Well, it isn't ready. That's the point. More detail on stuff will come as they happen--like the Voyager program (I happen to know Truth is hard at work on some really cool unmanned stuff).
And Xavier...It's all right, I've done something similar myself, also with Europa.
Alright then. Should be very interesting to see what happens.
I noticed - then forgot.
All right. It may be apparent already, but no post today. Here's a bit of the behind-the-scenes: when truth and I made the decision to begin posting back in mid-August, we decided to aim to have a first run going from our PODs through to about 1981/82. At that point, we had...somewhere around 15 completed posts, and five others in various stages of completion, trending less complete as they went later. We suspected that we wouldn't be able to write posts at the same weekly rate we were posting, so the goal was to finish up to the end of this first part, then go to hiatus until we had sufficient buffer on part two.
Over time that number of posts in Part One has gone up by about three or four from the original count, but essentially, we're reaching the end of the buffer, which is one reason that re-writes like those on ELVRP II delayed things more than previous changes that could be made prior to the posts needing to appear. Given this, we're thinking that there will be one, maybe two more posts in this part, and then we'll likely be going away for a few months to rebuild a buffer.
This isn't the end of Eyes Turned Skyward, truth and I are still very excited about the project, but we want be able to take the time to get the next round of posts ready to the standard of the rest of the TL without the weekly update hanging over us constantly. I'm aiming to get the last couple posts up in the next week or two, but then we will be starting our hiatus. Continued comment, critique, or speculation is invited, it's helped us revise and improve Eyes Turned Skywards during this first run, confirming the plausibility and helping us check that decisions roughly made sense, and I hope that it can continue to inform our writing as we work on part two material into the 80s and beyond.
Over time that number of posts in Part One has gone up by about three or four from the original count, but essentially, we're reaching the end of the buffer, which is one reason that re-writes like those on ELVRP II delayed things more than previous changes that could be made prior to the posts needing to appear. Given this, we're thinking that there will be one, maybe two more posts in this part, and then we'll likely be going away for a few months to rebuild a buffer.
This isn't the end of Eyes Turned Skyward, truth and I are still very excited about the project, but we want be able to take the time to get the next round of posts ready to the standard of the rest of the TL without the weekly update hanging over us constantly. I'm aiming to get the last couple posts up in the next week or two, but then we will be starting our hiatus. Continued comment, critique, or speculation is invited, it's helped us revise and improve Eyes Turned Skywards during this first run, confirming the plausibility and helping us check that decisions roughly made sense, and I hope that it can continue to inform our writing as we work on part two material into the 80s and beyond.
Last edited:
So basically Eyes Turned Skywards was originally meant to comprise of 20 parts? And now you're looking at 24-25 parts? It does happen. After all, with my TL, I've seen a notable number of changes from what I originally started out with.
And I suppose ETS Part II will be massively different from what you and Truth originally planned for it, given the substantial deviations in Part I.
Based on some of what I saw in the OP, I have speculations as to what will occur in Part II, but I think I'll hold back for a little while as we wait to see what features in the remaining posts for Part I. What i will - however - divulge concerning it is this. It's gonna be great.
And I suppose ETS Part II will be massively different from what you and Truth originally planned for it, given the substantial deviations in Part I.
Based on some of what I saw in the OP, I have speculations as to what will occur in Part II, but I think I'll hold back for a little while as we wait to see what features in the remaining posts for Part I. What i will - however - divulge concerning it is this. It's gonna be great.
Post 24: Vulkan progress, MOK delays, and creation of Salyut 7. Initial round of Vulkan launches in 1982 and results of the “Vulkan Panic.”
Sorry for things running a little late today, work kept me over. Anyway, this week we're bringing Part 1 of Eyes Turned Skyward to a close, having covered roughly 1968-1982. We're nowhere near having a release date for Part II yet, but we're working on it--truth and I have been discussing the general path of manned space, and he's been churning out some truly impressive updates about unmanned exploration, particularly the planetary science missions. Anyway, enough self-congratulation and reminding people that we will return. On to the post!
Eyes Turned Skyward, Post #24
With their plans set and many of the competing interests in their space industry either shut out or shut down by Glushko’s expert political maneuvering, the Soviet space program made dramatic steps forward in the years following Glushko’s articulation of the grand vision of Vulkan and MOK. Having secured the support of key political backers for his plans to match and exceed American capabilities in spaceflight and reclaim the edge in space stations, Glushko could settle down to making his dramatic vision possible. Over the next six years, progress was swift. The new TKS spacecraft began unmanned operations to test its return capsule as early as 1976, just a year after the crystallization of Glushko’s vision. The need for the new Vulkan booster to replace the failure-prone Proton was underscored on the third test of TKS, in which the Proton booster failed during the launch of another pair of return capsules intended for further entry tests. One was destroyed in the explosion of the booster, but the other was carried away by the abort system, an impromptu demonstration of the function of the system. Despite the setback, the development of TKS continued on through ‘78 with automated flights to the new Salyut 6 station and continued testing of the critical entry systems, particularly the hatch through the vehicle’s heat shield.
Work on the multi-core Vulkan launch vehicle itself was also well underway. Construction of production facilities and pad infrastructure was proceeding at Baikonur, and the development work on the RD-150 and RD-160 engines was only slightly behind schedule. The first launch of the single-core Vulkan was thus still tentatively scheduled for mid-1981, with heavier variants to follow. However, this focus on crew hardware and launch vehicle development had come at a cost: the MOK base block was running behind. This totally new space station module, sized for the 61-ton capabilities of the Vulkan-Herakles, would offer nearly as much power and crew space as the American Skylab, and several variants were planned to serve as dedicated service modules, power modules, or laboratory spaces in the MOK station. To supplement these core spaces, subsidiary labs were planned based on the proven DOS configuration of Salyut, plus the spaces of its crew’s TKS spacecraft. However, the relatively clean-sheet nature of the new MOK core module design caused its development to slip, particularly compared to the TKS and Vulkan intended to serve it. It became clear by 1979 that, though the hardware to launch and supply the station might be ready by 1982, the station itself might not be ready until at least two years later.
The potential two-year delay backed Glushko into a corner, as he felt a strong need to create tangible progress to show his backers and avoid sharing Mishin’s fate. Thus, he decided to push forward those aspects of MOK operations that could be practiced without the actual MOK base block ready by the reworking of surplus Salyut hardware and some of the lower-development MOK components. While the crew capsules, launch vehicles, and station modules were largely new variations on old accomplishments, the construction of a modular structures and the operations of multi-module facilities was something that the Soviets had little experience with, while their American counterparts were already putting it into practice on Spacelab missions, as particularly driven home in the ASTP II flight of Soyuz 29. The observations of Rukavishnikov and Ryumin, particularly of their co-operation in removing the Docking Module from the station, gave valuable insight into American station operations but drove home the rapid progress the Americans had been able to make, and the gap that the Soviets would have to make up.
To shorten the delay between Vulkan’s introduction and the ability to begin making up this gap, a new station was developed to serve as a testbed for MOK techniques and multi-module design. Two DOS modules of the revised configuration intended as subsidiary modules for MOK were combined with a node also developed for MOK to form a three-module station, Salyut 7. The combined station would offer far more capability than any past Soviet station, with room for as many as six crew members to work long-term with the potential for more in surge operations around the time of crew rotations. The first module (DOS-6) could be ready in about three years, roughly when Vulkan was to enter service, and the DOS-7 module and node would be capable of following in short order. The splitting of attention would cause the schedules for MOK proper to slip even further, but Glushko convinced himself that the political benefits and experience gained by flying Salyut 7 would pay off in time.
Thus, in 1982, the Second Space Race was set to come to a boil, with human spaceflight making headlines for perhaps the first time since the launch of Spacelab and ASTP II. In rapid succession, Vulkan made several successful flights. On its maiden launch, it carried an unmanned TKS spacecraft on a resupply mission to Salyut 6 virtually identical to several previous Proton-launched missions, while less than two months later the second Vulkan launch carried the military communications satellite Cosmos 1366 into space, successfully expanding the Soviet fleet of military satellites. In addition to proving the high-energy Blok R upper stage used to inject the satellite into a transfer to geosynchronous orbit, this showed that the first success was no mere fluke and that Glushko had fulfilled his promise to produce a vehicle capable of completely replacing the Proton in Soviet service. Feeling confident, Soviet engineers proceeded with the launch of the DOS-6 module of Salyut 7 in November, following up with the first manned TKS flight, and the first manned flight to the new station, close to the end of the year. Soviet press played up the adaptability of Vulkan, and made constant reference to the family as the most modern and most capable vehicle in existence, a profound demonstration of the benefits of Soviet persistence and expertise. TKS was also compared favorably to Apollo, and the launch of Salyut 7 was portrayed as drawing even with the technical capabilities of the Western Spacelab, while “future missions” would once again reclaim the natural Soviet leadership in spaceflight and other fields.
The first Vulkan launches spurred a minor panic in an American public primed by resurgent international conflict in places from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe and increasingly aggressive rhetoric from all sides of the Cold War. Just as the Soviets were seemingly beginning to catch up in other fields of high technology, so too in space their rapid achievements made a mockery of the lethargic American program, stuck in a rut since the mid-70s. To many, the parallels to the intercontinental ballistic missile crisis a generation earlier during Kennedy's election were clear. While the Air Force and NASA’s ELVRP II had been selecting a launcher, the Russians had been developing their own heavy lifter. Pundits spoke of a "space gap" and politicians eager to be viewed as hardline opponents of Soviet space aspirations grilled NASA and the Air Force on why this threat hadn't been seen and responded to earlier. The ultimately minor furor was capped by Reagan's directive that America would push forward in space on two fronts. First, he directed NASA to begin planning a large station to follow up on the successes of Skylab and Spacelab, with possible plans to return to the Moon in the post-1990 timeframe. Second, he announced a large increase in military spaceflight R&D spending, particularly on the Strategic Defense Initiative. Nicknamed “Star Wars” by critics, the plan was to make space a critical part of ensuring America’s safety.
Reagan’s challenges would have huge implications for Saturn Multibody. Suddenly, it wasn’t just another military development project, it was on the public stage as America’s response to the Vulkan and the enabler for both peaceful exploration in the form of NASA’s new station and national defense in the form of Reagan’s new SDI. Initially, some critics of ELVRP had stated that there simply could be no payloads to make Saturn Multibody affordable, that even the capacity of the medium versions would be far too large for any near-term payloads and thus it would end up just another expensive NASA-only launcher. With the launch of Vulkan, the criticisms turned to the time required in development, whether production would be able to keep up with demand, and whether everything that was needed to match the Russians could be launched in just 77 tons—after all, as the Russian press made clear, the upper limit for Vulkan was more than 30% greater. The stage was set for what some have dubbed the second space race. If the first space race was the race to gain access to space, this was to be the race to utilize it.
Eyes Turned Skyward, Post #24
With their plans set and many of the competing interests in their space industry either shut out or shut down by Glushko’s expert political maneuvering, the Soviet space program made dramatic steps forward in the years following Glushko’s articulation of the grand vision of Vulkan and MOK. Having secured the support of key political backers for his plans to match and exceed American capabilities in spaceflight and reclaim the edge in space stations, Glushko could settle down to making his dramatic vision possible. Over the next six years, progress was swift. The new TKS spacecraft began unmanned operations to test its return capsule as early as 1976, just a year after the crystallization of Glushko’s vision. The need for the new Vulkan booster to replace the failure-prone Proton was underscored on the third test of TKS, in which the Proton booster failed during the launch of another pair of return capsules intended for further entry tests. One was destroyed in the explosion of the booster, but the other was carried away by the abort system, an impromptu demonstration of the function of the system. Despite the setback, the development of TKS continued on through ‘78 with automated flights to the new Salyut 6 station and continued testing of the critical entry systems, particularly the hatch through the vehicle’s heat shield.
Work on the multi-core Vulkan launch vehicle itself was also well underway. Construction of production facilities and pad infrastructure was proceeding at Baikonur, and the development work on the RD-150 and RD-160 engines was only slightly behind schedule. The first launch of the single-core Vulkan was thus still tentatively scheduled for mid-1981, with heavier variants to follow. However, this focus on crew hardware and launch vehicle development had come at a cost: the MOK base block was running behind. This totally new space station module, sized for the 61-ton capabilities of the Vulkan-Herakles, would offer nearly as much power and crew space as the American Skylab, and several variants were planned to serve as dedicated service modules, power modules, or laboratory spaces in the MOK station. To supplement these core spaces, subsidiary labs were planned based on the proven DOS configuration of Salyut, plus the spaces of its crew’s TKS spacecraft. However, the relatively clean-sheet nature of the new MOK core module design caused its development to slip, particularly compared to the TKS and Vulkan intended to serve it. It became clear by 1979 that, though the hardware to launch and supply the station might be ready by 1982, the station itself might not be ready until at least two years later.
The potential two-year delay backed Glushko into a corner, as he felt a strong need to create tangible progress to show his backers and avoid sharing Mishin’s fate. Thus, he decided to push forward those aspects of MOK operations that could be practiced without the actual MOK base block ready by the reworking of surplus Salyut hardware and some of the lower-development MOK components. While the crew capsules, launch vehicles, and station modules were largely new variations on old accomplishments, the construction of a modular structures and the operations of multi-module facilities was something that the Soviets had little experience with, while their American counterparts were already putting it into practice on Spacelab missions, as particularly driven home in the ASTP II flight of Soyuz 29. The observations of Rukavishnikov and Ryumin, particularly of their co-operation in removing the Docking Module from the station, gave valuable insight into American station operations but drove home the rapid progress the Americans had been able to make, and the gap that the Soviets would have to make up.
To shorten the delay between Vulkan’s introduction and the ability to begin making up this gap, a new station was developed to serve as a testbed for MOK techniques and multi-module design. Two DOS modules of the revised configuration intended as subsidiary modules for MOK were combined with a node also developed for MOK to form a three-module station, Salyut 7. The combined station would offer far more capability than any past Soviet station, with room for as many as six crew members to work long-term with the potential for more in surge operations around the time of crew rotations. The first module (DOS-6) could be ready in about three years, roughly when Vulkan was to enter service, and the DOS-7 module and node would be capable of following in short order. The splitting of attention would cause the schedules for MOK proper to slip even further, but Glushko convinced himself that the political benefits and experience gained by flying Salyut 7 would pay off in time.
Thus, in 1982, the Second Space Race was set to come to a boil, with human spaceflight making headlines for perhaps the first time since the launch of Spacelab and ASTP II. In rapid succession, Vulkan made several successful flights. On its maiden launch, it carried an unmanned TKS spacecraft on a resupply mission to Salyut 6 virtually identical to several previous Proton-launched missions, while less than two months later the second Vulkan launch carried the military communications satellite Cosmos 1366 into space, successfully expanding the Soviet fleet of military satellites. In addition to proving the high-energy Blok R upper stage used to inject the satellite into a transfer to geosynchronous orbit, this showed that the first success was no mere fluke and that Glushko had fulfilled his promise to produce a vehicle capable of completely replacing the Proton in Soviet service. Feeling confident, Soviet engineers proceeded with the launch of the DOS-6 module of Salyut 7 in November, following up with the first manned TKS flight, and the first manned flight to the new station, close to the end of the year. Soviet press played up the adaptability of Vulkan, and made constant reference to the family as the most modern and most capable vehicle in existence, a profound demonstration of the benefits of Soviet persistence and expertise. TKS was also compared favorably to Apollo, and the launch of Salyut 7 was portrayed as drawing even with the technical capabilities of the Western Spacelab, while “future missions” would once again reclaim the natural Soviet leadership in spaceflight and other fields.
The first Vulkan launches spurred a minor panic in an American public primed by resurgent international conflict in places from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe and increasingly aggressive rhetoric from all sides of the Cold War. Just as the Soviets were seemingly beginning to catch up in other fields of high technology, so too in space their rapid achievements made a mockery of the lethargic American program, stuck in a rut since the mid-70s. To many, the parallels to the intercontinental ballistic missile crisis a generation earlier during Kennedy's election were clear. While the Air Force and NASA’s ELVRP II had been selecting a launcher, the Russians had been developing their own heavy lifter. Pundits spoke of a "space gap" and politicians eager to be viewed as hardline opponents of Soviet space aspirations grilled NASA and the Air Force on why this threat hadn't been seen and responded to earlier. The ultimately minor furor was capped by Reagan's directive that America would push forward in space on two fronts. First, he directed NASA to begin planning a large station to follow up on the successes of Skylab and Spacelab, with possible plans to return to the Moon in the post-1990 timeframe. Second, he announced a large increase in military spaceflight R&D spending, particularly on the Strategic Defense Initiative. Nicknamed “Star Wars” by critics, the plan was to make space a critical part of ensuring America’s safety.
Reagan’s challenges would have huge implications for Saturn Multibody. Suddenly, it wasn’t just another military development project, it was on the public stage as America’s response to the Vulkan and the enabler for both peaceful exploration in the form of NASA’s new station and national defense in the form of Reagan’s new SDI. Initially, some critics of ELVRP had stated that there simply could be no payloads to make Saturn Multibody affordable, that even the capacity of the medium versions would be far too large for any near-term payloads and thus it would end up just another expensive NASA-only launcher. With the launch of Vulkan, the criticisms turned to the time required in development, whether production would be able to keep up with demand, and whether everything that was needed to match the Russians could be launched in just 77 tons—after all, as the Russian press made clear, the upper limit for Vulkan was more than 30% greater. The stage was set for what some have dubbed the second space race. If the first space race was the race to gain access to space, this was to be the race to utilize it.
Part I Technical Interlude (Pictures Broken)
Yet another technical appendix today, this time with some comparison images for the TL. First off is a comparison of the vehicles from this TL:
From left to right, Apollo Block II, Soyuz, Apollo Block III, the AARDV (Aardvark), Apollo Block III+, and finally TKS.
Next is a similar comparison of the competing stations from the early 80s.
From right to left: Spacelab in three configurations: ASTP II in '78, with Airlock Module replacing the Docking Module in roughly '79, and finally in its 1980 configuration with the ERM. Technically the ERM only dates it to post-October '79, but the Block III+ CSM indicates it's gotta be in at least 1980. The comes Salyut 7, and then for some scale and comparison, OTL Mir (well, sort of, it's a very rough model even by these standards).
From left to right, Apollo Block II, Soyuz, Apollo Block III, the AARDV (Aardvark), Apollo Block III+, and finally TKS.
Next is a similar comparison of the competing stations from the early 80s.
From right to left: Spacelab in three configurations: ASTP II in '78, with Airlock Module replacing the Docking Module in roughly '79, and finally in its 1980 configuration with the ERM. Technically the ERM only dates it to post-October '79, but the Block III+ CSM indicates it's gotta be in at least 1980. The comes Salyut 7, and then for some scale and comparison, OTL Mir (well, sort of, it's a very rough model even by these standards).
Thanks for the picture!
I'd have thought an Apollo Block III+ Mission Module would be rather larger; part of the idea of a Soyuz-type habitation extension is that it doesn't have to be very dense since it only has to stand up to the space environment, not reentry. So one can offer the astronauts a lot of living space for a low mass cost.
Vice versa of course one can make a MM that is basically just a can of supplies for an extended mission at the station, with just enough extra living space to allow 5 astronauts to live without going completely insane for a week or so if something goes wrong and they are stranded in orbit, able neither to reenter or make for the station. The primary mission of such a MM would be as a supply can, and supplies might be quite dense, hence the small volume that looks like it wouldn't even double the habitable volume of a CM, and clearly would not if it is packed full of tons of supplies! It looks like it is not much more than a corridor between the CM and the station.
Presumably then there can be other MM's for other missions, that would be more voluminous, for free-flying orbital missions. And of course as the Heavy versions of the Evolved Saturn system are man-rated there could be some that dwarf the CM!
Regarding the TKS--I guess it parallels OTL TKS closely enough that the end with the double-cone thing with a flat end that has what looks like a docking port is the "mission module" more or less integrated with the cylinder that is sort of a service module, except that actually both functions are scrambled between both sections--there clearly has to be a corridor between the simple cone at the other end, that I take it is the return capsule, and the other end which has the docking port, so I suppose both the double truncated cone section and the cylinder are best described as one integrated service/mission module.
Where is the main orbital propulsion engine? This always confused me in the descriptions of OTL TKS and your models aren't detailed enough to be sure--the Apollo engines are depicted rather schematically and look a lot like the depiction of a docking port!
So from seeing a TKS docked to the station, I guess that central thing is a docking port, and the main orbital propulsion system is actually two or more smaller engines flanking it, either on the same face of the truncated cone that has the docking port, or flanking it in the cone structure.
By the way, why does the TKS have that double-cone end? Why not just extend a simple cylinder all the way back until sufficient volume has been included? If it is a fairing to match the TKS to the launch upper stage, why not just design the basic cylinder to the same presumably greater diameter, resulting in a shorter but broader module?
It would wind up looking like a knock-off of Apollo of course, except for the solar panels and the fact that the thing docks tail-on.
The more so because it looks like ITTL, the Soviets have adopted an Apollo-type conical reentry body. I believe that OTL the reentry module of the TKS was also conical, but more elongated, like a Mercury or Gemini capsule.
One advantage of a squatter Apollo-type reentry cone I can think of is, the heat shield is larger in diameter, therefore a hatch of given dimension cut into it takes up a smaller percentage of the total area, therefore it might help with designing a hatch arrangement of sufficient integrity to satisfy the critics. With a Soyuz-type return capsule, the hatch would be a huge percentage of the total shield area.
I'd have thought an Apollo Block III+ Mission Module would be rather larger; part of the idea of a Soyuz-type habitation extension is that it doesn't have to be very dense since it only has to stand up to the space environment, not reentry. So one can offer the astronauts a lot of living space for a low mass cost.
Vice versa of course one can make a MM that is basically just a can of supplies for an extended mission at the station, with just enough extra living space to allow 5 astronauts to live without going completely insane for a week or so if something goes wrong and they are stranded in orbit, able neither to reenter or make for the station. The primary mission of such a MM would be as a supply can, and supplies might be quite dense, hence the small volume that looks like it wouldn't even double the habitable volume of a CM, and clearly would not if it is packed full of tons of supplies! It looks like it is not much more than a corridor between the CM and the station.
Presumably then there can be other MM's for other missions, that would be more voluminous, for free-flying orbital missions. And of course as the Heavy versions of the Evolved Saturn system are man-rated there could be some that dwarf the CM!
Regarding the TKS--I guess it parallels OTL TKS closely enough that the end with the double-cone thing with a flat end that has what looks like a docking port is the "mission module" more or less integrated with the cylinder that is sort of a service module, except that actually both functions are scrambled between both sections--there clearly has to be a corridor between the simple cone at the other end, that I take it is the return capsule, and the other end which has the docking port, so I suppose both the double truncated cone section and the cylinder are best described as one integrated service/mission module.
Where is the main orbital propulsion engine? This always confused me in the descriptions of OTL TKS and your models aren't detailed enough to be sure--the Apollo engines are depicted rather schematically and look a lot like the depiction of a docking port!
So from seeing a TKS docked to the station, I guess that central thing is a docking port, and the main orbital propulsion system is actually two or more smaller engines flanking it, either on the same face of the truncated cone that has the docking port, or flanking it in the cone structure.
By the way, why does the TKS have that double-cone end? Why not just extend a simple cylinder all the way back until sufficient volume has been included? If it is a fairing to match the TKS to the launch upper stage, why not just design the basic cylinder to the same presumably greater diameter, resulting in a shorter but broader module?
It would wind up looking like a knock-off of Apollo of course, except for the solar panels and the fact that the thing docks tail-on.
The more so because it looks like ITTL, the Soviets have adopted an Apollo-type conical reentry body. I believe that OTL the reentry module of the TKS was also conical, but more elongated, like a Mercury or Gemini capsule.
One advantage of a squatter Apollo-type reentry cone I can think of is, the heat shield is larger in diameter, therefore a hatch of given dimension cut into it takes up a smaller percentage of the total area, therefore it might help with designing a hatch arrangement of sufficient integrity to satisfy the critics. With a Soyuz-type return capsule, the hatch would be a huge percentage of the total shield area.
Diameter was a constraint there. As essentially a minimal-modification add-on to an existing system, I'm not sure they'd add a Soyuz-style periscope. Thus, vision forward from the CSM windows past the MM to the station is critical for docking. There's not a maximum length criteria, but when I tried an extended length (this one is 3.0 m long end-to-end), it wound up just looking a little strange. While I am satisfied with the basic Block III+ design, the MM's precise execution in this model is not something I'm totally satisfied with. The one modeled here offers about 10 cubic meters, which even with a very dense pack would be about about a ton and a half. With a likely less-dense packing, it'd probably give each crew member about 2 cubic meters, which is about what Apollo 8 had on the two weeks to the moon and back. Roughly doubling that would obviously improve crew morale, even over the two or three days to station and would better allow eating excess margin on Saturn 1C as that becomes a more known quantity. Keeping the same diameter requires an overall length of 6m for the MM. Alternately, if NASA feels comfortable switching to exclusively radar-and-camera docking for manned flights, then they can go from 2.2 m to almost 4m diameter for the MM, and then 20 m^3 can take a more compact form. The image below shows a the current Block III+ model at the top, then the stretch required to take it from 10m^3 to 20 without a diameter increase, then the same volume with a 3.2 m length (stretched 0.2 m) and a 3m diameter.
TKS is essentially unchanged from OTL. See these reference images I used in making my model:
The return capsule is essentially OTL, it just comes off looking squater because it lacks the large escape tower--I wasn't sure at the time whether or not that would be retained past ascent, hence not modeling it. The rest of the ship is known as the Functional Cargo Block (FGB) and combines orbital living space in the pressurized core with a surrounding of various tanks and thrusters. All told, more than 50 cubic meters of volume. I didn't model the tank or thruster detail on this version (it's a model I did about a year ago during very early planning, and not much has changed on it since), as this was intended more as a 3D sketch than a display model. I may eventually remodel it and add some more detail--as well as the LES tower, since looking around it appears that was intended to be retained past ascent.
Well, see the above images for a better look at my Apollo's engines. It's intended for visualization, not photorealism. If someone wants to try and do better, more detailed versions...sure. As for TKS...I didn't model the enigines, but if you look here you can mouse over the various engines and have them highlighted on the image.
No clue. I'd recommend asking here at NASAspaceflight, there's Russia experts there that have had more experience with the Russian program than I've had years alive. Try the Russian/Soviet Q&A thread.
It's supposed to be OTL TKS, any changes are due to my lazy and/or incorrect modeling a year ago. Actually, the basic entry module was rather squat, but the tower was very tall and was retained much longer, giving it a different shape.
Very interesting update here. Showing how Glushko intends to close the gap that opened up from the mid-1960s to early 1970s, and doing so in spades.
IIRC, Salyuts 6 & 7 were used to test the techniques intended for OTL Mir with regards to automated rendezvous and docking of large space station components, so it would make sense to see something similar occurring here.
So even though the MOK station is going to be late, it should be able to work properly - provided they can finish it before the USSR collapses that is.
But it looks like Glushko will have a legacy which will last here by the time he dies in 01/1989 - which is his OTL time of death. Unlike the abandoned Buran/Energia of OTL.
IMHO, that made it 4.15m diameter at the widest point. The exact same width as the UR-500 stages. And looking at the pictures, I see quite a few pieces of equipment that are set the the cylindrical section - the Solar Panels and Rendezvous & Docking Antenna being the obvious ones. I'd be willing to guess it makes a decent attachment point during the first stage burn, when it's at its roughest. But that's only speculation on my part.
IIRC, Salyuts 6 & 7 were used to test the techniques intended for OTL Mir with regards to automated rendezvous and docking of large space station components, so it would make sense to see something similar occurring here.
So even though the MOK station is going to be late, it should be able to work properly - provided they can finish it before the USSR collapses that is.
But it looks like Glushko will have a legacy which will last here by the time he dies in 01/1989 - which is his OTL time of death. Unlike the abandoned Buran/Energia of OTL.
IMHO, that made it 4.15m diameter at the widest point. The exact same width as the UR-500 stages. And looking at the pictures, I see quite a few pieces of equipment that are set the the cylindrical section - the Solar Panels and Rendezvous & Docking Antenna being the obvious ones. I'd be willing to guess it makes a decent attachment point during the first stage burn, when it's at its roughest. But that's only speculation on my part.
Indeed. He was ambitious, and this is a very ambitious plan, but also one that's pretty plausible, I think, and reflective of the relative positions and capabilities of the Soviets and the US in Eyes Turned Skyward.
Indeed. However, the different scale of MOK makes the tranitional role a bit larger--Salyut 7 ITTL is a station with ~195 cubic meters in the core modules (90 per DOS, 15 in the node), plus there's 45 cubic meters to each of the crew TKS and the cargo transport/supplementary TKS. Total of about 330 cubic meters--nearly OTL Mir's size! But ITTL, it's clearly still a transitional station--only about as big as the Spacelab core modules, and less than half the size of the planned MOK.
They certainly hope it works. The main challenges are in the construction and launch. It's going to be a much large diameter than even DOS--probably 6m at least--and that means a lot of new toolings for both the module itself and the fairings for Vulkan. That's the main source of delays for MOK. As for the twin deadlines of the death of Glushko and the collapse of the USSR...yeah, that's a question, isn't it? The projected launch date as of 1982 is 1986 , so there's some time even with inevitable further slips, but not a huge amount. Not like they know that.
It's certainly a better legacy than OTL. Salyut 7 is almost as large as OTL Mir, and MOK will be much larger. Vulkan creates a much better set of launch options through the lean 90s, and the potential for an alt-Angara exists, too.
Yeah, I think it may be that they wanted the widest diameter that they could, and 4.15 was it--note it's the same diameter as the wide portions of the DOS modules. Then, the skinnier portion portion of the FGB leading to the entry capsule is there to allow them to fit the tanks and other equipment around the outside without the in-fairing diameter popping over 4.15 m. The DOS shows something similar--the solar arrays are on a similarly lower-diameter portion to fit in-fairing when retracted.
I'm traveling until Monday and while I've got good net access at the moment my father and brother are proposing to mess with it, so I may vanish mysteriously for some time.
I'm sure everyone is devastated by this alarming news.
So real quick before my brother adds a password to the wifi, thanks for clarification. I can't see anything on the TKS corresponding to the Apollo main engine, and guess such a powerful engine is not needed for orbital maneuvering. I know OTL Apollo Blocks 1 & 2 engines were so large because it was meant to be the orbital ascent engine for a direct lunar landing profile and was very oversized for the eventual mission profile; I seem to recall, and the pictures highlight, that the Block III engine is considerably downsized, as is the SM itself. The Soyuz design was originally meant for Lunar missions too, hence too large engines I suppose? Which were retained on the not broke, don't fix principle? But TKS being a clean sheet design for strictly orbital operations gets by with lots of little thrusters, no really big one anywhere, it seems.
Regarding visibility from the CM on orbit, isn't there another option, besides keeping the MM slim (which is still awkward considering how far the docking port is ahead of the CM) periscopes (same problem plus!) remote video--can't there be a control station at the docking end of the MM itself? I gather the TKS had 2 control stations, one in the reentry mod, one at the other end for docking and I guess most orbital maneuvering. The obvious drawback is extra weight for the control panel plus some sort of couch for the pilot (needs to be secured against maneuvering thrusts, still it could be a very minimal fold-out rack). And we're putting a porthole or cupola in the MM which is a danger point for loss of pressure integrity, but that's true of any viewport and we'd want one anyway I'd think for most missions.
This is the early 80's, design is in the latter half of the '70s; I've been told the several reasons astronautical avionics is very conservative and doesn't participate in the niftiest latest advances in microelectronics (radiation hardening, plus "ain't broke, don't fix, it was hard enough to get it right the first time!") So the extra control panel would not be as ultralight as we might imagine, even if it is just a relay terminal and cables run back to the main console in the CM.
But if the mass can be justified, there's an alternative; the mass and volume capabilities of the Saturn stack can be used to best advantage without worrying about visibility if the MM has its own orbital maneuvering controls.
If NASA emulates TKS for Block IV or Apollo successor, with a hatch in the heat shield, the CM controls can be reduced to emergency abort/reentry functions, with the standard controls being in the integrated Service/Mission stack behind.
I'm sure everyone is devastated by this alarming news.
So real quick before my brother adds a password to the wifi, thanks for clarification. I can't see anything on the TKS corresponding to the Apollo main engine, and guess such a powerful engine is not needed for orbital maneuvering. I know OTL Apollo Blocks 1 & 2 engines were so large because it was meant to be the orbital ascent engine for a direct lunar landing profile and was very oversized for the eventual mission profile; I seem to recall, and the pictures highlight, that the Block III engine is considerably downsized, as is the SM itself. The Soyuz design was originally meant for Lunar missions too, hence too large engines I suppose? Which were retained on the not broke, don't fix principle? But TKS being a clean sheet design for strictly orbital operations gets by with lots of little thrusters, no really big one anywhere, it seems.
Regarding visibility from the CM on orbit, isn't there another option, besides keeping the MM slim (which is still awkward considering how far the docking port is ahead of the CM) periscopes (same problem plus!) remote video--can't there be a control station at the docking end of the MM itself? I gather the TKS had 2 control stations, one in the reentry mod, one at the other end for docking and I guess most orbital maneuvering. The obvious drawback is extra weight for the control panel plus some sort of couch for the pilot (needs to be secured against maneuvering thrusts, still it could be a very minimal fold-out rack). And we're putting a porthole or cupola in the MM which is a danger point for loss of pressure integrity, but that's true of any viewport and we'd want one anyway I'd think for most missions.
This is the early 80's, design is in the latter half of the '70s; I've been told the several reasons astronautical avionics is very conservative and doesn't participate in the niftiest latest advances in microelectronics (radiation hardening, plus "ain't broke, don't fix, it was hard enough to get it right the first time!") So the extra control panel would not be as ultralight as we might imagine, even if it is just a relay terminal and cables run back to the main console in the CM.
But if the mass can be justified, there's an alternative; the mass and volume capabilities of the Saturn stack can be used to best advantage without worrying about visibility if the MM has its own orbital maneuvering controls.
If NASA emulates TKS for Block IV or Apollo successor, with a hatch in the heat shield, the CM controls can be reduced to emergency abort/reentry functions, with the standard controls being in the integrated Service/Mission stack behind.
Plausible is certain. OTL Energia was 7.75m in diameter and they managed to transport that to the launch site - not in one piece, but they still did it.
In other words, a LOT of space to work with. And I see a price tag to match here.
They certainly hope it works. The main challenges are in the construction and launch. It's going to be a much large diameter than even DOS--probably 6m at least--and that means a lot of new toolings for both the module itself and the fairings for Vulkan. That's the main source of delays for MOK. As for the twin deadlines of the death of Glushko and the collapse of the USSR...yeah, that's a question, isn't it? The projected launch date as of 1982 is 1986 , so there's some time even with inevitable further slips, but not a huge amount. Not like they know that.
So I'm guessing Vulkan stages are less than 6m in diameter. OTL, the 4.15, diameter was selected on account of that being the largest possible rail-transportable diameter. So I do wonder what's different here. If they can fly pieces over, that may sort some of the issues. Clearly a major pacer for them in any case.
Lean it right! IIRC, Russian Space funding fell to a trough of just $200,000,000 by the end of the 1990s before it recovered. Rendering them dependant on US and commercial funding to keep things going at all. At least here, once they recover, they got something much better to work with.
I noticed that. IIRC, the re-entry capsule was 2.7m diameter so they had up to 72.5cm for the external equipment. Design - as usual - would be what makes it all come together.
What I forgot to add earlier:
I noticed the mention of the LOX/LH2 Block R stage mentioned in the update. So I take it this means that they have a real use for it here with GTO and BEO? I should also point out that that makes it a surviving piece of the N-1 programme just as the Block D was IOTL. I suspect it's performance and features are as OTL when they actually tested it.
Apollo Multibody has only ~77% the payload capability of Vulkan-Atlas? Congress won't let that one go unpunished. And NASA will really have to show that 77,000KG is enough to do what they want it to.
Did you adjust the Vulkan stages to take into account the low T/M Lift-off ratio? You see, I first thought the 7.9MN thrust figure you provided was the sea-level thrust, which if that had been the case, would have resulted in a T/M of just over 1.21 at lift-off. That actually did confuse me for a little while when you said the T/M was only a little over 1.15 at lift-off some time ago.
Nope. The Earth Orbit Soyuz and Lunar Soyuz used two entirely different SMs. Necessitated by the very different requirements of each variant.
It's a viable option, but I rally don't see it happening until Block IV Apollo.
I suspect they'd rather stick to the systems and techniques that they already know to work. Simpler, Safer - for them - and Cheaper.
Yes, a lot of space. The price tag...that too. Some of the reason for MOK slipping from '84 to '86 with the addition of Salyut-7 is the realities of funding sinking in.
Vulkan diameter....hey, look over there! It's Robert Goddard! *runs*
...Didn't work? All right, basically because of the logistics issues, I'v been rather deliberately vague about Vulkan's diameter. If it's 4.15m, same as Zenit, then it's gotta be very tall. If not...then transport has to be done some other way, or it has to be built essentially at the launch site, as N1 was to be. If it's being built at the launch site, then the sky's the limit on diameter. Other modes of transport impose their own limits, and since I'm not entirely certain what those modes are...
There's no guarantee ITTL that the lean times will be any less lean, of course. And with a larger station in orbit, and a larger launcher and crew vehicle in active service, that exacts its own price. Commercial is still an option--though the commercial market may be a very different place than OTL by the 90s without only-Shuttle restrictions strangling US commercial and the differences between Europa 3 and Ariane. And of course, the Americans don't need the Russian's stations to practice their station ops techniques on ITTL, either. So likely higher fixed costs and possibly lower external funding from OTL sources...covering the bills might require some desperate measures.
Yeah. The small entry capsule is one thing about TKS that gets me--it's got plenty of room on-orbit for a much larger crew than three, but the capsule's even smaller than Apollo, and only 0.5 cubic meters larger than Soyuz!
Due to not being a Russian rocket expert, it's performance is exactly as tested, since I don't feel up to fabricating totally new numbers.
And yeah, it's useful for extending GTO and BEO performance of Vulkan and increasing the LEO payload of the -Herakles and -Atlas to their full potential. Basically, this kills Blok-D, and may butterfly Fregat.Most of the bluster about Vulkan-Atlas is propaganda. The rocket has the stated payload, but as of '82, Glushko doesn't have funding for anything to actually use Vulkan-Atlas, nor even to launch one for testing! By talking up Vulkan-Atlas, they can avoid mentioning the fact that Vulkan-Herakles is only capable of launching 61 tons--inferior to the Saturn Multibody.
I'm not sure if Shilling's calculator takes into account sea level adjustments or not, though it does tell you to use vacuum ISp and thrust. I did pick the stage masses and fuel loadouts specifically to keep its liftoff T/W greater than 1.15--if barely.
Well for USSR, IOTL, they managed 7.75m diameter Energia Core stages, for for that mode, that could form your upper limit for that mode of transportation, with final assembly taking place in a VAB by the launch site. I'd say 5-6 metres would suffice for the diameter.
I see, so the commercial market could be larger than OTL, but more spread out. For my TL, I' looking at Russia being able to convince some former Soviet Blocks to stay in the space programme, thereby preserving some funding - may be essential for me given how the situation will be.
I think that's to do with the fact that the TKS re-entry capsule was based on the never-used LK-700. The only viable reason I have.
Due to not being a Russian rocket expert, it's performance is exactly as tested, since I don't feel up to fabricating totally new numbers.
Yeah, it does mean the end of Block D. And I suspect Fregat too, since it was built with the UR-500 in mind. Propellant commonality being the reasoning I use here.
And all they have is the means to get it up and running quickly and easily when they have the mission and funding. But at least they won't have to re-invent the wheel ITTL - well, not completely at the very least, IMHO.
I would think it does. But is not precise in it. I tend to use OTL rocket engines as a benchmark to get a good idea as to what I need.
Hmm. I'll have to think that over then. A 6m diameter is nice for a larger fairing, since they seem not to like hammerhead fairings over there). I'll see what those stage lengths look like.
Yeah, roughly. And the uptick in DoD spending may have some fallout in terms of commercial vehicles from the US. High flight rates, lower marginal costs, more attractive to commercial if the capacity exists.
Yeah, that's basically what I was thinking. OTOH, the larger TWI (Trans-Wherever Injection) potential of Vulkan may still motivate some kind of kick stage, which might end up being rather Fregat-like. Dunno, it depends on how unmanned shakes out.
Yeah, that's the main thing Glushko was able to swing--he doesn't actually have the go to build anything to use Vulkan-Atlas, though studies are probably being done, but he did ensure that every allowance that might need to be made in the pad infrastructure was made. The transporter/erector can take the weight and has provisions for 5-cores on the umbillicals, the integration facility is big enough, and so on. He did a lot to make it easy when/if they ever get a mission that calls for it, but whether they will or if it will end up llike Atlas V Heavy OTL--a nearly-complete design for a more capable version of a commonly-used vehicle that ends up never flying--will have to be seen.
There's a PDF he links that lays out the methodology, but I need to re-read it in detail and check.
Huh. So I wonder where the 4.15 m diameter of the TKS and Salyut comes from? Strange. Anyway, it does sound like a larger diameter is possible, it just has to be air-transported. It's a bit of a pain for every single stage to come in that way, though. Hmm.
You could transport the stages in pieces and assemble at Baikonur (smaller pieces, obviously that was done for the Energia IOTL). It's what was done for the N1...