Hermes and similar small crew launch vehicles maybe have a reason to exist. As for Shuttle. Russians were scratching their heads as what was USA trying to pull, as they fully understood in early '70es that shuttle would cost much more than NASA and friends presented to congers and public, and that throw away rockets were going to be most economic for foreseeable future.
Only way to say "Buran" continues is a commercial use of Energia-M to pay the bills (less than LOT hard feelings between Russia and Ukraine post 1991?), and even then it would be too expensive to fly more than once in a year or two. Realistically you can try and keep Energia running.
Can EU justify and pay for development of a manned space flight vehicle in late '80es? Both total costs and per flight costs of Hermes would have been much lower than STS, but maybe still to high for ESA. And it wont fly until Arianne 5 is flown and debugged... so nothing before 1995. or 1996. Is it worth it when you can buy a seat on shuttle.
And for Hope... You have to either avoid or lessen that Japanese econ bubble collapse for them to be able to develop H-2 into something safe enough to launch people with.
OK a guesstimate of a timeline.
Theft and corruption of Yeltsin years are not as bad as OTL. Maybe constitutional crisis of 1993. ends with Yeltsin out of power, AND somehow allows for real democracy to develop. Economy is healthier, smaller versions of Energia revived and flown... Maybe by late '90es they have money to fly Buran again.
Though for Russians, best chance is MAKS,
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/maks.htm
Much better than Buran (as in, much more practical and easier to realize and fly without ending broke)
Japanese housing bubble doesn’t crash as bad as in OTL, they have more money to fly and test H-2, start Hope development by late '90es, first flights in early double zero years.
To have a wanky spaceflight ATL you have to have a POD in late '60es or early '70es. At least completely different USA politics and economics trough late '80es and early '90es. Best hope would be giving more development money so you get original two stage fully reusable crew and small cargo launcher space shuttle. That doesn’t become the "beast that ate the budget" as esteemed Mr. Pournelle put it. EU and USSR follow suite, much more done in space in '80es, in '90es free market starts getting into space.
Though for example I disagree that SSX was any more doable in '90es, especially that it had any chances to be cheap enough to change the world.
For the time being, reusable is so much expensive than throw away (for space launch purposes) that even if you got a working SSTO, it would much more likely be more maintenance and ground personal intensive, and ergo more expensive, than space shuttle.
(
now, a very wanky space ATL, move to other thread if needed)
IMHO, best of possible worlds. 1929 crisis and Dustbowl harder than in OTL, Americans learn a much harsher lesson. Somehow you don’t manage to earn that much money in post war Europe reconstruction (more favorable Land Lease for UK?). Golden ‘50es end up being more silver than golden, still there is enough money for space exploration close to OTL (in most ATLs you will likely have great competition with Soviets, and you have to erase both Von Braun and Korolev to completely divert space age) I'm asking for this as to get vox populi to side with Carter's rationalizations (and rationings
) of economy in '70es, and people accepting a more moderate sustainable vision of life, also life is hard enough that extreme radical enviromentalism never gets enough supporters as its even more divorced from real life than in OTL.
Saturn V developed to be slightly cheaper than in OTL. Lower payload, one launch of SatV plus a SatB with fuel or crew. Maybe Apollo program cut after 13, but keep refining Sat V and B, and keep Apollo applications. Earlier Skylab, Skylab 2 flies. Tests of orbital fuel dump and a permanent one in orbit.
A harder Oil crisis than in OTL, stronger push for space solar. Now, to clarify. Yes, with any foreseeable launch costs with existing launch vehicles at this time it will be too expensive. Not even a insane person would advocate development of space solar with Delta IV, Atlas V and Proton as "heavy" launch vehicles.
With Sea Dragon launch prices… Hee hee, suddenly can be done and is smart thing to doo. Maybe solid state electronics and photovoltaic is a bit more advanced somehow in ATL than in OTL in 1973. and space solar looks more promising. NASA sees that Shuttle is bust, delays a small crew launch space plane until later notice, and government gives initiatives for investigation of things like Sea Dragon and VTOVL SSTO designs of similar size. Further oil price increase in 1979. keeps ideas alive even when Carter administration starts its decline. Crucially, NASA and DoD shift from paying to aerospace companies whatever they ask, to model where you pay only when you get a product you need an in time you need. Maybe a $10 to 20 billion X-prize equivalent to aerospace companies in ‘70es to whomever can develop a launcher with less than $1000/kg to LEO (modern dollar value)
Very heavy lift vehicles have first flights in ‘80es, things that can send a space station, or a moonbase, or Mars mission in one or two launches. By the time oil prices start dropping to old values in mid ‘80es space solar power is already in development and test articles are prepped for launch, bureaucratic inertia keeps the program rolling. Space station larger and more functional by 1990. Moonbase or Mars flight in ‘90es, as well as completion of test space solar power plant. With oil price problems of 2000es there is incentive for major development and expansion of space solar, with launch prices falling below $500/kg with continued development, major economic development of cislunar space.
Bloody hell, I really think this is as wanky as spacewank ATL can go, and you even get big bell shaped SSTOs… I’m saving this as a text file
