Three Space What-ifs, a common theme

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?

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 02:04:19 -0000, neopeius
wrote:

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.

....In this case, Sputnik I would have probably never flown. Remember,
"Object D" was the original satellite planned for the first launch,
and because it wasn't ready in time to meet Korolev's self-imposed
deadlines, the "simplest satellite" was built and launched instead.
"Object D" eventually launched as "Sputnik III", although in your
"What If?" it would have been Sputnik I - unless the change in event
sequence led to another name altogether, such as "Stalin's Buttplug"
or something like that.

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.

....Wasn't Pioneer 2's booster determined to have sorely lacked the
proper thrust from the get-go?

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.

....Probably nothing major insofar as changing the timeline that much.
Shepard's flight was suborbital, Gagarin's was one full orbit. Quite
possibly Gagarin's flight might have been extended to 3-6 orbits just
to add salt to that particular wound, which in turn would have
probably prompted the same Kennedy reaction. The Worst Case Scenario I
could see is the deadline not being set at the end of the decade, but
just a simple declaration to get to the Moon ASATP.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 01:54:48 -0500, OM wrote:

...Probably nothing major insofar as changing the timeline that much.
Shepard's flight was suborbital, Gagarin's was one full orbit. Quite
possibly Gagarin's flight might have been extended to 3-6 orbits

Where would he have landed?

--
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

On Oct 11, 11:54 pm, OM wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 02:04:19 -0000, neopeius
wrote:

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.

...In this case, Sputnik I would have probably never flown. Remember,
"Object D" was the original satellite planned for the first launch,
and because it wasn't ready in time to meet Korolev's self-imposed
deadlines, the "simplest satellite" was built and launched instead.
"Object D" eventually launched as "Sputnik III", although in your
"What If?" it would have been Sputnik I - unless the change in event
sequence led to another name altogether, such as "Stalin's Buttplug"
or something like that.

Right. OTL Sputnik 1, the ball with the antennae, would never have
flown in this timeline. Instead, the big Sputnik would launch, on
schedule, in May.

I think the only result of this is a delayed American space program,
about six months worth. Yes, America will have title for first in
space, but the Soviet achievements will be so obviously ahead that the
race to catch up will be even more furious. All things proceeding the
same, this could prove interesting in the mid 60s--but in reality, any
difference probably gets ironed out long before then.

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.

...Wasn't Pioneer 2's booster determined to have sorely lacked the
proper thrust from the get-go?

It's complicated. All of the Pioneers had a fundamental flaw. But
one of those flaws was a simple 1 in 7 chance that the first stage
would explode. Assuming it didn't happen to any of the Pioneers (it
happened to Pioneer 0 in OTL), there is a pretty good chance that this
timeline's Pioneer 2 might have pulled off its mission.

I doubt it would have orbited the moon, as originally intended, but a
flyby was certainly possible.

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.

...Probably nothing major insofar as changing the timeline that much.
Shepard's flight was suborbital, Gagarin's was one full orbit. Quite
possibly Gagarin's flight might have been extended to 3-6 orbits just
to add salt to that particular wound, which in turn would have
probably prompted the same Kennedy reaction. The Worst Case Scenario I
could see is the deadline not being set at the end of the decade, but
just a simple declaration to get to the Moon ASATP.

I agree. Probably no major results. But if the Lunar goal is
modified at all, things get very different. For instance, no Von
Braun program (unlikely by 1961) means dueling space stations and
armed Gemini and Soyuz.

A lower priority lunar program might allow for the GE Lunar Proposal
(i.e. American Soyuz), or maybe more Gemini madness.

neopeius wrote:
Right. OTL Sputnik 1, the ball with the antennae, would never have
flown in this timeline. Instead, the big Sputnik would launch, on
schedule, in May.


First attempt to launch a Object D (Sputnik 3) failed on February 3,1958
- if that had happened with the timeline of this scenario it would have
slowed things up.
Anatoly Zak has put up a new section of his Russian Space Web site
discussing the history of the Sputnik program:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/sputnik.html

Pat

On Oct 12, 9:49 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
neopeius wrote:
Right. OTL Sputnik 1, the ball with the antennae, would never have
flown in this timeline. Instead, the big Sputnik would launch, on
schedule, in May.

First attempt to launch a Object D (Sputnik 3) failed on February 3,1958
- if that had happened with the timeline of this scenario it would have
slowed things up.
Anatoly Zak has put up a new section of his Russian Space Web site
discussing the history of the Sputnik program:http://www.russianspaceweb.com/sputnik.html

Pat

Sure--I was trying to flutter as few butterfly wings as possible.

"Fevric J Glandules" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 01:54:48 -0500, OM wrote:

...Probably nothing major insofar as changing the timeline that much.
Shepard's flight was suborbital, Gagarin's was one full orbit. Quite
possibly Gagarin's flight might have been extended to 3-6 orbits

Where would he have landed?

On Earth.

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:02:03 -0400, Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Fevric J Glandules" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 01:54:48 -0500, OM wrote:

...Probably nothing major insofar as changing the timeline that much.
Shepard's flight was suborbital, Gagarin's was one full orbit. Quite
possibly Gagarin's flight might have been extended to 3-6 orbits

Where would he have landed?

On Earth.

Ho ho ho. Assuming only one possible location for launch, are there
orbits that would allow a 3-6 orbit flight that would come down in the
Soviet Union?

--
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

In sci.space.history message
, Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:31:56, Fevric J Glandules
posted:

Ho ho ho. Assuming only one possible location for launch, are there
orbits that would allow a 3-6 orbit flight that would come down in the
Soviet Union?

The orbit remains fixed in space, and has a period of 90 minutes,
approx. Launch eastwards, and each successive furthest-north point is
about 1.5 time zones to the West. So launch a bit north of east from
north Sakhalin, and land outside GUM (www.gum.ru) at about the same time
of day a few orbits later.

A polar orbit crosses some part of the FUSSR during almost every
revolution; gaps of 1 or 2,

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
So launch a bit north of east from
north Sakhalin, and land outside GUM (www.gum.ru) at about the same time
of day a few orbits later.


I've been to GUM; that might be the prototype shopping mall from its
interior design. Strange, almost Victorian looking interior structure,
and none-too-well heated, either.

Pat