Subject: AH Challenge: Humanity in Space Date: 17 Feb 2001 16:44:44 GMT From: zwingli42@spamless.com Organization: NewsOne.Net - Free Usenet News via the Web - http://newsone.net/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if Followup-To: soc.history.what-if With one PoD, and no ASBs can the US (or any other country, but I think US is most likely) get and maintain a significant presence in space? ----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web ----- http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email abuse@newsone.net Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Humanity in Space Date: 17 Feb 2001 19:07:18 GMT From: joatsimeon@aol.com (JoatSimeon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >zwingli42@spamless.com >With one PoD, and no ASBs can the US (or any other country, but I think US is most likely) get and maintain a significant presence in space? -- the US decides to go with the space-station route rather than the sprint-to-the-moon program in the early 60's. Plans existed for a permanent space station and a reusable launch vehicle (the Dyna-Soar series) as a basis for Moon missions and other space stuff. If the US had done that, the Soviets probably would have too, which would keep the US involved. With a substantial base in orbit -- the plans were for a big Von Braun style rotating thingie -- and a cheaper launch system other ventures would probably have followed. A moon base and missions to Mars in the 70's-80's would be likely. -- S.M. Stirling Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Humanity in Space Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:53:12 -0600 From: "Harley W. Daugherty" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 By the God's, it would have been beautiful. -- Harley W. Daugherty "JoatSimeon" wrote in message news:20010217140718.14638.00000917@ng-de1.aol.com... > >zwingli42@spamless.com > > >With one PoD, and no ASBs can the US (or any other country, but I think US is > most likely) get and maintain a significant presence in space? > > -- the US decides to go with the space-station route rather than the > sprint-to-the-moon program in the early 60's. > > Plans existed for a permanent space station and a reusable launch vehicle (the > Dyna-Soar series) as a basis for Moon missions and other space stuff. > > If the US had done that, the Soviets probably would have too, which would keep > the US involved. > > With a substantial base in orbit -- the plans were for a big Von Braun style > rotating thingie -- and a cheaper launch system other ventures would probably > have followed. > > A moon base and missions to Mars in the 70's-80's would be likely. > > > -- S.M. Stirling Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Humanity in Space Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 20:19:25 +0000 From: charlie@nospam.antipope.org (Charlie Stross) Reply-To: charlie@antipope.org Organization: foobar quux Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe as declared: >>With one PoD, and no ASBs can the US (or any other country, but I think US is >most likely) get and maintain a significant presence in space? > >-- the US decides to go with the space-station route rather than the >sprint-to-the-moon program in the early 60's. > >Plans existed for a permanent space station and a reusable launch vehicle (the >Dyna-Soar series) as a basis for Moon missions and other space stuff. Dynasoar was less re-usable than the current shuttle. Remember, it was designed to be launched as the orbiter stage of a Titan IIIc; that's a big rocket with two strap-ons that you're extending, and the Titan hasn't been worked over for re-use. True, the Dynasoar winged orbiter is reusable, but it's not a cargo ship -- it's a crew ferry capsule with wings. This is less efficient, in weight terms, than a tin can with a parachute. McNamara knew what he was doing when he canned it and authorised the USAF to go ahead with MOLAB instead. MOLAB was cancelled when the USAF decided that they could control a KH-11's optics remotely, use TV to send the images home, and save the cost of shipping into orbit an extra ten tons of canned apes to change the film cartridges. >If the US had done that, the Soviets probably would have too, which would keep >the US involved. > >With a substantial base in orbit -- the plans were for a big Von Braun style >rotating thingie -- and a cheaper launch system other ventures would probably >have followed. > >A moon base and missions to Mars in the 70's-80's would be likely. Winged vehicles are the wrong approach: especially because they tend to be small and carry a small payload, specialising in reusability and a wide re-entry envelope rather than in sheer throw-weight. What we need are sea launch and nuclear pulse-detonation technologies. The best course seems to me to find some POD which sees NOVA go ahead in 1958, possibly combined with MISS instead of NASA's Mercury program. NOVA gives the USAF a booster that can put more than double the payload of a Saturn V into orbit by 1965, and gets them used to the idea of Sea Launch. This in turn means that something like Sea Dragon may well come along by 1970. The increased militarisation of the US space program compared to OTL probably jacks up the cold war pressure a bit. We can work wonders if we keep the Cuban Missile Crisis from turning so hot that it scares everyone into making peace; Russian progress in space will be genuinely frightening and we may avoid having an ABM treaty and Space treaty during the 1960's. Thus, Air Force studies on an Orion ship launched from a 30,000 ton Sea Dragon type launcher are worked on during the 1960's and Boeing and General Atomics get the construction contract around 1972. If we give the Russians a *little* bit of luck in 1971 with the N-1's first-stage motors -- which regardless of their wobbly first flights are bloody good engines, and still in use today -- then they're probably able to do an Apollo-8 style round the moon trip by 1972 and Brezhnev keeps on the pressure for the six-man-one-month Lunar mission plotted for 1974. This sets the stage for a Russian moon base and American Orion-drive nuclear interplanetary ships by 1980. Note that the standard American way of getting people into orbit in this TL will resemble a five-seater Soyuz capsule ... but they'll be churning them out on a production line like P-51's. I figure EOR is the way to go for mission profiles. -- Charlie Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Humanity in Space Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 03:17:17 +0000 (UTC) From: randy@googee.NMU.EDU (Randy Appleton) Reply-To: randy@euclid.nmu.edu Organization: Northern Michigan University Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On 19 Feb 2001 02:29:24 GMT, Ives100 wrote: >>With one PoD, and no ASBs can the US (or any other country, but I think >>US is most likely) get and maintain a significant presence in space? > Suppose Mao had been a reasonable economist. Picture the Chinese nation with 10-15 years MORE growth in it. Such an economy would be large enough to support quite a space program. And the Chinese government seems the type to do things just for presige. -Randy -- ======================================================================== || Randy Appleton, Professor of Computer Science at Northern Michigan || || University. And a big fan of Linux! || ================= mailto:randy@euclid.nmu.edu ==========================Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Humanity in Space Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:03:47 +0000 From: charlie@nospam.antipope.org (Charlie Stross) Reply-To: charlie@antipope.org Organization: foobar quux Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe as declared: >zwingli42 wrote: > >>With one PoD, and no ASBs can the US (or any other country, but I think >>US is most likely) get and maintain a significant presence in space? > >Sure. POD: A certain key scientist is hit by a car in the 1940s. Had he >lived, he would have been the impetus behind several miniturizations in U.S. >A-bomb design. Ted Taylor. He invented the suspended-core fission device, IIRC, was responsible for Super Oralloy (the largest A-bomb ever detonated -- 400Kt) and numerous other weird shit (worked on the design of drive bombs for Project Orion, shaped-charge A-bombs for tunneling for Project Ploughshare, and so on). We can also throw in a meltdown in one of the early plutonium production reactors at Hanford to slow up the accumulation of the US Pu stockpile -- this would provide an incentive to go for bigger bombs (more bang per kilo of Pu) rather than more small warheads. -- Charlie