Eyes Turned Skywards

For me, the Intrepid Descent Stage image is my favourite of the bunch. In surprisingly good condition given how long it's been there with zero maintenance.
Well, if anyone glanced at the NASA paper on preserving the pristine state of legacy landing sites, Lunar landing rockets do a shockingly widespread sort of damage--because the gases flow in a thin layer on the surface at high speeds, and pick up a lot of dust and gravel, which once set in motion tends to just keep on going a long way before it finally loses enough energy (by setting other particles into motion!:eek:) to stop. But the lander stage of Intrepid was in the eye of the storm as it were; the Ascent Stage's exhausts were impinging directly on it which did some damage to be sure but it was designed to take it; meanwhile it would have swept all the dust quite away, so any dust found there now must be from later impacts.
It's also do to with Nixonshead starting with NASA-provided open-source models for the image, which are naturally nice and shiny, and I forgot to think of toning the foil texture down to reflect dust buildup--which is funny, because I did think to ask for him to make sure Duncan's suit dust was updated to reflect more than a week of active days on the surface. Oops. :eek:

As a bit of behind the scenes, the process of creating that image concept (which is also one of my favorites out of the batch, Bahamut) was actually a lot like the post describes it, with Engineer E reading the NASA case study in that report and seeing "top surface of LM" as an inspection target and Author E playing the PAO and thinking, "Man, that'd be a great scene to describe/get an image of."
 
The same shot, 30 years before:

apollo-12-lm-ladder.jpg


Looks like we might want to add in some of that ALSEP deployment packaging...
 
I think the Surveyor 3 shot is my favorite.

Mine too! It was quite fun putting together the Surveyor probe.

Looks like we might want to add in some of that ALSEP deployment packaging...

Eh... Blown away by the ascent stage blast?! :eek:

I must say I really enjoyed the finale to Part III. In particular I think it's a great response to those who say "The Moon? Been there, done that!" Even with a site already visited by another mission, the authors have shown a prolonged Artemis-class mission can provide a wealth of valuable science. Those numbers comparing a single Artemis mission to the whole of the (extended!) Apollo programme pretty much sell it for me.

Now if only we had a Saturn Heavy IOTL... :(

Looking forward to Part IV. My wish list would include:


  • Setting up a semi-permanent base on the Moon
  • Establishing a partly re-usable Earth-Moon transport infrastructure using propellant depots and ISRU
  • A look at how Mir and Freedom are holding up after more than a decade in space
  • More space stations - Chinese, private commercial, high-orbit, lunar or Lagrange orbit
  • ESA finally getting their own manned spacecraft!!
 
Eh... Blown away by the ascent stage blast?! :eek:

Must've been one hell of a blast then! :p


Now if only we had a Saturn Heavy IOTL... :(

Closest we're getting is SLS, if it gets built.


Looking forward to Part IV. My wish list would include:


  • Setting up a semi-permanent base on the Moon
  • Establishing a partly re-usable Earth-Moon transport infrastructure using propellant depots and ISRU
  • A look at how Mir and Freedom are holding up after more than a decade in space
  • More space stations - Chinese, private commercial, high-orbit, lunar or Lagrange orbit
  • ESA finally getting their own manned spacecraft!!

Going over the wish list, the first point may be doable, if the money and will can be found for it. Point 3 & 5 are also on my own list, and IMHO, given that Freedom and Mir are still up and running, a good look at their respective health (especially given that their heavy usage is going to be wearing them down) is something that needs to be viewed.

ESA Manned Spacecraft? They should be able to find the funds, but where said funds will go is something that's open for debate. It was mentioned earlier that they were actively assessing the merits and penalties of an all-new design with closed-cycle engines and Common Core Boosters. Personally, I believe they can fund one, but not both at the same time. So the question I have for this point is, which would come first?

So my wish list for Part IV would be:

  • An Artemis Follow-On
  • ESA Manned Spacecraft and new Europa LV - though I can accept not having both built at once
  • Studies into Freedom/Mir Follow-ons - IMHO Russia has a slim advantage in one crucial respect
  • At the very least for the Red Planet, a Mars Sample-Return Mission
  • The discoveries of the many exoplanets
 
Hi Nixon,

Mine too! It was quite fun putting together the Surveyor probe.

I like it because at that distance, any artificiality or lack of detail in the renders is pretty much not detectable; it also captures that vast desolation of the moon.

Obviously, the climb on the Apollo 12 DM would be more iconic. It is nice to think of Al Bean and Pet Conrad sitting in Mission Control during that moment, feeling a small moment of vindication and closure. (It seems they weren't, from the narrative, which is fine; but it's nice to muse about just the same.)

Eh... Blown away by the ascent stage blast?! :eek:

Copout! :)

Seriously, you've done amazing work on these.

I must say I really enjoyed the finale to Part III. In particular I think it's a great response to those who say "The Moon? Been there, done that!" Even with a site already visited by another mission, the authors have shown a prolonged Artemis-class mission can provide a wealth of valuable science. Those numbers comparing a single Artemis mission to the whole of the (extended!) Apollo programme pretty much sell it for me.

Everyone too readily assumes there's not much more to learn there, or obtain there. A very misguided assumption.

Looking forward to Part IV. My wish list would include:


  • Setting up a semi-permanent base on the Moon
  • Establishing a partly re-usable Earth-Moon transport infrastructure using propellant depots and ISRU
  • A look at how Mir and Freedom are holding up after more than a decade in space
  • More space stations - Chinese, private commercial, high-orbit, lunar or Lagrange orbit
  • ESA finally getting their own manned spacecraft!!


  • All very achievable in this timeline.

    The downside, however, is the presence of Apollo, TKS and the Chinese vehicles is that it's likely to depress the incentive for either a) the ESA or b) commercial space to develop their own vehicles in any hurry - the demand is not there. And the EU has its own non-space priorities and difficulties in reaching consensus. In the 90's German reunification will sap some of the money out of the room; in the late 00's, it will be the popping of bubbles; in the 10's, it will be the collapse of the PIIG's.

    Commercial space will develop, to be sure, but without a determined effort to incentivize it by the US government, it will be more feeble than in our timeline. The entry costs and risks are still too high at this point.
 
Now if only we had a Saturn Heavy IOTL... :(

Closest we're getting is SLS, if it gets built.

Even in its baseline configuration, if it gets built and if there's a budget left to use it, the SLS will(?) have a throw weight comparable to a Saturn Heavy. With advanced boosters and new upper stage, it could beat the Saturn V! If we put the same kind of budget towards space that we put into killing brown people in caves, we'd have little trouble getting back to the Moon and beyond. Mars might require a little harder work, but WTH...

Everyone too readily assumes there's not much more to learn there, or obtain there. A very misguided assumption.

In particular I think it's a great response to those who say "The Moon? Been there, done that!" Even with a site already visited by another mission, the authors have shown a prolonged Artemis-class mission can provide a wealth of valuable science. Those numbers comparing a single Artemis mission to the whole of the (extended!) Apollo programme pretty much sell it for me.

Everyone too readily assumes there's not much more to learn there, or obtain there. A very misguided assumption.

We seem to find new things on Earth every now and again, and this place has been trod continuously by billions of people over millennia.

A half dozen day trips to a world is, "Been there, done that?" Are you kidding me?

Edit: Forgot to say how much I'm looking forward to Part IV. Hopefully, eventually Parts IX through XXIV, as well...! Artemis 4 is going to be a big show to top, but I am eager to take the ride.
 
Edit: Forgot to say how much I'm looking forward to Part IV. Hopefully, eventually Parts IX through XXIV, as well...! Artemis 4 is going to be a big show to top, but I am eager to take the ride.

Part XXIV is a bit much ;) Going by the roughly ten years per part standard (though some decades are longer than others) that would take us 240 years forward from 1970--or to 2210! :eek: Not to mention that, again given that it takes us about a year to put each part together, it would take us into the 2020s to get that far! :eek: :eek:

By the end of Part IV, we are planning to reach the present day, which seems a sensible place to stop.

As far as books...I've had a few idle thoughts about novels based on the general idea of Eyes, but those are just idle thoughts. I agree with e that as of now the timeline is unfit for publication. Perhaps once it's done we could revise it into something else...or perhaps not...

I am very happy to see this update, and also happy to see everyone responding positively to the science bits (since I wrote those ;)). And particularly happy to see the images, especially the one I hadn't seen already. Always very nice to see nixonshead's great work at bringing the timeline to life!

Finally...I've noticed for a while that despite all of our readers, Eyes still does not have an entry on tvtropes. I'm a little disappointed by that...:(
 
Finally...I've noticed for a while that despite all of our readers, Eyes still does not have an entry on tvtropes. I'm a little disappointed by that...:(
Currently working on one.

edit: Here it is. Feel free to add more tropes.

By the end of Part IV, we are planning to reach the present day, which seems a sensible place to stop.
Can't we go just 10 more years into the future, with a manned Mars mission?
 
Last edited:
Awesome story as always

I have doubts on the audience for the landing, it seems too low to me.
Wikipedia says about 600 millions people worldwide watched Neil Armstrong Small Step but you mention only 50 millions in the USA and 200 millions for the rest of the world.
I thought a moon landing in 1999 would have more viewers than in 1969.
There are more humans on earth, more tv sets, and a moon landing should attract more public than the wedding of a prince in my opinion.

I think, about 1 or 2 billions people watching is more realistic.
 
I have doubts on the audience for the landing, it seems too low to me.
Wikipedia says about 600 millions people worldwide watched Neil Armstrong Small Step but you mention only 50 millions in the USA and 200 millions for the rest of the world.
I thought a moon landing in 1999 would have more viewers than in 1969.
There are more humans on earth, more tv sets, and a moon landing should attract more public than the wedding of a prince in my opinion.

I think, about 1 or 2 billions people watching is more realistic.
Well, arkades, since I'm the one who suggested that figure, perhaps I should explain my rationale. Neil Armstrong was the first man ever to set foot on the Moon, and nobody else is ever going to hold that distinction. No matter how much hype would surround the event, going back to the Moon is never going to be as big a deal as going there for the first time. Also, believe it or not, many people watch royal weddings. They are extremely popular with the masses - the wedding of Prince Edward actually received a fairly modest viewership when contrasted with that of his older brother the Prince of Wales, or even his sister Princess Anne. The 50 million Americans in the USA who watched the Moon landing represent the largest audience for any event that year save the Super Bowl - and by 1999, nothing is going to beat the Super Bowl except for something truly revelatory - which, once again, a return to the Moon is not (despite the many fine points the readers of this thread have made about the continued value of lunar exploration ;)). Also, worth noting is that the landing was very inconvenient to watch in many of the largest media markets in the world - India (where it was the middle of the night), and China (where it is very early in the morning). Notably, it's too late/too early to watch the landing even in Russia (2 AM in St. Petersburg/Moscow). Therefore, the optimal viewing time is in the less populated Western hemisphere, where there is a stronger sense of "been there, done that" among more cynical viewers.
 
Thanks for the explanation.
I still think the numbers are low, but I understand your arguments, it is your story not mine.
I realize the readers of your timeline represents a small part of the world and not everyone is as fascinated by space exploration as us.

So continue to make us dream, and I am sure part IV will be awesome.
 
Hi guys,
A quick update for you today, as I had previously misspelled Astronaut Duncan's first name. I also took the opportunity to refine a few details.

art4_ladder6b.png
 
There were not the first
NASA wanted that area too for Space Shuttle launch pads

The Idea was to keep KSC for Saturn V launches only.
and manned orbital flights goes from Texas.
the site is roughly 80 km from Johnson space center away.
 
I wonder if ALS will end up sueing the US government for refusing to pay 75% less for national security launches. Or is that ASB? :rolleyes:
 
So I just caught up on the progress in Part III--fantastic work on all fronts! The asteroid and comet probes, Artemis 4, the pop culture, this is all looking great! And the somewhat ominous ending on Part III has me stoked for Part IV.

I wonder, will the Artemis program feature experiments in lunar resource extraction? Cooking some regolith to make oxygen and maybe some metal, for example? Maybe, at the polar regions, melting some ice? I suppose a chemical reactor would be rather heavy and power-hungry, and with not all that much support in the pure science community, but it seems like the sort of thing a lunar return mission ought to at least attempt.

I wonder--are those rovers on the Moon solar-powered, or a non-rechargeable battery/fuel cell? If the former, can they be remotely driven from Earth? Perhaps that's a way to get a little more science out of each mission. The images would suggest the latter, though.
 
Hi guys,
FYI, some of the guys over at Kerbel Space Program, led by NathanKell, have started looking into developing an Eyes Turned Skywards mod. You can find the forum here.
as part of the effort I've finally started getting around to putting my blend files into an exportable format (I know, I talked about doing that about 9 months ago :rolleyes:). The first batch can be found on Dropbox here. So feel free to download Blender, grab the files, and build your own scenes! Feel free to re-use, mod or tweak as you like - you can credit me if you're feeling generous, but don't feel you have to. The only thing I would ask is to give attribution where I have for those borrowed parts (you can find these out either by PMing me or checking where I've attributed on the Wiki images. I'll also get round to adding a ReadMe sometime soon with this information).
Respect the authors' designs and have fun!
 
Top