A Sound of Thunder: The Rise of the Soviet Superbooster

Sending Skylab B would make sense if they canceled Skylab immediately after the failure.

Skip the Apollo Soyuz and use the remaining equipment at Skylab. This will give you two additional missions.
 
Last edited:
Sending Skylab B would make sense if they canceled Skylab immediately after the failure.

Skip the Apollo Soyuz and use the remaining equipment at Skylab. This will give you two additional missions.
or just host Soyuz at Skylab B for some of that sweet,sweet international cooperation.
 
How wide is the top stage of the N1? And for that how wide is the Zarya module? I wonder about the possibility of a Soviet Skylab, and what impact it might have for additional module width.
 
Sending Skylab B would make sense if they canceled Skylab immediately after the failure.

Skip the Apollo Soyuz and use the remaining equipment at Skylab. This will give you two additional missions.
There is enough stuff left over for 1 or two missions, CSM 119 is in KSC and could be used, but idk if another is left around
The main issue is "what if the CSM fails on orbit" which needs a backup to rescue the crew, Skylab 4 had a scare with one of the RSC quads not working, imagine if the engine bell fails or rcs fails, the crew is stuck on orbit with no rescue until Shuttle flies
STS-135 launched as NASA had already spent the money stacking Atlantis for STS-335 or whatever rescue number it had, it would be cheaper launching the thing then de-stacking it
The only downside to launching Skylab-B for a joint mission would be its orbital inclination, 51.6 is alot and considering Skylab was "just" able to make it into orbit, it would require some modifications by NASA to be lighter. Shuttle missions were the same going to the ISS, where a lighter tank was used.

Skylab's repair was relatively simple, for it to be abandoned after launching would require worse damage, like the loss of the other solar array or even the solar telescope and panels not moving into position. it would be a political headache for NASA as they would need to get congress to approve the second launch, not to mention the publicity of NASA launching a bad station.
or just host Soyuz at Skylab B for some of that sweet,sweet international cooperation.
The problem with that was the expense of launching it, and it would only host one crew
How wide is the top stage of the N1? And for that how wide is the Zarya module? I wonder about the possibility of a Soviet Skylab, and what impact it might have for additional module width.
5 meters is my guess
 
How wide is the top stage of the N1? And for that how wide is the Zarya module? I wonder about the possibility of a Soviet Skylab, and what impact it might have for additional module width.
Blok-V is 7.59m wide at the base, 5.475m wide at the top, the fairing is 5.92m wide
Blok-V-III is about 8m wide.

Zarya is 6m wide at its largest portion (about 12m long) [although now looking at nixonshead's render it may be closer to 5.5m], and about 3m wide in its forward section (also about 12m long); its wide module is therefore about 80-90% the size of the Skylab orbital workshop, but its forward portion is slightly larger than the Airlock Module and Docking Adapter of Skylab.
And it's still smaller than the full MKBS station which would have been at least 1,000 m^3 large
 
Last edited:
Now I'm thinking what a cheap alternative to Freedom could be.

If we assume a clean slate project that is not a reactivation of Skylab.
 
I wonder if Philip Clark’s Soviet space book made it to press in time to have information on the Tsiklon mission.
 
Blok-V is 7.59m wide at the base, 5.475m wide at the top, the fairing is 5.92m wide
Blok-V-III is about 8m wide.

Zarya is 6m wide at its largest portion (about 12m long) [although now looking at the diagram it may be closer to 5.5m], and about 3m wide in its forward section (also about 12m long); its wide module is therefore about 80-90% the size of the Skylab orbital workshop, but its forward portion is slightly larger than the Airlock Module and Docking Adapter of Skylab.
And it's still smaller than the full MKBS station which would have been at least 1,000 m^3 large
A drylab is better then wet lab, wetlabs would take a bunch of flights just to outfit
Now I'm thinking what a cheap alternative to Freedom could be.

If we assume a clean slate project that is not a reactivation of Skylab.
Knowing NASA and the US, it will still be hugely expensive
The best bang for buck idea is Boldy goings ET wetlab, adding Enterprise to it as a module is an added benefit
I always thought of a station like MIR for the US, having the same layout of 6 modules and a 6-way docking port node, each module would be Columbus-sized long. A truss would be laid out similar to the ISS, with a truss for panels on two sides
In the case of my old Canadian Shuttle timeline, Canada had a station called Canlab which was basically two modules that were Columbus-sized with a solar truss on top (like the ISS for a while). The Shuttle would carry a Spacelab/hab module fitted for crew living (kitchen, whatever) and the two modules would house experiments and stuff
Basically, think of a Spacelab mission on steroids, the edo pallets would keep shuttles in place for 45 days

But in the 80s station planners would be aghast at that idea, 80s NASA wanted big and capable (that comes up a lot, it basically means more specialized stuff like repairing satellites). though it's hilarious that NASA went for the zero to 100 route with a single launch to modular, while the Russians slowly learned about Station living and stuff.

Apparently, in the 90s, NASA had issues with how the Russians did things, NASA ideas were ameture while the Russians knew their shit. this was more over basic stuff like Progress automated docking, internal space (MIR was cramped), and exterior mounts for stuff that astronauts can hold onto. Alot of this was "why would you do it that way" and such
Not to mention extended duration spaceflight, i remember an American in my class espousing Scott Kelly's record flight, I told him a Russian did longer in the 90s and he could not believe it.
But the whole longer duration flight is due to NASA being super hesitant to take any form of risk, while Soviet/Russian method is to send the dude to space and see what happens
 
Currently, when I think about a concept derived from the Orbital Power Module.

Initially intended as an additional source of energy for Spacelab. Over time, it receives additional modules for longer research, and then residential modules.
 
Now I'm thinking what a cheap alternative to Freedom could be.

If we assume a clean slate project that is not a reactivation of Skylab.
Considering ESA is in a situation where it is planning on building not one, but two columbus, with the Japanese participating in, I'd say the cheapest alternative is to buy a third one, and work off that. IRL MTFF was supposed to be able to berth with both shuttle and Freedom, first requirement would probably stay, second not, but it doesn't seem hard to get that capability, besides the Arm is integrated with Columbus/MTFF, so it'd be the active one in berthing. There were IRL proposals for an european space station built off the MTFF, here you can have a minimum American space station built off Columbus, with a module derived from the power-and-docking node attached to it.
 
Considering ESA is in a situation where it is planning on building not one, but two columbus, with the Japanese participating in, I'd say the cheapest alternative is to buy a third one, and work off that. IRL MTFF was supposed to be able to berth with both shuttle and Freedom, first requirement would probably stay, second not, but it doesn't seem hard to get that capability, besides the Arm is integrated with Columbus/MTFF, so it'd be the active one in berthing. There were IRL proposals for an european space station built off the MTFF, here you can have a minimum American space station built off Columbus, with a module derived from the power-and-docking node attached to it.
It's interesting.
 
This video shows some of the ideas that NASA had, and russian footage taken in 79 during the reentry. this guy also made a series called International Skylab, where Soyuz-Skylab-B happens and Russians launch Salyuts and even TKS's to it, Buran flies to it, MIR is attached to IS, same with a Chinese module in 2001
It looks hilarious after a while
Not...really, no, wetlabs suck and power, life support, and heat rejection matter way more than raw volume.
Ya, Drylabs are better, for wetlabs it varies on use, for a lunar base the tanks are usable volume, while earth orbit wetlab stations are a bitch
The most unrealistic thing about baxters Voyage is Moonlab being outfitted from a wetlab over 6 flights, LM Ascent Stages are used for cargo carrying (named MPLM, Multi-purpose lunar module)
Currently, when I think about a concept derived from the Orbital Power Module.

Initially intended as an additional source of energy for Spacelab. Over time, it receives additional modules for longer research, and then residential modules.
That was basically a solar array attached to the Canadarm, the issue with bigger spacelab modules is the fact the Shuttle needs to land, bigger modules means higher weight and center of mass requirements
Considering ESA is in a situation where it is planning on building not one, but two columbus, with the Japanese participating in, I'd say the cheapest alternative is to buy a third one, and work off that. IRL MTFF was supposed to be able to berth with both shuttle and Freedom, first requirement would probably stay, second not, but it doesn't seem hard to get that capability, besides the Arm is integrated with Columbus/MTFF, so it'd be the active one in berthing. There were IRL proposals for an european space station built off the MTFF, here you can have a minimum American space station built off Columbus, with a module derived from the power-and-docking node attached to it.
It depends how minimum, my idea of two columbus's and a solar array would be good enough for science missions, permanent habitation would need a third module

ESA would face issues with flying astronauts of specific nationalities, Thatcher said "i don't want to pay for a frenchman to fly on british money" (or something similar).

NASA however would rather be caught dead then have a station smaller or in similar size to MIR, the internal politics would kill that design
 
That was basically a solar array attached to the Canadarm, the issue with bigger spacelab modules is the fact the Shuttle needs to land, bigger modules means higher weight and center of mass requirements
I meant this.

It's just that over time, someone might quietly come up with the idea of a expansion.
 

Attachments

  • Power Module 2.jpg
    Power Module 2.jpg
    418.8 KB · Views: 27
Regardless of what our ideas are, it will be a shitshow anyways since the cliffhanger Nixonhead left us.
My personal theory is the New Union treaty goes through but Gorbachev's reforms still harm the economy, so the space program is scaled back, Baikal is mothballed and the US steps in to help out (maybe ESA gets involved too).
Instead of the ISS we get a moonbase
Basically the US keeps N1 flying and launches Shuttle-C missions
win-win for budget sharing and global relations
 
An international Moon base could be cool.

Though I could still see a space station as well.
That space station would be small, considering NASA's budget would likely still be stagnant but just a bit bigger then OTL due to the Soviet supremacy, i doubt NASA would sacrifice lunar budgets for a LEO station
Expecially since Skylab already is valuable for the shuttle program as a science platform, Shuttle-Zarya 4? could happen but depends on IF the soviets launch another reactor with said station

If something similar to the ISS happens it will be an amalgamation of NASA/Soviet and ESA modules, but would likely be half the size of ISS
Basically MIR if it had another 4 modules
Regardless though the modular station lobby is pissed ITTL due to NASA using Skylab-B
 
Although I still imagine it's post-Columbus. ESA and Jaxa decide to construct an MIR-style station around Zarya 4.
 
I do hope Zarya 4 will still have a nuclear reactor but with improvements (and if possible with Western input)

Isn't the Zarya module built with interplanetary travel in mind? Maybe Glushko could pull a stunt like that for a Venus-Mars flyby? Zarya 3 worked for 4 years without problems so... It would also expand on the OTL of how a cosmonaut went to space under the Soviet Union flag and returned under the Russian one.
 
sn't the Zarya module built with interplanetary travel in mind? Maybe Glushko could pull a stunt like that for a Venus-Mars flyby? Zarya 3 worked for 4 years without problems so... It would also expand on the OTL of how a cosmonaut went to space under the Soviet Union flag and returned under the Russian one.
A Zarya station with nuclear reactor that power Ion engines could do Venus-Mars Flyby mission
but with reduce crew of 2 cosmonauts with TKS filled to max with supplies.
 
Top