WI: No Operation Paperclip

I thought Atlas wasn't really ICBM but an IRBM. Range was only 1000 or 1500 miles. So we had to deploy them forward. I don't think we really had true US based ICBMs until minuteman. For a while Soviets had ICBMs and US really didn't. But Soviets had only a few at that time and they were liquid fueled, slow to arm.

Original contract of WS-107A-1 Atlas was 6,000 to 9,000 miles with a CEP of not more than ten miles
 
The ussr possibly wins the cold war.

The USSR would still be an underdeveloped country trying to compete with the most powerful country on the planet. The best they can do in the cold war is not lose.

The USSR gains an even bigger lead on rocket development, for starters. Also, what do we assume happened to Von Braun & Co, in this WI? Do they stay in West Germany? Because if they end up in the east, then the USSR will catch them, and then their advance will be even bigger.

I don't think the USSR gains the advantage. Keep in mind, most of the people Paperclip picked up were scrambling to get away from the Soviets and the British were trying to do the exact same thing as the Americans with Paperclip (in some case reaching scientists first, only to be outbid for their allegiance by the Americans). So IMO no Paperclip mainly benefits the Brits.

Von Braun leading a commonwealth space program would be an interesting what-if, though I think post WW2 British politics would challenge even von Braun...

As for the effects on the US, the Americans had plenty of really excellent rocket scientists of their own. The navy rocket program, for example, had no German people working on it and was showing real promise before the program was shut down (a good amount Navy's people and work would be inherited by the NRO, which is arguably the most successful of the US space programs).

My bet is that without von Braun and the other Germans, US rocket engines look very different (owing less to the V2's engines) and the rockets of the 60s look very different (with no Saturn 1, 1B and V) but rockets of similar capabilities are designed and built when the US gains the political will to do it. By the time the Soviets launched Sputnik, all the major American players in the space race had accumulated a good amount of experience and would, I think, be able to fill the German's shoes without much in the way of practical differences.

Also, what about the affects on everything that isn't rocketry?

fasquardon
 
As for the effects on the US, the Americans had plenty of really excellent rocket scientists of their own. The navy rocket program, for example, had no German people working on it and was showing real promise before the program was shut down (a good amount Navy's people and work would be inherited by the NRO, which is arguably the most successful of the US space programs).

It's best to think of the USA not having a singular rocketry program, but multiple ones till 1956, Army, Navy, USAF and NACA
 

Archibald

Banned
Original contract of WS-107A-1 Atlas was 6,000 to 9,000 miles with a CEP of not more than ten miles

There were IRBMs and ICBMs. IRBM were short range missiles and had to be deployed from NATO countries (Redstone, Thor, and the like)

Atlas was to be the primary ICBM but Titan I was developed as backup because Atlas used balloon tanks, a risky technology. Both Titan I and Atlas burned kerosene with liquid oxygen, and the latter was a major issue - at - 196°C it warmed and boiled everytime, so the missiles had to be replenished all the time, not very good in case of a nuclear war when you have split minutes to fire at the ennemy.
Continuous LOX refueling in a silo was a nightmare, so there were few Titan I silos (and I don't remember Atlas ever fired from any silo)

Titan II was better since it had storable propellants, but it was the Minuteman that did brought the final answer - solid propellants.
 
I don't think the USSR gains the advantage. Keep in mind, most of the people Paperclip picked up were scrambling to get away from the Soviets and the British were trying to do the exact same thing as the Americans with Paperclip (in some case reaching scientists first, only to be outbid for their allegiance by the Americans). So IMO no Paperclip mainly benefits the Brits.

Von Braun leading a commonwealth space program would be an interesting what-if, though I think post WW2 British politics would challenge even von Braun...

I wasn't thinking of them being caught by the USSR, just not being caught at all. Any USSR's lead would come not from extra know how, but from the US not getting it. Let's face it: I know the US was allready working up a programm but, when it came to actuall practical knowledge and experience in systems that were known to work, Von Bran & Co were the experts. Their experience and knowledge were invaluable. Otherwise, why bother with them at all.

Also... I could be wrong, but I very much doubt the UK would be able to fund a space program...
 
Granted, without Operation Paperclip, the USA would be late to the space race, with the British Commonwealth second and Russians in third place struggling to stay ahead of those filthy/evil Frenchmen.

Let's explore this British Commonwealth space team farther. Given that German scientists would much rather surrender to Commonwealth troops than Russian troops .... how many German rocket scientists would end up working for the Commonwealth Cosmonauts?

We have already agreed that the UK could not fund a major space program on its own. Consider that the UK was still rationing food into the 1950s and the Royal Canadian Navy was still trading butter for (UK-built) aircraft-carriers ....
How much were Canada, Australia, etc. willing to fund a space program?
Where would they launch from: the frigid wastes of Churchill, Manitoba, boiling South African deserts or balmy Bermuda?
Which is closer to the equator: South Africa, Guyana or Australia?
Would Bristol build the first "Flying Guppy" to transport rocket sections to the various test-ranges?
Who would be the first man in orbit? .... scion of a British noble family, a hoser or a Kiwi sheep farmer?
Where would they land?
 
Last edited:
Continuous LOX refueling in a silo was a nightmare, so there were few Titan I silos (and I don't remember Atlas ever fired from any silo)

'Coffin' launch
762px-Atlas-icbm-erection-large.jpg

atlas-silo.jpg
AF-P-O-577-11-WI-00001_ColorPLXAerial1.jpg

Periodically the missile would be fueled and lifted to launch position
 
Let's explore this British Commonwealth space team farther. Given that German scientists would much rather surrender to Commonwealth troops than Russian troops .... how many German rocket scientists would end up working for the Commonwealth Cosmonauts?

We have already agreed that the UK could not find a major space program on its own. Consider that the UK was still rationing food into the 1950s and the Royal Canadian Navy was still trading butter for (UK-built) aircraft-carriers ....
How much were Canada, Australia, etc. willing to fund a space program?
Where would they launch from: the frigid wastes of Churchill, Manitoba, boiling South African deserts or balmy Bermuda?
Would Bristol build the first "Flying Guppy" to transport rocket sections to the various test-ranges?
Who would be the first man in orbit? .... scion of a British noble family, a hoser or a Kiwi sheep farmer?
Where would they land?

As a Dan Dare fan, I'd love to see this! :winkytongue:

Launch location is always the basic problem. You have to get as close to the equator as possible.
 
As a Dan Dare fan, I'd love to see this! :winkytongue:

Launch location is always the basic problem. You have to get as close to the equator as possible.

Malta.

Space launch sites since 1945, and where Malta fits in

Kourou, French Guiana, 5.2
Sriharikota, India 13.9
Xichang, China 28.25
Cape Canaveral 28.47
Woomera, Oz 31.1
Kagoshima, Japan 30.4
Vandenberg AFB, 34.4
-->Malta 35.96
Wallops Island, Virginia 37.8
Jiuquan, China 40.6
Baikonur, Kazakhstan 45.86
Kapustin Yar, Russia 48.4
 
I wasn't thinking of them being caught by the USSR, just not being caught at all.

Most of the people scooped up in Paperclip wanted to be caught though. These were people who had things all of the victorious powers wanted, at least a little and a good number of them had reason to try to seek a pardon from a powerful patron before their crimes in Germany came to light.

Their experience and knowledge were invaluable. Otherwise, why bother with them at all.

I wouldn't say invaluable. In rocketry, for example, I'd say that, at most, the Germans put the US 5 years ahead in the 50s, maybe 2 years ahead in the 60s and no years ahead by the 70s.

Indeed, in some ways I'd say that the Germans had a regressive effect on US rocketry.

Also... I could be wrong, but I very much doubt the UK would be able to fund a space program...

The UK had a rocket program into the 60s and was almost as wealthy (alone) as the Soviet Union. In a different political environment it is possible to see the programing thriving - at the very least a Japan-level program is plausible. If the British manage to get a Commonwealth program working, it could support levels of activity akin to those of the Soviet program...

The politics of that are difficult, but if the political will is there, the money is there.

Launch location is always the basic problem. You have to get as close to the equator as possible.

You don't need to... For some orbits, a high latitude position is better. Being on the equator is most important for commercial launches, since geostationary orbits are so useful for those satellites.

Arguably, instead of spending so much developing Woomera, the British would have been better expanding their test site in Scotland to a full launch center, since that was closer to the places where the rocket parts were manufactured.

fasquardon
 
Last edited:
Arguably, instead of spending so much developing Woomera, the British would have been better expanding their test site in Scotland to a full launch center, since that was closer to the places where the rocket parts were manufactured.

But the weather would ruin a lot of launches, I think...
 
Top