Eyes Turned Skywards

[Bahamut-255]

So has Mir had any onboard fires, or TKS's running into DOS labs yet? Inquiring minds want to know.

None that have been announced yet. And let us also consider the fact that TTL's Mir is a far larger station, with far greater capability. I would think that that would mean that it's design life is far greater than OTL's Mir.

So let us say that after the first Module was launched it can enjoy at least 12 good years of orbital life, that means it wouldn't start falling apart until about 1998.

Given that the OTL Mir problems really came into the 'fore at around 1995 (which was 4 years after the end of its design life), I think it would take until about 2002/3 before TTL's Mir gets into some serious trouble. By which point the Russian Economy should be bouncing back after its long slump, allowing them to give some serious thought into replacing it a few years after that.

And given the fact that TKS is some 10,000 Kg greater in Mass than Soyuz/Progress, any such collision could have greater consequences since it would carry a lot more power in it.

All of which E and Goblin would know a lot better than I do.

 

[Michel Van]

one thing first Nixonhead, great job !

on TKS and Progress ram Mir in OTL.
that progress M34 had prototype remote control docking system, that malfunction while the crew as try to do docking test.
the idea was to replace the Kurs automated docking system, by one remote control system used from MIR.
the result made headlines…

TKS manned had pilot seats in rear for docking with space station.

pilots in red overals

i worry about this configuration, because is most logical for russian engineer,
To replace the pilot seats in rear of cargo TKS by a remote control system used from MIR.
that result would made headlines in Eyes Turned Skywards…

 

[Bahamut-255]

one thing first Nixonhead, great job !

on TKS and Progress ram Mir in OTL.
that progress M34 had prototype remote control docking system, that malfunction while the crew as try to do docking test.
the idea was to replace the Kurs automated docking system, by one remote control system used from MIR.
the result made headlines…

If memory serves me right, the first docking attempt failed when the system didn't work resulting in a near-miss. It was the second test (which involved an undock, fly out, and return to dock) that actually crashed into the Mir IOTL, caused by the rubbish stuffed in the Progress that created an off-axis mass distribution. Subsequent tests back on Earth revealed that it could be manually controlled at best, half the time.

TKS manned had pilot seats in rear for docking with space station.

i worry about this configuration, because is most logical for russian engineer,
To replace the pilot seats in rear of cargo TKS by a remote control system used from MIR.
that result would made headlines in Eyes Turned Skywards…

I would think that the Cargo TKS use something like Kurs (if not Kurs itself), though I think that TKS would have the mass budget to keep that system installed in the event of a Remote Control System failing.

A thing about the Russian Cosmonauts during those 1990's. IOTL the pay system changed from a set pay, to a smaller set pay plus bonuses for completing certain tasks while on tour, while a lot of their Cosmonauts came from a Military Background. That combination helped to create the conditions that brought about the OTL Collision.

Clearly a lot of things that need to be taken into account.

 

[Michel Van]

I would think that the Cargo TKS use something like Kurs (if not Kurs itself), though I think that TKS would have the mass budget to keep that system installed in the event of a Remote Control System failing.

so far i know,
The they wanted to replace Kurs automated docking system for lack of money, by cheaper system installed in progress M34.
That system had malfunction in communication and control, the cosmonaut Vasily Tsibliyev, lost contact with Camera so they got no picture from progress M34 during final approach.
while they try reestablish contact with progress M34, it's ramming the Spektr module.

Vasily Tsibliyev and Aleksandr Lazutkin made hell of work to save damage MIR

As thanks the officials make Vasily Tsibliyev responsible for disaster and was forced to retired on June 19, 1998...

 

[nixonshead]

One thing I noticed is just how much smaller (in terms of Area) the Apollo Solar Cells are with regards to the TKS ones - looks to be about half. I'd believe that the US make is superior in terms of efficiency, but I suspect it has a lot more to do with the respective rates of power consumption.

TKS would still be using Argon Analogue Computers right now IMHO, lacking the money to make the switch to Digital Computers - which occurred with Soyuz IOTL when the company in question ceased production of their Analogue Computers thereby forcing the change. And last I heard, Digital Computers can do the same for less than half the Wattage of an Analogue Equivalent.

The solar arrays do seem pretty big on TKS, but then again that FGB is practically another space station module (in fact literally IOTL), so is probably much more power-hungry than Apollo - or Longxing come to that.

I have been wondering if TKS might be due a bit of a refresh - new solar panels, updated electronics, a fresh paint job - but as I'm being kept pretty busy with other things at the moment I've hesitated to suggest it. So far I've settled for just swapping the Soviet flags for Russian tricolors

As for the new Lunar Rover, proper backrests? Good seats? I think that would be appreciated. And are those wheels metalastic, or rigid?

Er, yes?! The model is based on OTL LOTRAN from the 90-day study. That particular wheel design seems to crop up a lot on manned and unmanned rover concepts (though to my knowledge it's never flown), so I figured it was a good choice for TTL. My understanding is the outer rim is flexible and the small wheels around the rim flex to provide suspension, but I may have gotten that wrong.

You're warming my cockles this morning, Brainbin...really fantastic work, as always.

Well, it's nice to be compared to someone of Brainbin's talent - I'll accept the sentiment on his behalf (Mind you, no-one has ever seen us in the same room together... )

 

[Brainbin]

You're warming my cockles this morning, Brainbin...really fantastic work, as always.

Well, it's nice to be compared to someone of Brainbin's talent - I'll accept the sentiment on his behalf (Mind you, no-one has ever seen us in the same room together... )

I didn't even notice this until you pointed it out Thank you, Athelstane, for even being capable of the slip that would credit me for such magnificent artwork - though it is amusing, since nixonshead and I each contribute to this timeline in such vastly different ways. If we were one in the same, I gather we'd be nigh-unstoppable

 

[Athelstane]

I didn't even notice this until you pointed it out Thank you, Athelstane, for even being capable of the slip that would credit me for such magnificent artwork - though it is amusing, since nixonshead and I each contribute to this timeline in such vastly different ways. If we were one in the same, I gather we'd be nigh-unstoppable

That comment was made BC, I'm afraid - Before Coffee. My apologies!

But the important thing is that your renders are outstanding. And they seem to be getting better...

 

[Athelstane]

None that have been announced yet. And let us also consider the fact that TTL's Mir is a far larger station, with far greater capability. I would think that that would mean that it's design life is far greater than OTL's Mir.

Well - just because it's larger doesn't necessarily entail that its design life is far greater. No question that this Mir has considerably more power and other resources at its disposal; but it's almost certainly still the same basic wiring and materials being used to fit it out.

I'd love to see it last a few years longer, though...

And given the fact that TKS is some 10,000 Kg greater in Mass than Soyuz/Progress, any such collision could have greater consequences since it would carry a lot more power in it.

Another good point.

 

[Bahamut-255]

Well - just because it's larger doesn't necessarily entail that its design life is far greater. No question that this Mir has considerably more power and other resources at its disposal; but it's almost certainly still the same basic wiring and materials being used to fit it out.

I'd love to see it last a few years longer, though...

And let's not forget that OTL Mir had a Design Life of just 5 years, brought on by the fact that they always intended to replace it with Mir-2 at some point in the early 1990's, meaning it didn't need to last much longer than that. Of course, when the USSR collapsed, those plans fell apart and that Mir ended up having to last a lot longer than it was supposed to.

ITTL, Mir was originally conceived as a Massive Station whose size and capability could only really be justified by building it with a long intended lifespan IMHO. That's why I am of the belief that it will have a good 12 years to it.

 

[Pipcard]

nixonshead, you make amazing space renders.

 

[nixonshead]

nixonshead, you make amazing space renders.

Thanks Pipcard, and everyone else who's been so kind! FYI, there are some orthogonal shots of the Apollo Block V and a comparison of the various Eyes Apollos on the Wiki (reproduced below).

 

[Bahamut-255]

They really do allow you to properly see the evolution of Apollo through the years - which would be getting on for ~30 years of Service Life by about this point in the TL.

Certainly coming along much further when compared to the "Revolution" that was STS. And I use that word, very loosely.

 

[e of pi]

Hello everyone! I see conversation has been fairly lively in here while I've been on my little road trip, so I'll try to address what I can and I hope this helps keep the conversation going.

A 'housekeeping' question, I'm assuming the week-long Block V mission to Freedom was not classified as a full Expedition, so would it instead be numbered under the Artemis name? Perhaps Artemis 2, with the unmanned reentry test being Artemis 1?

As it's both the first manned flight of Apollo Block V in its LEO operations configuration (a configuration in which it is due to replace Block IV shortly) and a flight to Freedom that lasts several weeks (I'm presuming they take advantage of having fresh crew up to do a couple EVAs--and of course with the cameras handy, naturally), it is a Freedom Expedition. I think I mentioned the number in the text. The unmanned flight is indeed Artemis 1.

So has Mir had any onboard fires, or TKS's running into DOS labs yet? Inquiring minds want to know.

And let's not forget that OTL Mir had a Design Life of just 5 years, brought on by the fact that they always intended to replace it with Mir-2 at some point in the early 1990's, meaning it didn't need to last much longer than that. Of course, when the USSR collapsed, those plans fell apart and that Mir ended up having to last a lot longer than it was supposed to.

ITTL, Mir was originally conceived as a Massive Station whose size and capability could only really be justified by building it with a long intended lifespan IMHO. That's why I am of the belief that it will have a good 12 years to it.

Bahamut has the core logic here as to Mir's expected lifespan ITTL, and similar logic applies for Freedom--they're both big, second-generation stations (proceeded by Skylab/Sayluts and then Spacelab/Salyut 7 modular designs), where IOTL Mir was the first modular station, and sort of a demo. Thus, Mir ITTL is indeed designed for a 10-15 year nominal lifespan, like Freedom. These additions are part of where all of Glushko's budgets kept vanishing, and why the station slipped from his original planned 1984 launch to 1987. Thus, the decay of the station beyond its operational life (and associated increased risks of fire and such) are in the late 90s and beyond range.

Given the longer base life, the station's in much better shape, though it's a bit behind of maintenance from about 1991-1994 until India's money lets them fully re-crew it. And...well, they either never try manual control ITTL, or they (with TKS's bigger mass budget) retain Kurs as backup for the tests such that when it fails, they don't hit the station. However it happens in particular, we don't talk about disasters that don't happen, so it didn't come up.

I have been wondering if TKS might be due a bit of a refresh - new solar panels, updated electronics, a fresh paint job - but as I'm being kept pretty busy with other things at the moment I've hesitated to suggest it. So far I've settled for just swapping the Soviet flags for Russian tricolors

It's probably due, but, of course, they're broke. That excuse should cover in-story until you have time and inclination out of story, I think, considering Soyuz is only now getting some updates it's been "due for" for a decade or so.

 

[e of pi]

Also to get to this:

Also: Schmitt is out as Administrator, but will he be lending a hand in training the new astronauts in field geology? There'd be no one more qualified or experienced.

Having more thoughts about Schmitt:

I think a NASA presided over by Gore (or Clinton) would be foolhardy not to make use of Schmitt for a lunar return program, and the politics could be quite good for them, assuming that Schmitt did not go out of his way to make too many enemies during his 1989-93 tenure helming NASA. He's the only man alive who is a) a professional geologist who b) did extensive training of Apollo astronauts in field geology and c) actually went to the Moon and did field geology there. It would be ridiculous not to sell him hard on training the Artemis astronauts.

The problem is that having him charge of something fairly major like astronaut training after his removal from the Administrator post (even if it wasn't acrimonious and he may agree with a lot of what Davis is doing) is...problematic. I think he's more likely to return to the life he was living IOTL and likely ITTL before Administrator: geology professor, an advocate for manned exploration, perhaps a position with the NSO (TTL's Planetary Society) or the Lunar Society, something like that. In that, his research may be tapped as an advisory role by NASA for some of the training ops, but certainly he won't be in direct control.

And there's perhaps a bigger carrot they could offer. Why not look into giving him a seat on an Artemis sortie? Schmitt would be in his mid-60's by the time the Artemis sorties started in earnest, and as far as I know, suffered no health issues that would bar him. All the logic that applied in giving John Glenn a seat on STS-95 in our timeline would apply here with equal force: Schmitt is not quite the romantic figure that Glenn was, but giving him a plum like this would help build bridges to a GOP-controlled Congress at no real political price to the White House. He'd be over a decade younger than Glenn was at the time of STS-95. If the goal is measuring the effects of spaceflight on elderly humans with an earlier baseline of spaceflight, Schmitt would have had nearly a fortnight in space (with three days in lunar gravity), not some measly three orbits.

They have only 24 seats to the moon on the six Artemis flights, of which several have to be pilots, and others have been traded to ESA, NASDA, and Russia for precursors collaboration. NASA's surface science people need to get the maximum work available in the roughly two weeks of each flight's time on the surface from the crews. That means many, many all-day EVAs: six or more hours in a suit, hot, confining, and highly physically strenuous. Schmidt may be fairly spry, but there's almost no way he'd be up for that kind of physical challenge--and if he has trouble, it means a mission abort, meaning the other three astronauts can't do any work on the ground, either. Certainly, NASA won't risk it. It's far better to send younger, fitter, more recently-trained astronaut-geologists. They might not have the benefit of having been there before, but they have time to learn and are much better suited otherwise.

 

[Athelstane]

Hello e of pi,

All fair points, and I appreciate the detailed and thoughtful reply.

Of course, seats on *any* spaceflight in either timeline are rare and valuable things; it's also true, however, that the six Artemis sorties will be more valuable (and entail more taxing and dangerous work) than, say, STS or ISS missions. If anything, this makes a better argument against having given seats to Glenn or Jake Garn, than extending the precedent to Schmitt or similarly situated older candidates, however qualified they might otherwise be. But that is a discussion for another time, I suppose.

Just out of curiosity, exactly how many of those 24 seats is NASA surrendering to ESA, NASDA, and Russia on Artemis? I'm a little surprised to see Russia given anything, since the subsidies NASA is providing to ROSCOSMOS should be compensation aplenty; but no doubt you have larger, political considerations in mind in having NASA make this concession.

I do think it's most plausible that Schmitt would be asked to come in as a consultant for field work training, and that he would probably accept, if it was a limited role on that basis. Perhaps he could be brought in for a phone call to one of the crews on the lunar surface at some point.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Just out of curiosity, exactly how many of those 24 seats is NASA surrendering to ESA, NASDA, and Russia on Artemis? I'm a little surprised to see Russia given anything, since the subsidies NASA is providing to ROSCOSMOS should be compensation aplenty; but no doubt you have larger, political considerations in mind in having NASA make this concession.

Well, it's not just the Mesyats that Russia is providing; as we have mentioned, most particularly in the precursors post, Russia is providing the ascent engines for the lunar lander (they have much better ISP than the American engines first being considered), which are obviously an extremely mission-critical item, more so than anything the Europeans or Japanese are providing. It would be churlish and undiplomatic, to say the least, to award the latter seats while snubbing Russia, and I imagine some deal was worked out while they were negotiating to allow Russians to reach the moon...even if on an American rocket. It would be pretty silly even for Yeltsin to let something like that go, after all.

 

[brovane]

They have only 24 seats to the moon on the six Artemis flights, of which several have to be pilots, and others have been traded to ESA, NASDA, and Russia for precursors collaboration. NASA's surface science people need to get the maximum work available in the roughly two weeks of each flight's time on the surface from the crews. That means many, many all-day EVAs: six or more hours in a suit, hot, confining, and highly physically strenuous. Schmidt may be fairly spry, but there's almost no way he'd be up for that kind of physical challenge--and if he has trouble, it means a mission abort, meaning the other three astronauts can't do any work on the ground, either. Certainly, NASA won't risk it. It's far better to send younger, fitter, more recently-trained astronaut-geologists. They might not have the benefit of having been there before, but they have time to learn and are much better suited otherwise.

I have to ask. Where is John Young in all this? From my understanding in or time line he still retained active flight status as a Astronaut up until his retirement in 2004 even though NASA never assigned him to a mission after STS-9. I think in this time line after ASTP II he kind of disappears. However based on him sticking around in or current timeline I really don't see him leaving NASA. He was kind of bureaucratically banished after his pointed criticisms after the Challenger explosion but that never happen in this timeline. If he is still around he would be a excellent source of knowledge from his experience of Apollo 10 and 16 and he is probably the only active duty astronaut that would have experience of actually landing on the Moon.

 

[Torlek]

First, I'd like to thank everyone involved for writing and illustrating such an interesting timeline. This has become one of my favorite things on the internet (even though I do grieve this universe's loss of the OTL Star Trek movies and later series).

I'm really looking forward to what TTL does with some of the modern/planned missions like MESSENGER, Stardust, Genesis, Hayabusa, Rosetta, OSIRIS-REx and Solar Probe Plus. I think you've also got a prime opportunity to try for realizations of Cassisi/Galileo class Uranus and Neptune orbiters as well as a properly realized JIMO/JUICE set of orbiters for the Jovian moons and maybe even a slightly more ambitious TiME.

I've got some questions about some (relatively) small details.

- You mentioned the Pioneer Venus orbiter mission but not the Multiprobe mission. Did this occur or was it cut? Also, am I correct to presume the Soviet Luna probes and Lunokhod rovers proceeded as OTL?

- How has the launch pad situtation worked out? Obviously ESA had to build an ELE at Kourou to handle Europa and the Japanese are using Tanegashima. It also seems that the Russians would upgrade one pad at Site 250 for Vulkan and keep using Site 31 for any remaining R-7 launches.
At the Cape NASA obviously has both LC-39 pads for Saturn and I'm guessing the Air Force upgraded LC-37 to handle their Saturn launches. So I guess Lockheed would get LC-40 or 41 for their commercial Titan (is that still running btw?) with the other getting rebuilt to handle Delta 4000/5000 (unless they rebuilt LC-36 or one of the other Atlas pads since these Deltas seem to be TTL answers to Atlas III and V).
At Vandenberg I'm guessing SLC-3 or 4 is used for the Deltas while SLC-6 would built to handle Saturn?

- How do the umbilical towers work for Saturn Heavy? Obviously the central core has its tower which can be used for Medium launches but with such little clearance coming out of the VAB high bays do the booster cores have short towers or has Multibody switched to using tail service masts like OTL Delta IV? Also, would NASA keep using the unwieldy Mobile Service Structure that had to ride on the crawler?

- When the Soviets switched to TKS for manned flights would they have kept using the old SSVP docking system from Soyuz or take the opportunity for a larger docking collar (and thus crew transfer tunnel) like the hybrid system on ISS?

- Finally, I'm curious about why your Artemis mission requires three Heavy launches. Obviously the hab lander and its Pegasus will need a heavy launch but it would seem that you could similarly bundle the crew lander with its Pegasus on another heavy and send the crew in a Block V Apollo with whatever mission module they have (I'm not clear if that's still in the plan) up on a regular M02. Am I misunderstanding just how massive the crew lander is?

As I said, awesome timeline and I hope you keep it going past modern day all the way up to a Lunar base and manned Mars missions (at the rate you're going you could easily beat the OTL 2030's plan).

 

[Workable Goblin]

- You mentioned the Pioneer Venus orbiter mission but not the Multiprobe mission. Did this occur or was it cut? Also, am I correct to presume the Soviet Luna probes and Lunokhod rovers proceeded as OTL?

Pioneer Venus was the complete set, yes, and the Luna/Lunokhod rovers proceeded as OTL (I mentioned them in the LRP update).

- Finally, I'm curious about why your Artemis mission requires three Heavy launches. Obviously the hab lander and its Pegasus will need a heavy launch but it would seem that you could similarly bundle the crew lander with its Pegasus on another heavy and send the crew in a Block V Apollo with whatever mission module they have (I'm not clear if that's still in the plan) up on a regular M02. Am I misunderstanding just how massive the crew lander is?

You're underestimating how big it is. There is no way, NO WAY to fit the Block V/lander/Pegasus stack on a single launch. Think about it this way--the Heavy is about 2/3rds the size of the Saturn V (in terms of payload to LEO), but the lander needs to support twice as many people for twice as long (roughly) while developing more delta-V than the Apollo LM did. Sure, Block V is a lot lighter than Block II--better technology and smaller delta-V requirements will do that--but not nearly enough to make up that big a difference.

EDIT: Ah, I see you meant a "1.5" launch scenario like OTL Constellation, with a small crew lander and a big heavy. I actually looked at that, but the Pegasus has to be really big to take care of the TLI burn, so there's no way to fit anything else on its launch (this isn't a problem for the habitat lander because one, it has a smaller delta-V requirement than the crew lander to begin with and therefore is lighter and, two, the Pegasus on that mission also assists in the orbital burn/is short-tanked; but Pegasus is sized around the crew TLI burn, so it has to be completely full on launch for them). Then the Block V fits nicely on the same heavy as the crew lander, so there's no point in adding another launch.

 

[Bahamut-255]

- When the Soviets switched to TKS for manned flights would they have kept using the old SSVP docking system from Soyuz or take the opportunity for a larger docking collar (and thus crew transfer tunnel) like the hybrid system on ISS?

I suspect they're still using the old Soyuz Docking Collar, but E and Goblin would know more about this.

- Finally, I'm curious about why your Artemis mission requires three Heavy launches. Obviously the hab lander and its Pegasus will need a heavy launch but it would seem that you could similarly bundle the crew lander with its Pegasus on another heavy and send the crew in a Block V Apollo with whatever mission module they have (I'm not clear if that's still in the plan) up on a regular M02. Am I misunderstanding just how massive the crew lander is?

If you check this post, you'll see that the Artemis Lander is a lot bigger, and a lot heavier than the Apollo LEM, since it carries the propellants for the powered swing around the Moon, EML2 Insertion, mid-course corrections, and then the actual landing. So even with LOX/LH2 as the propellant of choice, it needs a lot of it to meet the resultant delta-v requirements - ~3200 m/s in total. And even then, it's a bare-bones lander, with the third launch used to send a longer-duration surface habitat ahead of the crew.

In short. Two launches for Orbiter/Lander Combo, plus one for the Surface Habitat.