2001: A Space-Time Odyssey

So, no development of a hydrogen-oxygen upper stage, just straight to nuclear fission powered ion rockets? And switching from hypergolics to ker-lox heavy launchers?

Nope, there is R&D on hydrogen-oxygen engine for UR-1000, only that program is delay into R&D in 1980 and first operation in 1990s.
seems that first secretary of Kaszakh had some issues with Toxic Fallout from UR-700

Given that Soviets don't do solids, it's good to focus on kerosene for the first stages anyway; if not trying for hydrogen engines for the upper stages frees up funding for making practical nuclear-powered ion drives work, then that might work out I guess.
Not sure that nuclear plants can be made light and efficient enough to be preferable over solar-powered systems for propelling ion rockets, at least not for the inner system--out around Jupiter and beyond the nukes attainable in the 1970s would be better I guess.

It has become more obvious in the past few posts how the timeline might be leading to the sort of tech seen in Kubrick and Clarke's movie. Numbering the Western space stations so that we are on "5" in 2000; a Shuttle program leading to the spaceplane Heywood Floyd takes up to said station. And here we see nuclear power in space mentioned I believe for the first time, anyway for driving some sort of rocket engine.

Fission plants generating electricity to drive an ion rocket are still a pretty far cry from Discovery's engines--I never read the World of 2001 so only online descriptions of unknown reliability tell me that Clarke says those engines are advanced fission engines that heat up a plasma which presumably has ISP in the ballpark of a good ion drive--sort of a mix of very hot thermal nuke engines plus electromagnetic super-thrusting on the resulting plasma I guess. Nor do we know the reactant--I suppose hydrogen, and I think Clarke wanted there to be big fuel tanks attached to Discovery's spine--presumably three sets, one for Jupiter rendezvous, two more to leave Jupiter and then brake into Earth orbit again, the missing fourth one (probably half the length of the long spine separating the engines from the life/mission sphere, for reasons that should be obvious now) used up and dropped in boosting to a Jovian encounter trajectory. Kubrick said no though (don't know if for budget reasons or just because he thought they'd spoil the look of the spacecraft) so just from the screen canon we'd have to guess at an even more efficient engine system--I always assumed they had to be some kind of fusion engines.

Solid only for ICBM, for some reason the Soviet/Russians hate solid for Satellite and manned launcher.
The Soviet and Russian have long tradition for envision a Nuclear electric engine for space, as Space tug or Engine block for interplanetary Mission.
The problem is here not mass, but efficiency of solar cells vs energy need of Ion engine. here a nuclear reactor can do wonders.
While the USA goes another nuclear way (Spoilers)

The Discovery one spine contain ammonia fuel modules for Jupiter rendezvous and get in target orbit until Discovery Two arrives and get One's crew out of Hibernation (Novel 2001 and 2010)
Kubrik had various issue with Discovery, the first version with three big fuel tanks attached was Orion nuclear Drive using exploding Atomic bombs to catapult it to Jupiter, what Kubrick not wanted because Dr Srangelove Nuke theme
second version "Dragonfly" used large Wing like Radiator, what Kubrick disliked "to much airplane" so in end became tha Discovery from movie
It's drive Cavradyne Engine were envision by Thomas F. Widner head of Nuclear Engine division of General Electric working as consultant for Kubrick team.
it a Gas core nuclear engine, that's nuclear fuel is in form of a hot Gas at 20000 °Kelvin ! what accelerated the ammonia to a hell of speed

Anyway Soviet capability of matching and surpassing these engines has to wait until the construction of Leonov, in the mid-2000s, some thirty years after these mid-70s directives. The book called it the "Sakharov Drive" which suggests that scientist-engineer is better reconciled to the regime than he was OTL by this time. Well, you got rid of Brezhnev and you didn't put in someone like Shelepin in his place, so that might help. Plus reconciliation with China, and bettering relations with the West, and of course survival of the USSR until 2010, all suggest he might have been more pleased with the way things were going in the Soviet Union and therefore had one last genius idea in him, presumably yet another form of plasma-fusion engine.

All of that awaits breakthroughs as yet undreamed of (well, dreamed of, but hardly something one can plan on in 1976) so of course they go ahead with tech that is known to be workable, at least theoretically.

The Term "Sakharov Drive" implies in novel of 2010, that Soviets manage to control Muon-catalyzed fusion, discover by Sakharov in 1950
Main problem with concept is that the muon particle has very very very short life of 0.0000021 second, to short to be used for fusion application.
i try to stay realistic in term of technology, but since 64 years there no progress in Muon-catalyzed fusion.

If the Soviets can hope to make practical ion engines (practical for manned spaceships I mean, thrusting at high enough thrusts to use the high ISP to achieve big delta-Vs in days instead of years--when people say solar is as good as nuclear they probably only refer to the latter sorts of low thrusts we can achieve today OTL) by the 1980s I guess they are going ahead with Moonbase plans of their own; they probably also are designing highly advanced fission plants for power generation on the ground (and God knows what uses for weapons-grade material production--but no WWIII until 2010 at the earliest, right?)
Nice to see Kosygin refused to let the USSR get thrown into the astronautical briar patch of imitating the American shuttle down to the last bolt as happened OTL with Buran. Presumably Soviet launchers of the 1980s will remain rockets, albeit with recoverable first stages, and any spaceplane like systems will be satellites launched on rockets external to them, that might return as glider capsules, or they might stick with old-fashioned capsules but of more advanced design--successors to TKS I guess since that system will already be on line in the Seventies.

To much spoiler...
 
Going Nuclear

10238699925_fc4d43c951.jpg

The 1973 Oil Crisis helped to kick start Nuclear technology.
The Western Nations started construction program on nuclear reactors to become more independent from Arabic oil import.
The "Mad Men" produced several highly effective advertisements appealling to the National pride of the people, in an attempt to dispell the anti-nuclear sentiment of the late-60s early-70s enviromental movement.
Slogans such as "Nuclear Power is FRENCH National Power" or "Atomic Power for America" became increasingly influential as the cost of gasoline, food, electricity and the general stagflation following the 1973 oil crisis worsend. This combined with an increasingly, technologically optimistic culture following both the American and Soviet lunar landings (and early Space Stations) helped reduce the anti-nuclear movement in West Germany, the United States and France.

At the same time the soviets also started construction program on nuclear reactors to counter increase need for electric power in USSR and East Block. There had never been any organized opposition to nuclear electricity in Eastern block and Kosygin, hoping to economically rather than militarily compete with the US in fields other than merely space also supported the new energy source's promise. Although nuclear power, Supersonic Transports and space were increasinly becoming sideshows compared to Soviet investment in cybernetics, reductions in military spending neccesarily benefited many fields (some of which was wasted, some of which wasn't).

1320059351_5f0613a4d9.jpg

Next to Nuclear Reactors for Power production, There were several other projects.
Nuclear Power for civilian ships, the USA, France, Germany and USSR had all built several experimental commercial ships where there engines were nuclear. Following the 1973 oil crisis, fuel costs increased sufficiently to make even the government operated and run NS Savannah (the first US atomic oceanliner/cargo carrier) which was never intended make a profit, economically competitive.

After a series of long, drawn out, difficult negotiations on the Standards and Regulations on Nuclear Reactor Safety in 1978 the Treaty on use of Nuclear reactors on civilians Ships was ratified.
The First ships enter in service were German Container ships, while the french government converted the hull's of previously oil burning ocean liners.
The Japanese's built the first nuclear powered Super oil tankers some time later.
6826404396_151e6809e0_z.jpg

The French Ocean-liner NS FRANCE, The first converted to a Nuclear engine

Unfortunately for the industry the dream for Nuclear powered aircraft remained unrealized, All national air safety organization such as the US National Transportation Safety Board refused the idea outright. While there had been some early ideas about a nuclear-powered long range bomber in the early 1960s, these ideas never became practical about question on safety of the nuclear reactor during air crash.

On other hand things for the Nuclear Space Flight program went very well.
NASA saved the NERVA and SNAP program from attempted cancelation in 1973, needing nuclear reactors and engines including the planned NERVA Shuttle (part of the proposed Space Transportation System along with the Space Shuttle and Space Tug).
Similarly a 50 kWe reactor for the Space station and future lunar base was also funded.
The First Reactor In Flight Test (RIFT) was scheduled for 1976 with NERVA XE engine.
In the Soviet Union similar programs started which led to new Topaz nuclear reactors for space, to power satellites and Ion engines for future space tugs.
15348821417_aeedbedce9.jpg

the proposed US Space Transportation System

But in hype of this "shining" new future, were dark shadows
one burning question was "How to deal with nuclear waste ?" another was the safety of nuclear reactors, a question answered on March 28, 1979, at place called Three Miles Island...
 
Nuclear powered cruise ship, I can't decide if it is the coolest or dumbest idea ever.
But it is something France might do following the oil crisis, the saying at the time was "We do not have petrol, but we have ideas", with almost 50 reactors now which produce 75% of electricity, why not put one on a ship.

I think you need some photoshop on the NS France image.
The chimneys are to evacuate the exhaust fume of the diesel engines, but there is no need for them with a nuclear reactor.
Maybe they are used for emergency diesel engines if the reactor have a problem, but in this case you may have bigger problems that no electricity or propulsion.
Or they may be here just for aesthetic, on the Titanic the fourth chimney was fake and was here because a ship with 4 chimneys looks faster/more powerful than with 3, and a ship need chimneys for the public.
They can not be cooling towers, it makes no sense, to cool the reactor just pump sea water and reject it in the sea.
 
I don't think the '73 fuel crisis alone can make nuclear particularly attractive as a commercial transportation power source--certainly not unless it lasts significantly longer than IOTL. They were simply never effectively cost competitive, and I think changing that with a handwave starts to stretch plausibility.
 
Nuclear powered cruise ship, I can't decide if it is the coolest or dumbest idea ever.
But it is something France might do following the oil crisis, the saying at the time was "We do not have petrol, but we have ideas", with almost 50 reactors now which produce 75% of electricity, why not put one on a ship.

I think you need some photoshop on the NS France image.
The chimneys are to evacuate the exhaust fume of the diesel engines, but there is no need for them with a nuclear reactor.
Maybe they are used for emergency diesel engines if the reactor have a problem, but in this case you may have bigger problems that no electricity or propulsion.
Or they may be here just for aesthetic, on the Titanic the fourth chimney was fake and was here because a ship with 4 chimneys looks faster/more powerful than with 3, and a ship need chimneys for the public.
They can not be cooling towers, it makes no sense, to cool the reactor just pump sea water and reject it in the sea.

The SS FRANCE (build 1961) was was the longest passenger ship ever built in her time.
316.1 meter long and Tonnage of 66,343 it was very expensive to operate
The Oil Crisis was the reason for the mothballing of the SS FRANCE in 1974.
In this TL the french Goverment order the retrofitting SS FRANCE with nuclear ships engine.
here the chimneys remind on ship as for esthetic reason so it look like Ocean Liner
one chimneys serve for for one emergency diesel generator
the second chimneys serve now for the air-conditioning system

I don't think the '73 fuel crisis alone can make nuclear particularly attractive as a commercial transportation power source--certainly not unless it lasts significantly longer than IOTL. They were simply never effectively cost competitive, and I think changing that with a handwave starts to stretch plausibility.

According German literature, was the major reason why civilians nuclear ships became never a realty, was the lack of international Treaty on safety standard of Nuclear reactors on civilians Ships.
The shipowners or shipping company were very interested for Nuclear Reactors in big cargo ships or super tankers
especial if local Government take care of used Flue rods and spend reactors
 
Last edited:
Great new chapter , Nuclear propulsion , very good, Ships , lets see the Nuclear Shuttles , the Moonbase , and building amazing spaceships to fully explore our Solar System fully , and maybe discover some Alien artifact, Colonizing Mars ,and Jupiter Moons , maybe developing Ftl from Fusion reactors ,and explore and colonize nearby solar Systems . Cant hardly wait for the next chapters .
 
Great new chapter , Nuclear propulsion , very good, Ships , lets see the Nuclear Shuttles , the Moonbase , and building amazing spaceships to fully explore our Solar System fully , and maybe discover some Alien artifact, Colonizing Mars ,and Jupiter Moons , maybe developing Ftl from Fusion reactors ,and explore and colonize nearby solar Systems . Cant hardly wait for the next chapters .

Thanks Astronomo2010

Sadly, i & SpaceGeek can't not comment anything on your mention topics, for the moment
post-11033-SPOILERS-gif-2LhY.png
 
Nuclear cruise liners: very cool! Reminds me of Thuderbirds, Granny Tracy and her atomic oven :cool:

The SS FRANCE (build 1961) was was the longest passenger ship ever built in her time.
316.1 meter long and Tonnage of 66,343 it was very expensive to operate
The Oil Crisis was the reason for the mothballing of the SS FRANCE in 1974.
In this TL the french Goverment order the retrofitting SS FRANCE with nuclear ships engine.
here the chimneys remind on ship as for esthetic reason so it look like Ocean Liner
one chimneys serve for for one emergency diesel generator
the second chimneys serve now for the air-conditioning system

In which case, this image is just for fun ;)

15547000711_8873249b17_o.jpg
 
..snippet..
So what is going on with DUMBO (NERVA derivative technology that is not only better overall then classic!NERVA but has a maximum possible T/W of ~130..aka dirt cheap orbit-to-spacelift if you get over your nuke!fear and wan to make a single-stage-to-orbit-and-back shuttle/dropship! :D) and the research into the One-Fluid and Two-Fluid Thorium reactors that went on since the late 50's at Oak Ridge, Tennessee? ;)
Thorium (crust occurrence: 10) is ~500× as common as Uranium (crust occurrence: 0.018), does not need to be purified in gargantuan machinery for usage, is 200× times more energy-exploitable then Uranium and, unlike Uranium, it is spread out uniformly in the Earth's crust. A single average-sized rare-elements/earths mine in the Appalachian Mountains extracts enough Thorium as a side effect of the normal business-as-usual mining of Rare Earths elements needed for our microelectronics industry during a single year of its operation, that it would suffice to feed the worlds energy supply in 2012..for a a YEAR.
Bonus #1: A Liquid Fluorine Thorium Reactor (LFTR..aka "Lifter") cannot be used, in any sort or fashion, to build nuclear weapons.
Bonus #2: The Thorium Fluid reactor was literally designed from the start of the research project to "survive any kind of catastrophic scenario": The design itself is an integrated fail-safe system. Just by the act of constructing one you are improving global nuclear reactor safety statistics.
LFTR explained in 5 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY
 
Last edited:
on Durabys reply

Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR)
DUMBO was high thrust NTR design competing to Nerva Engine, sadly do lack on money and NERVA used off the shelf components. DUMBO was abandon.
Durin 1970s in this TL NASA Has to test NERVA engine in RIFT 1 & 2 in Space, so it's NERVA who must proof of NTR concept
maybe later in future NASA look into DUMBO desgin again

Thorium will play in 1980s bigger role, but not gonna spoil any more about that…

Liquid Fluorine Thorium Reactor i know that concept and talk about that with engineer from Nuclear Research Center MOL. Belgium
was nice konversation with allot surprises: "Red Marcury" is Urban Legend or
how the Pakistani exchange students copied all sorts of things of MOL nuclear documents archive and mailed/faxed back home (gigabytes) during there Nuke Program…

on Liquid Fluorine Thorium Reactor he got pale face, while argued that Liquid Fluorine Thorium would corrode the reactor vessel and cooling system.

on Nixon-head
15547000711_8873249b17_o.jpg

Nice work
with chimneys gone would fit a golf court on NS FRANCE ?
and some of Gerry Anderson's work will be homage in this TL just like Kubrick's Work :D
 
Last edited:
..snippet..
I do not know where you have the corrosion thing but they had a Thorium Fluoride prototype reactor in the 60's running for several thousand work-hours and the pipes they used were found to be okay afterwards. I strongly suggest you see several youtube videos with a man called Kirk Sorenson..the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is eating out of his hand by this point btw.
Do you know who canned the entire project which already produced a working prototype ahead of schedule? Mr. Nixon. He thought that a reactor that does not make bomb material is useless for the US. Every day you learn of new reasons to hate President Richard Milhous Nixon.
 
I do not know where you have the corrosion thing but they had a Thorium Fluoride prototype reactor in the 60's running for several thousand work-hours and the pipes they used were found to be okay afterwards. I strongly suggest you see several youtube videos with a man called Kirk Sorenson..the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is eating out of his hand by this point btw.
Do you know who canned the entire project which already produced a working prototype ahead of schedule? Mr. Nixon. He thought that a reactor that does not make bomb material is useless for the US. Every day you learn of new reasons to hate President Richard Milhous Nixon.

Thanks for the Tip
like i had written, that's argument is form a guy who is engineer at the Belgium Nuclear Research Center MOL.
I will look into that reactor concept, seems i have to deal with Three Miles Island incident in detail.
 
Fluorine is one of the most corrosive agents known to man.
It can reacts with almost anything, up to noble gases (XeF6, yes it exists)
See the wikipedia article on Fluorine
If you do not handle it with care, it will eat the conduits, the core, the walls, the employees ...

If you really want rockets with insane fuel you can use ClF3.
Go here for a good article (and a good laugh), take a look at this other article about FOOF (and fluorine)
 
FOOF is an ever popular rocket propellant, though only Kerbals would use it.

A hydrogen-fluorine rocket could get you up to an ISp of 500 seconds without extreme measures. Handling liquid fluorine might be considered extreme in itself.

PS I love that Things I Won't Work With blog. Check out the perperoxides. HOOOOO-? Holy sweet Mahoney!!!!
 
Last edited:
FOOF was study by several companies for NASA
it had one big disadvantage over long time the Dioxygen Difluoride separate into oxygen and Fluorine.
While other proposed more extreme toxic propellant for RCS like Chlorine trifluoride...

Hydrogen-fluorine is powerful but got more disadvantage that benefit:

expensive in production and handling.
highly toxic waste product
handle with extreme care
short time from fueling to launch

There is interesting story way back in 1960s
they tested a Hydrogen-fluorine engine in US
do to problem the ignition was delay
During the time the Fluorine found weak spot in it's Tank: a seal
once dissolved the seal, the Fluorine escaped, corrode it way true the test stand and burned one foot deep trench in the concrete base.

after that the NASA focus on Hydrogen / Oxygen and keep there fingers away from Hydrogen-fluorine.
look into use of FLOX that Oxygen-fluorine mixture oxidizer but abandon the idea in early 1970s
much more disadvantage...
 
Last edited:
I would like to know more on the commercial aviation side of this timeline. How is the US doing in the SST field opposite the Soviets? I wonder if the US uses the Lockheed L-2000 design and the Soviets the Myasishchev design? That would have been better and interesting.
 
I would like to know more on the commercial aviation side of this timeline. How is the US doing in the SST field opposite the Soviets? I wonder if the US uses the Lockheed L-2000 design and the Soviets the Myasishchev design? That would have been better and interesting.
If oil prices are bad enough to make nuclear at all competitive for ocean transport, then they're killed SST as dead as can possibly be.
 
FOOF was study by several companies for NASA
it had one big disadvantage over long time the Dioxygen Difluoride separate into oxygen and Fluorine.
While other proposed more extreme toxic propellant for RCS like Chlorine trifluoride...

Hydrogen-fluorine is powerful but got more disadvantage that benefit:

expensive in production and handling.
highly toxic waste product
handle with extreme care
short time from fueling to launch

There is interesting story way back in 1960s
they tested a Hydrogen-fluorine engine in US
do to problem the ignition was delay
During the time the Fluorine found weak spot in it's Tank: a seal
once dissolved the seal, the Fluorine escaped, corrode it way true the test stand and burned one foot deep trench in the concrete base.

after that the NASA focus on Hydrogen / Oxygen and keep there fingers away from Hydrogen-fluorine.
look into use of FLOX that Oxygen-fluorine mixture oxidizer but abandon the idea in early 1970s
much more disadvantage...
About the fluoride in the reactor.
wikipedia on Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor said:
The higher valence fluorides are quite corrosive at high temperatures and require more resistant materials than Hastelloy. One suggestion in the MSBR program at ORNL was using solidified salt as a protective layer. At the MSRE reactor fluorine volatility was used to remove uranium from the fuel salt.
Wiki says that it is not a big deal as some of the people here think.
Guys, really, I was creating FOOF scares when most of you did not even know about FOOF. I know what Fluoride can do. FOOF is to normal Fluoride what Fluoride is to the rest of the periodic table. FOOF, ClF3 and Astrolite (the child of Ammonium Nitrate and Hydrazine) are the Holy Trinity of Demonic Chemistry.
 
I have some question to our Space Jockeys

It about The Space Tug and Nuclear Shuttle using cryogenic fuels

especial the Space Tug, What NASA envision as Multi-use spacecraft for Satellite launch-retrieval, tug or Lander for lunar surface
as Lunar lander it had to stay up 40 days on lunar surface, favored with Oxygen and Hydrogen fuel
for liquid Oxygen that no problem it can stay up to 163 day in super-isolated Tank, but i worry about, after Hydrogen that 10 Days, it would boil off.
(also Mars Exploration Module had to use Oxygen and Hydrogen fuel in both stage)

Boeing estimate that a super isolation Tank of Nuclear Shuttle with 385809 lb Hydrogen, would be after 870 days, around 27432 lb be boil off (data 1968 IMIS study)
Realistic assumption ?

also Boeing estimate a Meteoroid shield with mass of 41887 lb, for Nuclear shuttle
is that needful or is Skylab like shield with 3428 lb is more practical ? (data 1968 IMIS study)
 
I have some question to our Space Jockeys

It about The Space Tug and Nuclear Shuttle using cryogenic fuels Boeing estimate that a super isolation Tank of Nuclear Shuttle with 385809 lb Hydrogen, would be after 870 days, around 27432 lb be boil off (data 1968 IMIS study)
Realistic assumption ?
With modern cryofluid management, they've done some Centaur flight experiments and ground-based modeling that indict <0.05%/day boiloff without extensive modifications. That's in the ballpark, so it seems reasonable. I'm not sure it's entirely achievable for 70s/80s tech, but <1%/day seems viable. Certainly holding onto it for a heck of a lot more than 10 days.

also Boeing estimate a Meteoroid shield with mass of 41887 lb, for Nuclear shuttle
is that needful or is Skylab like shield with 3428 lb is more practical ? (data 1968 IMIS study)
20 _tons_!? Whaaa..? Can you link that paper, because that doesn't seem right at all.
 
Top