A Sound of Thunder: The Rise of the Soviet Superbooster

[Ogrebear]

As fascinating as the OTL space stuff is, I would personally have a quiet ITTL focused thread than a rambling 'general space' one since there are other places on the site for that.

Nuclear power in space is going to take a hit, no one is launching anything reactor powered for a while, though I suspect if the plant is to be used anywhere but in orbit then people might be less bothered.

The Soviet radioactive shuttle is going to be retired somewhere I suspect, even the Soviet's are not likely to use it again.... probably.

 

[e of pi]

My theory that this thread stays active due to us going off topic is true, every time we stay ON topic nobody posts but the minute we talk about Capitalism vs Communism, Reusable Saturn Rockets, and the merits of SpaceX and Starships rocky development, everybody seems to post like crazy

Maybe if you want a thread where people post like crazy about space and current space politics stuff, you could have those discussions in the space and current politics thread in Chat, where that belongs? Not a mod and this isn't my timeline, but this thread is quiet because the timeline is on a break, and I think that's fine.

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

Nuclear power in space is going to take a hit, no one is launching anything reactor powered for a while, though I suspect if the plant is to be used anywhere but in orbit then people might be less bothered.

The question then becomes to what extent? Because remember, it wasn't the reactor that failed but the non nuclear parts, with the panic of a nuclear reactor falling down on Earth somewhat diminished after it became clear that the Shuttle will take it to Earth safely. Yes, people got irradiated and someone died, but to the West that's in part a result of shoddy Soviet engineering and even they managed to solve the issue.

I think that a big change would be for an international regulatory commission on nuclear power in space to be created, that would require their approval for any large scale reactors or engines. The Soviets are too callous to stop using nuclear power in space after this accident and the West too proud to believe their work is as bad in quality as the Soviet's... plus, RTG usefulness for many missions.

The Soviet radioactive shuttle is going to be retired somewhere I suspect, even the Soviet's are not likely to use it again.... probably.

They would attempt to decontaminate it, if anything else, to see if they could at the very least. As I imagine building a new one might be more expensive than a semi/total refurbishment, or they could turn it into a fully autonomous Shuttle. (There's also a political hit in retiring the Shuttle, me thinks)

 

[RanulfC]

The first solution will be to build an ISS. Perhaps, as part of some commercialization of supplies to the moon, supply flights with the participation of N-1 could be made. The biggest change would be the return to using RP-1 in LR-87 engines.

Why not go back to using LH2/LOX?
(Yes the LR-87 is one of the only engines to be tested/run on all three "main" types of propellant. The LR-87H was considered for an "interim" engine till the J-2 came on-line )

Basically, my idea for how TTL plays out is that the American Freedom Program works in conjunction with the N1 and Soviet/Russian program, TTL's ISS analogue is the International Moon Base or IMB, a joint base with Soviet/Russian and US modules, the N1 is kept around to keep Russian engineers employed and launches 1 manned mission every year. The Americans launch one a year as well and this creates a permanent manned station with 6-month crew rotations, Cargo is flown with the landers and later commercial companies, likely TTL's Delta-4 analogue launches the landers

IIRC TTL The US is still going with the Shuttle which the USSR is matching with their own Shuttle so both nations have essentially given up Lunar landing capability in favor of staying around LEO. I've doubts that Congress would be willing to continue a lunar program, and would push for something more LEO oriented.

Randy

 

[Ry01tank]

The question then becomes to what extent? Because remember, it wasn't the reactor that failed but the non nuclear parts, with the panic of a nuclear reactor falling down on Earth somewhat diminished after it became clear that the Shuttle will take it to Earth safely. Yes, people got irradiated and someone died, but to the West that's in part a result of shoddy Soviet engineering and even they managed to solve the issue.

People don't care it wasn't the reactor that failed, the fact that it happened would decide people's feelings
the facts are that

1. It Killed an astronaut
2. Was partially unshielded BY DESIGN
3. Likely left the Shuttle in an unusable state due to contamination

All this would basically KILL nuclear space energy
It's like the book Voyage where after Apollo-N returns and the last survivor dies of radiation the Pro-Nuclear guys want to fly a second flight with the issue fixed and continue as if nothing happened. The NASA Administrator shoots them down as the public opinion and political will have been shattered, so they fly a Mars mission with Chemical fuels

Chernobyl killed the Russian Nuclear industry, which was booming in the 80s and 70s (cheap reactor design), the EU also forced Russia to close the Remaining RBMK reactors even though they were "safe" due to changes.
TMI killed American nuclear power, nobody wants one near them
After Fukushima, Germany decommissioned all its nuclear powerplants due to cheap gas from Russia and is regretting it due to the Gas being cut
(no more recent stuff sorry)
Challenger killed an entire Generations enthusiasm for space (the kids)

Unfortunaly most people are not going to learn about the issue, just that it failed, the big particle accelerator in Texas that was cancelled was initally planed to be built at Fermilab, but people in the area formed a group to prevent it from being constructed (through lawsuits to hold up work) so Texas was picked at a sight in the middle of nowhere

I think that a big change would be for an international regulatory commission on nuclear power in space to be created, that would require their approval for any large scale reactors or engines. The Soviets are too callous to stop using nuclear power in space after this accident and the West too proud to believe their work is as bad in quality as the Soviet's... plus, RTG usefulness for many missions.

International Regulatory commissions are hit and miss with enforcement, it very much depends if the US and Russia are WILLING to be a member.

RTGs would likely still be used, just with more publicity (more protesters for Cassini), anything coming near a big reactor or nuclear propulsion will be out of the picture for 50 years at least

They would attempt to decontaminate it, if anything else, to see if they could at the very least. As I imagine building a new one might be more expensive than a semi/total refurbishment, or they could turn it into a fully autonomous Shuttle. (There's also a political hit in retiring the Shuttle, me thinks)

Depends if they have the money to decontaminate it. Flying it without decontamination unmanned would be a political nightmare "Commies fly radioactive Shuttle, world in shock" would be the headlines

Why not go back to using LH2/LOX?
(Yes the LR-87 is one of the only engines to be tested/run on all three "main" types of propellant. The LR-87H was considered for an "interim" engine till the J-2 came on-line )

IIRC TTL The US is still going with the Shuttle which the USSR is matching with their own Shuttle so both nations have essentially given up Lunar landing capability in favor of staying around LEO. I've doubts that Congress would be willing to continue a lunar program, and would push for something more LEO oriented.

Randy

ITTL Freedom uses Shuttle alot, i doubt Congress would cancel the program this late in the game, especially with Cold War tensions still being a thing
I could see Freedom being cut by Clinton in the 90s after a few missions (three American missions at least before the axe)

 

[Sasza]

Congress will most likely cancel the low-orbit program or force its commercialization so that NASA can focus on the moon. Most likely, for the first years, instead of Soyuz, there will be Hermes, and later we will see ITTL Dragon and Starliner.

The station that will be built from the expansion of Columbus will be a proposal similar to that of BAe.

 

[RanulfC]

ITTL Freedom uses Shuttle a lot, i doubt Congress would cancel the program this late in the game, especially with Cold War tensions still being a thing
I could see Freedom being cut by Clinton in the 90s after a few missions (three American missions at least before the axe)

Keep in mind that the Shuttle almost got canceled several time in OTL with the Cold War still an ongoing "threat". (See this thread for how Carter saved the Shuttle)
Of course if Congress ends up authorizing and paying for "Freedom" it's probably going to be the "Program of Record" focusing NASA on building and using it.
If they start "Freedom" it's not likely they will stop, OTL they never actually started it which was why Clinton could turn it into the ISS.
If the Soviet's continue Lunar Missions it's probably a toss up if Congress care enough to match them. The LEO space station could be argued to cost much less than trying to go to the Moon again.

Congress will most likely cancel the low-orbit program or force its commercialization so that NASA can focus on the moon. Most likely, for the first years, instead of Soyuz, there will be Hermes, and later we will see ITTL Dragon and Starliner.

Actually the opposite, Congress doesn't really want to support NASA going to the Moon again and would probably prefer having NASA focus on LEO instead. Even if the Soviets are still going to the Moon they can justify not trying to match them with "We got there First".

Randy

 

[TheKutKu]

Congress will most likely cancel the low-orbit program or force its commercialization so that NASA can focus on the moon. Most likely, for the first years, instead of Soyuz, there will be Hermes, and later we will see ITTL Dragon and Starliner.
View attachment 901842
The station that will be built from the expansion of Columbus will be a proposal similar to that of BAe.

I could see ESA being "torn" in the 90s between staying in LEO with their ongoing hardware and participating in the phase 2 american lunar program. With the more homegrown, independent capabilities and the worse precedents with cooperation with NASA compared to IRL I think the former would take precedence, but there's probably enough budget, political incentives (and ESA just traditionally never learning not to depend on other agencies, lol) that the latter won't be dismissed and will be pursued to some capacity.
And doing both to their full extent isn't possible with the european space budget of the 90s, especially with Hermes in production.

 

[Sasza]

For the needs of its space station, ESA could develop an equivalent of NEP or even purchase the project from Russia.

 

[Ry01tank]

Congress will most likely cancel the low-orbit program or force its commercialization so that NASA can focus on the moon. Most likely, for the first years, instead of Soyuz, there will be Hermes, and later we will see ITTL Dragon and Starliner.
View attachment 901842
The station that will be built from the expansion of Columbus will be a proposal similar to that of BAe.

Keep in mind that the Shuttle almost got canceled several time in OTL with the Cold War still an ongoing "threat". (See this thread for how Carter saved the Shuttle)
Of course if Congress ends up authorizing and paying for "Freedom" it's probably going to be the "Program of Record" focusing NASA on building and using it.
If they start "Freedom" it's not likely they will stop, OTL they never actually started it which was why Clinton could turn it into the ISS.
If the Soviet's continue Lunar Missions it's probably a toss up if Congress care enough to match them. The LEO space station could be argued to cost much less than trying to go to the Moon again.

Freedom was horribly mismanaged and NASA had the issue of putting EVERYTHING into each idea, making a monster space station to build ships for Mars, Congress did give NASA money to find contractors for modules (get hardware started) but NASA spent the money on the Freedom design
Clinton was able to cancel it due to the lack of hardware made and his want to cut enough to have a surplus in the buget. The ISS was started due to Goldin proposing an international program for a FAR cheaper station (and bringing Russia on)

Given that hardware for the moon program is being built, it is likely the US will land as long as the Soviets do, if the Soviets stop the US might do a few more missions as a "f-you" to the Soviets, but if the Soviets continue even with 1 mission per 2-3 years the US will have to, less lose A LOT of prestige due to walking away from the moon TWICE and giving it up to the Communists

Actually the opposite, Congress doesn't really want to support NASA going to the Moon again and would probably prefer having NASA focus on LEO instead. Even if the Soviets are still going to the Moon they can justify not trying to match them with "We got there First".

"We got there first" is a silly excuse, the US Public of the 80s is very anti-communist and any lead the Soviets had would be magnified by the US Media
(This is why the US suddenly started actually funding Commercial Crew in 2014, after Russia invaded crimea and the US had to develop their own capability due to public outcry)
At this point the TL is in 1987 with nearly 6 years of Soviet lunar landings, the US does have to respond to this by landing or it will take a huge prestige hit

I could see ESA being "torn" in the 90s between staying in LEO with their ongoing hardware and participating in the phase 2 american lunar program. With the more homegrown, independent capabilities and the worse precedents with cooperation with NASA compared to IRL I think the former would take precedence, but there's probably enough budget, political incentives (and ESA just traditionally never learning not to depend on other agencies, lol) that the latter won't be dismissed and will be pursued to some capacity.
And doing both to their full extent isn't possible with the european space budget of the 90s, especially with Hermes in production.

Depends if Britain has thatchers nationalism and cutting spending
and Germany reunifying would also kill their spending in ESA due to the costs associated with integrating East Germany with their financial system, government spending and debt
Likely ESA will be in LEO and partner with the US on Lunar missions, ESA even in the 80s and 90s was cheap IRL, and the countries making up ESA might not be willing to spend more (or give more of their existing budgets to ESA)
Likely just a small LEO station with a manned spacecraft, Ariane's dominance in the launch market will be significantly smaller due to American Launchers being in better shape ITTL with no Challenger gap driving people away to other countries

For the needs of its space station, ESA could develop an equivalent of NEP or even purchase the project from Russia.

I have said this MULTIPLE TIMES
Nuclear Power in Space IRL is asking for political and VERY public trouble, people protested RTGs, a full reactor will cause mass media attention and outright cause the mass public to think its very unsafe (watching CNN or FOX talk about it and fail to explain the safety, just issues and risks)

In THIS TIMELINE, A nuclear reactor KILLED a person in space, the reactor was partially protected and its disposal failed. the dead guy in orbit would be big enough news, when the media gets all the details and talks about it the issues of the Soviet reactor will be made public and cause a near Chernobyl-like reaction to nuclear space efforts (Chornobyl and TMI, then Fukushima killed Nuclear power, EU made Russia scrap RBMK's and Germany decommissioned all its reactors)

People do not CARE about technical details, that fact something happened ONCE means it CAN happen AGAIN and the public will be more antagonistic (same with the media), this happened with the Shuttle Program, Apollo 1 and 13 (NASA wanted to cancel 17 and Nixon 16 AND 17), The nuclear reactors failing (TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima) all happened for various reasons, the public doesn't care WHY just that it DID happen
(It doesn't help that 99 percent of people have zero knowledge of these things beforehand, so their first experience with a nuclear reactor on the news is one blowing up, which would cloud later judgment)
Or in normal words, the Challenger disaster killed a generation of enthusiasm for human space travel, given that the kids who watched it believed that the risks are higher (even

ESA will likely have a small pressurized "tin can" space station, anything like the design you posted (a Russian proposal, not ESA) will not be flown, Ariane is too small and the US will not fly a nuclear reactor aboard their shuttle for obvious political reasons (aborts and stuff)

 

[Sasza]

What??? What I showed is a truss for panels, not a nuclear reactor.