Manned military spaceflight

[Romulus Augustulus]

In the US at least, manned spaceflight was mostly a civilian thing, despite USAF ambitions. But is there any way we can get manned military spaceflight, both in the US and the USSR (my understanding is that in the USSR, there was far less of a division) parallel to a successful lunar program? I was wondering if NASA could have Mercury, Gemini and Apollo (perhaps more of an Apollo program in this TL, with Apollos 18-20 flying...) while the USAF could have a manned program as well.

My interest is chiefly in the X-20 Dyna-Soar; damn shame it was cancelled. Any way it could have been built and flown and become the basis of a larger USAF program? (Maybe along with MOL.) Best of all is if the USAF deployed a version of the Dyna-Soar as an honest-to-goodness orbital bomber.

So, that's my challenge; with a POD no earlier than January 1st, 1950, and changing as little else as possible, can you get a bigger Apollo program (18-20 are actually conducted; maybe they also even conducted the planned manned Venus flyby) as well as a USAF manned program, involving a nuclear-armed orbital X-20 as well as a USAF space station?

EDIT: Hmm...maybe that was incoherent. Well, I am suffering from sleep deprivation...

Perhaps the challenge should be more general; more extensive "civilian" space programs, that is, manned civilian space programs (more Apollo missions, Manned Venus Flyby, etc.) but at the same time, can you make it so that manned orbital nuclear-armed bombers are built, flown, and deployed?

They would have some advantages; very little warning time compared to an ICBM, more flexible, can be recalled, effectively impossible to intercept, etc. Potentially useful, even if expensive.

 

[Michael B]

The problem with a manned military space programme was that at the time, humans could not do anything much better in space than machines. The commonest function was observation and surveillance satellites of the sixties were good enough so there was no point putting a manned camera in orbit.

Still, assuming that the Americans cool down 'Nam so they can afford a military programme...

The Dyna-Soar is put into service to lift small satellites into orbit. A proposal to also use it as a bomber is canned in the early stage as it is pointed out that ICBMs and SLBMs can hit targets quicker and at greater accuracy.

However, an alternative programme, the X Fighter modification is adopted. Two Dyna-Soars are given large fuel tanks so that they can carry out more manuoevres in space. In addition a slug gun is developed along with improved radar. The combination is a spacecraft that can guided in to destroy enemy (ie Soviet) satellites.

Intense secrecy surrounded the project and it did was not revealed to the public until Angolan Incident in 1985.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Though the military itself doesn't run the space program, it does co-op with NASA a good deal, and a good many astronaughts and pilots come straight out of the armed forces.

If you want military in space, try pushing ahead with the varied missle defense shields.

 

[Rasputin]

Well, instead of having complementary military and civilian programs, why not make things easier and have the space program remain a military project? You could have lines of demarkation in terms of which service committed which project (Army handles the manned rocket missions, Air Force the shuttle missions, Navy the satellite missions, or something along those lines).

Over time, if the militaristic nature of program contributes to it retaining funds, since it would have more pragmatic ambitions in mind regarding permanent outposts on the moon and such-like (something that would definitely keep the Russians in the race if they feel that the Americans are pushing for a permanent military presence), these programs could be consolidated into an independent 'Space Force', where all our juvenile 'Project Thor' fantasies could be realised.

 

[NHBL]

poor electronics

How hard would it be to not have the transistor and other miniature electronics develop, yet retain spaceflight. If that happens, then people can do a lot of things that machines can't (Might require an earlier POD)

 

[Berra]

How hard would it be to not have the transistor and other miniature electronics develop, yet retain spaceflight. If that happens, then people can do a lot of things that machines can't (Might require an earlier POD)

Yes, I think the von braun space station was nessesary to man because they needed humans to change the vacume tubes.

 

[Romulus Augustulus]

Yes, I think the von braun space station was nessesary to man because they needed humans to change the vacume tubes.

Yeah, I know.

I just have this juvenille obsession with the Dyna-Soar, but man, who wouldn't? Ah...let's just have that program go ahead and end up deploying the Dyna-Soar III, mainly as a pork project. It isn't really that useful for military applications, but the Dyna-Soar proves quite flexible and is built and flown in this TL. Some are used by NASA; others by the USAF. (It's used for reconnaissance sometimes; unlike a satellite, it can fly lower and get higher-resolution imagery and can arrive with no warning.)

Dyna-Soar III is operational for one year before being withdrawn. The other Dyna-Soars prove to be very useful and versatile, however. This is alongside the Apollo program. A manned Venus flyby is conducted in 1973. (There was actually such a plan.)

 

[dangeropolis]

In the US at least, manned spaceflight was mostly a civilian thing, despite USAF ambitions. But is there any way we can get manned military spaceflight, both in the US and the USSR (my understanding is that in the USSR, there was far less of a division) parallel to a successful lunar program? I was wondering if NASA could have Mercury, Gemini and Apollo (perhaps more of an Apollo program in this TL, with Apollos 18-20 flying...) while the USAF could have a manned program as well.

It would have been quite possible to have manned military spaceflight by the time of the first apollo launch. If the USAF had been given the go-ahead to pursue project Orion and the US and USSR hadn't signed the test-ban treaty (the only thing currently keeping Orions out of space). Since Orions use nuclear bombs to propel themselves, the ships are weapons and would be perfect for AF purposes. Also, they are much faster and can send larger payloads than apollo rockets. If the US had put its nuclear tech into spaceflight rather than ICBMs it is likely that there would be USAF presence in the asteroid belt even as we type.

Venus in '73 (or maybe even earlier), a "grand tour" of the solar system by the mid '80s, military infrastructure developed in space throughout the 90s and a permanent military space station by the year 2000. What the Russians would be up to during this time, I have no idea.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Project Orion, in the way you describe it, is over rated. It was designed before nuclear effects were understood, and would have had high risks.

Or are you really saying that continuous EMP blasts and nuclear fallout is good for a planet?

 

[BlackMage]

Well, the Russians actually did manage military spaceflight; they had two operational military spacestations, Salyuts 3 and 5, the first of which managed to destroy a target satellite with an onboard cannon.

Unfortunately, they got cancelled because there was nothing they could do that couldn't be done by spyplanes or satellites, but if the project was retained, the development of the Progress supply craft could lead to a permanent military presence in space, rather than just the short intervals before. Maybe the TKS gets approved, allowing for larger crews and bigger stations. One craft would have five times the cargo of a Progress...

Perhaps a station like Mir, with four TKS cargo launches a year and adapted TKS craft for human transport, with a crew of 20, covered in adapted Salyut modules for habitation, with weapons modules and sophisticated spy telescopes and...

Nah, that's too juvenile even for me. It's a cool fantasy, though.

 

[dangeropolis]

Project Orion, in the way you describe it, is over rated. It was designed before nuclear effects were understood, and would have had high risks.

Or are you really saying that continuous EMP blasts and nuclear fallout is good for a planet?

When did I say it wasn't bad for the planet (there's ways around that, but whatever). I simply said that it could have been used by the USAF to establish a military presence in outer space. This is true. I don't know that the USAF really cares about the environmental impacts of their projects (ICBM tests and so forth). Whether it is over or underrated (or risky) is not particularly germane to the discussion of whether it could have been used for manned military spaceflight (which it could have). The military is well known for putting their own soldiers and the rest of the populace at risk, i dont know why that would be any less true in the 60s than today.

If I was launching rockets, by the way, I'd either use a more modern update of orion tech (like project prometheus) or launch orions from space or the middle of the ocean (one of the coolest things about orions is that you can be much more choosy about where you launch them from - unlike chemical rockets).

 

[Romulus Augustulus]

They didn't fire the 30mm cannon with astronauts aboard the station, but they did destroy a target satellite. Man...how cool is that?

 

[Romulus Augustulus]

Another related WI: What if the Soviets had detonated the Tsar Bomba at the planned full yield of 100mt? Assume they find a way to make sure the bomber gets away. What would the result of the largest artificial explosion in history being, say, 106mt instead of ~50mt be?

 

[Michael B]

Yeah, I know.

I just have this juvenille obsession with the Dyna-Soar, but man, who wouldn't? Ah...let's just have that program go ahead and end up deploying the Dyna-Soar III, mainly as a pork project. It isn't really that useful for military applications, but the Dyna-Soar proves quite flexible and is built and flown in this TL. Some are used by NASA; others by the USAF. (It's used for reconnaissance sometimes; unlike a satellite, it can fly lower and get higher-resolution imagery and can arrive with no warning.)

My reading of Wikipedia on Dyna-Soar is that it is in effect a very high flying bomber. As it is not stealthy, the Russians will see it coming as they would a satellite then down it with an ABM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyna-soar