Suppose that Alan Shepard became the first man in space in March 24th of 1961 but Yuri Gagarin overshadows him by being the first to go into orbit on April 12nd. Would the nicknames like "Columbus of the Cosmos" or "Columbus of the space age" still goes to Gagarin, or would he received other nicknames like "Magellan of the Cosmos" instead?
Would the nickname "Columbus of the Cosmos" still goes to Gagarin if he was just first in orbit?
- Thread starter SpaceMarathon
- Start date
I'm kind of agreeing of your sentiment regarding Columbus but people's gonna stick that cosmic columbus label regardless like usual even if the cosmonaut deeply hates it.
We strayed from the topic a bit but nevermind as soon as I put up the post I did my part of brainstorming of the question and realize that the general consensus on AH.com that Gagarin would still overshadow Shepard even if he wasn't the first man in space.
That sounded a lot like Columbus overshadowing Leif Erikson in the context of European exploration and colonization of Americas or to a lesser degree the current common view about it. Conceivably Shepard would be compared to Leif Erikson or maybe even the ancestors of Native Americans on that alternate reality while the "Faster, Higher, Longer and More Capable" Gagarin would still be credited with establishing an age of human spaceflight and thereby "strongly contributed to the development of space exploration."
Finally, as a reference Wikipedia has the following:
It makes sense that something like above could appear in that reality's Wikipedia article on Gagarin although for now I would still love it very much if seasoned space experts on AH.com like @Michael Van or @SpaceGeek can offer their input on this.
For the moment I have another interesting what-if question that's about USA being the first to photograph the lunar back side.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...s-the-first-images-of-lunar-back-side.434272/
Have a nice day!
Last edited:
I don't think this is actually a title people give Gagarin. A brief search seems to turn up only a book about Garagrin with that title by a Hungarian author.
Just because one person has used it doesn't make it a nickname.
In my experiance Garagrin's name alone has enough recognition on his own merits rather than having to refer back to the exploits of others.
Just because one person has used it doesn't make it a nickname.
In my experiance Garagrin's name alone has enough recognition on his own merits rather than having to refer back to the exploits of others.
SpaceMarathon wrote:
I'm betting if Shepard had gone up first the US press would have pounced on the "Columbus" thing as it was heavily tied in popular culture to all things American. (For good or bad)
The Soviets would have probably gone with the "Magellan" analogy to provide a way to expound on the 'differences' between the two explorers. Ie: Columbus was the vanguard of a conquering and exploiting horde of rabid capitalists while Magellan was true explorer pushing past the horizon to see what lay beyond...
As for Gagarin "overshadowing" Sheppard I think it will be a bit more complicated than that. Sure Orbit is "better" than sub-orbital but Sheppard will have been the first "in space" regardless and that's going to have a significant effect in America at least. The pressure to 'do-something' to show up the Russians in space is going to go way down. Kennedy (or whoever) will have an "out" so they are not forced to choose to go to the Moon in order to have an even chance of beating the Soviets there. We will have gotten A first in the space race no matter that it's technically a "lesser" first it is still a "first" after all.
Randy
I'm betting if Shepard had gone up first the US press would have pounced on the "Columbus" thing as it was heavily tied in popular culture to all things American. (For good or bad)
The Soviets would have probably gone with the "Magellan" analogy to provide a way to expound on the 'differences' between the two explorers. Ie: Columbus was the vanguard of a conquering and exploiting horde of rabid capitalists while Magellan was true explorer pushing past the horizon to see what lay beyond...
As for Gagarin "overshadowing" Sheppard I think it will be a bit more complicated than that. Sure Orbit is "better" than sub-orbital but Sheppard will have been the first "in space" regardless and that's going to have a significant effect in America at least. The pressure to 'do-something' to show up the Russians in space is going to go way down. Kennedy (or whoever) will have an "out" so they are not forced to choose to go to the Moon in order to have an even chance of beating the Soviets there. We will have gotten A first in the space race no matter that it's technically a "lesser" first it is still a "first" after all.
Randy
I would respectfully disagree on some of that with this quote made here in 2011:
How many of those who're not space fans familiar about Glenn, and what about Shepard? That's a prime example of orbit overshadowing the one-off hop.
Although then the hinge moment where JFK have to choose space station or Moon would be tenser. The pressure would be lower, but still significant enough to push for a moon shot and there the space race continues as OTL. The other differences is he will get a navy medal of honor and a ticker tape parade in NYC not to mention him being "Columbus" and Yuri being "Magellan" but in the end it largely stays as identical as OTL.
As The Oncoming Storm puts it, NASA simply didn't have the capability to do an orbital flight at that time and in the propaganda war that both sides were waging it was the race to orbit that mattered.
Finally a trivia: After MR-2 von Braun meets with his committee and want an unanimous approval to go ahead with March 24th manned spaceflight but Kurt Debus was the only guy opposing it. If he had a so-called premonitory dream in his sleep and goes along with the rest of the team on that fateful meeting, Shepard would become the first in space though it would be an uncomfortable flight compared to this reality.
Last edited:
Does anyone remember the first man to fly part of the way across the English Channel and turn back. Nope everyone remembers Louis Bleriot.
markus meecham
Banned
never heard this nickname being used outside of this website
also gagarin was way more important than columbus,imo
Everyone? This is the first time I'd hear about Bieriot. In contrast Charles Lindbergh is as obvious as any household names like Wright and Armstrong.
Lindbergh had a good marketing team, which is why he is remembered for doing something special when he was only the 97th person to cross the Atlantic by air.
It was a nonstop solo flight unlike previous attempts and that what made it mattered.
If I'm not a space fan I might very well said the same about Bill Anders (Apollo 8 astronaut) and mistook Glenn for being first American in space.
Lindbergh's flight was the first solo non-stop but by 1927 flying the Atlantic was becoming a almost a regular thing. I am not in any way denigrating Lindbergh it was an amazing feat just not really a pioneering flight.
Alcock and Whitten-Brown were the first to fly the Atlantic non stop in 1919 and the US Navy did a flight across the Atlantic earlier but stopped in several places taking five days.
In the end that is how overshadowing works. The Soviets would undoubtedly try even harder to boast about Yuri's triumph weeks after Shepard flight that retook the leading flag which will lead us back to the square one: The Space Race and the rest continues like OTL.
Last edited:
Actually fastmongrel hit the 'nail' on the head: Marketing 
"Sheppard" would be famous for being 'first-into-space' (the US PR apparatus would ensure that) while Gagarin would be 'first-in-orbit' (the Soviet PR apparatus ensuring THAT as well) so that the two would be compared to OTL "Gagarin" and "Armstrong" for similar reasons.
No I'd never heard of Gagarin being referred to as the "Columbus of the Cosmos" either, though that makes sense as it would NOT have been a way American's would have 'related' to easily
But speaking of... Again it WOULD be the way an ATL American media would paint 'Sheppard' if he went up first. And quite logically the Soviets would refer to Gagarin as the "Magellan of the Cosmos" specifically to tie-into the American propaganda and (basically ) stick it in the eye of the US that Gagarin actually went 'around the world' where Sheppard just went 'there and back' again
Actually the quote doesn't really 'disagree' with my assessment Going AROUND the Earth in space is quite obviously a 'greater' achievement than a sub-orbital hop, but fastmongrel has the point; What is going to 'count' here is what the various media's are going spin things and frankly they have vastly more 'media' available to do so than even in Lindbergh's time. And to be honest one reason that the USSR went straight for orbit was the fact that the US openly planned to do sub-orbital first and this was a way to 'get-ahead' of them once again. Keep in mind everyone was 'assuming' that the US suborbital flight would in fact come first! Had "Ham's" flight gone off a bit better or Von Braun been a bit less safety obsessed, (it continually surprises me how so many "space fans" see early NASA as less risk-adverse than the current one when in fact it is the opposite) Sheppard WOULD have been the first human in space. Yes the Space Race would continue but the immediate 'pressure' for the US to do 'something' in space to counter Soviet 'firsts' would actually be less. Which leads to...
Actually my turn to respectfully disagree since Kennedy was quite open about wanting to do 'anything' BUT the Moon as a goal and an American 'first' would ease the pressure enough he could probably have gotten away with a Space Station rather than a Lunar landing and return. Saturn 1 would fly in October just 6 months after Gagarin went into orbit OTL and its payload was vastly superior to anything the Soviets had available. Even if it should have developmental issues, (and given its very conservative design to specifically avoid such unlikely) the 'pacing' item would then become a manned vehicle for it to carry.
The key was 'at-that-time' (what's "The Oncoming Storm"? Never mind just found it in the listed thread ) but it was developing that capability and frankly quite a bit more. Atlas was coming along as was Titan-1 but since both were prioritized as missiles rather than launchers... And again there was Saturn-1 which would be available in a little over a year and was far beyond anything the Soviets had at the time. The key pacing item was always a capsule and experience with space launch operations. With visible 'proof' that America could do 'something' first it takes a LOT of the 'sting' out of further Soviet efforts on the level of the average American citizen and most of the government which OTL required a 'guaranteed' first at least promised in order to restore some of the lost faith. This is quite self evident actually in that America was to 'suffer' several more Soviet space 'firsts' before we began to gain traction and pull ahead.
The real 'butterfly' in such a situation is that a closer Space Race would force the Soviets to not simply settle for grasping the lower hanging fruit given their capability of launching heavy payloads, (which rapidly diminished as American launch vehicles came online) and decide to either give up the Race they started or get serious about 'competing' which would have had additional butterflies towards the whole outcome of the Space Race.
Additive trivia: Actually Von Braun was LOOKING for an excuse to delay Sheppard's flight and used Debus' objections to call for another test flight. It was the reason he called for a 'unanimous' approval rather than reaching a consensus decision as was his normal way. He would later admit that had any of the issues that delayed Sheppard's launch OTL happened without the 'pressure' to get an American into space after Gagarin happened earlier he would have aborted the flight. As it was, politically and socially Sheppard HAD to launch that day or pretty much not at all so he overrode and worked through each issue and launched anyway.
So no, actually Gagarin could very well STILL been first no matter the delays of the Soviet program because the US program was just as much 'risk-adverse' and could not 'hide' things as the Soviets could if things went wrong.
Randy
"Sheppard" would be famous for being 'first-into-space' (the US PR apparatus would ensure that) while Gagarin would be 'first-in-orbit' (the Soviet PR apparatus ensuring THAT as well) so that the two would be compared to OTL "Gagarin" and "Armstrong" for similar reasons.
No I'd never heard of Gagarin being referred to as the "Columbus of the Cosmos" either, though that makes sense as it would NOT have been a way American's would have 'related' to easily
But speaking of... Again it WOULD be the way an ATL American media would paint 'Sheppard' if he went up first. And quite logically the Soviets would refer to Gagarin as the "Magellan of the Cosmos" specifically to tie-into the American propaganda and (basically
) stick it in the eye of the US that Gagarin actually went 'around the world' where Sheppard just went 'there and back' again Actually the quote doesn't really 'disagree' with my assessment
Going AROUND the Earth in space is quite obviously a 'greater' achievement than a sub-orbital hop, but fastmongrel has the point; What is going to 'count' here is what the various media's are going spin things and frankly they have vastly more 'media' available to do so than even in Lindbergh's time. And to be honest one reason that the USSR went straight for orbit was the fact that the US openly planned to do sub-orbital first and this was a way to 'get-ahead' of them once again. Keep in mind everyone was 'assuming' that the US suborbital flight would in fact come first! Had "Ham's" flight gone off a bit better or Von Braun been a bit less safety obsessed, (it continually surprises me how so many "space fans" see early NASA as less risk-adverse than the current one when in fact it is the opposite) Sheppard WOULD have been the first human in space. Yes the Space Race would continue but the immediate 'pressure' for the US to do 'something' in space to counter Soviet 'firsts' would actually be less. Which leads to...Actually my turn to respectfully disagree since Kennedy was quite open about wanting to do 'anything' BUT the Moon as a goal and an American 'first' would ease the pressure enough he could probably have gotten away with a Space Station rather than a Lunar landing and return. Saturn 1 would fly in October just 6 months after Gagarin went into orbit OTL and its payload was vastly superior to anything the Soviets had available. Even if it should have developmental issues, (and given its very conservative design to specifically avoid such unlikely) the 'pacing' item would then become a manned vehicle for it to carry.
The key was 'at-that-time' (what's "The Oncoming Storm"? Never mind just found it in the listed thread
) but it was developing that capability and frankly quite a bit more. Atlas was coming along as was Titan-1 but since both were prioritized as missiles rather than launchers... And again there was Saturn-1 which would be available in a little over a year and was far beyond anything the Soviets had at the time. The key pacing item was always a capsule and experience with space launch operations. With visible 'proof' that America could do 'something' first it takes a LOT of the 'sting' out of further Soviet efforts on the level of the average American citizen and most of the government which OTL required a 'guaranteed' first at least promised in order to restore some of the lost faith. This is quite self evident actually in that America was to 'suffer' several more Soviet space 'firsts' before we began to gain traction and pull ahead.The real 'butterfly' in such a situation is that a closer Space Race would force the Soviets to not simply settle for grasping the lower hanging fruit given their capability of launching heavy payloads, (which rapidly diminished as American launch vehicles came online) and decide to either give up the Race they started or get serious about 'competing' which would have had additional butterflies towards the whole outcome of the Space Race.
Additive trivia: Actually Von Braun was LOOKING for an excuse to delay Sheppard's flight and used Debus' objections to call for another test flight. It was the reason he called for a 'unanimous' approval rather than reaching a consensus decision as was his normal way. He would later admit that had any of the issues that delayed Sheppard's launch OTL happened without the 'pressure' to get an American into space after Gagarin happened earlier he would have aborted the flight. As it was, politically and socially Sheppard HAD to launch that day or pretty much not at all so he overrode and worked through each issue and launched anyway.
So no, actually Gagarin could very well STILL been first no matter the delays of the Soviet program because the US program was just as much 'risk-adverse' and could not 'hide' things as the Soviets could if things went wrong.
Randy
Actually fastmongrel hit the 'nail' on the head: Marketing
"Sheppard" would be famous for being 'first-into-space' (the US PR apparatus would ensure that) while Gagarin would be 'first-in-orbit' (the Soviet PR apparatus ensuring THAT as well) so that the two would be compared to OTL "Gagarin" and "Armstrong" for similar reasons.
No I'd never heard of Gagarin being referred to as the "Columbus of the Cosmos" either, though that makes sense as it would NOT have been a way American's would have 'related' to easily
But speaking of... Again it WOULD be the way an ATL American media would paint 'Sheppard' if he went up first. And quite logically the Soviets would refer to Gagarin as the "Magellan of the Cosmos" specifically to tie-into the American propaganda and (basically
Actually the quote doesn't really 'disagree' with my assessment
Actually my turn to respectfully disagree since Kennedy was quite open about wanting to do 'anything' BUT the Moon as a goal and an American 'first' would ease the pressure enough he could probably have gotten away with a Space Station rather than a Lunar landing and return. Saturn 1 would fly in October just 6 months after Gagarin went into orbit OTL and its payload was vastly superior to anything the Soviets had available. Even if it should have developmental issues, (and given its very conservative design to specifically avoid such unlikely) the 'pacing' item would then become a manned vehicle for it to carry.
The key was 'at-that-time' (what's "The Oncoming Storm"? Never mind just found it in the listed thread
The real 'butterfly' in such a situation is that a closer Space Race would force the Soviets to not simply settle for grasping the lower hanging fruit given their capability of launching heavy payloads, (which rapidly diminished as American launch vehicles came online) and decide to either give up the Race they started or get serious about 'competing' which would have had additional butterflies towards the whole outcome of the Space Race.
Additive trivia: Actually Von Braun was LOOKING for an excuse to delay Sheppard's flight and used Debus' objections to call for another test flight. It was the reason he called for a 'unanimous' approval rather than reaching a consensus decision as was his normal way. He would later admit that had any of the issues that delayed Sheppard's launch OTL happened without the 'pressure' to get an American into space after Gagarin happened earlier he would have aborted the flight. As it was, politically and socially Sheppard HAD to launch that day or pretty much not at all so he overrode and worked through each issue and launched anyway.
So no, actually Gagarin could very well STILL been first no matter the delays of the Soviet program because the US program was just as much 'risk-adverse' and could not 'hide' things as the Soviets could if things went wrong.
Randy
As I told before Ruskies will be spinning harder on Gagarin's story to make up their losses like US did with Lindbergh long ago. The pressure would still be there to influence Kennedy's decision for a Moonshot or a space station.
All I can tell is some subsequent hinge moments would be tenser while some other sets would go a bit in the opposite direction. Had Kurt Debus make a different choice that day it can be surmised that von Braun would face a tense hinge moment on whether to go along with the rest of the team, or bring up new excuses. The problems would be worked out but in a bit rushed manner so that ATL's Shepard flight would be less comfortable.
After ATL's Shepard flight on March Russia would be at loss to explain that shortcoming. Another hinge moment goes in with Khrushchev delibrating with a moonshot, or agrees with Korolev that Vostok I has a bigger capability that would nevertheless patch up the shortcoming.
After Gagarin's orbital spaceflight the Soviet propaganda machines like TASS or Pravda would emphasize the fact that he did an orbit around the Earth and Shepard's being referred to as a "grasshopper hop". Kennedy would face the question on whether to go to the Moon, or build a space station. My opinion is he would go for the former option as the Soviet's spin on Yuri's flight would be too great for Americans to handle although to be fair it would be yet another hinge moment.
Few years later there would be less pressure for the congressmen to cut down NASA fundings at the time of manned lunar missions like OTL which means even less chance for Apollo 18-20 to happen.
The TL would stays largely the same assuming it goes along a particular set of choices made in hinge moments, otherwise the Space Race either gets a lot tighter or looser as you put it.
The Soviets are prone to be as risk-adverse as the Americans as they had planned to do Gagarin's flight on May Day and at one time Khrushchev asked them to delay the flight after the Bondanrenko tragedy.
Ultimately the divergence and the progress of a timeline can be as chaotic as the Heisenberg's uncertainity principle itself. At the overall level the Soviets are more keen on boasting their firsts compared to Americans.
What's interesting is how would a WI thread about Gagarin being first in space looks like in ATL.
Last edited:
And the US, (with reason) can still point out Sheppard was FIRST in space and claim a 'victory which at that point would have been significant.
History, documentation and people that were there area ll clear that such a 'break' would have allowed Kennedy to avoid focusing on the Moon which he likely would have taken. While all the 'experts' he'd talked to assured him that the US could beat the Soviets to the Moon they were also adamant that to do so would require a massive effort at enormous costs. Facts he was well aware of already, and loath to avoid if he could. At that point ANY "first" America could claim would buy him time and breathing room and this was quite clear. I'll point out that comparatively a Space Station and the infrastructure and systems to support would arguably have been the 'better' choice anyway but due to OTL's 'failure' of the US to secure a significant 'manned' first put so much pressure to ensure one that the Moon became the only viable choice.
Again von Braun walked into the meeting intending to delay Sheppards flight so it Debus had not voiced his concerns, (which note he'd already discussed with von Braun) then von Braun himself was going to be the 'diseenting' voice and use that to delay the flight. As it was he was well aware that Debus had already decided to voice concerns in the meeting and supported him doing so BECAUSE he had concerns himself. And no Sheppard's 'ride' wouldn't have gone on on schedule anyway as the 'issues' faced on his OTL flight were already present and would have probably scrubbed the flight anyway. (Sheppard's "booster" was assigned to his flight and not available for a 'test' flight. so it's 'problems' would have shown up anyway and von Braun would have been even more hesitant to 'push through' to launch)
What 'shortcoming'? We've already agreed they would simple pound on the 'difference' between suborbital and orbital but in essence the US would have a 'fig-leaf' to wear which most of the world would gladly accept even though they would understand it was more of an excuse. The simple fact was that the US had stated up front that they would START with suborbital flights and move to orbital when ready and despite OTL Gagarin going first they stuck to that schedule. What changed was the NEXT step which NASA had already announced, which was Apollo but one aimed at orbital and 'possible' near-Luna operations. OTL due to Gagarin Apollo had to change directly to a Lunar focus, ATL that pressure would be easier to ignore and for Apollo to proceed as already planned.
Khruschev due to the USSR's 'lead' didn't seriously consider a moonshot due to the amount of available 'capability' still inherent with Vostok and "Old Number Seven". But both he and Korolev DID understand that US capability would shortly exceed their own in any case and there was going to have to be a decision made and soon. At this point Korolev was already slipping from the top spot with both Yangel and Chelomei in ascendance with Chelomei having the 'advantage' of having hired Khruschev's son as an engineer. I highly suspect that the 1962 meeting (https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...sents-first-and-the-r-56-rocket-flies.398625/) would have gone differently if Sheppard had gone first but not so sure that Khruscheve or the military would have been any more supportive of a large and expensive 'moonshot' program. I suspect that the UR500 would still have gotten a go-ahead and Yangel regulated to military requirements, (which the military also supported the UR500 over Korolov's N1) while Korlev would still be stuck developing 'advanced' Vostok LV's and the Soyuz. The problem was the Vostok, (capsule and LV) while having some room for improvment and inovation was only slightly less 'limited' than the Mercury and would be vastly inferior to the proposed Apollo and Saturn and the principles were well aware of this. They could, (and did OTL so we can assume they would in an ATL) push those capabilities to their limit but it was clear that something more (Soyuz) was needed and therefore authorized. But the Soviet's were in fact 'behind' on the race for a 'big' booster and the Vostok would never match the American Saturn-1 so SOMETHING would have to be developed. Under the circumstances the UR500 actually looks even better than it did OTL and I'd assume would be made a priority. (More so than OTL) However that' probably wouldn't help as much as one would think but I suspect that it would be available sooner than 1977 though not by the mid-60s and certainly not before the American's were launching orbital "Gemini" flights possibly on the Saturn-1 instead of the Titan. In fact given no immediate 'Lunar' goal Gemini might well have been vastly different as the OTL version was very much an 'expedient' design. Granted it turned out to have much more potential than Mercury but Mercury was never meant to be more than a 'first-use' test vehicle either.
So it probably would be America taking a few 'firsts' over the Soviets in the mid-to-late-60s which would put more pressure on the Soviets. Again they can 'hide', 'obfuscate', and 'propagandize' what they DO acknowledge doing to a point but they will be getting desperate to either get the UR500 and Zond/Soyuz into operation to push thing towards a Lunar goalpost or thinking of scaling back to orbital only to deescalate the Space Race as they did OTL.
Your opinions of course but that's not what Kennedy or those around him felt. ANY 'first' they could cling to would delay the decision and frankly an orbital (Space Station) step-by-step plan was what everyone preferred to plan rather than trying to leap-frog to the Moon. The point constantly being made to Kennedy, Congress, the American people and the world was that we COULD go to the Moon but 'officially' (and unofficially) given any excuse the preference was to go orbital and build up infrastructure, operations and systems there before going to the Moon. The US in fact DID do so though due to the focus on the Lunar landing all these things were significantly abbreviated and limited and the time period drastically cut.
Less pressure would mean a greater chance the landings would continue or am I reading this wrong? Also IF a Space Station had been chosen it is arguable that the overall costs would have actually been 'less' than those of the OTL Apollo plan. For one thing it's highly likely that Saturn-V would not have been developed as it was 'required' to do a 'one-shot' Lunar mission where as the original plan had been to use either Earth orbital rendezvous or assembly to launch a Lunar mission and both the experience with more extensive orbital operations and availability of a Space Station and/or orbital infrastructure would have made using a wholly different mission plan and operation much more likely.
The thing is the 'choices' and reasons behind them become very different under other than OTL circumstances. Sheppard going first is very much a big one.
Well aware of this and frankly THE biggest possible 'hing-moment' with Sheppard going first is that the Soviet's will decide to petty much 'quite' while they are ahead and deescalate the Space Race in favor of more 'terrestrial' activities. While at this point neither side can actually 'quit' development of orbital operations with "Lunar" pushed back to a later date is quite possible to 'arrange' and both sides would have reasons to maintain a lower pace. America regaining 'face' by grabbing a few more 'firsts' (quite possible with Saturn-1 and Gemini let alone Apollo/Saturn) and the Soviets pushing less hard (getting the advanced "Soyuz and launcher" operational and possibly the UR500 but keeping to obviously 'orbital' and Space Station operations) and both the pressure and 'support' for expanded operations quickly bleeds away.
Hello? AH here
That's kind of the point eh? They were more 'keen' as long as it didn't cost a lot of require a dedicated effort hence their "OTL" Lunar, ("what Lunar? We were never 'racing' in the first place, that's those silly American's competitive nature") plan and excuse. A closer 'race' could push them to either up their game or just as likely quite while they seemed to be ahead or at least on par with the US.
{quote]What's interesting is how would a WI thread about Gagarin being first in space looks like in ATL.[/QUOTE]
"it would have caused us to shoot for the Moon instead of settling for going around in circles for decades! We could have and would have built a 'super' booster and gone to the Moon in the mid-60s rather than the 70s/80s/not-yet and we wouldn't be 'stuck' with a useless "Space Station" and orbital ferry that we can't use to go onto Mars and beyond which would have happened if we'd gone to the Moon" You KNOW some things aren't going to significantly 'change' about the WI's
Randy