Without going into it not being sustainable etc. If the space race had stayed big time, right up until 2011, with the same money and effort being poured into it that was in the 60's, where would we be now? would we have put a man on mars? would people be living on the moon?
At the time of Apollo, and given the same levels of ambition, funding, interest, etc... it was widely believed that a manned landing on Mars would have happened by the mid-1980s. If we did land on Mars back then, who the hell knows what could have happened almost 30 years after that, in 2011? Historic first Earth-Saturn probe led by Christopher???
A Manned Mars landing with Apollo technology was definitely credible for 1982, though that doesn't allow for the possibility of accidents causing delays that might knock it back to the next lauinch window. (I guess most people here are familiar with the idea that the Apollo 1 fire saved the Moonlanding project, as it happened on the ground, which meant the enquiry team was able to find all the other faults in the Block 1 Apollo, whereas if an accident had happened in orbit, or in translunar flight, the telemetry wouldn't have provided sufficient evidence to locate all the other faults). There's a very good 'counter-factual' novel by Stephen Baxter, Voyage, on the subject.
I'm not sure the command module would have been as vulnerable to fires while in space because it operates with a reduced cabin pressure there. With an all oxygen life support system the structural loads from cabin pressurization are reduced, there's less need for crew to decompress for EVAs and systems are simpler (thus lighter). Unfortunately a pure oxygen system has to be pressurized to a higher level until the spacecraft reaches a high altitude and pure oxygen at sea level pressure makes fire very easy to ignite and quickly consume any combustible present.
I'm not sure what a manned mission would have accomplished, aside from being ruinously expensive. I think a working base on Mars might have been established by now, after the ISS model (but in a gravity well, obviously), with the real possibility of scientists being able to live and work there now or in the near future. There's no real need for people to be involved in the setting-up phase, if the boffins got it right. The infamous mission which failed because the US side of the team were using imperial distance measures while the rest of the world were using the metric system springs to mind.
The argument isn't that the Apollo 1 accident as such would have happened in space, it probably wouldn't, for the reasons you mention. It's that the Block 1 capsules were so flawed - both in terms of design mistakes, and sloppiness in manufacture, like the infamous wrench - that an accident of some sort was inevitable. Because the Apollo 1 capsule was available for strip-down on the ground (and comparison to its supposed twin), all of its other faults could be identified and corrective measures taken for the Block 2s, whereas if it had been lost in orbit, the telemetry might have allowed NASA to work out the cause of that particular accident, but they might not have spotted all the other accidents waiting to happen... Similarly, the astronauts' photos showing the full extent of the damage to the Apollo 13 SM were a major factor in getting the enquiry to accept that the tank failure was as violent as it was right from the start. In both cases, the enquiry would probably have found all the problems eventually, but working solely from telemetry would have taken a lot, lot, longer. Probably long enough to miss the 'Before this decade is out' deadline.
Competition is what drives new technology. Last year all the cellphone companies had pride over their 3g networks, now they compete to make a 4g network, though there isn't any problems with the 3g networks. Had this competition kept going until 2011 we would probably be a lot more technologically advanced both in space and in the private sector. Nuclear Fusion would probably be a energy source much more common than nuclear reactors. The Green movement would no doubt be greater than it is today. Believe it or not Competition is what is going to contuine to drive humans to greater hieghts. We actually need the space race to come back. Just without all the hatred between the countries.
^I agree with some of this. I just make the minor point that nuclear fusion propulsion is significantly different and significantly easier to accomplish that, supposing we were using it for propulsion methods, we still may not have figured it out as a terrestrial power producing measure. However, photovoltaics is such a crucial field to deep space power solutions, especially considering that continuing to draw useful power way out to Mars would require us to have made major advancements, that I would agree our fossil fuel problem would have been waning a good 10-25 years ago as a result of the incredible advancements we're sure to have made in PV efficiencies and manufacturing techniques. There would be 10,000 sq mile PV farms across Oklahoma by now.... There's always this debate about whether manned exploration makes sense, but I think if we're talking about the question of whether the race had continued, we're not talkign so much about what makes sense, as what would've been possible. I'd support the claim that if we hadn't already successfully launched a probe into the interstellar medium, we'd be well on our way to that accomplishment.
I can say with complete convidence that if someone like Tony Stark lived in reality, lets say he had his own island. That would start some serious competition.
Can't discuss the Space Race without discussing why we had one in the first place. The things we were able to do were driven by political necessity more than anything else. The Space Race was a by-product of the Cold War between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. and was basically a contest to see who can claim superiority in space. For all the inspiring words about Human destiny and achievement, it really wasn't about that to the people controlling the purse strings. It was all about who could plant their flag on the Moon first and claim bragging rights to the entire world. If the Space Race had continued, it might also have meant the continuation--and escalation--of the Cold War as its main driving force, IMO, which would have ultimately shaped its direction...
True, hadn't thought of it that way. So its the peaceful competition that we need, not the post cold-war space race kind of competition.
The problem there is that the Soviet Union, between the space race and the unremitting military brinksmanship of keeping up with the Unitied States, bankrupted itself, which was the real reason the Cold War ended in the first place. Any plausible AU exploring the possibilities of an extended space race would have to A) get around the economic factor, showing how such a race could have possibly continued to be financed, consuming a significant portion of a nation's GDP without tipping it over the brink and still providing material and political benefit and B: Getting around the incessant military pressure to begin reallocating those resources toward bigger and better weapons whose principles were refined and discovered due to the explosion of technical capability that the space race resulted in. Obviously we can see potential benefits to further envelope pushing in space, just as there are benefits to exploration of all types, to the bottom of the ocean, the center of the earth, to the darkest, most unknown areas of the world... perhaps not in and of themselves, but the technologies generated in the pursuit of such goals do tend to pay off in the long run... but getting societies and nations to look at the long term is a tall order, and most aren't capable of it. We only managed to get the space race because of the fear that the Commies would get there first. Once their money and influence began to wane in the late '70's, and they started their decline, the space race slowly faded to the backburner in favor of more guns, shinier weapons, etc. Now if another nation, like China or the EU for example, began a major project to put a man on Mars or something equally ambitious, and started gaining new technologies as a result, you'll bet that other nations will suddenly find a motivation to start working on it again. Unfortunately, competition and threat of losing one's place in the political pecking order are the only major prods we have for political and technical progress...
My Dad was involved in the Apollo program, there were plans for 2 Skyabs (and both were built, there was funding for only one to be launched)..There were plans for extended lunar stays up to 30 days... Mars was a bit of a pipedream but was possible with further development and better funding.. in the early 70s NASA was given a choice ..continue with the Apollo program (with 1 mission per year including Skylabs) or develop the Space Shuttle....NASA went with the Shuttle..and we've been limited to LEO ever since as the shuttle is ENORMOUSLY expensive to service and launch (much more than the Saturn 1B missions of the early 70s, in fact it cost almost as much as Saturn V missions to the Lunar surface) Had the Russians continued the Space Race by flying N-1 based Soyuz/LK missions in the early 70s, space technology would be radically different today.
Its human interfering with humans expanding our knowledge. We need to re-invent the way we operate, or we will never leave our solar system, and this resilent race will come to an end.
At the dawn of the space age, there was a very real concern in military circles that the first nation to reach the Moon would be able to construct a base there from which they could attack enemy nations on Earth with nuclear warheads. Of course, this proved to be a complete fantasy. It was only about a thousand times easier and cheaper to design and build ICBMs that could be launched from land-based silos and later from submarines. So yes, the Space Race between the US. and the USSR was basically a pissing contest. But pissing contests can be a powerful motive for progress. And Yakov Smirnoff would still have a real career instead of playing Branson, MO!
That's really the way it's been throughout history. Nations prioritize what they need to stay equal or ahead of one another. What moves up or down their list depends on how politically important it is at the time. NASA was created because the U.S. freaked out when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik-1. Kennedy's mandate to have a man on the Moon by the end of the 1960's was really a mandate just to beat the Soviets there. Once the Soviets capitulated and U.S. "space supremacy" was achieved, manned spaceflight was no longer a high priority and NASA became just another government agency subject to budget cuts like any other. The often heard line "We need to fix problems here on Earth first" was really all that a congress person needed to kill any further expeditions to the Moon and beyond. But it's no coincidence the recent talks of the U.S. going back to the Moon came not too long after news of China possibly going there first surfaced--and NASA was given a lot of funding from out of nowhere to "get 'er done." The world-wide economic meltdown, though, made cutting that funding impossible to resist. EDIT: Another benefit from the Cold War ending...
Before 1958, the Army, Navy and Air Force each had their own missile and satellite development programs. The launching of Sputnik was the driving force behind the creation of NASA, but it was also to eliminate wasteful duplication of effort and inter-service rivalry. And putting space exploration under control of a civilian agency rather than the military was good P.R. on both the domestic and international front.
This is what I was thinking. This means today that space would be thoroughly weaponized. The likely scenario would be certainly no mission to Mars, probably no moonbases, but instead lasers, kinetic energy weapons, possibly some nukes, and so on, in addition to several sophisticated manned permanent space stations, at various altitudes including geosynchronous, orbiting the Earth today. I always thought of the Apollo–Soyuz mission in 1975 as the symbolic, gentlemanly way of ending the space race in a draw. Both the U.S. and U.S.S.R. could claim victories: Sputnik, Gagarin, Armstrong. So, if the space race were to continue after the first several rounds, then let's assume there would have been no Apollo-Soyuz mission. For the space race to continue, the Soviets would have had to have done something dramatic and unexpected that scared the Americans, probably in space, and done it sometime in the early 70's. For example, suppose we found out that they put a nuke in orbit. This would shape all aspects, not only of the U.S. space program, but of U.S. foreign policy. The space shuttle and U.S. space station projects would have been fully funded, instead of curtailed. As a side note, the Vietnam War would have continued until the United States toppled the government of North Vietnam. Nixon does not resign. Now let's fast forward a few years in the real world to 1983. President Ronald Reagan announces SDI, threatening to escalate the arms race into space, in violation of existing treaties, including those prohibiting the placement of WMD's in space. That's our real world, and such things are not announced in a vacuum. Now let's return to our imaginary world where the space race continued. We can practically guarantee that by now SDI would be a reality. Now eventually, macroeconomic opportunity cost must rear its head, on both sides. Therefore, a mission to Mars is out of the question. The U.S. space program becomes militarized, and NASA is perhaps absorbed into the Air Force. In the unlikely event that moonbases exist, unlikely due to their expense and the trap of having to keep up with the other parts of the space race, then both sides have them. They are small experimental stations, probably there to test the feasibility of setting up automated weapons factories, or fuel mining, off the Earth. Then, the moon becomes one of the places where World War III could break out.
If only this part were true. The Constellation program failed precisely because NASA was told to "get 'er done." but not given the funds to do so. (nevermind that constellation was going down the wrong track to begin with. "shuttle derived" my ass!)
Even though I agree, I was conflicted at the time by the fact that a couple of my colleagues at NASA thought Constellation was the most logical choice. I think the sickness at NASA has been growing for some time - a sickness of spirit, a failure of imagination, and a catastrophic failure of leadership. On a shoestring budget, they somehow must have thought it was better to accomplish very little with success than to attempt something greater with potential failure, because nobody in the higher leadership tried to offer a bold alternative to Constellation. The sad fact is, NASA leadership is very aged.