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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unkated
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unkated
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unkated
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unkated
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by unkated
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unkated
SDI
This has already been covered.........
|
,