If it was the Second World War, who do you think would launch to the first satellite

[Seret]

The Manhattan project would be an issue too. The Germans were way behind on atomic research, if Germany was still undefeated when the a-bombs started rolling off the line from 1945 you can bet they'd have been in line for a few of them.

A lot of stuff would have had to happen differently for anybody to reach the point of launching a satellite in WW2.

[magnemoe]

The Manhattan project would be an issue too. The Germans were way behind on atomic research, if Germany was still undefeated when the a-bombs started rolling off the line from 1945 you can bet they'd have been in line for a few of them.

A lot of stuff would have had to happen differently for anybody to reach the point of launching a satellite in WW2.

Pretty much, germany had some design drawings for an rocket who could reach orbit, it was weighing 3000 ton, it was an scale up of an ballistic missile who could reach the US. both of this was pure paper projects but yes Germany had an serious lead. However the only practical reason to build an ICBM is nukes.

However the German nuclear program was not very successful. And even winning on the east front would not keept you safe from B29 bombers. They was not used in Europe because the distances was shorter.

[jwenting]

B-29s could not reach Europe or central Asia from the US, remember.

That's what the B-36 was built for, and later the B-52.

It's impossible to tell what would have happened had all the pieces fallen into place to allow Germany enough time to complete a rocket that could have put something into orbit.

Too many things could have gone different, which would have driven military development that now ended up with both sides building jet fighters and guided missiles (though useful versions of both didn't appear in numbers until 5-6 years after the war ended) in different directions, maybe ending up with (for example) the US building nuclear powered submarine cargo vessels to sail under the north pole to Murmansk, and Germany speeding up development of their submarine launched versions of the V1 and V2 to strike US port facilities.

As distances would be far larger than the largely tactical ranges encountered on the European battlefield late in WW2, such things would be of higher importance than Me-262s, Meteor and Shooting Star jet fighters, X.40 missiles, and uprated tank guns and armour.

[Kryten]

Depends on what your objective is. These weren't tactical weapons (where the standard yardstick for "effectiveness" would be a CEP smaller than the warhead's effective radius) they were terror weapons.

As opposed to the other Nazi operational ballistic missile, rheinbote. Rheinbote was intended to act as a replacement for heavy artillery, to be used tactically against army formations. It was found to be completely useless in that role due to accuracy limitations, and used effectively as a smaller V2, a role in which it was also completely useless due to the small warhead.

[philly_idle]

The only reason for Germany to persue the rocket program was because they started the war. Without the war, there would have been no rocket or space program.

Even western and russian engineers admitted that, by 1945, Germany probably had a 20+ years head start in rocket technology. I don't know who would have launched the first satellite without the war, but it wouldn't have been before 1970, with a moon landing not before the end of the 80s.

[Pingonaut]

Germany would have, most likely. They had Wernher van Braun.

[jwenting]

The only reason for Germany to persue the rocket program was because they started the war. Without the war, there would have been no rocket or space program.

wrong. Germany had a very active rocketry enthousiast society as early as the 1920s. During the 1930s this was recognised as having possible future military potential, and got some government funding. Then when WW2 came around, it was integrated into the armed forces research divisions.

[philly_idle]

wrong. Germany had a very active rocketry enthousiast society as early as the 1920s. During the 1930s this was recognised as having possible future military potential, and got some government funding. Then when WW2 came around, it was integrated into the armed forces research divisions.

I beg to differ. Of course, it's true what you say, but those early pioneers lacked major funding. I can only guesstimate here, but the development of a rocket like the A4 (=V2) from scratch would probably take many 10s of billions of any decent present day currency (i.e. Euro ).

That's - in my opinion - the reason why students or enthusiasts will never be able to build a rocket that reaches orbit. Not because they lack the knowledge or will to do so, but because those things are so mindboggling expensive to that only a state is able to do it. And goverments are not willing to finance anything simply for the sake of science.

Which brings me to my original point - the A4 was only developed because Germany started the war. Without the war, no funding, no rocket program, no A4.

Edited August 5, 2013 by philly_idle

[Rockhem]

The V2 was the first man-made object in space, even though they didn't know, because the boundary hadn't been established yet. (TL;DR Germany.)

[Nuke]

it probibly wouldn't have been russia, and the reason was stalin. he totally distrusted scientists and engineers and sent most of them to siberia to keep them out of the way. of course what they were really good at was espionage. if somebody had something they wanted, the would just send out spies to steal it. they successfully pulled off on many occasions. nukes for one (they had communists in the manhattan project), and they did steal the b-29 as well. the point is that under stalin the russian government would have never attempted anything as ambitious as a space race at war time, unless someone else did it first and they could steal it.

[DerekL1963]

Depends on what your objective is. These weren't tactical weapons (where the standard yardstick for "effectiveness" would be a CEP smaller than the warhead's effective radius) they were terror weapons. The V stood for "vergeltung"; revenge.

Yes, and the objective is what you're missing here - our objective isn't evaluating the capability of the weapons system, I.E. was it effective in it's designed terror goal? Our objective is evaluating the performance of the guidance system, I.E. can it hit it's target?, to determine their ability to build a guidance system capable of controlling an orbital booster.

Of course they were crude. These were guided weapons in the 1940s.

But that crudity is the key to understanding the issue - the V2's guidance system wasn't anywhere close to an inertial system. It was two gyro compasses, with one of them turned on it's side. There was no stable platform. While it could correct for pointing error by returning to an absolute attitude, it couldn't correct for any trajectory error. I.E. if a pointing error introduces a cross range error, it had no means of measuring that error... let alone compensating for it. The same goes for in plane errors - it returned to an absolute trajectory, not to a compensated trajectory. The accelerometer only measured axial acceleration and compared that to a precomputed value to determine when the motor should be shut down - no compensation for range errors.

If you squint hard enough, it looks kinda like an inertial guidance system, but it wasn't.

The question wasn't about the absolute crudeness of the V2, it was about the relative crudeness. The OP was asking which country was closest to punching something up into orbit. That was the Germans, no doubt. They were the only ones who were manufacturing a liquid-fueled rocket that could regular loft any kind of payload with any kind of accuracy.

"No doubt' the Germans? Only if you handwave away all the things pointed out that lead to a contrary conclusion. There's way more to it than just the ability to build crude vehicles with 1% of the needed capabilities.

You have no idea about the experience and qualifications of those you reply to online. I notice from some of your old posts you're an ex-submariner. If that's the case I suspect our backgrounds aren't too different. I'm an engineer who learnt his trade as an armourer working on aircraft.

I'm not an engineer, but my training in the Navy (and ongoing interest and research since) is in fire control, weapons control, and guidance. That's why I pointed to the systems I did - there's a much bigger picture that you're missing. The LEV-3 was brilliant for what it was, but overall the Germans were lagging when it came to guidance, navigation, and control systems.

[Van Disaster]

The Manhattan project would be an issue too. The Germans were way behind on atomic research, if Germany was still undefeated when the a-bombs started rolling off the line from 1945 you can bet they'd have been in line for a few of them.

A lot of stuff would have had to happen differently for anybody to reach the point of launching a satellite in WW2.

Caveat: it's been quite a while since I studied any history of the period. I'm not actually sure they were that far behind; I vaguely remember something along the lines of a) they didn't consider nuclear fission strategically important at some point and the project got shunted off, and there was some rather effective sabotage on the part of the Allies which knocked holes in what was actually being worked on. We can probably be quite thankful for part A...

Both sides had radar guided missiles by the end of the war and the Allies had some rather sophisticated bomb-aiming computers, which understandably is probably where most of their guidance work went. I doubt it'd would really have taken that much work to join everything up and make a functional cruise missile, I guess there just wasn't the need.

[Kryten]

In terms of weapons research they were effectively worse off than if they hadn't even started the program-because they'd simply managed to convince themselves nuclear weaponry was impossible. They did have a reactor program, but they only produced a single, small experimental reactor, four years after the americans reached the same point.

[Skyrunner27]

The German guidance system was poor, but it was also the only guidance system at the time. That was one of the problems that the Americans,Allied Europeans, and Soviets had when they came in to grab V-2's. You couldn't stick your guidance system in the V-2. The Americans and Europeans were able to grab some the fully assembled guidance system.Plus they had most of the scientists. Russia on the other hand only had parts of guidence systems and only found a few of the scientists not including Braun, who played a big part of the V-2. They had to reverse engineer the guidance system.

Also the Soviets treated their scientists very good.

[jwenting]

I beg to differ. Of course, it's true what you say, but those early pioneers lacked major funding. I can only guesstimate here, but the development of a rocket like the A4 (=V2) from scratch would probably take many 10s of billions of any decent present day currency (i.e. Euro ).

That's - in my opinion - the reason why students or enthusiasts will never be able to build a rocket that reaches orbit. Not because they lack the knowledge or will to do so, but because those things are so mindboggling expensive to that only a state is able to do it. And goverments are not willing to finance anything simply for the sake of science.

Which brings me to my original point - the A4 was only developed because Germany started the war. Without the war, no funding, no rocket program, no A4.

Where did I say they'd have been able to get into orbit without that military funding (or other major sponsors)?

They were maybe dreaming of it, but their plan was mail rockets, at least initially.

At the time those were thought of being a solution to get mail delivered to offshore islands and mountain valleys where aircraft can't easily get to (remember this was before helicopters, they were literally planning to stuff the mail in the nosecone of a rocket, point it in the right direction, light the fuse, and cross fingers they got the burn calculation right to get it to drop somewhere on the island).

[Seret]

Yes, and the objective is what you're missing here - our objective isn't evaluating the capability of the weapons system, I.E. was it effective in it's designed terror goal? Our objective is evaluating the performance of the guidance system, I.E. can it hit it's target?, to determine their ability to build a guidance system capable of controlling an orbital booster.

Oh I'm quite willing to concede the German's weren't ready to accurately insert a useful satellite into a stable orbit. But the question is, was anybody else any closer? Not only did the other countries not have any working rocket guidance system (even a rubbish one) they didn't have the rocket to put it on either. Maybe somebody else could have cracked the guidance problem if they'd tried, but the actual history of the early Russian and US rocketry efforts show that they were so far behind on the actual rockets that guidance was somewhat moot. Great guidance is no use if your rocket energetically disassembles on the pad.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Seret

[Seret]

there was some rather effective sabotage on the part of the Allies which knocked holes in what was actually being worked on.

Yep, the Norwegians gave German heavy water production at the plant in occupied Norway a good kicking. There was a raid by some ex-pat Norwegians who parachuted in and blew up the plant, then when the Germans tried to move the heavy water out by boat the resistance put the ship on the bottom of a fjord, where it remains today. There was a movie made about it all, with Kirk Douglas.

If the Germans had been pushing hard for an a-bomb, it would have majorly cramped their style.

[DerekL1963]

Oh I'm quite willing to concede the German's weren't ready to accurately insert a useful satellite into a stable orbit.

Well, we've got you most of the way to the light... lets bring you the rest of the way.

But the question is, was anybody else any closer? Not only did the other countries not have any working rocket guidance system (even a rubbish one) they didn't have the rocket to put it on either.

No, the question is "who would have been first" - and the resounding answer is "if anyone, it won't be Germany". Why? Because Germany didn't have the resources and had no prospect of getting them. If you need a Lamborghini, that you have a crap riceburner and everyone else has motor scooters is meaningless if can't afford the Lamborghini.

The answer to the question of "who would have been first?" is probably the same as "which nation could have lost it's entire carrier fleet twice over in the first year of the war and replaced them within two years, developed not one but *three* long range heavy bombers in parallel and fielded them all in vast quantities, fielded multiple generations of ever more advanced fighters, and, by the way, ran a successful nuclear weapons program on the scraps of the rest of their war effort (which also included shipping significant quantities of arms to other nations while retaining enough to fight a two front war themselves)?" (And that's just the high points.)

This analysis concentrates on the US v. Japan, but it gives a rough idea: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm Don't base your estimations of what the US might have done had it determined that satellites were vital to the war on the 'starvation years' that US rocketry endured from the end of WWII to the early/mid 50's. Once we decided to go that route, we went from practically nothing to birds on orbit in about five years.

[Seret]

No, the question is "who would have been first" - and the resounding answer is "if anyone, it won't be Germany". Why? Because Germany didn't have the resources and had no prospect of getting them.

Indeed, but the whole question implies considering that conditions were different. The correct answer to the question:

if it was the Second World War, who do you think would launch to the first satellite

...is of course: nobody. We know this, because nobody did! The very question involves diverging into the realms of alternate reality. So I think the real question is "what situation involves the least number of completely implausible things to happen, that would result in a satellite launch during WW2?". A bit contrived, but then it's a bit of a silly question to start with.

Picking the Germans simply involves less "what if"s than any other nation, so they get my vote. Let's hear your scenario for a US satellite!

[DerekL1963]

Picking the Germans simply involves less "what if"s than any other nation, so they get my vote. Let's hear your scenario for a US satellite!

No, it really doesn't involve fewer "what if's" - that's point I've been trying to make. It involves a metric buttload of additional what-if's that you steadfastly refuse to recognize the existence of.

Let's put this in perspective; Germany had a skateboard. The US had all the parts of a skateboard or knew how to make them or could learn how to make them in reasonably short order, but hadn't realized it yet. It sounds like Germany has a commanding lead - until you realize a skateboard is insufficient to the task. You need a turbocharged six cylinder four door sedan. Germany had no ability to build such a vehicle due to manpower, manufacturing, and materiel shortages. (For that matter, producing reliable skateboards in quantity proved problematical.) The US not only had no such shortages, they had an excess of all three. (And access to the best brains of the UK, and most of what had once the best brains of Germany.) If building such a vehicle becomes a national priority, the US has a system in place to ensure it gets the resources it needs. Germany on the other hand, has a series of interlocking fiefdoms perpetually at war with each other over resources and the Fuhrer's favor - even things that should have had priorities (like the Elektroboots) often suffered because their patrons lacked political juice (and because Germany's leadership was often reluctant to disturb existing production lines because as things were they were barely producing enough).

Before you challenge me to produce a scenario, you've got to come up with something better than "[handwave]but Germany had a crude rocket and a crude guidance system and thus is assured to be first[/handwave]!". You've got to address the facts of the situation.

[Kryten]

Though I agree with most of what you're saying, I must point out there is a big factor you're missing-motive. During pretty much any semi-plausible alternate WWII scenario, launching any kind of satellite is going to require huge investments in infrastructure, technology, and resources that simply won't result in anything militarily useful. Which of the major nations of the time are likely to even attempt something so completely pointless when there's a major war going on? Only Germany. This is where the dysfunctional system of political jostling becomes 'useful'-if whoever stands to gain from such a program manages to get the trust of the Austrian corporal, then it goes ahead.

[Seret]

Let's put this in perspective; Germany had a skateboard. The US had all the parts of a skateboard or knew how to make them or could learn how to make them in reasonably short order, but hadn't realized it yet. It sounds like Germany has a commanding lead - until you realize a skateboard is insufficient to the task. You need a turbocharged six cylinder four door sedan.

German had a working, mass produced liquid fuelled rocket making regular launches into space. To suggest that doesn't put them a substantial way towards orbit is just a bit silly IMO. Especially given that everybody else had nothing. No rockets, no guidance, no payload, and no experience building or operating any of it.

Germany had no ability to build such a vehicle due to manpower, manufacturing, and materiel shortages. (For that matter, producing reliable skateboards in quantity proved problematical.) The US not only had no such shortages, they had an excess of all three.

I don't think it's a question of raw industrial output. You mention things like shipbuilding above. That's irrelevant. Construction of ships was a well-understood field in the mid-20th century (snapping Liberty ships notwithstanding...). The US's vast industrial capacity wasn't the key to a successful space programme. What they lacked was experience and knowledge, a fact acknowledged by Operation Paperclip.

The US did have a good aircraft industry, which was capable of producing good aircraft by the end of the war, but history shows that this didn't immediately translate into success with rockets, and that there was still a hefty learning curve to climb. The Russians found the same.

Rocketry isn't a game of quantity, it's one of quality. Having a war machine tuned to produce tens of thousands of decidedly mediocre Shermans (or even the somewhat more capable but dodgily built T34) is no use if the job calls for a precision engineered Tiger. Much of both countrys' immense industrial might was of little use for the space programme. In reality NASA had to write much of the procedures, standards and systems of management from scratch. It's actually a pretty interesting field, and lot of the project management structure they came up with is still used today.

Before you challenge me to produce a scenario, you've got to come up with something better than "[handwave]but Germany had a crude rocket and a crude guidance system and thus is assured to be first[/handwave]!". You've got to address the facts of the situation.

I've already given some of my thoughts about possible scenarios earlier in the thread. I've said that German weren't in reality in any position to reach orbit in 1945 and that a German orbital shot might be more feasible given conditions such as:

• A prolonged war, made possible by Germany avoiding defeat on the Eastern Front, giving time for them to develop the require technology.
  
• Critical parts of German industry not being subject to excessive bombing.
  
• A credible strategic role for satellites, namely satellite recce of the North Atlantic.
  

Now, it's not me that's "challenging" you to produce a scenario, it's the OP. That's sort of the point of this thread. Why not have a go!

[PIRATEONTHERUN]

is no use if the job calls for a precision engineered Tiger.

You have some valid points, but the Tiger is not a good argument for German engineering. It was:

Too large to be recovered by existing vehicles other than other Tigers.

Broke down constantly.

Couldn't handle rough terrain.

Too heavy to traverse most bridges or through houses for fear of falling into the cellar.

Had a slow turret rotation.

Couldn't be produced quickly.

Inherited the overcomplicated roadwheel design.

Building something that's so overcomplicated and beyond your infrastructure is the North Korean approach to a space program, and isn't going to get something into orbit.

As a point for the Allies I would like to point out Operation Aphrodite. Building a remote control guidance system using TV cameras is a promising start for guiding a rocket probe, and with the Allies' advances in radar technology with enough funding they could definitely develop a control system that could control the rocket from the ground, not a trailing control aircraft.

[cpt_nosh]

I don't quite understand what we're talking about? A fictive scenario in which the second world war never happened? Or are we talking about Realtime which basically would make the Russians being "first"?

Please, enlighten me.

[DerekL1963]

German had a working, mass produced liquid fuelled rocket making regular launches into space. To suggest that doesn't put them a substantial way towards orbit is just a bit silly IMO.

No, it's not silly. An orbital booster isn't just a tweaked up V2. It's virtually an entirely different beast - you need engines of much higher performance, you need a vehicle with a much higher T/W ratio, you need staging... and when it comes to guidance and control, the difference isn't just of degree it's of *kind*.

I don't think it's a question of raw industrial output. You mention things like shipbuilding above. That's irrelevant. Construction of ships was a well-understood field in the mid-20th century (snapping Liberty ships notwithstanding...). The US's vast industrial capacity wasn't the key to a successful space programme.

If you don't have the spare industrial capacity, you can't create a space program. Industrial capacity and economics matter.

Rocketry isn't a game of quantity, it's one of quality. Having a war machine tuned to produce tens of thousands of decidedly mediocre Shermans (or even the somewhat more capable but dodgily built T34) is no use if the job calls for a precision engineered Tiger.

If you're unaware of the vast quantity of precision built equipment turned out by the US in WWII... Well, that's strike three. I've attempted, repeatedly, to place this discussion on a rational footing and to work forward from the facts... but as you refuse to face them there is little further point in continuing the attempt with you. Good day.