Joshuapooleanox wrote:
With a POD of 1945, have Britain and its Commonwealth be a key player in the Space Race with both the United States and the Soviet Union, possibly as a 3rd power.
Money and politics but ain't that always the case?
Riain wrote:
Blue Streak comes up a lot in British space/nuclear discussion and I think there is a lot of misconception surrounding it, someone (me?) really should gather some definitive stuff together and put it in my British cold war facts and figures thread.
While the Blue Streak itself was almost a 2//3 scale version of the Atlas its intended mode of operation and thus utility and longevity as a deterrent were vastly better. The Blue Streak was always fully fueled in its silo, but the LOX tank was filled with pressurised nitrogen to keep thin-wall the missile rigid, each silo had a LOX tank which re-liquefied LOX boil-off and the LOX was 'blasted' into the oxidiser tank by compressed gas in 3 1/2 minutes. The missile was then launched directly from the silo (not hoisted to the surface like Atlas and Titan I), the blast doors being equipped with high pressure water jets to clear away any debris that might block its opening operation, within 4 1/2 minutes.
Once the LOX was on board the missile could be kept fully fueled and ready for 30 second launch for 10 hours, before having to be drained of LOX and made ready to repeat the process, the turnaround time for this process also being 10 hours. Thus in theory 50% of the Blue Steak force could be kept at 30 seconds notice to fire, which in deterrent terms is more than suitable.
However what II suspect would happen in practice is the time on 30 second alert would creep up to maybe 12 hours, the time to turn around for the next 30 second alert would creep down to 8-9 hours and an intermediate stage of turnaround to 4 1/2 minutes to launch introduced, maybe 6 (?) hours. The result is a system that is considerably more flexible than Polaris and able to put up to 60% of its force on 30 seconds to launch or the whole force down to 4 1/2 minutes to launch and anything in between as the international diplomatic situation requires.
The upshot being that writing off a British space programme because Blue Streak is a piece of shit isn't really valid.
(Quoted for my records, thanks for the information!)
The problem wasn't the 'missile' it was the location. (See my first response to the OP
) As noted in/at "A Vertical Empire" the "best" place for the Blue Streak silo's was the one place they probably couldn't be located (
http://www.spaceuk.org/bstreak/bs/k11.html) which drove the search for 'other' options which lead to Polaris and submarines. In essence the Brit's were ahead of the game technically in most areas, but they had a lot more going on a falling budget to contend with that stoppered many advanced plans.
As noted the key here is an actual 'need' which presupposes some changes in both decisions as well as financing. Blue Streak worked as a booster, (even as the booster for Europa, the BS worked) and it could be augmented as time went on.
Lots of interesting Blue Streak info here:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9074.0/all.html
(But then again EVERYTHING there is "interesting" so be warned
)
Stas-200 wrote:
There's nothing wrong with hypergols or solids on a launch vehicle (e.g. Ariane 1-4, Titan, Proton, Dnepr, Scout, all of Delta except the core), plus all of the early Indian and Chinese launchers.
From a modern perspective, most hypergols are fairly nasty and you wouldn't design a launcher today to use them, but anything that's good for an operational missile with a solid service history is a great basis for an early launcher.
That last part is the key here in that Blue Streak with a good upper stage was quite capable of competing with the likes of launchers like the Atlas-Agena. Constant upgrading could result in a pretty steady run as an LV.
If you want Blue Streak to stand a chance of entering service, you probably have to avoid Skybolt altogether - it was too cheap and credible an alternative (or so it seemed).
Blue Steel had already given a 'taste' of what was possible with an air-launched missile, that it wasn't all that GOOD of a "missile" was actually beside the point
(Oddly enough I've seen some stuff on SPF that shows a "Blue Steel MKII" with ramjets right where I'd expect them) In essence both the RAF and USAF were 'interested' in ALBM but, (especially in the US) they didn't make as much sense as the bigger and more capable ICBMs. It actually DID make sense for Britain due to its circumstances, (as did Polaris) but having the US pay for the majority of development was icing on the cake. Having the US 'not interested' ups the needed commitment but doesn't address the basic issues.
Having to have the early Blue Steel "test" vehicle manned, (as the electronics and guidance aren't quite there yet) could add some 'low-hanging-fruit' first to keep the British sun from setting as quickly as OTL.
Putting Blue Streak into service and then phasing it out in the late '60s has possibilities though, as it might provide surplus missiles and infrastructure.
And that much more likely to "need" a way to transition the infrastructure and hardware into an operational LV. Still the main question is where do you put the things?
True, trouble is it's a bit too early. An operational satellite launcher in 1965 merely allows the UK to spend even more money having to develop satellites to fly on it. By the early '70s, that would still be necessary, but they might also attract European partners and/or some overseas customers.
THE problem with being 'first' is you have to pay a lot more than those who come later
Specifically British electronics and other 'subsidiary' industries were having issues keeping up with what they actually NEEDED, (see Blue Steel above) rather than what they might want. And getting up to speed cost money and time they didn't really have.
Randy
