|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
How long to space w/o ICBMs?
We all know the timeline from Peenemunde via White Sands, Kapustin Yar
etc. to Canaveral and Tyuratam, and then to space. If the German army of the early 1930s hadn't wanted the long-range artillery denied it by the Versailles treaty, no job for young Wernher von Braun, no major effort leading to the V-2 in time for WWII. You'd still have GIRD in the USSR, Goddard and GALCIT etc. here... parallel efforts in other countries, JATO and surely some anti-aircraft missile work. But you wouldn't have that stunning summer 1944 realization that the V-2, however inaccurate and non-cost-effective, was an *unstoppable* weapon. Similarly, even *with* the V-2 but without the A-bomb, you might have seen considerable work on military missiles... but with only high-explosive warheads, the bang/buck payoff would have been much less, and the progress much slower. It was the *combination* of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads -- especially the fast-shrinking H-bomb, powerful enough that you could afford to be a few miles off target -- that kicked off the big spending, and headlong progress towards ICBMs, in the early 1950s. OK -- assume that impetus hadn't existed. In 1952 the Lord writes in letters of fire in the ionosphe "No ICBMs, OR ELSE!!!" and afflicts von Braun, Korolyov et al with leprosy and boils just to get the point across. Cold War, yes... Eisenhower and Khrushchev and Kennedy, yes... but no ICBMs. In that case, when do you think the first satellite would have reached orbit? The first human? Where would we be today in space? Or to put it another way: just how strong -- in terms of funding and engineering effort -- would our desire to get into space have proved *in the absence* of huge military missile programs? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
How long to space w/o ICBMs?
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 19:28:03 GMT, in a place far, far away, Monte
Davis made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: We all know the timeline from Peenemunde via White Sands, Kapustin Yar etc. to Canaveral and Tyuratam, and then to space. If the German army of the early 1930s hadn't wanted the long-range artillery denied it by the Versailles treaty, no job for young Wernher von Braun, no major effort leading to the V-2 in time for WWII. You'd still have GIRD in the USSR, Goddard and GALCIT etc. here... parallel efforts in other countries, JATO and surely some anti-aircraft missile work. But you wouldn't have that stunning summer 1944 realization that the V-2, however inaccurate and non-cost-effective, was an *unstoppable* weapon. Similarly, even *with* the V-2 but without the A-bomb, you might have seen considerable work on military missiles... but with only high-explosive warheads, the bang/buck payoff would have been much less, and the progress much slower. It was the *combination* of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads -- especially the fast-shrinking H-bomb, powerful enough that you could afford to be a few miles off target -- that kicked off the big spending, and headlong progress towards ICBMs, in the early 1950s. OK -- assume that impetus hadn't existed. In 1952 the Lord writes in letters of fire in the ionosphe "No ICBMs, OR ELSE!!!" and afflicts von Braun, Korolyov et al with leprosy and boils just to get the point across. Cold War, yes... Eisenhower and Khrushchev and Kennedy, yes... but no ICBMs. In that case, when do you think the first satellite would have reached orbit? The first human? Where would we be today in space? Or to put it another way: just how strong -- in terms of funding and engineering effort -- would our desire to get into space have proved *in the absence* of huge military missile programs? An interesting notion for an alternate history, but there are, of course, multiple versions. Short answer, probably much later, and it may have been done privately first. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
How long to space w/o ICBMs?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
How long to space w/o ICBMs?
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:20:28 GMT, in a place far, far away, Monte
Davis made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: (Rand Simberg) wrote: Short answer, probably much later, and it may have been done privately first. Maybe communications satellites as the driver? Yeah, that's what I was thinking, though that wouldn't give low costs. Boy, would *that* have made Arthur C. Clarke proud. Or possibly spy satellites first anyway? Even without missile-gap worries, the Cold War powers would have wanted to keep an eye on each other's airfields and naval bases. That, too, but it still wouldn't have provided low costs. On the other hand, it might not have occurred to anyone to throw the launch vehicle away if they didn't have the ICBM model to work from... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
How long to space w/o ICBMs?
Well, the Vanguard rocket used a Navy 'Viking' missile, but it certainly also was buoyed up by rocket science from parallel projects. 'Scout' rockets also were big stacks of solids that could have come along as sounding rockets, then orbital vehicles. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
How long to space w/o ICBMs?
"Monte Davis" wrote in message news About 8-12 minutes. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
How long to space w/o ICBMs?
Jim Oberg wrote: Well, the Vanguard rocket used a Navy 'Viking' missile, but it certainly also was buoyed up by rocket science from parallel projects. 'Scout' rockets also were big stacks of solids that could have come along as sounding rockets, then orbital vehicles. Maybe we would have gone the X-15 route to orbit building on aircraft/rocket plane technology. Rusty |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
How long to space w/o ICBMs?
Monte Davis wrote: Maybe communications satellites as the driver? Boy, would *that* have made Arthur C. Clarke proud. Or possibly spy satellites first anyway? Even without missile-gap worries, the Cold War powers would have wanted to keep an eye on each other's airfields and naval bases. Vanguard was developed from civilian rockets (Aerobee and Viking) and so one can picture space exploration coming about even in a ICBM-free world. Pat |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
How long to space w/o ICBMs?
Pat Flannery wrote: Monte Davis wrote: Maybe communications satellites as the driver? Boy, would *that* have made Arthur C. Clarke proud. Or possibly spy satellites first anyway? Even without missile-gap worries, the Cold War powers would have wanted to keep an eye on each other's airfields and naval bases. Vanguard was developed from civilian rockets (Aerobee and Viking) and so one can picture space exploration coming about even in a ICBM-free world. Pat Wasn't the Viking design based on V-2 technology in the beginning? Rusty |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
How long to space w/o ICBMs?
Rusty wrote:
Maybe we would have gone the X-15 route to orbit building on aircraft/rocket plane technology. Rusty Also, without ICBMs, it seems fair to suppose that much of the money would have gone into the development of supersonic/hypersonic bombers and cruise missiles. Having the first stage available makes things like blackstar or spiral 50/50 a bit more attractive. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Early NASA PDFs | Rusty | History | 48 | June 13th 06 05:51 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | December 2nd 05 06:07 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | October 3rd 05 05:36 AM |
Gravity as Falling Space | Henry Haapalainen | Science | 1 | September 4th 04 04:08 PM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |