Blue Skies in Camelot (Continued): An Alternate 80s and Beyond

[PRM]

His Inaugural Address in 1961 inspired not just every Americans but around the world as well, making him one of the greatest orators in history IMHO. I've always watched and listened his speech during my adolescence. In my adulthood, it made me also emotional and inspired at the same time to the point we've wanted to try his oratory skills. Even though I'm not an American but a Filipino, even though I didn't live during his time in office, and even though we're born from different generations, I would vote for him both in 1960 IOTL and 1964 ITTL as well. I would like to talked to him also on how did he faced many challenges and failures in his life? And how did he succeed and prevail whether his professional or personal life IOTL or ITTL?

With his death in 1985 ITTL, it would be the major news and event in history. I think millions of people who would visit his casket at the rotunda of the US Capitol and would be there during his funeral procession in the nation's capital, to his final resting place in Arlington Cemetery along with First Lady Jackie beside him when she passed away later in 1994.

I'm still looking forward when his biopic JFK would premiered in 1987 and was directed by Oliver Stone ITTL. With Jackie personally picked Warren Beatty to portrayed her late husband, who would she picked to portrayed her as well, including their children, the Kennedys, her husband's cabinet, allies, and rivals? I think President RFK would also picked actors/actresses who could portrayed "The America's Family". We're know more about this in the next chapter updates geniuses.

I think for Jackie, Mary Steenburgen could play her. Martin Sheen I can see playing Bobby. Who plays the cabinet and the entire Kennedy Clan is anybody's guess. Though I could see Bonnie Bartlett playing Ethel.

 

[Kennedy Forever]

Sorry again for the (late) review. Been busy moving house. Great update. Really enjoyed reading how Saudi navigates the Cold War in the 80s. The French and Spanish updates were very interesting too. I look forward to how France's third way in regards to geopolitics goes.

 

[PRM]

Here's a question for everybody, in 2 updates ago it talked about RFK's dream of Mars exploration but here's the question. How long do we think it would take before they can actually go to Mars ITTL? My guess 1999, maybe.

 

[King of Danes]

Here's a question for everybody, in 2 updates ago it talked about RFK's dream of Mars exploration but here's the question. How long do we think it would take before they can actually go to Mars ITTL? My guess 1999, maybe.

In Kentucky Fried Politics it was 2003, I believe. It was apparently also because Earth was the closest to Mars it would be in 15 years (iirc). So I could see it being 2003 here as well

 

[PRM]

In Kentucky Fried Politics it was 2003, I believe. It was apparently also because Earth was the closest to Mars it would be in 15 years (iirc). So I could see it being 2003 here as well

Good point but if you take 15 years to where the timeline is now 1981. It would be 1996 and with NASA getting more funding and more support from the government then I could see them do it earlier than how it was in Kentucky Fried Politics which is a very different timeline where very different circumstances played into that

 

[King of Danes]

Good point but if you take 15 years to where the timeline is now 1981. It would be 1996 and with NASA getting more funding and more support from the government then I could see them do it earlier than how it was in Kentucky Fried Politics which is a very different timeline where very different circumstances played into that

Still doesn’t change that 2003 was the year Earth was closest to Mars for 15 years. It would then have to be 2018 or 1988. One is an even longer wait while 1988 is very optimistic (though one helluva way to cap off RFK’s presidency)

 

[PRM]

Still doesn’t change that 2003 was the year Earth was closest to Mars for 15 years. It would then have to be 2018 or 1988. One is an even longer wait while 1988 is very optimistic (though one helluva way to cap off RFK’s presidency)

Oh I see what you were saying. Sorry I though you were talking about a committment or logistical impossibility to not be able to land on Mars for 15 years so sorry now I see what you were seeing I didn't quite get that you were saying that was the period earth was closests to Mars

 

[King of Danes]

Oh I see what you were saying. Sorry I though you were talking about a committment or logistical impossibility to not be able to land on Mars for 15 years so sorry now I see what you were seeing I didn't quite get that you were saying that was the period earth was closests to Mars

Quite alright Also, it seems that 2003 was the closest that Mars has ever been in recorded history. So, 2003, I would argue, is deffo the best bet. Perhaps 1988 will se some probe/satelite orbiters or something? Is there anyone knowledgeable about space travel on the thread?

 

[PRM]

Quite alright Also, it seems that 2003 was the closest that Mars has ever been in recorded history. So, 2003, I would argue, is deffo the best bet. Perhaps 1988 will se some probe/satelite orbiters or something? Is there anyone knowledgeable about space travel on the thread?

Yes please someone who really knows space travel. Please weigh in here

 

[aksolute]

Yes please someone who really knows space travel. Please weigh in here

I am by no means an expert, but the 2003 convergence was an anomaly, the closest the planets had been in 60,000 years.
If you follow their orbital paths, Earth and Mars come pretty close every 1.5 years, this is the "window" for most Mars missions.
If you want to follow a trajectory similar to Apollo-Svarog, it will take at least 15 years, given the political will.

 

[aksolute]

I am by no means an expert, but the 2003 convergence was an anomaly, the closest the planets had been in 60,000 years.
If you follow their orbital paths, Earth and Mars come pretty close every 1.5 years, this is the "window" for most Mars missions.
If you want to follow a trajectory similar to Apollo-Svarog, it will take at least 15 years, given the political will.

That is, unless, NASA and allied agencies send out missions in clusters each window, three missions in window 1, three in window 2 and so on.

 

[PRM]

I am by no means an expert, but the 2003 convergence was an anomaly, the closest the planets had been in 60,000 years.
If you follow their orbital paths, Earth and Mars come pretty close every 1.5 years, this is the "window" for most Mars missions.
If you want to follow a trajectory similar to Apollo-Svarog, it will take at least 15 years, given the political will.

So theoretically they could land on Mars by 1996 ITTL but it would take a lot of willpower, political will, and planning?

 

[King of Danes]

1.5

Is that a typo, or did you intend for the decimal to be there?

 

[aksolute]

So theoretically they could land on Mars by 1996 ITTL but it would take a lot of willpower, political will, and planning?

The moon is one thing, Mars is an entirely different beast.
The usual Apollo-era policy of 'land there, plant a flag, explore and return' will simply not work.
A radio signal takes 1.5 seconds to travel from the Earth to the Moon.
It takes 5 minutes to do that for Mars at its closest.
You need self-sustaining colonies at the minimum for any mission to be viable.
Jamestown, Mars anyone?

I just want to explain the sheer scale such a mission would entail.

 

[aksolute]

Is that a typo, or did you intend for the decimal to be there?

I wanted the decimal to be there. That is the frequency of mars rovers being sent up right now iotl.

 

[PRM]

The moon is one thing, Mars is an entirely different beast.
The usual Apollo-era policy of 'land there, plant a flag, explore and return' will simply not work.
A radio signal takes 1.5 seconds to travel from the Earth to the Moon.
It takes 5 minutes to do that for Mars at its closest.
You need self-sustaining colonies at the minimum for any mission to be viable.
Jamestown, Mars anyone?

I just want to explain the sheer scale such a mission would entail.

Jeez I know it would take seven months to get to Mars but it sounds even more complicated than that.

 

[aksolute]

The moon is one thing, Mars is an entirely different beast.
The usual Apollo-era policy of 'land there, plant a flag, explore and return' will simply not work.
A radio signal takes 1.5 seconds to travel from the Earth to the Moon.
It takes 5 minutes to do that for Mars at its closest.
You need self-sustaining colonies at the minimum for any mission to be viable.
Jamestown, Mars anyone?

I just want to explain the sheer scale such a mission would entail.

NASA doesn't know a lot of things that will be needed for Mars right now.
They don't have the expertise to continuously supply an outpost in space.
They don't know how to grow food in completely foreign soil, in an atmosphere that is majority carbon dioxide.
They don't know how the human body will react to long durations in outer space.
01. My first move, if I were the administrator of NASA, would be to send a series of orbiters and rovers to return soil samples, and to record the general ambiance of Mars.
02. Concurrently, I would develop a space station in low-earth orbit, mainly for experimentation and to gain crucial knowledge for future missions.
03. Then, I would build a base on the South Pole of the moon, specifically the Shackleton Crater on the South Pole, where we have discovered water recently IOTL.
04. With the base I would build a space station in lunar orbit as a refueling point, for hydrogen fuel from the water we mine out of the Shackleton Crater.
05. Then comes another minute outpost in Martian orbit, where crews will change vessels to a specially designed landing module because Mars has an atmosphere (This will have to be similar to crew capsules in regular spacecraft, with disposable heat shields).
06. Then comes a colony in Mars. This can only be established after.
-> We know how the human body reacts for a long time in Space.
-> We know how the human body reacts to low gravity (not zero gravity. This is what the moon base is for apart from water.)
-> We know how to viably grow food in both lunar and martian soil.
-> We can sustainably produce potable water (That's simple enough, they recycle piss on the space station.)
-> We have good habitation modules for both the Moon and Mars.
-> We have good enough communication. Even so, the crew must have to be trained to be under radio silence for months at a time, for contingencies, of course.

 

[aksolute]

NASA doesn't know a lot of things that will be needed for Mars right now.
They don't have the expertise to continuously supply an outpost in space.
They don't know how to grow food in completely foreign soil, in an atmosphere that is majority carbon dioxide.
They don't know how the human body will react to long durations in outer space.
01. My first move, if I were the administrator of NASA, would be to send a series of orbiters and rovers to return soil samples, and to record the general ambiance of Mars.
02. Concurrently, I would develop a space station in low-earth orbit, mainly for experimentation and to gain crucial knowledge for future missions.
03. Then, I would build a base on the South Pole of the moon, specifically the Shackleton Crater on the South Pole, where we have discovered water recently IOTL.
04. With the base I would build a space station in lunar orbit as a refueling point, for hydrogen fuel from the water we mine out of the Shackleton Crater.
05. Then comes another minute outpost in Martian orbit, where crews will change vessels to a specially designed landing module because Mars has an atmosphere (This will have to be similar to crew capsules in regular spacecraft, with disposable heat shields).
06. Then comes a colony in Mars. This can only be established after.
-> We know how the human body reacts for a long time in Space.
-> We know how the human body reacts to low gravity (not zero gravity. This is what the moon base is for apart from water.)
-> We know how to viably grow food in both lunar and martian soil.
-> We have good habitation modules for both the Moon and Mars.
-> We have good enough communication. Even so, the crew must have to be trained to be under radio silence for months at a time, for contingencies, of course.

Have a look, @PRM
As I said, 15 years at the minimum, with extensive, almost '60s-era idealism and political will and funding, because this will take up a mammoth proportion of the US budget.

 

[PRM]

NASA doesn't know a lot of things that will be needed for Mars right now.
They don't have the expertise to continuously supply an outpost in space.
They don't know how to grow food in completely foreign soil, in an atmosphere that is majority carbon dioxide.
They don't know how the human body will react to long durations in outer space.
01. My first move, if I were the administrator of NASA, would be to send a series of orbiters and rovers to return soil samples, and to record the general ambiance of Mars.
02. Concurrently, I would develop a space station in low-earth orbit, mainly for experimentation and to gain crucial knowledge for future missions.
03. Then, I would build a base on the South Pole of the moon, specifically the Shackleton Crater on the South Pole, where we have discovered water recently IOTL.
04. With the base I would build a space station in lunar orbit as a refueling point, for hydrogen fuel from the water we mine out of the Shackleton Crater.
05. Then comes another minute outpost in Martian orbit, where crews will change vessels to a specially designed landing module because Mars has an atmosphere (This will have to be similar to crew capsules in regular spacecraft, with disposable heat shields).
06. Then comes a colony in Mars. This can only be established after.
-> We know how the human body reacts for a long time in Space.
-> We know how the human body reacts to low gravity (not zero gravity. This is what the moon base is for apart from water.)
-> We know how to viably grow food in both lunar and martian soil.
-> We can sustainably produce potable water (That's simple enough, they recycle piss on the space station.)
-> We have good habitation modules for both the Moon and Mars.
-> We have good enough communication. Even so, the crew must have to be trained to be under radio silence for months at a time, for contingencies, of course.

Wow that's a crap load of things they need to do ITTL. You said 15 years at the minimum, so what;s the maximum?

 

[aksolute]

Wow that's a crap load of things they need to do ITTL. You said 15 years at the minimum, so what;s the maximum?

Half a century, with allied government and private participation. That's why NASA is collaborating heavily with private companies in the Artemis program.