Boldly Going: A History of an American Space Station

The DoD may kick some funding towards some of these efforts in a very low-key and general way, (lets face it some 'might' have applications the military might be interested in) but for the most part like many projects OTL, (Pegasus, QuickReach, FALCON in general, etc) the overall funding and effort is not likely to result in an operational vehicle or system.
Er, Pegasus has launched 40 missions...? More if you count the Minotaur derivatives that use parts of the Pegasus stack for their upper stages. That's a pretty reasonable record overall, and it did pretty much kill Scout for small payload launch. Seems pretty "operational" to me.
 
I was suddenly struck again by just how weird it is seeing a shuttle orbiter and ET in orbit encrusted with ISS modules and tech! @ e of pi and @ TimothyC have navigated that fine line between madness and genius with skill, making the freakish seem not only normal, but almost inevitable.
Yeah I feel that way looking at Enterprise sometimes too. The engineering and underlying concepts are more or less solid, there are numerous advantages for going with an ET/Orbiter derived design, but it just looks weird sometimes.
All that said, the image of the astronaut taking an MMU for a spin in the ET hangar is probably the coolest thing I've seen (so far). I have kicked around a couple ideas for a Shuttle-C derived Enterprise successor station, basically involving replacing the converted orbiter with something else. But I don't know, not nearly as iconic a look as Enterprise.

OV-300 was rolled out of Palmdale in 2016 and ceremonially named Spirit, a plaque was affixed to the forward end of the payload bay marking “spacewalkers: cut here for hydrogen tank access”.
This got a laugh out of me, an aerospace joke perhaps as legendary as this one:
uRcFfTb.png


Speaking of, we know the names of two of the -300 series orbiters (Independence and Spirit), any word on the names of the others? Looks like they're going with the -100 series pattern of inspirational names as opposed to the -200 series OPAMs named in honor of various NASA figures.

Anyway, keep it up y'all! Good stuff, and can't wait for the next one.
 
any word on the names of the others?
I think it would be a fine continuity joke if they were named after the other Constitution class ships from Star Trek TOS, particularly if Enterprise is nearing retirement by the time the production run is coming to an end, the final 300-series shuttle could be named Enterprise B in its honour.
 
I agree that in COTS is highly unlikely in this tl and that scuppers SpaceX and Blue Origin but I think private space will still develop driven by ever cheaper and better electronics making small sats viable. NASA as in OTL is never going to be interested in the sector so a Rocket Lab equivalent with something in the Electron range seems very viable. In fact it would probably be more viable in the absence of a SpaceX equivalent exploiting ride share.
 
I think it would be a fine continuity joke if they were named after the other Constitution class ships from Star Trek TOS, particularly if Enterprise is nearing retirement by the time the production run is coming to an end, the final 300-series shuttle could be named Enterprise B in its honour.

NASA has to be careful with Star Trek references. The odd nod has merit considering the level of fandom in the agencies most ardent civilian supporters and a considerable chunk of it's workforce but it's also fuel for it's critics that the entire thing is "sci fi nonsense for nerds". Enterprise has enough non-star trek connotations that NASA's press office can claim the name has nothing to do with Star Trek while also dogwhistling to Trekkies, ditto Constitution or Constellation, but USS Whorfin?
 
Er, Pegasus has launched 40 missions...? More if you count the Minotaur derivatives that use parts of the Pegasus stack for their upper stages. That's a pretty reasonable record overall, and it did pretty much kill Scout for small payload launch. Seems pretty "operational" to me.

Ya, not sure why I pegged Pegasus there as I was intending on using it as the "exception that proves the rule" and then apparently lost track of what I was saying :)
I'll note though that it did NOT "kill" the Scout as that had already been in trouble since the Shuttle was proposed. (Yes it was supposed to fly payloads to "small" for the Shuttle but in fact it was still considered 'competition' since the idea was to take ALL payloads on the Shuttle as the only possible way to make the economics work. Part of the reason the DoD supported Pegasus was because NASA was dropping support for the Scout)

I agree that in COTS is highly unlikely in this tl and that scuppers SpaceX and Blue Origin but I think private space will still develop driven by ever cheaper and better electronics making small sats viable. NASA as in OTL is never going to be interested in the sector so a Rocket Lab equivalent with something in the Electron range seems very viable. In fact it would probably be more viable in the absence of a SpaceX equivalent exploiting ride share.

Can't disagree that "something" is likely but I'll point out that small-sats have had a very rough time gaining traction and then taking off. Arguably it can be said that the success of SpaceX both as an example in general and specific has a lot to do with folks like Rocket Lab being viable. And deeper than that the "success" of things like Space Ship One coming when it did drove a lot of public perception about the 'difference' between government and private space flight both in capability and innovation. TTL the public is going to be a lot less forgiving for delays and doubts given how "well" the government program is doing.

As I said above, (someplace :) ) Musk may in fact still get 'into' space launch in TTL but it won't be anything over the Falcon V and mostly likely no more than the Falcon 1 and lets be honest IF that happens then people like Rocket Lab won't really stand a chance will they?

It strikes me that the greatest contribution to this timeline's future space future isn't Enterprise, or the Shuttle II series, but the Shuttle-C with liquid boosters. That massive capacity for lift while maximizing the reusability of the 'working' parts of the stack is likely to reduce cost-per-kilogram in a way the original Shuttle it was based on could never do. I'm not sure how it would compare with single-launch rockets like Saturn 1B, but I suspect the cost benefits only rise over time.

I switched this to here to follow the above because I think it's important actually :) Quite right in that even at "government" costs there is not a LOT of evidence and support for recovery and reuse (and to defend my 'homey' the Saturn-1/1B it was initially designed to recovered, tested to be at least 'salvageable' and plausibly reusable with the right amount of effort but it was just to much effort and money at the point where 'time' was the only thing you couldn't waste) as being the way of the future. There will be a lot less 'questioning' the arguments for doing so rather than not. So in context folks that are jumping in the contest are going to have to offer some 'incentive' over other options that might be a driver all on it's own.

Of course the problem with reusable small-sat launchers is your margins are smaller and therefore it's less obviously an advantage.

Going back to my earlier mistake on the Pegasus, it was actually a pretty neat idea but not that great of a launch vehicle. Part of the reasoning to moving to the Minotaur was the fact that the DoD was offering the stages for 'cheap' (along with loads of launch support) and part to find a way to increase the marginal payload of the basic vehicle. There were other ways to do this and some actually increased payload AND had enough extra margin to incorporate reusability in some of the stages but they would cost a lot (or more than anyone was willing to spend at any rate) to develop and get into operation. I'd have loved to see some of those concepts come about at some point with a similar or new-build system but can the investors needed be convinced to take the plunge?

Randy
 
Can't disagree that "something" is likely but I'll point out that small-sats have had a very rough time gaining traction and then taking off. Arguably it can be said that the success of SpaceX both as an example in general and specific has a lot to do with folks like Rocket Lab being viable. And deeper than that the "success" of things like Space Ship One coming when it did drove a lot of public perception about the 'difference' between government and private space flight both in capability and innovation. TTL the public is going to be a lot less forgiving for delays and doubts given how "well" the government program is doing.

As I said above, (someplace :) ) Musk may in fact still get 'into' space launch in TTL but it won't be anything over the Falcon V and mostly likely no more than the Falcon 1 and lets be honest IF that happens then people like Rocket Lab won't really stand a chance will they?

But that rough time is on the supply side, because rocketry is hard and you have converted ICBM's like Dnepr that have already been mostly paid for holding down prices. But the general principle that the major space agencies and "old space" commercial launchers are under serving the small sat market but the demand is there and it's potentially very lucrative seems to be true of this TL as much as OTL if for different reasons. As in OTL the attrition is going to be really high because rocketry is hard but sooner or later someone is going to come up with a rocket that can deliver a small sat or a score of nanosats to a specified orbit at a price and reliability competitive with ex-ICBM's. It's never going to be lucrative enough to fund a private space ship Mars but that's ok, NASA is going there. Maybe.
 
But that rough time is on the supply side, because rocketry is hard and you have converted ICBM's like Dnepr that have already been mostly paid for holding down prices. But the general principle that the major space agencies and "old space" commercial launchers are under serving the small sat market but the demand is there and it's potentially very lucrative seems to be true of this TL as much as OTL if for different reasons. As in OTL the attrition is going to be really high because rocketry is hard but sooner or later someone is going to come up with a rocket that can deliver a small sat or a score of nanosats to a specified orbit at a price and reliability competitive with ex-ICBM's. It's never going to be lucrative enough to fund a private space ship Mars but that's ok, NASA is going there. Maybe.

The 'rough time' is actually a pretty broad issue that OTL played out pretty much as you point out... TTL? Maybe not so much. See OTL while there's a market there also isn't a lot of activity in LEO and such as there is TTL. It actually makes the 'opportunity' cost of small-sat launches (and arguably things like LEO constellations) more available. The problem with a higher activity and flight rate AND the fact that you essentially now (again :) ) have two (2) organizations, (with ESA technically playing both sides... wait a minute that sounds familiar :) ) if not in direct competition then at least having some similar goals means there are a lot of people quite interested in controlling what goes up.

Small sats are cheaper for the user but they (and especially if launchers for them proliferate) can and will eventually become a problem for the Big Boys in the game. They have a lot of incentive to maybe ensure that small sats STAY launching en-mass rather than on-demand and a whole quiver of "plausible" reasons to tip the scales in favor of their view if they want to. I would very much like to think they wouldn't play those cards but...

Randy
 
Part 33: First and Last. Enterprise outlasts its sisters. Shuttle-II flight tests and epilogue.
Boldly Going Part 33

Despite the success of Spirit in the captive carry and glide tests, ground testing of the Shuttle-II’s systems could only go so far. Many of the critical capabilities of the orbiter could only be tested inflight, during ascent or orbital operations. The first Shuttle-II orbital flights would themselves be demonstrators, each adding incremental capabilities from orbit to landing to operations with Enterprise. Unlike the original Shuttle, which had flown crewed on its first orbital flight and Shuttle-C, which had flown with crew on merely its second flight, Shuttle-II could perform the majority of its major roles with no crew aboard. Thus, NASA planned a series of five missions to prove the vehicle safe by transporting logistical supplies like MPLMs and Kepler lifeboats before any lives would be risked.

Much like with the introduction of Shuttle-C in the late-90s, NASA allocated a block of consecutive mission numbers to the sequence of demonstration flights, reserving them for use even as the primary Shuttle and Shuttle-C manifest varied from year to year. Shuttle-C’s test flight designation block, including the missions supporting Minerva 2’s return to the moon, was assigned bracketing the coveted STS-100 milestone. Given the prodigious flight rate of the late 1990s and early 2000s and orbital support since, the Space Transportation System was already assigning mission numbers around STS-270 by the time Shuttle-II’s debut mission numbers were reserved. With an eye on public relations, the equally coveted STS-275 through STS-280 were reserved for Shuttle-II’s demonstration flights [1].

Spirit’s captive carry and glide flights and Independence’s propulsion testing at Stennis were the most visible aspects of the preparations for Shuttle-II’s debut on STS-275. However, before STS-275 could fly, the Cape required extensive logistical efforts to prepare to process the new vehicle and the two existing STS vehicles in parallel. With the transition from SRBs to LRBs, processing flows for normal Space Shuttle operations and even the dual-launch Minerva lunar cargo flights were significantly smoother than they had been during the turn-of-the-millenium peak. Even though the number of launches remained relatively similar, the elimination of nearly 20 days of SRB stacking time (and resulting exclusion of work in adjacent High Bays) meant High Bay 3 was now surplus to requirements for regular stacking. Though it needed to be retained for a “safe-haven” in the event of extreme weather, the processing platforms in the high bay could be dismantled. The platforms were then reconfigured to support stacking Shuttle-II’s twin-LRB first stage, mating Shuttle-II itself, and checking out the assembled combination for flight. Mobile Launch Platform 3, originally built for Saturn V, would now be modified to support another vehicle. The base of the platform had only minor changes as the LRBs for Shuttle-II would retain their distance and positioning relative to each other as on the original Shuttle, and Shuttle-C stacks. The air-started nature of the Shuttle-II main engine also meant that there was no need for a new flame trench for the new vehicle. With just minor modification of the existing service masts and new connections from the LC-39 fixed service structures, all four MLPs could eventually be used with the original orbiters, the well established OPAMs, or the new Shuttle-IIs. LC-39B was the first of the pads to receive modifications to the Fixed and Rotating Service Structures to support the revised vehicle interfaces. In March 2019, the new facilities were activated, and the stacking of Indepence for her first flight began.

In May 2019, STS-275 made the Shuttle-II’s first trip to the pad. The stack’s appearance was starkly different than any which had come down the crawlerway before. The twin boosters and orbiter hanging between them made for a profile unlike the slightly off-balance Shuttle and Shuttle-C. Though similar to the previous generation orbiter in overall dimensions, Shuttle-II was lighter and sleeker, tucked between its two powerful LRBs. With a lower dry mass thanks to tank-reinforced primary structures, Shuttle-II could make due with smaller wings, which were mounted slightly forward of the fully-aft position on the original shuttle. The nose was a smooth ogive, its analytically calculated aerodynamics unbroken by the need for crew windows. The climb off the pad on the nearly-invisible blue flames of an all-hydrogen stack was picture perfect. Captured by numerous photographers, it looked like something out of science fiction.

The break from routine helped draw attention to NASA’s launch operations. With extensive promotion during preparations for launch, audiences in person and online were nearly 30% larger than the typical Space Shuttle mission. For the next three days, Independence stretched her wings on orbit, demonstrating basic systems function and vehicle integrity, while onboard cameras recorded the results. However, after launch, the audience for mission updates rapidly shrank. A robotic space plane with no crew might be safer, but general public interest was ephemeral without crew aboard. Though NASA proudly promoted Independence as the first full-sized cargo spaceplane to land itself uncrewed since the sole Buran landing in 1988, the audience for landing was actually slightly smaller than that of a typical Shuttle return. Independence returned for the program’s second flight, STS-276, in November of 2019. This time, Shuttle-II would go to Space Station Enterprise, like the two conventional Shuttle missions (STS-289 and STS-287) which had launched in the meantime. With the orbiter headed to the station, the viewing audience and news coverage held steadier after launch. During tests in years past, the mini-station Galileo and the related Automated Transfer Vehicles had flown with versions of the Shuttle-II avionics in the loop, providing parallel control tests for the new vehicle’s Shuttle-heritage docking radar under automatic control. Still, STS-276 was the first time the massive bird itself had made the trip to NASA’s most storied outpost. The gawky delta-winged orbiter was more awkward to maneuver than the simpler cylindrical Galileo, and elaborate tests were carried out to prove it was under control during the approach.



Independence made multiple approaches to the station, pausing several times in each to check that guidance remained on target. The pauses also allowed time to ensure that the massive drone spaceplane responded to abort commands from a control panel in Enterprise’s operations center, where much of the crew had gathered to oversee events. The hold points moved steadily closer, with Independence flying formation with Enterprise first at two kilometers, then at two hundred meters, and finally at twenty meters. For the crew aboard Enterprise, the giant new orbiter felt almost close enough to touch. Finally, after hours of testing, Independence’s docking ring slid home at the axial port on the bottom of Node 1.

Shuttle-II had proved it could reach the station, now it remained to be proved that it could service it, a task which fell in 2020 to the next pair of flights. The cargo bay of the new Shuttle-II orbiters was smaller than their predecessors, and made smaller still by the cramped docking module all uncrewed missions to Enterprise would have to carry. Still, the remaining space would be large enough for either of the two most critical payloads: the ESA Kepler lifeboats and the Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules. The second Shuttle-II orbiter, Freedom made her debut on STS-277 in March. The new orbiter carried a Kepler lifeboat in its cargo bay. Following procedures which had been developed over the years, Kepler no longer had to fly itself free of an arriving orbiter or make an independent rendezvous with the shuttle after departing station. Instead, by 1997 procedures had improved to use the station’s arm to pull the lifeboats out of a visiting orbiter’s bay and berth them to one of the station’s APAS ports. Not only did this save wear-and-tear and mision complexity, it ensured the ability to put Kepler lifeboats on APAS ports which were more difficult to access when approaching the station on independent flights. Once STS-277 docked as Independence had on STS-276, Freedom deployed its robotic arm under station and ground control and traded the Kepler lifeboat in its bay for one of the two which had stayed on station for the last six months. When it returned, Freedom proved that Shuttle-II would have the same operational effectiveness which had already allowed the same set of four reusable Kepler-E lifeboats to support more than 50 rotations since 1995 with only minor refits and routine maintenance.

On STS-278 in August 2020, NASA tasked Independence with a mission to demonstrate the other major support required for Space Station Enterprise, by flying the legacy Multi-Purpose Logistics Module Donatello. Though less exciting than the Kepler lifeboats or new modules flown to station, the stumpy can-shaped modules made up the backbone of the Enterprise logistics pipeline. Like dozens of flights before it, STS-278 saw Independence “carrying the mail” with tons of food, clothing, and routine scientific samples. With the module handed off to the station’s waiting arms, Shuttle-II proved it was ready to take on the challenges of supporting Enterprise’s ongoing mission in orbit from the four remaining original Space Shuttles. The full support of all Enterprise operations was demonstrated by a final mission, STS-279, which saw Independence fly to station once more, this time with a fluid cargo and gas transfer transfer pallet in her bay. Though high-pressure nitrogen and oxygen tanks could simply be carried in the bay, transfer of hypergolic propellants for Enterprise and cryogenic oxygen and ethanol for the associated fleet of orbital vehicles was more complex.

On the previous-generation Space Shuttle, launching cryogenic oxygen to Enterprise had required carrying a pallet of tanks inside the payload bay, tied into connections originally used for the Shuttle-Centaur “Death Star’ launches before the loss of Discovery. For Shuttle-II, the process could be simplified by using cryogenic oxygen already stored for the orbiter’s own hydrogen/oxygen Orbital Maneuvering System on every mission. Plumbing to allow connecting to these supplies in flight had been designed into the new orbiter, and no new pad hookups were required. Thus, the only fluid and gas pallets needed for STS-279 and subsequent resupply flights were compressed nitrogen tanks and the tanks for room-temperature-storable hypergolic propellants and ethanol fuel, which could be filled prior to cargo bay close-out and left in-situ even during extended on-pad holds. Still, carrying fluids in the bay always raised the specter of leak concerns. During preparations for STS-279, there was an abundance of caution with the new fluids pallet and (ultimately spurious) warnings of leaks led to multiple aborts and scrubs. Eventually, NASA stood down the launch preparations for multiple days. Technicians reopened the orbiter’s payload bay to replace valve seals between the tank interconnects and the docking module. Finally, Shuttle-II knifed into the sky on a mission to top off the thirsty tanks of Space Station Enterprise and all its associated vehicles. With two orbiters active and five successful flights under their belt, NASA’s Shuttle-II program managers began 2021 ready for the final challenge: crew.



The NASA Public Affairs Office had big plans for STS-280. After a minor refit to incorporate early lessons from the first several flights, OV-302 Freedom was tapped to carry the new crew module to Space Station Enterprise in February of 2021. To reduce risk, only the bare minimum crew would be aboard. Doug Hurley would be the spacecraft commander, while Bob Behnken would be the pilot. In order to ensure there were options for the crew’s safe return if problems with the new orbiter were encountered that made safe landing questionable, NASA arranged to have the previous shuttle mission, flown by Endeavour, held at Enterprise with spare seats to give Hurley and Behnken a backup ride home. For Public Affairs, this was a perfect opportunity. They begged Flight Operations to arrange for a fly-around of the station, conducted by a JAXA HTV which was held at station for a week past the original scheduled departure, to enable the remote camera systems aboard to capture the sight of three Shuttles on orbit together at the same time: the first orbiter (OV-101 Enterprise), the last of the first production run of orbiters (OV-105 Endeavour), and the first of the next generation of NASA crew spacecraft (OV-302 Freedom). With the Enterprise Power Module solar arrays temporarily locked horizontally, Endeavour was docked to the APAS adapter on Node 2’s zenith port, leaving the two sisters nearly touching with Endeavour docked at the Node extending up from the old Leonardo Laboratory module in Enterprise’s payload bay. This left the more easily accessible Node 1 nadir port open for Freedom. The resulting image of three sisters and the massive orbital complex they had spawned proved a spectacular capstone to the trouble-free debut of the new crew module. With data in hand from the first six orbital missions, NASA proudly certified the new Shuttle-II ready for regular service in June of 2021. At the same press conference, they also publicly confirmed the official hand-off between the two generations of shuttle. Though existing missions planned for the original orbiters were to be flown out, any new missions would be planned or transferred to the new Shuttle-II. As a block of mission numbers was reserved for the first flights of Shuttle-II, so too was a block reserved for the last flights of the original orbiters. Thus, the final flight of the original series of space shuttles would be assigned to OV-104 Atlantis in late 2022 on STS-300.








With the final flights of the original space shuttle orbiters, and the handover of orbital support to the new Shuttle-II fleet, Enterprise is now the single longest continuing element in American and International crewed space infrastructure. Its capability to support massive and sustained human occupation in space, not to mention its tremendous scientific capability, more than justifies its continued center-stage position in the realm of human spaceflight. Enterprise’s STS-37R legacy occasionally presents weaknesses, like the narrow intertank “hamster tube” passages which frustrate distributing ISPR-enabled logistics and experiments around the periphery of the pressurized components on the station. Still, the station’s new hangar, and servicing capability it provides, is the center of Enterprise’s support of the President’s renewed initiatives for space exploration. With the ability to service the new reusable Diana variant of the Conestoga lunar landers, the ramp-up of the Shackleton Crater lunar outpost from “Long Duration Stay” to “Permanently Crewed” status will provide work on orbit for many years to come. Within the next decade, the shuttle-turned-station may face an even greater challenge with on-orbit assembly and testing of the Hōkū'ula Mars Transfer Vehicle if Congress upholds the President’s budget requests.

While her sisters eventually fulfilled their role as “space trucks” for the development of space infrastructure, OV-101 Enterprise has transcended her roots in every way by becoming infrastructure. Once a ground-bound reject from the program’s early days, Enterprise rose to the challenge when the lack of an American space station became a critical national deficit. Over decades of operation, her status as an ad-hoc expedient has turned into serving as a keystone for the ongoing development of humankind’s reach into the stellar frontier. In-space outfitting and servicing techniques developed for her construction and expansion were a testing-ground for techniques like Habitank conversion and reusability of in-space assets like Galileo and Conestoga. Her launch aboard STS-37R proved to be the pathfinder for the LRB-powered Shuttle-C, and she remains the most important destination in space for the new Shuttle-II fleet. The central role of Space Station Enterprise in orbital science, American commercial research, and lunar & martian mission planning ensures Enterprise will retain a role supporting missions no one has dreamt of before for years and possibly decades to come. As long as that continues, the program’s motto for the last forty years will remain true: “First to Fly, Last to Land.”




Authors’ Note: I swear, we forgot about the shuttle names in Armageddon until after we had these names picked.

[1] Here is the math we worked through. STS-131 closed out CY2001 ITTL. There were then nine flights each year in 2002 and 2003 to finish building out Space Station Enterprise. Given this total (149 flights at the end of 2003), we looked forward over the next nearly two decades. There would be four or five conventional shuttle flights per year (covering lifeboat rotation and logistics, as well as occasional show-the-flag flights to MIR-II). Furthermore, there are at least two Shuttle-C launches each year to deliver crew to the moon, and there are, in the 2004-2017 period, another nine or so cargo flights, each needing two launches for site establishment and base buildout. With a few additional flights sprinkled in for the DoD and JPL, we came to the conclusion that there would be on average about NINE STS-numbered launches per year. Added to the above total, and when NASA manifests the Shuttle-II test flights in 2016, the first batch available that is near a nice round number starts on STS-275. With the lunar base moving into operations and sustainment instead of expansion, the 2018-2022 period sees a slightly lower number of flights (averaging about eight per year), which is why STS-300 is selected as the number for the last original orbiter flight.


Render by:@nixonshead (AEB Digital on Twitter)
Patch by: Disco Slelge
 
Last edited:
author's note: e of pi

e of pi’s notes:​

Happy April Fool’s everyone! So...this project started about a year and a half ago, as an idea of a quick-and-dirty timeline to explore what would have to happen to see an orbiter-derived station, primarily drawn from the Ware & Culbertson studies, actually realized. The idea was to do it for the April Fools 2020 post, with three main goals: little additional research so I could do it as a solo project, no new art, and about 5,000-7,000 words. So, more than a year later, let’s take stock: Thanks go to @TimothyC for his help with the additional research and concept development which came about in figuring out the details as this story grew in the telling, and in the process of whipping words into shape to describe this monster of a space station. Thanks go to the entire art team for their work realizing the station and lunar outposts of this timeline. And, more than 68,000 words into a 5,000 word project, thanks to everyone who’s been reading, thinking about, and commenting on this timeline for the past three months.

Ultimately, as TJ and I developed the idea, the issue became simple: this idea was too interesting to deny going into details that emerged as we thought about it. There’s more that could have been told, from how Shuttle-C launched ET-derived Mars vehicles might be built to the future of post-Enterprise stations, or how commercial fares in a timeline where NASA has robust and frequent access relatively cost-effectively from their own stable of launch vehicles, but those felt tertiary at best to Enterprise’s already-overlong story. We have some more thoughts to share, some of which were background notes that didn’t end up coming in the main TL, some of which are semi-canon and semi-contradictory thoughts about the TL’s future after the end, and we’ll be sharing that over the next few weeks and months.

In the meantime, once again, Happy April Fools, and I hope you enjoyed this--the greatest joke in it was the idea this was a story that could be told any shorter.
 
author's note: TimothyC

TJ's notes:​

First, I would like to thank e of pi for allowing me to join him on this wonderful project. It’s been an adventure more than a year in the making. I’d also like to thank Usili for getting his hands on an early copy of After LM before the pandemic was in full swing, and cluing us in to the “HabiTank” concept that became integral to the lunar program we outlined.

I’d like to thank AEB Digital (nixonshead), Dylan Semrau, Cass Gibson (norangepeal), & Discoslelge for all of the amazing artwork that they have done for us in support of this timeline, and I hope they are remembered when next year’s Turtledove Awards for artwork are up for nomination.

As for the timeline, this started out in the planning stages as a short (ten thousand words or less) project for April Fool’s Day 2020. It uhm, grew out of control, and by mid-February 2020 it was obvious that we needed something smaller to fit into the schedule, which was the nucleus of The Last of the Clippers.


Once freed from the early short writing period, the story was allowed to expand to the final form which is long enough to qualify for more long-form literary awards rather than the shorter novella category (final draft word-count was over sixty-seven thousand words for the story and image annex posts).

While the main story of the timeline is finished, There are some ancillary materials that are not yet in a form ready for public consumption, so look for those in the coming months.

Sincerely,

Timothy ‘Arnie Holmes’ Cizadlo
 
Last edited:
Well done to both of you! It's been a pleasure reading.

I like that Hawai'ian name for the Mars Transfer Vehicle--it sounds neat and captures that long-voyaging spirit. And an interesting discussion of the new Shuttle, as well! Curious about ground-handling for the hypergols--since they're not actually used for Shuttle-II's propulsion system, and are only transferred to Enterprise, does the ground crew still need to wear protective gear as they do IOTL for X-37 and did for Shuttle, or is the system totally isolated when not plugged into Enterprise?
 
Beautiful work everyone on the Boldly Going team!

Fair winds and following seas to the future space explorers of this timeline. Shuttle II sounds like a beautiful ship that will, with the help of Enterprise, Diana, Hōkū'ula, enable us to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. And Boldly Go where no one has gone before!
 

e of pi’s notes:​

Happy April Fool’s everyone! So...this project started about a year and a half ago, as an idea of a quick-and-dirty timeline to explore what would have to happen to see an orbiter-derived station, primarily drawn from the Ware & Culbertson studies, actually realized. The idea was to do it for the April Fools 2020 post, with three main goals: little additional research so I could do it as a solo project, no new art, and about 5,000-7,000 words. So, more than a year later, let’s take stock: Thanks go to @TimothyC for his help with the additional research and concept development which came about in figuring out the details as this story grew in the telling, and in the process of whipping words into shape to describe this monster of a space station. Thanks go to the entire art team for their work realizing the station and lunar outposts of this timeline. And, more than 68,000 words into a 5,000 word project, thanks to everyone who’s been reading, thinking about, and commenting on this timeline for the past three months.

Ultimately, as TJ and I developed the idea, the issue became simple: this idea was too interesting to deny going into details that emerged as we thought about it. There’s more that could have been told, from how Shuttle-C launched ET-derived Mars vehicles might be built to the future of post-Enterprise stations, or how commercial fares in a timeline where NASA has robust and frequent access relatively cost-effectively from their own stable of launch vehicles, but those felt tertiary at best to Enterprise’s already-overlong story. We have some more thoughts to share, some of which were background notes that didn’t end up coming in the main TL, some of which are semi-canon and semi-contradictory thoughts about the TL’s future after the end, and we’ll be sharing that over the next few weeks and months.

In the meantime, once again, Happy April Fools, and I hope you enjoyed this--the greatest joke in it was the idea this was a story that could be told any shorter.
This was really great!
 
Show us a picture of Shuttle II you cowards!

In all seriousness this was a lot of fun. Being able to trash talk wet workshops is what brought me out of lurker mode and allowed me to meet all of you!
 
Bravo! Glad to see a fitting successor to the veritable Space Transportation System, this TL is an absolute dream for Shuttle fans, seeing it fulfil it's potential.

Although I've gotten a gist of what the Shuttle-II looks like, anyone want to do a quick-n-dirty render (or even a sketch) of what it looks like? Still having a little bit of trouble visualizing it.
 
I think this is one of the best TL I’ve read here. Well done to all of you!
I join the chorus of those requesting artwork, or even just a simple diagram of Shuttle II.
 
Top