|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: What if...the Soviets had been first?
|
derek
Member Posts: 297
From: N.Ireland.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 07-26-2003 07:35 AM
   
Has anyone else noticed that if you bring a few Russian accomplishments forward by a year,we might have a different program today;Apollo 8 is beaten by Leonov on a circumlunar flight,Luna 15 returns soil samples before Neil,Lunokhod 1 roves the moon and as Apollo 13 limps home,Salyut 1 hosts the Soyuz 10 crew for 3 weeks.My view is that Apollo would have ended there-especially if 13 didn't make it-and Nixon might have announced a Mars mission by 1980/85.This is like Stephen Baxter's excellent novel "Voyage",anyone else out there agree with me?------------------
|
Rodina
Member Posts: 836
From: Lafayette, CA
Registered: Oct 2001
|
posted 07-26-2003 01:03 PM
Probably not a bad analysis, but I've always found Stephen Baxter's Voyage to be a hugely depressing scenario. No unmanned voyages to the outer planets, more government stanglehold on space and, most of all, it was abundantly clear that that mission was a one-off deal. Nothing in his alternate 1986 indicated that anyone would be going back to Mars, ever.Given a choice between going to Mars once or waiting 25 years with a real chance of going to Mars sustainably, I'll take sustainability.
[This message has been edited by Rodina (edited July 26, 2003).] |
KenDavis
Member Posts: 187
From: W.Sussex United Kingdom
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 07-30-2003 05:00 PM
I may be going off thread here but I do agree with Rodina; whilst I think Stephen Baxter is one of the best SF writers around, his scenarios do seem a bit depressing. I have just finished reading Phase Space - and I am sure there must be some more positive scenarios around.So... When the US won the race to the moon the Russians pretty much accepted it and turned to building space stations - they could do that since their moon programme was secret anyway. If the Russians had got to the moon first the Americans couldn't have given up. The programme was so 'out in the open' and so much part of life that they would of had to continue and find a way to improve on the Russians. How about the Russians orbit the moon in 1968 and land in 1969 before the Americans. Nixon then re-affirms Kennedy's goal to land on the moon, but not just land as the Russians had done but to land and stay i.e the announced a permenant moon base by 1980. Apollo 11 lands in 1970 and at the same time firm commitments are laid for the continued production of Saturn Vs to support the construction of a lunar outpost and the development of the Space Tug. In 1975 the J-series Apollos begin supported by a lunar orbiting Skylab (Moonlab) and Space Tug. In 1978 Apollo 24 spends two weeks on the lunar surface (you are all free to suggest a crew!). In 1980 the first components of a permenant moon base are landed on the moon which had been launched by an uprated Saturn V. Maybe I should write a book... |
derek
Member Posts: 297
From: N.Ireland.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 07-31-2003 07:59 AM
Thanks for your opinions,a BBC radio program,"What if?" reckoned a Soviet landing would have spurred the US on to Mars.Yes,a lot of Baxter's work is grim,especially "Titan",even down to foretelling the loss of Columbia.....------------------
| |
Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts
Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a
|
|
|
 advertisement
|
