What if Ocean Race instead of Space Race?

[omnimercurial]

Like the title says.

Throughout the Cold War a competition is ongoing to claim the Sea & develop technologies to work & live there & exploit its resources.

Many other Nations beyond the Big 2 the USA & USSR would be able to join in the fun that were blocked from OTL's goings on in space.

What kind of World could form?

How would you envision todays tech being with this origin pushing it?

What countries would ascend to hights or fail differently to OTL?

Would the USSR exist in the present?

What POD's would be best for this change to occur?

 

[asnys]

Didn't we basically have something like this, it just never got as much press as the space race? SeaLab, the nodule mining thing, etc.?

 

[Michel Van]

it could have worked
if USA and USSR had focus on Navy deployed Nuclear weapon stored in very deep water
like proposal for the MX ICBM silos in 1970s to stored on ocean floor
General Electric had already tested successful in 1968, underwater habitat module for deep of 4800 meters.
in same time study for liquid breathing diving system were also study and tested on a volunteer
also the US Navy study underwater sub base in cliffs or underwater mounts

France had join this race with jacques-Yves Cousteau
also Italy and Japan

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Cannibalize this:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=196074

 

[Dahveed323]

There would need to be some military component: the space race allowed for civilian research with dual-use into ICBMs ... launch a capsule into space, you can launch a nuke around the globe.

As far as an ocean race goes, the first thing I can think of is if something economically or militarily vital was found in such abundance at seemingly technologically prohibitive depths, or in any abundance that wa snot readily available on the surface.

Suppose that Peak Oil actually occurred inthe 1970s as predicted and the only known abundant source was in the arctic (for whatever reason) ... there you have a perfect set up for a USSR/US clash over artic resources, which would prompt some significant marine research.

Alternatively, start the industrial revolution at the same time, but, in the case of the UK, have the commonwealth formed much earlier whereby the colonies are viewed as equal components of the realm. Industrializations spreads globally much faster as the UK constructs railroads and factories in India, Africa, Canada, etc, requiring MUCH higher rates of fossil fuel usage before the science of climate change became known. Ice caps start significantly melting in the early 1920s or 1930s ... by the time the cold war rears its head MANY coastal areas are getting devestated regularly and the whole worst-case-scenario of global warming comes to pass so research in this field becomes vital for creating marine habitats and claiming oceanic territory.

 

[asnys]

it could have worked
if USA and USSR had focus on Navy deployed Nuclear weapon stored in very deep water
like proposal for the MX ICBM silos in 1970s to stored on ocean floor

Are you talking about ORCA? I've never been able to find much information about it, but I thought that was going to be based on the continental shelf?

There would need to be some military component: the space race allowed for civilian research with dual-use into ICBMs ... launch a capsule into space, you can launch a nuke around the globe.

There was a lot of military-funded marine research, due to the importance of submarines both for nuclear deterrence and maintaining convoys to Europe in war.

 

[Michel Van]

Are you talking about ORCA? I've never been able to find much information about it, but I thought that was going to be based on the continental shelf?

There was a lot of military-funded marine research, due to the importance of submarines both for nuclear deterrence and maintaining convoys to Europe in war.

I have only vague data on MX deep sea deployment.

SAC affect Buried-Trench Mobility were the MX move random on Rails and brake true tunnel roof in case of War, the BTM needed 3000-6000 miles of Tunnels !
and there wee also this idea
the Lake-Bottom Mobility, MX in canister are move on back of a "lake bottom crawling vehicles" or "submerging missile barges"
see this link for mire info http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1063.0.html

i found this picture of 1966 US Navy study for underwater Base called "Rock-Site"

The United States Navy's "Rock-Site" concept calls for placing large, permanently manned installations deep beneath the bed of the ocean. Such facilities could be tens or even hundreds of miles out to sea. Tunnels could be driven beneath the sea floor, extending hundreds of miles up and down the Atlantic, Pacific and/or Gulf of Mexico Coasts. The tunnels could originate on land and extend out under the ocean for many, many miles. Alternatively, a manned undersea base could be constructed beneath the sea floor with no connection with land whatsoever. The technology to do this has existed for decades. Source: Manned Undersea Structures: The Rock-Site Concept, by C.F. Austin. NOTS TP 4162. U.S. Naval Ordnance Test Station, China Lake, California, October 1966

In this U.S. Navy depiction of an undersea "Rock-Site" you can see the manned installation constructed right inside an underwater sea mount. There are giant locks for submarines to come and go, and crew quarters. On top of the sea mount is a long horizontal structure made of metal tubing that may serve multiple functions: a) as a long wave (ELF) radio antenna for communications; b) as an oxygen provider (separating oxygen out of the sea water for an air supply for the base); and c) perhaps as a pure water desalinization unit, as well. There are other structures on top of the sea mount and on the sea floor associated with the "Rock-Site" base. Source: United States Navy, circa 1960s.

The world's oceans and seas contain many potential "Rock-Site" locations. These sea mounts off the coasts of Iberia and Africa are strategically located near the busy sea lanes of the North Atlantic and the vital Strait of Gibraltar at the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea. United States Navy, circa 1960s.

 

[asnys]

I have only vague data on MX deep sea deployment.

SAC affect Buried-Trench Mobility were the MX move random on Rails and brake true tunnel roof in case of War, the BTM needed 3000-6000 miles of Tunnels !
and there wee also this idea
the Lake-Bottom Mobility, MX in canister are move on back of a "lake bottom crawling vehicles" or "submerging missile barges"
see this link for mire info http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1063.0.html

According to the (very limited) documentation I've found, ORCA was going to be canisterized MX missiles tethered to the ocean floor on the continental shelf. No manpower on site, just a canister and a tether. Never implemented because it violated the Seabed Treaty and was vulnerable to attack without corresponding advantages. I've never found anything about deep sea basing, but it wouldn't surprise me - they considered everything else, after all.

i found this picture of 1966 US Navy study for underwater Base called "Rock-Site"

Ooooh, pretty! Thank you very much, I've never heard of this.

It does give me ideas, though, if we want to drive the military to invest in deep undersea bases rather than just submarines. I'm going to turn off the plausibility filter for a minute here and start brainstorming.

I've been toying with the idea of a more widespread, earlier adoption of protracted war concepts in nuclear strategy. A deep undersea base might be useful if you're anticipating a nuclear conflict long enough that resupplying and repairing submarines, to a degree that you can't achieve with surface resupply vessels, would be desirable. The base would be deep enough underwater that ballistic missile attack is impractical, and could be defended against torpedo attack by submarines. Alternatively, it might be buried deeply enough underground that it could survive a direct nuclear hit, and rely on multiple redundant ingress/egress channels and/or stored tunneling machines to maintain links to the outside. The base would allow you to sustain submarine operations, both SSNs and SSBNs, for at least a year even in a strategic nuclear conflict.

Alright, plausibility filter back on. I don't actually think the above makes sense; it's too expensive and impractical compared to surface resupply ships, even if it offers theoretical advantages. But maybe someone can come up with something actually plausible from it.

 

[Michel Van]

According to the (very limited) documentation I've found, ORCA was going to be canisterized MX missiles tethered to the ocean floor on the continental shelf. No manpower on site, just a canister and a tether. Never implemented because it violated the Seabed Treaty and was vulnerable to attack without corresponding advantages. I've never found anything about deep sea basing, but it wouldn't surprise me - they considered everything else, after all.

11 concept one bizarre as the other were recognized by the Secret project forum

from 3000-6000 miles network of Tunnels, Hovercraft, rails or Trucks mobile launch platforms.
dropping from heavy aircraft, "lake bottom crawling vehicles" or "submerging missile barges"
install them on Moon surface, horizontal launch silo in cliffs of Hawaii...


Sadly the weppage about the General Electric deep sea base are gone
the concept is even today innovative
It consist a modular sphere of 4 meter ø with up to 6 docking ports.
the sphere is made from glass! in titan framework, they tested scale version of module in depth of 500 meters
the design should be stable even in depth of 4000 meters

 

[asnys]

11 concept one bizarre as the other were recognized by the Secret project forum

from 3000-6000 miles network of Tunnels, Hovercraft, rails or Trucks mobile launch platforms.
dropping from heavy aircraft, "lake bottom crawling vehicles" or "submerging missile barges"
install them on Moon surface, horizontal launch silo in cliffs of Hawaii...

I got ORCA from ICBM Basing Options, which is a very brief summary of 30 possible basing modes for the MX. There's a brief summary here.

Sadly the weppage about the General Electric deep sea base are gone
the concept is even today innovative
It consist a modular sphere of 4 meter ø with up to 6 docking ports.
the sphere is made from glass! in titan framework, they tested scale version of module in depth of 500 meters
the design should be stable even in depth of 4000 meters

Do you have the URL saved? Archive.org might have a saved copy.

Also, is that related to the Tektite habitat?

 

[Michel Van]

I got ORCA from ICBM Basing Options, which is a very brief summary of 30 possible basing modes for the MX. There's a brief summary here.



Do you have the URL saved? Archive.org might have a saved copy.

Also, is that related to the Tektite habitat?

Big THX for link on MX

no the tektite had nothing to do with General Electric proposal

here interesting quote

United States Navy interests over this period were driven by fears of
losing freedom of navigation rights along foreign coasts and the closure of
straits, if extended territorial seas became the norm. Offshore exploitation was
viewed by the Navy as a complicating nuisance in conducting anti-submarine
warfare (ASW) in time of national emergency, and in deploying new technology
hydrophone arrays (Project Caesar). In the 1960's, continental shelf deployment
considerations for deterrent systems (silo based Polaris missiles and a complete
undersea submarine base (Project Rocksite)) led the Navy's argument against
leasing of United States offshore areas. However, when the projects' costs were
determined to make the space program's budget seem like a drop in the proverbial
bucket, the Navy's objections were dropped. This opened the way for a clear
Department of Defense position, concurring with that of the State Department, in
favor of coastal state jurisdiction over expanded continental shelf areas.34


34. Ibid, pp. 66-71 passim. [Lawrence Juda, Ocean Space Rights (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1975)]

thx to Grey Havoc from secret project forum for this info

 

[Dahveed323]

There was a lot of military-funded marine research, due to the importance of submarines both for nuclear deterrence and maintaining convoys to Europe in war.

Yes, obviously, but only as a means to an end - submarine development.

I am talking about a larger picture in which such research was used for dual use and more expansive application - like rockets used for space being used for ICBMs ... and satelite launch capability being used for GPS and intel satelites with a military component.

 

[Michel Van]

Yes, obviously, but only as a means to an end - submarine development.

"Rocksite" concept would had take the Submarine deployment a step further
make there operation totally invisible, against Spy and satellites who over look Sub harbors on leaving or arriving Subs.

 

[phx1138]

There might be a way: start submarine development/adoption sooner. Is it possible to get battery-driven boats in the 1830s or 1840s? If it is, the drive for ocean-floor bases becomes more possible IMO.

Add to that deep-sea oil drilling...