Ronald Reagan's Space Exploration Initiative

[Michel Van]

The Idea:
With economic strong USSR in 1980s, Reagan proposed 1984 a S.E.I instead S.D.I.
A huge Program with build of a space station, return to the Moon and Manned landing on Mars, with price tag of 450 Billion US dollars,


Major divergence to OTL
1968
Leonid Brezhnev is assassinated by a Policemen, Alexei Kosygin becomes new General Secretary
Kosygin start new successful economic reform program, with help of KGB Chairman Yuri Andropov
1979
Nuclear physicist Edward Teller dies of hearth attack, during watching the Movie "The China Syndrome" in a cinema in Florida.
No Red Army intervention in Afghanistan, instead deployment of observers and instructors for Afghan Army, also delivery of Weapons.
Osama Ben Laden joins the Hisbollah in Lebanese Civil War to fight the Israelis, becomes later the leader of Hisbollah
the Iranian revolution, a group of Islamist students and militants raid the US and USSR Embassys in Tehran and take personnel as hostage

1980s
the XXII and XXIII Olympic games become the "Duel of the superpowers"
1983
Reagan announce the re-activation of US ABM system (Tl version of S.D.I)
1984
Ronald Reagan announce the "Space Exploration Initiative" to counter the new soviet space program (Energia rocket, Buran shuttle, MIR space station)
But U.S. Senate & Congress are not impress by the prize tag of 500 billion US Dollars
General Secretary Yuri Andropov dies, to surprise of West the unknown Boris Yeltsin becomes the new General Secretary
1986
Soviets first launch of Energia heavy launch rocket
Shuttle Challenger explode 73 second after launch, killing all 7 astronauts on board
Reagan use the Challenger catastrophe to push S.E.I. program as Memorial for the tragic space heros
nothing happen at Chernobyl...

1990
President Bush give a speech were he declears the end of the "cold war" and begin of "new peaceful rivalry" with Soviet Union
1991
under huge media spectacle the Shuttle Enterprise is launch as first replacement.
Robert Zubrin and David Blake proposed the Shuttle-C (to used for Freedom construction) to modified to Shuttle-Z for Lunar/Mars flight
and use the station Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) and part of Shuttle OMS for new Spacecraft ARES
1996
the Space Station Freedom and Soviet counter part MIR are complete
1997
Vice President Gore is involved in a finance controversy and resign from his post
Speaker of House Newt Gingrich becomes new Vice President, in first time in US history a democrat president has republican Vice president
1998
Bill Clinton is Impeached by US congress (majority Republicans) about the Lewinsky Baby scandal, Newt Gingrich become 43nd president of the United States.
first test Of Shuttle-Z for Lunar exploration, begin second space race to the moon and Mars

2000
The return of Buzz Aldrin to the moon with STS-100 mission
2001
9/11 attack by Hisbollah "to Punish USA for Gingrich Israel politic" so Ben Laden
US/Israel Invasion of Lebanon in order to destroy Hisbollah and get Osama Ben Laden
2003
Invasion of Iran because there support of Hisbolla and hiding Osama Ben Laden
Shuttle Columbia disintegrate during reentry over Texas,
President Gingrich terminate the Shuttle program, who replace by ARES on Titan V/Delta IV rockets
2004
Vice president Bob Dole is elected to 44nd President
2005
Launch of first part of Mars Direct mission STS-114
2007
Boris Yeltsin dies, his successor is the KGB Chairman: Vladimir Putin.
Launch of second part of Mars Direct Mission STS-116
2008
April first US astronauts land on Mars, Sunita Williams first human and woman on mars
2010
the Mars Direct Crew land save on Earth

are those POD usable for this TL ?

[Apollo 20]

One problem here is Gore being succeeded by Gingrich as VP. Under the 25th Amendment, the President nominates a replacement VP if there is a death or resignation (i.e., how Ford succeeded Agnew). There is no way Clinton nominates Gingrich to be VP. None.

Now, theoretically, the GOP Congress could block any Clinton nomination, but there would be a political price to be paid for such obstruction -- and there is no way at all that any Democrat would vote to remove Clinton from office after an impeachment trial if the end result is handing the White House over to the Republicans. They'd at a minimum bargain for their impeachment votes by demanding that the GOP confirm a Democrat as VP first. And since 2/3 of the Senators (67) are required to convict, those votes would be needed.

[Michel Van]

Originally Posted by Apollo 20

One problem here is Gore being succeeded by Gingrich as VP. Under the 25th Amendment, the President nominates a replacement VP if there is a death or resignation (i.e., how Ford succeeded Agnew). There is no way Clinton nominates Gingrich to be VP. None.

Now, theoretically, the GOP Congress could block any Clinton nomination, but there would be a political price to be paid for such obstruction -- and there is no way at all that any Democrat would vote to remove Clinton from office after an impeachment trial if the end result is handing the White House over to the Republicans. They'd at a minimum bargain for their impeachment votes by demanding that the GOP confirm a Democrat as VP first. And since 2/3 of the Senators (67) are required to convict, those votes would be needed.

dam, the Wiki page on 25th Amendment was not clear about that.
THX for note apollo 20, i will change this point in TL later

[Riain]

The ABMs is a nice touch.

[NHBL]

I love the idea of a space program--but not so much a Republican wank.

I find wiki useful--but usually then read the amenement, treaty, or whatever.

If you want the Grinch as presdident, Impeach Clinton, and have the senate vote a conviction--then have Gore have a heart atack on hearing the news. NOW the speaker becomes president...

[e of pi]

I'm sorry, but there's some serious issues here. Reagan proposing a SEI instead of/in addition to SDI is a bit wonky. Even Freedom was a pretty hard sell OTL when he proposed it in '84. Though I guess it depends on what the program is supposed to involve-- if it's $500 billion in 1984 dollars (about $1 trillion in 2012 dollars) it's gotta be more than just the station. That's going to be really, really hard to sell--and I'm not sure how much Reagan would want to. He wasn't big on civillian space, and he basically only started the Space Station Freedom stuff OTL when the Soviets forced his hand with Mir--and even then, it wasn't exactly a huge priority.

If it is approved (which like I said is an unusual move for Reagn and will be an uphill fight in Congress that will make the OTL SSF funding battle look like a downhill ski race) that kind of money would almost have to include substantial lunar plans by the early 90s, if not a base or Mars plans--then I can't see it taking until 1991 for Shuttle-C to come around, or 1998 to have it in service. Shuttle-derived heavy lifters were proposed almost as soon as the Shuttle design coalesced, so if that kind of money is being thrown around, expect Shuttle-C to be a part of that from the beginning of the proposal. In that case, with a start in 1986, Shuttle-C should be flying by 1990 and with the budget being thrown around, a lunar return should be doable by 1992, 1993.

Sticking to the events you propose, there's some other details that stick out as problematic:

1. You mention Mars Direct being carried out in 2005, but Shuttle is retired (which should also retire the STS mission designation system). What's it flying on? You mention "ARES," but that appears to be an Orion-type capsule flying on Delta IV/Titan V (an equivalent of OTL Atlas V). Launching a Mars mission on ~20-25 ton lifters is possible, but requires extensive Earth-orbit rendezvious and probably debot-style fuel transfers--exactly the kind of thing Zubrin considers anathema, and would oppose outright (it's why his OTL Mars Direct called for development of a ~200 ton vehicle).
2. If Shuttle flights are being flown dramtically more often, a Columbia-style disaster is likely to occur sooner than 2003. Even if it still doesn't happen until 2003, it's unlikely to be Columbia that takes the hit, just by random chance. With 5 Shuttles in service (since you seem to imply that two Shuttles at least are put into service as part of your Reagan SEI--a refitted Enterprise and probably a flight-spares construct like OTL Endeavour), it's 20% odds that if a failure happens it'd still happen to Columbia.
3. Obviously, the big political issues and "presidential succession does not work that way" that others have already mentioned.

It's....got some interesting potential as a PoD, but some pretty serious flaws in the way of achieving that promise. Justifying the suggestion and approval would really take a careful touch, given how out-of-character it is both for Reagan and for Congress at that time, and I'm not sure that the budget you propose and the scope of the program that result match--it seems to be a huge amount of money for actually not much result.

[Michel Van]

Originally Posted by e of pi

I'm sorry, but there's some serious issues here. Reagan proposing a SEI instead of/in addition to SDI is a bit wonky. Even Freedom was a pretty hard sell OTL when he proposed it in '84. Though I guess it depends on what the program is supposed to involve-- if it's $500 billion in 1984 dollars (about $1 trillion in 2012 dollars) it's gotta be more than just the station. That's going to be really, really hard to sell--and I'm not sure how much Reagan would want to. He wasn't big on civillian space, and he basically only started the Space Station Freedom stuff OTL when the Soviets forced his hand with Mir--and even then, it wasn't exactly a huge priority.

In this TL the Soviet union ha strong economic and has no delays in Energie / Buran / MIR Program
and Reagan try to counter it with bigger program and is willing to push the NASA budget $30 billion a year, US Congress and Senate not
one reason he takes a civilian Program is, that Edward Teller is already death and not his advisor, so here the SDI proposal is a classic ABM who use nukes to intercept incoming enemy warheads.
what bring more problems as benefit. and his other advisors don't belief in Sci-Fi Death Ray stuff...

Originally Posted by e of pi

If it is approved (which like I said is an unusual move for Reagn and will be an uphill fight in Congress that will make the OTL SSF funding battle look like a downhill ski race) that kind of money would almost have to include substantial lunar plans by the early 90s, if not a base or Mars plans--then I can't see it taking until 1991 for Shuttle-C to come around, or 1998 to have it in service. Shuttle-derived heavy lifters were proposed almost as soon as the Shuttle design coalesced, so if that kind of money is being thrown around, expect Shuttle-C to be a part of that from the beginning of the proposal. In that case, with a start in 1986, Shuttle-C should be flying by 1990 and with the budget being thrown around, a lunar return should be doable by 1992, 1993.
...
It's....got some interesting potential as a PoD, but some pretty serious flaws in the way of achieving that promise. Justifying the suggestion and approval would really take a careful touch, given how out-of-character it is both for Reagan and for Congress at that time, and I'm not sure that the budget you propose and the scope of the program that result match--it seems to be a huge amount of money for actually not much result.

Reagan need 3 years to push Phase 1 of SEI (space station), true Capitol Hill and only with help of Challenger catastrophe and first Energia / Mir block 1 launch in USSR
and even here the NASA only gets a budget $18~20 billion a year,
the shuttle is redesign with Aerojet ASRB, also the Space Station Freedom, how is more today ISS without Russian hardware.
also Crew Return Vehicle is build, a apollo capsule design

Originally Posted by e of pi

Sticking to the events you propose, there's some other details that stick out as problematic:

1. You mention Mars Direct being carried out in 2005, but Shuttle is retired (which should also retire the STS mission designation system). What's it flying on? You mention "ARES," but that appears to be an Orion-type capsule flying on Delta IV/Titan V (an equivalent of OTL Atlas V). Launching a Mars mission on ~20-25 ton lifters is possible, but requires extensive Earth-orbit rendezvious and probably debot-style fuel transfers--exactly the kind of thing Zubrin considers anathema, and would oppose outright (it's why his OTL Mars Direct called for development of a ~200 ton vehicle).
2. If Shuttle flights are being flown dramtically more often, a Columbia-style disaster is likely to occur sooner than 2003. Even if it still doesn't happen until 2003, it's unlikely to be Columbia that takes the hit, just by random chance. With 5 Shuttles in service (since you seem to imply that two Shuttles at least are put into service as part of your Reagan SEI--a refitted Enterprise and probably a flight-spares construct like OTL Endeavour), it's 20% odds that if a failure happens it'd still happen to Columbia.
3. Obviously, the big political issues and "presidential succession does not work that way" that others have already mentioned.

the 1990 Zubin & Barker propose a low cost approach for SEI Lunar mission, by beef-up Shuttle-C to Shuttle-Z and also use CRV with Shuttle hardware as Apollo like spacecraft called ARES.
Dan Goldwin takes the idea, because is manned Shuttle hardware. NASA so stay on STS-mission designation system.
or more clearly the only the Orbiters goes retired from service after Columbia...

[Hamurabi]

one nitpick here.

bin ladin joining hezbollah is highly ulikely he is sunni while its a shia organization.
its like jerry falwell becomming pope.

[Michel Van]

Originally Posted by Hamurabi

one nitpick here.

bin ladin joining hezbollah is highly ulikely he is sunni while its a shia organization.
its like jerry falwell becomming pope.

Dam
thx Hamurabi for the info
is then Hamas better suitable for bin ladin ?

[Athelstane]

I find it hard difficult to accept that any likely Soviet regime could have done much to resuscitate the Soviet economy - at least without imploding the regime.

But even so, I agree with e of pi: I can't see Reagan pushing such a huge space initiative, or, if he does, doing so for just a space station. I think a lunar or Mars mission has to be part of it right from the start.

And even then, I almost think you need something extraordinary, like evidence of life on Mars. Which is, well, alien space bats territory.

[Michel Van]

Originally Posted by Athelstane

I find it hard difficult to accept that any likely Soviet regime could have done much to resuscitate the Soviet economy - at least without imploding the regime.
But even so, I agree with e of pi: I can't see Reagan pushing such a huge space initiative, or, if he does, doing so for just a space station. I think a lunar or Mars mission has to be part of it right from the start.
And even then, I almost think you need something extraordinary, like evidence of life on Mars. Which is, well, alien space bats territory.

Economic they back on track after stagnancy under Brezhnev, Political the soviet union is far from save in this TL.

back to main problem how to get Reagan to take this huge space initiative, and keep it partial alive for next 30 years.

some my Ideas:

the Original Idea,
- Reagan Advisors consider SDI as not for feasible, in TL there argue about a old stile Nuclear ABM (were enemy warheads are intercept by nukes) also problems with EMP and the ABM system in violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.
In OTL Advisor physicist Edward Teller had present current state of US Laser program, what let to S.D.I., but he died of hearth attack, during watching the Movie "The China Syndrome" in this TL 1978.
So Vice President Bush propose a Huge Civilian Space program

Alternate ideas:

- Reagan takes other proposal of Militarization of Space by USAF with Air Launch Sortie Vehicle proposal and as coverup a large NASA Program, is not first time that happen see M.O.L and Discovery Satellite program

- George Bush becomes President after assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981, He propose SEI like 1989 OTL only several year earlier.

- Or Ronald Reagan only start the Space Station and start SEI with George Bush in 1989...

all this POD has assets and drawbacks any suggestion to improve this ?

[Volvox]

Originally Posted by Michel Van

Dam
thx Hamurabi for the info
is then Hamas better suitable for bin ladin ?

Hamas is focused on Israel, so they wouldn't attack targets on U.S. soil.

A better choice is Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which is closely tied (one might say, in many ways, integrated) to al-Qaeda. In fact, al Qaeda is essentially the merger of Islamic Jihad and bin Laden's resources. So whatever it is called, you could very well end up with an organization almost identical to OTL al Qaeda. If bin Laden is set on global jihad, he could easily use his money and connections to influence EIJ towards this sort of attack. Basically, even without Afghanistan I think you can have a very al Qaeda-like organization.

If you really want to include Palestinian groups, you could have Palestinian Islamic Jihad provide hijackers, and perhaps implicate Hamas in a similar way. Then you al-Zawahiri/bin Laden based in Egypt, as well as Palestinian groups. Though I'm not sure how realistic/needed this bit is.

[Bureaucromancer]

You might want to consider approach SEI from a completely different angle. Change the 90 day report to recommend something cheaper and more manageable such that SEI looks reasonable to congress. Then get it approved as a spinoff of SDI rather than a replacement. Remember that it was the failings of the report that ended up inspiring Zubrin to write the first couple versions of Mars Direct in 88 and 89.

[Michel Van]

Originally Posted by Bureaucromancer

You might want to consider approach SEI from a completely different angle. Change the 90 day report to recommend something cheaper and more manageable such that SEI looks reasonable to congress. Then get it approved as a spinoff of SDI rather than a replacement. Remember that it was the failings of the report that ended up inspiring Zubrin to write the first couple versions of Mars Direct in 88 and 89.

i had something similar in Mind

overwork Roadmap for SEI in this TL

1986
Shuttle Challenger explode 73 second after launch, killing all 7 astronauts on board
Soviet Launch core module of MIR
Reagan push the Space Station true Capitol Hill, as Memorial for the tragic space heros.
the NASA budget is rase from 13 to 18 billion US Dollar/per year
the Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster by Morton Thiokol is replace by Aerojet Advance Solid Rocket Booster.
Build of a New Shuttle OV-105 (Endeavour) and refitting OV-101 Enterprise as a backup's
Space Station design is finalized as Dual Keel configuration.
the Crew Return Vehicle design is finalized as a Apollo like capsule

1987
the Dual Keel configuration is revised to Baseline Configuration
major problem was assembly of Frame structure by hand durning EVA, what imply 156 connection to made by astronauts.
so prefabricated modules are launch and put together in Orbit,
also is orbit inclination of 28.5° raised to 52° for better Earth observation an better landing chance for CRV
But new orbit increase the payload of Shuttle by 34%, so Shuttle-C come in play
redesign Shuttle-C support the first assembly flights by launch large and heavy modules and keep them in orbit until manned Shuttle arrive
bevor return to Earth, the Astronauts recover the two Engines, Orbital Manover Systems and flight electronic of the Shuttle-C

1988
US Shuttle Discovery launch

1989
President Bush announced the SEI program, U.S. Senate & Congress are not impress by the prize tag of 500 billion US Dollar

1990
2 Martin Marinnetta Engineer, David Blake and Robert Zubrin look for cheaper alternative for Billion dollar orbit Infrastructure of SEI
there solution: Modified the Shuttle-C to Z a heavy lift Rocket, who bring 120 tons in LEO or 45 tons to Mars or the Moon
also Modification CRV into Apollo like spacecraft with Shuttle and Titan III hardware

1991
under Huge Media spectacle the Shuttle Enterprise is launch (STS-42)
Gene Kranz: Jesus that day the Mission control look like god dam pyjma party! almost every one wears those uniform...
William Shattner: Last time i was here in 1976 for Enterprise roll out, Why to hell you needed 15 years to put it on Launch pad ?!
the Enterprise dropt CRV "Gallieo 7" from orbit for qualification test
the nickname Galileo becomes official name for CRV, after petition of Star Trek fans

1992
Dan Goldin becomes NASA Administrator, his "Faste Better Cheaper" motto get him more as he cam bargain for
as Robert Zubrin stampede his office and present the Shuttle-Z/Galileo concept
US Shuttle Endeavour is launch
the first launch of Shuttle-C delays do to technical problems

1994
first launch of Shuttle-C EXpendable, payload a Centaur stage with CRV for high speed reentry test
USAF and NASA start EELV program: the winner Boeing Delta VI and Martin Marinnetta Titan V
(here is no join-venture with russian rocket engine manufactures so no Atlas V)

1995
Start of Space Station Freedom construction:
launch Shuttle-C1 and later Shuttle Atlantis.
assembly first solararray, first two truss modules and Node module #1, recuperation of SSME of Shuttle-C
Launch of Shuttle Endeavour with US lab for 25 day mission, Freedom is now partially operational
start of Shuttle-C2 and later Shuttle Discovery
assembly of second solararray, last two truss modules and Node module #2. recuperation of SSME of Shuttle-C 2 and OMS & electronic from C1

1996
Launch of Endeavour with Habitat Module and CRV for 25 day mission. return of Shuttle-C 2 OMS & electronic
Launch of Enterprise with Logistic Module and first long time crew of 4 person
last Launch of Shuttle-C1 with two Nodes #3,#4 and final two Solararrays
Launch of Atlantis with ESA Lab Module, montage solararrays, recuperation of SSME of C1
Launch of Endeavour with first JEM module, recuperation of C1 OMS & electronic
Launch of Dicsovery with second JEM Module and it's Logistic Module
Space Station Freedom is complete as Leroy Chiao and Brain Duffy install on Truss One, the Commemorative plaque with names of Astronauts of Challenger

Dan Goldin presents the President the Shuttle-Z proposal, renamed Lunar/Mars Direct
even cheaper as original concept with use of EELV hardware like RS-68 Engines and J-2S engine from apollo program
instead of 500 Billion of SEI its cost only 50 billion US dollar. as 10 years program in marge of NASA budget of 20 billion/year
the President gave his go ahead for the Lunar/Mars Direct
US Congress and Senate try to chancel the program, only to get furiously public reaction, particularly from Star Trek fans, who use an new medium: Internet

1998
John Glenn makes his second space flight on board of STS-95 to Freedom, Glenn age 77 is oldes person who made a space flight.
RS-68 and J-2S are certified of use for EELV and Shuttle-Z
the upper stage (build from Shuttle ET hardware) for Shuttle-Z is deliver to KSC
NASA decide to keep the STS-mission designation system on Lunar/Mars Direct program, because its manned Shuttle Hardware.

1999
first Shuttle-Z blast off Launch Pad 39B with Dummy Hardware for unmanned Lunar fly by, this is biggest rocket launch since the Saturn V in US
first launch of Titan IV Lockheed Martin
first launch of Delta IV Boeing
2000 launch of a Mars Sample mission, who use the Mars Direct principle, the Return stage use mars atmosphere to make it's fuel
2001
dual Launch of a Shuttle-Z on board of one is Buzz Aldrin (age 71) on his second trip to the moon
2002
dual Launch of a Shuttle-Z to the Moon
successful return of Mars Sample probe in earth orbit and dock on Freedom
2003
Shuttle Columbia disintegrate during reentry over Texas, killing all seven Astronauts on board STS-107, returning from Freedom.
all Shuttle flights are suspended
US House Committee hearings on Columbia
Galileo on Titan V, becomes the lifeline for space station Freedom
2004
the President terminate the shuttle Orbiter operations
Galileo Titan V and Shuttle-Z remains, also construction of supply module to be launch with Titan V or Delta IV
from now on 2-4 Shuttle-Z flights for Lunar/mars Direct and 4 Galileo flight to Freedom per year
the Freedom Crew of install on Truss One the Commemorative plaque with names of Astronauts of Columbia
dual Launch of a Shuttle-Z to the Moon
2005
first launch of Mars Direct Mission (Earth return Vehicle)
ERV lands and start to produce it return fuel
2006
launch of first US supply module to Freedom
Freedom celebrates 10 year in orbit
dual Launch of a Shuttle-Z to the Moon
2007
ERV in healthy condition and it's fueltanks are full
second launch of Mars Direct Mission (Crew and Habitat)
2008
the First astronauts land on Mars, Sunita Williams first human and woman put feet on marssoil
2009
REV start from Mars return to Earth
2010
the Mars Direct crew land save in pacific ocean

[Bureaucromancer]

The other thing that jumps out at me, particularly when I see Enterprise being refitted as well as Endeavour being built (though I wonder at the practicality of doing both, Endeavour was largely built out of spares, a second effectively new build vehicle means restarting production, at which point I wonder if a whole new fleet wouldn't have made more sense) the Space Station Columbia idea (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...columbia-1991/) might also end up back on the table either immediately or after Columbia is lost in 2003. It would definitely not be a huge development program once Shuttle Z is flying.

[b12ox]

The Saturn was better on paper than Shuttle. You need to reactivate the Saturn program if you are heading for Mars.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by b12ox

The Saturn was better on paper than Shuttle. You need to reactivate the Saturn program if you are heading for Mars.

The saturn was very expensive, although otls shuttle turned out to be even more so.

However. This thread is talking about shuttles c and z which dont lug the heavy orbiter into space. That makes them cheaper than a saturn right there.

Moreover, if you can actually use the blasted et, that makes it even more efficient. Tank farms, sleeping quarters, aluminum for resmelting into trusses, etc, etc.

Its almost criminal that all the ets were burnt up deliberately.

[Bureaucromancer]

Yeah, I definitely agree with that. Shuttle C and Z aren't going to be as cheap as a Saturn V, but in any reasonable length of time, given launch frequency and development time you are going to save a lot more on development costs. Side mount payloads probably aren't ideal, but Shuttle C really is a very cheap project, and Z is a pretty minimal upgrade from it that gets you into the Saturn V payload class. Honestly I'd prioritize cheapening or replacing the SSME before I looked to relocating the payload (and even at that Shuttle C/Z would be cheaper to operate than SLS will be as long as the shuttle proper is flying. Even with the most minimal reuse, where heavy lifters use engines that have only flown once on shuttle the cost of the SSMEs starts to look a lot more reasonable).

[truth is life]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

The saturn was very expensive, although otls shuttle turned out to be even more so.

However. This thread is talking about shuttles c and z which dont lug the heavy orbiter into space. That makes them cheaper than a saturn right there.

Moreover, if you can actually use the blasted et, that makes it even more efficient. Tank farms, sleeping quarters, aluminum for resmelting into trusses, etc, etc.

Its almost criminal that all the ets were burnt up deliberately.

Not really. There were some fairly serious problems with using the ETs IOTL, that's why no one ever did. First off, "wet-labs" have problems with setup (which is why the idea was not adopted for Skylab)--it's difficult to make a rocket stage which is also a good habitat, and this is not helped by the fact that a just-used stage in orbit is lacking niceties like lights. So you really need a space station already to support converting ETs into space station modules, but of course the US didn't have anything like a space station IOTL until 1999 while the Shuttle was operational. You could certainly argue that they should have incorporated ETs into the Freedom design, but I would argue that that should be a decidedly second-tier thing, the sort of thing that you do to upgrade the basic station. It would require quite a lot of support facilities.

Second, the ET's external insulation "popcorns" badly in space, particularly on the LWT and the SLWT. This means that ETs are going to produce a ton of space debris--problematic, obviously. You would need to significantly redesign the tank to eliminate this problem (use internal insulation, perhaps--this would also make a Columbia disaster impossible, but it might have its own issues). Until then, taking a tank to orbit would be real bad unless you discarded of it afterwards, and quickly.

Of course, this leads to the consideration of "what use can be had of a tank which is taken to orbit and discarded right after the mission"? Well, there actually is a use...the Aft Cargo Carrier (courtesy of David Portree). This is basically a payload module strapped to the back of the ET--obviously, you need to bring the ET into orbit to use it. It deals with the "bulk-out" problem the orbiter had, that many of its payloads were not dense enough to allow it to carry a full load to orbit within its payload bay. An 8.4 x 9.7 m bay allows quite large payloads, and the thing was designed to kill the ET right after the payloads in it were deployed. So this would establish a precedent of bringing the ET up but avoid the issues listed above, giving an in for later ET use.

Also, Saturn V numbers I've seen put it roughly on par with Shuttle in per kg cost (can't recall whether that's per net kg delivered or per gross kg delivered. The Shuttle would do better in the latter because the whole Orbiter can be delivered to orbit, putting it on par with the Saturn V for gross payload). If you're looking to develop a heavy-lift vehicle in the 1980s, Shuttle-C, followed by upgrades to the basic Shuttle design like upgraded SRBs and SSMEs or LRBs, followed by Shuttle-C specific upgrades (eg., larger payload shroud), followed by Shuttle-Z, followed by an in-line design and more pads is definitely the way to go.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by truth is life

Not really. There were some fairly serious problems with using the ETs IOTL, that's why no one ever did. First off, "wet-labs" have problems with setup (which is why the idea was not adopted for Skylab)--it's difficult to make a rocket stage which is also a good habitat, and this is not helped by the fact that a just-used stage in orbit is lacking niceties like lights. So you really need a space station already to support converting ETs into space station modules, but of course the US didn't have anything like a space station IOTL until 1999 while the Shuttle was operational. You could certainly argue that they should have incorporated ETs into the Freedom design, but I would argue that that should be a decidedly second-tier thing, the sort of thing that you do to upgrade the basic station. It would require quite a lot of support facilities.

Second, the ET's external insulation "popcorns" badly in space, particularly on the LWT and the SLWT. This means that ETs are going to produce a ton of space debris--problematic, obviously. You would need to significantly redesign the tank to eliminate this problem (use internal insulation, perhaps--this would also make a Columbia disaster impossible, but it might have its own issues). Until then, taking a tank to orbit would be real bad unless you discarded of it afterwards, and quickly.

Of course, this leads to the consideration of "what use can be had of a tank which is taken to orbit and discarded right after the mission"? Well, there actually is a use...the Aft Cargo Carrier (courtesy of David Portree). This is basically a payload module strapped to the back of the ET--obviously, you need to bring the ET into orbit to use it. It deals with the "bulk-out" problem the orbiter had, that many of its payloads were not dense enough to allow it to carry a full load to orbit within its payload bay. An 8.4 x 9.7 m bay allows quite large payloads, and the thing was designed to kill the ET right after the payloads in it were deployed. So this would establish a precedent of bringing the ET up but avoid the issues listed above, giving an in for later ET use.

Also, Saturn V numbers I've seen put it roughly on par with Shuttle in per kg cost (can't recall whether that's per net kg delivered or per gross kg delivered. The Shuttle would do better in the latter because the whole Orbiter can be delivered to orbit, putting it on par with the Saturn V for gross payload). If you're looking to develop a heavy-lift vehicle in the 1980s, Shuttle-C, followed by upgrades to the basic Shuttle design like upgraded SRBs and SSMEs or LRBs, followed by Shuttle-C specific upgrades (eg., larger payload shroud), followed by Shuttle-Z, followed by an in-line design and more pads is definitely the way to go.

Bleah. I think you told me this before and i forgot. Sorry. Still, SOME of them should be useful for SOMETHING.