Eyes Turned Skywards

Re: Hubble

Though now that I think of it, won't this alternate space program make servicing the "Hubble" more difficult? I mean I guess the faults are totally the subject of butterflies, but just in theory.

It might. But since The Block III CSM stll has a good delta-v budget on top of the ability to carry an optional mission module behind itself during a launch to orbit IMHO, this should not be too much of a problem.


I'm not sure I have a sense of how Spacelab compares to NASA's activities IOTL. Are we seeing more or fewer missions/astronauts/experiments ITTL?

I'm getting a feeling that equipment is being re-assessed more frequently ITTL, which makes sense. Once you've spent the money to build a shuttle you only need equipment to function well with it, while ITTL less initial expense means less institutional investment and less pressure to keep the same old stuff. If every piece of the equation is more frequently being tinkered with, I'd expect TTL to advance more quickly than OTL.

Seems that way, but who knows. Those should be answered in the updates to come.
 
A state of controlled chaos? Can't say I'm surprised.

This I think, also explains the general reluctance to make sweeping changes to an operational design given all the associated challenges with it. Take for example Arianes 1, 2/3, & 4. All were very similar designs, yet needed their own launch pads due to the few differences they had from each other - granted Ariane 4 was rather different from the first three, but it was still essentially the same design.
This is one benefit of the LC39 clean pad design, almost all the launcher-specific modifications (other than basic stuff like fuel types) are on the Mobile Launcher Platform, meaning that with different MLPs, multiple launcher types can be served simultaneously from the same pad complex. It's one thing I don't like about how Shuttle was done, and one thing I like about how SLS is being done (part of a rather short list).

So the very last Saturn V gets ready to lift off, leaving none for the museums - unless the partially built ones get finished for that purpose, but the odds are slim-to-none.
There's enough test stages and stuff floating around for maybe two display units, but yeah--all flight-rated Saturns have flown ITTL.

The Saturn 1C performs well on it's test flight, which combined with the - I'm guessing here, though I'm sure it will be accurate - extensive debugging ground tests means it's fit for flight. A long time coming, but at least it's there at last.
Yeah, the F1A has seen extensive test firing, and there's been testing of the fully integrated SIVB with the J2S and the new Boeing first stage.

While at the same time, expanding the range of NASA Astronauts in terms of numbers, race, and gender. I'm guessing the USSR will still attempt to upshot them the same way they did OTL with Salyut 6.
I'm not sure I have a sense of how Spacelab compares to NASA's activities IOTL. Are we seeing more or fewer missions/astronauts/experiments ITTL?
For the record, this TL's TFNG group is a little earlier than OTL's equivalent due to the need for additional Spacelab astronauts, which means that almost none of the OTL group are likely to be picked--basically all the OTL selections got their doctorates in the same year they were selected, so if the same pattern follows, it'll be mostly new faces. However, the group is also smaller than OTL (20 vs 35). Partly this is because there's more astronauts who stuck around with Spacelab and Skylab being a bit more active in what was OTL a 6-year gap, but it's also affected by missions. They're flying more space missions in the late 70s than OTL, but since they're projecting four 3-crew missions per year instead of the Shuttle's projected eleventy billion missions per year, the long-term need is smaller.
I'm getting a feeling that equipment is being re-assessed more frequently ITTL, which makes sense. Once you've spent the money to build a shuttle you only need equipment to function well with it, while ITTL less initial expense means less institutional investment and less pressure to keep the same old stuff. If every piece of the equation is more frequently being tinkered with, I'd expect TTL to advance more quickly than OTL.
The possibility for easier incremental improvement is improved with expendables and smaller individual investments. However, politics and money will still be major driving forces in how space progresses.
Though now that I think of it, won't this alternate space program make servicing the "Hubble" more difficult? I mean I guess the faults are totally the subject of butterflies, but just in theory.
It might. But since The Block III CSM stll has a good delta-v budget on top of the ability to carry an optional mission module behind itself during a launch to orbit IMHO, this should not be too much of a problem.
A servicing mission need a lot of hardware--at the bare minimum, an airlock and places to put 5 or 6 tons of equipment. Apollo Block III has a good bit of margin on Saturn 1C, but not enough for that. They could do two flights-one of an Aardvark-type thing to pre-place the instruments, then a crewed Apollo with the airlock, but it's a lost of costs and specialty hardware.
 
Re: Hubble

Whoops! I really do apologize, I could've sworn I read somewhere that larger ground-based telescopes would be replacing orbitals ITTL. Such an oddly-specific phantom thought...

Well, it was true IOTL, so most likely it will be true ITTL, at least for optical scopes. You can do amazing things with adaptive optics, and with the big 1980s breakthroughs in ultralightweight mirrors that let them build things like the Kecks, there's not much call for big optical space observatories. Infrared and ultraviolet are just as attractive, since they're blocked by the atmosphere.

Though now that I think of it, won't this alternate space program make servicing the "Hubble" more difficult? I mean I guess the faults are totally the subject of butterflies, but just in theory.

Yes. You will see how that works out :)

I'm not sure I have a sense of how Spacelab compares to NASA's activities IOTL. Are we seeing more or fewer missions/astronauts/experiments ITTL?

Human space flight is more active right now (which is not hard, considering that there was no activity at all at this time IOTL!). In the early 1980s, I expect that TTL will fall a bit behind OTL since there's no shuttle, so flights won't happen as often, but later on it might pick up a bit--if there is a Challenger, it might happen at a different time than OTL, after all. The planetary program is somewhat more active right now than IOTL, but we'll have to see where that goes.

I'm getting a feeling that equipment is being re-assessed more frequently ITTL, which makes sense. Once you've spent the money to build a shuttle you only need equipment to function well with it, while ITTL less initial expense means less institutional investment and less pressure to keep the same old stuff. If every piece of the equation is more frequently being tinkered with, I'd expect TTL to advance more quickly than OTL.

More to the point, things here are expendable. If you have to build a new capsule or rocket after each flight, it's easier to tinker a little with it in between (the marginal cost is smaller, since you already have to build a new flight article). However, your perception is not entirely accurate. The whole Block III/Saturn IC thing is basically TTL equivalent to Shuttle. Spacelab is also a part of that, but many of the desired design decisions were selected prior to Skylab's flight; that just crystallized or refined them. The reason they fly so much more quickly is that less R&D is needed on them, since they're just refinements or extensions to what already exists, not an entire clean-sheet design.
 
Ah, cool. I was going to ask about IR and UV. A friend of mine studying accretion disks thanks you!

I was thinking observation might be a great avenue for the Europeans to take ITTL.
 
Post 15: Space advocacy part II: Gerard K. O'Neill, Space Colonization, and the Lunar Society
Well, this week we're returning to cover some more of the 70s space advocacy developments. Last time (in post 13) we covered the NSO and Carl Sagan, this week let's look in on another major group.

Eyes Turned Skyward, Post 15

Gerard K. O'Neill was perhaps an unlikely prophet to lead what, at times, seemed more of a religious than a technological movement. Known in the scientific community for having invented the colliding-beam particle accelerator in the late 1950s and early 1960s, he had been one of the first applicants for the scientist-astronaut positions opened in the mid-1960s, saying that "to be alive now and not take part in it seemed terribly myopic" when asked why he did so. While he was not accepted as an astronaut candidate, he retained a keen interest in spaceflight after he returned to Princeton. Over several years, as the result of special projects he assigned the freshman students he was teaching, he became convinced that planetary or lunar surfaces were suitable only as resources for a true space society, not (as had generally been envisioned by previous thinkers) as the actual location of settlement. Instead, great stations could house hundreds of thousands or millions of people in comfort, supplied by resources extracted from the Moon or asteroids, with energy provided by the Sun. Over time, he honed these ideas from relatively vague notions to a detailed plan, spelling out how the world could procede to a future of virtually unlimited energy, resources, and living room by utilizing space. In 1974 he finally managed to publish an article spelling out this plan in the magazine *Physics Today*, a few months after an article describing him and his plan had appeared in the *New York Times*.

The response floored him. While he had had enthusiastic reactions to the seminars and talks on the subject he had been giving for several years, those had, by and large, been given to people with a technical education, who might have been expected to be unusually interested in space colonization. Now he was receiving a flood of attention from regular people; from those who, all the studies indicated, were unenthusiastic about or even hostile towards the space program. He quickly had to hire a secretary to deal with the incoming mail, and followed by setting up a mailing list so that his fans could stay informed about what he was doing, which, although he didn't realize it yet, would be the precursor to the Lunar Society. In addition to confirming public interest in the idea, these letters brought two items of information that proved of great import.

First, O'Neill learned of the work of Peter Glaser, who had suggested that it might be possible to build giant solar arrays in space that could beam power down to the ground. Such arrays would be unaffected by weather and would be able to produce power around the clock, in contrast to ground-based arrays, greatly increasing their apparent power output. More importantly, such arrays would necessarily have to be very large to provide useful amounts of power, and could, in large part, be built in space out of space-based materials. Since O'Neill's colonies already required extensive mining efforts on the Moon or in the asteroids for materials, and relied on space-based manufacturing and construction to be economical, it was apparent that such satellites could also be built there, for a potentially substantial and (more importantly) direct and immediate payoff. Almost immediately, the justification for the colonies switched from accommodating Earth's growing population directly to supporting the construction of power satellites.

Second, results from the Apollo 18 flight indicated that the Moon had been volcanic activity relatively recently, and therefore that there were likely lava tubes on the Moon which could be used for initial settlement. A colony could be built in such a tube much more quickly and cheaply than a full space colony could be, while ecological requirements, space manufacturing (particularly using lunar materials), lunar launch systems, space power systems, and other important techniques and technologies could be developed or proved on the Moon before any of the actual space colonies were built. Further, once the lunar colony was constructed, along with a construction station at L-5, it could begin producing segments of the Island One colony and solar power satellites immediately, allowing a more rapid development process and faster payback of initial construction costs. Thus, constructing a proper lunar colony first might better enable the long-term goal of large space colonies.

Together, these concepts increased public interest even further. Now, it looked as though the idea might not be good just for the environment, but for the pocketbook as well, with sales of massive amounts of clean solar energy both undercutting existing utility prices and generating massive profits, while financing colonization of space. Even NASA was affected, with centers from Ames to Kennedy funding small-scale studies of space manufacturing using Skylab data--what could be made, how could it be made, what were the limitations? Robotics, astroculture (high-density agriculture or the sort needed for space colonies), and the problem of cheap lift dominated the studies, with the last proving to be the most persistent and important difficulty. Being able to cheaply lift cargo into space was clearly vital to O'Neill's expansive vision; while he did rely heavily on extraterrestrial resources, many key components and of course most of the initial equipment still needed to be produced on Earth, making the plan dependent on low-cost lift for at least the initial stages.

To O’Neill, it was clear that for his plans to work, cheap lift was the key. With cheap lift, demonstrating astroculture, in-space manufacture, transmitted power, and scouting for good lunar mining and colony sites would become easy. Without it, the venture would be impossible to get off the ground. What was needed was something like the proposed Shuttle that Nixon had killed, a cheap high-flight-rate reusable vehicle to lower the cost of spaceflight. What this required, clearly, was an organization capable of advocating and pushing for such a direction. O’Neill came to believe that his mailing list consisted of just the right people to form such an organization. By mid 1976, the Lunar Society was formed, with the goal of promoting O'Neill's agenda for space by supporting research into the key technologies and pushing NASA and the US government to commit to such a project. To most members, it seemed a natural outgrowth of the agency's station-focus, with retained technologies from the Apollo era allowing some of the more expensive key research areas (related to the exact location and qualities of lunar lava tubes and biomedical results of long-term habitation on the lunar surface) to be conducted relatively inexpensively.
 
Nice update on the more public end of this TimeLine. However, the various space support groups are not my specialty, technical and engineering aspects are what I'm most comfortable with.

Speaking of. IIRC, one reason the USSR wanted a new generation of LVs OTL was so they could be rid of the hypergolically propelled UR-500. Since your POD is 1969 - 8 years after the Nedellin Disaster - I'm guessing much the same holds true ITTL. Meaning LOX/Kerosene with LOX/LH2 research - even if they (apparently) decided that the performance gain weren't worth the extra cost and complexity in all but the upper stages.

So the question is: What do they have planned further down the line? A Zenit-type LV with CCB tech is not unreasonable to expect.
 
Nice update on the more public end of this TimeLine. However, the various space support groups are not my specialty, technical and engineering aspects are what I'm most comfortable with.
The technical side is more of my specialty as well, which is why this update is Truth's work. :) Still, showing the cultural impact of spaceflight--especially any groups that could help keep it in the public eye--is important to us, especially since these groups might have some effect in helping space get a bit more money and such than OTL.

Speaking of. IIRC, one reason the USSR wanted a new generation of LVs OTL was so they could be rid of the hypergolically propelled UR-500. Since your POD is 1969 - 8 years after the Nedellin Disaster - I'm guessing much the same holds true ITTL. Meaning LOX/Kerosene with LOX/LH2 research - even if they (apparently) decided that the performance gain weren't worth the extra cost and complexity in all but the upper stages.

So the question is: What do they have planned further down the line? A Zenit-type LV with CCB tech is not unreasonable to expect.
I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me. There's a few extensive Russia updates in the can that hold answers to these questions and more, but they're scheduled for the mid-twenties.
 
Possibly, will we have at all in the future, Manipulator Arms, Hubble? Also what kind of design for Freedom will it be, as for Freedom, several times it has been recreated in Orbiter, and I can take screenshots if need be, but with addons I found online. The Freedom missions were in Orbiter 2006, but I do not know where the addons went, so I can possibly help with the deployment and launch vehicles photography.
 
Possibly, will we have at all in the future, Manipulator Arms, Hubble? Also what kind of design for Freedom will it be, as for Freedom, several times it has been recreated in Orbiter, and I can take screenshots if need be, but with addons I found online. The Freedom missions were in Orbiter 2006, but I do not know where the addons went, so I can possibly help with the deployment and launch vehicles photography.
Orbiter screenshots for such stuff would be really cool, but many of the vehicles in use in this TL simply were never made OTL, so may not already exist for Orbiter. The Saturn 1C, the Apollo Block III, some other stuff that hasn't made appearances yet in the released posts...if you'd be able to mod those into Orbiter and do images, that would be amazing (I can provide dimensions, capabilities, and some guidance on appearance).

EDIT: Oh...and I got so caught up in that excitement I missed your first couple questions. :eek: Yes, there will be a Hubble. Manipulator arms...unlikely to appear on Apollo, since they'd be expendable. Their inclusion in station designs seems assured, though. OTL Freedom designs are likely not to quite match what we've got planned, because of different launch capabilities in this TL and available craft.
 
I'll get the forum working ASAP. :D You can post it there if you'd like.
Would you be able to? I wouldn't know the community to go to, or how to go about using the software. I'm going to wait to do anything before I hear back from truthislife, but if he's on-board with it I can get you the reference information we've made for ourselves about the current and planned future vehicles in this TL.
 
Great update! I think one of the best reasons in favor of going with stations instead of the shuttle is that we already know the private sector is interested in cheap lift IOTL. They'll certainly invest towards reusable launch craft ITTL, too. Now, I'm sure not having the shuttle means they'll be behind OTL, but the gap is nothing compared to where I expect we'll be in relation to stations ITTL.

Glad to see the butterflies from that extra moon landing paying off!
 
What is "orbiter forum?"

As I recall in the 1970s, long before the STS was ready to launch, there was already a lot of speculation in science fiction (and in the "science fact" columns of SF magazines, aside from reading Asimov's collected entries for I believe F&SF magazine in numerous library books, I was then mostly reading Jerry Pournelle's column in Galaxy, "A Step Farther Out") about much cheaper systems still. Pournelle was enamoured of the laser launching system (you fire a laser at the bottom of a bullet-shaped orbiter packet; it flashes the air into a jet; eventually it is ablating the material from the bottom of the orbiter instead for the reaction mass). Now that I think of it it is hard for me to see how that could work--by the time you've accumulated a significant fraction of orbital velocity you'd be up where the air is too thin for even a powerful heat ray to accomplish much by blasting it out of the base, so it would have to be mainly working by boiling off the bottom of the packet, and that implies a high percentage of the total launch mass is going to get blasted away. Even if we handwave the problems of maintaining focus and proper tracking of the beam, it would have to be one hellishly powerful laser! Because to get significantly better payload/launch weight ratios than the STS you'd need to achieve an ISP much higher than the SSME's main engines, so that's again one walloping huge laser to deliver that kind of power!

But supposedly the idea was that you leave the complex and expensive part of the system on the ground; the packets are little more than hypersonic shells and some kind of cheap plastic or the like ablative material on the bottom--they don't even need a guidance system.

I'm not sure when people went beyond the idea of the "orbital beanstalk," the cable suspended from geosynch orbit, which was very popular in the late 70s (I think Clarke's Fountains of Paradise came out in 1979 or so)--Charles Sheffield began popularizing variations of the theme in his SF published around the turn of the decade--to dynamic systems like "orbital fountains" or the "Loftstrom loop," which I first saw mentioned in Fred Pohl's Beyond the Blue Event Horizon, a Gateway book again published in the early 1980s.

The Loop seems like the most promising approach to me.

But when I was invited to some presentation or seminar or some such at NASA-Langley (I lived on Langley AFB at the time, on the other side of the flight line) when I was in high school, and I asked a question about the possibilities of such high-investment but high volume and low cost per payload mass schemes, I was told by someone who worked for NASA that of course the Shuttle would take care of cheap lift to orbit, no need to worry about these other sorts of methods!

The Shuttle--or any other rocket system--would indeed be significantly cheaper per ton of payload, if it were utilized with enough frequency. But I think these other sorts of schemes would be far cheaper still, by an order of magnitude or perhaps several of them!

Since in the teaser posts for the timeline it was indicated that as late as our own time period, NASA had yet to develop anything like the Shuttle. I guess however much noise various public sectors make about how cool it would be to have a winged reusable spaceplane, their main effect is to drive NASA to make the economics of separate-rocket-engine launchers and ballistic return capsules competitive with some nominal, imagined Shuttle type alternative that ITTL NASA is really hardnosed and realistic about, since they aren't trying to persuade Congress to fund it. It wouldn't surprise me if even trying to highball its costs and lowball its benefits, they wind up estimating a notional Shuttle would cost significantly less than our OTL track record has been, and make that the goal to beat with their real rockets!:p

But I'd be ever so thrilled if the timeline winds up including a serious attempt at testing the Loftstrom Loop concept, even if the outcome is a demonstration of why the system won't work I'd find that at least educational.

But I don't see why it wouldn't work.

The thing is, to make it cost-effective, one needs huge masses being lofted into orbit, for years. Millions of tons!

The Wiki article describes the packet tonnage as being about 5 tons. To move people into orbit, and assuming the packets have to be designed to enable people to survive reentry if something goes wrong during a launch or landing and they have to be aerobraked, well that's not a lot bigger than a Gemini capsule is it? Is 5 tons about the mass of the Apollo Command Module?

I'd think that in addition to being designed for an emergency reentry, they'd need rather massive magnetic field generation apparatus of some kind, and while some of that mass might double as ablative or hot-structure reentry shielding, mostly it's separate mass. The good side is that one could use a Loop to land on as well as launch from, so as long as nothing goes wrong the capsules are reusable.

Still I'd be more comfortable if the designs proposed were designed around somewhat larger packet masses--10 tons or even 20 seems much more like it to me!
 
What is "orbiter forum?"
Orbiter is like Microsoft Flight Sim for space.

A12Icansee.jpg

494a.jpg

30406.jpg

The Orbiter community includes a strong modding community, and I'd assume the forum is a place such people hang out and talk shop. I'd be excited if someone capable with the program was interested in ETS because it'd be possible with Orbiter to create some really cool images of some of the hardware specific to this TL--which is nice, I've been really wishing we could do more pictures to better convey the images in my head and Truth's head to our readers.

As I recall in the 1970s, long before the STS was ready to launch, there was already a lot of speculation in science fiction (and in the "science fact" columns of SF magazines, aside from reading Asimov's collected entries for I believe F&SF magazine in numerous library books, I was then mostly reading Jerry Pournelle's column in Galaxy, "A Step Farther Out") about much cheaper systems still. Pournelle was enamoured of the laser launching system (you fire a laser at the bottom of a bullet-shaped orbiter packet; it flashes the air into a jet; eventually it is ablating the material from the bottom of the orbiter instead for the reaction mass). Even if we handwave the problems of maintaining focus and proper tracking of the beam, it would have to be one hellishly powerful laser! Because to get significantly better payload/launch weight ratios than the STS you'd need to achieve an ISP much higher than the SSME's main engines, so that's again one walloping huge laser to deliver that kind of power!
Yeah, it'd be a lot of power in the laser. ISP isn't the big hangup, though, it's thrust. You have to generate enough thrust to fight gravity, and the longer it takes the more energy you're wasting due to gravity drag--essentially, think that a rocket with a thrust-to-weight of 1.2 at launch is "wasting" 5/6ths of the fuel just hovering, not accelerating at all.

The Loop seems like the most promising approach to me.
*snip*
The Shuttle--or any other rocket system--would indeed be significantly cheaper per ton of payload, if it were utilized with enough frequency. But I think these other sorts of schemes would be far cheaper still, by an order of magnitude or perhaps several of them!
Launch loops are interesting, but I'm not convinced they're mature even IOTL in the present to be considered as a near-term alternative, and even once they become such there isn't enough of a market at the moment to justify their use and not in the future unless you were building full on colonies. And unlike a rocket launch site where you can build fewer rockets or a space elevator that can just be left hanging unused during downtime, a loop costs about the same whether you're using it or not--most of the power it needs is round-the-clock to hold it up since it's a dynamically supported structure. Sorry, Shevek, but not going to happen in a TL of mine, not until that TL has serious interest in full-scale colonization and space development, better materials tech, and power literally too cheap to meter.
Since in the teaser posts for the timeline it was indicated that as late as our own time period, NASA had yet to develop anything like the Shuttle.
Actually, we were careful about this. The skepticism of the posters is not aimed at a reusable space vehicle (there's a slight oversight in that where Houston Observer mentions "no high-performance reusable liquid engines even now," it is supposed to mean high-thrust high-ISP hydrolox first stage engines, not upper stage engines). The skepticism is rather at doing all the work needed for a (1) fully reusable (2) high-flight-rate (3) winged launcher all at once (4) with 70s tech. That doesn't mean none of those have been done independently, and in fact some are specifically called out as having been done. Besides, I happen to personally think wings are over-rated on spacecraft unless it's an air-breathing launcher like Skylon that can't generate enough thrust to overcome its weight on the air-breathing mode. Wings? Where we're going we don't need no stinking wings!
 
Nice pics. And they do give an idea as to what's happening, if you look at it the right way.

Actually, we were careful about this. The skepticism of the posters is not aimed at a reusable space vehicle (there's a slight oversight in that where Houston Observer mentions "no high-performance reusable liquid engines even now," it is supposed to mean high-thrust high-ISP hydrolox first stage engines, not upper stage engines). The skepticism is rather at doing all the work needed for a (1) fully reusable (2) high-flight-rate (3) winged launcher all at once (4) with 70s tech. That doesn't mean none of those have been done independently, and in fact some are specifically called out as having been done. Besides, I happen to personally think wings are over-rated on spacecraft unless it's an air-breathing launcher like Skylon that can't generate enough thrust to overcome its weight on the air-breathing mode. Wings? Where we're going we don't need no stinking wings!

I noticed this too. The SSMEs OTL had high thrust and high Isp - it was even acceptable at sea level - but were viciously expensive both to buy and service at the end of each flight.

The RS-68s are good at sea level, but not very cheap, and seriously inefficient overall.

The RS-83/84 - whichever was the LOX/LH2 version - was supposed to counter this by being a very good 1st stage LOX/LH2 engine. But development was cancelled with the birth of VSE - which in turn was cancelled.

As for Skylon. Designed in Britain. Funded by someone other than Britain - well, just proving the engine concept - as usual. Just proves that when it comes to investing in the future, UK Govt. is more retarded than Peter Griffin OTL, as history will prove more times than I can care to count.
 
Nice pics. And they do give an idea as to what's happening, if you look at it the right way.
Well, they would if not for the fact that none of those covers something that happens in the course of this TL: the Apollo on SIVB is doing TLI, and the model is supposed to be Apollo 12, while Shuttle and ISS are obviously not going to happen as OTL. To do stuff from ETS, we'd need models of the Block III Apollo, the Saturn 1C, and other stuff we have coming in the future.
I noticed this too. The SSMEs OTL had high thrust and high Isp - it was even acceptable at sea level - but were viciously expensive both to buy and service at the end of each flight.
The Block III SSME would have helped with this, by adding an engine monitoring system that would have drastically reduced the time needed during checks between flights, but the point is still pretty solid. Making a hydrogen first-stage engine work well is hard, even OTL, and without the parallel-staging of Shuttle/Buran or trying to design a SSTO, there's not much reason to bother.
 
Hello pi, truth,

It's been a while since I checked in, and I simply had to dive into this thread to see the fruits of your labor.

This is remarkable stuff - a tantalizing hint of what I would say is the most likely kind of space program that would have emerged had Low (and the powers that be) decided not to opt for the Shuttle. In fact, in many ways, it was almost certainly a more likely path for NASA to take post-Apollo. It's remarkable to think that NASA, having spent over $25 billion developing a tremendously successful (and adaptable) mature expendable manned system, simply opted to toss it out the window in favor a risky clean sheet design - and at a time when its budget was rapidly shrinking. It's a testament to NASA leadership that they were able to gain approval for such a risky scheme.

I particularly like how it makes clear just what the challenges were for adapting Apollo/Saturn hardware to a LEO station-based program. The hardware was a mature system, tremendously well devised - but it required much more work for long-term orbital activity, something for which it really was not designed. And there was a price exacted for such a pathway, since NASA would almost certainly not get as much money for this less sexy extension of mature expendable systems as it ultimately did for STS. And yet, despite that, it's increasingly clear now that this would have been a more cost effective and sustainable program for NASA. STS was a development black hole that absorbed a great deal of money to the point where it was unable to do much of anything else for many years.

Beyond the additional narratives, I think we're all dying to see more details of what the Saturn 1c, the Block III CSM and the Spacelab really look like. I don't know if that's possible, but it would be worth developing.

The only other question I have is - how does NASA work and develop a LEO station program through the 80's without a heavy lift capability? Whatever they do is certain to be modular in any event...but the 1c offers the possibility of only very small modules. That might be the trap for this path, since it's not clear that Congress would pony up for a heavy lift Saturn somewhere between the 1C and V. But it would certainly would not be the dead end that the STS has been, nor as risky, either. On the whole, I'd say you're doing a good job of demonstrating the value of the road not taken.
 
Hello pi, truth,

It's been a while since I checked in, and I simply had to dive into this thread to see the fruits of your labor.
Athelstane,

Thank you very much for your kind words, I'm glad to hear that you've enjoyed the TL. Writing this TL and thinking back on our own history through its lens really has reshaped my view of the Shuttle, and indeed it's kind of changed my mind of winged reusables in general. Anyway, again thanks for reading an commenting, and to answer your more technical questions:
Beyond the additional narratives, I think we're all dying to see more details of what the Saturn 1c, the Block III CSM and the Spacelab really look like. I don't know if that's possible, but it would be worth developing.
It might be possible, but doing it justice is challenging and neither Truth nor I have the free time we had when we started writing this. I'm hoping to take some time this holiday break (and maybe even in my downtime next semester if I land a co-op) to learn Blender or other modeling program. I've got a friend who's very into Shapeways, and I was thinking of maybe working up versions of some of the craft from this TL suitable for 3D printing as well as for making pretty pictures for the TL. If one of our readers would know more about how to go about getting setup in Orbiter...I'm interested, but I just don't have the time to figure it out from scratch and I don't think Truth does either.

In general:

Saturn 1C looks a lot like Saturn 1B, but with a single tank set in the first stage instead of the clustered tanks of the Saturb 1B. Additionally, it's got the single F1A. The SIVB upper stage is almost identical to the Saturn 1B version, with the swapping out of the higher-performance J2S for the J2.

Block III's CM looks a lot like the Block II CSM, though maybe painted like some of the Skylab's were for better thermal control on long orbital flights? The SM is shorter, since some of the additional tankage from the Block II was completely deleted and cutting the length saves structural mass. We were going back and forth on solar panels vs. sticking with fuel cells and sticking with the AJ-10 vs. switching to a lower thrust and lighter engine (I think we were looking for a while at a proposal that had suggested the LM ascent engine as an option?) so neither of those details is quite fixed. Any thoughts from the peanut gallery on that?

The AARDV (Aardvark) is based on the Block III SM, the SM was developed to serve both roles. In place of the CM, though, it adds a module with room for fuel and water transfer as well as a pressurized module for cargo and equipment. Some additional radar antenna and stuff for automatic docking. Overall, looks a little like an ATV--it's actually much the same size.

Spacelab...take Skylab, remove the ATM, add another port on the MDA. Initially that extra port has the docking module, which looks a lot like the ASTP I docking module, but after those flights are done it's to be replaced with a full airlock, and there's also the planned European Research Module which is probably going to end up on the axial port (both the airlock and the ERM have axial ports on both ends, so they keep the same number of open ports for docking spacecraft).

The only other question I have is - how does NASA work and develop a LEO station program through the 80's without a heavy lift capability? Whatever they do is certain to be modular in any event...but the 1c offers the possibility of only very small modules. That might be the trap for this path, since it's not clear that Congress would pony up for a heavy lift Saturn somewhere between the 1C and V. But it would certainly would not be the dead end that the STS has been, nor as risky, either. On the whole, I'd say you're doing a good job of demonstrating the value of the road not taken.
There's essentially two factions inside NASA future planning groups at this point in Eyes Turned Skyward's TL. One points out that the Saturn 1C offers 20.4 tons to a 430x430, 51.6 degree orbit, and more to lower orbits with less inclination. With a 6-ton Aardvark-derived bus, it has the potential to launch 14-ton modules, or roughly the same as OTL Shuttle. Now that's with no crew, no airlock, no arm, so there's difficulties, but it's possible to build a station that way--it just takes work. The ERM is intended to demonstrate this method of assembly. However, you've also got another group that misses the benefits of heavy lift and really wants the freedom larger sized modules could give--but this group can't offer a solution to how to get Congress to fund a new medium or medium-heavy lifter. How does this end up shaking out? That would be telling. :)
 
Top