Eyes Turned Skywards

[Bahamut-255]

It does make R&D cost sense, but the stages themselves were expensive though the payload could justify it. The big problem is just keeping the possibility open. By the time in 72 where our TL really starts to diverge, S1-C production has been dead for three years.

Which means a lot of time to refurbish the facilities? And money? I'm guessing that that's the case. For both. Meaning upgrading what you have available made the better case.

We have considered it, and it should be part of the planning for Spacelab utilization after the launch of the ERM. The satellites may be a bit different than OTL--they may be given more mission delta-v so that they can be launched in groups on Delta 4000 or in even larger groups on Saturn 1C then maneuver independently to their final orbits. I need to think which of those it the better option.

Depends on their respective altitudes and distance from each other. IMHO, higher orbit larger distance would favour the Delta 4000 series, while lower orbit smaller distance makes Saturn 1C the LV of choice.

And which LV will have the greater reliability rating? I'd prefer to use the one that fails the least. Especially if the cost is similar. A lot to consider here.

 

[DaveJ576]

A few hours after Spacelab soared into the Florida sky, its first crew followed atop a Saturn IC. Consisting of Vance Brand, a veteran of the Apollo 18 moonflight, and rookies Richard Truly and Story Musgrave, Spacelab 2 had an unglamorous but vital mission: ensuring that the station and its systems functioned properly and were set up for the ASTP II mission in July. Overshadowed by the ensuing joint flight, they nevertheless went about their task with energy, quickly confirming that the station was working just fine (a welcome change from Skylab). The first AARDVark flight to the station, coming just a week after launch...

So, if I am interpreting this correctly, LC-39, with just two launch pads, supported the processing, roll out, check out, and launch of three vehicles, including one Saturn V in just one week? Are you stretching things a bit here? I would have to go back and check references, but I am not sure this could be done. Obviously you could have two vehicles out on the pads while processing the third in the VAB, but I believe the on-pad check out procedures alone would preclude launching the third within a week.

Now, if your scenario included the un-built LC-39C we would be in business.

Sorry for the continued picking of nits in an otherwise superb scenario!

 

[Polish Eagle]

So, if I am interpreting this correctly, LC-39, with just two launch pads, supported the processing, roll out, check out, and launch of three vehicles, including one Saturn V in just one week? Are you stretching things a bit here? I would have to go back and check references, but I am not sure this could be done. Obviously you could have two vehicles out on the pads while processing the third in the VAB, but I believe the on-pad check out procedures alone would preclude launching the third within a week.

Now, if your scenario included the un-built LC-39C we would be in business.

Sorry for the continued picking of nits in an otherwise superb scenario!

There were three Launch Umbilical Towers. Give two of them the changes to handle Saturn IC missions and leave the last for Saturn Vs, roll quickly, and it seems that these events should be possible.

EDIT: Besides, the Saturn V carrying Spacelab and the first Saturn IC go up in April.

 

[e of pi]

So, if I am interpreting this correctly, LC-39, with just two launch pads, supported the processing, roll out, check out, and launch of three vehicles, including one Saturn V in just one week? Are you stretching things a bit here? I would have to go back and check references, but I am not sure this could be done. Obviously you could have two vehicles out on the pads while processing the third in the VAB, but I believe the on-pad check out procedures alone would preclude launching the third within a week.

There were three Launch Umbilical Towers. Give two of them the changes to handle Saturn IC missions and leave the last for Saturn Vs, roll quickly, and it seems that these events should be possible.

EDIT: Besides, the Saturn V carrying Spacelab and the first Saturn IC go up in April.

You raise a good point, Dave. Even with the available third LUT which means all they have to worry about is the on-pad checkout, a week is short. On the other hand, the long pad stays for the Shuttle (averaging three weeks) were largely due to the need to load the payload at the pad, whereas all payload integration can be done in the VAB for the Saturns. SLS is supposedly aiming to complete padflow in only a week after rollout. So a week's not out of line for a smooth flow here, particularly going to a pad that's just launched an essentially identical rocket.

 

[Workable Goblin]

So, if I am interpreting this correctly, LC-39, with just two launch pads, supported the processing, roll out, check out, and launch of three vehicles, including one Saturn V in just one week? Are you stretching things a bit here? I would have to go back and check references, but I am not sure this could be done. Obviously you could have two vehicles out on the pads while processing the third in the VAB, but I believe the on-pad check out procedures alone would preclude launching the third within a week.

Well, IOTL Skylab and Skylab 2 were ready to launch on the same day, due to mission design and station activation concerns (they wanted to start working right away). Obviously they didn't actually do a same-day launch, but that's not because the launch vehicles had problems--they were ready to do so (I don't think the Skylab failure was an LV failure). So simultaneous prep and (near) simultaneous launch of a Saturn V and a Saturn IB (which is pretty similar in some gross respects to our Saturn IC) is certainly attested historically. Given the number of highbays and LUTs, it seems reasonably plausible that another vehicle and payload could also be assembled and prepared for rollout at the same time, then rolled out just after Spacelab launch.

 

[e of pi]

A bit of a change from talking about launch logistics, here's some additional images I've been working on, showing moments from the ASTP II mission. The first shows the arrival of Soyuz 29 at Spacelab, looking up from the nadir side of the station at the arriving craft. I'm proud of the model of the station (note the sunshade which I added since the rendered video) and of the detailing on the Apollo SM, particularly in the thruster quads and the engine bell.

The second one shows the complete stack with an Aardvark logistics spacecraft at MDA-axial. In this image, you can see something of the new "snout" I've added to the Aardvark to space the pressurized module off from the station for docking (inspired by the similar feature on the ATV). I'm planning on adding more detail to the docking module, some external tankage, plus some EVA handholds and such on the station and MDA and some more detailing on the Apollo Command Module. The Soyuz isn't quite as detailed as it could be, I may or may not add more given that it likely won't make many appearances in images for this TL.

 

[Bahamut-255]

And now I can see it as it looks and not just what I imagine in my head.

It does, however, seems a little assymetrical to me - particularly in the Solar Panel setup - though given where it operates, this may not be too serious an issue.

I particularly like the look of the CSM and Aardvark, the latter of which now look almost exacly like OTL ATV. It seems the more this TL develops, the more STS looks like a $212bn diversion.

IIRC, this was shortly before CSM Block III+ was finished.

 

[Incognitia]

Very interesting! Subscribed.

 

[e of pi]

It does, however, seems a little assymetrical to me - particularly in the Solar Panel setup - though given where it operates, this may not be too serious an issue.

Actually, Skylab did have some asymmetry in the solar panel setup, or more accurately the symmetry it had was radial rather than mirror symmetry. This image shows it better in my model, but if you look around at Skylab diagrams that show both panels, you can see the same thing. Why was it like that? I'm not entirely sure, but I went ahead and modeled it like that.

IIRC, this was shortly before CSM Block III+ was finished.

It's about the time work on CSM Block III+ was begun, so about two and a half years prior to entry into service.

 

[wingman]

Actually, Skylab did have some asymmetry in the solar panel setup, or more accurately the symmetry it had was radial rather than mirror symmetry. This image shows it better in my model, but if you look around at Skylab diagrams that show both panels, you can see the same thing. Why was it like that? I'm not entirely sure, but I went ahead and modeled it like that.



It's about the time work on CSM Block III+ was begun, so about two and a half years prior to entry into service.

i bet this would look GREAT in Orbiter 2010. (and the other rockets and spacecraft from here.)(Hint, Hint. )

 

[e of pi]

i bet this would look GREAT in Orbiter 2010. (and the other rockets and spacecraft from here.)(Hint, Hint. )

If you want to make it happen, more power to you, just let me know how it goes. On the other hand, I have never used Orbiter, have no clue what format files need to be in for importing (though I suspect not Autodesk Inventor files like these are), and am not exactly rolling in the free time to learn. And yeah, I realize that using Inventor to do basic 3D modeling is like using a set of drafting tools to draw stick figures in crayon, but it's the tool I know how to use. See above about free time.

 

[Polish Eagle]

I might have missed it somewhere in the thread, but: Is the Saturn IC First Stage 6.6 meters across or ten? You say it was built by Boeing. They have tooling for ten-meter-diameter stages, while Douglas has the tooling for 6.6-meter-diameter stages.

 

[e of pi]

I might have missed it somewhere in the thread, but: Is the Saturn IC First Stage 6.6 meters across or ten? You say it was built by Boeing. They have tooling for ten-meter-diameter stages, while Douglas has the tooling for 6.6-meter-diameter stages.

We've been going with the assumption that it's 6.6 m, and part of the 6 years it takes from authorization to first flight is the time for Boeing to build its own 6.6 m toolings.

 

[wingman]

If you want to make it happen, more power to you, just let me know how it goes. On the other hand, I have never used Orbiter, have no clue what format files need to be in for importing (though I suspect not Autodesk Inventor files like these are), and am not exactly rolling in the free time to learn. And yeah, I realize that using Inventor to do basic 3D modeling is like using a set of drafting tools to draw stick figures in crayon, but it's the tool I know how to use. See above about free time.

i feel you pain, about free time. (i suck at orbiter myself.) mabe someone out there with some skills want to give it a shot?

 

[Bahamut-255]

We've been going with the assumption that it's 6.6 m, and part of the 6 years it takes from authorization to first flight is the time for Boeing to build its own 6.6 m toolings.

Makes sense. Build new facilities. Test new facilities. Make new 1st stage. Test new 1st stage. Clearly, that's all going to take a while to get all set up and running. They'd better be able to get their money's worth.

 

[e of pi]

Hello all! First, an update on the question of whether an Aardvark could be launched only a week after the station and Spacelab 2 crew. The answer appears to be that the minimum time to turnaround the pad was about 22 days, or closer to three weeks, though the payload time on the pad would be only a week or so of that. Additionally, thinking it over, the need for that Aardvark is not really there, rather the experiments and supplies it carries could just be integrated with the station. This has been retconned in the appropriate post and makes the Aardvark that arrives during the Spacelab 3/Soyuz 29/ASTP II mission the first to arrive on station and the third to fly overall (1 test flight, 1 flight during Skylab 5, and then the ASTP II flight). Thanks to DaveJ576 for his diligent picking of nits.

Additionally, I wanted to let people know that it looks like this week's update may be delayed due to something of an editing logjam. We're working to clear this up as quickly as possible, but it may not be possible to have a post for tomorrow. You have our apologies for any inconvenience.

 

[Brainbin]

I think it's in my best interests to subscribe to this thread

 

[wingman]

Launch Pad ??

or an alternate answer to the launch pad question..... build one or two more pads. sence LC-39 can launch both Saturn 1B,1C AND Saturn V.


got the idea from this video..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrbvM5HuQRE



sorry if this topic has been covered before.
[ My 2 cents!]

 

[e of pi]

or an alternate answer to the launch pad question..... build one or two more pads. sence LC-39 can launch both Saturn 1B,1C AND Saturn V.

The issue is that three pads (much less four) would really only be needed if a significantly higher launch rate (>10-15/year) were intended to be sustained or if more than two rockets were to be routinely launched nearly-simultaneously. And actually, to support that many pads you'd need more crawlers and more VAB cells to be able to process the vehicles. For the plans here, it'd be a waste, particularly where it'd be a one-time thing. Besides, LC39 can't launch Saturn Vs anymore in our TL--they're all launched, and the remaining MLP/LUt is being converted for Saturn 1C.

 

[Polish Eagle]

The issue is that three pads (much less 4) would really only be needed if a significantly higher launch rate (>10-15/year) were intended to be sustained or if more than two rockets were to be routinely launched nearly-simultaneously. And actually, to support that many pads you'd need more crawlers and more VAB cells to be able to process the vehicles. For the plans here, it'd be a waste, particularly where it'd be a one-time thing. Besides, LC39 can't launch Saturn Vs anymore in our TL--they're all launched, and the remaining MLP/LUt is being converted for Saturn 1C.

I count five pads, if one considers that road going out of the frame and leading to some sort of complex barely visible.

I actually recall seeing a map (on wikipedia?) of the proposed LC-39 -C, -D, and -E pads in those general locations. They were supposed to supported uprated Saturns and Nova rockets.