Damn, those are some nice renders! I especially like the texture he's got on that shuttle's thermal blankets. Looks like I need to up my game
You'r game's already pretty high, Nixon. It's really made this timeline come alive.
Military spaceflight in the United States uses the Saturn and Delta families primarily, the latter covering smaller payloads and the former larger ones. They also use the Caravel and Carrack systems for every smaller payloads than the Delta could accommodate. In Russia, larger military spacecraft are launched by Vulkan instead of Proton (which was retired in the 1980s) or Zenit. Small spacecraft are launched by a hodgepodge of vehicles, like OTL, including Soyuz. In China, launchers are largely as per OTL. India is using the Neva/PSLV system as their primary LV, and Japan is developing an all-Nippon version of the Delta, with Japanese-made liquid hydrogen upper and lower stages and Japanese-built solid rocket boosters, for many of the same reasons that they choose that path IOTL (primarily, they're doing the solids due to experience with them and because of their military applications, and going hydrogen because of the performance benefits and because they are already developing a hydrogen upper stage and can't afford to build a kerolox supply chain from scratch).
Commercially, the dominant vehicle as of the end of Part III is Lockheed's Commercial Titan, though Delta 4/5000 and Europa also have non-trivial marketshare, and the Caravel and Carrack families are also fairly strong (although most of their customers are probably governmental). Russian LVs have also attracted some attention, though modestly less than OTL, and China is making a few inroads into the market, also like OTL, though mostly from non-American customers.
(This is a work in progress project by Italian add-on developers for the Orbiter Space Flight Simulator; links and bolding added. I wanted to post it here because it reminded me of TTL's Spacelab. Except it's much bigger than that.)
Docked with the Antares manned spacecraft:
Two Starlabs docked together:
Comparison with Skylab:
K_Jameson said:
Docked with the Antares manned spacecraft:
Two Starlabs docked together:
Comparison with Skylab:
Something I had not really thought about, until three years into this TL
The anniversary of Apollo 17, the last Apollo mission, this week got me to thinking, as a discussion ensued about the waste of all the unused Apollo/Saturn hardware, which all turned into the most expensive museum exhibits in human history.
In our timeline, two Saturn V rockets SA-514 and SA-515 - went unused. In E of Pi's and Workable Goblin's timeline here, of course, they *do* end up getting used, thanks to survival of Apollo 18, and the launching of the second Skylab station, which ended up becoming Spacelab. All of which is much more satisfying and sensible.
It also strikes me, however, what an enormous risk NASA would have run in this time in doing so. The risk being in the launching of Spacelab on the final Saturn V, SA-515, in April 1978. The risk lies in the consequences of a launch failure. If something happens and Spacelab is destroyed in a mission failure, so is SA-515. Even if NASA somehow gets approval to build a new Skylab out of a spare S IVB stage, NASA has no remaining heavy lift rockets to put it in orbit. The Saturn V production lines had been closed down a decade before, and there's no prospect of a new heavy launch system that could insert a 170,000lb station into LEO.
It's hard to find a point in NASA history where so much would have ridden on one single launch - in this case, an entire planned decade of manned space flight. With every Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, any mission failure would have occurred in the midst of an ongoing program with new launchers and payloads in production; even Skylab itself had backup options in the form of Skylab B and a spare Saturn V. Likewise, in our timeline, a failure of (say) Columbia's first launch still would have left three shuttle orbiters and related hardware in production. Any such failures *could* have resulted in a funding cut by Congress . . . but the point is that it would have taken proactive steps in Washington to stop the program by cutting off funding. In this scenario, a catastrophic failure of Spacelab's launch leaves a lineup of Saturn ICs, Apollo block IIIs, and AARDVs, with no place to go, and no means even theoretically at hand to provide one.
This prospect would certainly have highlighted in the energy and drama of the Spacelab launch, with no small media attention on the risk, and lots of ulcers among NASA personnel as launch day drew near.
I am curious, however, if the authors have any thoughts about what NASA might do in the case of a Spacelab failure. Even assuming Congress doesn't cut funding, they'd be back to the drawing board. All I can come up with is (assuming funding can be obtained) some kind of attempt to assemble a much smaller, modular station using Saturn IC's. But that would take years, and there wouldn't be nearly so much science to be gotten from it. And ESA cooperation would be called into question, too. In the meantime, NASA would be left with trying to stage short one-off Block III flights and cram in as much science into them as possible.
The anniversary of Apollo 17, the last Apollo mission, this week got me to thinking, as a discussion ensued about the waste of all the unused Apollo/Saturn hardware, which all turned into the most expensive museum exhibits in human history.
In our timeline, two Saturn V rockets SA-514 and SA-515 - went unused. In E of Pi's and Workable Goblin's timeline here, of course, they *do* end up getting used, thanks to survival of Apollo 18, and the launching of the second Skylab station, which ended up becoming Spacelab. All of which is much more satisfying and sensible.
It also strikes me, however, what an enormous risk NASA would have run in this time in doing so. The risk being in the launching of Spacelab on the final Saturn V, SA-515, in April 1978. The risk lies in the consequences of a launch failure. If something happens and Spacelab is destroyed in a mission failure, so is SA-515. Even if NASA somehow gets approval to build a new Skylab out of a spare S IVB stage, NASA has no remaining heavy lift rockets to put it in orbit. The Saturn V production lines had been closed down a decade before, and there's no prospect of a new heavy launch system that could insert a 170,000lb station into LEO.
It's hard to find a point in NASA history where so much would have ridden on one single launch - in this case, an entire planned decade of manned space flight. With every Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, any mission failure would have occurred in the midst of an ongoing program with new launchers and payloads in production; even Skylab itself had backup options in the form of Skylab B and a spare Saturn V. Likewise, in our timeline, a failure of (say) Columbia's first launch still would have left three shuttle orbiters and related hardware in production. Any such failures *could* have resulted in a funding cut by Congress . . . but the point is that it would have taken proactive steps in Washington to stop the program by cutting off funding. In this scenario, a catastrophic failure of Spacelab's launch leaves a lineup of Saturn ICs, Apollo block IIIs, and AARDVs, with no place to go, and no means even theoretically at hand to provide one.
This prospect would certainly have highlighted in the energy and drama of the Spacelab launch, with no small media attention on the risk, and lots of ulcers among NASA personnel as launch day drew near.
I am curious, however, if the authors have any thoughts about what NASA might do in the case of a Spacelab failure. Even assuming Congress doesn't cut funding, they'd be back to the drawing board. All I can come up with is (assuming funding can be obtained) some kind of attempt to assemble a much smaller, modular station using Saturn IC's. But that would take years, and there wouldn't be nearly so much science to be gotten from it. And ESA cooperation would be called into question, too. In the meantime, NASA would be left with trying to stage short one-off Block III flights and cram in as much science into them as possible.
Last edited:
The plan would have had a few major elements, but a lot of it hinges on not having Spacelab fail in the first place. Here, they benefit from the extensive flight history of the Saturn V itself, and the lessons of Skylab. Essentially, this is the "don't screw it up, check everything" part. Call it Plan B; make sure Plan A doesn't fail.
This putative reliability gives the backup for Plan C to be a bit flimsy--we think it'd basically be plans for some kind of Aardvark-derived modular station as essentially a paper backup, which with Spacelab safely launched turns into the Starlab studies on Spacelab successors that (eventually) turns into Freedom.
But yeah, it's a pretty serious risk. there just really isn't any way to get around it without totally ditching the skylab heritage and switching directly to a more modular station design from the start, which they don't really have the funding to do.
e of pi,
I really do think that, given the POD you choose - Low as Administrator, deciding to forego STS in favor of space stations and evolving Saturn/Apollo hardware - that NASA *would* have taken the risk you describe here.
Their choices are limited at this point, and the hardware is proven enough to take the chance. Saturn V had, as you note, a remarkable, unbroken record of success; Spacelab in turn would benefit from the problems of Skylab. The chances of failure would have been low. Beyond that, the incentive is there to take every care that the thing goes up successfully. As William Adama might say: Sometimes you have to roll the hard six.
It's still one heck of a risk, though, with tight funding and no more heavy launchers on hand. And NASA always plans. But "Plan B" (or "Plan C" as you put it) for a Spacelab failure would be a grim collection of alternatives*, in the absence of a major funding boost from Congress and the Carter Administration. Soviet successes with Salyut and the heating up of the Cold War after Afghanistan would likely help, but NASA planners in 1974-78 couldn't know that yet.
__
In the short term, it might be feasible to try something along the lines of the "evolutionary" LEO path advocated by MSFC in our timeline, and start with a few small modules that could be launched by a Saturn IC - first a Power Module, then a small hab module, to at least allow orbital stays by Block III+ CSMs of a few weeks, with perhaps additional launches to add on instruments for earth science or space science observation, or more habitat space...but the results would not be anything near as capable as Spacelab would have been. It would probably be a hobbled, patchwork manned spaceflight program until Reagan and Vulkan panic came along to breathe life into NASA's space station hopes again.
I really do think that, given the POD you choose - Low as Administrator, deciding to forego STS in favor of space stations and evolving Saturn/Apollo hardware - that NASA *would* have taken the risk you describe here.
Their choices are limited at this point, and the hardware is proven enough to take the chance. Saturn V had, as you note, a remarkable, unbroken record of success; Spacelab in turn would benefit from the problems of Skylab. The chances of failure would have been low. Beyond that, the incentive is there to take every care that the thing goes up successfully. As William Adama might say: Sometimes you have to roll the hard six.
It's still one heck of a risk, though, with tight funding and no more heavy launchers on hand. And NASA always plans. But "Plan B" (or "Plan C" as you put it) for a Spacelab failure would be a grim collection of alternatives*, in the absence of a major funding boost from Congress and the Carter Administration. Soviet successes with Salyut and the heating up of the Cold War after Afghanistan would likely help, but NASA planners in 1974-78 couldn't know that yet.
__
In the short term, it might be feasible to try something along the lines of the "evolutionary" LEO path advocated by MSFC in our timeline, and start with a few small modules that could be launched by a Saturn IC - first a Power Module, then a small hab module, to at least allow orbital stays by Block III+ CSMs of a few weeks, with perhaps additional launches to add on instruments for earth science or space science observation, or more habitat space...but the results would not be anything near as capable as Spacelab would have been. It would probably be a hobbled, patchwork manned spaceflight program until Reagan and Vulkan panic came along to breathe life into NASA's space station hopes again.
I recall a few years back, during the Part I phase I mentioned that NASA contractors could have sufficient spares and bits of Saturn V that could be converted into pieces for the Smithsonian.
Of course, that is a lot simpler than using said pieces to assemble a full working model.
Clearly the highest-risk unmanned mission NASA has flown ITTL, and especially in political terms. I say that because the Saturn H03 used for the Manned Lunar Missions are part of a family that's very much in production (and enjoying heavy use) and thus another can be made available if needed.
In the mid-1970's, NASA in this timeline is - for all the impressive scale of its new array of facilities spread all over the Sunbelt - operating a kind of junkyard of a space program. A rapid collapse in funding means it's trying to jury rig the remaining hardware of a highly ambitious lunar exploration into a much more modest LEO space station program. It's as if Columbus came back from his fourth voyage only to find Ferdinand decided to cut back royal funding, leaving a new admiral of the ocean sea to cannibalize Columbus's vast assembly of proud galleons into a handful of half-decked cutters which would be used to go to the Azores and work on improving navigation techniques and long duration dietary, sail-making and hull design improvements.
Here, in 1978 it's leveraging the very last heavy lifter left in the junkyard to launch a space station jury rigged out of an upper stage, and praying like hell nothing goes wrong, because its next decade of manned missions pretty much depends on it.
Yet for all that, it's a junkyard that can and does yield a sustainable evolving set of launch and manned vehicles, unlike the dead end white elephant we ended up pursuing instead.
So, we mentioned this back when it was originally posted, but today's google doodle reminded me of it:
ITTL, the equivalent of the Chandra X-Ray Observatory bears a different name, since the eponymous astronomer isn't quite dead yet in 1995 when the satellite is launched (four years ahead of OTL). Instead, we ended up naming it the Leavitt Space Telescope, after Hernietta Swan Leavitt, another early pioneer in astronomy. However, we gave serious thought to naming it instead after Annie Jump Cannon, who today's Google Doodle pays homage to before deciding that'd be just too awesome a name to survive a selection committee.
It's relevant for two reasons: first, of course, today is Annie Jump Cannon's 151st birthday and she bears saluting in general for all her work, and second, the first astronomy post for Part IV (which features Leavitt's launch and commissioning) happens to be in the works right now.
ITTL, the equivalent of the Chandra X-Ray Observatory bears a different name, since the eponymous astronomer isn't quite dead yet in 1995 when the satellite is launched (four years ahead of OTL). Instead, we ended up naming it the Leavitt Space Telescope, after Hernietta Swan Leavitt, another early pioneer in astronomy. However, we gave serious thought to naming it instead after Annie Jump Cannon, who today's Google Doodle pays homage to before deciding that'd be just too awesome a name to survive a selection committee.
It's relevant for two reasons: first, of course, today is Annie Jump Cannon's 151st birthday and she bears saluting in general for all her work, and second, the first astronomy post for Part IV (which features Leavitt's launch and commissioning) happens to be in the works right now.
I just finished the timeline from start to finish, and it's left me hungry for more
Is there any definitive date for the first section of Part IV yet?
Is there any definitive date for the first section of Part IV yet?
I just finished the timeline from start to finish, and it's left me hungry for more
Is there any definitive date for the first section of Part IV yet?
It's funny you asked that...
Soon. Very soon.
As of last night? Yes.I just finished the timeline from start to finish, and it's left me hungry for more
Is there any definitive date for the first section of Part IV yet?
Actually, I was going to wait until this Friday to say it, but:
Eyes Turned Skywards will return with Part IV beginning Friday, December 26th.
As before, we'll be doing weekly updates from there. We've got a lot of fun stuff lined up for this part that I'm looking forward to sharing, including a guest update from the Brainbin, art from Nixonhead, and some special stuff we'll have more details on as they get closer. The plan remains for Part IV to be the end of the timeline, and we intend to go out with a bang.
As of last night? Yes.
Actually, I was going to wait until this Friday to say it, but:
Eyes Turned Skywards will return with Part IV beginning Friday, December 26th.
Yes. YES!!
9 days to go. After how long I've waited, I think I can hold out a bit longer.
Hopefully this isn't the kind of Bang you're talking about.
As of last night? Yes.
Actually, I was going to wait until this Friday to say it, but:
Eyes Turned Skywards will return with Part IV beginning Friday, December 26th.
As before, we'll be doing weekly updates from there. We've got a lot of fun stuff lined up for this part that I'm looking forward to sharing, including a guest update from the Brainbin, art from Nixonhead, and some special stuff we'll have more details on as they get closer. The plan remains for Part IV to be the end of the timeline, and we intend to go out with a bang.
until then i got over my Europa rocket allergy
had redraw dozen Europa/Ariane rocket for a German Space flight book.
I could't bearing those dam rockets for a while...
As of last night? Yes.
Actually, I was going to wait until this Friday to say it, but:
Eyes Turned Skywards will return with Part IV beginning Friday, December 26th.
As before, we'll be doing weekly updates from there. We've got a lot of fun stuff lined up for this part that I'm looking forward to sharing, including a guest update from the Brainbin, art from Nixonhead, and some special stuff we'll have more details on as they get closer. The plan remains for Part IV to be the end of the timeline, and we intend to go out with a bang.
I just crapped my pants. Is that the bang you were hoping for?
As of last night? Yes.
Actually, I was going to wait until this Friday to say it, but:
Eyes Turned Skywards will return with Part IV beginning Friday, December 26th.
As before, we'll be doing weekly updates from there. We've got a lot of fun stuff lined up for this part that I'm looking forward to sharing, including a guest update from the Brainbin, art from Nixonhead, and some special stuff we'll have more details on as they get closer. The plan remains for Part IV to be the end of the timeline, and we intend to go out with a bang.
Great to hear that this timeline is starting up again for it's final section.
As of last night? Yes.
Actually, I was going to wait until this Friday to say it, but:
Eyes Turned Skywards will return with Part IV beginning Friday, December 26th.
As before, we'll be doing weekly updates from there. We've got a lot of fun stuff lined up for this part that I'm looking forward to sharing, including a guest update from the Brainbin, art from Nixonhead, and some special stuff we'll have more details on as they get closer. The plan remains for Part IV to be the end of the timeline, and we intend to go out with a bang.
I see that Christmas is coming a day late this year!