbital propellant depot which given he is supposing a SpaceX only environment isn’t unreasonable but may be short-sighted) whereas the others simply do not wish to ‘waste’ the time that might be required.

That said I look forward to what we do in space. Even if all the really cool shit is long after my time.

The really annoying/sad part is how many times I’ve heard something like that said only to see that person get dog-plied (metaphorically mostly :) ) by “space advocacy” people who feel that is a non-productive and selfish attitude and feel you should stop being passive and support (insert space project/company/NASA/Government/whatever) concept so that we can get there RIGHT NOW BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!

Anyone who does NOT support (see above) is wrong and their obstruction and interference is the reason we have not (done something) and why we are still stuck on Earth.

Will I'm only in my mid-20's right now. 26 years old at the time of this post. But even so I be an old man before we start any real work on colonizing the red planet. Maybe my nieces and nephews may see such work being done in their lifetimes but even that I'm unsure. The oldest of them should be in or around his/her teen years with the youngest being nearing schooling age. How time fly's. Sometimes I wish to have some of my lost time given back so I may enjoy in seeing what other things we may do both in space and on earth.

But that's just me.

It’s not just you :)

I have never in fact given up the ‘hope’ that “I” could go into space despite the fact I probably would be miserable, (100% chance of SAD and worse as I get older my health isn’t getting any better) or would see a return to the Moon or going to Mars but frankly I am more and more convinced that I can in fact live without ANY of it as long as the NEXT time we go ‘out-there’ we do it RIGHT and in a way where we never again have to feel we need to ‘choose’ a single destination because that’s all we can ‘afford’ to do.

I am in fact far more interested in the Moon and Venus than Mars both from a practical and aesthetic point of view. But there is a larger majority who are focused on Mars because it was supposed to be the ‘next’ step and we haven’t taken it.

But that is obviously going to take time and effort which has been wasted OTL simply because there is so little incentive to do things ‘right’ and certainly very little will by those who supposedly support space in taking the time and effort to do so. In a way Apollo ruined us as we saw what “we” could do in less than 10 years and that has become the “Holy Grail” without the proper context of WHY it happened and WHAT it actually cost to do so. It is rather obvious that the circumstances and/or situations that created and drove Apollo to the Moon are not going to happen again. Further one only has to look a bit more closely to see that most of the assumptions made based on Apollo going to the Moon were in fact wrong and short sighted to the extreme and that any ‘follow-up’ with any chance of long term success MUST not follow that paradigm.

But it IS a paradigm and there is little incentive to change it either politically or publicly and in fact the majority of ‘space advocates’ continue to slavishly demand that it is the only paradigm that in fact works when it actually didn’t. The fun of an ATL is that we can work to find ways to avoid falling into the traps and pits OTL did but one thing that’s clear is that doing so is going to take a LOT of work :)

General question? Is it a good or bad thing when your binders, (note plural usage there) of "AH Note and Ideas" get so big that you can't actually carry them around or even have issues overloading your desk with them? Asking for a friend... :p

Randy
 
AnotherLurker wrote:
How would things develop with an earlier POD, what do you think? Korolev and his crew lost a few years as they were sent to the gulag, some of them were executed, and only in mid-44 were released and able to work on rocketry again.

What if instead of working in Siberian mines they got to develop their rocket project like the German ones had? Unlike the German one they're not getting bombed and dissolved after the war and don’t have to spend years hunting German scientists and rocket parts as they'd have plenty of their own to work with. This should speed up the development by years as well as enable them to have more of the old guard scientists in the projects who could replace Korolev when he dies.

I’ll point out Glushko and Korolev were fighting about propellant even before the purges. Glushko wanted to work with the ‘easier’ chemical reactions of storable propellants but Korolev wanted the higher performance of kerolox. At this point there was conflict but not as much animosity at later. And not everybody went to the Gulag in fact that’s supposedly another of the reasons Glushko and Korolev didn’t get along. Stalin then encouraged the 'competition' rather than cooperation from most of his industry and it tended to get rather 'bloody' even when it was highly suggested that there be cooperation. (Korolev and Chelomei as a good example)

In fact Nixonhead’s fine “Kolyma’s Shadow” (https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/kolymas-shadow-an-alternate-space-race.314576/) time line kills off Korolev at that point and the USSR actually does better. In my own notes I’ve got some ideas of BOTH Korolev and Glushko ending up in the gulag where they actually become good friends though I’m not sure I’ve got enough of a grip on how the Soviet program worked OTL to get the details right. OTL Glushko refused to work on engines that didn’t use storable propellants until he was forced to and it turned out he was actually pretty damn good with them. But he’s not going to work on them any earlier than he has to unless someone holds his nose to the grindstone and while it “could” happen in a more rationalized and cooperative Soviet design system it’s not going to happen easily.

And one thing to keep in mind is the Soviet Space Program was really an afterthought to the military missile program. Players like Chelomei and Yangel who were more directly tied to the military side were also involved and it’s unlikely there wouldn’t be similar friction even without the Korolev Glushko conflict. Yangel seems to be a better coordinator though he couldn’t game the system the same as Korolev and Chelomei was an out and out opportunist but some of his concepts probably could have used a better and longer look. But it was as an aside from military missile (and eventually satellite development) that Soviet space efforts were developed. This was almost the way the US program was developed and only Eisenhower’s fear of military over-reach (and again like Truman he was convinced that Nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them made the rest of the military far less important) and of extending the Cold War into space that got NASA created. Had ARPA been a bit less chaotic and frankly “Air Force” orientated NASA might not have come about and we’d have seen both side with a more military oriented space program.

Should they succeed getting to the moon years before the Saturn 5 is ready for flight tests how would the USA react? Aiming for Mars until the end of the century as von Braun proposed? This kind of commitment would keep the space race hot for a long time.

If they were that far ahead the US would spare no expense in beating them to the ‘next’ first but I need to point out that had they been that far ahead the US would have had ITS “panic” moment earlier and probably still beat them to the Moon*. The US has a habit of doing what it has to in order to NOT ‘lose’ any game it chooses to play and that reflects very much in its politics as anything else. Coming from behind though in general doesn’t get you a more sustainable entry but one more focused and executed to ‘win’ no matter what and hang the downstream consequences.

Again the US was already on its way to ‘beating’ the Soviets in launch capability by 1961 OTL. An earlier Soviet heavy launch vehicle will only increase the American will to get it done. OTL the Saturn-1 had some issues with inter-service rivalry and back-stabbing due to Air Force interference which would not be tolerated in this case. And without some of the back-and-forth design changes, (such as being optimized to launch the Dynasoar then having that taken away and needing another redesign) the Saturn could have launched a year or two earlier. Had the US been willing to forego the high energy (hydrolox) upper stages a kerolox three-stage design of similar payload to the N1 might have been used which again cuts some development time.

You don’t need a large booster like the Saturn-V to go to the Moon. It really only helps if you are under a time constraint and there were larger and more powerful boosters the US could have gone with had they been under even more pressure.

Oh and let me correct something: Von Braun proposed that we could land on the MOON by the ‘end-of-the-century’ (2000) not Mars which he felt, (and again MOST other experts felt he was being severely optimistic in 1952 on both goals) could see a manned flyby by the middle of the 21st century!

That kind of ‘commitment’ needs either a VERY compelling reason and frankly getting to an interplanetary destination rather than something Cis-Lunar is going to be horribly expensive and complex so very hard to justify as a matter of even national pride. Or it takes a very economical support infrastructure where going that extra distance is not vastly more expensive or hard than say going to the Moon. (And I don’t mean at OTL Apollo prices either but FAR lower)

Likely if the Soviets were clearly going to beat the US to the Moon the US would choose to move the goal posts and declare they could and would do it ‘better’ rather than seek a more distant goal. They would land someone, (assuming a similar to OTL plan) for a few hours we’d respond by putting a couple of people up there for a few days. They put one up for a few days we’d put a couple up for a month or so and start building an outpost. On the other hand we could just as well pull the same stunt and never officially announce the Moon as a goal and concentrate on orbital operations and lowering the cost of space access which was what the majority of designers in the US had wanted all along. (Evidence points to that being something Kennedy would likely have done had the US been losing the race. Again he wasn't really interested in space and had tried to avoid setting a grandiose goal OTL and when forced to considered backing off soon after)

If it had looked like the US couldn’t start out “even” with the USSR in any space race our leaders simply wouldn’t play the game. Kennedy was clear that he wanted a goal the US had an equal chance of achieving as the Soviets and going to the Moon was the only viable option given. (McNamara wasn’t convinced we could achieve that and held out pretty long for going to Mars instead but without a program like Orion it wasn’t going to happen in any politically supportable timeframe so he finally agreed to the Moon)

Should we still have a Kennedy moment and commit to the Moon and still loose I doubt we’d try for Mars as it’s obvious we risk being beaten again for an even more massive effort. (As I argued in prolemasses’ “NASA’s Waterloo” timeline https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...realistic-mission-to-mars-post-apollo.451873/, if it even appears we’re going to get beaten we either won’t play or we’ll take significantly out of character risks to ensure we ‘win’ this time around) Most likely we’d lay some blame and redirect NASA (as happened post-Apollo and with a lot more hard feelings) and try and put it behind us as neither the public nor political support for more would be there.

Randy
*See following post
 
One thing I want to make a point of, (maybe over emphasizing but I think it’s important) is to get a longer Space Race you specifically need to avoid the more intense emotional responses. Panic, fear, anger are all powerful but short lived emotions and while they can morph over time into more long lived emotions those aren’t normally either stable or frankly useful long term. Humans being human of course those emotions can be used to sustain activities and actions but they require a large and committed base to do so and ‘space’ hasn't ever had that kind of support base and doesn't in fact lend itself to many outlets that can make that transition successfully.

Of course ‘panic’ over having a rock drop on your head with the following ‘fear’ that it might happen again leading to an ‘anger’ to never let it happen again being the exception that makes the rule but let’s set that one aside for the moment.

Taking another angle of the idea the Soviets look to be or may beat the American’s to the Moon leading to a longer and more intense Space Race I was just reminded as I read “One False Step” (https://www.amazon.com/One-False-Step-Richard-Tongue-ebook/dp/B00RG223Y6) that the most obvious and logical response was taking the ‘easy’ route: Gemini to the Moon!
(https://falsesteps.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/lunar-gemini-take-two-to-the-moon/)
(https://thehighfrontier.blog/2018/03/19/a-challenge-from-within-sending-gemini-around-the-moon/)

Which pretty much encapsulates my whole argument :) What’s the downside? Likely Apollo would have been canceled but for sure the Saturn-V would have been. You only need a Saturn-1B and Centaur to get a Gemini direct lander stack to the Lunar surface and since the entire rational for the Saturn-V evaporates without the Lunar mission there is no reason to spend more money on it. You may have a few but the majority of the 'buy' would be canceled once it became clear they would not be used as planned. Add on the fact that the proposed “Big Gemini” could then replace the Apollo, (and according to MD be ready sooner though that’s not so straight forward) the rationale behind continuing Apollo also drops off. (In truth Apollo was MUCH more versatile and had more ability to be adapted to other missions than Gemini but at this point it’s about the money and obviously Apollo loses this argument)
https://thehighfrontier.blog/2015/12/14/space-trucks-big-g-and-the-tks/
https://falsesteps.wordpress.com/2016/08/23/tks-chelomeis-soyuz/

And again once the ‘race’ is won no matter how marginally why carry on a dangerous and expensive program with very little to no capability to be expanded? (Really, Lunar Gemini pretty much pushes the spacecraft to its limit. Big -G is arguably more 'capable' in carry passengers but frankly it wasn't really optimum nor had the capability that a similarly advance Apollo would have and it wasn't as clear as some people think that actually expanding Gemini to that size was going to be viable) One might argue that something is needed to ‘counter’ the Soviet N1 but really it only comes close to OTL Saturn-V capability in the very later models and the Soviets themselves will likely only use it sparingly even if they ‘win’ the Moon race. (Like the Saturn-V it won’t be very practical to expand its use or build very many as the payloads are few and far between)

And note the second article points out the Air Force in fact suggested you didn’t even need the (cruddy, not-invented-here, Army poc, etc :) ) Saturn-1 and could do the whole mission using Titans! (What they don’t say is with a much higher complexity, cost, and chance of failure you’ll note)

Now as noted in the above article (third) the Soviets and American’s had their eyes on the Moon OTL they were also looking for increased orbital operations and some planning actually came to the same conclusion. A series of ‘light’ space stations supported and supplied by dedicated spacecraft using Gemini (US) and TKS (USSR) designs. Now TKS was actually proposed around the same time as Soyuz whereas Gemini was initially only a proposed advanced Mercury which without the Lunar Mission wasn’t required. Still if we assume a similar path as OTL and instead of Korolev being given the Lunar mission it falls to Chelomei and his UR500 and TKS while Gemini is flying in the US. If we assume the ‘race’ still goes to the Moon and that both sides use the most expedient methods then we’re looking at Saturn-1/Gemini versus UR500/TKS probably and probably still the US getting there first. Would the Soviets continue to compete? Would the US? Likely given how marginal the systems are I’d say no and they’d both drop back to orbital operations. (Along the way TKS needs a ‘passenger’ upgrade which will likely require a major redesign or I’d think it more likely we don’t see an actual “Big-G” Gemini but one that may carry up to four, maybe five instead. That still 'one-ups the Russians so win! :) )

Another point AGAINST having the Lunar Goal in the timeline I'll note is you end up still losing a lot of potential capability you might not in a timeline with no set Lunar goal. Consider that the military MOL went ahead OTL despite both Eisenhower and Kennedy opposition to manned space flight. Dynasoar was canceled in fact due to that opposition AND rising costs which conflicted with the rising costs of Apollo and Vietnam. Dynasoar could have been transferred to NASA but Apollo left no room for such 'side-tracks' so it died. No Apollo-blackhole for funding and in fact NASA was interested in the concept of Dynasoar so it might survive.

Which means Almaz versus either “Manned Orbital Laboratory” (NASA version not Air Force which is going to be canceled in just about any timeline I’m afraid) or SLA-station. Considering the booster is likely the Saturn-1 or Titan-III versus UR500/Proton I’d suspect that it would be Saturn-1/SLA despite Air Force resistance. Frankly the SLA is going to end up being far more capable than MOL anyway you look at it and Saturn-1 is the “better” booster at that point. (See: https://www.history.nasa.gov/SP-4011/p70.htm) It’s possible to launch the SLA on a Titan as it is the Big Gemini but likely better to just use the Saturn since it has a larger diameter and more upgrade possibilities than Titan. (And it allows the Titan to evolve towards Air Force needs while Saturn does the same for NASA arguably ‘spreading the wealth’ of the truncated space program and it will still be cut back)

We could see more mission than OTL to LEO as both sides experiment and then build up various stations and capability. I’d see rather than “Apollo/Soyuz” you’d have a Gemini/Big-G visiting Almaz while TKS visits an SLA-station. In this case with neither side taking a side trip on a large “Shuttle” they may be more open to starting with something smaller launched on an expendable booster which would eventually replace both Gemini and TKS. Even an actual ‘wet-lab’ S-IVB serviced by Gemini is possible. (https://www.history.nasa.gov/SP-4011/p63.htm)

Assuming neither ends up being a Shuttle style money sink, (unlikely to the same extent but possibly close all the same) then somewhere by the end of the 80s we’d see a ‘bit’ of a drop in the price of orbital access if for no other reason than both the Proton and Saturn are getting into enough mass production to see a bit of price drop and reusable orbiters would only help there. And you need some ‘savings’ to get enough wiggle room to do anything else. (Arguably you also have to sit on NASA-and-Russian space management teams to keep them from going off on Integrated Program Plan type wild goose chases but…)

With that ‘extra’ money they can maybe start looking into putting ‘modules’ (SLA/Almaz) that can be used as transfer vehicles into orbit that ‘maybe’ could go to the Moon and back at far less cost than anything either the Lunar Gemini or Lunar-TKS could afford. As we get into the 90s and early 2000s this would also look to be a way to keep those “under-employed” Russian scientists occupied once the USSR falls. It has merit since we already have probably two modular “stations” in orbit and a bit more incentive to go back to the Moon without needing a major new program coordinated through two nations to accomplish.

So in honor of “2001: A Space Odyssey” in mid-2001 an Almaz based transfer stage kicks itself and an SLA based lander over to the Moon to explore Clavius with a mixed crew (including a European and Japanese astronaut). Plans will be made for a joint mission to Mars of course but I don’t see relations not souring as per OTL so it is unlikely we’d see anything like that before 2018 but continued improvements, (one would hope that would include switching to non-toxic propellants for the Proton) on the launch vehicles could open up more opportunities for robotic probes. I’d point out that this also has the opportunity to allow on-orbit assembly and check out of larger and more complex probes with different propulsion systems. A much larger version of SMART-1 for example or a more robust and successful Phobos/Grunt come to mind.

And with the means to get to the Moon and back on a ‘fairly’ economic basis a Russian and American set of ‘outposts’ on the Lunar surface might happen. It depends a lot on the political will still but less than one otherwise might think again since we have access and orbital infrastructure available.

Now something to note here is this architecture leaves folks like Zubrin and the Mars Direct concept out in the cold because there is no legacy of or experience with large very heavy launch vehicles. While you may have large payloads to LEO (some of the serious upgrades such as tank stretches and added SRBs to the Saturn-1B were close to the low end two-stage Saturn-V payloads but it was questionable) Saturn-V and advanced N1 size payloads are going to be remembered as both difficult and expensive so the idea of throwing even MORE payload in one shot is not going to go over well. As well the general base of both on-orbit experience and utility of on-orbit infrastructure are going to be vastly deeper leading to less need for hugely expensive build up of that same since it's already available. I'll point out that ISRU (In-Situ-Resource-Utilization) was in fact a subject studied in the mid-60s and will obviously play a more prominent role in an ongoing Lunar exploration program pretty much the only thing left of the "Mars Underground's" cause-belli quiver is the fact we haven't gone to Mars yet by 2018 and frankly at that point the case can be made quite a bit better for doing so more 'cheaply' than most suggestions and vastly 'better' than Mars Direct. For his part Elon Musk OTL only considered getting into the Space Launch business when he couldn't find an affordable 'ride' to Mars for his greenhouse idea. That's highly unlikely in TTL and in a similar manner this trickles down to everyone from Burt Rutan to Jeff Bezos and most of the 'New Space' crowd. They will have similar different goals and ambitions of course but a vastly different background in which to work with obviously different outcomes as well.

In general TTL while a lot of people are still going to be disappointed we don't have boots on Mars the likely-hood we may be working towards an actual base rather than outpost on the Moon is higher and we may be taking steps into industrialization and exploitation of Cis-Lunar space itself. However as per OTL I've got no doubt that how LOUD those people complain that we're 'wasting our time' is going to be around the same level as OTL :)

I'd add that it's likely we are going to be seeing a more 'commercial' interest in space as well since unlike OTL in TTL all that 'fooling-around' in various Earth orbits is more likely to effect HOW we do both commercial and military space than one might think. In general one of the 'selling' points of the Shuttle was the concept of launching, retrieving for refurbishment, repair and maintenance of satellites on-orbit. TTL we have enough people on-orbit that it's possible to do this rather simply without needing a dedicated vehicle (and program) to get there. In fact unlike OTL it will be rapidly apparent that making a satellite with both maintenance and repair in mind will make a lot of sense. Further it is only a short hop of logic to realize that if you launch an 'oversize' satellite today with the capability to install 'upgrades' over its lifetime while the upfront cost may be a bit higher the overall lifetime utility (pardon the pun) skyrockets!

Randy
 
Workable Goblin wrote:
That's not really the case. A dome supporting anti-radiation shielding is much easier to build than a similarly expansive fully underground settlement, simply because digging is expensive and hard. That's what was done for the RHIC particle accelerator, for instance, which needed to be buried in case of a malfunction causing the production of ionizing radiation; instead of trying to dig an underground tunnel on Long Island, they dug a trench, built a toroidal structure in the trench for the accelerator ring to run through, and then buried the whole thing under dirt. A lot of particle accelerators work that way, actually, but the RHIC is the biggest. Something along those lines is the most likely way of building a larger base on the Moon or Mars to my mind, not going completely underground. Certainly that's what NASA proposed to do in their '80s Moon base concepts.

For that matter, it's not so impossible as you say to build a transparent dome. Consider that a ten-meter thick layer of water, which is reasonably transparent if kept sufficiently pure, will essentially eliminate ionizing radiation as a concern, though admittedly it won't do much about ultraviolet. In a dome pressurized to atmospheric pressure of ~100 000 pascals, the downwards pressure of about 16 000 pascals generated by the water would be hardly any kind of structural issue, even a kind of bonus to reduce the stress on the pressure-bearing envelope correspondingly. So build a dome as a double envelope, with the inner envelope pressurized and lined with an easily replaced ultraviolet-absorbing coating, and the space between the inner and outer envelopes filled with water, and you have a transparent dome that is no less safe or troublesome than living underground would be. Not something for the first bases, but down the line it seems reasonably practical

Ok you caught me simplifying too much and it’s a fair pinch :) I actually have looked at various ‘buried’ structural plan bases and they aren’t bad at all though I’ll note the dome is actually not that popular due to the difficulty of covering it evenly. And yes Marshall Savage’s “Ecosphere” dome remains one of my favorite’s but the actuality of building one has been questioned.

“Buried” is what I said I’ll note so I wasn’t meaning to suggest they’d be dug out of the regolith but would be covered by it. I’m more convinced that should one want to build a large open space you’ll build berm-walls and roof it over, (“capping” a crater has also been suggested much like the ‘single-family-crater-dwelling’ in TMP only with a solid roof with a lightwell instead of the water dome) since building the walls and roof of mostly regolith makes ‘coverage’ easier.

Coober Pedy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coober_Pedy) has been the go-to suggestion for how you might build an actual ‘underground’ settlement but truly it’s a significant pain in the keester to accomplish ON Earth let alone off it so the more accepted, (in those cases where people are actually seriously considering such work) is as you note trenched and backfilled modules. Folks like the Artemis Society (http://www.asi.org/ ) and Moon society (of Moon Miners Manifesto famehttp://www.moonsociety.org/mmm) have been looking at the problems and issues for decades now and come up with some pretty novel solutions to making the “Great Indoors” livable. (Cross-pollination means a lot of times they repeat ideas as well see: http://www.asi.org/adb/04/02/03/, which is mostly MMM ideas :) )

But to be straightforward as another FMF-er put it there’s a real problem with people trying all sorts of marginally plausible concepts to ‘justify’ having a view of the ‘Great Outdoors’ in space when more practically you need to consider how to make the “Great Indoors” as livable as possible because physics and the real environments to be faced are demanding of attention and unforgiving of compromise. (He does a much better job with word than I do in The Millennial Project 2.0 project) In essence you are going to be living 90% of the time “indoors” and going “outdoors” will be difficult and dangerous for the foreseeable future so it behooves us to design accordingly.

Randy
Single Family Lunar Ecosphere from TMP
Single Family Lunar Ecosphere.jpg
 
All the PoDs I can think of to extend the Space Race are Soviet-centric. My reading is that NASA was mainly an instrument to compete with the Soviets with for most of those paying the bills, so whenever the Soviets didn't play the US quickly abandoned or down-scaled their game.

So some PoDs:

1) Barbarossa isn't as destructive, with the front lines only reaching Smolensk, meaning vastly lower Soviet casualties and economic damage - by the 60s this means that the Soviets have an economy maybe 30% larger than OTL's Soviet Union, which means a 30% higher Soviet space budget.

2) The Soviet program is centralized under Yangel, who was the most practical of the big Soviet designers, the one with the best connections to the military (meaning more stable support for the program through general secretary changes) and I think the only major Soviet designer who got on with all the other big figures in Soviet rocketry. The Soviets never attempt to compete for a manned lunar landing, but instead have a robust program based on using Yangel's R-56 rocket to send the first men to Lunar orbit as well as putting up space stations and peppering the Solar System with robot probes.

3) Everything is as OTL, but for some reason the Soviets feel they have to live up to their rhetoric during the moon race (that is, that the Soviets would not be swanning about like the Americans but instead be doing real science with their robot probes - I've read that this rhetoric was why NASA launched so many robot probes in the 70s, but the expected race never happened - the Soviets never really tried to live up to their words) and the Soviets develop their robot probe program much more. As a result, the Soviets and NASA spend 20 years competing to see who can send better probes farther and return better science. Ummm... At that point we'd then need the Soviet Union to not collapse so that the two superpowers were competing on probe missions to the present.

3) Everything goes as OTL, but the Soviet Union doesn't collapse. The renaissance of Soviet rocketry as the Buran, Energia, Energia M and Zenit systems come on-line means that the Soviets are suddenly much more active in space. Advancing Soviet electronics (which, by the 80s, were far, far better than they were in the 60s and 70s) means better probes for these better launch systems to loft. A successful launch of a Polyus-type experimental laser battlestation might goad the US into expanding its shuttle fleet or developing SDHLVs like the Shuttle-C and practice building large space-borne structures, which may in turn goad the USSR to invest more in its own launch infrastructure so that IF either side starts seriously putting up battlestations, the other side can comfort themselves knowing they have a rapid-response space force (though given the costs if that, I think it's more likely that both sides would be driven to seek detente rather than space militarization). Space might also provide the USSR opportunities to score relatively "cheap" good press - for example if the Iraq war happens and the prestige of Soviet technological prowess suffers as a result, an Energia-boosted program for a lunar landing might be one of the cheaper ways to improve technological reputation. And then of course, if the Soviets have a good 90s and early 00s based on having superior space launch vehicles, then by the mid 00s, the US could be ready to leapfrog the Soviets with their next-gen launch capacity and the US pulls ahead again.

fasquardon
 
Fasquadron wrote:
All the PoDs I can think of to extend the Space Race are Soviet-centric. My reading is that NASA was mainly an instrument to compete with the Soviets with for most of those paying the bills, so whenever the Soviets didn't play the US quickly abandoned or down-scaled their game.

Eh, you CAN get some interesting PODs from the Soviet-POV, (afore mentioned “Kolymas Shadow” and such) I’d argue the MAIN POD on their side was to take a manned program seriously and re-organize their “program” to be less cut-throat and more cooperative. (Given so of the ego’s and issues involved that’s probably borderline ASB, but…)

The entire early Soviet Space Program was a ‘side-bar’ and subordinate to military needs and this was still very much a factor until the Soviet Union fell. That’s not to say the US program was all that different. Instead of competing bureaus the US had competing military services and even competing organizations in the same service. In the USSR Korolev was told he could launch a satellite when he showed the R7 was an operational vehicle. In the US due to his background and Administration distrust von Braun, who actually had a working launch vehicle that could put a satellite up as early as 1954 was denied the chance to do so. Incentive on the one hand, suppression on the other.

Once the Soviet leadership realized the propaganda value of such ‘space’ firsts they demanded more but arguably didn’t fully support new technology development. “Missiles” were still the main focus so what they had to work with was pretty much the R7 and any other hardware they could find a way to squeeze from the government. This meant they took a lot of ‘low-hanging-fruit’ firsts due to the payload capability of the R7. Sputnik, Gagarin and the rest of the Vostok’s and then Voshkod’s all pretty much simply used the R7 and new upper-stages to snap up as many ‘firsts’ as they could. Korolev only got Soyuz after a protracted fight and it too had to be launched by the R7.

In the US right up until Sputnik went whizzing by overhead everyone, (including most other nations I might add) did not consider the USSR to be a technological adept state and despite their missile work and stated aim of putting a satellite into orbit it came as a very rude awaking when they did. I’m mentioned that “space” had garnered a reputation of being overplayed in the media and more importantly being used to ‘prove’ the various services relevance with new technology. So much so that the Department of Defense issues a memo/directive that NO senior, (Colonel and above) officers were to discuss or even mention “space” or “space technology” unless cleared to do by the DoD itself.

Further the US Space effort was fractured and arguably even more cutthroat than the Soviet program and probably worse the various services had vastly different thoughts, ideas and plans for “space” and how to use it. As an example the Navy was highly interested in satellites for navigation and communications with assets at sea such as ships and submarines maybe even real time data and tracking on Soviet assets at sea. The Army was more interested in communications and real-time reconnaissance of the tactical battlefield environment. The Air Force didn’t see a need for satellite navigation, (they had navigators on the aircraft) nor for long range communications. About the ONLY role they saw for satellites was strategic reconnaissance. Period. And since the Air Force was fighting, and eventually won, the job of supporting and “coordinating” all DoD launch activities, which would include satellite mission design and hardware, guess which jobs they did NOT put a high priority on?

Now the main ‘fact’ OTL is that Eisenhower did not trust the military space programs and since he was trying to cut military spending* did not want to see them expand the Cold War, (or worse that supposedly non-existent inter-service rivalry) into space. So he initially created ARPA to organize and focus the various military programs, cut waste and duplication, and map out a viable space strategy in finding out what could and could not be done in space.
*Eisenhower, like Truman before him, felt the atomic and hydrogen bomb along with the means to deliver them made MOST (Truman felt all but Korea changed his mind) of the services obsolete or redundant. Coupled with a VERY good “sales” pitch by a couple of CIA directors who pointed out the “successful” operations in Iran and Guatemala as the ability to project directed power made any ‘war’ short of a full scale nuclear conflict unlikely.

In the end this reflected in the choices to run ARPA which in turn tended to favor Air Force concerns and idea over those of the other services but due to how ARPA was laid out what happened was ARPA simply laid another layer of bureaucracy and rivalry onto the already over-loaded system. (Saturn-1 is always a good example. The initial design and development was straight forward enough but the Army had keep an eye on ARPA as they had a tendency to cut funding for Saturn whenever the Air Force suggested they had better idea or even if they simply asked for a ‘review’ of the program. Another was communications and navigation satellite development since the Air Force saw no need to give those programs priority they often could only depend on development funding directly from the Navy or Army who had little budget to spare)

This pushed Eisenhower to decide that in order to avoid all this he needed a single guiding “space” organization and it had to be civilian run and operated and that it would remove the rival military space programs military and coordinate them within itself. (Which oddly enough led to a preponderance of Air Force "missile" folks in NASA AND a heavy bias against the Air Force as NASA's main rival for budget and support. Go figure :) )
Thus NASA was born out of NACA and initially, (before Gagarin) the new organization had a slow-but-steady paced program laid out that ‘might’ see men going around the Moon by the 80s.

1)Barbarossa isn't as destructive, with the front lines only reaching Smolensk, meaning vastly lower Soviet casualties and economic damage - by the 60s this means that the Soviets have an economy maybe 30% larger than OTL's Soviet Union, which means a 30% higher Soviet space budget.

Well 30% more for the “military” (likely) or "civil" (less-so) budget anyway, not sure this would transfer directly. That’s also going to mean a ‘stronger’ USSR at all historical points after which has some major butterflies for the outcome of WWII and post-war Europe.

2) The Soviet program is centralized under Yangel, who was the most practical of the big Soviet designers, the one with the best connections to the military (meaning more stable support for the program through general secretary changes) and I think the only major Soviet designer who got on with all the other big figures in Soviet rocketry. The Soviets never attempt to compete for a manned lunar landing, but instead have a robust program based on using Yangel's R-56 rocket to send the first men to Lunar orbit as well as putting up space stations and peppering the Solar System with robot probes.

Number 2 is probably the best bet to get a Soviet equivalent which could then give NASA a run for its money to the Moon and beyond but it also needs direct and unequivocal support from the Politburo. OTL they tried to keep the program ‘cheap’ and only reluctantly allocated funds and resources once it was clear that “current” hardware or equipment could not be used for the job.. My main question though could Yangel get Korolev and Glushko (and Chelomei) to actually work together and stop undercutting or going over each other’s heads? (Or is it more likely they all gang up on Yangel?)

I’d question if they don’t go to the Moon under the circumstances, especially given the R-56 and a more organized Soviet program. They still may not win but it’s less obvious than not trying at all.

3) Everything goes as OTL, but the Soviet Union doesn't collapse.

Combine #1 and #3 might do it I think

The renaissance of Soviet rocketry as the Buran, Energia, Energia M and Zenit systems come on-line means that the Soviets are suddenly much more active in space. Advancing Soviet electronics (which, by the 80s, were far, far better than they were in the 60s and 70s) means better probes for these better launch systems to loft.

As I understand it Glushko was forced to work on Energia and fought tooth and nail to get Vulkain built. As Vulkain was incapable of carrying Buran, Energia was the only launch vehicle authorized. He also thought, (and said) Buran was a waste of time and resources and that he could do far better with a different vehicle. If the US still goes with the Shuttle, (and the extra butterflies to reach a surviving USSR go back to WWII of course) the major job for Glushko and company is to keep the Politburo from panicking over the suggested uses of the Shuttle which lead to the demand for development of the 'exact-same-capability' vehicle Buran OTL.
(Keeping in mind their panic over the Shuttle pretty much mirrored US panic over Sputnik and for most of the same reasons :) )

A successful launch of a Polyus-type experimental laser battlestation might goad the US into expanding its shuttle fleet or developing SDHLVs like the Shuttle-C and practice building large space-borne structures, which may in turn goad the USSR to invest more in its own launch infrastructure so that IF either side starts seriously putting up battlestations, the other side can comfort themselves knowing they have a rapid-response space force (though given the costs if that, I think it's more likely that both sides would be driven to seek detente rather than space militarization).

Endeavour was pretty much built using the spare parts for the other Orbiters Rockwell had in storage, (a lot of which was originally intended to make "Enterprise" a viable orbiter) so they would have to go back and re-set up actual production again. And NASA management was directly opposed to any use of the “STS” components to build a non-manned launch vehicle. I’d agree the most likely response is a new series of treaties and limitations on ‘weapons’ in space rather than an expanded space race.

Space might also provide the USSR opportunities to score relatively "cheap" good press - for example if the Iraq war happens and the prestige of Soviet technological prowess suffers as a result,

I recall there was some drek written in some popular media about how Iraq “proved” how terrible Soviet equipment was but it was quickly pointed out that the US trashed a lot of equipment WE gave them as well and it was less the equipment than more advanced technology and doctrine that won the war. Had the USSR remained there was little question that their ‘tech’ was on par with the west in most areas. (And as always Quantity has a Quality all its own :) )

More so though because a surviving USSR means a very different Iran-Iraq war if THAT even happens TTL. At the very least Iraq won’t have to worry so much about the war debt from that, which is what drove them to invade Kuwait OTL. With Soviet support available it's likely they won't do so TTL. At worst the USSR might try and knock off a piece of Iran at the same time on pretext which can’t fail to draw a response from the US. And it may be US ‘tech-rep’ that takes the hit as that’s what Iran is armed with AND it’s pretty new as well.

… an Energia-boosted program for a lunar landing might be one of the cheaper ways to improve technological reputation. And then of course, if the Soviets have a good 90s and early 00s based on having superior space launch vehicles, then by the mid 00s, the US could be ready to leapfrog the Soviets with their next-gen launch capacity and the US pulls ahead again.

Would depend really because the main ‘driver’ at those times was commercial satellite launch where Energia wasn’t really appropriate. As a ‘side-project’ with enough support I can see where embarrassing the US by “going back to the Moon” when they can’t. (specifically in the period between 1986 and 2003) It might make some sense but I’d suspect that instead of a renewed Space Race American’s in general would simply say, Ho hum, been there, done that but it’s good to see the Commies finally managing to catch up”. It’s been that same reaction to every attempt made to ‘re-ignite’ the Space Race whenever someone sends anything beyond LEO and it hasn’t worked you OTL

What I’d see happening is the Shuttles would still retire but we might get a better and more rational “legacy-follow-on” such DIRECT instead of SLS. On the other hand you might see SEI and/or VSE actually getting some traction at least for launch vehicle work. Probably not SEI again due to NASA management resistance, but a higher chance with VSE.

Randy[/quote]
 
Top