|
|
|
|
|
#1
09-25-2013, 06:17 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.
__________________
THIS IS MY SIG, HERE IT IS. 
|
|
#2
09-25-2013, 08:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not playing devil's advocate or taking a shot at you, raketenjagdpanzer, that's just honestly how I see it.
__________________
 "It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Last edited by Targan; 09-25-2013 at 09:00 PM.
|
|
#3
09-25-2013, 10:16 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.
|
|
#4
09-30-2013, 01:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
03-31-2015, 02:18 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
|
|
#6
04-08-2015, 12:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
T2K in Spaaace (1990s)
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:
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:
I already said what I thought about space-based defenses. Interoperability
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
|
|
#7
04-08-2015, 04:08 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.""
|
|
#8
04-08-2015, 11:02 PM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
,
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
