Eyes Turned Skywards

Great update. Will Galileo's success lead to an expansion of the Mariner Mark II program (which IOTL was limited, on the US side, to a redesigned Cassini)? Maybe a follow-up mission to Uranus or Neptune as well?

Or does that "though short lived" remark mean that interest and support die soon anyway?
For clarity, that the interest noted as "though short lived" was actually generated by the Vikings (and sustained a tiny bit by the assorted Voyagers) and is what got Galileo and Kirchoff funded if you read the context. Now Galileo may have an interest burst of its own, which would effect any successors, but that'd fall outside Part II (in fact, it's a topic we've been discussing a fair bit, and I think truth's actually written some of the text already, though I might be wrong).
 
to put Polish Eagle question in Other words:

could NASA build 3 other Orbiter based on "Galileo" hardware in 1990s ?
it would logical to do

Cassini with ESA Titan lander*
Herschel with Uranus Entry Probe
Le Verriers with Neptune Entry Probe

* the Lander vs Entry Probe
Galileo Jupiter Entry Probe mass is 339 kg to the 318 kg of Huygens
but the Heat shield on JEP was 50% probe mass, while the heat shield of Huygens has only 24% probe mass.
In this case ESA Titan lander could carry 21 kg more equipment
 
In this case ESA Titan lander could carry 21 kg more equipment [/I]

And let's not forget that electronics will be more advanced by such a point. So should a Cassini/Huygens Equivalent occur here. So you can have more for less mass - though for more money - and put the extra mass budget in batteries for more lifespan.

Would be funny if it were to land in the middle of a Cryo-Volcanic Eruption on Titan. :p:p
 
to put Polish Eagle question in Other words:

could NASA build 3 other Orbiter based on "Galileo" hardware in 1990s ?
it would logical to do

Cassini with ESA Titan lander*

This is interesting because there were actually proposals to do this OTL (I have two sources for this) using Galileo spares (similar to the 2020 Mars rover, Viking 3, or Pioneer H). However, there were good reasons this particular concept was not adopted and a new spacecraft design was chosen instead, and not just the adoption of Mariner Mark II and the idea of a new standardized spacecraft (which, by the way, won't exist ITTL because the budgetary cruch that inspired it OTL doesn't exist ITTL...) Saturn and Jupiter have quite different environments, and it doesn't really make sense to build a spacecraft for both. Also, [redacted].

Cassini is certainly going to exist, given that I've already mentioned it in one of the updates :p You'll see when we get there... ;)

Personally, I would love to see Herschel and le Verrier fly, but there will be budgetary issues...
 
I love your use of the Saturn-Centaur to get Galileo to Jupiter without the bank shot rigamarole needed by the Shuttle. There are similar options available in my timeline--the AES (an early analog to the Ulysses probe) is designed to use the Saturn-Centaur.

Thank you for keeping this going! :)
 
Part II: Post 20: Spacelab 28 Investigation and Spacelab End-Of-Mission
Well, it's that time again! (Okay, fine, it's a little past that time again--I overslept.) Last week, we covered the Galileo probe. This week, we're returning our attention to human spaceflight. You may recall that when we last left, the Russians were preparing to launch their Mir station, while the Americans had just suffered a serious failure of the Spacelab 28 mission. So, without further ado, I give you...1085 replies, 134,816 views

Eyes Turned Skyward, Part II: Post 20

Even as recovery efforts for the aborted Spacelab 28 launch were still underway, with the capsule being lifted aboard the recovery boat Liberty Star, preparation was already underway for the inevitable investigation. In accordance with NASA standard practice, the doors of the Mission Control Center in Houston were locked while all data pertaining to the flight could be properly archived for the impending investigation. Similar efforts were begun by the end of the day at Kennedy Space Center and manufacturing centers at Marshall and Michoud, and the Administrator officially filed a memo by the end of the day appointing what would come to be known as the Spacelab 28 Review Board [1]. September 19th, 1986 was a Friday, and much of the agency had been looking forward to the weekend. Instead, agency and contractor employees worked through the weekend to collate manufacturing records, processing paperwork, photographs, video, inspection reports, and launch telemetry for the board to use in reconstructing the entire history of the flight. As the investigation began to get organized and with little to tell the press in the meantime, NASA public affairs did its best to deflect attention to the success of the crew escape system, and avoid too much public fallout.

While the scope of the investigation was being defined, the implications for operations were already being explored. Spacelab 27 had been due to return to Earth near the end of September, both to allow the traditional “hand-over” period for the Spacelab 28 crew, and for recovery flotilla assets to be transferred from positions used to support the launch to those used for a nominal landing. Even if a second booster and crew could be made ready, the concerns of the investigation cast doubt on the safety of another crew launching before the causes of Spacelab 28’s failure were entirely understood. Instead, the crew of Spacelab 27 began the process of making the station suitable for a potentially extended period between missions. Experiments that required active intervention or excessive power were shut down, while others were setup for remote monitoring. Station systems were configured for ground control, non-essential systems were shutdown to prevent faults and minimize power use, transfer hatches were closed between modules to prevent any damage to the station from compromising the entire pressure volume, and medical supplies and rations that required careful preservation to prevent decay or spoilage were transferred to the station’s Aardvark for pre-emptive disposal. The Spacelab 27 crew’s time on station was extended by two weeks to allow the time required to prepare the station, but finally on October 6th, the crew departed the station, breaking a streak of continuous manned operations for the station lasting since the arrival of Spacelab 4 in November 1978.

By the end of October, the shape of the Spacelab 28 failure had become clear, or at least the portion taking place after the 2:35 PM ignition of the main engine and the subsequent launch. The booster’s inertial guidance system had been matched against ground radar, and verified to have been functioning correctly. Moreover, the commands sent to the engine’s gimbal assemblies from the booster’s computers had also been confirmed—it was simply that the gimbal had not answered them. Pressure to actuate the engine’s thrust vector system was provided from high-pressure kerosene tapped from the engine’s turbo pump, routed via a single valve controller to actuators for pitch and yaw. Due to either a mechanical or electronic failure of the valve controller midflight, the pressure in the lines to the actuators had fallen below levels required for operation, freezing the gimbal off-axis and leading to the loss of the vehicle. Similar valves were pulled from other stockpiled boosters for examination and testing, and inspection reports for the suspect valve assembly were reviewed from its initial manufacture through component testing, integration into the engine, testing of the stage. All efforts were aimed at tracing reasons the assembly might have failed, and why the failure was not caught before flight. It was discovered that the assembly had passed all inspections. When the assemblies from the stockpiled boosters were tested, all passed initial inspections and several function checks, but one failed the tests when repeated. Disassembly revealed that particulates had managed to infiltrate the assembly, and frozen the valve. Disassembly of all the units revealed that another had the same infiltration, but not enough to freeze the valve. The infiltration had been undetectable except by disassembly, and the freezing was apparently only caused by either extended operations, or agitation of the valve—which the shaking of the rocket on ascent had more than provided. The particulates were discovered to have entered the valves through ports which had been inadequately sealed. However, as the seal was up to procedural standards, the checklist for removing the stages from storage had been met. Additionally, since the valve could function before finally freezing, the initial function tests at Kennedy’s incoming inspection had been met. The initial stockpiled stages, which had been given more thorough inspections, had also not shown the particulates, which turned out to be related to construction work at Michoud begun after those initial stages were shipped to the Cape, and which had managed to make their way from the production floor areas which were undergoing conversion to the overflow storage areas that had been used for the stockpile.

After the detective work of establishing the cause was completed in early November, the resolution was simple: the seals would be reviewed, as well as storage of the stockpile at Michoud. The suspect valve assemblies could be replaced outright from new-build units intended originally for Multibody--while some changes had been made to the guidance systems, they did not extend to the level of the actual actuators. Thus, the “go” was given to continue processing on the Spacelab 29 mission, which had been on hold pending the results of the investigation. Thanks to work done to continue training the crew, including the required re-start procedures for the station and the dedication of the ground handling staff at Kennedy, they were able to resume processing, aimed at the same January launch window they would have been targeting without the failure.

With the stand-down of Saturn IC, the ongoing investigation, and the de-manning of Spacelab, the American program was particularly challenged to respond to ongoing Soviet advances. Spacelab’s (temporary) shutdown left Salyut 7 the only operational station in orbit, while the end of October saw the maiden launch of a multicore rocket, as the tri-core Vulkan-Herakles lofted a massive demonstration payload to orbit. In actuality, the payload was intended to be a demonstrator for exactly the kind of massive orbital weapons platform that the American SDI was aimed to match and counter, but an error in the coding of the station’s powerup routines unintentionally sent a signal, intended for safing on the ground, which “locked out” the entire attitude control system during startup instead of activating it. The lockout was not merely electronic but physical, and irreversible without manual intervention. With the vehicle uncontrollable and in a lower than intended orbit which would decay long before any mission could be staged to intervene, the Soviets found it convenient to pass it off as a ballasted demonstration payload, with limited instrumentation to monitor orbital position and thus the success of the rocket.This (apparent) success of Vulkan contrasted sharply against the continuing doldrums of the American program, as exemplified in the public eye by the “retreat from orbit” in the wake of Spacelab 28. Congressional hearings were convened on the state of the Freedom program, potential availability of Multibody, and the investigation into the Spacelab 28 launch accident, but it was clear that the Soviets would not simply wait for the Americans to catch up to their feats. In February, a second Vulkan-Herakles carried the first MOK module of Mir into orbit. Half of the on-orbit Salyut 7 crew transferred to the station by TKS, while the other three remained to see to deactivating the older station, and preparing it for its fiery retirement. Once MOK 1’s successful activation was confirmed, the last crew of Salyut 7 departed, and the the station’s control thrusters were used one last time to send it into an unstable orbit and eventually to a breakup over the waters of the Indian Ocean. The “interim” station had served for 5 years, almost double the life intended when Glushko conceived it, but it had taught the Soviets many lessons which would hopefully streamline Mir’s construction and operation.

Meanwhile, in the United States, the preparations for Multibody were finally bearing fruit. The first Multibody core was acceptance-tested in March, on-schedule for a maiden flight later in the year. Production of the Apollo Block IV’s augmented Mission Module and the enhanced Block II Aardvark was also moving ahead at Rockwell’s facilities. On orbit, though, things were less rosy. When Spacelab 29 arrived at the station February 15, 1987, they discovered that the three months of quiescence had exacerbated several previously noted issues. Some were minor, such as failed sensors in old experiment racks or minor wiring issues. Others were more serious, as with the fans that circulated air from the main OWS into the lab annex (the adapted LOX tank). These fans had been balky for years, and the period of inactivity lead to a total breakdown of one of the two redundant blowers. There was no immediate risk as long as the second was still functional, but it too had already been experiencing minor but persistent problems, creating significant concerns about air in the lab annex stagnating and becoming over-saturated with carbon dioxide. In the end, with the assistance and ingenuity of engineers of the ground, the crew of Spacelab 29 was able to retrofit a replacement intended for the ERM’s links to the main environmental control/life-support system (ECLSS) to bypass and replace the failed unit. However, the station was definitely beginning to show the near-decade since its launch in 1978. More and more crew time on Spacelab 29, 30, and 31 was spent on ensuring the operational capabilities of the station were sufficient, with correspondingly less time available for the station’s scientific facilities. Moreover, with the station’s end-of-mission approaching rapidly (Spacelab 32 was to be the last to fly to the station, with de-orbit to follow around January of 1988), the number of new experiments began to fall off dramatically, as most investigators were more interested in fighting for space aboard Freedom than in spending effort on experiments with such a short potential life. Instead, the focus was on concluding the experiments already onboard and conducting tests to prepare for Freedom, including tests of new space suits. Johnson and Ames had continued parallel work on new suit designs, with Ames creating the AX-4 hardsuit, and Johnson developing the A9, a “semi-rigid” suit derived from the existing Apollo-heritage A7L. Prototypes of both suits had been tested on the ground, on “Vomit Comet” flights, and in vacuum chambers, but for final testing functional models of both suits were flown to Spacelab and put to use in EVA trials in November 1987. For both suits, the principal design goals were to achieve a higher operating pressure, allowing a reduction in the pre-breathe time needed before each EVA, and to allow a “one-size fits (nearly) all” capability, rather than the customized tailoring needed for each A7L. By using a generic design, most components could easily be swapped between suits, with only smaller components like the gloves needing to be fit for any specific user. Thus, the main components of the chosen suit could be left on-station, instead of requiring change-out every flight. Two astronauts acted as test subjects, selected to put the versatility of the suits’ fit to the test: rookie pilot Chris Valente (a member of Astronaut Group 10, the class of 1983) and veteran spacewalker Peggy Barnes. As part of the several days of EVAs carried out during trials, Barnes set new records for lifetime total spacewalk time. The two noted that the A9 put in a solid performance, and matched the mobility of the existing A7L for both astronauts. While the mobility of the AX-4 was a notable improvement over the A7L and the A9, the suits’ constant-volume design proved less adaptable for the two users over extended periods in microgravity and vacuum. Despite padding inside the suit, Barnes would note that the mobility increases were more than countered by what was referred to in the final report as “intolerable chafing,” a considerably less colorful evaluation than Barnes’ original comments. Some of the issues had been noted in ground testing, but the extended duration in microgravity exacerbated problems that had been less apparent during ground trials. Thus, the A9 became the suit of choice for Space Station Freedom.

However, the most significant preparation for Freedom operations conducted with Spacelab came in November 1987, and would be the last contribution of Spacelab to the birth of its successor. After months of work, the first VAB cell and mobile launch platform adaptations for Multibody had been completed in July, and the cell was “stood up” to support the inaugural launch of the Saturn M02. Bearing AARDV-14, the last of the Block I Aardvark supply craft, it launched from from the Cape November 18th. Thanks in part to the procedural revisions resulting from the Spacelab 28 Accident Review Board, the launch was flawless. Additionally, the launch preparation flow incorporated many suggestions from years of experience with Saturn IC that would hopefully reduce the time and effort required to prepare Multibody family launchers. This not only promised reduced costs in “touch labor” during preparation, but a faster processing cycle that would hopefully ease pressures that the Freedom assembly schedule might otherwise cause. Spacelab 32’s reduced three-man crew eagerly awaited the launch, and greeted the craft on-orbit. The mission commander was Don Hunt, whose arm had finally healed from his injuries sustained during Spacelab 29 and who had received the honor of being the last commander of the station. After the crew made the final preparations, including using racks installed in place of the outboard two seats to remove some of the original 1978-vintage experimental equipment and station control systems for analysis of the effects of a decade in space, the crew stood by for a decommissioning ceremony to see off the station, removing the U.S. pennant which had been flown during the Spacelab 2 mission, along with flags of several other nations who had flown to the station. The crew then retired to their Apollo, with Hunt being the last to board, and departed. After their recovery, AARDV-14’s thrusters were fired (using excess fuel that the M02’s mass margin had allowed) to send the station to a fiery death over the Indian ocean. With the requirements of Spacelab support removed, the final modifications to Kennedy Space Center followed in short order. The remaining VAB cells and MLP were stood up, and preparations began in January 1988 for the maiden launch of the Saturn Heavy later that year.

[1] This is standard NASA practice. Challenger was an exception IOTL with its Presidential Commission, largely due to the public nature of the failure and the deaths of the crew. With Spacelab 28’s crew safely on the ground, like Apollo 13 before it, Spacelab 28 receives an in-agency investigation.
 
Last edited:
I love your use of the Saturn-Centaur to get Galileo to Jupiter without the bank shot rigamarole needed by the Shuttle. There are similar options available in my timeline--the AES (an early analog to the Ulysses probe) is designed to use the Saturn-Centaur.

Thank you for keeping this going! :)

Well, to be fair Shuttle could have done just the same thing if it had had a Centaur on top (well, I think Saturn-Centaur is a little more powerful, but not enormously so). Saturn has roughly the same payload profile as Shuttle, it's just that it can carry a crew or payload, not both, so there never was any trouble with Saturn-Centaur.
 
Congratulations for Post #20 on "Eyes Turned Skywards" !, Truth is Life and e of pi

By the Way
neopeius, your timeline "Sputniks... an Alternate Space Race" is also very good !
 
Thank you, Michel. As a side note, this marks 2/3 of the way through posting Part II. We've got about 90% of the content for that done, and we're continuing work on that in parallel with planning and writing on Part III content.
 
So it would appear that the Polyus Parallel ITTL was able to make orbit and stay there - for a little while - even if it did fail to make the correct orbit and lost the ability to manoeuvre. And, surprise surprise, they pass it off as a demonstrator flight to prove the Vulkan-Herakles - although this is still true - as fit for purpose.

And it's nice to see that here, they were able to bring down Salyut 7 in a controlled manner, as opposed to the out-of-control re-entry it suffered IOTL. More to the point, lasting longer than expected does appear to be a theme in the Soviet Space Programme, with Mir, Soyuz, Progress and Proton IOTL, and Salyut 7 ITTL so far.

So now the 3rd Gen. Permanently-Habited Space Stations begin their construction - although Mir has a slight advantage in being first with a few less launches needed IIRC - as the faults in the F-1A are rectified bringing the Saturn MultiBody right back into the game.

It's gonna be a fun 4 years ITTL - and you know full well why that is. ;)
 
While I can't speak to the technical aspects of the TL at all, I wanted to just say that I'm still reading and enjoying it.
 
So it would appear that the Polyus Parallel ITTL was able to make orbit and stay there - for a little while - even if it did fail to make the correct orbit and lost the ability to manoeuvre. And, surprise surprise, they pass it off as a demonstrator flight to prove the Vulkan-Herakles - although this is still true - as fit for purpose.

Typical and entirely believable Soviet obfuscation.

I can't help but think of so many similar problems only revealed after the fall of the Soviet Union. Think of the frustration that gripped NASA during the Gemini spacewalks, puzzled that they were having a hard time of replicating the ease that Alexei Leonov reportedly had in his spacewalk on Voshkod 2. Only much later did we learn how nearly disastrous the spacewalk had been.

So now the 3rd Gen. Permanently-Habited Space Stations begin their construction - although Mir has a slight advantage in being first with a few less launches needed IIRC - as the faults in the F-1A are rectified bringing the Saturn MultiBody right back into the game.

But at least Freedom has a good chance of being completed and occupied into the 1990's...

"3rd generation." Makes me wonder what a fourth generation space station would look like in such a timeline in the 2010's...such is the time we lost, alas.

This is great stuff, gentlemen. I think I'm enjoying the space station posts more than any others, probably because it's here that the differences from our own TL are so stark. This is an entirely believable timeline.
 
So it would appear that the Polyus Parallel ITTL was able to make orbit and stay there - for a little while - even if it did fail to make the correct orbit and lost the ability to manoeuvre. And, surprise surprise, they pass it off as a demonstrator flight to prove the Vulkan-Herakles - although this is still true - as fit for purpose.

Typical and entirely believable Soviet obfuscation.

Quite. It will just be assigned a name like Kosmos 5675, and it won't be for some years that anyone in the West except possibly a few people in three-letter agencies work out quite what it was meant to be.

"3rd generation." Makes me wonder what a fourth generation space station would look like in such a timeline in the 2010's...such is the time we lost, alas.

Personally, I think of them as second-generation stations. First-generation were the single-piece, single-launch stations, no resupply or anything of that sort--your Salyuts, Almazes, and Skylabs. Then there was a 1.5 generation where there was limited modular construction and resupply, but by and large the operational paradigm was to launch a station and add on to it a bit rather than launch a station in pieces. This would be Salyut 6/7 IOTL and Spacelab ITTL. Finally, the second generation would be fully modular stations, intended from the drawing board on to be assembled in space. Mir and the ISS are the OTL examples, Salyut 7, Freedom, and Mir are the ITTL examples (and possibly some future stations ;) But not until Part IV, probably, so not for a while).

A third generation station (or fourth generation, by your terminology) would be built entirely in space, from space-based materials, with only supplies and personnel coming from Earth. Then the fourth and later fifth generation would remove even those needs, at least in any substantial amount. That's my view, anyways. Of course, even ITTL's 2010 that's a ways off ;) More importantly, IOTL's "2010" people are starting to question the value of a huge station like ISS, or ITTL Freedom/Mir...several smaller stations seem more viable and useful, specialized to their tasks (and much cheaper to operate, of course).
 
Typical and entirely believable Soviet obfuscation.

I can't help but think of so many similar problems only revealed after the fall of the Soviet Union. Think of the frustration that gripped NASA during the Gemini spacewalks, puzzled that they were having a hard time of replicating the ease that Alexei Leonov reportedly had in his spacewalk on Voshkod 2. Only much later did we learn how nearly disastrous the spacewalk had been.

True. The simple fact it almost killed him when he couldn't get back in the Voshkod Capsule. Makes me wonder how the information release impacts on event ITTL - considering that IOTL, Vasily Mishin survived until 2003 IIRC.


But at least Freedom has a good chance of being completed and occupied into the 1990's...

"3rd generation." Makes me wonder what a fourth generation space station would look like in such a timeline in the 2010's...such is the time we lost, alas.

This is great stuff, gentlemen. I think I'm enjoying the space station posts more than any others, probably because it's here that the differences from our own TL are so stark. This is an entirely believable timeline.

By my reckoning, the final segment of Mir will be the one they may not get up in time. Though the rest of the station may be enough that they can make do without it. How much time it spends occupied, on the other hand......

And I have to say Athelstane. The Launch Vehicles and Space Stations have been my personal favourites of this TL.
 
True. The simple fact it almost killed him when he couldn't get back in the Voshkod Capsule. Makes me wonder how the information release impacts on event ITTL - considering that IOTL, Vasily Mishin survived until 2003 IIRC.

And, hm, naming no names but there may be another top designer or two kicking around longer ITTL. Butterflies and all, you know.
 
Hello truth,

Personally, I think of them as second-generation stations. First-generation were the single-piece, single-launch stations, no resupply or anything of that sort--your Salyuts, Almazes, and Skylabs. Then there was a 1.5 generation where there was limited modular construction and resupply, but by and large the operational paradigm was to launch a station and add on to it a bit rather than launch a station in pieces. This would be Salyut 6/7 IOTL and Spacelab ITTL. Finally, the second generation would be fully modular stations, intended from the drawing board on to be assembled in space. Mir and the ISS are the OTL examples, Salyut 7, Freedom, and Mir are the ITTL examples (and possibly some future stations ;) But not until Part IV, probably, so not for a while).

A third generation station (or fourth generation, by your terminology) would be built entirely in space, from space-based materials, with only supplies and personnel coming from Earth. Then the fourth and later fifth generation would remove even those needs, at least in any substantial amount. That's my view, anyways. Of course, even ITTL's 2010 that's a ways off ;) More importantly, IOTL's "2010" people are starting to question the value of a huge station like ISS, or ITTL Freedom/Mir...several smaller stations seem more viable and useful, specialized to their tasks (and much cheaper to operate, of course).

That's a fair point. I suppose I was thinking just chronologically.

In this sense, Skylab and the first Salyuts were really just prototype stations - testers.

Only when we get to Spacelab and Salyut 6 (OTL), perhaps, do we get bonafide long duration first generation space stations. At least arguably. But there's something to be said for calling Spacelab a 1.5 generation station, since it was open to some modular expansion.

In this case, a third generation station looks a long ways off. What we get in the 2010s-2020s time frame might be just a larger second generation station, or at most, perhaps a 2.5 - but I doubt that, since the means will be lacking for anything that ambitious. And I assume there will be growing interest once again in moving beyond low earth orbit with a couple full decades of developing our capabilities in LEO under our belts... You can only do so many things on NASA's/ESA's budget (and Congress's oversight). The real progress in LEO will be more private intiatives, perhaps made more feasible by more progress in EELV's (or even reusable EELVs, a la SpaceX).

Still, we'd be better off than we are now.
 
Hello truth,

In this case, a third generation station looks a long ways off. What we get in the 2010s-2020s time frame might be just a larger second generation station, or at most, perhaps a 2.5 - but I doubt that, since the means will be lacking for anything that ambitious. And I assume there will be growing interest once again in moving beyond low earth orbit with a couple full decades of developing our capabilities in LEO under our belts... You can only do so many things on NASA's/ESA's budget (and Congress's oversight). The real progress in LEO will be more private intiatives, perhaps made more feasible by more progress in EELV's (or even reusable EELVs, a la SpaceX).

Still, we'd be better off than we are now.

I wonder is US congress and Senate want to finance another space stations in 2010 ?
or the President as other priory like manned Lunar or Mars mission.
but that depends on how China, India and Brazil space program develop in 1990s of "Eyes turns Skywards"
i think also there would be a transition from US State to Private sector on LEO stations and science platforms,
with similar concept of SOLARIS or Hermes/Man-Tended Free Flyer
that's Small stations/capsule that could be launch by Titan 34.
 
I wonder is US congress and Senate want to finance another space stations in 2010 ?
or the President as other priory like manned Lunar or Mars mission.
but that depends on how China, India and Brazil space program develop in 1990s of "Eyes turns Skywards"
i think also there would be a transition from US State to Private sector on LEO stations and science platforms,
with similar concept of SOLARIS or Hermes/Man-Tended Free Flyer
that's Small stations/capsule that could be launch by Titan 34.

Hi Michel,

I think we start by assuming a NASA budget not dissimilar to what NASA has had in our own timeline these last twenty-odd years. That's your baseline.

In the 90's, the good news is: the high costs of station planning and construction are done with. All NASA has to do is to maintain, man and supply it - and do it with much cheaper Saturn Multibody launchers/CSM Block IVs/AARDVs rather than the white elephant STS.

More to the point, you already have a launch system available that *could* take you beyond low earth orbit again...that could make Luna more tempting...

I don't know enough about the costs of Freedom maintenance in this timeline to say whether the money is there for a return to the Moon - let alone to Mars (I think that would require a lot more money, I'm afraid, even using a Zubrin approach). Perhaps if private space was given an earlier boost to take over some of that station maintenance...but I don't know if that would really save that much money over the evolved Saturn/Apollo. Remember that Freedom has a crew of 10, not 6, so that will have to be taken into account. My gut says the money's not there, really, especially if what you want is a permanent return to the Moon (which is the only way it would make sense).

But it's sure as hell more of a possibility in Eyes Turned Skywards' world in the 90's/00's/10's than it is in ours.
 
Hi Michel,

I think we start by assuming a NASA budget not dissimilar to what NASA has had in our own timeline these last twenty-odd years. That's your baseline.

My baseline is "hey the Cold war is over, why to hell you need a fourth Space station ? you had already use three!"
because allot Space programs dies because of questionable political decision...

More to the point, you already have a launch system available that *could* take you beyond low earth orbit again...that could make Luna more tempting...
i second that
special with Titan III and it's potential model like with 4 solid booster or with centaur upper stage, for Private sector to get LEO or Lunar mission.

I don't know enough about the costs of Freedom maintenance in this timeline to say whether the money is there for a return to the Moon - let alone to Mars (I think that would require a lot more money, I'm afraid, even using a Zubrin approach). Perhaps if private space was given an earlier boost to take over some of that station maintenance...but I don't know if that would really save that much money over the evolved Saturn/Apollo. Remember that Freedom has a crew of 10, not 6, so that will have to be taken into account. My gut says the money's not there, really, especially if what you want is a permanent return to the Moon (which is the only way it would make sense).

But it's sure as hell more of a possibility in Eyes Turned Skywards' world in the 90's/00's/10's than it is in ours.

it would be cheaper as ISS, because lower flight cost because no shuttle and Saturn Multibody launchers instead.
again to go to Moon or even Mars has one big obstruction: questionable political decision...
here is problem with end of USSR and Coldwar what reason is left to go there ?
except china push in power vacum that left the Ussr...
 
Last edited:
Hello Michel,

My baseline is "hey the Cold war is over, why to hell you need a fourth Space station ? you had already use three!"
because allot Space programs dies because of questionable political decision...


That's a possibility. After 20-30 years in low earth orbit, you've probably learned much of what you need to know. (Although I'd make a push for a centrifuge module to be added to Freedom.) At that point, the game may be best turned over to private consortiums.

I think if it's a return to the Moon, it has to be for the long-term, in some way shape or form. At the very least: an orbital or Lagrange station remotely controlling robotic explorers on the surface, or a surface station itself.

it would be cheaper as ISS, because lower flight cost because no shuttle and Saturn Multibody launchers instead.
again to go to Moon or even Mars has one big obstruction: questionable political decision...
here is problem with end of USSR and Coldwar what reason is left to go there ?
except china push in power vacum that left the Ussr...


Yes, the question remains: Why do we return to the Moon? Is it worth it? We know it's far more romantic and inspiring than putzing around in low earth orbit, but... Griffin was never really able to answer that question properly.

Obviously if there's loads of Helium 3 there - or some other heretofore undetected rare mineral - that could make it worthwhile. Otherwise, the Moon is mainly worthwhile as a (close range) testbed for surface missions to the rest of the Solar System. Most other reasons could be addressed (more cheaply, more safely) through robotic means.

Well: I'll be interested to see what our authors come up with. This will only get harder as we depart more and more from our own timeline, and NASA has to think about what it's next HSF project will be post-Freedom, post-Cold War. But so far, it's all been very plausible.
 
Top