Eyes Turned Skywards

Not usually a big alternate history reader but I saw this mentioned in the alternatehistoryHub video, liked the concept and decided to give it a read. Several hundred thousand words later I can confidently say that this is one of the most in-depth, well-detailed timeline (story?) that I’ve ever read.

Thanks for your amazing work on this timeline and being my gateway drug for this site, I’ve had a great time reading this the past few weeks :)
 
Screenshot_844.png

Screenshot_846.png

Screenshot_847.png

Special delivery!
 
I am actually curious - do folks think that an Apollo Telescope Mount on Spacelab would have actually been useful? Or, alternatively, a Solar Telescope Mount on Freedom, if it would have been infeasible to attempt to integrate onto Spacelab (either through the original idea of docking, possibly using an Aardvark as the basis for conversion rather than an LM, or via the folding truss of Skylab)?
 
Last edited:
I am actually curious - do folks think that an Apollo Telescope Mount on Spacelab would have actually been useful?
not much, one issue was the Modification on Skylab B into Spacelab increased it launch mass.
and the ATM was removed from Station in favour of additional docking port

To put ATM On Freedom is nice idea but run into litte issue as in Nov 1988 the first part of Freedom is launched,
The ATM is around 20 years old and in the Air & Space Museum Washington D.C.
it electrical system and optical are obsolete in 1988, it would habe better to build complete new ATM
but NASA had bunch of better telescopes already in orbit that work better as a skylab ATM...
 
I am actually curious - do folks think that an Apollo Telescope Mount on Spacelab would have actually been useful?
not much, one issue was the Modification on Skylab B into Spacelab increased it launch mass.
and the ATM was removed from Station in favour of additional docking port

I defer as always to the authors, but I don't see that mass could be an issue. The Saturn V SIVB stage fully fueled was 123,000kg. Whereas Skylab with the ATM was only 76,540kg. The Skylab launch left a lot of payload mass on the table, so to speak. So Spacelab has plenty of mass room to work with.

The Apollo Telescope Mount actually generated a lot of science return - someone got a Nobel out of it! (Well, in part.) As far as I can make out, it seems to have been the biggest science success of the entire Skylab program. But NASA, as the authors tell it, was faced here with the choice of another ATM versus the logistical needs of Spacelab, and there wasn't any easy way to get both. Certainly not without a radical (and budget busting!) redesign.

In this respect, it may be better to think of Spacelab as being an extension of Skylab's real mission: to learn how to live and work in space for extended periods of time. Any science done in the meanwhile is really a bonus. But it's clearly just a more vigorous interim step on the road to a real modular orbital space station.

Anyhow, I expect that the European science module made up some of the science deficit, albeit mostly in other disciplines.
 
There was also the factor that by the time Spacelab flew there were other solar observatories going into orbit that didn’t need astronaut attention or film return to function. So the science case was less clear than when Skylab originally launched.
 
To put ATM On Freedom is nice idea but run into litte issue as in Nov 1988 the first part of Freedom is launched,
The ATM is around 20 years old and in the Air & Space Museum Washington D.C.
it electrical system and optical are obsolete in 1988, it would habe better to build complete new ATM
but NASA had bunch of better telescopes already in orbit that work better as a skylab ATM...
The intent, if a Freedom mounted solution were selected, would have been to develop a modern replacement in the same vein, obviously - I wasn't proposing simply re-flying the old ATM design to the new station. As for Spacelab, Atheslane covers my commentary there.
There was also the factor that by the time Spacelab flew there were other solar observatories going into orbit that didn’t need astronaut attention or film return to function. So the science case was less clear than when Skylab originally launched.
This, however, does raise an excellent point - if solar observatories that could function unmanned without servicing missions were extant, then what exactly would an Apollo Telescope Mount successor bring to the table that a dedicated observatory satellite couldn't?
 
This, however, does raise an excellent point - if solar observatories that could function unmanned without servicing missions were extant, then what exactly would an Apollo Telescope Mount successor bring to the table that a dedicated observatory satellite couldn't?

An upgraded ATM would have had a larger suite of instruments than the best solar observatory (OTL) of that moment, Solar Max. But maybe more important is to think about what famously happened to Solar Max: it had an attitude control failure just 9 months into its mission, and wound up being a derelict until a Shuttle mission was able to retrieve it for repair in 1984. Whereas an ATM 2.0 would have had its repair crew immediately on hand.

But all that said, the gain over an automated observatory circa 1978-80 is probably somewhat modest; whereas the need for three docking ports on Spacelab is rather urgent. And if NASA can't stick one of those ports in the aft end (a pretty major design change - I don't know if e of pi and Workable Goblin looked into that), that really leaves no choice but to delete the ATM. I think the authors have NASA making the right and likely call here.
 
Last edited:
The most ambitious of the experiments that gradually accreted onto MUSES-B, however, was also its scientific centerpiece, a small penetrator intended to be fired from the spacecraft as it orbited an asteroid and, as the term “penetrator” implies, penetrate into its outer crust. Penetrators had been proposed for use exploring the Moon, Mars, and minor planets since the 1970s, and in theory had many potential advantages compared to conventional landers for exploring the upper subsurface of those bodies. However, for various reasons none had ever been launched, so that these advantages remained unproven. While small, the Japanese penetrator would at least begin to show whether or not penetrators were actually practical tools of inquiry. Even better, the penetrator could be used to demonstrate one of the newest and least-developed forms of asteroid deflection, kinetic bombardment, where a stream of projectiles would be launched to gradually change the orbit of a threatening body. By actually launching a small projectile into an asteroid, MUSES-B could show the effects such a projectile would have on the target body and experimentally demonstrate the velocity change that could be expected from such an object if it were used to deflect a threatening asteroid or comet. The role of the main spacecraft would be to transport the penetrator to the asteroid and serve as a communications relay between the penetrator and Earth, although it would also carry spectrometers to help extend the penetrator’s precise but localized compositional data to the rest of the body, and a camera for navigation and public relations purposes.

After more than five years of research and development, MUSES-B was launched aboard an M-V rocket in late 2012, bound for the asteroid Itokawa, which had been discovered only a few years earlier by one of the automated asteroid searches that had been created since the 1990s and renamed after the “father of Japanese rocketry,” Hideo Itokawa, after its selection as the target of MUSES-B. The spacecraft itself was renamed Yumi, or “bow,” while its accompanying penetrator was named Ya, or “arrow,” after the launch, as with usual Japanese practice. Shortly after injection into interplanetary space, Yumi began firing its ion engines, gradually building up speed as it flew towards Itokawa. It took more than two years for it to rendezvous with the asteroid, but earlier this year it finally reached Itokawa, and is currently settling into its final science orbit. Mission controllers say that they are preparing to fire Ya later this year, and are currently debating site selection using Yumi’s images of Itokawa’s surface.
And now it has been done in OTL!
 
I'm wondering, @e of pi , what do you think of Ronald D. Moore's ATL TV series "For All Mankind"?
It's a little off topic here, but broadly I haven't been watching because it's on a service I don't subscribe to, and it seems increasingly like a soap opera that can't be bothered to research actual historical proposals and incorporates a lot of implausible stuff into the story for reasons that don't make a lot of sense. For example, NASA in that timeline is apparently doing the research and development for the very expensive Shuttle and the very expensive Sea Dragon at the same time, but not having either use anything from the other. (I know, Sea Dragon is supposed to be cheap to fly, but only per flight once you've spent $4-8b in 1965 dollars to develop it in the first place, and only if you fly it 10-20 times a year.) This isn't helped by them apparently flying Sea Dragon very rarely...which violates every assumption about why Sea Dragon was supposed to be cheap. Spending what has to be at least twice as much in R&D also leaving me asking why the Shuttle is exactly the same as historical Shuttle, despite that being a hugely R&D-cost-constrained design historically. If they'd had 10%-20% more, we'd have had a reusable flyback first stage almost surely and in general things would look very different.

If you want more follow-up, probably best to ask here.
 
Top