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