Boldly Going: A History of an American Space Station
- Thread starter e of pi
- Start date
Great update!
I'm a little surprised Mir-II managed to get enough funding to see launch, wouldn't be the first time Russia's been saved by French funds [insert historical allusions of choice here].
The new liquid boosters for the shuttle look to be a huge improvement over the old SRBs, I wonder if there's any call or ability for the LRBs to not mount the centre engine for loads that don't need the the full mass allowance, although I suppose they'd just throttle down. I can already imagine some local newspaper writing a headline 'NASA's New Rockets Wear Bell-Bottoms' before getting flooded with corrections from the growing number of TTL's rocket-heads.
Was there a tease in an earlier post about NASA already looking at a shuttle successor, or did I just imagine it? I imagine that just with the number of flights the orbiters are doing someone's looking into how many flights the airframes are capable of and how soon 'new build' airframes of any type will be needed.
I'm a little surprised Mir-II managed to get enough funding to see launch, wouldn't be the first time Russia's been saved by French funds [insert historical allusions of choice here].
The new liquid boosters for the shuttle look to be a huge improvement over the old SRBs, I wonder if there's any call or ability for the LRBs to not mount the centre engine for loads that don't need the the full mass allowance, although I suppose they'd just throttle down. I can already imagine some local newspaper writing a headline 'NASA's New Rockets Wear Bell-Bottoms' before getting flooded with corrections from the growing number of TTL's rocket-heads.
Was there a tease in an earlier post about NASA already looking at a shuttle successor, or did I just imagine it? I imagine that just with the number of flights the orbiters are doing someone's looking into how many flights the airframes are capable of and how soon 'new build' airframes of any type will be needed.
It's surprising how LITTLE hard currency was needed to get ex-Soviet mostly built space hardware finished off. IOTL, and ITTL
Yes, Endeavour was built on roughly the OTL schedule, perhaps a year or so later given Discovery was a year or so later than OTL's Challenger accident. She's appeared already in Part 21, 22, and stars in today's Part 24 as the orbiter to carry Glenn to Enterprise.
I wonder on several things in post
That ESA runs double tracked on USA and Russian space program
French CNES makes sense
I guess there several european socialist government support russia and there space program
But were is money coming from EU ?
OTL there was almost insufficient money for ESA part of ISS, do Re-reunification of two Germany's in EU 1990s
I guess that CNES never went for Hermes in TL and used that money for Russians
Also they launch Dos-8 without backup and no insurance
And with no Russian part on Enterprise station
would it make more sense if Russian get the Chinese on board ?
as partner and financier for MIR-II while china build there manned spacecraft and supply craft for MIR-II !
That ESA runs double tracked on USA and Russian space program
French CNES makes sense
I guess there several european socialist government support russia and there space program
But were is money coming from EU ?
OTL there was almost insufficient money for ESA part of ISS, do Re-reunification of two Germany's in EU 1990s
I guess that CNES never went for Hermes in TL and used that money for Russians
And parts had to be buy in Germany to complete FGB and DOS-8 and Pay by NASA
Also they launch Dos-8 without backup and no insurance
And with no Russian part on Enterprise station
would it make more sense if Russian get the Chinese on board ?
as partner and financier for MIR-II while china build there manned spacecraft and supply craft for MIR-II !
My 2 eurocents on this.
ITTL, France basically paid for the Mir-1 contribution (completion of Priroda) itself, with minimal ESA support. IOTL they also flew a number of experiments on Priroda, and the necessary delta funding (not that much, considering late- and immediate post-Soviet economics) could be explained by an earlier end to Hermes funding. I wasn't able to find exact figures from OTL, but it seems a safe bet that finishing an already half-build Soviet module would cost a lot less than another 3-4 years of Hermes.
For Mir-2, the discussions are coming in the late '90s, when Europe is midway through a period of prolonged economic growth. The German economy resumed steady growth from about 1994-1998, so the cost of reunification should be less of a hot-topic. Also on the cost, the Mir-2 involvement here is a bargain. The cost of completing Spektre is less than the all-new FBG that IOTL became Zarya. As for the ATV-derived module, ESA are already committed to developing ATV for Space Station Enterprise, using a lot of the same hardware already developed for Kepler-L, so the additional cost of modifying an ATV into the Mir-2 module is pretty low, especially if some of the necessary hardware (e.g. Russian docking port) is provided as barter. It would certainly be less than the cost of developing Kepler and Ariane 5, which are now coming off the books as they move into operations.
ESA has undoubtadly spent more ITTL than IOTL in supporting Kepler. Again, Hermes' early death probably offset this substantially, but certainly not entirely, and on the other side of the ledger the cost of station operations has moved forward around a decade compared to OTL, plus supporting Minerva missions. If we accept the budgets already agreed in the early '90s, this higher level has probably become normalised by now, and is not really that big in the grand scheme of things. Not going ahead with the Galileo stanav system would probably cover the additional costs from 2000 onwards, after it had done its main job and forced the US to switch off GPS Selective Availability (but that's a whole other rant
).[EDIT: Another thought on Galileo: IOTL, Italy was a major contributor to the programme, which is why they got one of the two Galileo Control Centres in Fucino. ITTL Italian industry is well served producing Kepler capsules, so they wouldn't have as much incentive to put up funds for Galileo. So it wouldn't surprise me if the programme gets cancelled ITTL.]
In general in Europe, the economic dip c.2003 would come after most of the Mir-2 related development funding has been spent, with the major European economies apart from Germany riding pretty high around 1999-2000. The budget might come into question as the German economy slows from 1999 onwards, and as the rest dip in 2003, but by then the programme would have advanced enough that pulling out would be diplomatically difficult, and remember, this is before the 2008 Russian invasion of Georgia really soured East-West relations again (though of course NATO and EU expansion is still pissing off the Russians), assuming that tracks to OTL, so keeping Russia close is still an important foreign policy objective.
I don't think China in 1999 is a credible space station partner. At that point, their Shenzhou programme has only just launched, and even today IOTL can barely be described as operational given its low flight rate. OTOH, ESA has their own crewed spacecraft and a large supply vehicle, as well as being able to contribute a valuable station module with siginificant power generating and reboost capability. Russia need a partner to stay in the crewed spaceflight game, and if the US aren't interested, ESA is the only viable option.
Last edited:
Hermes cost were Huge really huge for ESA
way back in 1985 the estimated total program Budget would be 1.9 billion euro including Ariane 5 and two Orbiter
until 1991 around 2 billion euros were spend on phase 1 (R&D) until program was stop, without building any flight hardware !
in retrospect it was France own fault
From small Dyna Soar like glider Hermes mutated into zee FRENCH Space Shuttle !
And mass and cost increase, after 1986 that became huge problem as a rescue system had build into Hermes in case of Launch Failure.
I wonder how high were cost for Kepler Capsule ITTL ?
SpaceX Dragon 1 R&D cost $846 million and $1 billion for Dragon 2, make in total $1.846 billion (using existing technology)
So Kepler could be build cheaper ITTL as Hermes
but how it look for it's Launch rocket ?
Some of them were carry by Space Shuttle to Enterprise in last post mention flight of Kepler to Mir and Mir-2
looking into BAe Multi-Role Recovery Capsule (MRC) data:
Estimated cost around 2 billion euro or $dollars
MRC mass is around 7000 kg, that 1/3 of that what estimated Mass of Hermes last version!
This could have vast consequence for Ariane space and ESA !
in OTL ESA spent €4 billion on Ariane 5 with payload of 20.5 tons
BAe planned to launch MRC on Ariane 4,
This here is my speculation how ESA handle the Ariane 5 for Kepler in TL
Since payload is just 1/3 of needed in OTL
ESA take the Ariane 5R study, a Modified Ariane 4 first stage with second stage H45 that use Hydrolox engine HM-60.
HM-60 was larger engine version of HM-7, that was redesign into Vulcan under Ariane 5
Ariane 5H (habité = manned) Ariane 4 first stage L220, second stage H45, Kepler with escape tower
Ariane 5G (GEO) L220, H45 and H10
all Ariane 5 get booster like ariane 4 if needed
i guess that Ariane 5R construction would only cost €1-2billion leaving 2 Billion for Russia program
i think that this Ariane 5 could operate into 2010s until it first stage is replace with new hardware that cheaper operate as L220 hardware...
We thought about this, but the challenge is that our understanding is that the Ariane 5 design froze at something roughly in line with the historical vehicle around 1984, with ESA formally adopting it in 1985--in other words, before our butterflies really get moving. Thus, the historical vehicle sizing and capabilities still exist, in spite of the '86/'87 pivot to TTL's Italian spin on the British MRC, much as it eventually came to exist historically in spite of there being no European crew vehicle at all. It's convenient, though, since as with OTL it means the ability to launch larger ATV (and ATV-derived) spacecraft massing nearly 20 metric tons--we didn't have to redesign and scale down those designs.
So 24 chapters in and I'm sitting here taking stock of the state of the spaceflight world as we enter the new millennium, especially in comparison with the bad timeline we inhabit.
Obviously one of the biggest winners in this timeline are the Europeans, and particularly the French. Right now Europe not only has a crew lifeboat used aboard Enterprise, but Kepler is currently sitting pretty as the main ride for astronauts bound for the Moon. On top of that, they've got a booster on deck ready to be integrated with the LES equipped Kepler to carry European (or really anyone who's willing to pay) astronauts wherever they need to go. And probably most importantly between the American Enterprise, Soviet/Russian Mir and what will effectively be the European led Mir 2, they've got a place for all these astronauts to go aboard European owned and operated crewed capsules. That said, they seem to lag behind the competition when it comes to the actual lifters in their fleet so I'm pretty keen on seeing what moves the Euros will make in the 00s and 10s on that front to bring them on par (and perhaps surpass) the Americans.
Speaking of, America is currently sitting on a nice pile of partially reusable lifters that cover almost every payload class one could want in this era. If America wanted to, they could easily load up a Shuttle-C with 3 Curiosity type Mars rovers and launch them simultaneously for a launch cost that'd put expendables to shame. I understand that it's not really the focus of this timeline, but the implications for the robotic exploration program being able to launch whatever they want for cheap would be interesting to see in the coming decades. Even more interesting is what the US could do now that they've got an extremely capable STS stack in Shuttle-C that could serve as the core of a successor to Enterprise. It'd probably be a bit more involved than what I have in mind, but sending up a Shuttle-C dedicated to future conversion to a station could easily create a station able to match and exceed Enterprise's capabilities right off the bat.
The Orbiter fleet is starting to get pretty long in the tooth for what is effectively a fleet of X-Planes pressed into regular service. Sooner or later NASA is going to have to seriously think about a successor vehicle. I couldn't even begin to tell you what that'd look like but once Enterprise and Minerva settle into a less transient state, and if the stars of funding dollars and political willpower align, I suspect replacing the Shuttle will become NASA's big priority. Which brings me to my next thought.
As the past decade or so have shown us IOTL, space is gonna be the playground for billionaires with more money than sense going forward. And in the face of a government backed trio of semi-reusables doing most of America's lifting in the 00s, any enterprising entrepreneurs will have to really get creative to break into the launch market. Or hell, maybe they'll do the sensible thing and saturate the "places for rockets to go" market instead of the launch market like they're doing IOTL.
I may be right, I may be wrong. Just needed to get my thoughts onto paper and into the aether.
Excellent chapter as usual, the new LRBs really suit the Orbiter, keep em coming!
Obviously one of the biggest winners in this timeline are the Europeans, and particularly the French. Right now Europe not only has a crew lifeboat used aboard Enterprise, but Kepler is currently sitting pretty as the main ride for astronauts bound for the Moon. On top of that, they've got a booster on deck ready to be integrated with the LES equipped Kepler to carry European (or really anyone who's willing to pay) astronauts wherever they need to go. And probably most importantly between the American Enterprise, Soviet/Russian Mir and what will effectively be the European led Mir 2, they've got a place for all these astronauts to go aboard European owned and operated crewed capsules. That said, they seem to lag behind the competition when it comes to the actual lifters in their fleet so I'm pretty keen on seeing what moves the Euros will make in the 00s and 10s on that front to bring them on par (and perhaps surpass) the Americans.
Speaking of, America is currently sitting on a nice pile of partially reusable lifters that cover almost every payload class one could want in this era. If America wanted to, they could easily load up a Shuttle-C with 3 Curiosity type Mars rovers and launch them simultaneously for a launch cost that'd put expendables to shame. I understand that it's not really the focus of this timeline, but the implications for the robotic exploration program being able to launch whatever they want for cheap would be interesting to see in the coming decades. Even more interesting is what the US could do now that they've got an extremely capable STS stack in Shuttle-C that could serve as the core of a successor to Enterprise. It'd probably be a bit more involved than what I have in mind, but sending up a Shuttle-C dedicated to future conversion to a station could easily create a station able to match and exceed Enterprise's capabilities right off the bat.
The Orbiter fleet is starting to get pretty long in the tooth for what is effectively a fleet of X-Planes pressed into regular service. Sooner or later NASA is going to have to seriously think about a successor vehicle. I couldn't even begin to tell you what that'd look like but once Enterprise and Minerva settle into a less transient state, and if the stars of funding dollars and political willpower align, I suspect replacing the Shuttle will become NASA's big priority. Which brings me to my next thought.
As the past decade or so have shown us IOTL, space is gonna be the playground for billionaires with more money than sense going forward. And in the face of a government backed trio of semi-reusables doing most of America's lifting in the 00s, any enterprising entrepreneurs will have to really get creative to break into the launch market. Or hell, maybe they'll do the sensible thing and saturate the "places for rockets to go" market instead of the launch market like they're doing IOTL.
I may be right, I may be wrong. Just needed to get my thoughts onto paper and into the aether.
Excellent chapter as usual, the new LRBs really suit the Orbiter, keep em coming!
Volume is great, but usable volume is better. Figuring out how to get items in and out of the 36 inch manhole covers has been something teams at NASA have been, ITTL, working on for over a decade at this point, and the best solution they have to get stuff through the hamster-tubes is the 19 inch rack configuration they used on the LOX-Hab conversion....
The big advantage of flying with five engines throttled to 80% is that if an engine either fails, or trips off from either booster, you can throttle the remaining engines to 100%, and still make your mission. Later in the burn you can probably loose a second, and if your payload is low enough, it starts to make Abort-to-Orbit viable a earlier than it would otherwise be possible.
Orbiter life is an interesting question, and historically the vehicles were designed for a 100 mission life, therefore you need to start looking at non-spaceframe life factors. In Boldly Going engine production is way, way, up (by the end of 1999 NASA has enough SSMEs for six vehicles, and at least three sets of LRB pods).
I'd point the reader at this NTRS paper from 2000 as an example of what NASA is going to be looking at.
I guess the takeaway is that while the 100 flight spaceframe life is real, it's not the most pressing of NASA's concerns.
I would imagine a mission to cut open a 'big door' on the tail end of the H2 tank would be out of the question for the near future, not until NASA feels comfortable with a method of capturing all the resulting particulates.
I wonder if a sort of electro-static blanket would work, like a microgravity-rated Swiffer pad the size of a duvet.
Sorry I am C@£$ at doing links ect, But the PDF address below is for Drop stich fabric construction. i am no space engineer, however 15 years ago I was project development/design manager where we were using drop stitch inflatable beams to span a diameter larger than the external fuel tank and support significant flow loads.
I have mentioned this before IMVHO the big tank is an ideal candidate for the use of inflatable structure, it can be rolled, sausaged and also bend as it is passed through the hatches. wiring, pipes and services can be routed either though the panels (difficult to maintain or replace) or surface mounted.
The tank can be used as a no gravity test bed for shelter technology for Moon and Mars bases.
For me it's the way to go!
I have mentioned this before IMVHO the big tank is an ideal candidate for the use of inflatable structure, it can be rolled, sausaged and also bend as it is passed through the hatches. wiring, pipes and services can be routed either though the panels (difficult to maintain or replace) or surface mounted.
The tank can be used as a no gravity test bed for shelter technology for Moon and Mars bases.
For me it's the way to go!
ok
How is Kepler launch, Still on Ariane 44L or on Ariane 5 with ballast ?
The big problem with cutting the end off of the ET is that there is, alas, stuff in the way:
In particular, the LH₂ tank feed line and supports. These structures also interact with the main Shuttle-ET struts, which are still in major use here to keep the OV attached to the ET. An ET which, I might note, remains as it was on launch the structural backbone of the station...
I'm not sure how usable that would be, given that the LH₂ tank is already sealed against the vacuum, but it is an interesting read. Thank you.
Kepler would be launched on an Ariane V either with ballast (dreams of cargo launching alongside the crew will dance in mission-planner's heads), or with a short-fueled upper stage, whichever is less-bad. I'm actually not sure what the payload performance to station is going to be because I expect there will be a certain degree of trajectory shaping to remove any black-zones on ascent. Ariane 44L would have not been used for crew launches because when ESA is making the decisions, they know that Ariane V is coming, and thus that Ariane 44L is on the way out. Therefore they decide to take the less-expensive route and only certify the capsule against one LV instead of two.
NASA probably has plans for a crew launch on an Atlas IIIM to go along with it....