View Full Version : T2K in space
As part of my ongoing write up about Germany in T2K I've touched on the low level space race that existed in the 1990's. Does anyone think the militarisation of space is feasible in the T2K setting of this time period?
The period had all the right ingredients for it. Renewed East-West rivalry and large funding available for prestige and one-upmanship projects. At the time space stations, and manned reusable and rocket launched spacecraft existed. There were ongoing US, Soviet, Chinese and European military satellite programmes, as well as the US military SDI and ASAT programmes and the lesser known Soviet ones.
The Soviet Mir space station was in orbit at the time (1986-1996). The Soviet planned to replace it with the larger Mir-2 space station in the 1990's, and the US was planning the even larger Freedom space station. Both stations were eventually cancelled and were morphed into the current International Space Station.
The US Space Shuttle programme produced the Columbia (Destroyed in 2003), Challenger (Destroyed in 1986), Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour, as well as the never flown Enterprise. I've always been partial to the USAF taking control of the Enterprise and rebuilding it for military flights into orbit. The rival Soviet Space Shuttle produced the Buran which was flown unmanned in 1988. If the USSR hadn't broken up I'm sure the Soviets would have used it for manned flights, and the Ptichka was over 95% complete when the Soviet shuttle programme was cancelled. The Soviets/Russians maintained a rocket launched manned spacecraft programme throughout the period but who knows what might have been? The US DoD and NASA were working on a number of Space Shuttle replacements at the time and the European Space Agency (France) was also tinkering with the Hermes Spaceplane project, and the British were (and still are) working on air-breathing spaceplanes. I'm sure the USAF and Soviet Air Force had some ideas about space marines on shuttles and space stations.
The USA, USSR, China, France, Israel and Japan were all launching military imagery and SIGINT spy satellites at the time, while Britain, Italy and West Germany had the technology to build them, and India, Iran, South Korea and Turkey had plans to launch them.
Someone brought up the USAF ASM-135 ASAT programme a few years ago stating that there was a real possibility it may have continued after its official cancellation as a Black Project. Certainly the US put a great deal of effort into SDI in the late 1980's and 1990's. The current Space Based Infrared System programme owes its origins to this period. Space based energy weapons such as X-ray lasers, chemical lasers, particle beams and rail guns may have been a bit too far fetched, but the Brilliant Pebbles space based interceptor with a kinetic warhead projectiles, and the ground based Homing Overlay Experiment had a lot of promise. I've always wanted to fit the YAL-1 airborne laser onto a space shuttle in orbit and see what happens!
From the late 1960's the Soviets developed a fractional orbital bombardment system from an ICBM, and secretly deployed a regiment of them until it was deactivated in 1983 as part of the SALT II treaty. The Salyut 3 space station in the 1970's was fitted with a 23mm canon, and the Terra-3 Shuttle attack rumour about a ground based laser in Sary Shagan targeting the Challenger in 1984 is still a popular story. The Soviets did develop a prototype laser pistol for cosmonauts and armed cosmonauts with a triple barrelled TP-82 pistols.
Targan
09-21-2013, 11:35 PM
Someone brought up the USAF ASM-135 ASAT programme a few years ago stating that there was a real possibility it may have continued after its official cancellation as a Black Project.
That's exactly what happened in my last campaign. From 1988 until the Twilight War it was a black project and the USAF had a number of successful ASAT kills using it during the war. An NPC in the PC's group from Poland all the way back to CONUS was an F-15 pilot who had taken one of those ASAT kills. He ended up being sent to Europe as a fighter squadron reinforcement once the ASAT launches ended, I guess some time in 1997 or maybe early 98.
Raellus
09-22-2013, 12:23 AM
That's some really interesting stuff, RN7. I wasn't aware of a lot of it. As a v1.0 timeliner, I think that, had the Cold War continued apace for another 5-6 years (from '89 to 95) before limited nuclear war began, you would have seen a lot of IRL-cancelled defense programs reach their planned/hoped-for conclusion. I imagine that some of those programs that would have come to fruition would have involved the Space Race and an increased militarization of same.
If you'd care to share any more details about where things were going through the '90s, I'd really like to read about them.
kato13
09-22-2013, 12:40 AM
I've always operated under the assumption that the end game of the space war, when one side (probably the Soviets) decides it has more to gain than lose, is that they would destroy all satellites.
A satellite would have an explosive charge surrounded by thousands of small ball bearings. If war breaks out, an encrypted message will cause it to explode, polluting space with hundreds of ball bearings that circle the planet for years and destroy numerous satellites. This may result in a new version of the Cold War Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) concept. If war occurs, a nation may blow up their MAD satellites and pollute space with killer ball bearings that destroy everyone's satellites.
http://www.warandpeace.ru/en/news/view/11234/
That's some really interesting stuff, RN7. I wasn't aware of a lot of it. As a v1.0 timeliner, I think that, had the Cold War continued apace for another 5-6 years (from '89 to 95) before limited nuclear war began, you would have seen a lot of IRL-cancelled defense programs reach their planned/hoped-for conclusion. I imagine that some of those programs that would have come to fruition would have involved the Space Race and an increased militarization of same.
If you'd care to share any more details about where things were going through the '90s, I'd really like to read about them.
The United States SDI (Strategic Defence Initiative) featured a number of defence programmes initiated by the Reagan administration in the 1980s to defend North America against nuclear ballistic missiles. Changing times at the end of the Cold War led to a refocusing of the entire programme. In 1991 Bush Senior shifted the focus of SDI from defence of North America against large scale strikes to a system focusing on theatre missile defence. In 1993 Clinton further shifted the focus to ground-based interceptor missiles and theatre scale systems, forming the Ballistic Missile Defence Organization (BMDO) and closed the SDI. Ballistic missile defence was revived by Bush Junior as the National Missile Defence and Ground-based Midcourse Defence. Although most of the SDI programmes never came to fruition the work did filter down to later military projects and spin off technologies.
The SDI was based around ground-based, direct energy weapons and space-based programmes.
Ground based programmes were based around three projects.
1) Extended Range Interceptor (ERINT): The ERINT program was an extension of the Flexible Lightweight Agile Guided Experiment (FLAGE), which developed hit-to-kill technology and demonstrated the guidance accuracy of a small, agile, radar-homing vehicle. FLAGE scored a direct hit against a Lance missile in flight at White Sands Missile Range in 1987. ERINT was a prototype missile similar to the FLAGE, but it used a new solid-propellant rocket motor allowing it to fly faster and higher. ERINT was later chosen as the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missile by Clinton.
2) Homing Overlay Experiment (HOE): HOE was the first Army system that employed hit-to-kill. Four test launches were conducted in 1983 and 1984 at the Kwajalein Missile Range. The first three tests failed because of guidance and sensor problems, but the fourth test was successful. This technology was used by the SDI and expanded into the (ERIS) program.
3) Exoatmospheric Re-entry-vehicle Interception System (ERIS): Developed as part of the ground based interceptor part of SDI in 1985. At least two tests occurred in the early 1990s, but the system was never deployed. ERIS technology was used in the later (THAAD) system and the Ground Based Interceptor currently deployed as part of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defence (GMD) system.
Directed-energy weapon (DEW) programmes was centred around five projects.
1) X-Ray lasers: This project focused on a curtain of X-ray lasers powered by nuclear explosions. The curtain was to be deployed by missiles launched from submarines during the critical seconds following a Soviet attack, then later by satellites and powered by nuclear warheads built into the satellites. In theory the energy from the nuclear warhead detonation was to pump a series of laser emitters in the missiles/satellites and produce an impenetrable barrier to incoming warheads. The first test in 1983 was known as the Cabra event performed in an underground shaft. It wasn't a success and the failure of X-ray lasers became a reason for some to oppose SDI. Despite the apparent failure of the Cabra test, the long term legacy led to spin-offs including a laboratory x-ray laser for biological imaging and creation of 3D holograms of living organisms, the creation of advanced materials , the Electron-Beam Ion Trap facility for physics research and enhancing techniques for early detection of breast cancer.
2) Chemical lasers: The USAF tested a deuterium fluoride laser known as Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL) at White Sands Missile Range in 1985. During a simulation the laser successfully destroyed a Titan missile booster and it was successfully tested on target drones simulating cruise missiles for the US Navy. After the SDI closed, MIRACL was unsuccessfully tested on an old Air Force Satellite for potential use as an anti-satellite weapon. The technology was also used to develop the Tactical High Energy Laser which is being tested to shoot down artillery shells.
3) Neutral Particle Beam: In 1989 the Beam experiments aboard a sounding rocket containing a neutral particle beam (NPB) accelerator. The experiment successfully demonstrated that a particle beam would operate and propagate as predicted outside the atmosphere and that there are no unexpected side-effects to firing the beam in space. After the rocket was recovered, the particle beam was still operational. The research on neutral particle beam accelerators could eventually be used to reduce the half life of nuclear waste products using accelerator-driven transmutation technology.
4) Laser and mirror experiments: The High Precision Tracking Experiment (HPTE) was launched on the Space Shuttle Discovery in 1985, and a Hawaii-based low-power laser successfully tracked the experiment and bounced the laser off of the HPTE mirror. In 1990 the Relay mirror experiment (RME) demonstrated critical technologies for space-based relay mirrors to be used with an SDI Directed-energy weapon system, such as that a laser could be relayed from the ground to a 60 cm mirror on an orbiting satellite and back to another ground station with a high degree of accuracy and for extended durations. The Atmospheric Compensation Experiment (LACE) satellite was used to help develop SDI technology such as target discrimination using background radiation and tracking ballistic missiles using ultra-violet plume Imaging.
5) Hypervelocity Rail Gun: Research on hypervelocity rail gun technology was done to apply the technology to defence system. The SDI rail gun called the Compact High Energy Capacitor Module Advanced Technology Experiment (CHECMATE), was able to fire two projectiles per day during the experiment which was an improvement over previous efforts, which were only able to achieve about one shot per month. Hypervelocity rail guns are, at least conceptually, an attractive alternative to a space-based defence system because of their envisioned ability to quickly shoot at many targets. Also, since only the projectile leaves the gun, a rail gun system can potentially fire many times before needing to be resupplied.
Space based programmes were based around a space based interceptor and four sensor projects.
1) Brilliant Pebbles: The Brilliant Pebbles was a non-nuclear system of satellite-based, watermelon-sized, mini-missiles designed to use a high-velocity kinetic warhead. It was designed to operate in conjunction with the Brilliant Eyes sensor system and would have detected and destroyed missiles without any external guidance. The technologies developed for Brilliant Pebbles were used in later projects such as sensors and cameras that became components of the Clementine mission and SDI technologies may also have a role in future missile defence efforts. Brilliant Pebbles was considered the most capable and feasible of all the SDI projects. The project was cancelled in 1994 but it is being re-evaluated for possible future use.
2) Boost Surveillance and Tracking System (BSTS): BSTS was part of the SDI and was designed to assist detection of missile launches especially during the boost phase. However, once the SDI program shifted toward theater missile defence, the system was transferred to the Air Force.
3) Space Surveillance and Tracking System (SSTS): SSTS was designed for tracking ballistic missiles during their mid-course phase. It was designed to work in conjunction with BSTS, but was later scaled down for the Brilliant Eyes program.
4) Brilliant Eyes: The Brilliant Eyes was a simpler derivative of the SSTS that focused on theater ballistic missiles rather than ICBMs and was meant to operate in conjunction with the Brilliant Pebbles system. Brilliant Eyes was renamed Space and Missile Tracking System (SMTS) and scaled back further under Clinton, and in the late 1990s it became the low earth orbit component of the USAF Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS).
5) Delta 183: The Delta 183 program used a satellite known as Delta Star to test several sensor related technologies. Delta Star carried infrared imagery, a long-wave infrared imager, and an ensemble of imagers and photometers covering several visible and ultraviolet bands as well as a laser detector and ranging device. The satellite observed several ballistic missile launches including some releasing liquid propellant as a countermeasure to detection. Data from the experiments led to advances in sensor technologies.
The Soviet response to SDI was relatively unknown. They did possess ABM's and had secretly developed and deployed the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS). FOBS was a Soviet ICBM program that after launch would go into a low Earth orbit and would then de-orbit for an attack. It had no range limit and the orbital flight path would not reveal the target location. This would allow a path to North America over the South Pole, hitting targets from the south, which is the opposite direction from which NORAD early warning systems are oriented. The Outer Space Treaty banned nuclear weapons in Earth orbit. However, it did not ban systems that were capable of placing weapons in orbit, and the Soviet Union avoided violating the treaty by conducting tests of its FOBS system without live warheads. The Soviets developed three missiles to employ FOBS, but only one of them ever entered service the R-36ORB.
Development of the R-36ORB missile began in 1962 and had some advantages over a conventional ICBM. Its range was limited only by the parameters of the orbit that the re-entry vehicle has been placed into, and the re-entry vehicle may come from either direction, compelling the enemy to build considerably more expensive anti-missile systems. Due to the possibility of placing the warhead in orbit and keeping it there for some time, it is possible to reduce the time required to strike to just a few minutes. It is also much more difficult to predict where the warhead will land, since while the re-entry vehicle is on orbit, it is a very small object with few distinguishing marks and is hard to detect; moreover, since the warhead can be commanded to land anywhere along the orbit's ground track, even detecting the warhead on orbit does not allow accurate prediction of its intended target. The basic difference to a conventional ICBM was the design of the re-entry vehicle, which is fitted with a nuclear warhead, the de-orbit engine and the control block. The control system uses independent inertial navigation and radar-based altimeter which measures orbit parameters twice—in the beginning of an orbital path and just before de-orbiting engine firing. The first and the only regiment of 18 launchers was deployed in 1969.
Declassified CIA files on a likely Soviet reaction to SDI concluded a number of points.
In the near term (1985-1995) the Soviets are likely to deploy a number of systems to defeat SDI such as building a larger numbers of boosters, decoys, and penetration aids. Also they would continue the trend to solid-propellant missiles, which tend to be structurally less vulnerable to continuous-wave (CW) laser damage and has higher acceleration than liquid-propellant ICBMS. Further increasing the number of re-entry vehicles systems currently deployed or in development. The Soviet are likely to use ablative coatings of the airframes of sea based systems and continuously rolling airframes would be possible by the end of the century, as would initial measures to reduce or mask visible, infrared, and radar signatures of boosters, PBVS, and RVs. By the end of the midterm, new SLBMs designed specifically against currently proposed US defensive systems could be in test or the early stages of deployment. These, like the ICBMs of that time, could incorporate airframes designed to minimize vulnerability to CW and pulsed laser effects, high-acceleration boosters, and multiple PBVs that could rapidly dispense RVs and decoys. Advanced signature reduction techniques for boosters and RVs could also become available at this time. Deploy more long-ranged cruise missiles, and deploy the Blackjack bomber to perfect its use as a carrier of cruise missiles and gravity bombs to intercontinental ranges. Various penetration aids, principally electronic warfare equipment, will be installed and upgraded. It is possible that the Soviets could adapt a large aircraft, perhaps the IL-86, to serve as a cruise missile carrier in addition to the new Bear variant. Mid to long term Soviet plans and strategies post 1995 were purely subjective, but were ambitious enough to have caused SDI serious difficulties.
mikeo80
09-22-2013, 03:12 PM
IMHO, a lot of the anti-satellite work could have been done with the use of EMP in space. A few large mega-ton range weapons detonated at 120-150 miles would have fried a lot of the existing satellites. IF you use V1.0, with the continuing cold war, the US had the Titan ICBM's with 5+ mega-ton warheads. The USSR had the SS-18 with 25 mega-ton. One or two of these would have created havoc.
Of course, this use would have been a MAD type of response. I do not know if these weapons would have been released with the (relatively) small exchanges of v1.0 or v2.2. One thing both the US and the USSR were trying to do was prevent the all out exchange of weapons. Either side seeing an ICBM launching would have been TERRIFIED. And determined to get what ever they could of the rest of the weapons out of their silos.
Just a thought.
My $0.02
Mike
Sanjuro
09-22-2013, 03:24 PM
I remember reading an article in the early 80s about potential Soviet threats to satellites in geosynchronous orbit; unfortunately I cannot remember the source.
The essence was a rocket launched which would slingshot around the moon, then enter the geosynchronous orbit altitude in the opposite direction to geosynchronous orbit. When it exploded, instead of using ball-bearings, it would release pellets of expanded polystyrene.
Given the relative velocities, these pellets would be just as effective as ball-bearings in destroying satellites. However, after a short time, these pellets would evaporate, making the geo orbits available for future use.
bobcat
09-22-2013, 08:05 PM
most of the space denial efforts that are seriously worth considering revolve around kessler syndrome. this is what its called when there is so much debris in orbit around a planet to make exiting the atmosphere unsafe. as each piece of debris would travel along colliding with objects and creating yet more debris.
that said i heard an interesting conspiracy theory once that between NASA, the USAF, and the CIA there were a total of 27 operational space shuttles produced.
Targan
09-22-2013, 08:28 PM
That's an excellent summary of ASAT and anti-missile systems, RN7. Can I ask what your source(s) is(are)?
That's an excellent summary of ASAT and anti-missile systems, RN7. Can I ask what your source(s) is(are)?
From the internet Targan :o)
No really most of its out there in the usual places, and there is really a lot out there on the Strategic Defence Initiative. In fact I gleaned much of it from just thrawling through articles on Wikipedia and fas.org and putting them together.
IMHO, a lot of the anti-satellite work could have been done with the use of EMP in space. A few large mega-ton range weapons detonated at 120-150 miles would have fried a lot of the existing satellites. IF you use V1.0, with the continuing cold war, the US had the Titan ICBM's with 5+ mega-ton warheads. The USSR had the SS-18 with 25 mega-ton. One or two of these would have created havoc.
Of course, this use would have been a MAD type of response. I do not know if these weapons would have been released with the (relatively) small exchanges of v1.0 or v2.2. One thing both the US and the USSR were trying to do was prevent the all out exchange of weapons. Either side seeing an ICBM launching would have been TERRIFIED. And determined to get what ever they could of the rest of the weapons out of their silos.
Just a thought.
My $0.02
Mike
I think the problem with nukes into orbit would be the Outer Space Treaty signed by the USA, USSR and the UK in 1967, and later signed by all other nuclear armed states such as China, France, India, Israel and Pakistan, as most of the rest of the world as well.
The Outer Space Treaty bars states party to the treaty from placing nuclear weapons of any kind or any other weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. It expressly prohibits the use of nuclear weapons for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military manoevers, or establishing military installations.
Canadian Army
09-23-2013, 08:38 AM
The US Space Shuttle programme produced the Columbia (Destroyed in 2003), Challenger (Destroyed in 1986), Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour, as well as the never flown Enterprise. I've always been partial to the USAF taking control of the Enterprise and rebuilding it for military flights into orbit.
The Enterprise (OV-101) was constructed without engines or a functional heat shield, and was therefore not capable of spaceflight. Originally, Enterprise had been intended to be refitted for orbital flight, however, during the construction of Columbia (OV-102), details of the final design changed. Refitting Enterprise for spaceflight would have involved dismantling the orbiter and returning the sections to subcontractors across the country. As this was an expensive proposition, it was determined to be less costly to build the Challenger (OV-099). Similarly, Enterprise was considered for refit to replace Challenger after the latter was destroyed, but Endeavour (OV-105) was built from structural spare parts that had been ordered by NASA as part of the construction contracts for Discovery (OV-103) and Atlantis (OV‑104).
The rival Soviet Space Shuttle produced the Buran which was flown unmanned in 1988. If the USSR hadn't broken up I'm sure the Soviets would have used it for manned flights, and the Ptichka was over 95% complete when the Soviet shuttle programme was cancelled. The Soviets/Russians maintained a rocket launched manned spacecraft programme throughout the period but who knows what might have been? The US DoD and NASA were working on a number of Space Shuttle replacements at the time and the European Space Agency (France) was also tinkering with the Hermes Spaceplane project, and the British were (and still are) working on air-breathing spaceplanes.
I agree the Soviet shuttle program would not have been cancelled and US DoD and NASA were working on a number of Space Shuttle replacements, and the European Space Agency could build the Hermes Spaceplane. But who would fly them? Most pilot astronauts come from military background, which means as soon as the war starts, the military is not going to release any pilots for astronaut training and some point they are going recall all military personnel serving as astronauts. What you would see is switch to unmanned rockets or the Shuttle-C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-C)
Someone brought up the USAF ASM-135 ASAT programme a few years ago stating that there was a real possibility it may have continued after its official cancellation as a Black Project.
You would see Anti-satellite weapons, most missles used during the Twilight War. Remember GPS and GLONASS use a constellation of 24 satellites and numerous military reconnaissance, weather, and communications are prime targets.
Also here is a link to The ASM-135 ASAT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT
Here is a list of US Unmanned Rockets and Military Launch in use during Twilight.
US Rockets:
Delta II
Atlas I
Atlas II
Taurus
Pegasus
Titan II (deactivated Titan II ICBM)
Titan IV
US Military Launch Bases:
Vandenberg Air Force Base
Space Launch Complex 1
Space Launch Complex 2
Space Launch Complex 3
Space Launch Complex 6
Space Launch Complex 8
Space Launch Complex 10
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station
Space Launch Complex 40
Space Launch Complex 41
Space Launch Complex 37
mikeo80
09-23-2013, 09:01 AM
I think the problem with nukes into orbit would be the Outer Space Treaty signed by the USA, USSR and the UK in 1967, and later signed by all other nuclear armed states such as China, France, India, Israel and Pakistan, as most of the rest of the world as well.
The Outer Space Treaty bars states party to the treaty from placing nuclear weapons of any kind or any other weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. It expressly prohibits the use of nuclear weapons for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military manoevers, or establishing military installations.
I agree that the Outer Space Treaty was in place. However the USSR had starting chucking nukes at China, then elsewhere as T2K unfolded. All I am suggesting is that the ICBM's listed above would not have gone into orbit, just high enough to detonate and wipe the sky clean. As I also suggested, this is a MAD type of scenario. ..(I.E. Kill them all, let God sort them out...)
My $0.02
Mike
boogiedowndonovan
09-23-2013, 03:10 PM
Awesome thread!
Just a point for Cannnon followers. The v2.2 timeline implies that there were some orbital space stations or "laboratories".
Under the 1999 timeline "Even scientific stations in the antarctic,and orbiting space laboratories, are abandoned as the war drags on."
I can't remember if this sentence exists in V1 or V2.0.
I guess we can assume that the USA has a space station, perhaps keeping or revamping Skylab? Or maybe the "free" nations got an early start on the International Space Station.
I am kind of partial to the MIRACL laser which RN7 mentioned, since it was operational during the timeline and was used in a successful ASAT test in 1997.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIRACL
Although out of the timeline, I thought the YAL-1 was an interesting concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAL-1
[QUOTE=Canadian Army;56353]The Enterprise (OV-101) was constructed without engines or a functional heat shield, and was therefore not capable of spaceflight. Originally, Enterprise had been intended to be refitted for orbital flight, however, during the construction of Columbia (OV-102), details of the final design changed. Refitting Enterprise for spaceflight would have involved dismantling the orbiter and returning the sections to subcontractors across the country. As this was an expensive proposition, it was determined to be less costly to build the Challenger (OV-099). Similarly, Enterprise was considered for refit to replace Challenger after the latter was destroyed, but Endeavour (OV-105) was built from structural spare parts that had been ordered by NASA as part of the construction contracts for Discovery (OV-103) and Atlantis (OV‑104).
Which is why I would be partial to the USAF taking control of the Enterprise and rebuilding it for military flights into orbit.
I agree the Soviet shuttle program would not have been cancelled and US DoD and NASA were working on a number of Space Shuttle replacements, and the European Space Agency could build the Hermes Spaceplane. But who would fly them? Most pilot astronauts come from military background, which means as soon as the war starts, the military is not going to release any pilots for astronaut training and some point they are going recall all military personnel serving as astronauts. What you would see is switch to unmanned rockets or the Shuttle-C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-C)
There is less distinction in the Soviet space programme between military and civilian (if any) than in the American space programme. In wartime NASA's funding and activity would be curtailed if not stopped all together, and the shuttle programme could very well be placed under USAF control for the duration.
I agree that the Outer Space Treaty was in place. However the USSR had starting chucking nukes at China, then elsewhere as T2K unfolded. All I am suggesting is that the ICBM's listed above would not have gone into orbit, just high enough to detonate and wipe the sky clean. As I also suggested, this is a MAD type of scenario. ..(I.E. Kill them all, let God sort them out...)
My $0.02
Mike
If its gets to that stage then the ground control stations and infrastructure would likely by nuked as well. The Sov's used tactical nukes on the Chinese in Asia long before they used them against the Americans.
dylan
09-24-2013, 04:31 AM
Don't forget Polyus...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_%28spacecraft%29
bobcat
09-24-2013, 10:56 AM
Don't forget Polyus...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_%28spacecraft%29
although if the soviets wanted to ensure polyus wasn't seen as a violation of the treaty they could have claimed it was as a preventative measure against kessler syndrome as by that point there was enough orbital debris for the aeronautics community to consider it as a potential threat. and yes i keep mentioning kessler syndrome for a reason.
kessler syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome)
this can destroy the majority of existing space platforms and even prevent future launches for generations. its a safe assumption that if the twilight war did occur then this would be considered a viable option to defeat ICBM launches ast debris from ASAT missions and ICBM launches began to prevent replacement satellites from reaching orbit.
rcaf_777
09-24-2013, 11:58 AM
Just a couple of points
More infromationon the Buran spacecraft can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)
the artcile states that four other shuttles were in the pipeline as of 1993 and another unmaned fligth of the Buran was planned for 1993.
I don't think they put any life support systems in it, so that is why it's missions were unmanned
A few other Soviet Space items are
Energia: A heavy-lift expendable launch system as well as a booster for the Buran spacecraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-105 Spaceplane: Developed is response to the USAF X-20 Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-105
Almaz: The Almaz program was a highly secretive Soviet armed military space station program, which began in the early 1960s.
Don't forget Polyus...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_%28spacecraft%29
I think it was probably a good thing that the launch of Polyus failed, and I think Gorbachev who was at the launching in Baikonur was privately glad too as he forbade its testing even if the launch had been successful. Prototype or not, a laser armed spaceship in orbit designed to destroy American and NATO satellites would have been way to provocative. God knows how much funding America would have pumped into its military space programme.
although if the soviets wanted to ensure polyus wasn't seen as a violation of the treaty they could have claimed it was as a preventative measure against kessler syndrome as by that point there was enough orbital debris for the aeronautics community to consider it as a potential threat. and yes i keep mentioning kessler syndrome for a reason.
kessler syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome)
this can destroy the majority of existing space platforms and even prevent future launches for generations. its a safe assumption that if the twilight war did occur then this would be considered a viable option to defeat ICBM launches ast debris from ASAT missions and ICBM launches began to prevent replacement satellites from reaching orbit.
Although could be argued that Polybus as an orbital laser armed spacecraft designed to destroy NATO satellites would have contributed to the Kessler Syndrome itself.
Just a couple of points
More infromationon the Buran spacecraft can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)
the artcile states that four other shuttles were in the pipeline as of 1993 and another unmaned fligth of the Buran was planned for 1993.
I don't think they put any life support systems in it, so that is why it's missions were unmanned.
I think two space shuttles would have been as much as the Soviets would have built as unlike America they still had their own rocket based manned space launch programme. I could however live with a third Soviet space shuttle, but no more.
Energia: A heavy-lift expendable launch system as well as a booster for the Buran spacecraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia.
Had the payload mass of a Saturn V. Amazing how the Soviets could design rockets as powerful as this as well as having a space shuttles programme and have manned rocket launchers for a fraction of the budget that America gave NASA.
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-105 Spaceplane: Developed is response to the USAF X-20 Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-105].
I'm not sure if the Mig-105 was a real programme or just an elaborate Soviet disinformation exercise.
Almaz: The Almaz program was a highly secretive Soviet armed military space station program, which began in the early 1960s.
I think the Mir space station and ultimately the IIS was the end product of the Almaz programme.
raketenjagdpanzer
09-25-2013, 07:17 PM
I realize that part of the thing about T2k for many is "All is bleak, all is terrible" but consider a nice side adventure where a few "orbital labs" from each side alter their orbits and become their own federation, giving the middle finger to the ground based nations.
It might make for a good bit of gaming fun.
Since we hand-wave a lot of factual stuff for T2k to "work" anyway, I'd say: a Buran-class shuttle and American shuttle were at their respective stations when things went bad. They use their fuel and reactive jets to reposition the stations and MOLs close enough together that they can be linked up, if only by cables, or brought close enough that a space-walk is no great consideration. Political officers and military personnel who refuse to join the new, neutral "country" are gently but firmly* shown the Soyuz which is programmed to land near a relatively populated area and told "Good luck, you're on your own". Since the shuttles are so alike in design, if reentry is called for one can be kept in service by cannibalizing the other. "Science projects" of various growth mediums are used to keep algae and other plants producing food and O2. A small and somewhat thriving space colony of expats from East and West makes a go at it for a few years before coming home...
(Actually that's kind of the plot of William Gibson's Red Star, Winter Orbit, a decidedly non-cyberpunk short story and a damn good read.)
...
*=or drugged and thrown in.
Targan
09-25-2013, 09:50 PM
I realize that part of the thing about T2k for many is "All is bleak, all is terrible" but consider a nice side adventure where a few "orbital labs" from each side alter their orbits and become their own federation, giving the middle finger to the ground based nations.
It might make for a good bit of gaming fun.
With the greatest respect, I find this scenario very unrealistic. For starters, as soon as the nukes start flying the crews in space are going to assume that the world as they know it is ending. No more resupply flights, no more ground based radar and support. Not to mention the very real possibility of nukes being detonated in orbit, EMPing orbital hardware into oblivion. What possible advantage would there be in staying in space? It seems like a suicidal decision.
Since the shuttles are so alike in design, if reentry is called for one can be kept in service by cannibalizing the other.
Again, highly unrealistic. Apollo 13 shows us how even 2 spacecraft built in the same country but by different contractors have non-compatible hardware. Just because the US and Soviet space shuttles look similar and perform similar functions doesn't mean any of their components would be easily interchangeable. And trying to modify and retrofit major spacecraft components in space with no earth-side support and expecting the resulting hybrid systems to last months or even years? That scenario is a little bit "cinematic" for me.
I'm not playing devil's advocate or taking a shot at you, raketenjagdpanzer, that's just honestly how I see it.
Olefin
09-25-2013, 11:16 PM
Actually worked on the space shuttle program - was one of the designers for the Extended Duration Orbiter pod that was on Columbia when she went down and did part of the design and test work for the drag chute. The shuttles were great vehicles but their time up there was very limited - at best they could stay in orbit for a couple of weeks at time. Even in conjuction with a surviving orbital station they could have only stayed up for a couple of months before they would have had to come home - they just werent designed for long duration space flights.
Now if you can postulate a moon base that was dug in on the polar areas where there was access to the ice that is on the moon you could have a long term space presence - but I dont see that happening in any possible timeline that could occur during the years the game was set in.
Actually worked on the space shuttle program - was one of the designers for the Extended Duration Orbiter pod that was on Columbia when she went down and did part of the design and test work for the drag chute. The shuttles were great vehicles but their time up there was very limited - at best they could stay in orbit for a couple of weeks at time. Even in conjuction with a surviving orbital station they could have only stayed up for a couple of months before they would have had to come home - they just werent designed for long duration space flights.
Now if you can postulate a moon base that was dug in on the polar areas where there was access to the ice that is on the moon you could have a long term space presence - but I dont see that happening in any possible timeline that could occur during the years the game was set in.
Olefin my neighbours brother is an aerospace engineer who works for NASA in Houston. He told me that the reason the Columbia disintegrated on reentry was because NASA was pressurised by environmentalists to change the composition of the shuttles tile panels. Therefore the tile panels on Columbia were not strong enough and the thermal protection system was compromised when debris punctured a panel leading to the shuttles destruction. Would you agree with that?
Olefin
03-31-2015, 03:18 PM
RN7 your neighbors brother is incorrect in his assumption - we were never pressured to make that change - there were changes over the years to save weight and to make the panels more efficient but not for environmental reasons.
Frankly impact on the einvironment was very low on NASA's list when I was on the program and still is today.
Those shuttles for instance had cad plated fasteners on them - and as bad as they were for the environment they stayed cad plated. Let alone what was used in the solid rocket boosters for fuel.
There was always a concern with those leading edge panels for an impact like that - that was one reason we had to remove things like rings and such when we were working near the tiles and leading edges - they were easily cracked by impact - and that piece of foam was moving very fast when it struck the wing
unkated
04-08-2015, 01:50 PM
Your mileage may vary, but....
Note that the US and Soviet civilian space programs did not do that well, funding-wise, even in the 1980s. The race to the moon had been won, and there was no clear, feasible next goal; neither side saw a need for the massive spending for development of the 1960s. There was just not that much that you would do with men in space militarily that you could not do remotely - and much cheaper.
Obviously, development continued, but neither side saw a reason to push for manned military platforms, and they had signed an agreement banning space-based, orbital weapons.
Mir
The V1 timeline presumes a somewhat more robust USSR. If only to avoid being seen as weaker than the West, I could see that meaning that they invest some more in their space program in the late 80s, early 90s. The cooperation that saw NASA astronauts reside on Mir in the 1990s or to build the ISS starting in the late 90s is... unlikely, but possible. The 1975 Apollo-Soyuz mission showed that the Cold War opponents could cooperate when they wanted.
The Soviets would most likely keep Mir operating (since at the time the US had no space station). IIRC, there had been plans to launch another module in the early 90s that never materialized, cancelled in the same wave of cutbacks that ended the Buran program. They could have swapped out older, distressed modules for newer, more capable ones and continued their presence in space.
It seems to me that most likely, in 1995, Mir would be abandoned for the duration, as the effort required to keep it manned, tracked, supported, and supplied would be better spent on the war effort, and there would be little military benefit to such a manned platform.
Alternatively, you could have Mir be gutted by fire in Feb 1997 (or earlier) as it almost was in RL.
Buran
Buran was designed along similar lines to the US Space Shuttle, but was notably behind in design and development. Similar in shape to the US Space Shuttle, the main design difference was Buran’s engines – they were made only to maneuver in orbit and to initiate landing; lift off was to be provided by the Energia rocket. In 1989, Buran’s first manned flight was scheduled for 1994; delaying that a bit (as has happened in nearly every hi-technology development program I can think of, Western, Soviet, or private corporate), would slide them into manned test flights at about the time the war with China heats up. Or later. Note that by 1993, the Russians had spent 20 billion rubles on Buran, and only gotten one unmanned test flight.
I did find the following comment by someone involved with the Buran project interesting:
"We had no civilian tasks for Buran and the military ones were no longer needed. It was originally designed as a military system for weapon delivery, maybe even nuclear weapons. The American shuttle also has military uses."
The Soviets had no real need of the Buran program. They had Progress and Soyuz launches to supply Mir; they had Proton to launch modules. IMHO, at least in a V1 timeline Buran would go on hold before becoming operational.
ESA’s Hermes and Columbia
ESA had a design for Hermes, a small crewed shuttle lander that would launch atop an Ariane 5 rocket. Hermes' design was adjusted several times during the 1980s and 1990s before being cancelled. Its original design had seats for 6, but that shrank to seats for 3. By 1991, development had not started, and a first flight was then scheduled for 2000.
Hermes was supposed to provide transport to the ESA's Columbia Space Station. A small crew of astronauts would fly to Columbia and stay for 30-60 days. However, developmental studies of Columbia showed that it would cost much more than originally thought, as did development costs for Hermes. Both were cancelled in the early 1990s, and the ESA provided a module (Columbus) for the ISS.
One of the driving factors was Germany wanting to cut back the ESA budget due to the costs of reunification. But a V1 timeline has no such costs in the German budget (although they are supporting a larger military). So, with an operational Hermes program, you could have an evil France sending small Hermes crews to occupy the abandoned Mir and Freedom space stations "to preserve them for the duration."
And then a final US (or Soviet) shuttle mission to "take back our station."
Can you say Space Marines? How about Coznaz (CosmoSpetznaz)?
Could make for a fun fantasy module... :-)
Freedom and ISS
The USA's Freedom space station went through a number of design iterations in the 1980s and early 1990s, as NASA budgets fluctuated (usually downward). Actually, for about 20 years the US manned space program floundered around for a goal since its last trip to the moon. The Shuttle was nice, but never made going to space as cheap (or as safe) as promised in its design. It was designed as a delivery system - but there was nowhere to go (except to a Soviet station).
Eventually, with the cold war done, Mir dying, and ESA's Columbus cancelled, Freedom evolved into the International Space Station (ISS). The first modules of the ISS were launched finally in November 1998; the ISS was not ready for a resident crew until 2000. The delays were more due to budgetary issues and changes to design, not problems with Soviet cooperation (although the initial Soviet modules were delayed too due to budgetary issues brought on by the collapse of the Soviet Union).
In T2K v1, IMHO a GM has a few choices:
Some Freedom design is selected and implemented in the mid 1990s, and is extant when the war starts. I'll suggest that it would be abandoned in a similar fashion as Mir shortly after NATO-WP hostilities begin in 1996. I could see either station fall victim (after abandonment) to a pebble attack to keep it out of action or out of simple peevishness on the part of some general.
ISS development goes along as "scheduled," without Russian cooperation, but its timing is no better. First module is either destroyed on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral, or is launched, and the mission places it in orbit - and a second mission never flies (post TDM).
NASA space station development moves along a bit quicker, as the US wants to launch a manned space platform to compete with the Soviet Mir. It still would not be very big, and crews could probably not stay long by 1996.
I just don't see the spare cash or interest laying around for expansion or acceleration of a US manned space program, especially if US tax dollars support a larger military 1988-1997. It could see more of an effort (and cash) spent in...
SDI
This has already been covered, but I could see some ASAT systems, either Bright Pebbles or a missile system being deployable in small numbers. Some orbital systems would be saved for countering ICBMs; some would be used to take out the other side's recon satellites. Of course, making an effort to remove all or most of the other side's recon satellites sounds like a prequel to a massive strike, so more likely tactical removal of a specific bird or two could herald an offensive in an area these had covered, but not seem like tantamount to a full nuclear confrontation.
I'd believe easily enough that a few defensive satellites (either for ASAT or ABM operations) could have been deployed, probably in secret, possibly by either side, but not enough to make a big difference (see Space Operations making a big difference may well trigger a full strike). Recall that when President Reagan declared this as a defensive shield only, the Soviets protested vociferously that they considered SDI an offensive weapon – such a shield would allow the US to consider offensive nuclear attacks without fear of retaliation.
Space Operations
As I said above, recall that both sides sought to avoid a full-on MAD scenario. So (IMHO) neither side would want to do anything that would seem to threaten a full-on confrontation in space. In 1995, I'll wager the USSR would be very careful about avoiding weapons in space, knowing they would be watched and preferring to avoid a two-front war. The US might want to stock up on recon satellites, but these take time to build.
Aerospace tech is a specialized case of cranking up industrial output, which we have discussed before:
Hard to find the facilities and staff to quickly ramp up production and
Most of the aerospace firms that produce satellites and their components are also being tasked to increase the output of military electronics, munitions, and combat aircraft. Satellite production will probably be behind these in priority before the US enters the war, and changes made after that point probably won't affect production before Nov 1998.
I don't think anyone will sneak nuclear missiles into orbit. Not worth the effort (once hostilities begin) or if caught, to increase the tension about triggering a full exchange.
I already said what I thought about space-based defenses.
Interoperability
First major issue is that space stations have rather limited capability to shift their orbits. They could make limited adjustments and wait for orbits to coincide, but that may take... some time. And that would allow them to be over the same place at about the same time briefly. They could wave.
Assuming you can get past (or hand wave) the hurdle of orbital mechanics, you have the issue of interoperating. Not likely. Too many differences in equipment, specs, voltage, connectors, and little chance to get more. Recall that for the Shuttle to dock with Mir, the US required a specially built docking tunnel.
You can make the case that smart engineers (probably some subset of a crew) armed with hand tools and duct tape may come up with means of interoperating, rigging power and possible air connections. How often can you roll miraculous vs. Electronics or Mechanics? And please not to make mistakes...
However, I think that the lack of supply of oxygen, clean water, or food (in that order) would defeat any long-turn stay in space. There not enough space available to grow enough plants to produce enough oxygen (unless you foresee a space station much larger than anything that exists currently, with small crews), not enough water to irrigate it, the recycling capabilities of (current) waste systems are not efficient enough...
Residents in Mir have a Soyuz escape module at their beck and call. A NASA-run space station without Soviet cooperation would most likely have a shuttle handy while they are resident (see above) or have something like a latter-day Dyna-Soar lander as a lifeboat. One was designed – seven seats, remotely piloted from earth; no piloting controls.
Mechanics
You can, of course, look at Dark Conspiracy or TNE for descriptions of using its similar mechanics in space for T2K. DC is closer in to 1990s space technology, but IIRC, TNE dealt more specially with combat in 0 gee environments. DC even has an Astronaut career, if you wanted actual PC space cadets.
If you have it available, I was rather fond of Cyberpunk's Near Orbit module (more so than High Frontier); that can be useful for pointing out the kinds of things that need to be accounted for in game mechanics for a Zero-G setting, especially for characters new to it.
Uncle Ted
Olefin
04-08-2015, 05:08 PM
I would think that given the Cold War continuing in the V1 timeline you would have a smaller version of Freedom, probably with more intelligence capability than the real world version had, probably in place by around 1994-95.
You could see that with the outbreak of the war between China and the Soviet Union that NASA could start to deploy Air Force personnel there - and that they could take the Vandenberg launch site out of mothballs for the Space Shuttle as well - i.e. Space Launch Complex-6 -
Possibly also with the Cold War continuing you may have seen another shuttle built for just the Air Force - there was a plan to build one more shuttle that was scrapped by Bush to save money - that is when I lost my job at Rockwell - if it had been authorized it would have been ready by 1994-95 timing - and thus could have been dedicated for the military from Vandenberg
and with the outbreak of the actual war between the US and the Soviets any remaining civilian personnel on the station would have been replaced by military
And if the ESA built Hermes then the following could have definitely happened - and given the French the head start into space that 2300AD has them having
"So, with an operational Hermes program, you could have an evil France sending small Hermes crews to occupy the abandoned Mir and Freedom space stations "to preserve them for the duration.""
I think the whole concept of the Space Shuttle and its Soviet and French cousins were an extravagant waste of money for relatively little gain. Heavy-lift rockets can do the same function, and they probably do them better and they certainly do them a lot cheaper. The problem with the space shuttle is that it was developed before its time. When America started to develop the shuttle it was in the middle of the Apollo Moon programme and was planning to launch Skylab. Back in the 1970's it was believed that there would be permanently manned space stations and even a permanent Moon base by 2000. A manned reusable spaceplane such as the shuttle was certainly useful, but the reality proved to be a lot different. Besides some scientific experiments, satellite launches and some morale boosting space walks the shuttle was a spectacular and expensive failure and a technological dead end. Ironically only at the end of its service life did the shuttle start to be used for what it was originally designed for, manned missions to the International Space Station. NASA contractors believed that they could keep the shuttle fleet flying through to 2030. Following the Columbia disaster NASA finally realized it could not make the shuttle safe. The only way to continue American manned spaceflight would be to develop a replacement manned spacecraft with an escape system, and meanwhile fly the shuttle as little as possible.
Your mileage may vary, but....
Note that the US and Soviet civilian space programs did not do that well, funding-wise, even in the 1980s. The race to the moon had been won, and there was no clear, feasible next goal; neither side saw a need for the massive spending for development of the 1960s. There was just not that much that you would do with men in space militarily that you could not do remotely - and much cheaper.
Obviously, development continued, but neither side saw a reason to push for manned military platforms, and they had signed an agreement banning space-based, orbital weapons.
The development of the Space Shuttle was originally seen to be a successor to the race to the moon, or as we should say the next step for America. Back in the 1970's it was believed that there would be permanently manned space stations and even a permanent Moon base by 2000, or maybe even earlier. A manned reusable spaceplane such as the shuttle was certainly useful in that scenario, and its military capacity to be used as a delivery vehicle for an orbital weapons platform or as a transport for "space marines" were highly relevant. In fact the main reason Skylab couldn't be rescued in 1979 was because America had no manned launching capability due to the decommissioning of the Saturn launchers and delays in the development of the shuttle.
Mir
The V1 timeline presumes a somewhat more robust USSR. If only to avoid being seen as weaker than the West, I could see that meaning that they invest some more in their space program in the late 80s, early 90s. The cooperation that saw NASA astronauts reside on Mir in the 1990s or to build the ISS starting in the late 90s is... unlikely, but possible. The 1975 Apollo-Soyuz mission showed that the Cold War opponents could cooperate when they wanted.
The Soviets would most likely keep Mir operating (since at the time the US had no space station). IIRC, there had been plans to launch another module in the early 90s that never materialized, cancelled in the same wave of cutbacks that ended the Buran program. They could have swapped out older, distressed modules for newer, more capable ones and continued their presence in space.
It seems to me that most likely, in 1995, Mir would be abandoned for the duration, as the effort required to keep it manned, tracked, supported, and supplied would be better spent on the war effort, and there would be little military benefit to such a manned platform.
Alternatively, you could have Mir be gutted by fire in Feb 1997 (or earlier) as it almost was in RL.
From the 1970's the Soviets had a near permanent manned presence in space. Unlike America the Soviet Union has had a fully functional manned space launch capability since they sent up Gagarin on Vostok 1.
• Salyut 1 (1971-1971)
• Salyut 2 (1973-1973) (* Military)
• Salyut 3 (1974-1975) (* Military)
• Salyut 5 (1976-1977) (* Military)
• Salyut 6 (1977-1981)
• Salyut 7 (1982-1986)
• Mir (1986-2000)
The Soviet were planning Mir-2 to replace the existent Mir station and had been working on the project since 1976. Some of its base blocks and modules ended up as part of the ISS.
Buran
Buran was designed along similar lines to the US Space Shuttle, but was notably behind in design and development. Similar in shape to the US Space Shuttle, the main design difference was Buran’s engines – they were made only to maneuver in orbit and to initiate landing; lift off was to be provided by the Energia rocket. In 1989, Buran’s first manned flight was scheduled for 1994; delaying that a bit (as has happened in nearly every hi-technology development program I can think of, Western, Soviet, or private corporate), would slide them into manned test flights at about the time the war with China heats up. Or later. Note that by 1993, the Russians had spent 20 billion rubles on Buran, and only gotten one unmanned test flight.
I did find the following comment by someone involved with the Buran project interesting:
"We had no civilian tasks for Buran and the military ones were no longer needed. It was originally designed as a military system for weapon delivery, maybe even nuclear weapons. The American shuttle also has military uses."
The Soviets had no real need of the Buran program. They had Progress and Soyuz launches to supply Mir; they had Proton to launch modules. IMHO, at least in a V1 timeline Buran would go on hold before becoming operational.
Unlike the US Space Shuttle which used a combination of its own liquid fuel engines and solid boosters the Soviet Buran relied on liquid oxygen/hydrogen Energia booster rocket engines. The Soviet Union when developing Buran had no experience in production of large solid rocket motors, especially segmented solid rocket motors of the type used on the shuttle, and the high chamber pressure, closed-cycle, reusable 230 metric ton thrust Lox/LH2 main engine being developed for the shuttle was well outside engineering experience in the Soviet Union at that time.
Development of the Energia launch vehicle cost 1.3 billion rubles, with an estimated total cost of 6 billion rubles. The total cost of the Energia-Buran project was estimated at 14.5 billion rubles. It involved the work of 1,206 subcontractors and 100 government ministries. The cost of Buran contributed to the collapse of the Soviet system. The Soviets originally planned to build three orbiters, but this was increased to five orbiters in 1983. Structurally the first three orbiters were essentially completed, while the extra two remained unbuilt except for the engine units. Would they have built any more of them? Hell yes if America had the Space Shuttle and they planned to launch the second one in 1991 and a third one by 1995.
ESA’s Hermes and Columbia
ESA had a design for Hermes, a small crewed shuttle lander that would launch atop an Ariane 5 rocket. Hermes' design was adjusted several times during the 1980s and 1990s before being cancelled. Its original design had seats for 6, but that shrank to seats for 3. By 1991, development had not started, and a first flight was then scheduled for 2000.
Hermes was supposed to provide transport to the ESA's Columbia Space Station. A small crew of astronauts would fly to Columbia and stay for 30-60 days. However, developmental studies of Columbia showed that it would cost much more than originally thought, as did development costs for Hermes. Both were cancelled in the early 1990s, and the ESA provided a module (Columbus) for the ISS.
One of the driving factors was Germany wanting to cut back the ESA budget due to the costs of reunification. But a V1 timeline has no such costs in the German budget (although they are supporting a larger military). So, with an operational Hermes program, you could have an evil France sending small Hermes crews to occupy the abandoned Mir and Freedom space stations "to preserve them for the duration."
And then a final US (or Soviet) shuttle mission to "take back our station."
Can you say Space Marines? How about Coznaz (CosmoSpetznaz)?
Could make for a fun fantasy module... :-)
The Hermes programme was always a French one and they remained the largest funder of it. 45% of the finance at start of project and they were still paying nearly the same share into the 1990's.
The problem with Hermes was that France and Europe (excluding Russia) had no experience in manned space flights, other than some European astronaut's being passengers on American and Soviet manned missions. Hermes also experienced its fair share of technical problems during development. Crew safety and unplanned weight growth were major problems, and the ESA cheeped out on developing a crew escape module and settled for ordinary ejection seats instead of an ejectable cabin, although they would be fairly useless at 29km above the Earth. Despite tweaking of the design Hermes remained overweight, and that meant increasing the Ariane-5 launcher's performance which further hiked up the price. By 1988 the Germans were getting cold feet but they couldn't leave the project as they were the main funder of Columbus MTFF programme to develop a European space station, and they needed Hermes as a taxi. In 1990 it was planned that Hermes first unmanned mission would be in 1998, which was postponed in 1991 to 2002. Its first manned test flight was scheduled for 2003. It was already becoming too costly and France, Germany and Italy all began squabbling about which ESA projects should be cut, and Hermes was..........But in T2K who knows?
Freedom and ISS
The USA's Freedom space station went through a number of design iterations in the 1980s and early 1990s, as NASA budgets fluctuated (usually downward). Actually, for about 20 years the US manned space program floundered around for a goal since its last trip to the moon. The Shuttle was nice, but never made going to space as cheap (or as safe) as promised in its design. It was designed as a delivery system - but there was nowhere to go (except to a Soviet station).
Eventually, with the cold war done, Mir dying, and ESA's Columbus cancelled, Freedom evolved into the International Space Station (ISS). The first modules of the ISS were launched finally in November 1998; the ISS was not ready for a resident crew until 2000. The delays were more due to budgetary issues and changes to design, not problems with Soviet cooperation (although the initial Soviet modules were delayed too due to budgetary issues brought on by the collapse of the Soviet Union).
In T2K v1, IMHO a GM has a few choices:
Freedom Space Station was due to be permanently manned from June 1997 onwards and completed in February 1998. However the total cost of the Freedom Space Station had increased to $19 billion. The station kept growing heavier and more complex. NASA had to start a new Advanced Solid Rocket Motor program to boost the Shuttle's payload carrying capability. A new $321-million spacesuit was deleted which made it harder for astronauts to assemble and maintain the station's external structure. NASA cut the available power to all users down from 45 kW to 30 kW but didn't consult its international partners Canada, ESA and Japan. NASA also postponed the completion of new modules and didn't consult its international partners. NASA's original goal of 500 EVA hours per year to service the station morphed into about 3,000 EVA hours. In 1990 it was found that the station was 23% overweight, over budget, too complicated to assemble while providing 34% too little power for its users. But it probably would have been built if the Cold War had continued.
SDI
This has already been covered.........
,
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.