1) For some reason, Korolev remains calm despite delays on his 1500kg
Sputnik. The satellite is not launched until May of 1958--after
Vanguard 1 becomes the first artificial satellite in March.

2) The November flight of Pioneer 2 becomes the first artificial
satellite to fly past the moon, returning valuable scientific
information (though the tv camera returns nothing usable). Russia's
Luna 1 does not duplicate the feat until early January of 1959.

3) The astronauts contend that Von Braun is too cautious and prevail
in their desire to launch Alan Shepard on a suborbital flight on March
24, 1961--thus, an American is the first in space, over a month ahead
of the first cosmonaut, Yuri Gagarin.

I think these what-ifs are ordered in increasing degree of
probability. They all serve to narrow the space race by having the
Americans succeed first, but then are quickly upstaged by a much more
capable Soviet flight.

This isn't like the Americans making it to the moon first and the
Soviets, far behind, declaring that a race never existed. These what-
ifs are not clear victories for the Americans, but they do give early
wins when they are perhaps the most vital. Is a closer space race
good for either side, or does it breed complacency in the US and
frustration followed by despair in the USSR?