A Sound of Thunder: The Rise of the Soviet Superbooster

[TheKutKu]

Oh, it's not impossible. And I remember a space timeline on this site that played convincingly with that very idea, in fact....

But I do think a scenario like that was an unlikely one, with any POD in the 60's or 70's, let alone later. Otherwise, with any reasonably plausible POD, the most likely outcome is that it becomes a real thing sometime in the mid-21st century. Other points earlier (and later!) are still possible, but less likely.

But as for my original comment you responded to, I meant even less than this. My assumed point of departure was the moment Elon Musk committed to making retropropulsive recovery work, and stick as the operational paradigm for all of his launch vehicles. At that point, I really do not think it was in the cards for at least another generation.

Blue Origin was actively working on it before SX did, they had plans for VTVL launchers (picture below from 2011) while SX was still experimenting with parachute recovery, and the earliest trace of a recognisible New Glenn was in 2012, I'm fairly convinced they would have, Gradatim Ferociter in their own way, made a VTVL reusable launch vehicle in the 2020s. Unsure if Bezos would have been visionary enough to make Kuiper without the exemple of Starlink, and such launcher would probably not have been as large as New Glenn

All this remains....incredibly off-topic for this thread, but I would point out there were like two or three near-run RLV programs in the 90s, which only a few butterflies are needed to get to succeed. X-33 probably would have worked if they hadn't sat down and made a list of every possible boneheaded decisions from the wrong shape to the wrong engines to the wrong tank materials and so on, and it still almost flew. X-34 was perpetually "always the bridesmaid" as a result, and it was only cancelled because of an ill-timed funding crunch and fallout on other RLV programs from X-33. Minor butterflies, and that demonstrated HTHL rapid reuse of a first-stage-like vehicle. The less said about the folder of images I have of "all the parts for Kistler's rockets spread out in factories and starting to be assembled for flight" (literally being assembled, argh) the better for my sanity. Even without getting into longer-shot stuff like Roton or any of that, the number of "almosts" in RLVs make me think it's as likely to happen well before OTL as well after F9.

Really wonder if a continued USSR wouldn't be quite beneficial for all these programs.

It could also have happened concurrently with F9, it's often forgotten now, because it was entirely overshadowed by F9, but Flyback boosters were "trendy" back in the early-mid 2010s, the DARPA XS-1 failed in large part because of Boeing, and could have gone better under another contractor (Masten?), but the XS-1 also had deeper roots back to its announcement in 2013 as well as the Lockheed-USAF Reusable Booster System from 2010-2012.
The particularity is that the Russians (under MRKS) and especially the chinese (under also the name RBS) were interested in the same flyback boosters at the same time, the latter were notable since it was at the same time that they were doing drop test and suborbital tests of the Shenlong/Proto-current-chinese-X37;
So I think it's quite possible to have a situation where an XS-1 flies, and a some months or a year later a similar-looking flyback booster launches from Jiuquan in an alternate early 2020s without SpaceX.

I wonder if Orbital Science still exists in TTL?

 

[Athelstane]

Blue Origin was actively working on it before SX did, they had plans for VTVL launchers (picture below from 2011) while SX was still experimenting with parachute recovery, and the earliest trace of a recognisible New Glenn was in 2012, I'm fairly convinced they would have, Gradatim Ferociter in their own way, made a VTVL reusable launch vehicle in the 2020s. Unsure if Bezos would have been visionary enough to make Kuiper without the exemple of Starlink, and such launcher would probably not have been as large as New Glenn

Given the very limited nature of those explorations, I am far more skeptical that Bezos would have cranked up operations without the example of SpaceX's success through even just the mid-2010's before him.

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

The Vulkan rocket family in this story is the OTL Energia one right? Would that mean that the Block A booster would be built with reusability in mind? Perhaps leading to a reusable Zenit?

 

[prolemasses]

The Vulkan rocket family in this story is the OTL Energia one right? Would that mean that the Block A booster would be built with reusability in mind? Perhaps leading to a reusable Zenit?

I believe Vulkan here is closer to a slightly larger Zenit. Something like the RLA family. No hydrolox core and the Zenit type stage is the main rocket, not a booster. Booster recovery via parachutes is possible, but I'd think they'd have other focuses with Baikal and Zvezda ongoing.

 

[Sasza]

The volcano most closely resembles the one from ETS, Głuszko most likely did not have such funds to build new high-power engines.

 

[prolemasses]

The volcano most closely resembles the one from ETS, Głuszko most likely did not have such funds to build new high-power engines.

Worth noting that without the RD-170s irl requirement for 10 reuses development of the equivalent engine for Vulkan probably proceeds smoother. IIRC reuse was a major hangup, not just the advanced combustion cycle and high thrust.

 

[RanulfC]

Really wonder if a continued USSR wouldn't be quite beneficial for all these programs.

It could also have happened concurrently with F9, it's often forgotten now, because it was entirely overshadowed by F9, but Flyback boosters were "trendy" back in the early-mid 2010s, the DARPA XS-1 failed in large part because of Boeing, and could have gone better under another contractor (Masten?), but the XS-1 also had deeper roots back to its announcement in 2013 as well as the Lockheed-USAF Reusable Booster System from 2010-2012.
The particularity is that the Russians (under MRKS) and especially the Chinese (under also the name RBS) were interested in the same flyback boosters at the same time, the latter were notable since it was at the same time that they were doing drop test and suborbital tests of the Shenlong/Proto-current-chinese-X37;
So I think it's quite possible to have a situation where an XS-1 flies, and a some months or a year later a similar-looking flyback booster launches from Jiuquan in an alternate early 2020s without SpaceX.

I wonder if Orbital Science still exists in TTL?

Something to keep in mind is there were more than few companies working on reusable launch vehicle concepts, Oddly enough the XS-1 was aiming at a "demonstration flight" of a winged booster in the early 2000s but frankly it had already been done by Cal Poly Space Systems which was testing a flyback booster concept from Buzz Aldrin's "Starbooster" concept system in the late 90s.

Essentially DARPA paid Boeing to repeat the work that NASA had given to Cal Poly Space Systems a grant for several years before
(Of course at a steep mark up, it's Boeing after all )
But around that same time period Boeing was also pitching the Beta I and II TSTO concept so there's that.

The biggest issue with a reusable booster has been a minimum flight rate that simply wasn't there at the time.

Your main issue with SpaceX's development is does Michael Griffin become the NASA administrator? He's literally the key that gave SpaceX it's start by tossing money at them before they even had an idea of what their rocket (Falcon 1) would look like. Everyone, including Musk points to his giving them money as the only reason they exist today. And keep in mind that by the late 90s Griffin was a convert to the "Mars Direct" plan and was aiming NASA in the direction of a Shuttle Derived Heavy Launch Vehicle. (Aka Ares V)

Randy

 

[Ry01tank]

Practicality and the economy of reuse is a very recent thing, the high launch rates of spaceX allows them to maintain their manufacturing at rates similar to pre reuse, while

Ariane which launches at FAR less rates would need to either have a fast production run of few engines or a drawn out over 20 years (one engine per year) to maintain (assuming 100 rockets with one FS engine with 20 engines to reuse)

Falcon 9 has 9 engines on its FS, so 100 launches is 900 engines, reuse usually destroys an engine bell or two so you can keep building and rotating out worn-out engines with new ones
That guy who said reusing engines would COLLAPSE the engine industry in France was totally correct. it is a highly specialized field and building fewer engines means less money coming in, less money means closure, and that industry is gone, same as horse-care industries due to automobiles (as an example)
As i put above, the engine industry would collapse and in 2040 when Ariane 7 is being developed, the French engine industry will be gone due to a lack of business

As i said before, the US keeps military production lines going even when they ARN'T needed due to the fact if said lines are stopped, they are GONE and that capability will be LOST due to the industry and production lines changing
If the US military stopped these lines, its likely Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman, Boeing, BAE systems to name a few would be closed within a year or two, as their profits are based mostly off government contracts.

To be more ITTL, reusable rockets is still a ways away, with Shuttle moving from payloads earlier on the American Launch industry will be stronger, the internationalization of US payloads in the 90s wouldn't happen (or would to a far less extent). ITTL Delta 2 might be cheaper and a rival to Ariane, but given ESA subsidies Ariane could launch cheaper

Basically, ITTL Ariane 5 is butterflied, and the US maintains its launch superiority

 

[Athelstane]

Your main issue with SpaceX's development is does Michael Griffin become the NASA administrator? He's literally the key that gave SpaceX it's start by tossing money at them before they even had an idea of what their rocket (Falcon 1) would look like. Everyone, including Musk points to his giving them money as the only reason they exist today. And keep in mind that by the late 90s Griffin was a convert to the "Mars Direct" plan and was aiming NASA in the direction of a Shuttle Derived Heavy Launch Vehicle. (Aka Ares V)

It's a good point. But Griffin was not the only possible NASA Admin open to those ideas at that time.

 

[Athelstane]

That guy who said reusing engines would COLLAPSE the engine industry in France was totally correct. it is a highly specialized field and building fewer engines means less money coming in, less money means closure, and that industry is gone, same as horse-care industries due to automobiles (as an example)
As i put above, the engine industry would collapse and in 2040 when Ariane 7 is being developed, the French engine industry will be gone due to a lack of business

And yet, there are multiple American space companies - not just SpaceX - who think they can adopt reuse without collapsing their engine supply lines.

So much depends on the assumptions going into your rocket business model!

 

[Ry01tank]

And yet, there are multiple American space companies - not just SpaceX - who think they can adopt reuse without collapsing their engine supply lines.

So much depends on the assumptions going into your rocket business model!

That horse-care industry example is better the more I think of it

SpaceX was better prepared for the change due to engines, they use more smaller ones while most other rocket designs use a single rocket engine (sometimes split into two bells like Atlas V
For Example, 105 Delta-II's equals 105 RS-27 engines
While the Falcon 9 with fully expendable at the SAME (105) amount of flights is 945 Merlin engines, nearly a THOUSAND engines (840 more then Delta)

SpaceX can take the hit in manufacturing without being unsustainable

Any other rocket with its single first stage engine is SCREWED, you would have to do the SLS model of one rocket at a time (engines in this case) to keep the production line ALIVE, as SLS is hugely expensive, it is not exactly a viable business model (SLS does it for politics)

Basically think one or two reusable engines made per year and suddenly the cost is the same as the RS-25 is today

 

[Sasza]

And yet, there are multiple American space companies - not just SpaceX - who think they can adopt reuse without collapsing their engine supply lines.

So much depends on the assumptions going into your rocket business model!

However, it is a bit different from the perspective of the company itself and the government. You still always had a few companies on the US market, whereas in Europe you didn't. Martinn or Thilkol would love to paint the lines after producing the ordered batches.

 

[Athelstane]

SpaceX was better prepared for the change due to engines, they use more smaller ones while most other rocket designs use a single rocket engine (sometimes split into two bells like Atlas V
For Example, 105 Delta-II's equals 105 RS-27 engines
While the Falcon 9 with fully expendable at the SAME (105) amount of flights is 945 Merlin engines, nearly a THOUSAND engines (840 more then Delta)

SpaceX can take the hit in manufacturing without being unsustainable

Any other rocket with its single first stage engine is SCREWED, you would have to do the SLS model of one rocket at a time (engines in this case) to keep the production line ALIVE, as SLS is hugely expensive, it is not exactly a viable business model (SLS does it for politics)

Basically think one or two reusable engines made per year and suddenly the cost is the same as the RS-25 is today

Well, to some extent, yes. But bear in mind, they use the same Merln 1D on the second stage, too. And every single launch requires manufacturing a new second stage - and, therefore, a new Merlin 1D.

Too many legacy launch vehicles use an entirely different engine on upper stages.

 

[TheKutKu]

Given the very limited nature of those explorations, I am far more skeptical that Bezos would have cranked up operations without the example of SpaceX's success through even just the mid-2010's before him.

They weren't "very limited", they were the largest retropropulsive landing demonstrators of their days, they were just slow. New Shepard followed the PM2 vehicle (which probably could have done more impressive flights than DC-X had they persevered on it or got luckier) and its development, as well as the design of the First Blue Origin launcher I posted above was helped/influenced by CCdev, which may still happen in some way in a No SpaceX or early Bankrupt SX timeline. More than that, in a No SpaceX timeline there would be such an acute western launcher supply crisis in the early 2020s that I just don't see a Blue Origin which already has New Shepard or equivalent not propose an orbital launcher, it's just an obvious opportunity.

Something to keep in mind is there were more than few companies working on reusable launch vehicle concepts, Oddly enough the XS-1 was aiming at a "demonstration flight" of a winged booster in the early 2000s but frankly it had already been done by Cal Poly Space Systems which was testing a flyback booster concept from Buzz Aldrin's "Starbooster" concept system in the late 90s.

Essentially DARPA paid Boeing to repeat the work that NASA had given to Cal Poly Space Systems a grant for several years before
(Of course at a steep mark up, it's Boeing after all )
But around that same time period Boeing was also pitching the Beta I and II TSTO concept so there's that.

The biggest issue with a reusable booster has been a minimum flight rate that simply wasn't there at the time.

Your main issue with SpaceX's development is does Michael Griffin become the NASA administrator? He's literally the key that gave SpaceX it's start by tossing money at them before they even had an idea of what their rocket (Falcon 1) would look like. Everyone, including Musk points to his giving them money as the only reason they exist today. And keep in mind that by the late 90s Griffin was a convert to the "Mars Direct" plan and was aiming NASA in the direction of a Shuttle Derived Heavy Launch Vehicle. (Aka Ares V)

Randy

I never could take Starbooster seriously, the idea of a modular flyback booster that could be added to various expendable stages sounds like asking for trouble. The Cal Poly guys must have had a lot of fun flying their model rockets tho.

Falcon 9 has 9 engines on its FS, so 100 launches is 900 engines, reuse usually destroys an engine bell or two so you can keep building and rotating out worn-out engines with new ones
That guy who said reusing engines would COLLAPSE the engine industry in France was totally correct. it is a highly specialized field and building fewer engines means less money coming in, less money means closure, and that industry is gone, same as horse-care industries due to automobiles (as an example)
As i put above, the engine industry would collapse and in 2040 when Ariane 7 is being developed, the French engine industry will be gone due to a lack of business

As i said before, the US keeps military production lines going even when they ARN'T needed due to the fact if said lines are stopped, they are GONE and that capability will be LOST due to the industry and production lines changing
If the US military stopped these lines, its likely Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman, Boeing, BAE systems to name a few would be closed within a year or two, as their profits are based mostly off government contracts.



Basically, ITTL Ariane 5 is butterflied, and the US maintains its launch superiority

Yeah.
The transition from Ariane 4 to Ariane 5 was already difficult, SNECMA (Now Safran, the rocket part of it went into Arianegroup) went from making up to 10 engines per Ariane 4 to only 2 for each Ariane 5 (which flew less than A4), effectively going from 70+ Viking engines to 5-7 Vulcain engines per year. Thanksfully things are potentially changing for that particular center since it "got" (through European Geographic Return, partially a return for the Ariane 6 upper stage engine becoming mainly german-made and tested despite being mostly French-designed) the main production of the new Prometheus reusable engine (the first production models are being made right now) at a starting rate of 50/year to support Maiaspace and possible future launchers. But really it's the proliferation of launcher startup in each countries that will maybe save that skill and infrastructure base in Europe, even if it'll shift around and evolve.

Hard to tell how the Aerospace-Military consolidations of the 90s will go in general ITTL, but if the russians open up then there will always be the temptation of American launcher companies to start partnerships and joint venture with them to compete on the market (Khrunichev was, IRL, also courted by Rockwell, Arianespace before the ILS venture with Lockheed) , and given the low cost of their launchers some level of internationalisation is likely, negociations for russian launcher quotas will be interesting. Our Delta II is slightly underperforming to really compete on more than the small slot of an Ariane sadly, IRL the majority of its GTO launches were in the early 90s despite flying up to 2018..., it couldn't keep up with the mass growth of GTO comsats, it needed a bigger version... And we all know how Delta III went, let's hope they can do better ITTL.

I hope Nixonshead dwells on the commercialisation and joint ventures of former Soviet launchers if the soviet collapse/open up, it was a source of some really great stories in the 90s and 2000s.

Of course if Groza stops flying in the 90s there's the matter of the NK-33 (35?) Production line that can put out over a hundred engines a year suddenly lacking any use, we know how many organisations were interested in the NK-33 stock IRL, countless projects of the 90s and 2000s thought about using them. ITTL they kept the original production line, which would be cheaper and larger scale than any of those rebuilt NK-33 plans that were mulled over IRL, from the perspective of the Americans, it's basically *Free* engines that are better than their state of the art. Fun days for Rocketdyne ahead. There will be interesting proposals ITTL.

 

[RanulfC]

Well, to some extent, yes. But bear in mind, they use the same Merln 1D on the second stage, too. And every single launch requires manufacturing a new second stage - and, therefore, a new Merlin 1D.

Too many legacy launch vehicles use an entirely different engine on upper stages.

There's a good reason for using a different engine and/or propellant in your second stage. Falcon 9 loses about 15% of its total payload with recovery with RTLS a bit less for a fly-forward barge landing. It would not be especially expensive to run a second stage on methalox, (in fact SpaceX was paid to research an upper stage Raptor derivative or an EELV class upper stage engine. They were given the money but nothing came of it) which would have increased performance which my BOTE figures say would return that payload loss. (With enough margin you might get enough for a recoverable second stage )
Considering how much they have gone for "super-chilled" propellants and the fact is that both methane or even propane would be fairly easy.

The biggest issue is that SpaceX apparently doesn't have the proper skill sets for designing a new engine given Raptors problems. Vulcan/Centaur of course uses methalox with an optimized hydrolox upper stage.

It's a good point. But Griffin was not the only possible NASA Admin open to those ideas at that time.

The problem is that Griffin specifically was with Musk when he failed to find a cheap enough Russian LV for his greenhouse idea and was the one who suggested he start his own rocket company. In context this was well before Griffin became the Administrator of NASA , but I believe he was still going to be an assistant Administrator so might still be able to get some money towards Musk. No Griffin you probably don't get SpaceX. (May even get more support headed to Kistler)

Randy

 

[Athelstane]

There's a good reason for using a different engine and/or propellant in your second stage.

I didn't say there wasn't! I was pointing out one advantage SpaceX has in employing the same engine - this was something they gave careful thought to. It comes (yes) at a certain cost (it is necessarily less optimized for an upper stage engine), but they clearly calculated that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. It is hard to say in 2024 that they, at least, can't feel confident that they reached the right decision for them.

The biggest issue is that SpaceX apparently doesn't have the proper skill sets for designing a new engine given Raptors problems.

I mean, sure, the talent pool in this area is tighter than demand, but...look, it's a super ambitious engine, and Elon refuses to freeze the design, as he chases more capability. And yet even so, it has clearly gotten the job done, in getting the required burns for orbital insertion done on the last two test flights. 39 engines fired as they were supposed to, and shut off when they were supposed to. The problems only popped up on IFT-3 on subsequent relight attempts. I think you are not giving the Raptor team sufficient credit.

The problem is that Griffin specifically was with Musk when he failed to find a cheap enough Russian LV for his greenhouse idea and was the one who suggested he start his own rocket company. In context this was well before Griffin became the Administrator of NASA , but I believe he was still going to be an assistant Administrator so might still be able to get some money towards Musk. No Griffin you probably don't get SpaceX. (May even get more support headed to Kistler)

That's true about Griffin's involvement, but it also has to be said that concepts like COTS had been kicking around for a while - Lori Garver talks about this in her book, to take just one recent reminder. It is one thing to say you might not get it in 2006 (which, in this timeline, I agree is likely true), but another to say you would never get it. It is a question, I suspect, more of when than if.

More than that, in a No SpaceX timeline there would be such an acute western launcher supply crisis in the early 2020s that I just don't see a Blue Origin which already has New Shepard or equivalent not propose an orbital launcher, it's just an obvious opportunity.

The difficulty here is that there are more butterflies here than you are reckoning on. Congress had the courage to mostly stick to its guns on forcing ULA to switch to a new LV on schedule because SpaceX was out there providing lots of redundancy. Take that away, and the policy simply has to change in order to assure DoD/NRO access to orbit. So, the Atlas V line stays in action for longer; and it is a bigger production line, too, because (along with its Delta IV lines) it has NSSL/EELV all to itself for longer!

One also has to think about how a continued, unchallenged monopoly of medium/heavy launch by ULA affects Bezos's perceptions of opportunity. SpaceX's emergence creates more competition for anything he might attempt, but it also proved that the legacy launch provider could be challenged in the first place - and beaten. That required not only a competitive rocket, but actual legal action to even give it a chance to do the competing. The onus for undertaking that would now be on Bezos, too. And while he has shown a willingness to unleash lawyers of late, he would be doing it in a very different environment, and much earlier, in a no-SpaceX timeline.

Of course, Nixonshead's POD in this TL is a whole lot earlier, so...he has to think even more fundamentally about how it plays out in the early 21st century.

 

[Athelstane]

You still always had a few companies on the US market, whereas in Europe you didn't.

It's a fair point.

 

[TheKutKu]

The difficulty here is that there are more butterflies here than you are reckoning on. Congress had the courage to mostly stick to its guns on forcing ULA to switch to a new LV on schedule because SpaceX was out there providing lots of redundancy. Take that away, and the policy simply has to change in order to assure DoD/NRO access to orbit. So, the Atlas V line stays in action for longer; and it is a bigger production line, too, because (along with its Delta IV lines) it has NSSL/EELV all to itself for longer!

One also has to think about how a continued, unchallenged monopoly of medium/heavy launch by ULA affects Bezos's perceptions of opportunity. SpaceX's emergence creates more competition for anything he might attempt, but it also proved that the legacy launch provider could be challenged in the first place - and beaten. That required not only a competitive rocket, but actual legal action to even give it a chance to do the competing. The onus for undertaking that would now be on Bezos, too. And while he has shown a willingness to unleash lawyers of late, he would be doing it in a very different environment, and much earlier, in a no-SpaceX timeline.

Of course, Nixonshead's POD in this TL is a whole lot earlier, so...he has to think even more fundamentally about how it plays out in the early 21st century.

Atlas V (10 a year, maybe a bit more) + DIVH + DIV could probably handle all the DoD launches yes... but with little room for growth or anything else come the early 2020s!

And that everything else could also include NASA crewed launches depending on how crewed spaceflight evolves (Could be an atlas-launched Alt-commercial crew capsule or DIVH launched Orion).

And then there’s the issue of the switch away from RD-180 which is inevitable, even if Congress doesn’t try to limit the number of engines they can buy and stockpile, such switch could likely suffer delays and cause a bottleneck in Atlas launches, an increase in DIV medium production would probably be difficult so late and only partially covers needs.

And with an ULA entirely taken by DoD and some NASA launches, Russian launchers still subject to increasing sanctions from 2014 onward (POD independent ), Indians unable to launch much (ISRO works on the long term because of their limited funding , the current plan for LVM3 predates SpaceX’s founding ) and Arianespace, which whatever their choices, will necessarily suffer from Russian sanctions on Soyuz and Vega business (choice of Soyuz and Vega is from early 2000s) and be in the middle of some kind of transition on their launchers (2020-2025 was envisioned as an A5 transition period since the mid 2000s), and the same for Japanese (who also can’t handle many launches) , then there’s almost guaranteed to be a launch supply crisis without new launchers on the commercial sector. That’s not even talking about the slow but steady built up of (government, Private Chinese industry would probably be partially butterflied away without SX) Chinese satellite industry and long March launches that is also inevitable and would probably scare the USAF into finding complementary launchers to Atlas because the Chinese launch twice as often as the Americans.

To me, with a mid-late 2000s POD compatible with a bankrupted SX, ans without changing geopolitics, it is likely that there will be a launch supply crisis in the early 2020s.

I agree otherwise, don’t see BO directly jumping into DoD contracts.

 

[Sasza]

But wouldn't the RS-84 and AR-1 engine programs simply be completed under such conditions?

There is a problem with SpaceX because the government rescued them heavily anyway. Of course, in conditions where the company goes bankrupt, they are most likely either bought out by someone larger or using Falcon 1 in a role similar to Rocket Lab's HASTE to stay afloat. So in an alternate 2020 post, Ariane 5 is still on after some minor updates. Delta IV will most likely fly longer, unless DoD and ULA decide that an alternative Vulcan must appear as soon as possible.

 

[Ry01tank]

Well, to some extent, yes. But bear in mind, they use the same Merln 1D on the second stage, too. And every single launch requires manufacturing a new second stage - and, therefore, a new Merlin 1D.

Too many legacy launch vehicles use an entirely different engine on upper stages.

Ya, the amout of cost bottlenecks SpaceX has reduced is insane, ULA did the same with Vulcan-Centaur to be competitive

There's a good reason for using a different engine and/or propellant in your second stage. Falcon 9 loses about 15% of its total payload with recovery with RTLS a bit less for a fly-forward barge landing. It would not be especially expensive to run a second stage on methalox, (in fact SpaceX was paid to research an upper stage Raptor derivative or an EELV class upper stage engine. They were given the money but nothing came of it) which would have increased performance which my BOTE figures say would return that payload loss. (With enough margin you might get enough for a recoverable second stage )

They already have a fine design, if it ain't broke don't fix it, having a different Upper stage would cost more and have a limited life span (Starship is supposed to replace Falcon)

Considering how much they have gone for "super-chilled" propellants and the fact is that both methane or even propane would be fairly easy.
The biggest issue is that SpaceX apparently doesn't have the proper skill sets for designing a new engine given Raptors problems. Vulcan/Centaur of course uses methalox with an optimized hydrolox upper stage.

Most designs are frozen before a single part is made, while SpaceX is fluid in the design, costs more and gives more issues, but they get a better engine

They made orbit on raptors a few weeks ago (Starship was within 200m/s from orbit)

I didn't say there wasn't! I was pointing out one advantage SpaceX has in employing the same engine - this was something they gave careful thought to. It comes (yes) at a certain cost (it is necessarily less optimized for an upper stage engine), but they clearly calculated that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. It is hard to say in 2024 that they, at least, can't feel confident that they reached the right decision for them.
I mean, sure, the talent pool in this area is tighter than demand, but...look, it's a super ambitious engine, and Elon refuses to freeze the design, as he chases more capability. And yet even so, it has clearly gotten the job done, in getting the required burns for orbital insertion done on the last two test flights. 39 engines fired as they were supposed to, and shut off when they were supposed to. The problems only popped up on IFT-3 on subsequent relight attempts. I think you are not giving the Raptor team sufficient credit.

Launch was flawless, the relighting had issues, given its the first time it made it far enough for relighting, having issues is expected (Falcon 9 was the same, Falcon Heavy lost its core on first launch)

That's true about Griffin's involvement, but it also has to be said that concepts like COTS had been kicking around for a while - Lori Garver talks about this in her book, to take just one recent reminder. It is one thing to say you might not get it in 2006 (which, in this timeline, I agree is likely true), but another to say you would never get it. It is a question, I suspect, more of when than if.

Kistler had its own issues, SpaceX was the only Commerical Cargo bidder which had hardware built, a big difference from "on paper designs"

And given that Kistler was run by old guys and COULD NOT hit financial milestones, it wouldn't have the same success SpaceX has.

The difficulty here is that there are more butterflies here than you are reckoning on. Congress had the courage to mostly stick to its guns on forcing ULA to switch to a new LV on schedule because SpaceX was out there providing lots of redundancy. Take that away, and the policy simply has to change in order to assure DoD/NRO access to orbit. So, the Atlas V line stays in action for longer; and it is a bigger production line, too, because (along with its Delta IV lines) it has NSSL/EELV all to itself for longer!

Delta 4 was too expensive for Commerical competition, even Atlas V was the same to an extent (cheaper to fly elsewhere)
Falcon 9 made both obsolete (far cheaper costs for payloads), and needing a replacement for Russian Engines, plus Russia refusing its engines for US Military payloads) meant ULA needed to change

A TL where SpaceX doesn't exist, same with CTOS, would need to change as well, Atlas V would be unviable, so likely a replacement for both would be needed, ULA would likely have a Delta V and Atlas VI (or Vulcan-Centaur) due to the need to have TWO DESIGNS incase one gets grounded

One also has to think about how a continued, unchallenged monopoly of medium/heavy launch by ULA affects Bezos's perceptions of opportunity. SpaceX's emergence creates more competition for anything he might attempt, but it also proved that the legacy launch provider could be challenged in the first place - and beaten. That required not only a competitive rocket, but actual legal action to even give it a chance to do the competing. The onus for undertaking that would now be on Bezos, too. And while he has shown a willingness to unleash lawyers of late, he would be doing it in a very different environment, and much earlier, in a no-SpaceX timeline.

Where Musk is the trailblazer, Bezos is the follower, he would not be willing to take the same risks as Musk, New Glenn is still in design stages, and it was around before Starship and reusable Falcon
BOTH of which have flown, Blue Origin hasn't even made orbit and is basically "helping" in other contracts (lander)

Him using lawyers to delay and sabotage other contractors would not bode well in a no spaceX TL, US Military would not put up with that bullshit and Blue Origin would be blacklisted due to it. He pissed people off for the HLS contract case, Imagine him doing the same with a launch vehicle when he loses the contract