Eyes Turned Skywards

[su_liam]

No criticism was intended. His English is quite good, actually. Sadly, my French is only suitable for making insults or procuring the services of a professional date.

It would appear that my skills at humor are similarly lacking.

Sorry.

[e of pi]

Originally Posted by su_liam

In an attempt to make a much simpler BOTE estimate for Saturn-IC first stage masses, I assumed the new stage to have the same overall dimensions as the S-IB stage and did a straight linear scale down of S-IC masses with engines removed, based on the smaller volume(about 0.25 IIRC) and then adding the one engine mass back in. Looking at the wiki, I get about 100kg more propellant than the TTL canonical S-IE stage and 100kg less dry mass. This doesn't take into account the efficiencies achieved with common bulkhead and other likely improvements to the design.

Given that the estimates via several different methods seem to roughly agree at the masses listed on the wiki, I am leaving them canon. 100 kg more propellant and 100 kg less dry mass isn't anything to fight about--it translates to at best 10 kg of payload. It's possible for a single engineer to cut more than that from their personal body with a few months dedicated effort in my experience, so you can imagine what we can do when we apply those skills to trimming weight off of payloads. The canon will stand as it is posted in the wiki of Saturn 1C, I'll be running payload calculations tonight.

The more I read, the more it looks like a kerosene/LOX stage could be built with a proportionally even smaller dry mass than the S-IVB or ET.

We'll see. I want to take a solid pass through my Multibody numbers before I make a canon post of them to the wiki. Part of my consideration is how much they'd prefer a heavier first stage with lower development costs (more commonality with Saturn 1E) compared to a slightly more powerful end vehicle.

BTW, I'd guess they only bother man-rating the M02, and the various clusters and booster combos would be strictly unmanned.

Initially, that's likely, but once you start looking at BEO, it's not a huge cost to manrate at least H03, since the first stage/core and second stage are the same as M02 and doing so opens up several architectures that are not opened by M02 as the only man-rated variant.

This thread has really caught my imagination. Maybe I could pick and chose bits from this, the Wacky Redhead a marginally habitable moon and some of my favorite space bats for a TL of my own...

I'm glad you've enjoyed it. Maybe you should wait a week or two, I happen to know there's some space stuff coming on TWR and you can see what you make of that?

[e of pi]

Originally Posted by Polish Eagle

I read in the Moon Miner's Manifesto that LOX/LH2/Aluminum can reach a vacuum ISP of 475 seconds, and over 400 at SL. Might such a tripropellant get more research ITTL?

Unlikely, I think. While 475 sounds like a lot, it's only about 11s more than the maximum operation biprop LH2/LOX engines get today. This amounts to only about a 1% change in allowed dry mass for a fixed gross mass even for a rather high-performance stage like an SSTO. For a 65,000 kg gross-mass lander, this is about a half-ton difference. I'll admit that sounds like a lot, but I think less than half the engineering time and cost could boost the performance of a known hydrolox engine most of those additional few seconds and trimming weight from a lander to get the same gains in payload.

[Shevek23]

Among a number of questions, speculations, and suggestions buzzing around in my head, here's a new one.

What are the chances of NASA getting access to new major launch facilities at a lower latitude than Canaveral? I'm wondering about optimizing launch for Lunar, Earth-Moon Lagrange points, and Solar System missions.

From my earlier kluging around with Silverbird, it seems that it's relatively easy to launch to orbital inclinations higher than the launch latitude, up to a point anyway--there's very little penalty for going to a 51 degree inclination versus a 28.5 degree one from Canaveral for instance. But it's murder to try to achieve a much lower inclination than the launch latitude. At any rate, none but the very heaviest of the heavies can launch a darn thing to a 23 degree orbit, which is my shorthand easy number for the System plane of the ecliptic (where Luna and its associated Lagrange points also hang out). And the ultra-heavies struggle to launch a measly half-ton or less!

From previous musings I've shared in various places, the ideal low-latitude launch site I'd want doesn't seem to exist on this planet; I want high altitude and nothing at risk downrange to the east, but there aren't any two-mile high sheer cliffs on an east coast! Downslope from a peak like Mauna Kea, there are towns and farms and stuff on the coast. Same for East Africa and it would probably be dangerously cavalier to ignore the people downrange from a mountain in New Guinea, not to mention the logistical issues of setting up a rocket base in classic Terra Incognita like that.

So actually Kourou is looking pretty darn good. It's not bang on the Equator but it's pretty low latitude, certainly well below the tropic. It's not a nice high mountain plateau, it's practically sea level, but highlands tend to be windy, gusty places, whereas Kourou boasts of its relatively calm weather by Atlantic coast standards. It's logistically pretty convenient to the major Western contenders' respective astronautical industries--closer by air than other good sites, a straight shot by sea for heavy waterborne cargo. And it belongs to France.

Since ITTL as well as OTL, Europe has its own modest space program, and here it is stimulated to higher pitches of achievement by NASA's competition--well I forget if you've already stated Kourou is indeed being developed as Europe's Spaceport. I figure that went without saying.

But alongside competition, NASA has also been cooperating with ESA. The Europeans have had some grounds to complain of second-class treatment though they are getting rather more than OTL up to this point. Going over to the Apollo III+ with its 5-crew capability is doing a lot to mollify it. Still the Europeans are clearly junior partners.

If the Americans were to approach them about a partnership level whereby NASA (not, I think, DoD!) adds to its basic launch facility budget a commitment to a share of expanding and operating Kourou, and gets a share of the launches possible from the expanded base, including a pad or three capable of launching a Multibody H03, possibly with margin for further stretching, then deep-space launches might be marginally more effective, meanwhile the balance of power within the transAtlantic cooperation is tipped a bit toward Europe. Commercial customers who would like to send up geosynch and other equatorial satellites would be able to choose between US and European systems; the private companies actually building the launchers would have more opportunities for international synergies.

National chauvinism is not a factor to be sneered at unfortunately. And not always unfortunately in the space biz; the largesse of taxpayers is often stimulated by patriotic one-upmanship. So it's not entirely clear what the best path to a bigger pie for all parties to share is.

If someone were to see new paths to making straightforward and substantial profits on orbital enterprise of some kind, beyond the comsats, navigational systems, weather satellites and so forth we take for granted today, then the market itself will providing customers for the launcher business even when the whims of governments grow cool to space ventures. But that's a whole other topic, one where I tend to be sadly skeptical--and look forward to someone who can convince me I'm wrong.

You know, kind of like how the thread authors have shown how foregoing the Shuttle in favor of soldiering on with one-shot rockets can be exciting and fun!

So anyway, we're in the early Eighties here, the Reagan-Thatcher years may not be the best for an indissoluble union of the European and American programs to arise.

And the USA does of course have low-latitude options of its own, notably in the Pacific. However these islands are a logistical long haul from the continental US, and except at Hawaii and Puerto Rico, neither of which may be low latitude enough, there's not a lot of existing infrastructure to build on.

So I like the idea of Americans sharing Kourou with Europeans. And perhaps the partnership also developing a very high latitude launch site, say in Iceland or Newfoundland, weather permitting, to also share.

This is prompted partially by feeling distinctly constricted by the remark that after all, Canaveral itself can only support about eight Multibody-family launches a year. More sites might mean more launches altogether.

A related question that I have brought up before is, how much of the incremental evolution of the Saturn Multibody family will be in the direction of more rugged stage elements that can be assembled and transported to launch pads horizontally, which should speed things up. And associated efficiencies in launch operations in general, so that a site like Canaveral could indeed manage significantly more frequent launches.

I suspect it's cart before the horse--at this point, NASA has to justify even eight launches a year with some strain. No one is looking forward to a big launch every day, or even every week!

But any prospect of these sorts of evolutions by say 2010?

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by Shevek23

Among a number of questions, speculations, and suggestions buzzing around in my head, here's a new one.

What are the chances of NASA getting access to new major launch facilities at a lower latitude than Canaveral? I'm wondering about optimizing launch for Lunar, Earth-Moon Lagrange points, and Solar System missions.

From my earlier kluging around with Silverbird, it seems that it's relatively easy to launch to orbital inclinations higher than the launch latitude, up to a point anyway--there's very little penalty for going to a 51 degree inclination versus a 28.5 degree one from Canaveral for instance. But it's murder to try to achieve a much lower inclination than the launch latitude. At any rate, none but the very heaviest of the heavies can launch a darn thing to a 23 degree orbit, which is my shorthand easy number for the System plane of the ecliptic (where Luna and its associated Lagrange points also hang out). And the ultra-heavies struggle to launch a measly half-ton or less!

Ummm.... No?

Cape Canaveral is at 28.5 degrees. Pretty much half a radian. so COS(theta)=~1-(1/2)^2/2=7/8. So launching from Canaveral gives you 7/8s the advantage of actually launching from the equator.

Switching inclinations at geosynch or higher orbits is pretty trivial, actually, as the delta-v is small (because orbital velocities are small). So, no, there's some little advantage for geosync satellites to launch near the equator, but not much. Not sure what numbers you plugged in, but your results are WAY off.

[e of pi]

Originally Posted by Shevek23

Among a number of questions, speculations, and suggestions buzzing around in my head, here's a new one.

What are the chances of NASA getting access to new major launch facilities at a lower latitude than Canaveral? I'm wondering about optimizing launch for Lunar, Earth-Moon Lagrange points, and Solar System missions.

Actually, Silverbird is not entirely accurate there. It just takes a bit of doglegging on the launcher or some clever maneuvers to get to the right orbit even if it's lower inclination than the lattitude. Thus, because of its latitude, Kennedy is pretty good. Afterall, as you say, the solar eccliptic is inclined 23 degrees from the equator, and the moon is within 5 degrees off from that--about 18.29 to 28.58 off the equator. Thus, Kennedy is actually nearer the destination orbital inclinations--sure you lose a little rotational boost, but you gain it back in less delta-v to get to the right departure orbit.

At any rate, none but the very heaviest of the heavies can launch a darn thing to a 23 degree orbit, which is my shorthand easy number for the System plane of the ecliptic (where Luna and its associated Lagrange points also hang out). And the ultra-heavies struggle to launch a measly half-ton or less!

Yeah, the calculator's not telling you the right story there. Consider that the Mars Exploration Rovers (about 1000 kg overall, see here) were launched on Delta II which has a maximum LEO payload of 6.1 metric tons. 1/6.1 is not the same ratio as 0.5/77. Just saying.

This is prompted partially by feeling distinctly constricted by the remark that after all, Canaveral itself can only support about eight Multibody-family launches a year. More sites might mean more launches altogether.

Not Canaveral. LC39, the NASA facility also known as Kennedy Space Center. There's other launch complexes there. The Cape has a facility dedicated to Delta 4000 (pencilled in as LC17) as of '82, plus LC37 is being refurbished and converted for Saturn Multibody for DoD use. SLC6 is being laid out at Vandenberg for the same purpose. And there's LC36 (mothballed, was Saturn 1B) and LC40/41 (ex-Titan III sites, no longer in service due to replacement of Titan III by Delta 4000 in USAF service).

A related question that I have brought up before is, how much of the incremental evolution of the Saturn Multibody family will be in the direction of more rugged stage elements that can be assembled and transported to launch pads horizontally, which should speed things up.

Not necessarily. And stages are often manufactured and transported horizontally. Saturn stages were, Shuttle stages were (and Shuttle SRBs were transported by rail, with 1 segment per railcar). Besides, horizontal assembly isn't by definition any more of a benefit in terms of assembly time than spaceplanes are by definition superior for all missions. It's better to refine the existing operations procedures than to try and re-invent them, unless you're clean-sheeting a design with a few hundred million of your own dollars. Besides, when rockets get big, they're a pain to integrate and transport no matter how you do it. Energia/Buran wasn't any less of a pain than Shuttle, for instance, despite horizontal integration.

I suspect it's cart before the horse--at this point, NASA has to justify even eight launches a year with some strain. No one is looking forward to a big launch every day, or even every week!

...Definitely cart before the horse. Let it launch once or twice before you go projecting 50 launches a year, eh? You're as bad about my rocket as some of the hard-core SpaceX fanboys, who don't see the real rocket, just a their conceptions of magic improvements in everything at once and launch every day for $5.00!

[Bahamut-255]

Originally Posted by e of pi

...Definitely cart before the horse. Let it launch once or twice before you go projecting 50 launches a year, eh? You're as bad about my rocket as some of the hard-core SpaceX fanboys, who don't see the real rocket, just a their conceptions of magic improvements in everything at once and launch every day for $5.00!

Sure you can get a launch for $5.00! Just change the value of the Dollar and that's that!

Seriously, you couldn't have set yourself up better for that if you tried!

[Michel Van]

The history cheap rocket launch is full of proposal and failure

The Shuttle Mafia:
they promise launch re-usable Space Shuttle for US$18 Million Dollar(2012) each week !
then USAF join them and Space Shuttle mutated into a monster of of launch system
and to keep the R&D cost down, they take the cheapest design with highest maintenance costs
so was the STS born
but 50 launch in year it became 5 a year and launch cost rise US$450 Million Dollar(2012)
next to that the cheap design killed 16 people!

The Saturn Gang:
They proposed drop the cost by mass-production of 40 Saturn V of 1968 to 1978
and cheaper launch with modified Saturn hardware like Int-20 (S-IC with S-IVB) and Int-21 (S-IC with S-II)
Even insane proposal of Saturn V-B a 2500000 kg a stage and a half booster build from S-IC stage, with 26000 kg payload !

The Big dump Booster
there Idea was build a big, better enormous rocket with high Payload 550 tons and more
one of famous Idea was Sea Dragon build in shipyard, launched by floating the rocket in the ocean.
one of the Gigantic proposal was Boeing AMLLV with 2358 tons payload
a monster of 81 meter high and 40 meter diameter (with 12x260-inch solid booster)

But what for Payloads have those monster to launch cheap?

The guy who made it right: ESA
The Ariane program was smirks by NASA, who build the Space Shuttle, consider the no plus ultra.
but the old-fashioned Ariane Hardware show little problems, in contrast to Shuttle R&D problem, delays and cost overruns.
They start mass production of Ariane like Ariane 4 with production order of 50 Rockets each.
what drop the production cost considerably and became most successful Satellite launcher. not the Space Shuttle

the USSR made same thing, but this under planned economy, what i can't compare with ESA Ariane oder US Shuttle economy.
SpaceX has to prove that there concept work:
Falcon 1 launch 5 (only 2 success) and Falcon 9 launch 2, let see what happens after 20 launches...

and this TL ?
NASA would do good if they order 40 Saturn 1C at once (4 launches per year, for next 10 years)
even better if they team up with USAF for Spysat launch
Then there need of 12 launches per year with other words: Boeing has a mass production of the Saturn 1C
what reduce the production and launch cost monumental.

[Bahamut-255]

Van.

There's one more thing to consider which has a major impact on launch costs. The method of payment.

OTL Atlas V and Boeing Delta IV are built under the Cost-Plus system where the amount paid is equal to the production cost plus a given percentage - ~15% IIRC. This creates a scenario where keeping the production cost high is financially beneficial to the company in question. To negate this, huge overhead costs via accountants are needed to prove that they are not deliberately fleecing the taxpayer. The result. High Production - and therefore high launch - Costs.

The other - via COTS - awards fixed sums of money to a company for achieving certain points of progress. Since the sum of money is fixed, they must get the costs down by as much as possible to maximise the profit margin, while still achieving high reliability and safety ratings. Clearly better from a financial standpoint, but could be extremely costly should it fail.

[e of pi]

Originally Posted by Michel Van

and this TL ?
NASA would do good if they order 40 Saturn 1C at once (4 launches per year, for next 10 years)

I think NASA ITTL is more likely to instead commit to an initial Saturn 1C purchase of maybe 18 or so in annual lots of 6 or biennial lots of 9 or 12 or whatever meets their needs with the option to renew indefinitely, since they don't know exactly how long they're going to be using Saturn 1C. Looking back from the omnipotent director's chair, I can say it's in service about a decade, but in '73 when contracts are being signed, they don't know and I'd say their main concern would be keeping production ongoing, avoiding the risk of something like Saturn V where the second lot wasn't approved, screwing most of the post-Apollo plans out of the gate. Building smaller lots more often avoids a need for a large standing army of staff and infrastructure, which then sits idle for years between batches and ends up looking like a good target for cancellation, but it is enough to see some economy of scale advantages.

This initial order can then be extended to 24, 36, 42, or whatever as NASA continues to use the vehicle.

even better if they team up with USAF for Spysat launch
Then there need of 12 launches per year with other words: Boeing has a mass production of the Saturn 1C
what reduce the production and launch cost monumental.

[/quote]Well, USAF has Delta 4000 for the Titan payload ranges, so even for Saturn Multibody I don't think 7 launches per year for USAf is something that can be counted on. On the other hand, this concept of NASA and the USAf using the same vehicle for all heavier payloads (and with H03 even up to the lower bounds of the super-heavy range for payloads like Skylab/Spacelab-sized station modules) is roughly what Saturn Multibody and ELVRP II are about. Boeing's Multibody production is being planned at Michoud with room for 12 cores produced per year to meet NASA and USAF needs and the ability to add production in steps of 3 cores per year to meet needs.

[Michel Van]

back to TL
about the European Manned Spacecraft, what had you in mind e of pi ?

Here some info
OTL European Manned Spacecraft study
already in 1968 french CNES proposed ELDO a dyna Soar like 2 men Glider launch with ELDO-C rocket !
In same time Germany made drop test with lifting body prototype ERNO LB 21 BUMERANG
the LB21 was consider as template for second stage of French-German MISTRAL TSTO proposal
Dassault TSTO proposal "Le transporteur aerospatial" third stage a Lifting body with swing wings for landing
In Great Britain they study Lifting Body EAG.4413 part of two stage rocket, also in combination with EAG.4409 TSTO
sadly all this proposal never became real

in 1977 the CNES 2 men Glider resurface as HERMES
begin 1980s was power struggle in CNES about Manned spacecraft: HERMES Shuttle or MINOTAUR Capsule
at 1984 Hermes won, became defacto French version of Shuttle with cargobay and Robot arm
a crew of 4-6 plus a 4500kg payload in its cargo bay.
after Challenger CNES had to put a rescue systems in Hermes
the French Shuttle becomes heavyer, crew down to 3, next cargobay is remove from the design.
1987 Hermes became official a ESA Program
around 1990 the Hermes look more like advance version of Dyna soar (X-20X) with similar program problem.
1991 Hermes was far over budget, the Glider not build and first launch delay to 2001
The November 1992 ESA meeting in Granada, Spain, finally kill the Hermes Program
reason:
Germany need money for the Reunification and had no Interest to pay more on Hermes
the new French president Jacques Chirac had also to make financial savings.

[Bahamut-255]

Originally Posted by Michel Van

back to TL
about the European Manned Spacecraft, what had you in mind e of pi ?

I suspect that E went for a capsule design. What type in particular I'm not entirely sure.

In 1977 the CNES 2 men Glider resurface as HERMES
begin 1980s was power struggle in CNES about Manned spacecraft: HERMES Shuttle or MINOTAUR Capsule
at 1984 Hermes won, became defacto French version of Shuttle with cargobay and Robot arm
a crew of 4-6 plus a 4500kg payload in its cargo bay.
after Challenger CNES had to put a rescue systems in Hermes
the French Shuttle becomes heavyer, crew down to 3, next cargobay is remove from the design.
1987 Hermes became official a ESA Program
around 1990 the Hermes look more like advance version of Dyna soar (X-20X) with similar program problem.
1991 Hermes was far over budget, the Glider not build and first launch delay to 2001
The November 1992 ESA meeting in Granada, Spain, finally kill the Hermes Program
reason:
Germany need money for the Reunification and had no Interest to pay more on Hermes
the new French president Jacques Chirac had also to make financial savings.

And there was Hermes' failing. It first tried to be a scaled-down replica of STS, then had to turn into a Dynasoar-esque Spaceplane to keep the mass within the payload constraints of even an upgraded Ariane 5. The end result was the cancellation of Hermes leaving OTL ESA with an Ariane 5 that was now overpowered for the new tasks at hand.

[Michel Van]

Originally Posted by Bahamut-255

I suspect that E went for a capsule design. What type in particular I'm not entirely sure.

And there was Hermes' failing. It first tried to be a scaled-down replica of STS, then had to turn into a Dynasoar-esque Spaceplane to keep the mass within the payload constraints of even an upgraded Ariane 5. The end result was the cancellation of Hermes leaving OTL ESA with an Ariane 5 that was now overpowered for the new tasks at hand.

why not make a compromise ?
USA and USSR have capsule design and glider like Hermes were to heavy for ELDO-C
so why not take a lightweight Lifting body design like ERNO LB 21 ?
in this TL the Europa 2 flies, so also the LB 21 one Orbit mission
so the germans have enough Data about his flight behavior
to build a bigger Manned version with mass of 11000 kg
like the HL-20 proposal http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl20.htm

[Bahamut-255]

Originally Posted by Michel Van

why not make a compromise ?
USA and USSR have capsule design and glider like Hermes were to heavy for ELDO-C
so why not take a lightweight Lifting body design like ERNO LB 21 ?
in this TL the Europa 2 flies, so also the LB 21 one Orbit mission
so the germans have enough Data about his flight behavior
to build a bigger Manned version with mass of 11000 kg
like the HL-20 proposal http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl20.htm

Because that depends entirely on the maximum payload of TTL Europa 3. Post 17 of TTL states that TTL Europa 3 will have a base payload of 5,000 - 6,000Kg. A decent capsule design can be made for 7,200 - 8,050Kg (the masses of Soyuz and Shenzhou respectively). This means that an augmented variant of Europa 3 (Liquid or Solid Booster Assisted) can accommodate such a design.

For added benefit, it can be adapted for the dual roles of Crew Transfer and Cargo Delivery (Read: Soyuz/Progress).

[Michel Van]

Back in 1970s Glider and Lifting bodys were very popular at ELDO and ESA
the Only european capsule Design i know of are:

for CNES Solaris Orbital platform
the unmanned TAURUS capsules in form of Discoverer (corona) return canisters
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers...laris%2002.jpg
and manned MINOTAUR Capsule like a apollo CM with very small service module
i have no data about the Hardware

Multi-Role Recovery Capsule by British Aerospace Ltd.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/mulpsule.htm
with 7000 kg 4 men crew or 500 kg payload

[Michel Van]

I found some more data and graphic
so I made a drawing about Minotaur and Erno-LB21 called here "Hermes"
The scale is same, the humans figure are 1.8 m high.
Minotaur is 4.0 m in diameter total height 5.4 m (Data based on use of Ariane 4 rocket )
Erno-LB21 in size HL-20, length 8.93 m Span: 7.16 m
Both System have 12000 kg mass.

On Minotaur seems that crew equipment and Life-support system can be completely remove,
Indication are the high 2300 kg payload for unmanned version.

Bahamut-255, i hope that the Minotaur is useful for your TL

[e of pi]

Michel,

I appreciate your work on this. Would it be okay if I adapt that drawing for a future update in Part II?

A few notes, though: That Minotaur would seem to be about the size of Dragon, if not a little larger (4.0 m base rather than 3.66, roughly similar sidewall angle), so I think it's not unreasonable that they could fit in 4 crew--or possibly more, but it'd be rather cramped at that point. Soyuz gets by for the few days to station with 3 cubic meters per person, and Geminii and Apollo CSM-only missions got by with less than that, so if this can offer even 12m^3, then 4 people is doable. Given that a simple Dragon scale-up gives a 13 cubic meters, this seems reasonable. It'd be much tighter than Apollo Bk III+'s 9 cubic meters per person or OTL Shuttle's 10.14 (for 7 crew), but it's not bad for a crew taxi.

[Michel Van]

Originally Posted by e of pi

Michel,

I appreciate your work on this. Would it be okay if I adapt that drawing for a future update in Part II?

A few notes, though: That Minotaur would seem to be about the size of Dragon, if not a little larger (4.0 m base rather than 3.66, roughly similar sidewall angle), so I think it's not unreasonable that they could fit in 4 crew--or possibly more, but it'd be rather cramped at that point. Soyuz gets by for the few days to station with 3 cubic meters per person, and Geminii and Apollo CSM-only missions got by with less than that, so if this can offer even 12m^3, then 4 people is doable. Given that a simple Dragon scale-up gives a 13 cubic meters, this seems reasonable. It'd be much tighter than Apollo Bk III+'s 9 cubic meters per person or OTL Shuttle's 10.14 (for 7 crew), but it's not bad for a crew taxi.

there made for this TL, be free use it. what gonna be Minotaur or LB 21 ?
Minotaur has internal volume of 25 cubic meter, i don't known how this volume is used on Manned version.
But there a Indication that Life support and 3 men Cabin is build into volume for manned flight and remove for cargo fight
see manned payload of 500 vs 2300 kg on unmanned version

in Soyuz has a cosmonaut 3 cubic meters in space, during launch is around 1.5 cubic meter !

on Spacelab
i found Power-supply problem !
original Skylab had solarcell for total 21 kW, do to accident it's power was reduce to 15 kW
Spacelab has not ATM, only the two wings with total of 10.5 kW
not sufficient to run Skylab, MDA, Airlocks and Europe Module on same time
Spacelab need more Solarcell, i proposed the 4 wings of ATM are launch with Skylab in orbit.
first crew made EVA and install the 4 wings on Airlock module near 2 Big wings
some thing similar to this grafik labeled as E - OWS Solar array

[Warringer]

Originally Posted by e of pi

Michel,

I appreciate your work on this. Would it be okay if I adapt that drawing for a future update in Part II?

A few notes, though: That Minotaur would seem to be about the size of Dragon, if not a little larger (4.0 m base rather than 3.66, roughly similar sidewall angle), so I think it's not unreasonable that they could fit in 4 crew--or possibly more, but it'd be rather cramped at that point. Soyuz gets by for the few days to station with 3 cubic meters per person, and Geminii and Apollo CSM-only missions got by with less than that, so if this can offer even 12m^3, then 4 people is doable. Given that a simple Dragon scale-up gives a 13 cubic meters, this seems reasonable. It'd be much tighter than Apollo Bk III+'s 9 cubic meters per person or OTL Shuttle's 10.14 (for 7 crew), but it's not bad for a crew taxi.

Didn't you see the images where its shown that the Dragon can carry a crew of seven?



Certainly looks like its not too tight.

[double7double]

I wish this was hisotry not alternative hsitory!