Boldly Going: A History of an American Space Station
- Thread starter e of pi
- Start date
To put it another way: Boldly Going is using the Shuttle we got, and Right Side Up is using the Shuttle we deserved.
And I am particularly impressed with how well the STS hardware was used ITTL. Talk about lemonade from lemons!
The Shuttle we deserved--or rather, the Shuttle of hindsight, in RSU. In retrospect, it's clear--reuse the booster, because it's easier to recover and refurbish, and it's bigger so you save more hardware anyway. The biggest ass-pull we had to do was, I think, getting NASA that little bit of extra funding early on--because the system was not going to fly without some kind of manned orbital capability. And I still have a sneaking suspicion we made Nixon a bit more pro-space than he really was--but perhaps even Tricky Dick could be brought around by a good argument. A bit of long-term thinking pays off. "Penny wise, pound foolish" could almost be a tagline for the aerospace industry. But then, so could "Hindsight is 20/20."
One thing we ran into when researching for RSU, and which SpaceX is proving out IRL, is that a reusable system needs a high flight rate to be economical (indeed, every time Shuttle's projected development cost went up, NASA ramped up the planned flight rate to say it would still be economical). The OTL STS wasn't quite up to the task. RSU and TTL both solve the problem in different ways--the former through a reusable booster that can be turned around faster and more reliably, the latter by getting a space station built sooner (giving the Shuttle a whole slew of new missions), then using Shuttle-C to support a lunar program. With, of course, a set of recoverable liquid-propellant boosters to make that easier.
Thematically, another possible way to illustrate this point would be an alternate Apollo architecture--both EOR and LOR, with a frequently-flying Titan III-class booster to assemble the stack in LEO. No big, throwaway, single-mission Saturn V, but something that can be used for LEO payloads as well (and for which NASA has to master microgravity transfer of at least hypergols anyway).
Part of the issue were several segments of NASA, (specifically Johnson Space Center as the "Manned Spaceflight Center" and the Astronaut Corp were adamant about several key points. Specifically they were more interested in the Orbiter than the Booster, (because if you're not going to orbit what's the point?) and that every flight be manned (because if you're not flying people every flight what's the point?) which along with several other early requirements, (and frankly they were more NASA than Air Force) pushed the needs and therefor the decisions toward early orbiter development and eventually he TAOS design. Once flying of course any suggestion of not flying with a crew onboard given the obviously lower flight numbers that were actually going to be flown was anathema to NASA because again, if you are not flying people to orbit what is the point?
You didn't seem to make Nixon TOO much pro-space, but his main concerns were simply keeping the NASA budget in check as Congress wanted while assuring votes (and jobs) in enough areas to get elected. The "border-line-ASB" part is always getting politicians to think in any manner longer term than the next election
The flight rate requirement was the reason that it was mandated that all US launch's be handled by the STS. Which also was a major reason most of NASA didn't like the Shuttle C or the idea of unmanned Shuttle flights. And that's the great thing about RSU and TTL, they found plausible and workable reasons to overcome those objections and the entire system was better for it.
I've issues with a Titan III based architecture for various reasons
Mostly the use of hypergols which was going to be an issue with NASA as a manned booster but also because NASA would not want to be restricted to a Air Force launcher. They would LIKE to have retained some part of the Saturn V, likely in the ETS with an F1 powered new-build Saturn 1 if they could get the budget for it but if it all came down they would have fought for and used the Saturn 1B rather than Titan and I'm pretty sure they could have made a case with OMB for it. My 'go-to' scenerio is a Saturn 1B derived booster which is recovered downrange by parachute and water landing and returned to the Cape for refurbishment and reuse. It's topped with either a 'cargo' fairing or a "shuttle" based on the S-IVB, (likely looking a lot like the "Platypus" with a J-2T aerospike) and adding various SRB's as needed for payload.
Randy
Boldly Going Yuri’s Night & STS-1 Anniversary 2021
Good morning everyone! It’s a fantastic day to be flying rockets, as we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the flight of STS-1 and OV-102 Columbia and Yuri Gagarin’s first human spaceflight 60 years ago in 1961. We’ve come quite a long way both in this timeline, and in real life--perhaps further in the last decade or two than many were expecting! I’m excited to see what the future holds. As celebration of this, @TimothyC and I would like to unveil the much-discussed, much-anticipated Shuttle-II renders for Boldly Going, from @nixonshead (AEB Digital). We hope you enjoy them, and they're also edited into Part 33. If you have the chance tonight where you are to check out an ISS pass or another space object, or just go outside and look up...do it.
Good morning everyone! It’s a fantastic day to be flying rockets, as we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the flight of STS-1 and OV-102 Columbia and Yuri Gagarin’s first human spaceflight 60 years ago in 1961. We’ve come quite a long way both in this timeline, and in real life--perhaps further in the last decade or two than many were expecting! I’m excited to see what the future holds. As celebration of this, @TimothyC and I would like to unveil the much-discussed, much-anticipated Shuttle-II renders for Boldly Going, from @nixonshead (AEB Digital). We hope you enjoy them, and they're also edited into Part 33. If you have the chance tonight where you are to check out an ISS pass or another space object, or just go outside and look up...do it.
Given the date I assume that wouldn't be hard as it around when it was done OTL.
What he said x3... Wait, that's a cubing issues isn't it? Awesome by an order of magnitude then? Maybe?
Fantastic as always
Flyback and vertical landing requires you accept a performance penalty (a bit over about 15% of possible orbital payload for SpaceX at this point) and NASA is already recovering, refurbishing and reusing the LRB's at a rate and cost that works very well for the system. If they go for fully reusable they will likely modify the LRB's into a single "flyback" booster design rather than bother with VTVL operations. Wings-and-wheels (along with parachute ocean recovery) is something NASA is well familiar with TTL and it works very well for them and is not likely to change.
Needing to get your booster back to the launch site rapidly is only economic and operationally useful if you have a high enough re-flight need and tempo to justify it which is not going to be the case very often.
It's NOT easy and frankly why do you need if for Earth landing? You don't and most of the arguments supporting it fall into the same "faster-recovery-means-faster-turn-around-time" trap that most early reusable space booster concepts fell into. Getting your booster back to the launch site on the same day as the launch really does not reduce your overall turn-around time that much. And vertical landing by rocket power on Earth ONLY makes sense if you have to, (only means of landing which was the case for things like the DC-X/XA and proposed VTVL SSTO's) and are willing and able to accept the payload and operational penalties associated with doing so. NASA does not have to, (nor does anyone TTL) so there's little incentive to develop the capability and many, many BETTER ways of doing the job.
Randy
Wings and wheels also impose a fairly significant weight penalty, not to mention adding more components that can fail and causing their own operational complications (like needing a runway to land on). It's a bit swings and roundabouts, but VTVL at least has the advantages of a conceptually simpler system that is just trying to be a rocket rather than a rocket and an aircraft simultaneously.
It's kind of a circular argument to say that vertical landing only makes sense if you "have" to land vertically and then citing VTVL vehicles. Of course it doesn't make sense to land a VTHL vehicle vertically, but the question is not that but instead whether VTVL or VTHL (or HTHL, I guess, but those have a lot of issues) are better, and I certainly don't think you can say that VTVL vehicles are obviously worse than VTHL vehicles. Yes, there are difficulties associated with rocket-powered landing, but there are also difficulties associated with wings or lifting body recoveries. I don't really see NASA as having "better" ways of "doing the job". Different ways, sure, and some ways that are not worse. But parachute recovery of the engine pods from the LRBs does not seem to be obviously "better" than building a VTVL (or, as you note, a flyback) variant thereof.
Also, the poster didn't say it would be "easy" just that it would be "easier". That...actually probably wouldn't be true since I doubt NASA has put as much R&D into it and SpaceX probably doesn't exist, but it's at least defensible.
Broadly if it can be done OTL in 2021 its not going to be that hard ITTL and only requires time. That said as ITTL NASA already has a perfectly good system its not needed but could be done in a few years if they decided to go that direction.
That is also my assumption. The little square thing appeared in the reference materials unlabelled, but it would be in about the right spot to help cool the avionics. You may note that I didn't add radiators inside the payload bay doors (no, I wasn't just too lazy to add them!), as I assumed the nose radiator did the job. The crew module has its own radiators built into the doors covering the docking port, so they can also be used for autonomous flight in case they have to bail out in orbit.
I wonder if the crew module could also be adapted as a Kepler replacement for lifeboat or lunar missions... 🤔
I love the renders of Shuttle II. Good day to be posting them too.
An atavistic part of me is sad that there are no ‘proper’ windows for the crew to see out of.
An atavistic part of me is sad that there are no ‘proper’ windows for the crew to see out of.
What he said x3... Wait, that's a cubing issues isn't it? Awesome by an order of magnitude then? Maybe?
Fantastic as always
Flyback and vertical landing requires you accept a performance penalty (a bit over about 15% of possible orbital payload for SpaceX at this point) and NASA is already recovering, refurbishing and reusing the LRB's at a rate and cost that works very well for the system. If they go for fully reusable they will likely modify the LRB's into a single "flyback" booster design rather than bother with VTVL operations. Wings-and-wheels (along with parachute ocean recovery) is something NASA is well familiar with TTL and it works very well for them and is not likely to change.
Needing to get your booster back to the launch site rapidly is only economic and operationally useful if you have a high enough re-flight need and tempo to justify it which is not going to be the case very often.
It's NOT easy and frankly why do you need if for Earth landing? You don't and most of the arguments supporting it fall into the same "faster-recovery-means-faster-turn-around-time" trap that most early reusable space booster concepts fell into. Getting your booster back to the launch site on the same day as the launch really does not reduce your overall turn-around time that much. And vertical landing by rocket power on Earth ONLY makes sense if you have to, (only means of landing which was the case for things like the DC-X/XA and proposed VTVL SSTO's) and are willing and able to accept the payload and operational penalties associated with doing so. NASA does not have to, (nor does anyone TTL) so there's little incentive to develop the capability and many, many BETTER ways of doing the job.
Randy
Workable Goblin has already said it but the trend in this TL since completing development on the original STS system has been to develop from existing elements of the STS system rather than clean sheet designs and with minimal new technology. Look at the LRB's themselves. No new engines, nothing exotic just slightly modified SSME's in a reusable pod.
So while I'm sure they'd look at various ways to provide a fully reusable booster the option it seems in this tl the preference is for the minimum necessary innovation. Which means preserving as much of the LRB architecture as possible and as SpaceX shows you can modify for VTVL without having to completely redesign your rocket. But wings are a much more demanding design challenge as you need to be able to withstand horizontal loads as well as vertical. So while the catamaran is cool it seems unlikely.
Exquisite renders, as usual! Curious about the wingtip vertical stabilizers/rudders--any advantage there as opposed to the OTL placement? The placement with the boosters looks wonky, to our OTL eyes unused to such highly-placed side-mounted payloads--it makes sense, of course, for reasons of center-of-mass and booster engine gimballing.