WI: Mankind had taken Space Exploration seriously

[Antipater]

So what if both the United States and the Soviet Union had taken Space exploration seriously since it first became viable? Furthermore, what if that interest had not waned since the end of the Cold War, and was now also pursued by China, India, and the EU?

What kind of progress do you think could have been made if the world spent, say, ten time as much as it did on its space programs IOTL for the last 50 years? How plausible would it be for any of the following to exist: A Space Elevator? A moon base? Mars landing or even a Mars base?

 

[tqm111]

I consider lunar bases and colonies and multiple orbital stations entirly plausable. Probably a Mars colony too.

Not a space elevator yet, but only because I don't think the materials exist yet.

 

[Dr. Luny]

Lunar Bases, a manned mission to Mars, more developed space tourism, and perhaps even a long-term unmanned interstellar mission would be likely. Unmanned space exploration will still predominate, though, simply because it's much cheaper, easier, and can go places and do things that manned exporation can't all with no risk to human life.

We'd probably have much better developed high technology in general, and alternate propulsion research, high energy physics, and fusion power would likely benefit as well.

The best way to accomplish this would be a detente that allowed a reduction in military spending in favor of a concentration on space exploration. The US would turn from using the military as the vehicle for subsidising technology and heavy industry to using space exploration in the same role, which IMO would achieve better results.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

So what if both the United States and the Soviet Union had taken Space exploration seriously since it first became viable? Furthermore, what if that interest had not waned since the end of the Cold War, and was now also pursued by China, India, and the EU?

What kind of progress do you think could have been made if the world spent, say, ten time as much as it did on its space programs IOTL for the last 50 years? How plausible would it be for any of the following to exist: A Space Elevator? A moon base? Mars landing or even a Mars base?

Look, as much as I love space, why on earth would governments do that?

The only reason that NASA got the sums of money it did in the '60s was to be a political demonstration against the Soviets - and the government could afford it.


Taking space 'seriously' might mean that there are NO humans in space, only weather, comm and spy sats... God forbid!

 

[thekingsguard]

What I would give to see space resemble 2001... minus the Aliens of course

 

[TapReflex]

I believe it might proceed like this

1960s-1970s - Sovies and Americans have established a manned base on the moon. Japan, the EU, and other countries are represented in space.

Space tourism becomes common for the gentry, and upper middle class.

Satellites are a dime a dozen, being launched into space every month or week it seems. World Wide information exchange (something similar if not the Internet) becomes available.

Some probes are sent to Venus, Mercury, Mars, and the moons of Jupiter, where Mars and Venus are confirmed to be dead, and Interest turns to The Jovian moons.

(Possibility, as ASB as it is: A foreign pathogen or organism is brought to Earth accidentally from the upper atmosphere.)


1970s-1980s - Bad Economic times spell an end for the space industry. Russia and America keep their lunar colonies up as scientific research centers, although those centers are like the International space station is today: saved by imports from Earth, be it human or rescource .

Space Tourism is halted, and the orbiting resorts are either left in space or shot down by missiles.

Satelites, however remain in orbit providing a base for the internet or an internet equivalent.

If microbial life was confirmed by previous missions to Europa, after the thought of bioweapons, no good or bad would come if us Terroans left the organisms on Europa alone, as it has few precious minerals or other rescources.

1990s - A Few more probes are sent into Space. A satelite orbiting the moon discovers the first protoplanets, which initially get people interested in space travel, but turn out to be logistically impossible.

by 2000, little is different from OTL: Aliens exist, protoplanets exist, and Space is still cold and distant.

 

[Mr Qwerty]

If the US and Soviet programs are seen as comparable and competitive, AND if large-scale commercially viable private launch services are developed early, we could see the sort of development all the SF writers thought we'd have. So: no Apollo program and a much better Shuttle (swiftly copied by the Russians). Would that it were so (as much as I love Apollo).

 

[Emperor Norton I]

There are two schools of thought at play here:

One, that the space agencies and nations of the world squandered opportunities, and that pressing domestic matters as well as fall off in interest lead to a premature and tragic death of the Apollo missions and further infrastructure and exploration into space.

Two, that the Space race NASA was really an oddity; that NASA had been carrying out serious work before Cold war posturing took hold and lead to non-scientific flea shots and propaganda missions, and therefore things were destined to fall after Apollo and that post-Apollo NASA has been painted in an unfairly pessimistic light.

I'm not sure which one I fall into, and I think both may be valid (we squandered a chance to use that initial interest to keep things going into a grander venture into space affairs, but that we're too pessimistic about NASA today and unfairly compare it), and it does play a role in this discussion.

 

[LurkerNo.9]

To paraphrase other, er, "astroskeptics": The moon is like Antarctica, only even worse, and even farther away! Until you start showing me colonies on the Antarctic ice sheet that DON'T require huge amounts of outside funding to be economically viable, I'm not seeing how or why a "serious" orbital colony, lunar colony, or Martian colony would exist.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

To paraphrase other, er, "astroskeptics": The moon is like Antarctica, only even worse, and even farther away! Until you start showing me colonies on the Antarctic ice sheet that DON'T require huge amounts of outside funding to be economically viable, I'm not seeing how or why a "serious" orbital colony, lunar colony, or Martian colony would exist.

TruthisLife could correct me here, but being in a vacuum could really help. Rather than hostile earth weather, you have space weather, which seems somewhat easier to deal with since you can put men in a dome or a sealed environment and perhaps be more easily in control of your sealed off world (albeit you have issues of solar radiation and space debris colliding with you). On Mars it would be more an issue of keeping a foothold on another world, and would only come after orbital/lunar colonization.

The reasons for colonies would be two fold. One, scientific research. Two, money; there are resources to be tapped into on the Moon and Mars, and that would be the biggest reason for an ATL/Future colony (tapping into the money or acting a conduit to it). Tourism could also gain popularity once infrastructure is settled to collect resources.

 

[LurkerNo.9]

TruthisLife could correct me here, but being in a vacuum could really help. Rather than hostile earth weather, you have space weather, which seems somewhat easier to deal with since you can put men in a dome or a sealed environment and perhaps be more easily in control of your sealed off world (albeit you have issues of solar radiation and space debris colliding with you). On Mars it would be more an issue of keeping a foothold on another world, and would only come after orbital/lunar colonization.

The reasons for colonies would be two fold. One, scientific research. Two, money; there are resources to be tapped into on the Moon and Mars, and that would be the biggest reason for an ATL/Future colony (tapping into the money or acting a conduit to it). Tourism could also gain popularity once infrastructure is settled to collect resources.

Ah, yes, the many advantages of living in a weatherless vacuum - such as how it takes away the two requirements for life that Antarctica actually does provide, air and water! Instead, we either have to bring it with us, mine for it (in the case of water), or produce it from scratch (very theoretically, and energy-intensively, in the case of air). And, again, while there are certainly resources to be tapped into on the moon and mars, there are also resources to be tapped in the Arctic & Antarctic, including ever-needed oil, and nobody's planning on tapping them until climate change has made the region much more hospitable.

Quite seriously, there's also huge amounts of untapped resources deeper in the earth's crust & mantle. 20, 30, 40, or 50 miles down, there's no weather, huge amounts of resources, and fabulous tourism opportunities. ("Educate & thrill your children at the same time by taking them to the Mohorovich Discontinuity!") Not happening anytime soon, though.

And as for scientific research, it's a great thing, and one that I'm hugely in favor of. But when it came to new landscapes that were actually worth people's while to live in, it was the capitalists who came first, not the academics. Goodness, this was even true of Antarctica! Our early knowledge of that whole region was largely provided by whalers, and it was only later that the scientists came a-calling!

 

[Coalition]

What I'd like to see as a counterpart to space development, is using the industrial and technological development to assist other nations around the world.

I.e. light-weight compact water filtration and recycling systems are built in large quantities at lower prices. A disaster occurs, and the shipment is diverted to the location, to provide clean water rapidly. Mobile medical platforms (robodocs) are used to rapidly treat wounds and handle broken limbs.

Shelters designed for the moon can be transferred to provide either headquarters for disaster relief coordination or emergency housing. Extra industry provides an incentive to educate people in neighboring countries, to provide the workforce needed.

Compact solar technology is used in the Sahara to provide reliable power, while compact batteries (or pumped storage) is used for when the sun is not available.

Computer networks designed to be plug and play with whatever components are available in a space station are used to develop cell phone networks. The tower is raised, activated, and the tower communicates with its neighbors to establish the network. Similar technology would be used to reroute communications in case of a disaster, and reairing the network afterwards. Predictive programs allow for downloading data to the tower where a person will be going, rather than where they are.

Autonomous mining drones for use on asteroids are used to slowly replace miners working below ground, reducing the lethality of cave-ins. Better networks allow the mining drones to automatically go rescue the human, rather than waiting for instructions.


So many more spinoffs, and I have to sleep.

 

[baldy46]

...What kind of progress do you think could have been made if the world spent, say, ten time as much as it did on its space programs IOTL for the last 50 years? How plausible would it be for any of the following to exist: A Space Elevator? A moon base? Mars landing or even a Mars base?

A space elevator: Space spending has nothing to do with this. Carbon nanotubes (the leading candidate for elevator construction) was discovered independent of the space program, and research on c nanotubes is still in its infancy, with no factories capable of producing feet of the stuff, never mind miles. Plus in our time line there's the problem of all the satellites whose orbits cross the equator where the space elevator would go.

A moon base would have been "doable", but not a Mars base. Even a Mars landing with current technology would be pushing the envelope.

 

[baldy46]

...Space tourism becomes common for the gentry, and upper middle class.

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism

the Russians charge about $20,000,000

There are various startup private companies getting into the business, but they PLAN on charging ~$200,000 for SUBorbital flights on equipment they're in the process of designing, building, and testing.

How spending more money on space changes the economics???

Satellites are a dime a dozen, being launched into space every month or week it seems. World Wide information exchange (something similar if not the Internet) becomes available.

Happened in OTL. You can get the satellites up earlier, but I think the Internet came as soon as the computer technology was good and cheap enough.

Some probes are sent to Venus, Mercury, Mars, and the moons of Jupiter, where Mars and Venus are confirmed to be dead...

Happened in OTL. The question for Mars is whether there was life of whatever type in the past. The probes we sent can only detect something the size of the northern Michigan, or at least that's what one NASA presented said at a DragonCon presentation.

 

[baldy46]

The reasons for colonies {on the Moon] would be two fold. One, scientific research. Two, money; there are resources to be tapped into on the Moon and Mars, and that would be the biggest reason for an ATL/Future colony (tapping into the money or acting a conduit to it). Tourism could also gain popularity once infrastructure is settled to collect resources.

(1) the Moon is a great place to put a telescope due to no atmosphere. Rather than haul up a telescope from earth, it would be a lot cheaper to build one on the Moon, assuming you had the relevant infrastructure.

(2) As for mining, the obvious candidates are gold and rare earth metals that go for ~ $1200 an ounce here on earth. However, first you have to go prospect on the Moon and find them, then build the infrastructure to refine them and ship them back to Earth. Very high up front costs. On the other hand, the lunar gravity well is much less that that of Earth, plus there's lot of available lunar surface for an electric rail gun, so costs of getting material off the Moon should be much less than they are for getting material off Earth.

(3) see my above post, but unless costs drop drastically tourism is not a possibility.

 

[Archibald]

Let's try this.

1959 NASA long range plan featured Mercury, Apollo, a space station, and, somewhere in the 70's, a lunar landing.
In agreement with the "von Braun paradigm": orbital flight > space station > lunar flight > Mars.

1961 Kennedy turns Apollo into a cold war posturing (loved the expression, very well said)
"skip the space station go to the Moon first".
In agreement with Kennedy fixed deadline, John Houbolt finds that Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR) is the fastest, cheapest way of sending a man on the Moon. And he is right; it is Kennedy "cold war posturing" that is wrong.

Other people, however, disagree with Houbolt, notably von Braun and its fellows at the Marshall space flight center. Earth orbit rendezvous (EOR) is more complex, but let the door open to a space station.
July 1961: Houbolt aircraft catch fire on the way to an important meeting (where OTL he desesperately pushed for LOR one more time, without success). He gets killed, LOR really dies with him.

August 1961: EOR confirmed as Apollo mode, with small Saturn C-2 or C-3 and propellant transfer.

This can change history of space flight, for varied reasons.

- Any rocket can boost propellant to orbit, according to its payload. ESA Ariane 1 - 4, for example, can transfer five tons of propellant.
- Saturn C-2 or C-3 are small, thus less expensive. More likely to survive than mammoth Saturn V.
- The small Saturn is easier to replace by reusable launch vehicles later (spaceplanes like Lockheed Starclipper).

Propellant transfer / depot in low Earth orbit opens door wide to mankind colonization of the solar system. Makes Apollo immune to cancellation by politics or budget cuts, since international partners are involved. Propellant depots make architectures more flexible (launch empty, fuel in orbit).

 

[RMcD94]

The best way to keep space exploration going is surely to make the USSR reach the moon first (with evidence).

Think about it, the USA kept racing whenever the USSR bet them, first in space, first animal in space, first man in space, first on moon, so all you need is first man on moon to be the USSR and then it'll end up being first probe on Mars, then first man, and you'll have a larger industrial base to keep the space industry going.

 

[TapReflex]

The question for Mars is whether there was life of whatever type in the past. The probes we sent can only detect something the size of the northern Michigan, or at least that's what one NASA presented said at a DragonCon presentation.

By that point, most interest in Mars is lost if evidence of life is found, there fore no leapfrogging to Europa or anything beyond the Jovian system.

 

[Susano]

Lots of money thrown out of the window. Not as much as are usually spent on defense, but still... there would by now probably be a moon base, but it would be totally useless, and there might by now have been a Mars Landing, but it would have achieved nothing, either... so...

 

[Lukkonle]

Some people don't realise how much money Cold War took.
Look up numbers on upkeeping the nuclear arsenal.
$5.5 Trillion US alone. Trillion.
For that money you could have a Mars colony. The other issue is if it is worth it. O'Neill habitats are probably better-of course depending on the goals.
Funding space telescopes on such scale would probably give us revelations which would make our culture collapse

As to space exploration-I think eventually we will see first attempts at asteroid mining, probably within 20-30 years, due to increased consumption of rare and prescious metals that are abundant on some of the space rocks.