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