I think you might have something much more plausible here, but I just want to offer a few more suggestions. An era of limited cooperation might follow during Reagan's administration, and you might want to have the USSR collaspe a few years earlier. Seems like a good start though. Monster Pumpkin 21:38, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
Marked as such because it simply declares things to happen, without any reasons. Lordganon 22:09, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
What are you talking about LG? It says that Kennedy and Khrushchev agreed to work on a moon mission together, along with other points such as teh outer space treaty. Monster Pumpkin 22:11, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
I added ASB - Technology, on account of it stating that a US state is established on the moon in 1969, with a POD only 6 years before. LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:13, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, he should probaly move it back a little. By like maybe five/ten years. Monster Pumpkin 22:14, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
Lurk has part of it. Past that, the rest makes little sense.
It would take one heck of a lot more than that, MP. Moreover, it is literally not possible for them to do so.
Lordganon 22:43, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
Live on the moon, or go to Mars, or both? Witch one? Monster Pumpkin 22:53, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
Doing Mars like that, and especially the sections about the Moon becoming a state - the process would not allow it, and it wouldn't be the 52nd, either.
Past that, this is just what amounts to a "tech-wank" - hence the categories.
Lordganon 23:00, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I guess you're right. He would either have to simplify the Mars mission or push it back quite some years, to the point where the USSR would not be around anymore. Monster Pumpkin 23:05, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
The lunar state was a joke, I wanted to see your reactions. I took it out don't worry. NASA's real post apollo plans for a Manned Mars missions using NERVA rockets was set for happening in 1978. Then there is the 50 man Spacebase witch was set for launch in 1980. NERVA rockets would also be used for the Moonbase in 1981.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spaebase.htm
As for the collaspe of the USSR how should I go about it. There would probabley be some sort of joint programs the 2 would be working on. Would they just be droped because the USSR died. Would the frail Russia try to hold on to there partnership as well (they did have the Mir spacestation in RL but then again they were more economically dead then then even the late USSR)
Historian2 14:34, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
Russia is/was broke from the collapse. Do the math.
Hist, we've been over this before: you take long-term, more or less theoretical, plans, far too literally.
Lordganon 14:44, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
Explain to me how its theoretical? You design the mission, you get funding, you develop the tech and/or hardware needed, you test it and you fly it. Thats how we did the Apollo program, thats how we did WW2 fighter jets and thats how a Mars mission would be done. Your complaint with the other timeline I made is its impossible for the reds to fund a mars mission. But the US and USSR most likley could.
I'm asking would Russia simply drop out of the joint programs or would they keep going with it (I'm thinking the former is more realistic)
Historian2 20:26, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
That was far from the only problem with the other one.
Not one of those "examples" is like this. At all.
Theoretical, because none of it existed in any form remotely usable, if it existed at all, it was all literally just pie-in-the-sky planning, and only existed on paper - not even the drawing board.
Plus, you're entirely ignoring the American funding, and that Soviet funding would have ended long before its collapse.
Russia, too broke until more or less the present, when oil skyrockets in price.
Lordganon 22:12, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
hello[]
who is the "caretaker" this page? the creator Historian2 hasen't loged in almost a year.
Wingman1 04:52, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
Him not logging in in that long is irrelevant - still his until he puts it up for adoption, or someone goes through the process. Lordganon (talk) 05:41, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
kool, i will keep that in mind. thanks LG. Wingman1 05:52, February 21, 2013 (UTC)