After World War II, the relationship between the US and the USSR was fraught with tension
and distrust.
The two countries, with their contrasting political and economic systems, were engaged
in a fierce competition to show off their superiority and technological might.
During the Cold War, they decided to take their rivalry literally out of this world
and into space.
The space race began in 1957, when the Soviets successfully launched Sputnik, the world's
first artificial satellite and the first man-made object to be placed into the Earth's orbit.
In response to the USSR's surprising space achievement, the US "launched its own satellite,
Explorer I" in 1958.
This tit for tat went on through the rest of the 1950s and 60s.
In the late 60s, America seemed to be lagging behind the USSR.
After a series of Soviet successes that included Yuri Gagarin and Valentina Tereshkova being
the first man and woman in space, the US set its sights on a more ambitious achievement.
In 1969, the US attempted the first lunar landing.
The Apollo 11 mission was a success, with Neil Armstrong becoming the first person to
walk on the moon.
For many people, the US "won" the space race after this momentous event.
But what if it didn't happen and the US failed instead?
That's what we will examine today, in this episode of The Infographics Show, "What
If the US Lost the Space Race."
Firstly, one possibility is that people would inhabit the moon by now.
In a BBC article, space historian Christopher Riley argues that a Soviet landing on the
moon could have led to moon colonization.
He speculates that "not only would the Soviet Union have continued with Moon missions, but
they might also have built lunar bases."
Riley also "believes that the Americans would have been compelled to do the same and
even to continue to outdo their communist rivals."
Both countries did indeed have ambitious plans to create lunar bases.
The National Security Archive recently released a declassified government document about Project
Horizon, a 1960 study outlining how the United States Army planned to "set up a permanent
residence on the moon," according to one source.
The plans included a "state-of-the-art" space tractor and the construction of a nuclear
reactor on the moon, which would provide electric power for the lunar base.
The base would start off as a simple outpost suited for 12 people that contained living
quarters, storage rooms, and other areas.
They even tried to prepare for astronauts who became mentally unhinged during their
stay on the moon, by including an isolation area for "psychiatric patients and/or communicable
disease cases" in their outpost plans.
According to Popular Mechanics, recently released information about the Soviet space program
included a 1967 proposal "to permanently colonize the moon."
Soviet engineers came up with several scenarios that would make colonization possible.
One of them involved inventing a Lunar Engineering Machine or LIM, which was a 3-ton (3000 kg)
rover with multiple capabilities that could be used for the construction of a lunar outpost.
Another scenario involved two moon rovers and a 33 ft. (10 m) habitat, with two floors
and a 3-6 person capacity.
One rover would move soil toward the module, while another would cover it up using a "specially
built sand-thrower."
Finally, there was the "self-propelled, self-burying habitation module" that was
supposed to be a cylinder that was 20 ft. (6 m) in length and 12 ft. (3.6 m) wide.
The module would be capable of housing 6 cosmonauts, and it would have the ability to search for
a "site with soil soft enough for 'self-burial,'" a process that was estimated to take about
4.3 hours.
A "telescopic airlock" would allow the crew to get to the lunar surface.
While Riley was right about both countries trying to outdo each other in the space race,
he overestimated the power of ambition to overcome the technical and financial obstacles
that would have made moon colonization possible for the United States.
Defense Media Network provides a good summary of some of the reasons why Project Horizon
never materialized: " . . . the technological challenges were
more difficult than the authors of Project Horizon had thought – and also considerably
more expensive.
A Manhattan Project-scale effort might have worked, but it would have required a huge
increase in the U.S. government's expenditures on defense . . . "
However, Riley seemed to be correct about the USSR.
Russia's plans to colonize the moon were also scrapped, but mainly because of what
one article describes as "failed Soviet human lunar programs."
A Wired article also notes that the "program was deemed too expensive and unnecessary in
light of the NASA success . . . " If the Soviets succeeded in landing men on the moon
first, perhaps they would have had the motivation to move on to moon colonization next.
2.
A second possibility is that the US might have tried sending people to Mars by now.
If America was not able to beat Russia to the moon, it is highly likely that it would
have tried to find another way to outdo the Soviets in the space race.
Riley notes that "'there were designs of methods to get to Mars that might have
been put into action in response to a Soviet landing on the Moon,'" and there is some
evidence to support his observation.
A Wired article reports that "as early as 1965, NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center
(or MSFC) turned its attention to the scientific tasks astronaut-scientists might perform on
Mars," and it "contracted with Avco/RAD to study manned Mars surface operations."
In 1966, there was an engineering meeting called Stepping Stones to Mars where the Avco/Rad
study leader, Paul Swan, and some of his colleagues "acknowledged that the decision to send
men to Mars might be taken 'for reasons of international competition, for domestic
political considerations, or to stimulate the economy'.
. ." With the space race continuing on, the US
government would have continued to pour money and resources into a manned mission to Mars
in the 1970s and beyond.
It would have expanded instead of cut NASA's budget, and Congress probably would have funded
what a Wired article describes as "piloted Mars/Venus flyby missions in 1975 and 1977."
It would also not have cut the budget of the Apollo Applications Program, which was NASA's
"main 1970s piloted program."
What might have slowed the US down, however, is the lack of technology to deal with some
of the dangers involved with a trip to Mars.
According to retired astronaut Chris Hadfield, a "long slog to Mars increases the risks
of explosions, radiation, starvation, and other problems."
Going to Mars would require what Hadfield calls "technologies that could mitigate
these issues – such as lightweight yet effective shielding, hibernation capsules, and bioregenerative
life-support systems . . . " He also thinks a new rocket propulsion system would probably
be needed to get to Mars because it is much further away from the Earth than the moon
is.
This technology did not exist back then, and it still does not exist today.
NASA cannot even be sure it will meet its current goal of a manned mission to Mars by
2033 because, as Futurism reports, it "includes obstacles beyond budget," such as figuring
out a way to maintain the mental health of Mars astronauts, who "will essentially be
sealed into the space tube for years at a time, with no ability for an emergency return
once they leave Cislunar space."
3.
And finally, #3, is the possibility that the development of some useful technology would
not have occurred or would have been delayed.
If the US simply gave up after USSR's impressive string of space "firsts" in the 1950s
and 1960s, the Apollo missions would not have happened.
And if the Apollo missions did not occur, we might not be able to enjoy some of the
technology that was created because of them.
A Telegraph article describes some of the "'space spin-offs'" that were developed
because of the Apollo 11 moon landing.
Imagine what life would be like without modern computer microchips, which "descend from
integrated circuits used in the Apollo Guidance Computer."
How would hospitals and clinics fare without the CAT scanner, which was "first used to
find imperfections in space components"?
And would gamers enjoy playing their favorite video games without the joystick, which was
"first used on the Apollo Lunar Rover"?
It is possible that these technologies could have been developed outside of NASA, but they
probably would have taken longer to produce without the urgency caused by the space race.
So, do
you think the US won or lost the space race?
Let us know your thoughts in the comments!
Also, be sure to check out our other video called US Space Force - What Will It Do?!
Thanks for watching, and, as always, don't forget to like, share, and subscribe.
See you next time!
For more infomation >> TRAVEL WITH US 🌏 / 8 faktów o TUNEZJI 🌴 - Duration: 18:28. 
For more infomation >> US economy is entering 'frothy' territory: Sam Zell - Duration: 5:17. 
For more infomation >> How A Scheduling Conflict Is Costing The U.S. $55B Each Year | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC - Duration: 5:02. 
For more infomation >> Gordon Chang discusses if the U.S. is making progress with North Korea - Duration: 7:38. 
For more infomation >> The Seventh Amendment | US Government and Politics | Khan Academy - Duration: 14:01. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét