Thanks for your kind words, and I'm glad you're anticipating our return. In the meantime, any comments from having read Part I as a complete unit?
Just a few quick thoughts off the top of my head, it's really nice to see the F-1 kept alive. How many proposals have we had over the course of the last 30 years involving them, but they never happen because it would take so much effort to develop a production capability again. Heck, we just had one from PWR for SLS, replacing the solid rocket boosters with liquid boosters that have F-1 derivatives. We'll see how far that gets. And you saved Europa, that is really interesting. I love the idea of the UK staying in the space launch game, though the level of hostility towards it, and especially the thought of manned space efforts IOTL, I wonder if Europa's success would have even been enough. I have seen many people comment on a potential for ESA and JAXA (Or its original component agencies, I suppose) teaming up, and while that is certainly possible, given the Japanese views of the time it is probably more likely that they would seek out and accept the role of a lesser partner with NASA over a more major partner with the ESA. On the NASDA side, at least. Indeed, when NASA has not wanted to play ball with them IOTL, they mostly have concentrated on their own efforts. Not saying it isn't possible or that it hasn't happened at times, but overall they have strongly favored NASA even with the problems that brings. I'd also hope NASA would still have its strong relationship with Canada, even at times when US national prestige was in the forefront Canada still managed to get involved in NASA programs. And, of course, they also have their special status with the ESA, so the best of both worlds for them! (And, actually, the USAF as well as part of NORAD.)
On the topic of air launch, the primary thoughts the military had and sometimes still has have never been that it is cheaper or superior in most ways to a conventional launch pad, no, it's more of an operationally responsive space concept. Space assets (and launchers, as a matter of fact) are so vulnerable it has been a USAF holy grail forever to have a means to replace them quickly without all the production that accompanies a typical launch that is well covered by observational assets. The whole netcentric concept of warfare is based on the idea that the USAF would be developing this capability sometime soon (by 1994 or so...) But then the Cold War ended and it just didn't seem worth the expense. And yet, that holy grail (operationally responsive space, not airlaunch specifically, they haven't bothered to deal with the launcher aspect of it at all, really) along with the USAF's other space holy grail, a totally blue spaceplane system, combine to give us the X-37B. For whatever it is worth and wherever it takes us. But IOTL the USAF to this day and in this budget environment still has not given up on putting wings on spacecraft, so I wouldn't doubt they would still be trying to figure out how to get that one past the politicians in ITTL as well. Why? You'd have to ask them, they won't tell me!
Anyway, I could probably say many more things but those were the most immediate ones bouncing around in my head. I, too, curse that we threw away all of the Apollo infrastructure, but then again I just don't know if it would have been that different overall the way most people seem to view space in the US. Indeed, "big science and technology" don't seem to have many fans anymore, I am pretty sure the Super Conducting Super Collider didn't have many allies either. Not that I am bitter over any of that, or that the last human walked on the moon years before I was alive and that there is a chance it will not happen again until I am long dead, or... Sorry, that's the pessimist in me, we do have iPhones so it all balances out I am sure. None the less, I am enjoying this timeline so keep up the good work!
