SunlitZelkova

David S.F. Portee, a space historian who runs the No Shortage of Dreams blog, says "Reagan wasn't interested at all until after he saw a few Shuttle landings." It should be noted that even if he continued funding of the Shuttle, it was both his administration and Congress that were responsible for dragging their feet so long Space Station Freedom had to become the ISS. I think that portion of the story is tentative though. I have no idea how the direction of spaceflight and government interest would go once we actually land humans on Mars (whether that be in the 80s or in the 2030s). I haven't thought much about it, I'm mainly focused on the general political history (which isn't that much affected by spaceflight) right now. Now that I think about it though, in the aftermath of a program with only a single Mars landing and no hardware left, I could see the successor program becoming something like SLS... designed to keep America looking sort of good in space competition with the USSR, but also mainly to put money into Congressional districts. The ending of my Mars program isn't too unlike that of the Space Shuttle. And a return to the Moon might make sense from the POV of both a NASA administrator helpful to still do something big post-Mars, but not quite as expensive as expendable repetitive Mars missions. On the other hand, given the technology they would be building off of would be Saturn series tech and not Space Shuttle, maybe it would be more capable than SLS. Another factor is what the Soviets are doing. I haven't decided if I want them to build a Moon base or take the same space station route as NASA. But unlike Skylab, any Soviet station would be permanent and easily accessible by Soyuz. So it might be hard to end piloted spaceflight while the Soviets are still doing it.

I wonder if Russian cosmism ever caught on with post-1991 philosophers.

Yes.

Basically the same dynamic with how Skylab B (already existed and would be cheap to launch) got cancelled but we ended up spending tons on the Space Shuttle (didn't exist and cost tons to develop). Same dynamic, different programs. Also, because my Mars program relies on so much legacy tech instead of new stuff, it wouldn't cost as much as the Boeing 1969 proposal or Von Braun's Mars mission proposal. As far as things with Congress goes- It isn't a "for sure" point of divergence in the same way you can say "if the Soviet submarine fired a nuclear torpedo accidentally during the Cuban Missile Crisis" there would be World War III for sure. It requires people not being robots and instead coming up with different ideas, and making different decisions. The manner by which the Soviets land on the Moon first also requires this. If you believe in the inevitability of history (a sort of dialectical materialism) you won't find the story compelling at all, but if you believe in the power of free will and choice, it becomes a bit more plausible.

For All Mankind is an entertaining TV show but is garbage as far as properly depicting how space programs and societal development works. I’ve decided to do my own version, to a certain extent. Agreed. What I’m thinking of right now is that there actually is… taking into account this is the 1970s with stagflation… no restart of Saturn V production. Instead Apollos 15, 19, 20, and even 17 and 18 are canceled to create a pool of Saturn Vs for a Mars mission and space station. Apollo 13 still has its problem, but this time Nixon gets his way and cancels all further Apollo missions afterwards. This leaves 7 Saturn Vs available for a Mars mission. I’m thinking the development campaign goes like this- Stage 1: Skylab A launches into LEO. Four missions are flown to it. We learn how to do space station ops. This stage ends in 1974 (Skylab still has delays and doesn’t launch till 73). Missions are progressively longer here, starting at 20 days and escalating to 90 days in space. Stage 2A: Skylab B, heavily modified to serve as a prototype MTV hab module, is launched in 1975. 3 missions are flown simulating a complete Mars mission. Stage 2B: A prototype NERVA module is launched, and does a complete mission to Mars orbit to verify engines can function that long. Maybe it carries Viking 1 and 2 simultaneously there. Stage 3: The Mars mission. Based on the proposed Mars mission that was going to come at the end of the original STS program, I’m assuming it’s going to take a single, reduced size “Skylab C” (with only three crew) and three S-IVB sized NERVA stages to propel this thing to Mars. That uses up the last of the Saturn Vs. This would take place in 1979 or the early 80s. Unfortunately mass limitations mean the time on the surface is only 15 days. After that, all hardware would be used up. The US would emerge having possibly discovered life on another planet and landed the first man and woman on Mars. In this environment I have no idea what proposals for successor programs would look like. But that’s a question for the future. TL/DR: The space station option seems the most fiscally and politically viable to me. Well, you’re right about colonization. In an expedition scenario it might not be necessary though. They would just be doing science, with little mining involved. IIRC the most recent proposed NASA mission architecture doesn’t even use ISRU (not DRM 5.0, I’m talking about the Deep Space Transport or whatever it’s called). Well the premise is sending people to Mars. The question wouldn’t really matter if we primarily used robots.

I think a test habitat in Earth’s vicinity is necessary, but I’m skeptical of how the Moon could be useful in testing it. We more or less have had something akin to a Mars Transfer Vehicle running continuously in orbit for decades- the ISS. Why do we need to do it on the Moon too? Things that need to be tested under a little gravity, like landers and surface habs, could be done on Earth, which is closer to Mars than Moon because it had atmosphere. On the other hand, it should be noted that IRL in the 70s and in my world, there is a significant Moon lobby. The 60s saw the creation of a decent sized lunar science community and they would have a big voice in deciding a post-Apollo goal. A space station would help with studying how a Mars Transfer Vehicle will behave over long periods of time. But I’m skeptical of why things that need to be tested under gravity, like landers and surface habs, can’t be done on Earth. What is the advantage of leaving from the Moon if you have to launch everything from Earth in the first place? Would 10 small launches from Earth to Moon to build a Mars vehicle on the Moon cost less than 3 big launches from Earth to build the same thing in LEO? I should have added more context. It’s 1969 but the downsizing of NASA was well underway by the time the Soviets surprised everyone by landing first. So it’s going to take a lot of money to restart Saturn V production. On the other hand, the Vietnam War ended earlier due to stronger political pressure over general science and technology vs. war. So the course of the funding is going to look more like how the Soviets cancelled N1 but then went all in on Mir + Buran, instead of cancelling Apollo and underfunding the lone Space Shuttle. Except in this case it will be *option/Moon base or space station* + Mars landing. So Apollo isn’t exactly an “active” Moon program. It’s very much in position for cancellation, only the Saturn V is really guaranteed to survive to the 1980s. There are no serious Moon base studies going on, and Apollo is still on track to end with 20. I personally favor the space station option because it is applicable to a Mars Transfer Vehicle. I feel like the transit through interplanetary space is the most dangerous and unknown aspect of a Mars mission (in 1969). In contrast, stuff that needs to be done under gravity could be done on Earth. Not to say it is best done on Earth, but if you are trying to limit things for budget reasons (think like you’re the White House Office of Budget and Management rather than NASA Administrator), Moon base feels easy to eliminate while space station can actually do things you can’t on Earth. ——————————— It sounds like I have already decided to go with a space station, and to be honest I am leaning toward it, but I still want to hear opinions. I like this discussion we have going.

Fixed!

I like building worlds. Just writing histories, listing facts, even making playlists with the music that might have been popular on the radio in certain decades. I am currently working on two worlds. One where the USSR lands on the Moon first (among a myriad of other points of divergence) and one where the Constellation program succeeds. I was originally considering two paths for the first one: One hyper realistic one with limited budgets and ambitions, and one with fantastic physics and technology where the Space Shuttle flies 7 times a week. I've decided to go somewhat inbetween the two. Not so conservative that the US just builds a simple Moon base and sends astronauts to it for several years before closing down, but not one so fantastic it might as well be Star Wars. I have what the 1960s in my world looks like completely down. But I've reached a crossroads where both the US and USSR have to decide what they want to do in the coming years. There are basically three options- 1) Big space station 2) Moon base + small space stations 3) Crewed Mars landing *An improved crew spacecraft to replace Apollo and Soyuz is automatically included. Because of an improved international situation and domestic politics in this world, a crewed Mars landing is probably a given at some point in the future. Now, it's just a matter of what to do in the meantime. The pros and cons of space station or Moon base don't particularly matter- it's all about which best contributes to a Mars program. I've done some light Googling, but I'd really like to hear from other people. It's a pretty old debate that is still going on, and it would be cool to hear from people more in the know about it (I myself mainly focus on space history rather than present day design decisions, and unfortunately there wasn't much serious discussion on how programs can contribute to others back in the 70s- mostly just wishlisting for cool rockets because they're cool). Share your thoughts after voting and let's discuss!

Changed again! This time it’s a Soviet space poster showing a cosmonaut guiding the way for earthly laborers.

“Yeah, the only time “free dinosaur” and “disappointing” should be in the same sentence is “It’s disappointing I didn’t get my free dinosaur.”- Anonymous Redditor

I guess Roscosmos is trying to make up for the lack of new, working projects with cool shots of existing stuff? I did really like the pictures they took of Soyuz MS-20's launch.

This is a problem with airliners too to some extent. Before the door plug incident, Portland International Airport had another incident in which a depressed, off duty Alaska pilot took drugs and then tried to seize control of a plane. He's now on trial and claims he doesn't remember any of it.

The idea of blockading or claiming territory on the Moon is ridiculous though. There would be no way to enforce it. The whole “we need to get there first to secure territory/freedom” is the dumbest thing ever.

You could share it here. The rules don’t expressly limit it to your own birthday.

https://x.com/cnspaceflight/status/1748332381839471076?s=46&t=Jd73T2beq0JLNtwTy1uR5A A hop test of a prototype methane Falcon 9 clone has taken place. This is the first flight of any hardware for the numerous Chinese F9 clones. *I say clone based on superficial visual resemblance, not configuration. Obviously using methane makes it very different from F9.

Hakuto-R, SLIM, and Peregrine. I don’t know of such a long string of failures* in lunar exploration since the Ranger program. The closest thing to it in recent times seems to be the back-to-back failures of Nozomi, Mars Climate Orbiter, and Mars Polar Lander. Interestingly it’s reversed. 1 Japanese spacecraft and 2 American at Mars, and 2 Japanese spacecraft and 1 American at the Moon. Fingers crossed for VIPER. It’s integral to South Pole exploration, and it would be a major blow if it failed, especially considering China is launching a sample return mission to there this year. *Some a partial failures though, I suppose.

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/26176-migbus-airbus-crazy-spacecoaster-idea/amp Somewhere in an alternate universe, MiG-31s are launching tourists into space, instead of Kinzhals.

https://x.com/cosmic_penguin/status/1747801739129196801?s=46&t=Jd73T2beq0JLNtwTy1uR5A The first flight of the next generation crewed spacecraft LEO variant and the LEO version of the future Moon rocket (Long March 10) is coming in 2025-2026.

https://www.koin.com/news/alaska-airlines-flight-1282/boeing-picks-a-retired-admiral-to-lead-a-team-that-will-review-safety-in-manufacturing-planes/ Admiral Kirkland Donald (retired) will head an in-house team to review Boeing’s manufacturing processes and make recommendations for improvement. He previously headed the navy’s nuclear propulsion program for eight years and now is chairman of Huntington Ingalls Shipbuilding. I wish I knew more about the personality of this guy. I wonder if he can do what Richard Feynman did for the Challenger investigation. Kinda asking questions someone from within Boeing wouldn’t, going against the grain of whatever Boeing wants to happen with the investigation and not being afraid to make damning statements. I think we have a nuclear boat vet here. @TheSaint? Did you happen to hear anything about this guy? He might have been before your time.

Well I did say many. Perhaps Russian language sources have more (although I don’t how reliable such a count would be), but the more well known Western cases of that decade are at least in the 10s.

There might have been that one Soviet astronomer or physicist... I read about him on Wikipedia years ago and can't remember his name... who said that "you Americans have us beat when it comes to UFO reports" but when it comes to conspiracy culture, Russia (and maybe the other former Soviet states too?) certainly give America a run for its money. I wonder if that comes with being a superpower. In Japan UFOs are treated more like mythology or simple tales of monsters rather than "tin-foil hat territory", at least by my observation. But getting back to UFOs in the ex-USSR, I had a theory that the reason there weren't many reports coming from there during the big waves of the 50s and 70s was because- 1. "Culture of staying low"- granted this comes from my very Western biased view of what it's like in an authoritarian country, but I assume one wouldn't want to attract the attention of the police for lights in the sky and what when it comes to life and death, one is probably better off assuming was a hallucination. "You gotta keep your head low", so says many American dramas set in police states. 2. Classification of police records- Anything reported wouldn't really come out in the first place. 3. Lack of interest from scientists and authorities- Now this is an iffy one. Jacques Vallee claimed in his book UFO Chronicles of the Soviet Union: A Cosmic Samizdat that Soviet scientists had actually undertaken a great deal of UFO research throughout the Cold War. But beyond his first two books, Passport to Magonia and The Invisible College, he seems to have drifted from his original championship of free thinking and become the very thing he once despised; espousing ideas such as full-on ancient alien theories and UFO crash tales (the former of which he distanced himself from in his first book, and the latter of which he noticeably omitted from the second book, perhaps correctly seeing that that incident is very much a fabrication). *deep breath* So, I don't know how accurate it is. But if there were people like Nikolai Kozyrev studying things such as time as a substance as late as the 1970s (and I did even find MSU articles on the subject dating from the early 2000s) who knows what they study? But, as I said, it's iffy. In the high stakes environment of the Soviet Union where a project can get cancelled with a few wrong words (allegedly the Tu-91 was cancelled when the officer showing it to Khrushchev said it "had the firepower of a cruiser" instead of "more than the firepower of a cruiser", to which Khrushchev said "then why do we have cruisers?", laughed, and promptly cancelled it), would scientists really risk their career on lights in the sky? Would military men risk it? Let alone politicians. Especially when such a circus was going on in full view in the West. Perhaps it is something they wanted to be above.

I think you are partially right in that there isn't even a market for that much iridium in the first place, but at the same time, we don't know what the demand is like in that world. Electric cars and fusion power plants are widespread. Who knows what else needs iridium? Household appliances? Smart toilets? My point was that FAM's society- at least in the West- has improved a lot compared to our timeline. Climate change being mitigated, social progress, more advanced science and so on. I suppose from the POV of an "alternate alternate timeline" where the asteroid was sent to Earth, maybe it is possible investment in Mars actually did improve society compared to had it been sent to Earth, and the world suffered because of that. But from the POV of me living in our timeline, it seems well off enough that it doesn't matter if they stop at Mars. But I guess it is instinct to always try to improve, so it makes sense they would think expanding Mars and going further would be better than putting resources into space. Given how much society improved (again, at least in the West) with a continued Space Race already. I was talking about IRL. I agree with your point that expansion into space is necessary to stave off a "end of resources" scenario, but I still disagree it is useful in preventing extinction from an asteroid impact. It just doesn't make sense to build a pressurized, self-sustaining habitat on another planet when you could just do it underground on Earth.

I don’t recall Dev or anyone ever saying it wouldn’t change the lives of people, it’s just that there was money to be made in doing so. Earth society has improved a lot in FAM so to say that it would be all for nothing if the Mars program plateaued is incorrect IMO. It’s like saying Apollo was all for nothing, but a lot of lessons were learned from it in designing rockets and doing lunar flights. Expansive fallout shelters would be more efficient than a Mars colony for human survival. It would take centuries for a Mars colony to become self sustaining IRL, and what would we do if the asteroid shows up in two decades? I’m sure in TV land they’ll have one going in just 10 years though.

Oh that’s right. I forgot. I do clearly remember them in the final episode saying “Ranger’s fusion reactor” though.

They never clarified this. They just say "fusion reactor", "ion engines", and "plasma engines". However, they did clarify that they had a fusion reactor, not fission.