"We choose to build a space station in this decade ..." - A Nixonian Space Race TL

Oh and if you figure that Nixon ends up not 'accepting' Saturn as the basis of the future US launch capacity, (well anything past Saturn-1) then how about the "Space Launch System" concept? No, not that one, other one:
http://www.astronautix.com/s/sls.html
Considering a LH2/LOX core and solid boosters AND it's pushed by the Air Force...

Randy
 
Oh and if you figure that Nixon ends up not 'accepting' Saturn as the basis of the future US launch capacity, (well anything past Saturn-1) then how about the "Space Launch System" concept? No, not that one, other one:
http://www.astronautix.com/s/sls.html
Considering a LH2/LOX core and solid boosters AND it's pushed by the Air Force...

That's a cool concept, though the larger members of the family don't seem to have a whole lot in common with the smaller vehicles.

Wonder what would have been required to get them developed?

fasquardon
 
Fasquadron wrote:
That's (1960's SLS) a cool concept, though the larger members of the family don't seem to have a whole lot in common with the smaller vehicles.

Don't want to get to far afield as I suspect I may have killed this thread already :) But how so? The SRBs were supposed to be segmented in the larger models while the smaller ones were based on those being developed for the military and NASA at the time. I'm not so sure I buy the timeline though.

Wonder what would have been required to get them developed?

As noted above the were suggesting they could have the first flight of the "A" stage in 1964 which I find rather doubious as proposed since the J2 wasn't flight ready until 1966. On the other hand they could have used a couple of LR-87H's in place of the single J2 but the whole concept was based on a few engines as possible. Having said all that I suspect if they had pursued the "A" and maybe the "B" series instead of going all in for development through the "C" series, (which pretty much required that the Air Force rather than NASA be supported as the agency responsible for going to the Moon) they might have had a better shot. The argument could have been made that such a modular launcher could have more direct benefit to future military and DoD launches than an advanced Titan or scaled down Saturn-1 LV. On the other hand it would require giving up any chance of said advanced Titan boosters and probably futher Atlas modifications as well which by 1961 were seen as 'sharing' costs with space launch vehicles rather than competing with them.

Pretty much someone on the Air Force side has to decide to give up the idea of a full on Air Force Lunar/Space program, (and remember the "A" is supposed to launch the Dynasoar in the first place) and accept that NASA is going to be the lead agency and THEN fight for a more flexible non-missile related launch vehicle development program. And then you have to find a way for Martin and Convair, (Titan and Atlas respectivly) to be convinced that working on the SLS rather than trying to sell more Titan's and Atlas' is the way forward.

Downstream effects are interesting to think about, I mean the LR-87H 'lost' to the paper J2 due to performance, (232,250lbf/421s ISP for the J2 compared to 149,947lbf/350s ISP for the LR-87H) but it in fact was an 'existing' engine that could have been improved over time. (For example the RL10 started off at 14,995lbf/425s and was improved to 35,003lbf/450s by the end. "Doubling" the LR87H gets you almost 300,000lbf and an ISP of well over 400) I can see the J2 NOT getting developed under the circumstances. Imagine the Saturn-1 having one (1) LR87H rather than six (6) RL10s. (149,947lbf instead of 89,970lbf though the ISP would be lower at 350s instead of 425s) Or the Saturn-V having 4 LR87H instead of 5 J2s, maybe Centaur without the RL10?

Ok, this actually works towards this TL rather than against it. Maybe. Let me think about this a bit and run some scenerios past everyone once I think them out.

Randy
 
But how so?

In the sense that the big moon rocket seems to have few components in common with the small dynasoar launcher.

I guess the big moon rocket and the medium sized rocket for Lunex test flights have more in common, but I don't get the impression the medium sized rocket was meant to do anything but test flights...

Messing about on Silverbird, if you take the AB-825 and replace the big moon-rocket SRB 2720s with the SRB 388s from the dynasoar lauching member of the family, the resultant configuration would have a payload to LEO of 25,870 kg.

As the Proton and Saturn IB have shown, you can do alot of fun stuff when you have a rocket that can launch over 20 tonnes to LEO. I could see the 9 tonne SLS rocket and the 26 tonne SLS rocket being extremely useful in building space stations in a scenario like the one in this TL.

fasquardon
 
In the sense that the big moon rocket seems to have few components in common with the small dynasoar launcher.

The whole "Lunex" thing WAS a bit different than the smaller launchers which were all aimed at less 'fantastic' projects :) In this sense I'd agree that they had little chance of getting THAT much support.

I guess the big moon rocket and the medium sized rocket for Lunex test flights have more in common, but I don't get the impression the medium sized rocket was meant to do anything but test flights...

As it notes the medium was pretty much a 'fit' for the SLV4 launch vehicle requirement for medium to medium-heavy satellite payloads which OTL ended up going to variations of the Titan family.

Messing about on Silverbird, if you take the AB-825 and replace the big moon-rocket SRB 2720s with the SRB 388s from the dynasoar lauching member of the family, the resultant configuration would have a payload to LEO of 25,870 kg.

As the Proton and Saturn IB have shown, you can do alot of fun stuff when you have a rocket that can launch over 20 tonnes to LEO. I could see the 9 tonne SLS rocket and the 26 tonne SLS rocket being extremely useful in building space stations in a scenario like the one in this TL.

Which is where I'm thinking that this could have gone. Nixon is probably going to be under just as much pressure as Kennedy was in OTL and he's got a opposition Congress to boot. (Even though they will end up being the beneficiaries as per OTL they DID lose the Presidency to the Republican's) I'd assume Johnson steps back into power in Congress with a bit of a chip on his shoulder so he'll be pressuring Nixon on the Space Race and right out of the gate you probably still see the US lose the first man into space due to Von Braun's hesitancy. I can see Nixon increasing the pressure which could lead to a LESS successful first flight of the Saturn-1 in TTL. I can see Nixon suggesting green-lighting the Air Force SLS as a 'backup' and going with a space station as a 'cheaper' alternative than going to the Moon but with a flight around the Moon as the key 'goal' of the space program. Given a green light and support I can see some version of the "A" model SLS being available using the LR87H engines before 1965 with a J2 powered "B" version sometime around 1967-ish. Now toss in a competition building between the "NASA" (seen as Army by almost everyone with the Air Force pushing it's own program) and the Air Force for space launch and we'll see a significant slow down in progress as the resources and budget get split. The White House will be backing the Air Force while Congress backs the NASA effort while you're getting 'bones' tossed back and forth for cross-support along the way. (For example I can see the Air Force putting money and effort into building up a Texas launch site to rival the Cape under the circumstances so that "JSC" as we know it is very, very different ITTL)

Without an official "Moon" program and no "whiz-kids" cutting into the military budgets and 'big-program' bias so that thing like Dynasoar are pushed just as hard as Apollo in TTL with all the wasted and duplicated effort that implies along the way. The political fallout of losing at least a couple more 'goals' (first man in space and probably "space station" due to the in-fighting) will have a very sobering effect on US international relations as well as public confidence. Nixon probably ends up being a one-term President over such 'failure' and I would not be surprised to see Johnson or Kennedy ride into the White House using such 'failures' as a platform. Where they go from there is an interesting question as they won't have the public support for a grandiose goal driven space program as by this time the American (and most of the worlds) public will see space as a Soviet playground. You could very well be looking at a significant military build up to offset the perceived Soviet technological edge.

This will reflect in Soviet thinking as well. The upsurge in Soviet prestige due to Sputnik and Gagarin lead to much higher outlays in supporting Communist groups worldwide and with a more significant and longer window of opportunity in TTL. As is you're going to find China looking to export a more 'proper' Communism in an even more aggressive manner than OTL due to the way Zhukov took power and is running the USSR as compared to what Mao, (who admired and emulated Stalin) thinks is 'proper' and if Zhukov doesn't do anything to counter that just as aggressively he's going to find himself surrounded by nations that will blame him for the situation. Worse he's going to have a very aggressive and decidedly hostile type of "Communism" on the eastern borders. I will be highly surprised if things don't go significantly different in Asia from OTL and not in a good way for the West OR the USSR.

Randy
 
Without an official "Moon" program and no "whiz-kids" cutting into the military budgets and 'big-program' bias so that thing like Dynasoar are pushed just as hard as Apollo in TTL with all the wasted and duplicated effort that implies along the way. The political fallout of losing at least a couple more 'goals' (first man in space and probably "space station" due to the in-fighting) will have a very sobering effect on US international relations as well as public confidence.

I'm not sure... I think if the US had spent the same amount of money on two competing programs they would still have had good odds to beat the Soviets to any goal that requires a bigger rocket than the Soyuz.

The upsurge in Soviet prestige due to Sputnik and Gagarin lead to much higher outlays in supporting Communist groups worldwide and with a more significant and longer window of opportunity in TTL.

There were other factors that fed into those increased outlays for worldwide Communist groups which I would rate as being far, far more important - perhaps the biggest one being the Soviets themselves giving in to pragmatism and supporting 3rd world Socialist movements that sought their support (previously the Soviet focus had very much been on Europe). But decolonization itself played a role in that enormous areas of the globe were opened to Soviet and American influence as the Western Europeans withdrew.

So I would say that even if the Soviets had NO space successes or ALL space successes, things in the former colonies goes much as OTL, since in either scenario the old empires are falling and the Soviets are forced by American superiority in Europe to seek the support of the weak.

I really don't see greater Soviet success in space causing major changes in the competition for 3rd world influence.

fasquardon
 
I wrote:
Without an official "Moon" program and no "whiz-kids" cutting into the military budgets and 'big-program' bias so that thing like Dynasoar are pushed just as hard as Apollo in TTL with all the wasted and duplicated effort that implies along the way. The political fallout of losing at least a couple more 'goals' (first man in space and probably "space station" due to the in-fighting) will have a very sobering effect on US international relations as well as public confidence.

Fasquadron wrote:
I'm not sure... I think if the US had spent the same amount of money on two competing programs they would still have had good odds to beat the Soviets to any goal that requires a bigger rocket than the Soyuz.

Maybe, see despite efforts to delute the program(s) by various forces/groups in OTL those in charge had a very focused plan and organization to reach the Lunar goal. (In many ways this was bad in the long run but absolutly required for success in the short run) In TTL however you could see a large 'split' in effort between competing programs which delutes and delays the overall effort. And if, (when more likely in this case) America again falls short of reaching goal before the Soviets American morale and patcience will hit rock bottom while outrage, fear, and blame will skyrocket. This could lead to a government shake-up in the 1964 elections which will also disrupt the programs as support waxes and wanes. If things have not ramped up in SEA during this time you'd probably see advantage being taken as Mao begins to push for a more "Chinese Communist" Asia which he can piggyback on the Soviet space success. On the other hand neither Zukhov nor most western powers are going to be exactly happy with such efforts and since American prestige and leadership will be in serious doubt, (there were well known and obvious spikes after Sputnik and Gagarin so we can assume this will happen again if the US "loses" another round in the space race) there may be more movement to provide a non-US based counter to rising Communism and specifcially Chinese Communism. On the gripping hand I kind of doubt this all would result in the US giving up the 'space race' and with all the extra pressure I would seriously doubt that there will be a lot of 'calm-and-rational' thinking at higher levels in the US so I can easily see American industry and resources unleashed against the Soviets in the space race. Barring outright disaster this probably means that this is the LAST time the Soviets beat the Americans without trashing their economy trying to stay competative. I also see the Americans spending a lot on very obvious milistary expansion to match/beat the Soviets which in turn is going to cause pressure on Zukhov to spend more on the Soviet mlitary.

Downside is probably a LOT less emphisis on building up American economy and society as there was OTL, (no Medicare or Great Society spending) which in turn is going to create even more tension and problem on the home front. Things are going to be simmering even harder ITTL by 1968 compared to OTL but there will probably still be more 'focus' due to a very aggressive set of goals for America. (Lunar landing is obvious but I'd place money on Mars being on the table as a back-up because at this point they HAVE to get a clear 'win' pretty soon and one that is way ahead of the Soviets) And from here you can probably assume that NOVA is on the agenda to support those goals which the USSR can't match even with the UR900 and all that implies, especially if Zukhov isn't willing to bankrupt the USSR to stay even. (In fact he'd be smarter to NOT continue to play one-up-manship games and simply keep building usable capability because even with America's resources and economy what they are doing is going to be unsustainable and eventually ramp down. But the longer it lasts and the more they spend the harder it is going to be to shut down and the less money and resources they have to spend on their military)

There were other factors that fed into those increased outlays for worldwide Communist groups which I would rate as being far, far more important - perhaps the biggest one being the Soviets themselves giving in to pragmatism and supporting 3rd world Socialist movements that sought their support (previously the Soviet focus had very much been on Europe). But decolonization itself played a role in that enormous areas of the globe were opened to Soviet and American influence as the Western Europeans withdrew.

There were a lot of other 'factors' involved but the "obvious" superiority of Soviet technology and industry was a major boost for Communist leaning groups in the third world. Stalin had been mostly interested in Europe and its poltics and was more than willing to leave Asia to Mao but this changed once he died as the new leadership didn't follow the same path and this was something that specifically upset Mao who's plans had always been to activily export "Communism" in his and Stalin's model. TTL it's a more obvious and major "split" between Mao and Zukhov, moreso as Mao will have even more incentive to "de-Russian" neihboring states such as North Korea and Vietnam. Zukhov will also be more concerned with Europe as it has closer ties and possible markets for the Soviet economy he's trying to push-start whereas Asia will have less capability to contribute in large amounts at this time but longer term...

The Sino-Soviet split will probably be much clearer ITTL but it's not going to be all that helpful overall as both sets of "Communists" will be looking to the 3rd world for expansion opportunites as long as the west is closed to them. Decolonization is going to probably be uglier as there will be competing 'communist' influence as well as a possible resurgence of Western European influence instead of the steady decline OTL. (OTL America tended to step into the vacuum as European nations withdrew but American presitge has taken a sever beating and that would also effect American willingness to support such efforts)

So I would say that even if the Soviets had NO space successes or ALL space successes, things in the former colonies goes much as OTL, since in either scenario the old empires are falling and the Soviets are forced by American superiority in Europe to seek the support of the weak.

But in TTL America is NOT so 'strong' as OTL and that was in fact a major driver for the Lunar program in the first place. There were rather obvious signs that 'losing' in the space race was costing America prestige and forign respect and continuing this trend was felt to be placing even our allies in the position of having to decide which 'side' was better in the long run to hang their star on. Most European nations were well aware that they would be battleground in any conflict between the US and USSR and they were also very aware that overall US policy was to NOT fight a 'conventional' war in Europe but to go nuclear as soon as possible. OTL this policy was significantly reversed under Kennedy and Johnson who built up conventional forces in Europe (and didn't divert any there to SEA which was seen as a positive sign) along with nuclear in a clear sign that nuclear war was no longer the FIRST and only option in a conflict. TTL it's Nixon instead and he may or may not have continued Ike's policies but he certainly has shown, (by choosing and loosing the "space station" race) that he's not the most inovative and forward looking leader the US has had. (Remember he has NO 'inside' contacts in TTL) Despite NATO Europe is going to be seriously considering take a more pro-active stance vis-à-vis the Warsaw Pact. This actually makes some openings in Europe that the USSR can exploit and/or expand upon and their (again this was a serious consideration as it appeared to the world) the 'obvious' supriority in certain areas of the USSR compared to the US is going to be a factor.

Keep very much in mind that right up until Sputnik the USSR was NOT considered a "technically inclined" nation nor even close in capability to any "Western" nation ESPECIALLY the US. Sputnik did great damage to that world-view and Gagarin did even more which is why in OTL the "choices" of response were so much 'greater' than we'd think today. The Soviet atom and then hydrogen bomb, Sputnik and finally Gagarin each chipped away at the worlds (and our) assumption that America was the most technically and scientifically advanced nation on Earth and not only the 'unaligned' nations but even our ALLIES were beginning to wonder if America's "advanced" science wasn't a fluke.

Heck there were a LOT of people in the US who were well aware that we COULD have done much more, sooner but had not and they questioned what the reason behind that was. While the 'obvious' answer had been post-war budget and priorities it was also quite clear that even when we SAID we were going to move forward we still did so in a very hesitant and slow manner which consistintly put us "behind" the Soviets at every turn. OTL the 'answer' was to make an absolute priority out of getting to the Moon before the Soviets, ITTL there is the "Space Station" but as noted the US loses THAT race as well most likley because it wasn't given as much of a priority and/or effort and resources were split between competing programs. And in the end the US loses even more prestige, image and influence as well as population morale in general and the pressure to set a goal and support it will have gone through the roof. As I suggested this is probably going to result in a goal and priority support that the USSR simply can't match no matter what they try and do but at that same time the basic capability they already HAVE can keep them 'in' the race in a general way, especially if the US suffers set-backs due to the rush.

I really don't see greater Soviet success in space causing major changes in the competition for 3rd world influence.

People in power in OTL DID see such changes with each Soviet 'first' and took the likley continuation of that trend as a truth rather than speculation. American public morale was a big part of the decision to go for the Lunar landing goal but it wasn't the only one and world opinion and third world influence was one of the big one that was discussed as being on the line. TTL that becomes bigger because the US loses more and appears even less capable of being the 'future' of the world. Add to that the fact that the USSR is not only 'competing' in the 3rd world with the US and the West but also Communist China and maybe more importantly that particular struggle is going to define the very future of what type of "Communism" is the future of Communism itself.

Randy
 
Top