Eyes Turned Skywards

Not precisely gaga, more..."recognizing that conventional boosters cannot reach the desired flight rates, payload performance, and cost targets simultaneously, the Department of Defense Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (DoD-SDIO) is undertaking a study into possible alternatives to conventional booster technologies, with a particular emphasis on reusable launch vehicles".

Think of it as the latter day version of the Aerospaceplane project from the early '60s (that one invented LACE, ACES, and all that fun stuff)
To follow up on this a bit, this attitude of emphasizing investigation of technologies, not necessarily actual fully-developed vehicles is reflected in the approach to the program, and the split between the X-30 and X-40. The X-30 is more focused on the technology necessary for a reusable hypersonic spaceplane (which they're emphasizing a scramjet for, because they don't know any better), which is thus mainly focused on the engine technology and material science (both for the engines and for the spaceframe and TPS). The X-40 program is designed to complement that by investigating pure-rocket options for reusable systems. However, it too is a subscale demonstrator, not an operational vehicle or anything approaching one. It's more about proving VTVL, rapid turn-around operations of a rocket, and reasonable maneuverability. This is sort of what we were getting at with the low delta-v (it's only built for a capability of about 2 km/s, which is even less than the OTL DC-X) and non-use of composite materials: the riskier composites investigation isn't necessary to simply prove VTVL, and so its left under the aegis of the X-30.

My Magic 8 Ball says, "Not likely". I think Skylon's cool too, but...[redacted].
Yeah, agreed about Skylon's "cool factor," and I trust that if they can make it work the way they say, then it'd be pretty interesting as a launch system. But it took almost twenty years of refinement from the original HOTOL stuff to get to the point it's at now where it's even starting tp prove that feasibility, and the X-30 really isn't analogous to the kind of full-scale development project that would be needed. Europe was not touched on in this post, but if they're inspired to do something similar of their own, its like to be similar to the HOTOL or Sanger II, and about as successful--studied, then cancelled, perhaps to be followed up on later.

Then you'll love [redacted]. Oh, wait, that doesn't involve pebble-bed nuclear engines, just [redacted]. Hm, maybe [redacted] will be more to your liking?
This post has been identified as teasing spoilers of future material by the Federal Bureau of Spoiler Control, and the author has been impounded pending investigation of the potential release of any details of [redacted], the [redacted] program, the future potential for [redacted]-based architectures for landings on [redacted], and other material.

This post has been identified as teasing spoilers of future material by the Federal Bureau of Spoiler Control, and the author has been impounded pending investigation of the potential release of any details of [redacted], the [redacted] program, the future potential for [redacted]-based architectures for landings on [redacted], and other material.
Also, this post has been identified by the FBSC as heavy in teasing spoilers, and the poster impounded for investigation of intent to spoil future events of the TL.
 
Hello gents,

. . . By 1990, while the X-30 program (which many had regarded as more promising in 1984) continued to encounter setbacks with the proposed scramjet engines and advanced materials, leaving it stalled at basic design, the first Grumman X-40 was being prepared for transport from Bethpage to White Sands to begin flight testing.

Wow. I didn't see this coming.

Good work, gentlemen. This really is a compelling timeline. And it just got a little more compelling.

Reading this, I think back on the constant complaints by some about how the space program is so poorly funded by comparison with the hundreds of billions thrown at the Pentagon every year - and think about it in a new and ironic light. The reality is that without the Defense Department - and the strategic situations which have necessitated making it into such a monstrous establishment over the last six decades - there would *be* no space program worth speaking of. It's not just the technology spinoffs, but the strategic imperatives that drove so much funding to it, and then kept it there. And, in this TL, drove more of both to NASA in this 1980's that-never-was but definitely could-have-been. There are all sorts of possibilities with the X-40 here that could have been exploited in the 90's and 00's that have nothing to do with shooting down Soviet ICBM's.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't mind cancelling a weapon system or two to double NASA's budget. But you still have to spend it well, and spend it toward a worthy goal. NASA certainly accomplished the latter but not the former (thanks in part to the breakneck deadlines it was facing) with Apollo. It accomplished little of either with Shuttle. The grass may look greener on the other side with this TL, but it keeps reaffirming my belief that sticking with heritage Apollo and Saturn hardware to focus on long-term activity in LEO would have been a much wiser use of money.

And not least because it would have allowed us to stick with a mature and gradually evolving launch vehicle and spacecraft family of systems that could more easily ride out the wild political fluctuations in Washington.
 
Part II: Post 14: Spacelab Operations Through Spacelab 28
Good morning, everyone! In last week's update, we reviewed the millitary side of the American response to Vulkan, with a particular focus on SDI--and touching on some of the interesting offshoots from that work. This week, we're returning to the manned space side of the response, checking up on operations in orbit, and preparations on the ground for both Mir and Freedom. We'll also be checking in on the work for Multibody, and the status of Saturn 1C operations. I promise that doesn't end up as boring as it sounds. With no further ado, then, let's get on with it, shall we? 983 replies, 120588 views

Eyes Turned Skyward, Part II: Post #14

Despite their new neighbors, most American on-orbit operations between 1983 and 1986 were routine, carried out according to plans set before Vulkan Panic. The Apollo Block III+ proved as solid of a spacecraft as its three predecessors, with no mission-critical failures occurring. In addition, the cargo upmass capability provided in the MM on every flight proved a valuable addition to the existing Aardvark far beyond the simple numbers. While 1,000 kg per flight might have seemed insignificant compared to the nearly 12,000 kg of payload each Aardvark carried to the station, the benefit wasn’t so much in the sheer mass, but rather in the regularity of its availability. Even the expanded requirements of Spacelab’s 5-person crews still required only one Aardvark flight a year, where Apollo’s MM capacity was available every three months. This meant low-mass but time-sensitive payloads (such as experimental samples, spare components, or crew preference items) could be sent up more regularly even when they couldn’t justify an entire extra Aardvark flight by themselves. However, carrying cargo downhill remained a major constraint, since while Apollo’s heat shield could handle the extra mass, the 5-person crews of Block III+ left very little excess volume inside the cabin. It was thus possible to return only relatively small and high-density items, and not entire used experimental apparatus for study or failed equipment for inspection. While Spacelab’s low-modularity system design had taken this inability into account, Freedom’s more modular experiment and equipment racks would benefit substantially from an ability to return and reuse entire experimental setups instead of smaller samples, or being able to return, inspect, repair, and re-certify failed equipment. As a result, NASA examined several plans to provide such downmass, including dedicated small cargo capsules or flying short-crewed Apollos on “mail runs.” Eventually, the need for downmass would be met by the European Space Administration’s proposal to develop their Minotaur recoverable logistics capsule for station logistics contributions. NASA’s acceptance of the vehicle’s lower upmass was in part due to how well its design let it address the critical downmass requirements for Freedom [1]. In addition, NASA developed a small interim cargo system, consisting of a small capsule which could be flown up with an Aardvark, filled on-orbit, then substituted for an Aardvark’s docking system during its departure. After the Aardvark’s deorbit burn, the capsule would separate, and be recovered in much the same fashion as film capsules for the Key Hole series spy satellites, with a payload of roughly 50 kg.

The crew operations similarly continued trends already established in earlier missions. The long-duration flights begun with Story Musgrave’s 8 months on-orbit were followed by other, similar-duration flights, and the results were examined closely to establish the chance for even longer flights, either on Spacelab or in the future on missions to the Moon, Mars, or beyond. Additionally, the Spaceflight Participation Program continued, making use of a mix of full-rotation flights, such as those used by Japan’s second astronaut in 1983, while others continued to make use of some “short-stay” opportunities that the long-duration flight experiments created. American beneficiaries of the SFPP tended to be part of NASA’s public outreach and STEM education programs, with teacher Laura Kinsley [2] becoming the first American non-astronaut to fly in 1984. William Anderchuk also flew in 1984, spending a full rotation on board Spacelab 22 as part of the international element of the SFPP, his flight being bargained as part of the diplomacy relating to the international agreements over Freedom. 1986 would see the flight of Turkey’s first astronaut, part of efforts to reach out to the Middle East, but the bigger news in the US was the flight of journalist Jim Lehrer. The PBS anchor was selected to avoid showing favoritism to any of the three major networks. Though reluctant to leave his duties to his co-host for the required training period, the chance to be the first reporter in space proved enough to convince Lehrer, especially the added access to Freedom and insight for comparison to the ongoing Soviet program. He spent a week and a half on-board Spacelab during the overlap between Spacelab 26 and 27 in May, recording video of the station’s operations and of the Earth below, and documenting the experience of being in space, both his own thoughts and those of the astronauts he shared the station with.

For the American’s new Soviet neighbors aboard Salyut 7, their operations required learning the routines of modular assembly and multi-crew operations. Much of the drive for Vulkan’s high flight rate was the logistic needs for Salyut 7. In fact, though this had been foreseen, it’s exact impact and cost ended up going above expectations. Once again, Glushko’s decision to insert the transitional facility between the small Salyuts and Mir seemed both a blessing and a curse. The benefits in being able to put ideas to the test prior to using them on Mir’s MOK modules proved invaluable in finding the optimal ways to use the TKS system for manned and unmanned cargo, and identifying the problems of modular stations in practice while there was still time to modify the MOK and DOS modules that would make up Mir, but the costs of developing and supporting Salyut 7 (and the need to incorporate lessons learned) resulted in yet more slips to the MOK construction and outfitting schedule, pushing the first launch back another year into 1987, almost three years behind the original 1984 target. While Glushko’s ambitious plans had certainly had the desired effect of spurring respect for the Soviet Union’s technical prowess abroad, his inability to control the growth of Mir’s costs made the Central Committee even less favorable towards his ambitious dreams of following up on Salyut 7 and Mir by using the heavier 5-core Vulkan-Atlas to launch lunar missions or perhaps flights to Mars.

Even though Glushko’s long-term dreams were steadily being pruned, his present plans were moving forward steadily. The two MOK cores and 4 DOS labs that would make up Mir were being steadily assembled and checked out at Baikonur. The sheer scale of the endeavor would stress the Soviet’s payload handling capabilities. For one, like the Vulkan cores themselves, the MOK labs were too large to transport by rail from the manufacturing plants in Russia and Ukraine to the launch pad at Baikonur; while this would not have been a problem in the American program, with barge access to Kennedy, for the land-locked Soviet program it was a major constraint. While the DOS labs could thus be constructed in Moscow as usual and shipped by rail to Baikonur for launch, the MOK cores would have to be assembled and fitted out at Baikonur itself, as their weight and size made them incapable of being transported in their entirety. The need for these large fitting-out spaces required extensive and costly construction to be completed before final integration could be carried out, but in 1986 the final integration and checkout for the MOK cores was finally underway, with the first demonstration flight of a three-core Vulkan-Herakles being prepared to clear the way for the station’s launch.

Meanwhile, on-orbit, Salyut 7’s operational tempo stood in stark contrast to its American neighbor. Unlike the clockwork regularity of Spacelab’s logistics flights and crew rotations, Salyut 7 continued the more chaotic pattern of previous Salyuts. Some crews would stay up for only three or four months, while others were on-station for more than six, and logistics flights with TKS were equally irregular. The added headaches of working out station resupply flight schedules given the needs of the more military side of the program, who had grown used to their sole reign over Proton, only added to the growing pains of the Soviet program. It was never entirely unplanned, but at times the results were stressful both for station personnel and ground-side engineers and technicians.

Like the Soviets, ESA was also having to step up its preparations. The first flight of Europa 3 finally came in March 1985, even as their new Minotaur program was mandating the acceleration of the development of the revised Griffin core, Blue Streak boosters, and shortened Aurore-B upper stage for the Europa 4 family. In addition, development and testing was afoot to define the details of Minotaur, the Columbus lab, and the two nodes for Freedom, with the result being a tremendous strain on ESA’s budgets. Even with 4 years, accomplishing all the tasks required required increases in the funding levels provided by all the major participant nations, and even so the planned development to allow phasing out of the solid-boosted Europa 2-TA in favor of the Europa 2-HE had to be deferred to no earlier than 1990 to save on costs and preserve engineering development and testing resources. Nonetheless, ESA was able to stay on track to meet the requirements for the Freedom program, though resources were tight in terms of both time and money. Their astronaut corps continued to expand, as they cycled to and from Spacelab. Unlike the Americans, who tended to recruit based on an assumed average of 2.5 flights per astronaut, the Europeans instead flew more astronauts with an average more like 1.5. While some ESA astronauts would fly multiple times, it was less common than in the American program, partly reflective of a desire to cycle astronauts from more nations through flights, and to build a cadre of experienced astronauts for potential future manned Minotaur missions.

Similarly, American preparations for Freedom and Multibody were well underway. By 1985, Rockwell began delivering results on the newly refreshed American logistics vehicles, including static test articles and hardware-in-the-loop testing for the enhanced AARDV bus, optimized with the ability to carry larger fuel supplies for acting as a tug to the larger modules of Freedom, as well as its derivatives, the Aardvark Block II logistics vehicle with its enhanced cargo capacity and the new unpressurized cargo bay and the Block IV Apollo with its enlarged Mission Module intended to enhance both cargo capability and crew support capability in the event of off-nominal missions. In addition, Rockwell had delivered the hull for the American laboratory module to McDonnell, where it began to be outfitted alongside the tank-derived hull of the Habitat and Support Module (HSM). As for the launch vehicles that Freedom depended on, after three years of increased production, by the end of 1985 a surplus of nine Saturn 1C first stages had been completed and placed into storage, which was to be sufficient to meet the needs of both the Spacelab program and the remaining Cornerstone-class science missions that would use the Saturn 1C, particularly the Saturn/Centaur-E pairing. 1984 had already seen the launch of the Galileo Jupiter probe, 1985 had seen the launch of both Kirchhoff and the Hubble Space Telescope, and May 1986 would see the launch of the International Solar Polar Mission and the start of conversion work for allowing the VAB cells to handle the Multibody family. Unlike the production lines at Michoud which could simply be stood down in preparation for Multibody conversions, the VAB was in constant action supporting Spacelab, and would be until Freedom flew. Thus, the four cells and three MLPs had to be carefully allocated to ensure the constant availability of two MLPs and two VAB cells to the active program, while still ensuring that conversion remained on track. It is a tribute to the skill and planning that this operation, which was so vast in scope, managed to occur almost entirely without issue, with launch operations never being substantially interrupted. However, in September of 1986, the Spacelab 28 launch would throw a major wrench into both the preparations for Multibody and the ongoing clockwork of Spacelab operations.

As had been the practice since the stockpiling of Saturn 1C cores began, the first-stage used on Spacelab 28 was stored at Michoud for the two years following its construction in 1984, until in June of 1986 it was drawn from the stockpile and shipped to Kennedy Space Center by barge. Once there, it was checked out in the VAB’s low bay, then moved to the transfer aisle, lifted to vertical, and moved into position on a mobile launch platform in High Bay 3, with the the S-IVB upper stage then being delivered, checked out, lifted, and stacked onto the first stage. As standard practice, this was performed months in advance of the actual flight to ensure availability of a backup Saturn if the flight before it should encounter difficulties at Spacelab that might mandate on-orbit rescue. When this once again proved un-needed, the flight’s Mission Module received final loading and checks, and then was lifted into place atop the booster. The launch fairing was added to enclose and protect the MM and support the capsule proper, which could then be lifted and stacked onto the vehicle, along with its abort tower. Finally, a week before launch, the completed stack and its MLP was lifted on the back of one of the massive crawlers, and transported to LC-39A, where the MLP was connected to ground fuel and oxidizer lines and other pad infrastructure. A series of wet dress rehearsals and launch simulations were conducted to ensure that the vehicle’s tanks and seals were working and that the launch staff and mission crew were ready, then the day of launch, the vehicle was loaded with kerosene, oxygen, and liquid hydrogen, and final preparations completed. Despite a delay of thirty minutes required to clear a particularly persistent pleasure boater which had been intruding into the downrange keep-out zones, the flight proceeded through a nominal countdown, and at 2:35 PM on September 19th, 1986, Spacelab 28’s F-1A main engine ignited, followed three seconds later by the release of the MLP’s hold down arms, and the 44th Saturn 1C lifted off the pad on top of two million pounds of thrust.

The launch initially proceeded nominally. The vehicle cleared the tower, and control was passed from the launch site in Florida to mission control in Houston as the vehicle pitched and rolled into the gravity turn trajectory that would minimize drag and gravity losses on the climb to orbit. However, when the vehicle’s computers commanded the vernier roll thrusters and the main engine gimbal to return to neutral settings after the completion of this maneuver, the main engine gimbal overshot the correction, which caused a slight but increasing reversal of the commanded trajectory. At the same time as this warning sounded on the flight dynamics officer’s console, the booster’s computer began to report low hydraulic pressure in the main engine’s gimbals. It became clear within moments that the booster was no longer controllable in pitch, as the booster continued to pitch in spite of the commands from the onboard computers. The call was clear--what had been moments before one of the most complex assemblages of technology in the history of mankind was now an out-of-control bomb. Just as the ground controllers were coming to the same conclusion, and calling for an abort to be initiated manually, the Emergency Detection System in the Apollo capsule saw sufficient data to initiate an automatic abort. The booster’s engines were commanded to shut down, then the Launch Escape System fired, its powerful solid rocket motor pulling the capsule away from the booster. Between the thrust termination on the first stage and the more than 12G acceleration of the LES, the capsule was more than half a kilometer away when, three seconds later, the booster was destroyed at the command of the range safety. Explosive packages vented the tanks and destroyed the vehicle’s integrity, and it disintegrated in mid-air. Meanwhile, the LES’ motors burned out, and the tower’s canard assembly flipped the capsule and tower to put the base of the capsule forward. This completed, the tower had done its job, completing its entire primary objective in just 14 seconds of operation, and the abort tower and boost protective cover separated, leaving the capsule positioned to deploy parachutes. As the capsule’s attitude stabilized, and the drogue and then the main parachutes deployed, leaving the capsule drifting gently down to the waters of the Atlantic Ocean below, the mood in the Mission Control Center in Houston grew tense as the tracking cameras relaying video from Florida worked to stay on track with the capsule. Finally, after a few seconds that seemed like an eternity, the computer screens began to fill again with telemetry from the capsule. In a soundbite that would run as breaking news on every major news channel, Spacelab 28 Commander Don Hunt’s voice came through on the communications circuit. “Houston, this is 28. Rough ride up here, but we are okay. Do you copy?” The room erupted into cheers, and it took several seconds for the Flight Director to restore order, and get recovery assets to the projected landing point. In the end, only 35 minutes after lifting off the pad, the Spacelab 28 capsule was winched aboard the rear deck of the recovery ship Liberty Star [3], and the crew was assisted out of the capsule. It became clear that all the tension in Hunt’s voice in the communications was not just stress--he had been reaching to manually trigger the abort just as the automatic systems had commanded it, and the acceleration had slammed his wrist against the corner of his armrest, breaking it. With the crew safely recovered and one their way into port, the focus of NASA quickly converged on documenting the investigation into the cause of the failure aboard Spacelab 28. With Multibody still a year and a half away and Saturn 1C production shut down, it was critical to determine what had gone wrong--and if the rest of the stockpiled Saturn 1Cs were similarly suspect.

[1] Similar to OTL ISS after Shuttle’s retirement--if you look around, the real benefit Dragon contributes isn’t necessarily cargo up or cost, it’s the cargo it can bring back down. Note that CRS-1 brought more cargo home than it carried to orbit.

[2] Fictional. Teacher in Space gets started a couple years early due to Vulkan Panic. She flies a short-stay.

[3] OTL, this is the name of one of the two specially-built SRB recovery ships. In Eyes, it’s one of several relatively standard workboats NASA operates, deploying them to cover abort zones off both the Pacific and Atlantic as needed.
 
Last edited:
Hello e of pi,

This is possibly the best (and most informative) update yet. Great work, as always.

Spacelab 28 certainly has a less tragic outcome than poor Challenger did - amazing what a difference a bonafide abort escape mechanism makes. I expect that the post-mortem standown here will be considerably shorter than that after Challenger. It's not just about reduced political pressures thanks to having living astronauts afterward - it's that the flaws in the Saturn Ic are less fundamental than those in STS in 1986 (or, indeed, at any time during its operation). I'm guessing that Freedom won't be delayed that much - though Spacelab operations will get a little messy for the time being.

Perhaps I missed it, but what do the timetables for Freedom and Mir assembly look like again? Especially from start to finish?
 
I love this post

About Spacelab 28
Use the Saturn IC Hydraulic system, Kerosine or Hydraulic oil ?
that could help me to understand the Failure of Hydraulic system.

for dose who wonder.
in some oxygen/Kerosine rocket engine design,
the Kerosine is also used for lubrication of turbopumps and as Hydraulic liquid.
that reduce considerably the weight of engine.
 
On the timetable, I do see this:

The projected launch of the first element of Freedom is intended to be the HSM, in 1987, with further launches following during 1988 and 1989 to allow the station to achieve initial operating capacity in 1989--although final completion was foreseen to potentially take until as late as 1990.

How many launches are we talking about here for assembly?
 
Athelstane has already mentioned this, but SpaceLab 28 has just demonstrated the benefits of the Launch Abort System. Though IOTL this had already been demonstrated by the Soyuz 18-1 and Soyuz T-10-1 flights that ended with the LAS activating, and thus saving the crew - especially in the case of the latter. ITTL, did the former happen?

It does sound like the nature of the Non-Fatal Launch Failure was such, that even with an ageing computer system to control it - I suspect that it would be showing its years now, with improvements targeted at the Saturn MultiBody - there remained enough time for the Automated LAS to activate and save the crew, even as both the Flight Commander and Crew in Houston were preparing to trigger the Manual LAS.

Clearly, this will see a suspension of Manned Flights for NASA, though given that the crew is still very much alive and well - if a little shaken from the 12G Trip they had - the ramifications should be considerably lessened from what happened IOTL.
 
I see up to seven Assembly Launches, using various forms of the Saturn MultiBody, if memory serves me right.

If that's correct...

In our TL, the International Space Station requires over 40 launches to assemble a 990,000lb station.

In this TL, Space Station Freedom requires 7 launches to assemble a 700,000lb station.

What else more needs to be said?
 
Use the Saturn IC Hydraulic system, Kerosine or Hydraulic oil ?
that could help me to understand the Failure of Hydraulic system.
Kerosene, as with the F-1s on the Saturn V.

How many launches are we talking about here for assembly?

I see up to seven Assembly Launches, using various forms of the Saturn MultiBody, if memory serves me right.

Freedom consists of eleven total launches for assembly:
Module--Launch Vehicle
HSM-----H03
Node 1---M02
P1 Truss--H03
P2 Truss--M02
US Lab----M02
ESA Lab---M02
Node 2----M02
S1 Truss--H03
S2 Truss--H03
JapanLab--M02
CGL-------M02

Mir consists of 6 total launches:
Module---launch vehicle
MOK 1---Vulkan-Herakles
DOS 1---Vulkan
DOS 2---Vulkan
DOS 3---Vulkan
DOS 4---Vulkan
MOK 2---VUlkan Herakles

Also, for reference, I'm attaching a comparison image of the major stations to be featured in this timeline. From left to right, Mir, Freedom, Salyuy 7, and Spacelab...and then some dinky little station I'm sure someone will be able to identify for me, it's certainly not from TTL. ;) You can see why Mir goes up in fewer launches--it's got two large modules where the role of the second MOK is spread over more like 3 small modules on Freedom, and it skimps on solar panel area and complexity to mitigate the need for a complex truss like Freedom's.

Stations of the 80s.png
 
Last edited:
Looks like I miscounted the required launches for the Truss and Nodes - actually I wound up thinking it was just one big Node for some reason. :eek:

And I'm pretty sure I saw the OTL Mir Station there. ;)
 
Looks like I miscounted the required launches for the Truss and Nodes - actually I wound up thinking it was just one big Node for some reason. :eek:

for ISS is literally launch every piece Truss and Nodes by shuttle

in my TL Ronald Reagan's Space Exploration Initiative,
had same problem: 37 shuttle flights were Freedom is build piece by piece.
I shorten that to 7 launches with help of 2 Shuttle-C, who lift prefab Truss and Nodes into orbit.
Flight #1 Shuttle-C half station Trust solar arrays/radiators and Node 1
Flight #2 Shuttle with US Lab module (station in unmanned use)
Flight #3 Shuttle-C half station Trust solar arrays/radiatiors and Node 2 (station structure complete)
Flight #4 Shuttle with US habitat module
Flight #5 Shuttle brings the Crew with Logistic module and Galileo 7 Rescue Craft (from here Freedom operational)
Flight #6 Shuttle with ESA lab module
Flight #7 Shuttle with JEM and it's Logistic module (station is now complete after 21 months)

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=6794539&postcount=40


And I'm pretty sure I saw the OTL Mir Station there. ;)

yep is hiding on right corner ;)
no wonder with all big guys on picture
 
Last edited:
My theory on Saturn IC failure on Spacelab 28

That the main engine gimbal overshot the correction and follow report of low hydraulic pressure in the main engine’s gimbals.
let to conclusion that main input valve of hydraulic system failed.
the F-1 hydraulic system tap high pressure kerosine from fuel turbopump, push it true a main input valve,
Who pressure down the Kerosine for hydraulic use.
If this Valve fails, the Hydraulic system get over pressured with 70 bar and the system rupture.
 
20588 views

Eyes Turned Skyward, Part II: Post #14

...
The sheer scale of the endeavor would stress the Soviet’s payload handling capabilities. For one, like the Vulkan cores themselves, the MOK labs were too large to transport by rail from the manufacturing plants in Russia and Ukraine to the launch pad at Baikonur; while this would not have been a problem in the American program, with barge access to Kennedy, for the land-locked Soviet program it was a major constraint. While the DOS labs could thus be constructed in Moscow as usual and shipped by rail to Baikonur for launch, the MOK cores would have to be assembled and fitted out at Baikonur itself, as their weight and size made them incapable of being transported in their entirety. The need for these large fitting-out spaces required extensive and costly construction to be completed before final integration could be carried out, but in 1986 the final integration and checkout for the MOK cores was finally underway, with the first demonstration flight of a three-core Vulkan-Herakles being prepared to clear the way for the station’s launch.
Are they too big for a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myasishchev_VM-T ?
 
Hi guys,

Thanks for the wonderful new graphics. That helps a lot.

Questions:

1. Can you give a total mass and habitable volume for the new Mir and Freedom as they're planned?

2. Likewise, what's the nominal crew size for each at completion?

I think that's been addressed already - if so, my apologies. I just can't find it.

P.S. When does the Canadian robotic arm go up? On one of the other assembly launches? I assume it will be necessary early on to help with station assembly.

P.P.S. Will Spacelab be run concurrently with Freedom assembly, or shut down and de-orbited before that begins? Likewise, what will be done with Salyut 7 during Mir construction?
 
Last edited:
TTL's Salyut 7 doesn't look that much bigger than OTL Mir.

That would be on account of TTL's Salyut 7 serving as an Interim Space Station, plugging the gap between Salyut 6 and TTL's Mir. Built with the multiple intents of testing some of the Mir Components that could be tested, providing Cosmonauts with a destination for their new TKS Manned Spacecraft, and providing additional launches for their new Vulkan LV to prove the LV itself.

In short, it was good planning on the part of Valentin Petrovich Glushko. At the cost of the Mir Station Schedule slipping further and further to the projected collapse of the USSR. Jeopardising it's ability to be completed in time.
 
Wonder if ITTL Mir will keep operating beyond the end of the USSR (E of pi did let slip a fall of the berlin wall, BUT that doesn't necessarily mean the breakup of the USSR). Speaking of Vulkan, what's the success rate?
 
Wonder if ITTL Mir will keep operating beyond the end of the USSR (E of pi did let slip a fall of the berlin wall, BUT that doesn't necessarily mean the breakup of the USSR). Speaking of Vulkan, what's the success rate?

Well, looking at our own timeline, the prospects don't look good.

I'm assuming that the larger course of history is essentially unaltered, save in very minor details - the space program, important as it seems to us, just isn't in a position to have any significant geopolitical impact. I think the authors have suggested that this their view as well. So a collapse of the Soviet Bloc in 1989-91 should be baked into the pie.

Mir construction essentially halted in 1990 with the addition of Kristall. The final modules added in the mid-90's, as well as a considerable portion of the bill and logistics for Mir, ended up being subsidized or provided by NASA (and to a lesser degree, ESA). But the motivation for doing so was our inability to get Freedom off the ground, and to take advantage of Soviet/Russian experience in long-duration space flight. With Freedom already up in this timeline, and plenty of our own experience in long duration, the motivation for NASA to step in to save ROSCOSMOS's bacon looks...pretty slim.

It's not clear yet from e of pi's and Truth is Life's updates just how far delayed Glushko's Mir construction timetable is. But anything that's going to be added better be added no later than the end of 1990. Whatever it looks like at that point is likely how it will stay, barring foreign aid. And whatever that will be will be a larger station requiring more intensive support.

And as for Mir II - well, that looks like a pipedream in either timeline.

I don't mean to say that there wouldn't plausibly be some cooperation between Russia and the U.S. in space post-1991. It's just hard to see it being of the scale and quality that it was in our history. The need just isn't there in the same way.
 
Top