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 hereThat'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.
"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[/QUOTE]
von Braun could try to be the "sole dissenting voice" but the pressure from his team members would stay there, with ultimate compromise being an overnight burner to sort out the problems without test flights as much as possible. This would be a big gamble like Apollo 8 few years later which they might've been forced to take due to constant public and media feeling that they might fall out and lost the race to survival as said in a Gadbury's book. MR-3 and MR-BD would switch place to each others too after the uncomfortable flight.
A Vostok flight would instill hysterias of missile or technological gap amongst the populace which would in turn influence the congressmen then the feds is one of the main reasons I think the TL will continue like the rest.
There is really a pattern that the Soviets are more obsessional on gains and boast more than their counterparts across the Atlantic. Take for example Gherman Titov who was only known for complete a full day orbit that is an achievement of marginal stature but he got asteroid 1986QR5 to be name after him!! In contrast how about the crews of Apollo 8 who got around the Moon first aside from lunar craters that are of small stature? They even went so far to obfuscate the "ejection and parachuting" fact from the aeronautical federation after Yuri's flight just to ensure that they won't be "disqualified" and lose their hard-won laurels.
After Yuri's mission I suspect that von Braun would shiver at the fact that they nearly lost the space race and prestige with the near-delay of MR-3 thus they and likely the rest of NASA and some of Kennedy's advisors might be receptive to leapfrogging in order to avoid any further chances of losing face to the Soviets. Already in 1958 the Ike administration recognised that moon landing would be a more significant achievement among all eyes compared to moon-nuking. It's not like either the administration, NASA and the von Braun team or those at Russia didn't have radio or TV to listen to the news though; they are not completely isolated to the outside world till the point they have no idea what's going on.
ATL's MR-BD might have a different designation which would be entirely focused on coping with aerodynamical vibrations instead of booster problems that would've took place on 5th of May with self-consistency conjecture in mind.
Edit: We may have ignored the Bays of Pigs incident as well when this thread was active. The incident along with Gagarin's flight can be a major humiliation for the US enough for it to set the Moon goal when coupled together.
Last edited: