Eyes Turned Skywards

Because of China, developing any kind of launch capability on Japan would look incredibly provocative. Their entire program (if it developed) would have to be located somewhere besides East Asia.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't bear to OTL--Japan has a fairly active launch program, with orbital flights from Tanegashima and sounding rocket/suborbital stuff at Kagoshima. Really, the biggest issue with it isn't China (who, I'll note, are the opposite direction to be under any launches from Japan), but actually from the local fishing industry, which restricts them to two 2-month windows each year (January-February and August-September). That's actually the upper limit on Japanese launch capability.
Then, when the Japanese bubble bursts, petrodollars could completely float the Japanese effort- an effort that would otherwise evaporate (or at least become much less productive.)
Well, actually, they've been pretty successful OTL--they finished their development path for the H-I/HII/H-IIB family, and the HTV for ISS resupply all after the bubble burst (though HTV was rather later, not in the 90s). Could they use more money? Sure, what space program couldn't? But they did Kibo and such, plus sat launches and LV dev work all in the 90s, so it's not like they were flat broke.
 
Could they use more money? Sure, what space program couldn't? But they did Kibo and such, plus sat launches and LV dev work all in the 90s, so it's not like they were flat broke.

Absolutely agreed on this. But think what they could have done with some crazy Sheik floating them some cash!
 
Absolutely agreed on this. But think what they could have done with some crazy Sheik floating them some cash!
Ah, but you can really say that about anyone--NASDA, ESA, NASA. Heck, think what I could do in spaceflight if some crazy Sheik floated me some cash! I've got this plan to put a Dragon into LLO and return it to Earth for under $500 mill in total development, maybe $250 mill/mission, it just needs the funding. :) That said, some countries from the arabian penninsula will be included in the Spaceflight Participation Program on Spacelab, and the program successes are enough that it's likely to roll over into whatever's next for NASA--so they're already getting the prestige of astronauts in orbit for not much in the way of money. Maybe once commercial spaceflight comes about as more of concept you might see more from Arabian private individuals (the proverbial "crazy Sheik" from earlier), but that's a story for another update.

Also, a couple notes on ESA: note that "Europa 3" is technically the basic Griffin/Aurore combination only, with an Astris third stage for GTO/GEO. With the added Blue Streak boosters, it's part of the as-of-1982-unfunded Europa 4 development, which isn't likely to be online until 1988/89 unless something changes. However, Europa 3 is being built specifically with an eye towards allowing those future growths--they've learned from Blue Streak and some from Saturn 1C/multibody that once you have a good core, you can get a lot by milking it for all its worth, so they're willing to spend the money to get a good core (Griffin) and a flexible upper stage (Aurore).
 
you got nice building set with Europa 3/4 concept, e of pi.

Allot proposal like German Europa 3D or ELGO rocket look in use of Astris.
and it nice to find Astris here back.
it would be very interesting combination to use as third stage, the Aurore-B upper stage from Europa 2-HE.
like getting heavy Sat in Geo or launch heavy space probe to Halley Comet, Moon, Mars, Venus or Jupiter.

How about the European Fluorine/Hydrogen stage ?
ELDO and Germany made allot of study for that kind of Third stage on Europa-1/2.
 
it would be very interesting combination to use as third stage, the Aurore-B upper stage from Europa 2-HE.
Yeah, Aurore-B is intended as common use both as the Europa 2-HE second stage and a third stage on Europa 4Xu. Specs for that are on the wiki. (And if anyone is curious--yes, it's barely possible to add an Astris third stage to Europa-HE, boosting GTO payload from 650 to 800 kg, but it drops liftoff T/W below 1.2. It's a very close shave, and only likely to see use once they have several successful basic Europa 2-HE flights under their belt. Hence, since it's a future development of a rocket that isn't even under integrated development as of 1982, I'm leaving the specs off the wiki--that configuration may be available around 1990.

To sum up ESA development plans as of 1982:
Europa 3: Under development, first flight NET 1985.
Europa 4: Planned for development following Europa 3 first flight, possible first flight roughly 1988
Europa 2-HE: Aurore-B upper stage under development as part of Europa 3 development, integration work to begin in 1985, first flight NET 1987ish to replace Europa 2-TA at that time.

How about the European Fluorine/Hydrogen stage ?
ELDO and Germany made allot of study for that kind of Third stage on Europa-1/2.
I'm going to say...no. They don't have the hazards of already operating a hydrazine/nitrogen tetroxide first stage (like Ariane), and they'll be phasing out the N2O4/UDHM second stages with Europa 3/4/2-HE, so the safety looks like a big hit, and Aurore's hydrogen/LOX is enough to give Europa 3/4/2-HE plenty of performance.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to say...no. They don't have the hazards of already operating a hydrazine/nitrogen tetroxide first stage, so the safety looks like a big hit, and Aurore's hydrogen/LOX is enough to give Europa 3/4/2-HE plenty of performance.

Good !, because Fluorine/Hydrogen is the most powerful rocketfuel, it's also the most difficult to handle rocketfuel...
 
Good !, because Fluorine/Hydrogen is the most powerful rocketfuel, it's also the most difficult to handle rocketfuel...

Yeah. The toxicity issues were in the same league as Hypergolics IIRC. That's why it faded from usage before seeing real service AFAIK - in spite of having tested it to 536s Isp (vac).
 
Yeah. The toxicity issues were in the same league as Hypergolics IIRC. That's why it faded from usage before seeing real service AFAIK - in spite of having tested it to 536s Isp (vac).

Fluorine in general is nasty shit, not to mention that by burning hydrogen and fluorine you're going to get HF acid as a byproduct, which is at least as bad as HCl healthwise.


Also, I just started taking a rocket propulsion class, so maybe I'll actually be able to comment constructively on this timeline in the future :).
 
Fluorine in general is nasty shit, not to mention that by burning hydrogen and fluorine you're going to get HF acid as a byproduct, which is at least as bad as HCl healthwise.
I think I'd generally prefer to gargle with N204/UDMH than work around an LV burning H/F (much less the proposals for a Li/H/F tripropellent!). And yes, that does take into account that N2O4 and UDMH are hypergollic, and would inevitably burst into flame in my mouth.


Also, I just started taking a rocket propulsion class, so maybe I'll actually be able to comment constructively on this timeline in the future :).
Well, congrats. If you've had your first lesson, you've officially had more classroom time in rocket propulsion than I did when I started working with truth on this TL. Most of what I know about LVs I learned from Atomic Rockets, Astronautix, and NASAspaceflight. :)
 
I think I'd generally prefer to gargle with N204/UDMH than work around an LV burning H/F (much less the proposals for a Li/H/F tripropellent!). And yes, that does take into account that N2O4 and UDMH are hypergollic, and would inevitably burst into flame in my mouth.

Umm... so i, too, understand. Anything where amputation of a contaminated limb is a first aid procedure... or so i understand from another forum where guys who have actually worked with this stuff have posted.
 
I don't think the Arabs get a lot of prestige by basically, by a straight money transaction or even via barter, buying spaces on someone else's space program. Be different if it were a partnership they helped build.

For instance, what about a grand coalition of Persian Gulf oil money, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore--AND Japan, all making deals with Australia for a launch site or two on her east coast? I think some sites could be found there that have acceptably wide downrange fans from due east to either north or south to a considerable angle--as pointed out by Dathi it doesn't matter if you launch north or south, either way it costs the same and you achieve the same inclination range of orbits, just starting 180 degrees out of phase.

Indonesia itself might seem to offer launch sites but there are always going to be legions of small (and not so small!) islands in the downrange fans. If they aren't going to launch from the Australian coast they are looking at some island in the big empty of the Pacific, and having to tote all the logistics from engines and fuel to toothbrushes out there.

My computer is overburdened again and I'd have to shut down and reboot to dare load my map program, but perhaps the Philippines also have some fair potential launch sites?

Anyway, this coalition is:

Arab-Islamic (Sunni!) money and a certain amount of technical knowledge of their own;

Japanese high-tech expertise;

Two Islamic (again Sunni) southeast Asian nations which are in the process of developing their high-tech sector;

Another quite rich and high-tech Chinese colony throwing in, like Japan, for the money and access to profits, as well as prestige;

A pretty solidly high-tech if in population terms small but rich in resources Anglo country getting funding to develop a launch site on their soil, one they can also market to American, European, or post Soviet collapse if that happens, even Russian rocket makers as well. Unlike being in ESA (and if everyone is clever, there's no reason they can't stay in ESA too) the Australians in this partnership the big stars in terms of providing the launch sites and local logistical support (from machine shops to groceries) in the region rather than being on the far side of the world, ultimately to be bypassed in favor of a South American site much closer to Europe.

But if sheer money can buy anything, the Arabs might be tempted to do without the various East Asian (even if Muslim) and Australian partners, and focus on simply training up their own people to do the job themselves. Then as I said, they'd need a launch site. I said Somalia rather than Kenya because the Somali coast is firmly Islamic and in fact if Oman is a partner, was a onetime colony of that power. Also, the Somali coast is relatively depopulated and Arab money will buy a lot more political influence in that impovershed country than in Kenya or Tanzania, and with less controversy.

Perhaps meanwhile all the eastern Indian Ocean (and west Pacific) countries I mentioned--Malaysia, Indonesia, perhaps the Philippines, partnering with Australia for launch sites and Japan, Singapore and perhaps Taiwan for high-tech expertise (surely Australia would be included wearing that hat as well) can also go it alone without Arab money?

Of course the truly cost-effective thing is to simply buy in to someone else's functional program, a little sharing the costs and risks can buy benefits out of proportion. But not glory.

And so OTL Japan has indeed had her own program, and I've read of Singaporian schemes. If they pool their efforts they have to share the glory but the achievements might be considerably more splashy, sooner.
 
....
Well, congrats. If you've had your first lesson, you've officially had more classroom time in rocket propulsion than I did when I started working with truth on this TL. Most of what I know about LVs I learned from Atomic Rockets, Astronautix, and NASAspaceflight. :)

Yes, good on you.

Last night I refrained from posting long questions about translunar trajectories, did some more searching on the net than I guess I ever did before, and learned some stuff that was startling but makes a lot of sense and certainly addressed my questions! Specifically I was vastly overestimating transit times, by sticking fanatically to the absolute minimum energy trajectories; apparently what Apollo did was use a modest increase in delta-V (which would cost significant payload) to cut these times in half while generally sticking pretty close to free-return paths.

The trick is, the far outer end of an elliptical orbit has the craft going much slower than when it is somewhat closer in, so an elliptical transfer orbit that overshoots the Moon by a fair amount can bring you to a close encounter with Luna much sooner. Not only does it require more velocity change to get to this transfer orbit but then you've got more braking to do to come down to a Moon orbit, so you need a higher proportion of fuel in the lunar encounter craft that is somewhat shrunken by the higher TLI fuel costs already. But the time savings is important and apparently impressive ones can be achieved by modest increases in TLI delta-V.

But I'd still really like a proper textbook focused on the subject, if such a thing exists. I did find some good websites that cover a lot of ground in a few pages.
 
I noticed a few interesting details in the Europa specs:

1: The RZ2 still has the same performance, wouldn't they want to improve the engine like the Americans did with the F-1A, and OTL ESA with Vulcain 2?

2: 3-6 HM7Bs in one stage is a lot, and coincidence or not, going to 1-2 engines means using something close to Vinci. Any chance on such a development in a few years?

3: The new main stage is short & fat, leaving a lot of stretching potential for future, thirstier engines if ESA wants. Perhaps something like a 1600-2000kN engine to replace the RZ2s sometime in the future, one for Europa 2, 2 for Europa 3/4.

4: Not that they'll need it soon, but did anyone do the numbers on what payload a CCB Europa 4 with 3 Griffins could launch? (or even 5, though that might be pushing it;))
 
I noticed a few interesting details in the Europa specs:

1: The RZ2 still has the same performance, wouldn't they want to improve the engine like the Americans did with the F-1A, and OTL ESA with Vulcain 2?

2: 3-6 HM7Bs in one stage is a lot, and coincidence or not, going to 1-2 engines means using something close to Vinci. Any chance on such a development in a few years?

3: The new main stage is short & fat, leaving a lot of stretching potential for future, thirstier engines if ESA wants. Perhaps something like a 1600-2000kN engine to replace the RZ2s sometime in the future, one for Europa 2, 2 for Europa 3/4.

4: Not that they'll need it soon, but did anyone do the numbers on what payload a CCB Europa 4 with 3 Griffins could launch? (or even 5, though that might be pushing it;))

Point one/three
the RZ2 can be tune from 667 kN up to 734 kN thrust max.
and why not put five RZ2 in Griffin ? there Place enough !

the original Blue Streak Program had not use RZ2 !
RZ1 Test model based on S2D engine by Rocketdyne.
RZ2 was a development engine for test flight.
RZ3 had to be the original basic light weight engine for the operational Blue Streak Missile. (First planned test flight 1963)
RZ13, two RZ3 made to a cluster, Rolls Royce originally plan for use in operational missile.
RZ14 was a super advanced single engine connected to two RZ2 thrust chambers to retain the original Blue Streak gimballed control, it thrust had to be around 1780 kN
the RZ14 was consider as engine for a 14ft Diameter SLV study, hey that's almost diameter of the Griffin !
THX to Spark from Secret project Forum for the Info

two:
the Saturn-I stage S-IV used 6xRL-10 with total thrust of 393 kN, for Aurore has 360 kN with 6 HM-7B.
replace that by one engine, i not recommend because in case of Engine failure, the other burn longer and bring Payload save into orbit !

Four:
it's a little bit Overkill, that every one goes for "Cluster last stand" in this TL :rolleyes:
Although would be great: a 4xGriffins booster with new core stage H135 with 1xHM-60 thrust 800 kN. (that's Ariane 5 core stage).
 
Last edited:
Four:
it's a little bit Overkill, that every one goes for "Cluster last stand" in this TL :rolleyes:
Although would be great: a 4xGriffins booster with new core stage H135 with 1xHM-60 thrust 800 kN. (that's Ariane 5 core stage).

And I see Griffin Stages needing 5 RZ.4s each to have an acceptable T/M Ratio in such a setup. With 4, I seem to get less than 1.10:1. That's a whole lotta engines needed. Besides, with Europa 3 having a lot of growth potential, I really don't see it happening.
 
the ELDO-B2 (two upper stage Lox/hydrogen) had so bad T/M Ratio.
if build, it would have be the slowest accelerated Launch vehicle of all time...
 
But I'd still really like a proper textbook focused on the subject, if such a thing exists. I did find some good websites that cover a lot of ground in a few pages.
I'd like a proper class on the topic, too. I'm trying to get into some of the upper grad-level classes on such topics, since I'll have some spare credits once I finish my major requirements. We'll see. :)

I noticed a few interesting details in the Europa specs:

1: The RZ2 still has the same performance, wouldn't they want to improve the engine like the Americans did with the F-1A, and OTL ESA with Vulcain 2?
I spent quite some time looking into the potential of using the American H-1 development into the RS-27 as a baseline for what Rolls-Royce might pull off with the roughly-comparable RZ.2, but in the end I decided to just roll with the RZ.2--it would have offered a potentially 10-15% increase in payload, and I probably would have stretched the Blue Streak some to pick up the slack. In-universe, my justification is that they've been skimping on engine development to afford their LV development and manned programs--their budget is a bit bigger than OTL, but not that much bigger.

2: 3-6 HM7Bs in one stage is a lot, and coincidence or not, going to 1-2 engines means using something close to Vinci. Any chance on such a development in a few years?
There's nothing particularly wrong with using a 6-engine cluster of a reliable engine, and using the existing HM-7B saves the time and money to develop a larger engine. Maybe they'll eventually develop a Vinci-class engine and replace the HM-7B on Aurore, but I'd say it's unlikely to happen during Part II.

4: Not that they'll need it soon, but did anyone do the numbers on what payload a CCB Europa 4 with 3 Griffins could launch? (or even 5, though that might be pushing it;))
Well, since 1xGriffin has the same mass and performance as 2xBlue Streak, you can just use the Europa 42 and 44 numbers from the wiki. :) A 5-core Griffin cluster would be pushing it, though--it'd really need a crossfeed and/or new larger upper stage to get the full benefits.

Point one/three
the RZ2 can be tune from 667 kN up to 734 kN thrust max.
and why not put five RZ2 in Griffin ? there Place enough !
There's really not, see images below show rough engine layouts on Europa 3/4 stages. As you can see, to fit a fifth engine in the middle, the outboards would have to move outside the stage mold line, which would interfere some with the mounting for the booster Blue Streaks.

the original Blue Streak Program had not use RZ2 !
RZ1 Test model based on S2D engine by Rocketdyne.
RZ2 was a development engine for test flight.
RZ3 had to be the original basic light weight engine for the operational Blue Streak Missile. (First planned test flight 1963)
Hmm. In that case, I may retcon Europa 2/TA/3 and planned 4/2-HE dev to be using the RZ.3. Are they roughly equivalent beyond the weight decrease?

Also, find attached some rough impressions of the look of the Europa 3/4/2-HE vehicles. The cross-sections show (from left to right) a 4-engine Griffin with 6 Blue Streak boosters (this would be a notional Europa 46, which there aren't specs for on the wiki but I think you can figure it out from the component specs). Then there's an example of what it would take to fit 5x engines under Griffin--notice that the engines would have to be a bit outside the mold-line of the stage, and would interfere a bit with booster mounting. Finally, there's the Aurore engine layout

Europa Stuff Flat.png
 
I spent quite some time looking into the potential of using the American H-1 development into the RS-27 as a baseline for what Rolls-Royce might pull off with the roughly-comparable RZ.2, but in the end I decided to just roll with the RZ.2--it would have offered a potentially 10-15% increase in payload, and I probably would have stretched the Blue Streak some to pick up the slack. In-universe, my justification is that they've been skimping on engine development to afford their LV development and manned programs--their budget is a bit bigger than OTL, but not that much bigger.

Seems about right. Only so much money at any given time. Perhaps as a later evolutionary upgrade, that's been kicked into the long grass.


There's nothing particularly wrong with using a 6-engine cluster of a reliable engine, and using the existing HM-7B saves the time and money to develop a larger engine. Maybe they'll eventually develop a Vinci-class engine and replace the HM-7B on Aurore, but I'd say it's unlikely to happen during Part II.

Like the S-IV on Saturn I? Only real difference seems to be in how the engines are arranged.


Hmm. In that case, I may retcon Europa 2/TA/3 and planned 4/2-HE dev to be using the RZ.3. Are they roughly equivalent beyond the weight decrease?

Again. Evolutionary upgrade option. So it may be a good thing that you gave yourself this breathing space ITTL.
 
Top