What If: Joint US-Soviet Moon Mission?

[Caesar]

I'm not sure how accurate this information is, however I find the idea very interesting. If the sources are correct, President Kennedy had proposed that the United States and the Soviet Union cooperate in reaching the moon.

What is the likelihood of this actually having happened, and what would the consequences have been?

 

[Mike Stearns]

"I think," Sergei Khrushchev said, "if Kennedy had lived, we would be living in a completely different world." But a week after the reversal decision was allegedly made, Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas and the decision was dropped.

I agree. I think the image of an American and a Russian standing together on the moon shaking hands in peace would have had a profound impact on the world.

 

[Ariosto]

Congress refused to stand for it, and actually cut off funding for NASA in the eventuality that such a mission were to occur.
​

 

[LostCosmonaut]

Congress refused to stand for it, and actually cut off funding for NASA in the eventuality that such a mission were to occur.
​

If there was some event that encouraged detente before that that encouraged detente, it might work. Maybe some military crisis (involving China?) that the US and Soviets resolve jointly?

 

[Shevek23]

In alt-space timelines, realistic or ASB, I'm always angling for as much international cooperation, specifically US/Soviet of course, as soon as possible.

So it saddens me to say, I don't think this would have worked. If there were something to draw us more strongly into space--if say telescopes or early Lunar space probes showed an alien artifact there, or if Venus or Mars showed signs of being habitable--then I'd be advocating for early US-Soviet cooperation, indeed for this to be formally under the aegis of the UN. (Prior to the PRC being seated as the proper government of China, any time the two superpowers could agree on something, it would be a lock in the UN Security Council, US doubtless being able to persuade UK, France and Chiang Kai-Shek of ROC.)

But without that, the main engine that propelled the US to the moon and the Soviets to develop their sustained orbital program was the mutual rivalry of the Space Race.

A cooperative venture, though endorsed and indeed ordered at the highest levels of both governments, would not have the same compelling urgency to the next levels of power on down. NASA would not get the same massive infusion of funds, nor would the Soviet economic fiefdoms see the priority of diverting scarce resources. With each government pledged to cooperate with the other, either has the option of slowing down the pace, at least within a certain range. It would not do for either to dig in their heels so much and so abruptly as to be accused of trying to pull out completely, but if one side wanted to ask for the deadlines to get pushed back a bit because of technical difficulties, the other would have plenty of factions who would be quite pleased to draw things out further and use funds thus freed up in this budget cycle for some more immediately pressing piece of pork. There's always tomorrow, it's not like someone else will beat us there, will be the mentality.

The upshot would be a much smaller and slower effort on both sides, and the smaller NASA or the various Soviet design bureaux would be, the easier to shunt them aside piecemeal. And meanwhile in other spheres, the US and Soviets will be on collision courses--Vietnam for instance. With the space lobbys of each side shrunken, the likelihood that these other confrontations might lead to scrapping the symbolism of cooperation is much worsened. Having actually gone to the UN for a resolution and a formal international administration might make simply tearing up the treaty awkward, but again the effort can be left neglected, to rot on the vine.

Again, if there were something definite and positive to be gained by getting to the Moon or beyond, the dynamics would be different. A more intense competitive space race for the prize would be in the cards, but also an international agreement to share the prize, trading off the big payoff of getting it all for one's own country against the disaster of the other guys getting there first. Under those circumstances I think both countries would sustain efforts that at least approach our OTL levels of funding; the benefits of cooperation would make up any shortfall and we'd jointly get there sooner and stay longer and do more.

Short of unearthing TMA-1 or the like, or there being a colonizable planet in our solar sysem, I fear the way we did it OTL was the fast track.

 

[asnys]

If there was some event that encouraged detente before that that encouraged detente, it might work. Maybe some military crisis (involving China?) that the US and Soviets resolve jointly?

Kennedy also proposed a joint US-Soviet air strike on China's atomic weapons facilities. Khrushchev turned him down, for obvious reasons. I don't know if there's any way to sour Sino-Soviet relations that thoroughly that quickly, but if you could, and the strike goes forward...

 

[MattII]

IMO it's overly ambitious for a joint program, it would probably be better to start with trying to standardise things like docking rings and the like.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I'll chime in and add my opinion as well that it wouldn't happen. It's a nice thought, but as said before, Congress passed a bill in response to Kennedy's joint space proposal which would remove all funding to NASA if that ever happened. JFK was trying to get it repealed before he died. I don't see it ever working, though. Not at that time. Detente, yes. I do truly believe Kennedy could have gotten a detente situation. But not a join space effort. Maybe someone else can get it to work later, but not at that time.

Congress refused to stand for it, and actually cut off funding for NASA in the eventuality that such a mission were to occur.
​

Indeed, but I to be more specific, Congress passed legislation that would cut off all funding to NASA if, and only if, such took place. People may get confused at the way you wrote (no offense) and think Congress actually punitively chipped away funding as a threat for larger cuts or something of that nature.

 

[Archibald]

Here's three articles on the subject by a couple of top NASA historians - John Logsdon and Dwayne Day. Hard to find better references.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/735/1

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/739/1

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1856/1

 

[Caesar]

Interesting. I should have expected it would have a number of downsides with respect to the view of the American public and Congress, but I thought the idea was interesting enough to ask about.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Short of unearthing TMA-1 or the like, or there being a colonizable planet in our solar sysem, I fear the way we did it OTL was the fast track.

Indeed it was, but I think that was a bad thing. My reading of the history, and I am aware that not everyone thinks in the same way, is that the Moon Race effort, spurred on by pure competition with the Soviets, was unsustainable (ie., that same feeling of competition could not be sustained permanently, so budgets were inevitably going to fall) and failed to build infrastructure appropriate for a realistic long-term budget outlook. Combined, this meant that while results could be impressive in the short-term, in the longer run there was little hope of extending and building upon Apollo's successes, and when that particular system was dropped (the most likely outcome, I fear, ETS notwithstanding) it would be very difficult to rebuild those capabilities compared to the Apollo era.

Um, but that's besides the point, I think. Plenty of people have already chimed in on the thread subject, so I don't have much to add to that.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Indeed it was, but I think that was a bad thing. My reading of the history, and I am aware that not everyone thinks in the same way, is that the Moon Race effort, spurred on by pure competition with the Soviets, was unsustainable (ie., that same feeling of competition could not be sustained permanently, so budgets were inevitably going to fall) and failed to build infrastructure appropriate for a realistic long-term budget outlook. Combined, this meant that while results could be impressive in the short-term, in the longer run there was little hope of extending and building upon Apollo's successes, and when that particular system was dropped (the most likely outcome, I fear, ETS notwithstanding) it would be very difficult to rebuild those capabilities compared to the Apollo era.

Um, but that's besides the point, I think. Plenty of people have already chimed in on the thread subject, so I don't have much to add to that.

I dont understand. Are you saying you think that us/ussr cooperation in a lunar mission, which is what this thread is about, is a bad thing? Your arguments seem to be directed towards the otl apollo program, and, imo, many of your grievances would have been addressed by a joint program. Any joint program likely involves soviet and us hardware and Xnauts meeting in leo, as i cant see soviet and american stages being mixed in a booster. Thus, youd get at least eor, possibly both eor and lor, and quite possibly a space station in leo as part of the development process.

True, funding would be a lot lower, and as others have pointed out, congress wouldnt support it at all. But if they had, it might have led to amore sustainable space fure.

Or might not have, too. Long term international space projects are vulnerable to political and economic troubles in two or more countries, not just one.

 

[Workable Goblin]

I dont understand. Are you saying you think that us/ussr cooperation in a lunar mission, which is what this thread is about, is a bad thing?

No. I think it is impossible under the circumstances the space program was actually operating under, but cooperation as such would not be a bad thing.

Your arguments seem to be directed towards the otl apollo program,

This is true. I was responding to that specific point by Shevek23, that the way we did it OTL was the "fast track". It was, I think, but I also think that was a bad thing. That is all.

and, imo, many of your grievances would have been addressed by a joint program.

This is likely.

Any joint program likely involves soviet and us hardware and Xnauts meeting in leo, as i cant see soviet and american stages being mixed in a booster. Thus, youd get at least eor, possibly both eor and lor, and quite possibly a space station in leo as part of the development process.

They could also be launched on top of the same vehicle. But EOR or EOR-LOR would be far more likely, true.

True, funding would be a lot lower, and as others have pointed out, congress wouldnt support it at all. But if they had, it might have led to amore sustainable space fure.

Or might not have, too. Long term international space projects are vulnerable to political and economic troubles in two or more countries, not just one.

True, but the ISS has worked pretty well despite serious issues emerging in most of the member states at various times.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

Kennedy also proposed a joint US-Soviet air strike on China's atomic weapons facilities. Khrushchev turned him down, for obvious reasons. I don't know if there's any way to sour Sino-Soviet relations that thoroughly that quickly, but if you could, and the strike goes forward...

I thought that was the other way around?

 

[asnys]

I thought that was the other way around?

Nope, JFK proposed it to Khrushchev. (Source: Chang, Gordon. "JFK, China, and the Bomb." Journal of American History, Vol. 74, No. 4, March 1988, pp. 1287-1310).

IIRC, later on, Brezhnev asked Nixon if the US would object to Russia launching a disarming strike on China during one of their border spats, and Nixon said we would. However, I may be misremembering, as I can't find the article on that in my archive. But they weren't proposing a joint strike.

 

[The Kiat]

I'm not sure how well it would work. Both sides would demand one of their own citizens be the commander of the mission, and the other side won't be eager to take orders from their enemies.

 

[RadioSilence]

For reasons already said this idea is cool but not very possible. It would make a really neat ASB TL however.

 

[DaveJ576]

This thread poses a very interesting overall question: what would have happened to Apollo if Kennedy had lived?

After the death of the well liked and popular president, very few people were willing to publically disrespect his memory. Apollo was Kennedy's pet project and he really believed in it (or so thought the American public) and to cancel or drastically downgrade it in the wake of his death would have been akin to disrespecting him. We HAD to go to the moon, if for no other reason than to memorialize our slain president.

There is a natural human tendency when someone dies, especially if they are killed or murdered, to lionize them, to forget about all of their foibles and bad qualities. They tend to be sainted and put on a pedestal. This is a coping mechanism I believe, a way to deal with the shock of the loss and the sadness of having to go on without them.

In the wake of his death, the detractors of the space program had been handed a political hot potato by the reaction of the American public. Anyone who called for the cancellation of Apollo would have been run out of town on a rail. So the detractors gritted their teeth and went along with it, waiting for a time when public adoration of Kennedy had softened. By 1968 he had been dead for five years and the candle of his memory wasn't burning quite as bright. NASA and Apollo now faced an ever increasing amount of oppositon. I believe that if the hardware hadn't already been bought and paid for the first successful moon landing would also have been the last.

So if Kennedy had lived and absent his "beatification", Apollo would have faced a steady stream of challenges from Congress and the public, in addition from Kennedy himself, who seemingly waffled in his support of the program (as indicated by authors Day and Logsdon above). As strange as it may sound, I believe that it is plausible that Apollo would have faced a much stiffer battle if Kennedy had lived, and that he could very well have backed off from his pledge to "...before this decade is out, to land a man on the moon and return him safely to the earth."

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Ooo... boris, this is some righteous weed.

Da, jack. Is righteous weed.

Lets strap some fireworks on and go to the moon.


?......
A "joint" us sviet moon mission....