WI: Kennedy's joint moon mission proposal goes through?

Fries

Fries

In 1963, US President John F. Kennedy proposed a joint US-Soviet moon mission to the UN, to subvert the costs of the US Space Program as well as help thaw relations. Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko applauded and supported Kennedy's speech, saying that it was a "good sign", and recent evidence has shown that the USSR would have accepted this proposal. Unfortunately, it never gained traction because of what happened in Dallas.

Let's say that either Kennedy is not assassinated or assassinated later, and the proposal goes through. The US and the USSR preform a joint mission to land on the moon. How would this influence the world, specifically US and USSR relations, as well as public interest in the space program?
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

Well, without the 'beat the Russkies' push, NASA gets 1/10th to1/4 their OTL funding, and the moon landing project breaks down when the Vietnam War heats up.
MOLAB like space stations in LEO are all you see until, oh, the 80s, people about now would be all excited by *Bezos' and *Musk's (understand that the actual people would be different, probably), plans to put people on the Moon by 2020.

Seriously, NASA's wildly inflated budget during the Apollo years were a direct result of a major national prestige effort. A multinational effort could not possibly gain anything like those resources.

Don't get me wrong, Apollo was glorious. But the wildly aberrantly high funding levels warped NASA's thinking too this day.
 

Arcavia

Even if Kennedy stays alive I doubt that this program could outlast Kruschev's ouster in 1964. This would be a major national embarrassment for the US and a nasty October surprise, possibly resulting in a Republican congress or even if somebody other than Goldwater ran a Republican president from 1964-72. Vietnam might escalate even more than IOTL, civil rights law and Great Society programs would have a hard time passing, etc. An even more unstable USA in the 70s would have major domestic and international consequences particularly if it emboldens Brezhnev to be even more hardline. Different presidents might also not work so much with Red China...

Ultimately, I could imagine many different late cold wars as a result.
 

Kaze

Banned
Considering the tensions at the time, it would be ASB. It was a bare chance in IRL that Nixon went to China.
But let us ignore that for the moment and center on the moon - I would say that the project would reach the moon two to five years earlier than IRL.
 

Johnrankins

Kaze said:
Considering the tensions at the time, it would be ASB. It was a bare chance in IRL that Nixon went to China.
But let us ignore that for the moment and center on the moon - I would say that the project would reach the moon two to five years earlier than IRL.
Click to expand...

Just the opposite, I agree with the above and NASA's budget plummets as compared to OTL. The USSR can in no way replace US funding. If US spending plunges 75% from OTL that means it plunges at least 50% even with the Russian contribution.
 

Gunnarnz

Johnrankins said:
Just the opposite, I agree with the above and NASA's budget plummets as compared to OTL. The USSR can in no way replace US funding. If US spending plunges 75% from OTL that means it plunges at least 50% even with the Russian contribution.
Click to expand...

Agreed... but that might be a good thing. Without OTL's desperate haste, the project might have proceeded in a slower, more sustainable fashion, building up infrastructure in orbit which would eventually be used for the landing itself. As others have said, the massive budgets and crash priority warped NASA's 'culture' and 'identity', for want of better phrases. Having to make do with less might have been much better in the long run. Remember all those books and magazine articles from the 1950's and 60's? Most of the "realistic" ones expected a gradual progression, building up space stations (often with parts from the rockets which lifted the construction crews) to provide a base for expeditions to depart from.
 

Garetor

Gone Fishin'
Hmm...could this be expanded further? Like, invite the other NATO and Warsaw pact countries. With funding flowing in from all over, it might be less vulnerable to the vissicitudes of any one country's politics. The potential for training your scientists with the best of the USA/USSR would be good incentive.
 

Johnrankins

Garetor said:
Hmm...could this be expanded further? Like, invite the other NATO and Warsaw pact countries. With funding flowing in from all over, it might be less vulnerable to the vissicitudes of any one country's politics. The potential for training your scientists with the best of the USA/USSR would be good incentive.
Click to expand...

The Warsaw Pact you can ignore, the Russians stealing more money from them to obtain glory for itself in a Moon Mission would not help its stability. At best it makes a token effort to appease the Russians. They don't have any money anyways. NATO is another matter. The NATO countries were starting to get rich again by this time and if the US was willing to allow them some credit it might help sell it. The question then is , would Europe be too worried playing second fiddle to the US again.
 

Garetor

Gone Fishin'
To get significant investments from the other NATO countries, I imagine you'd have to bring them in deep. Like, real cross-training and tech sharing for high end rocketry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top