Eyes Turned Skywards

As for Europa upgrades. I took another look at it. The Blue Streak 1st stage had a serious problem with it that would make substantial upgrades at best, extremely difficult. It was pressure stabalised with tank walls of 0.48mm thickness. This means that even small solid rockets on the sides could be too much for it, while larger solid and liquid boosters are a definate no. This is one serious issue that they'll have to face, and a major potential friction point for them.

It's actually pretty easy to fix: roll the stage out of thicker steel. They used to tailor Centaur tank wall thickness to the specific mission, changing it mission to mission to either add support or shave unneeded mass. It's not trvial, since it does effect how you carry out some of the manufacturing operations, but it's pretty easy to do without substantial re-design.
 
Ah, internal politics. Don't you just love it? The kind of stuff that makes you say:

"I know! I'll ditch this experienced designer and hire a total amatuer instead! Then I'll use sub-standard systems to keep everything good! After that, I'll kick the bucket, leaving this boozer to clean up the mess!" :p:p

You sound like you have a specific example in mind. Care to share? ;)

As for Europa upgrades. I took another look at it. The Blue Streak 1st stage had a serious problem with it that would make substantial upgrades at best, extremely difficult. It was pressure stabalised with tank walls of 0.48mm thickness. This means that even small solid rockets on the sides could be too much for it, while larger solid and liquid boosters are a definate no. This is one serious issue that they'll have to face, and a major potential friction point for them.

Still, I'm very much under the impression that things will work out mostly better for ESA ITTL - or at least, they do more. Future updates can't come soon enough.

Oooh, you'll be having fun next week, I promise :)

Now, as for the Europa upgrade difficulties...good catch! It *will* be quite difficult to upgrade the basic Europa design...but, you know, there's more than one way to skin a cat.
 
Post 13: Space Advocacy I: Birth of the National Space Organization
Well, this is a bit of a change from what ETS focuses on normally, but I hope you'll enjoy this week's update for what it is.

Eyes Turned Skyward Post #13:

The practice of space advocacy--of citizen's groups pressuring Congress to undertake some activity in space, in just the same way an environmental group might lobby to protect a river or a corporation might appeal for a tax cut--was and is in many ways the child of the 1970s. During the 1950s and 1960s many people in the US supported space exploration, true, but the nature of the political process that led to the Moon program--the interactions between the aerospace industry, Cold War attitudes and politics, and, later, the martyrdom of John F. Kennedy--made public support irrelevant to the Moon program. "We" had to beat the Russians, and it didn't matter if many Americans believed that that money would be better spent on welfare, plumbing, or a tax cut (and there were many Americans, even in the heady days of the mid-'60s, who believed exactly that): Americans were going to the Moon. However, the Apollo program eventually began to wind down under the stress of Vietnam and the achievement of "victory" over the Soviets, and with it official support for space exploration and development. Slowly, a sense was growing in those who wanted an expanded space program that they could no longer stand on the sidelines and cheer; instead, they needed to take the field and become persuasive and forceful advocates of such a program.

The first stirrings of such a movement came with the fight to save Skylab and Spacelab (then known as Skylab B, or International Skylab). Many within the country, most prominently political figures such as Senators William Proxmire (D-WI) and Walter Mondale (D-MN) were fervent opponents of the space program, arguing that the resources and technical talent represented by it could be put to much better use elsewhere, perhaps in curing diseases, improving public health, cleaning up the environment, or so on. As the techno-optimism of the 1950s and 1960s faded into the malaise of the 1970s, moreover, this feeling was growing, and spreading into a broadly-based anti-technology feeling. High technology of the sort represented by aerospace endeavors like the Supersonic Transport or the Apollo program was no longer in vogue, and many who were in favor of these programs felt under attack. Naturally, a counterattack was in the offing; including such prominent members as science fiction writers Larry Niven and Arthur C. Clarke, a wide variety of small, local movements came into being to argue for such high technology, while diplomats pointed out that we had agreed with Russia to launch International Skylab, and Skylab would surely be necessary before that to gain experience in space station operations. Together, these arguments carried the day, at least for Skylab, and the Skylab-Spacelab program continued on unabated. While the organizations that had sprung up to ensure this outcome largely died off having achieved it, the seeds were still planted for larger movements later in the decade.

The first indications that those seeds would sprout into something remarkable was the foundation of the National Space Organization, still one of the Big Three space advocacy organizations. The group originated from discussions between NASA and existing professional aerospace organizations. Given the tight budgets of the 1970s, NASA officials desired an organization which could press Congress for more funds to be directed towards spaceflight, in much the same way that citizen's groups had pressed naval construction at the beginning of the century. Of course, NASA could not directly organize such a club, but outside groups could, and by mid-1975 the National Space Association had come into existence (the name was quickly changed due to feedback indicating people didn't want to pay dues to another Association). Despite quickly recruiting von Braun to serve as its public face (and almost as quickly having him retire due to increasingly ill health), the Organization grew slowly. The founding goal was to reach 100,000 members and several dozen major corporate sponsers within a few years, but by 1977 barely 15,000 had actually joined, and it became apparent that stronger measures were needed to make the Organization successful. About this time, the board had been approaching the increasingly well-known space scientist Carl Sagan, looking to recruit him to the board to replace von Braun. While Sagan made a number of demands, mostly centered around greatly increasing the attention paid by the Organization to the robotic and scientific parts of the space program, the board was ready to agree to nearly anything, and Sagan was quickly accepted.

Sagan soon realized that a direct appeal to the public was needed to show support for the space program to lawmakers and to drum up support for the NSO. While constrained by his role in the Voyager program, he turned his considerable skills towards pro-space advocacy, culminating in the production of the television show Cosmos in 1981. In parallel with this campaign, the membership of the NSO began to rapidly increase, reaching over 150,000 members by 1983. This growth made the NSO by far the largest and most influential space organization in the United States, and it began to actively lobby the government.

With its close connections to NASA, moreover, the NSO had actually begun to play a part in NASA's own efforts, particularly those related to education and publicization of its activities. However, something remarkable had happened between 1975 and 1983, something which had given the NSO a run for its money, and something which was attributable to one many alone: Gerard K. O'Neill, a physicist and passionate supporter of space colonization from Princeton University.
 
Interesting. Seeing how certain NGOs start to develop and push for extra space exploration. Having Sagan on board should be a great help for them.

I'm guessing Von Braun died as per OTL in 1977 due to cancer, as per OTL.
 
Interesting. Seeing how certain NGOs start to develop and push for extra space exploration. Having Sagan on board should be a great help for them.

I'm guessing Von Braun died as per OTL in 1977 due to cancer, as per OTL.

Yeah, he did. :( But I looked at it, and I would have to butterfly several different cancers and other health issues to keep him alive much longer.

Although I'd think people would have more to say about our essentially merging the NSS and Planetary Society! Come on, I know you're reading, you've got to have something to say!
 
Yeah, he did. :( But I looked at it, and I would have to butterfly several different cancers and other health issues to keep him alive much longer.

Although I'd think people would have more to say about our essentially merging the NSS and Planetary Society! Come on, I know you're reading, you've got to have something to say!

Don't know enough about the various societies to be able to say too much. Sorry. :(
 
I remember getting an invitation to join one or the other, probably the PS, when I was in high school in the early '80s.

Honestly if I weren't up already way past my bedtime I'd be commenting on other things.

Bottom line--I think some of those people who thought money would be "better spent" on other things than space also thought it was nevertheless imperative we "beat the Russians." That is, a portion of the pre-1969 pro-NASA constituency was in it despite reservations and concerns about cost, out of deep patriotic (or system-rivalry) reasons. These quite naturally fell by the wayside when we "won the game."

Vice versa, some of us feel space is a good thing and also want all that liberal hippie stuff too.

It is the job of the space travel advocate to explain why and how it benefits people who otherwise wouldn't be thinking about it much.

The fact is, despite all my science-fiction based enthusiasm it is hard for me to project confidently just what payoffs ordinary people can expect from ventures deeper into space, certainly to wonder whether cold-bloodedly speaking it's ever really necessary to send humans there. It seems intuitively and emotionally obvious it has to be worthwhile and has to pay off somehow. But this might just be conditioning brought on by being born in 1965 in an Air Force family and being resident on a SAC base when Apollo 11 landed, just at an age where I could start tracking these kinds of things. Rockets into space were just a normal part of my distinctly non-hippieish upbringing and the culture my family and the sections of the nation I lived in happened to focus on and assume were normal; combine that with my associations with live high tech on the Air Force bases and it all seemed natural, normal, inevitable, and clearly good.

But none of that explains why exactly anyone should pay anything to send some people to Mars.

That's our job, and frankly I don't know what to say.

Which is why I guess I never got around to actually joining any of these Societies.
 
Sweet! Finally, something more my speed! Don't get me wrong, I love hearing about the hardware, I just can't really comment on it.

Utterly relieved that Cosmos went forward. With the numbers who watched IOTL I don't think it'd be a stretch to up the number of members in the National Space Organization. I'd expect another bump in '85, if he still writes Contact.

Another piece of media I'm curious about is the film adaptation of The Right Stuff. I suspect it'd stir up a lot of support for the test pilot astronaut model NASA's been trying to downplay.

I know you said you wouldn't be investing too much in butterflies, but now that you've got a lobbying group in Washington, I'm wondering if we might not see some effect on individual politicians- John Glenn springs immediately to mind. He was on a lot of short lists from 1976 all the way through 1992. Some would argue that it was mostly bad advice that kept him from the #1 or #2 spots. With different influences on the man, who knows what could happen?

The O'Neill teaser is intriguing, but rather than speculate on where you're taking it I'll just eagerly anticipate next week!
 
Utterly relieved that Cosmos went forward. With the numbers who watched IOTL I don't think it'd be a stretch to up the number of members in the National Space Organization. I'd expect another bump in '85, if he still writes Contact.

Well, the numbers here are pretty much the OTL pre-L5 NSS + the Planetary Society. OTL, I guess some people dropped out because of Shuttle, but we'll have to think about what happens here. Cosmos going through was pretty much a given since about post...4 or 5, I think. The very first automated probe post. We led into it with some quotes from Cosmos which also point to another little change from OTL that we haven't really discussed (since we haven't been looking at the probes much--we'll get back to them, though, I promise).

Another piece of media I'm curious about is the film adaptation of The Right Stuff. I suspect it'd stir up a lot of support for the test pilot astronaut model NASA's been trying to downplay.

Yes, we might do a future popular culture thing. I like The Right Stuff far too much for it NOT to happen, but the details and so on...

I know you said you wouldn't be investing too much in butterflies, but now that you've got a lobbying group in Washington, I'm wondering if we might not see some effect on individual politicians- John Glenn springs immediately to mind. He was on a lot of short lists from 1976 all the way through 1992. Some would argue that it was mostly bad advice that kept him from the #1 or #2 spots. With different influences on the man, who knows what could happen?

Hm, that is interesting...I'll bring it up to e of pi. Now, Glenn getting elected would have to happen later rather than sooner, but--it is an intriguing possibility. Very intriguing, hm...

The O'Neill teaser is intriguing, but rather than speculate on where you're taking it I'll just eagerly anticipate next week!

Oh, I love speculation! It makes the thread *fun*! (Not to mention it gives everyone something to do in between posts). An important thing to recognize is that O'Neill was interested in space colonization before the main POD...
 
Well, ok then. One thing that springs to mind is O'Neill's interest in orbital solar power. With heavier rockets still in play, I'm hoping that'll get off the ground (sorry for the pun, I suppose.)

What he really needs is corporate sponsorship. Maybe the NSO model will open some doors for him. Almost certainly not in amounts that'll make anything happen immediately, but maybe enough to keep him focused on space colonization for the duration.

And speaking of corporate sponsorship and space, I'm wondering what Richard Branson's doing ITTL. Of course he didn't get into space until recently, but with some European success and third party advocates banding together, he might be an earlier supporter.
 
And speaking of corporate sponsorship and space, I'm wondering what Richard Branson's doing ITTL. Of course he didn't get into space until recently, but with some European success and third party advocates banding together, he might be an earlier supporter.

It's always possible. A NASA & ESA that can do more should make possible more corporate/commercial involvement. And if Reagan's in the White House as per OTL, they may find some support there.

I need to ask though. Since S. Christa McAullife isn't going to perish ITTL since there's no Challenger - or Discovery, or Atlantis, or Columbia - what's going to happen in regard to trying to build up public support? It's well worth looking into IMHO - though I suspect you already have.
 
Well, ok then. One thing that springs to mind is O'Neill's interest in orbital solar power. With heavier rockets still in play, I'm hoping that'll get off the ground (sorry for the pun, I suppose.)

What, solar power or O'Neill supporting it? Well, for the former, the economics aren't there, regardless. SPS is marginal even under rather optimistic predictions now, and the technology in the 1970s was worse. People will look at it, sure, but nothing is going to happen on that front anywhere close to the present (of the timeline). For the latter...well, wait and find out! But I will note that Glaser invented the concept prior to our main POD, and O'Neill was already looking at space colonies by then...it's a matter of time until someone connects the dots...

What he really needs is corporate sponsorship. Maybe the NSO model will open some doors for him. Almost certainly not in amounts that'll make anything happen immediately, but maybe enough to keep him focused on space colonization for the duration.

Well, what makes you so certain the NSO is going to pull for him? Sagan was never a big O'Neill fan IOTL--although he did, I think, want to see the Solar System settled and all that, he was more into space science, especially planetary exploration, than crewed stuff. The NSO is the 900-pound gorilla, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for other organizations...

It's always possible. A NASA & ESA that can do more should make possible more corporate/commercial involvement. And if Reagan's in the White House as per OTL, they may find some support there.

I need to ask though. Since S. Christa McAullife isn't going to perish ITTL since there's no Challenger - or Discovery, or Atlantis, or Columbia - what's going to happen in regard to trying to build up public support? It's well worth looking into IMHO - though I suspect you already have.

Oh, trust me, we *have*! Although, what makes you so certain there won't be a Challenger, or Discovery, or Columbia? ELVs can blow up too. ;)
 
Well, what makes you so certain the NSO is going to pull for him? Sagan was never a big O'Neill fan IOTL--although he did, I think, want to see the Solar System settled and all that, he was more into space science, especially planetary exploration, than crewed stuff. The NSO is the 900-pound gorilla, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for other organizations...

I just meant that the model of corporate sponsorship provided by the NSO might make it more likely for other sources to follow suit. Surely not every businessman interested in space is going to want to follow the NSO line.

When talking about the economics of orbital solar (or obviously more complex investments like colonization) we're getting out of my depth again. I just don't think an attitude of "we can't do it now so let's not put money into it," is something you'll find in an organization devoted to humanity's relationship with outer space. And I suppose I expect O'Neill to agree with me, even if he doesn't get far.

Question: you mentioned there'd be no Hubble ITTL. Why is that? Just different funding priorities or is it somehow inter-related with the shuttle and therefore non-viable now? Is anyone going to attempt a similar project?
 
Oh, trust me, we *have*! Although, what makes you so certain there won't be a Challenger, or Discovery, or Columbia? ELVs can blow up too. ;)

Perhaps. But at least there's options for survivable aborts at all launch-to-orbit points with Apollo. This has been proven by Soyuz in 1983 OTL. The only occurance of Manned On-The-Pad Abort in the history of Human Spaceflight.

And besides. Challenger and Columbia were Shuttle fatalities. Without a shuttle, you can't have shuttle fatalities! :p:p
 
I just meant that the model of corporate sponsorship provided by the NSO might make it more likely for other sources to follow suit. Surely not every businessman interested in space is going to want to follow the NSO line.

True, dat. You'll see ;)

When talking about the economics of orbital solar (or obviously more complex investments like colonization) we're getting out of my depth again. I just don't think an attitude of "we can't do it now so let's not put money into it," is something you'll find in an organization devoted to humanity's relationship with outer space. And I suppose I expect O'Neill to agree with me, even if he doesn't get far.

Well, that's true, which is why IOTL O'Neill founded an organization specifically dedicated to funding the needed technology research. However, that and a buck will get you a cup of coffee (as the saying goes) with larger firms or governments. They're not going to pony up billions or trillions of dollars for something with no clear payoff and significant technological risks. So NASA, or the DoE, or Boeing, or whoever isn't going to invest in it themselves, and there's no possibility of it being built until someone with their kind of financial firepower comes in (and even then it's not a sure shot). But sure, technological development, that will happen. Especially since some of the important technology is important for other applications (better solar cells especially).

Question: you mentioned there'd be no Hubble ITTL. Why is that? Just different funding priorities or is it somehow inter-related with the shuttle and therefore non-viable now? Is anyone going to attempt a similar project?

I did? I don't remember mentioning that! I guess I have to go back through the old posts to see where that is, if it's there. If you quote the important bit, you might jog my memory, though.

EDIT: I did a search and the only mentions of Hubble so far in the thread (according to that) are in your post just above and this one...but I'm going to go through the individual posts one-by-one to make sure.

EDIT2: There was a mention of Hubble, in the opening post--the one displaying a discussion from this universe going over WI Shuttle was selected. Saying, quote "You could use it to maintain and upgrade space telescopes like Hubble..." (italics added). So it seems there will be a Hubble after all :) You'll just have to see how that works out.
 
Last edited:
Post 14: Saturn 1C and Preparations of LC39
Well, I know this may not see a lot of views what with the holidays, but I want to keep our update record strong. This week, we turn to the final preparations for the Spacelab mission.

Eyes Turned Skyward, Post #14

For NASA, the period between 1976 and 1978 was one of preparation. The Skylab program had ended with the de-orbiting of the orbital laboratory at the end of Skylab 5, and all effort had turned towards the preparation of the Spacelab station and equipment. Parts of the system had been proven, of course. The Spacelab station was built from the backup Skylab, modified with the removal of the Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM) and the outfitting of the LOX tank of the SIVB as an additional laboratory space. A revised Multiple Docking Adaptor (MDA) would allow an Apollo capsule and an Aardvark resupply craft to be docked simultaneously, and for an additional craft to dock for short periods. During the initial use of Spacelab as an “International Skylab” for the ASTP II, this was to be a Soviet Soyuz using an adaptor, but after the ASTP II mission it would be used to attach an airlock and to dock “surge flights” to add an additional three crew members (mixing American, ESA, and other astronauts)for short periods. The Block III “LEO taxi” Apollo CSM and the Aardvark supply vehicle had been tested by independent flights and then proven on the Skylab 5 flight. The launch vehicle for the station was the last of the Saturn Vs, with the Spacelab station again replacing the S-IVB upper stage. The only remaining unproven hardware was the crew launcher for the program, the Saturn IC.

The Saturn IC had emerged in 1972 as part of the post-Apollo shift to a focus on orbital space stations and long-duration manned flights in low Earth orbit. It was to replace the expensive and complex S-IB as a crew launcher for the post-Skylab station that evolved into Spacelab. To simplify the vehicle and increase payload, the Chrysler-built first stage with its multitude of tanks and 8 H-1 engines would be replaced with a new Boeing-built first stage using a common-bulkhead design and mounting a single F-1A engine, an improved version of the powerful F-1 originally developed for the second production run of Saturn Vs. The S-IVB upper stage would be largely unchanged, but a similarly upgraded J-2S engine would replace the J-2 of the Saturn IB. By 1977, the first Saturn 1C was approaching readiness inside of a Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) that was in a state of controlled chaos.

The transition of NASA’s direction from moon missions to space stations begun in 1971 can said to have finally finished in 1977 and 1978. Hardware like the Mobile Launcher Platforms and Mobile Service Structures for the Saturn Vs were being modified for their new roles. While MLP #2 and pad LC39A was reserved for the Saturn V that would carry Spacelab to orbit, MLP #1 and #3 as well as LC39B were being converted for the use of the Saturn IC, moving access arms and work platforms to better serve the new rocket. The first launch was to use MLP #3, since MLP #1 had had a “milkstool” mounted to allow the Saturn IB to be launched without extensive modifications to the platform. Because of this, the MLP required not only the same modifications as MLP #3 to, but the additional time and effort to remove the milkstool.

In many ways, the transition of the MLPs was characteristic to all of the preparations occurring at Kennedy Space Center. Even as the technicians prepared for the operational Spacelab flights using revised Apollos and Saturn ICs, the station launch on a Saturn V would require the same infrastructure used since the complex’s construction. Indeed, the VAB crews experienced some of the same transitional headaches with the rockets themselves as they did with the Mobile Launch Platforms, Mobile Service Structures and other equipment. The Saturn IC and Saturn V shared a common heritage, but were of different generations. The electronic brains of the Saturn V had been designed in the mid-60s and by 1977 were more than a decade out of date, while the avionics of the Saturn IC were brand new and used the latest technology Boeing could cram into them. The engines of the Saturn V, the F-1 and J-2, had been revised into the engines of the Saturn IC, the F-1A and J-2S, but the differences between the two were enough to cause issues with the tools and equipment used to service and prepare the systems, meaning critical ground support equipment had to duplicated or have modifications carefully scheduled to ensure it could support both the Saturn 1C and the last Saturn V.

In spite of these issues and the delays they caused, the maiden Saturn IC rolled out to the pad on a newly-rebuilt MLP #3 in mid-July 1977. After several weeks of simulations, testing, and inevitable pad delays, the final preparation mission for the Spacelab program roared skyward on a tower of flame. Ten minutes later, the S-IVB stage cut off, leaving itself and a payload simulator consisting of tons of metal carefully designed to simulate an Aardvark supply spacecraft in a 200 km circular orbit, with less than 1% error in both apogee and perigee. The successful flight left behind the last of the Saturn Vs in its own VAB highbay, beginning the process of stacking the stages and finishing the checkout of the Spacelab station, while in the recently vacated highbay, work was already underway to complete modifications of MLP #1 and begin preparing the first manned Saturn 1C. The same-day launches of the last Saturn V and the first Spacelab crew on the second Saturn 1C, intended to occur in early 1978, would mark the end of a transitional period that had lasted almost since the liftoff of Apollo 18 in 1973.

In another major transition, in 1977 NASA announced that it would begin the selection process for its eighth astronaut group. Even the greenest astronaut in the Corps had been with NASA since 1969, while many or most of the more veteran astronauts had either retired or were about to. With Spacelab operations expected to result in a greatly increased number of flights compared to the post-Apollo 18 period, it was obvious to everyone that NASA needed new blood in the Corps. Importantly, for the first time NASA would recruit pilot and non-pilot astronauts at the same time, while abolishing the requirement for non-pilot astronauts (now called "Flight Scientists" instead of "Scientist Pilots") to pass flight school prior to assignment. This set the stage for the largest NASA astronaut group up to that point, and when selection was completed what turned out to be the most diverse. The inclusion of females and minorities in higher education and the military had greatly expanded since the last open selection (group 6, since group 7 had been restricted to veterans of the Air Force's MOL project), and thus the new group would also include the first female and African-American astronaut candidates. The final list of 20 new astronauts would give NASA the astronauts it needed to ensure the success of the Spacelab program.
 
A state of controlled chaos? Can't say I'm surprised.

This I think, also explains the general reluctance to make sweeping changes to an operational design given all the associated challenges with it. Take for example Arianes 1, 2/3, & 4. All were very similar designs, yet needed their own launch pads due to the few differences they had from each other - granted Ariane 4 was rather different from the first three, but it was still essentially the same design.

So the very last Saturn V gets ready to lift off, leaving none for the museums - unless the partially built ones get finished for that purpose, but the odds are slim-to-none. While at the same time, expanding the range of NASA Astronauts in terms of numbers, race, and gender. I'm guessing the USSR will still attempt to upshot them the same way they did OTL with Salyut 6.

The Saturn 1C performs well on it's test flight, which combined with the - I'm guessing here, though I'm sure it will be accurate - extensive debugging ground tests means it's fit for flight. A long time coming, but at least it's there at last.
 
Re: Hubble

Whoops! I really do apologize, I could've sworn I read somewhere that larger ground-based telescopes would be replacing orbitals ITTL. Such an oddly-specific phantom thought...

Though now that I think of it, won't this alternate space program make servicing the "Hubble" more difficult? I mean I guess the faults are totally the subject of butterflies, but just in theory.

Anyway, another quality update!

I'm not sure I have a sense of how Spacelab compares to NASA's activities IOTL. Are we seeing more or fewer missions/astronauts/experiments ITTL?

I'm getting a feeling that equipment is being re-assessed more frequently ITTL, which makes sense. Once you've spent the money to build a shuttle you only need equipment to function well with it, while ITTL less initial expense means less institutional investment and less pressure to keep the same old stuff. If every piece of the equation is more frequently being tinkered with, I'd expect TTL to advance more quickly than OTL.
 
Top