Rishi
Banned
We could have had a Space Cold War with America colonising Mars and the Soviet Union colonising Venus (or at least Venus's atmosphere).
The Commonwealth Space Agency
- Thread starter Dr Dee
- Start date
We could have had a Space Cold War with America colonising Mars and the Soviet Union colonising Venus (or at least Venus's atmosphere).
The Soviets were much more interested in Lunar bases... You'd need a richer Soviet Union to try though.
fasquardon
I think one of your immediate problems if you try to do it as a Commonwealth endeavour is that IIRC until fairly recently the UK often had a GDP which was greater than the combined GDPs of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand so it likely quickly becomes a mainly UK affair with the others chipping in small amounts. Any technical payoff from involvement wouldn't balance the cost for them and if alternate providers like the US are able to provide cheaper launch services then financial considerations would outweigh any Commonwealth sentiment.
That being said the UK could potentially achieve quite a bit even mostly by themselves. Going from some things I looked at a few weeks back NASA's budget in recent history has been roughly 0.5% of government spending give or take, their getting $21.5 billion last year. The UK government government budget last year was £821 billion so 0.5% is £4.11 billion, average exchange rate of 1:1.2772 makes that $5.24 billion.
This – along with other factors, the largest being the massive cost – is in part why I never really support manned space flight in threads like these, better to stick to satellites and probes until much later on. One idea I had was for the UK to be the first nation to launch an artificial satellite into orbit. We know Black Arrow worked and that it and Black Knight were very cheap compared to the superpower programmes, albeit something of a dead end. It gets you the prestige of claiming one of the five major space achievements without breaking the bank, hopefully encourages them down the robotic path, and makes it harder, but not impossible, for governments to cancel things later.
I'm fairly sure I can remember reading about a site on the Cape York Peninsula being discussed during the period, I want to say that it was next to or near a, or what later became a, National Park.
British Guiana is another possibility.
I'm not sure that being the first to get an artificial satellite into orbit then sitting out the rest of the accomplishments due to funding is really a lot better for the UK than being the first to fly a person suborbital, or orbital, and then never going any further. It means right at the start of the race, the UK is leading--the top first tier program. And then they...stop.
I doubt when the first satellite launches that the UK's public affairs officers and news programs will be saying "this is the world's first artificial satellite, a critical first step towards just doing artificial satellites and definitely never crew." There will be some promoted plan for UK crew in orbit, whether that exists as a formal program like Mercury, a government study series, or just napkin drawings from BAC and Hawker Siddeley. Abandoning that will be recalled as much as a milestone of failure as the TSR-2. Any British probes in the 70s, 80s, even the 90s will be recalled as the thing being done "because we decided to lose the moon race.". That's why I think you'd really be better off having Britain's first satellite come later. Iif you can beat France to orbit, you still have a European first without the pressure of having given up on superpower aspirations.
Why was it a dead end? I don't see it ever growing into something like a Saturn V, but look at how launchers like the Delta-Thor, Titan and Soyuz grew and evolved. Was there something about the British rockets that meant they couldn't pull a Delta?
But would the UK see a first satellite to orbit that leads to further satellites and deep space probes as a failure? There's real pride in countries that are members of ESA at all the satellites and probes that agency launches on the Ariane. And I've met plenty of ISRO fans, even though that agency has mainly focused on satellite launch.
And both Japan and ESA looked at putting people into orbit. I've never met a Japanese or European who was particularly broken up about those plans not resulting in actual astronauts in space. Sure, I've met Europeans who think Hermes flying would have been cool, but none who think it makes all the satellite and probes launches by ESA any less worthy of pride.
So I don't see why the UK focusing on exploration and the profitable exploitation of space (which for a long, long time means satellites in orbit around Earth) should result in the UK giving up its lead by people in the UK. They can (and with some justification) dismiss Soviet and American manned efforts as getting bogged down in silly diversions. If the UK were, for example, to follow their first satellite up with a few firsts getting sophisticated probes to other planets, I think they could be satisfied with themselves.
Now, of course the US and Soviets will tout their own successes as being superior, just as happens in OTL, but what matters for the UK program is whether voters in Britain (and the rest of the Commonwealth) are satisfied.
The UK had plans being discussed in OTL to get crew into orbit. So I am sure there'd be even more talk in TTL. Doesn't mean it will go anywhere though.
It would be fun to see the British Interplanetary Society buy some launches from the space program and develop their own capsule and launch it... Of course, even something as simple as a Mercury capsule would take many 10s of millions of pounds.
Hmm. So double that if each of the Commonwealth partners chip in a proportionate amount to $10 billion? That could fund quite a respectable program. If I remember rightly, the Soviet program was never receiving more than 1/3rd of what the US program was getting, so once the Apollo era race faded, the Commonwealth could actually emerge as the main competition to the US program. Of course, the US wasn't only funding NASA, various military programs also got alot of funding and helped NASA directly and indirectly. So if the UK is not investing in its own ICBM technology, that spending may not go as far as one might think. However, if the Commonwealth is launching its own satellites, almost certainly the Commonwealth nations will be launching their own military satellites of various kinds, either as part of the space program, or as kind of shadow space program where various Commonwealth military and intelligence agencies cooperated with the space program and each-other but didn't get any front-page press.
A certainly, a Commonwealth program with the equivalent of $10 billion 2020 USD in funding every year from, say, 1961 would leave the Japanese and ESA programs in the dust.
fasquardon
Not using Black Arrow or Black Knight as lower stages--those were vehicles with capabilities measured in hundreds of kilograms. You'd need Blue Streak and larger Blue Streak derivatives or replacements to match Delta, Titan, Soyuz, or Ariane. Black Arrow makes a decent upper stage. It's a Rocketlabs Electron-class rocket on its own.
Anchoring effect, basically. If they have a probes-and-sats program starting in the 60s that specifically sets those goals, there's no reason they couldn't be very happy with it--they could be the clear leader in the second-tier programs with a budget of even $5 b or so per year in then-year dollars from the mid-to-late 60s. Modules on ISS, a cargo and logistics vehicle, probes to Mars, Venus, maybe even the first non-US outer planets probe. In 1955, when they'd have to start to have the first artificial satellite? That's pre-Suez. The rockets to carry probes are just the first step on Britain's path to put men in orbit and the Union Jack on the moon, to extend the Empire to the planets beyond! That's the baseline they'd be judged by. ESA and Japan have always carefully couched their crew launch plans, and ISRO is very serious about a crew capability as a way of being taken seriously.
I'm not saying a British or Commonwealth program starting in the late 60s would be seen as an embarrassment for never launching crew , just that one starting in the 50s and launching the first artificial satellite almost certainly would be seen as a legacy of imperial grandeur from just before it went off the cliff of Suez and all. and any achievements would be help up next to those promises and found lacking. Compare ESA and the Russians. They have about the same budget, and ESA gets by spending a relatively low amount per capita, getting a fairly good value for money from it, and a lot of soft power without needing to fly crew. However, if Russia gave up launching crew and fell back to ESA's level, it'd be a domestic and international disaster for them.
Couple of idea I'd had for a British Space program as 'assists':
-Brit's figure out early, (OTL the US finally got enough data from "side-project" industrial testing around the late 70s and it stil isnt' widely known) that H2O2 cooled to around 5c/41f does not decompose and in fact becomes very stable. Along with better seal and gasket material, (which they very advanced with in any case) this makes the Blue Steel a more operational missile and could allow a Peroxide/kerosene Blue Streak to remain loaded and ready to go in the silo giving a boost to that program. (Yes I know the MAIN issues were always political but every bit helps)
-Bit earlier flight testing fo the Blue Steel that requires a pilot since the electronic guidance isn't ready yet. So some possible flight records there to keep the interest up.
(Switching back to rocket assisted ramjet power is another good step)
-Moving from the Gamma to the more powerful Blue Steel's Stentor engine as a basis for the Black Knight/Black Arrow first stage. (See "Sattelite LAunch VEhicle or SLAVE here: http://www.spaceuk.org/ba/siddeley.htm)
-Of course if someone had connected-the-dots and noted how 'intact' the Black Arrow first stage came back:
en.wikipedia.org
and suggested parachuting it back for reuse or some such, well there's going to be interest even if it's only a "small" launch vehicle...
- The British were well into testing of liquid hydrogen rockets in the mid-50s, (http://www.spaceuk.org/hydrogen/hydrogen.htm) including a possible LH2 upper stage for the Black Knight and later Black Arrow. (http://www.spaceuk.org/hydrogen/TN30.htm)
www.spaceuk.org
www.spaceuk.org
www.spaceuk.org
Randy
-Brit's figure out early, (OTL the US finally got enough data from "side-project" industrial testing around the late 70s and it stil isnt' widely known) that H2O2 cooled to around 5c/41f does not decompose and in fact becomes very stable. Along with better seal and gasket material, (which they very advanced with in any case) this makes the Blue Steel a more operational missile and could allow a Peroxide/kerosene Blue Streak to remain loaded and ready to go in the silo giving a boost to that program. (Yes I know the MAIN issues were always political but every bit helps)
-Bit earlier flight testing fo the Blue Steel that requires a pilot since the electronic guidance isn't ready yet. So some possible flight records there to keep the interest up.
(Switching back to rocket assisted ramjet power is another good step)
-Moving from the Gamma to the more powerful Blue Steel's Stentor engine as a basis for the Black Knight/Black Arrow first stage. (See "Sattelite LAunch VEhicle or SLAVE here: http://www.spaceuk.org/ba/siddeley.htm)
-Of course if someone had connected-the-dots and noted how 'intact' the Black Arrow first stage came back:
Black Arrow - Wikipedia
and suggested parachuting it back for reuse or some such, well there's going to be interest even if it's only a "small" launch vehicle...
- The British were well into testing of liquid hydrogen rockets in the mid-50s, (http://www.spaceuk.org/hydrogen/hydrogen.htm) including a possible LH2 upper stage for the Black Knight and later Black Arrow. (http://www.spaceuk.org/hydrogen/TN30.htm)
Slot365: Daftar Situs Judi Slot Gacor Online Gampang Menang Terbaik dan Terpercaya No.1 di Indonesia 2023
Slot365 adalah situs slot gacor terbaik dan terpercaya no.1 di Indonesia 2023, yang menyediakan jenis permainan slot online gacor gampang menang terlengkap dengan persentase RTP live slot tertinggi hingga 98.5%.
www.spaceuk.org
Slot365: Daftar Situs Judi Slot Gacor Online Gampang Menang Terbaik dan Terpercaya No.1 di Indonesia 2023
Slot365 adalah situs slot gacor terbaik dan terpercaya no.1 di Indonesia 2023, yang menyediakan jenis permainan slot online gacor gampang menang terlengkap dengan persentase RTP live slot tertinggi hingga 98.5%.
www.spaceuk.org
Slot365: Daftar Situs Judi Slot Gacor Online Gampang Menang Terbaik dan Terpercaya No.1 di Indonesia 2023
Slot365 adalah situs slot gacor terbaik dan terpercaya no.1 di Indonesia 2023, yang menyediakan jenis permainan slot online gacor gampang menang terlengkap dengan persentase RTP live slot tertinggi hingga 98.5%.
www.spaceuk.org
Randy
Coming back to this I was curious about what a UK Space Agency with a theoretical $5.24 billion budget might be able to achieve and a post by Athelstane following on from one by Workable Goblin in the previous Space thread gives a pretty decent overview of NASA's planetary sciences activities.
So let's say that over the course of a decade they decide to do ten SIMPLEx missions at $55 million each, three Discovery missions at $500 million each, two New Frontiers missions at $1 billion each, and a Flagship mission at $4.5 billion, for a total of $8.55 billion or $855 million on average per year. Now those figures don't include launch or operational costs, there will be other divisions with calls on the budget – astronomy, astrophysics, heliophysics, earth sciences etc. – plus infrastructure and ongoing costs, so it's very much the top end of the scale but it gives an idea. More realistically I think Flagship-level missions would probably be unlikely except in concert with other organisations and the freed up cash covering things like launch costs, perhaps an increased number of cheaper missions, other areas of investigation.
So let's say that over the course of a decade they decide to do ten SIMPLEx missions at $55 million each, three Discovery missions at $500 million each, two New Frontiers missions at $1 billion each, and a Flagship mission at $4.5 billion, for a total of $8.55 billion or $855 million on average per year. Now those figures don't include launch or operational costs, there will be other divisions with calls on the budget – astronomy, astrophysics, heliophysics, earth sciences etc. – plus infrastructure and ongoing costs, so it's very much the top end of the scale but it gives an idea. More realistically I think Flagship-level missions would probably be unlikely except in concert with other organisations and the freed up cash covering things like launch costs, perhaps an increased number of cheaper missions, other areas of investigation.
Some other possibilities - in conjunction with a more successful UK economy and a more unified Commonwealth.
Let's imagine Megaroc had successfully put a man into a suborbital flight in the early/mid 50s. Perhaps this very early lead would have serious galvanised the US and the USSR into putting the afterburners on their own space programmes. The afterglow of the first British astronaut being launched into space in the same year as the Coronation and the conquest of Everest would soon fade. The vast expenditure would lead to the end of the manned space programme in the late 50s; the British astronaut corps would in future eventually fly on American space craft (perhaps on an Apollo programme that was designed with some technical input from the Commonwealth in terms of fuel cell and computer technology). The public's discomfort or anger at relying on German V2 technology (was there a British version of Operation Paperclip?) would also possibly play its part in killing Megaroc stone dead; their priority would be the Welfare State and the end of rationing.
Just as the Soviets feigned disdain for the American Lunar Programme, perhaps the Commonwealth would instead trumpet the importance of space science and its aerospace industry. Flags and footprints would be off the agenda, even if part of that old Cecil Rhodes spirit grumbled away deep down. The Commonwealth perhaps would take the lead in communications satellites (to realise the dream of Arthur C Clarke with a British Telstar) or, to reflect British obsessions (!) in weather forecasting.
Let's imagine Megaroc had successfully put a man into a suborbital flight in the early/mid 50s. Perhaps this very early lead would have serious galvanised the US and the USSR into putting the afterburners on their own space programmes. The afterglow of the first British astronaut being launched into space in the same year as the Coronation and the conquest of Everest would soon fade. The vast expenditure would lead to the end of the manned space programme in the late 50s; the British astronaut corps would in future eventually fly on American space craft (perhaps on an Apollo programme that was designed with some technical input from the Commonwealth in terms of fuel cell and computer technology). The public's discomfort or anger at relying on German V2 technology (was there a British version of Operation Paperclip?) would also possibly play its part in killing Megaroc stone dead; their priority would be the Welfare State and the end of rationing.
Just as the Soviets feigned disdain for the American Lunar Programme, perhaps the Commonwealth would instead trumpet the importance of space science and its aerospace industry. Flags and footprints would be off the agenda, even if part of that old Cecil Rhodes spirit grumbled away deep down. The Commonwealth perhaps would take the lead in communications satellites (to realise the dream of Arthur C Clarke with a British Telstar) or, to reflect British obsessions (!) in weather forecasting.
I support Ascension Island as a launch site, purely because of the name. Scotland, Cape Breton or Newfoundland are also good sites for polar orbits.
After the initial successes of Blue Streak/Black Prince, I can see a Commonwealth program settling into an incremental development program, improving the launch systems as they launch satellites for Earth sciences and communications. Competition with Ariane could help or hinder, depending on how Parliament chooses to interpret the situation.
I suppose my 'ideal' POD for a successful CSA would be for the UK to make better use of the Marshal Plan aid they received and accept their status as a second-rank power compared to the US and Soviets after the war. While this initially slows some programs as Parliamentary focus is on domestic infrastructure, social programs and a smooth transition through decolonization, it leaves the British economy in better shape into the 60's when the Space Race really gets going in earnest. Trying to remain the Third Pillar in the 50's was quite bad for Britain in the long run and probably lead to reactionary cutbacks like the infamous 1957 White Paper. Setting a slower pace after the war could leave Britain in a position like France where the economy was healthy enough to support later investments in domestic aerospace industry, plus contributions from the Commonwealth (presumably in a tighter and mutually prosperous relationship ITTL).
May I suggest India's involvement in the CSA? If India is part of the Commonwealth the Indian Ocean makes for an excellent region for launches.
After the initial successes of Blue Streak/Black Prince, I can see a Commonwealth program settling into an incremental development program, improving the launch systems as they launch satellites for Earth sciences and communications. Competition with Ariane could help or hinder, depending on how Parliament chooses to interpret the situation.
I suppose my 'ideal' POD for a successful CSA would be for the UK to make better use of the Marshal Plan aid they received and accept their status as a second-rank power compared to the US and Soviets after the war. While this initially slows some programs as Parliamentary focus is on domestic infrastructure, social programs and a smooth transition through decolonization, it leaves the British economy in better shape into the 60's when the Space Race really gets going in earnest. Trying to remain the Third Pillar in the 50's was quite bad for Britain in the long run and probably lead to reactionary cutbacks like the infamous 1957 White Paper. Setting a slower pace after the war could leave Britain in a position like France where the economy was healthy enough to support later investments in domestic aerospace industry, plus contributions from the Commonwealth (presumably in a tighter and mutually prosperous relationship ITTL).
May I suggest India's involvement in the CSA? If India is part of the Commonwealth the Indian Ocean makes for an excellent region for launches.
If you want manned spaceflight then realistically I think you need to wait until the 1980s or more likely the 2000s. The earlier option is to snake Spacelab from ESRO, perhaps thanks to closer relations due to higher spending they get in first. That might be a bit hindsight-y though. An alternative is since there were two sets of Spacelab equipment built the UK builds one and ESRO the other, that should guarantee a fair number of missions for British astronauts.
The latter is a bit more involved concerning the International Space Station. During the construction phase Russia was in such financial straits that the US eventually ended up funding the Zarya module, which even though attached as part of the Russian Orbital Segment they still own. The Russians also partially built a second module, some sources say out of spares, as a backup which eventually evolved into the perennially troubled Nauka which looks likely to never launch. So during the planning the UK offers to fund the construction and launch of the backup Zarya to the tune of roughly $300 million in return for rides on Soyuz to and from the ISS, at $25 million a seat and two missions a year that's six years worth likely starting around 2009 or 2010. Of course once you're up there you need something to do so that would require the UK to build, or have built, and launch a module of their own similar to Columbus. One idea I had was for Unity and Destiny to be combined as one 9 or 10 metre long module mounting their various attachments, forward of that a module like Harmony with UK and US modules coming off starboard and port, and then Harmony and its attached modules and equipment forward of that.
The latter is a bit more involved concerning the International Space Station. During the construction phase Russia was in such financial straits that the US eventually ended up funding the Zarya module, which even though attached as part of the Russian Orbital Segment they still own. The Russians also partially built a second module, some sources say out of spares, as a backup which eventually evolved into the perennially troubled Nauka which looks likely to never launch. So during the planning the UK offers to fund the construction and launch of the backup Zarya to the tune of roughly $300 million in return for rides on Soyuz to and from the ISS, at $25 million a seat and two missions a year that's six years worth likely starting around 2009 or 2010. Of course once you're up there you need something to do so that would require the UK to build, or have built, and launch a module of their own similar to Columbus. One idea I had was for Unity and Destiny to be combined as one 9 or 10 metre long module mounting their various attachments, forward of that a module like Harmony with UK and US modules coming off starboard and port, and then Harmony and its attached modules and equipment forward of that.
Was it reactionary? Looking at it dispassionately the general thrust of the document – high altitude Mach 3 bombers being exceedingly technologically challenging, combined with improving defences, and better missiles, are a dead end – seems to have been broadly correct. The only two things which I think were a loss are the delays caused in updating the BAC Lightning and the cancellation of the Rolls-Royce RB.106 engine.
Last edited:
Maybe a poor choice of words. I definitely think that if Britain had abandoned pretensions to equal status to the US and Soviets post-war and taken a slower, more methodical approach to rebuilding the finances of the country would be in better shape, combined with fewer aerospace projects trying to get funding in the first place would result in a correspondingly more moderate White Paper. I will maintain the mishandling of Marshal Plan aid is Britain's great misstep that ultimately holds the nation back in the decades ahead.
I also think too much faith was placed in missile technology in the 50's. I don't think the tech could match expectations until the mid 60's, leading to the premature cancellation of manned aircraft that I expect would have served well if allowed to finish to production.
Keep in mind that despite the 'popularity' of certain aspects of Science Fiction, (I'm thinking things like Dan Dare here for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Dare) what was really 'popular' wasn't space travel but the hope for the future being just as 'good' as the past if not better even though real world events were making that seem less and less likely as time went on. Megaroc never went anywhere because at the time nobody really could imagine where the money to try something like that might come from in the public budget. It didn't help that Britain didn't get any V2's to play with either and had to depend on American data. And mind you none of that looked too good and the American's had and were using the damn Germans that designed the thing!
But let's say they manage to get a manned Megaroc into 'space', what is the world reaction? Likely there's a LOT of consternation and upset in both Washington and Moscow, (at least behind closed doors) but it would depend on WHEN exactly this happens as both sides are not ramping up 'space' efforts but ICBM efforts and depending on what the basic Megaroc can do THAT more than anything will be they key factor. There will likely be a lot of support and congratulations toward the UK and Commonwealth, especially if Collier's "Man Will Conquer Space Soon!" series has already come out. (The public just like OTL will have been 'primed' for such a thing but there will be a lot of "horror" and "surprise" that it wasn't America that did it!
) There would probably be less of a 'panic' though as England was seen as a near-technical peer to the US though that would increase pressure on the US to 'do' something to counter it.If it's early enough Stalin might die a bit more publicly but the key point here is more WILL there be any "space race" as we know it in such a time-line?
Consider that such an early effort will make the Soviet military even less inclined to allow "stunts" (which is how they viewed Sputnik and the Cosmonauts) rather than "practical" efforts. Sure the US and USSR may aim to put a man into orbit first but more likely both will instead aim to put a satellite into orbit before the Commonwealth does. Now a good question here is if someone else gets a few of the more important 'firsts' (Commonwealth has the first "man-in-space" followed by the US say with the first satellite) then does the USSR even "play" at a space race they are not highly likely to win much from?
While the USSR gained a lot of international notoriety and prestige for having so many 'firsts' in OTL in truth their entire program was marginal at best and they took a lot more risks to get where they did than the US did. And at no time was the political or military support for anything beyond ICBM's and military satellites very deep
If they put a man into space and then don't follow up that's going to cause some issues. Sure satellites are great to have but if you START with a human being there will be certain expectations that I'm not sure the Commonwealth can afford to pursue and yet they can't ignore them either. What does the Commonwealth NOT buy to pay for Megaroc and the follow-on work that they did buy OTL?
Randy
I understand that Britain did actually get some V2s to play with. They did test fires over the North Sea from the British Occupation Zone in Germany.Keep in mind that despite the 'popularity' of certain aspects of Science Fiction, (I'm thinking things like Dan Dare here for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Dare) what was really 'popular' wasn't space travel but the hope for the future being just as 'good' as the past if not better even though real world events were making that seem less and less likely as time went on. Megaroc never went anywhere because at the time nobody really could imagine where the money to try something like that might come from in the public budget. It didn't help that Britain didn't get any V2's to play with either and had to depend on American data. And mind you none of that looked too good and the American's had and were using the damn Germans that designed the thing!
But let's say they manage to get a manned Megaroc into 'space', what is the world reaction? Likely there's a LOT of consternation and upset in both Washington and Moscow, (at least behind closed doors) but it would depend on WHEN exactly this happens as both sides are not ramping up 'space' efforts but ICBM efforts and depending on what the basic Megaroc can do THAT more than anything will be they key factor. There will likely be a lot of support and congratulations toward the UK and Commonwealth, especially if Collier's "Man Will Conquer Space Soon!" series has already come out. (The public just like OTL will have been 'primed' for such a thing but there will be a lot of "horror" and "surprise" that it wasn't America that did it!
If it's early enough Stalin might die a bit more publicly but the key point here is more WILL there be any "space race" as we know it in such a time-line?
Consider that such an early effort will make the Soviet military even less inclined to allow "stunts" (which is how they viewed Sputnik and the Cosmonauts) rather than "practical" efforts. Sure the US and USSR may aim to put a man into orbit first but more likely both will instead aim to put a satellite into orbit before the Commonwealth does. Now a good question here is if someone else gets a few of the more important 'firsts' (Commonwealth has the first "man-in-space" followed by the US say with the first satellite) then does the USSR even "play" at a space race they are not highly likely to win much from?
While the USSR gained a lot of international notoriety and prestige for having so many 'firsts' in OTL in truth their entire program was marginal at best and they took a lot more risks to get where they did than the US did. And at no time was the political or military support for anything beyond ICBM's and military satellites very deep
If they put a man into space and then don't follow up that's going to cause some issues. Sure satellites are great to have but if you START with a human being there will be certain expectations that I'm not sure the Commonwealth can afford to pursue and yet they can't ignore them either. What does the Commonwealth NOT buy to pay for Megaroc and the follow-on work that they did buy OTL?
Randy
There is a relatively popular mod for the Orbiter space flight simulator (which was also developed by a British person) called Wideawake International, which involves a huge launch facility (and runways for spaceplanes) on Ascension Island. Several Orbiter mod-makers (including myself) liked to make fictional spaceports on remote near-equatorial islands while ignoring the logistical issues that would be associated with that. This is probably due to versions of Orbiter before 2016 not supporting global terrain variations (everything was flat unless you made a localized hill or mountain mesh). There were some exceptions, like a fictional Italian spaceport in Sicily.
Last edited:
Belize would be a good spot, close to equator lots of empty space for a spaceport and nothing down range apart from the Atlantic. Malta is a pretty cramped place and the risk of booster stages falling onto land in the Eastern Med including Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Turkey and the Soviet Union is quite high.
ESA went with Hermes then cancelled. British Aerospace proposed a space program in the 1980's based on reusable capsules somewhat reminiscent of Apollo but sized for 10 astronauts and able to haul cargo. The system was modular and had habitation modules, labs, solar power too.
Sort of, I think it was the basis but I remember they talked about it on Tomorrows World and they were discussing adding extras to the concept.
Something which was suggested in another thread but if a UK Space Agency were interested in participating in the International Space Station there were a number of proposed modules in our timeline which were cancelled. The Habitation Module would be a nice addition. Alternatively – and this would be the absolute top level of involvement – providing the Habitation Module and taking over the Centrifuge Accommodations Module, perhaps attached port and starboard of an extra node located between Destiny and Harmony, would be an interesting contribution.