Ouch, that is embarrassing, since I most definitely did catch that partWhat Arianespace? Europa worked, didn't you catch that?
Ouch, that is embarrassing, since I most definitely did catch that partWhat Arianespace? Europa worked, didn't you catch that?
Well, it isn't ready. That's the point. More detail on stuff will come as they happen--like the Voyager program (I happen to know Truth is hard at work on some really cool unmanned stuff).Ah. I'd assumed that you simply hadn't made it to the point where it was ready yet. Regardless of the outcome, I suspect that its fate will become clear in time.
Well, it isn't ready. That's the point. More detail on stuff will come as they happen--like the Voyager program (I happen to know Truth is hard at work on some really cool unmanned stuff).
And Xavier...It's all right, I've done something similar myself, also with Europa.
Diameter was a constraint there. As essentially a minimal-modification add-on to an existing system, I'm not sure they'd add a Soyuz-style periscope. Thus, vision forward from the CSM windows past the MM to the station is critical for docking. There's not a maximum length criteria, but when I tried an extended length (this one is 3.0 m long end-to-end), it wound up just looking a little strange. While I am satisfied with the basic Block III+ design, the MM's precise execution in this model is not something I'm totally satisfied with. The one modeled here offers about 10 cubic meters, which even with a very dense pack would be about about a ton and a half. With a likely less-dense packing, it'd probably give each crew member about 2 cubic meters, which is about what Apollo 8 had on the two weeks to the moon and back. Roughly doubling that would obviously improve crew morale, even over the two or three days to station and would better allow eating excess margin on Saturn 1C as that becomes a more known quantity. Keeping the same diameter requires an overall length of 6m for the MM. Alternately, if NASA feels comfortable switching to exclusively radar-and-camera docking for manned flights, then they can go from 2.2 m to almost 4m diameter for the MM, and then 20 m^3 can take a more compact form. The image below shows a the current Block III+ model at the top, then the stretch required to take it from 10m^3 to 20 without a diameter increase, then the same volume with a 3.2 m length (stretched 0.2 m) and a 3m diameter.I'd have thought an Apollo Block III+ Mission Module would be rather larger; part of the idea of a Soyuz-type habitation extension is that it doesn't have to be very dense since it only has to stand up to the space environment, not reentry. So one can offer the astronauts a lot of living space for a low mass cost.
TKS is essentially unchanged from OTL. See these reference images I used in making my model:Regarding the TKS--I guess it parallels OTL TKS closely enough that the end with the double-cone thing with a flat end that has what looks like a docking port is the "mission module" more or less integrated with the cylinder that is sort of a service module, except that actually both functions are scrambled between both sections--there clearly has to be a corridor between the simple cone at the other end, that I take it is the return capsule, and the other end which has the docking port, so I suppose both the double truncated cone section and the cylinder are best described as one integrated service/mission module.
Well, see the above images for a better look at my Apollo's engines. It's intended for visualization, not photorealism. If someone wants to try and do better, more detailed versions...sure. As for TKS...I didn't model the enigines, but if you look here you can mouse over the various engines and have them highlighted on the image.Where is the main orbital propulsion engine? This always confused me in the descriptions of OTL TKS and your models aren't detailed enough to be sure--the Apollo engines are depicted rather schematically and look a lot like the depiction of a docking port!
No clue. I'd recommend asking here at NASAspaceflight, there's Russia experts there that have had more experience with the Russian program than I've had years alive. Try the Russian/Soviet Q&A thread.By the way, why does the TKS have that double-cone end? Why not just extend a simple cylinder all the way back until sufficient volume has been included? If it is a fairing to match the TKS to the launch upper stage, why not just design the basic cylinder to the same presumably greater diameter, resulting in a shorter but broader module?
It's supposed to be OTL TKS, any changes are due to my lazy and/or incorrect modeling a year ago. Actually, the basic entry module was rather squat, but the tower was very tall and was retained much longer, giving it a different shape.The more so because it looks like ITTL, the Soviets have adopted an Apollo-type conical reentry body. I believe that OTL the reentry module of the TKS was also conical, but more elongated, like a Mercury or Gemini capsule.
No clue. I'd recommend asking here at NASAspaceflight, there's Russia experts there that have had more experience with the Russian program than I've had years alive. Try the Russian/Soviet Q&A thread.
Indeed. He was ambitious, and this is a very ambitious plan, but also one that's pretty plausible, I think, and reflective of the relative positions and capabilities of the Soviets and the US in Eyes Turned Skyward.Very interesting update here. Showing how Glushko intends to close the gap that opened up from the mid-1960s to early 1970s, and doing so in spades.
Indeed. However, the different scale of MOK makes the tranitional role a bit larger--Salyut 7 ITTL is a station with ~195 cubic meters in the core modules (90 per DOS, 15 in the node), plus there's 45 cubic meters to each of the crew TKS and the cargo transport/supplementary TKS. Total of about 330 cubic meters--nearly OTL Mir's size! But ITTL, it's clearly still a transitional station--only about as big as the Spacelab core modules, and less than half the size of the planned MOK.IIRC, Salyuts 6 & 7 were used to test the techniques intended for OTL Mir with regards to automated rendezvous and docking of large space station components, so it would make sense to see something similar occurring here.
They certainly hope it works. The main challenges are in the construction and launch. It's going to be a much large diameter than even DOS--probably 6m at least--and that means a lot of new toolings for both the module itself and the fairings for Vulkan. That's the main source of delays for MOK. As for the twin deadlines of the death of Glushko and the collapse of the USSR...yeah, that's a question, isn't it? The projected launch date as of 1982 is 1986 , so there's some time even with inevitable further slips, but not a huge amount. Not like they know that.So even though the MOK station is going to be late, it should be able to work properly - provided they can finish it before the USSR collapses that is.
It's certainly a better legacy than OTL. Salyut 7 is almost as large as OTL Mir, and MOK will be much larger. Vulkan creates a much better set of launch options through the lean 90s, and the potential for an alt-Angara exists, too.But it looks like Glushko will have a legacy which will last here by the time he dies in 01/1989 - which is his OTL time of death. Unlike the abandoned Buran/Energia of OTL.
Yeah, I think it may be that they wanted the widest diameter that they could, and 4.15 was it--note it's the same diameter as the wide portions of the DOS modules. Then, the skinnier portion portion of the FGB leading to the entry capsule is there to allow them to fit the tanks and other equipment around the outside without the in-fairing diameter popping over 4.15 m. The DOS shows something similar--the solar arrays are on a similarly lower-diameter portion to fit in-fairing when retracted.IMHO, that made it 4.15m diameter at the widest point. The exact same width as the UR-500 stages. And looking at the pictures, I see quite a few pieces of equipment that are set the the cylindrical section - the Solar Panels and Rendezvous & Docking Antenna being the obvious ones. I'd be willing to guess it makes a decent attachment point during the first stage burn, when it's at its roughest. But that's only speculation on my part.
Indeed. He was ambitious, and this is a very ambitious plan, but also one that's pretty plausible, I think, and reflective of the relative positions and capabilities of the Soviets and the US in Eyes Turned Skyward.
Indeed. However, the different scale of MOK makes the tranitional role a bit larger--Salyut 7 ITTL is a station with ~195 cubic meters in the core modules (90 per DOS, 15 in the node), plus there's 45 cubic meters to each of the crew TKS and the cargo transport/supplementary TKS. Total of about 330 cubic meters--nearly OTL Mir's size! But ITTL, it's clearly still a transitional station--only about as big as the Spacelab core modules, and less than half the size of the planned MOK.
They certainly hope it works. The main challenges are in the construction and launch. It's going to be a much large diameter than even DOS--probably 6m at least--and that means a lot of new toolings for both the module itself and the fairings for Vulkan. That's the main source of delays for MOK. As for the twin deadlines of the death of Glushko and the collapse of the USSR...yeah, that's a question, isn't it? The projected launch date as of 1982 is 1986 , so there's some time even with inevitable further slips, but not a huge amount. Not like they know that.
It's certainly a better legacy than OTL. Salyut 7 is almost as large as OTL Mir, and MOK will be much larger. Vulkan creates a much better set of launch options through the lean 90s, and the potential for an alt-Angara exists, too.
Yeah, I think it may be that they wanted the widest diameter that they could, and 4.15 was it--note it's the same diameter as the wide portions of the DOS modules. Then, the skinnier portion portion of the FGB leading to the entry capsule is there to allow them to fit the tanks and other equipment around the outside without the in-fairing diameter popping over 4.15 m. The DOS shows something similar--the solar arrays are on a similarly lower-diameter portion to fit in-fairing when retracted.
The Soyuz design was originally meant for Lunar missions too, hence too large engines I suppose? Which were retained on the not broke, don't fix principle? But TKS being a clean sheet design for strictly orbital operations gets by with lots of little thrusters, no really big one anywhere, it seems.
Regarding visibility from the CM on orbit, isn't there another option, besides keeping the MM slim (which is still awkward considering how far the docking port is ahead of the CM) periscopes (same problem plus!) remote video--can't there be a control station at the docking end of the MM itself? I gather the TKS had 2 control stations, one in the reentry mod, one at the other end for docking and I guess most orbital maneuvering. The obvious drawback is extra weight for the control panel plus some sort of couch for the pilot (needs to be secured against maneuvering thrusts, still it could be a very minimal fold-out rack). And we're putting a porthole or cupola in the MM which is a danger point for loss of pressure integrity, but that's true of any viewport and we'd want one anyway I'd think for most missions.
If NASA emulates TKS for Block IV or Apollo successor, with a hatch in the heat shield, the CM controls can be reduced to emergency abort/reentry functions, with the standard controls being in the integrated Service/Mission stack behind.
Yes, a lot of space. The price tag...that too. Some of the reason for MOK slipping from '84 to '86 with the addition of Salyut-7 is the realities of funding sinking in.In other words, a LOT of space to work with. And I see a price tag to match here.
Vulkan diameter....hey, look over there! It's Robert Goddard! *runs*So I'm guessing Vulkan stages are less than 6m in diameter. OTL, the 4.15, diameter was selected on account of that being the largest possible rail-transportable diameter. So I do wonder what's different here. If they can fly pieces over, that may sort some of the issues. Clearly a major pacer for them in any case.
There's no guarantee ITTL that the lean times will be any less lean, of course. And with a larger station in orbit, and a larger launcher and crew vehicle in active service, that exacts its own price. Commercial is still an option--though the commercial market may be a very different place than OTL by the 90s without only-Shuttle restrictions strangling US commercial and the differences between Europa 3 and Ariane. And of course, the Americans don't need the Russian's stations to practice their station ops techniques on ITTL, either. So likely higher fixed costs and possibly lower external funding from OTL sources...covering the bills might require some desperate measures.Lean it right! IIRC, Russian Space funding fell to a trough of just $200,000,000 by the end of the 1990s before it recovered. Rendering them dependant on US and commercial funding to keep things going at all. At least here, once they recover, they got something much better to work with.
Yeah. The small entry capsule is one thing about TKS that gets me--it's got plenty of room on-orbit for a much larger crew than three, but the capsule's even smaller than Apollo, and only 0.5 cubic meters larger than Soyuz!I noticed that. IIRC, the re-entry capsule was 2.7m diameter so they had up to 72.5cm for the external equipment. Design - as usual - would be what makes it all come together.
Due to not being a Russian rocket expert, it's performance is exactly as tested, since I don't feel up to fabricating totally new numbers. And yeah, it's useful for extending GTO and BEO performance of Vulkan and increasing the LEO payload of the -Herakles and -Atlas to their full potential. Basically, this kills Blok-D, and may butterfly Fregat.I noticed the mention of the LOX/LH2 Block R stage mentioned in the update. So I take it this means that they have a real use for it here with GTO and BEO? I should also point out that that makes it a surviving piece of the N-1 programme just as the Block D was IOTL. I suspect it's performance and features are as OTL when they actually tested it.
Most of the bluster about Vulkan-Atlas is propaganda. The rocket has the stated payload, but as of '82, Glushko doesn't have funding for anything to actually use Vulkan-Atlas, nor even to launch one for testing! By talking up Vulkan-Atlas, they can avoid mentioning the fact that Vulkan-Herakles is only capable of launching 61 tons--inferior to the Saturn Multibody.Apollo Multibody has only ~77% the payload capability of Vulkan-Atlas? Congress won't let that one go unpunished. And NASA will really have to show that 77,000KG is enough to do what they want it to.
I'm not sure if Shilling's calculator takes into account sea level adjustments or not, though it does tell you to use vacuum ISp and thrust. I did pick the stage masses and fuel loadouts specifically to keep its liftoff T/W greater than 1.15--if barely.Did you adjust the Vulkan stages to take into account the low T/M Lift-off ratio?
Vulkan diameter....hey, look over there! It's Robert Goddard! *runs*
...Didn't work? All right, basically because of the logistics issues, I'v been rather deliberately vague about Vulkan's diameter. If it's 4.15m, same as Zenit, then it's gotta be very tall. If not...then transport has to be done some other way, or it has to be built essentially at the launch site, as N1 was to be. If it's being built at the launch site, then the sky's the limit on diameter. Other modes of transport impose their own limits, and since I'm not entirely certain what those modes are...
There's no guarantee ITTL that the lean times will be any less lean, of course. And with a larger station in orbit, and a larger launcher and crew vehicle in active service, that exacts its own price. Commercial is still an option--though the commercial market may be a very different place than OTL by the 90s without only-Shuttle restrictions strangling US commercial and the differences between Europa 3 and Ariane. And of course, the Americans don't need the Russian's stations to practice their station ops techniques on ITTL, either. So likely higher fixed costs and possibly lower external funding from OTL sources...covering the bills might require some desperate measures.
Yeah. The small entry capsule is one thing about TKS that gets me--it's got plenty of room on-orbit for a much larger crew than three, but the capsule's even smaller than Apollo, and only 0.5 cubic meters larger than Soyuz.
Due to not being a Russian rocket expert, it's performance is exactly as tested, since I don't feel up to fabricating totally new numbers. And yeah, it's useful for extending GTO and BEO performance of Vulkan and increasing the LEO payload of the -Herakles and -Atlas to their full potential. Basically, this kills Blok-D, and may butterfly Fregat.
Most of the bluster about Vulkan-Atlas is propaganda. The rocket has the stated payload, but as of '82, Glushko doesn't have funding for anything to actually use Vulkan-Atlas, nor even to launch one for testing! By talking up Vulkan-Atlas, they can avoid mentioning the fact that Vulkan-Herakles is only capable of launching 61 tons--inferior to the Saturn Multibody.
I'm not sure if Shilling's calculator takes into account sea level adjustments or not, though it does tell you to use vacuum ISp and thrust. I did pick the stage masses and fuel loadouts specifically to keep its liftoff T/W greater than 1.15--if barely.
Hmm. I'll have to think that over then. A 6m diameter is nice for a larger fairing, since they seem not to like hammerhead fairings over there). I'll see what those stage lengths look like.Well for USSR, IOTL, they managed 7.75m diameter Energia Core stages, for for that mode, that could form your upper limit for that mode of transportation, with final assembly taking place in a VAB by the launch site. I'd say 5-6 metres would suffice for the diameter.
Yeah, roughly. And the uptick in DoD spending may have some fallout in terms of commercial vehicles from the US. High flight rates, lower marginal costs, more attractive to commercial if the capacity exists.I see, so the commercial market could be larger than OTL, but more spread out.
Yeah, that's basically what I was thinking. OTOH, the larger TWI (Trans-Wherever Injection) potential of Vulkan may still motivate some kind of kick stage, which might end up being rather Fregat-like. Dunno, it depends on how unmanned shakes out.Yeah, it does mean the end of Block D. And I suspect Fregat too, since it was built with the UR-500 in mind. Propellant commonality being the reasoning I use here.
Yeah, that's the main thing Glushko was able to swing--he doesn't actually have the go to build anything to use Vulkan-Atlas, though studies are probably being done, but he did ensure that every allowance that might need to be made in the pad infrastructure was made. The transporter/erector can take the weight and has provisions for 5-cores on the umbillicals, the integration facility is big enough, and so on. He did a lot to make it easy when/if they ever get a mission that calls for it, but whether they will or if it will end up llike Atlas V Heavy OTL--a nearly-complete design for a more capable version of a commonly-used vehicle that ends up never flying--will have to be seen.And all they have is the means to get it up and running quickly and easily when they have the mission and funding. But at least they won't have to re-invent the wheel ITTL - well, not completely at the very least, IMHO.
There's a PDF he links that lays out the methodology, but I need to re-read it in detail and check.I would think it does. But is not precise in it. I tend to use OTL rocket engines as a benchmark to get a good idea as to what I need.
andThe 7.7 meter diameter of the core was determined by the maximum size that could be handled by existing stage handling equipment developed for the N1 program. The 3.9 meter diameter of the booster stages was dictated by the maximum size for rail transport from the Ukraine.
So, it looks like 4.15m doesn't help?Using the N1 facilities at Baikonur as a starting point, major modifications had to be made and several new buildings erected to assemble and launch Buran at the remote Baikonur cosmodrome. The land-locked location of Baikonur meant that major assembly work on the orbiter and launch vehicle had to be conducted on site, instead of at the subcontractors factories. The liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen tanks of the core, and the Buran orbiters, were flown to Baikonur on the back of the 3M-T transport. The booster stages and all other material and equipment were brought in by rail.
Huh. So I wonder where the 4.15 m diameter of the TKS and Salyut comes from? Strange. Anyway, it does sound like a larger diameter is possible, it just has to be air-transported. It's a bit of a pain for every single stage to come in that way, though. Hmm.So, it looks like 4.15m doesn't help?
Huh. So I wonder where the 4.15 m diameter of the TKS and Salyut comes from? Strange. Anyway, it does sound like a larger diameter is possible, it just has to be air-transported. It's a bit of a pain for every single stage to come in that way, though. Hmm.