A Sound of Thunder: The Rise of the Soviet Superbooster
- Thread starter nixonshead
- Start date
I appreciate when authors do that, nowadays some people forget that the people involved were people.
I love Nixon transcript quotes, it adds alot that we don't usually see, though its hilarious to think that after Nixon the audiorecorders were removed, no president wants to be caught on tape
My opinion on the 67-74 leaks that were endemic to the states, is they were good to know, but (most) SHOULD be left secret (outside of watergate) Daniel Ellsberg had papers on nuclear stuff that was lost in a landfill, the Pentagon Papers was pushing it but releasing nuclear planning, warfare and technology documents would result in him being tried for treason under the Espionge act
I'm gonna take a guess that you probably wouldn't like Ocean of Storms.
Ocean of Storms is good, my preference is more of less dialogue and more descriptions for TLs, nothing against your TL though, from what i have read it is very very well done and i enjoyed the Apollo 13 saga
(I feel like i'm criticizing it when i am not, its more me then anything else)
My current plan for my Canadian buys one shuttle TL is Nixon cancels Apollo 16 and 17 (or just 17 as i want John Young to land), funds are moved to other stuff and the Canadian PM who isn't Trudeau wants to reinvigorate canadian areospace, so they build Liquid fuel boosters for the Shuttle
Canada wants to "get in" on the Shuttlemaina and buys one, named Investigator, which becomes the main launcher for Commonwealth nations "stuff" from commerical satilites to Milsats
My other TL idea is Nixon straight up cancels 16 and 17 and nothing else changes
Then my THIRD idea is the 21st amendment never happens so Nixon stays in office till 81 or 85, my main idea is "what Nixon would do about the Soviets in afganistan"
Basically cuban missile crisis but more heated
Are those boosters based on Saturn tech? (F-1 derivative? LH2 engines?) Or something new like on the Energia-Buran?
I would assume the boosters will become pretty handy when the Shuttle is retired.
No worries about that. I meant more that the first few chapters are a love letter to the Kennedys.
And believe me, no author minds criticism as long as the person bothered to read the material.
Either flyback or engine pod (remember boldy going)
engine pod throws away the tank while the engines land in the ocean under parachute
For engines specifically F-1 would be hard to reuse, its like Energia but two boosters, not four, how much thrust did the H-1 get?
(F-1 is doable just more expensive)
For a flyback booster it would probably be similar to SpaceX's falcon 9 method, putting wings on them would be WAY to expensive for canada, perferably 3 or 5 engines arrayed so the middle can be used for braking and landing
the engine pod is basically the same from boldy going, iirc that IRL study had 9 RS-35 Engines, derived from Shuttle RS-25's but smaller
Unlike my older tls from last year which became too much work for me, this timeline will atleast try to have Canada be fisically responsible. The basic idea is the Shuttle is owned by Canada but becomes a launcher for Commonwealth Nations payloads over Ariane and US Shuttle, the first Brit would fly on Investigator and such.
A plotline would be the UK being embarrased that its flying on one of its former Dominions rockets.
I want to have canada buy a second one, but Enterprise "as is" is too heavy for a Canso Nova Scotia launch site, and building a second would be expensive
The second orbiter is mostly to get launch rates up from 4-5 per year.
If your wondering the Canso launch site would be designed after SLC-6 in Vandenberg
Honestly Nixon being president is my favorite part of watchmen
Can this go to it's own thread, please? It has zero relationship to this one.
I've done a bit of research (I've read the whole part 2 over), and I might have an idea for what the "Another project" is.
I think given what we know and what we can expect, I believe that the last MKBS will be turned into a battlestation, similar to something like Polyus IOTL. Although, having something like MKBS on the Moon orbit would also be nice...
Speaking of lunar space station, I also found this piece of information interesting. Theoretically, with N1-OK you could launch modified FGB modules on lunar orbit, and have them connect to make something like Mir. Zvezda derived landers could then dock with the lunar orbit station, which could serve as a test bed for crewed interplanetary travel.
Orbital Space battlestations are fun in fiction, in reality constitute a huge escalation by whoever launches them into orbit, iirc the Soviets had a system which would launch nukes into orbit to come down after a given time, i can't remember the program name but it was a crazy read. IIRC it was on The Space Review site, that site has incredible cold war space program stuff.
Expecially since we are in 1987, it would be hugely bad for the Soviets to launch a weaponized space platform, the Cold War would be ignited fresh with a new frontier for weapons and warfare. it would ironically lead to more development in space but the global risk is too much
Lunar Space Stations are only practical in short term missions, the lack of any magnetic field to protect from solar radiation means that people are at a huge risk for radiation exposure and cancers. The weight requirements for the added radiation protection would push the N1 capabilities to the max. Not to mention the fact that MASCONS cause the orbit to shift frequently, requiring frequent reboosts and stability burns. There is also the problem of orbital inclinations, outside of equatorial orbits missions will need to be timed for one of the two nodes, meaning 14 day and 28 day missions are the maximum durations, as the stations orbital track will not overfly the landing site for extended periods of time as the moon has a 28 dayish rotation
Higher orbits are better yes, L2 stations are a huge proposal, the issue is the long travel time from station to ground in some proposals, which constitutes gaps in radiation protection
Good idea though
Just got around to reading the most recent updates, and that's a solid YIKES.
With hindsight, I could see an obvious modification to the nuclear powered stations being deliberately configuring the reactors to be recovered by Baikal orbiters - ie., have Tsiklon be fitted with a new sarcophagus, configured for unmanned use only, and have it fly retrieval and decommissioning flights for the reactors. But when Zarya 3 was launched, that wasn't a practical option yet, and the political capital to essentially sacrifice one of the Baikal orbiters to nuclear clean up duty wouldn't have existed.
And after this disaster, I wouldn't be surprised if the Soviet Space Program can't get the political capital or funding to launch anything nuclear in the future. As for the post-Fall degradation of the program, they've still got the R7 family, but no Soyuz capsules flying on them, while Proton has been retired in favor of the mostly Ukrainian-built Vulkan launch vehicle, and Baikal is likely too expensive to keep flying on its own - especially with the cost of N1 launch vehicles and the missions associated with them.
We potentially could see something like "Commercial Baikal" attempted - ie., the Soviet Space Program charging for retrieval/maintenance of satellites, or launching with support staff on hand, now that the US Shuttle has gone government only - but I kind of doubt it, especially if the Russian government can't afford to complete the two incomplete Baikal orbiters to take strain off of the single operational member of the fleet. I do agree that we might see the N11 concept dusted off, as an alternative to Vulkan, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's as scuffed as OTL's Angara program - especially considering the level of modifications potentially needed.
With hindsight, I could see an obvious modification to the nuclear powered stations being deliberately configuring the reactors to be recovered by Baikal orbiters - ie., have Tsiklon be fitted with a new sarcophagus, configured for unmanned use only, and have it fly retrieval and decommissioning flights for the reactors. But when Zarya 3 was launched, that wasn't a practical option yet, and the political capital to essentially sacrifice one of the Baikal orbiters to nuclear clean up duty wouldn't have existed.
And after this disaster, I wouldn't be surprised if the Soviet Space Program can't get the political capital or funding to launch anything nuclear in the future. As for the post-Fall degradation of the program, they've still got the R7 family, but no Soyuz capsules flying on them, while Proton has been retired in favor of the mostly Ukrainian-built Vulkan launch vehicle, and Baikal is likely too expensive to keep flying on its own - especially with the cost of N1 launch vehicles and the missions associated with them.
We potentially could see something like "Commercial Baikal" attempted - ie., the Soviet Space Program charging for retrieval/maintenance of satellites, or launching with support staff on hand, now that the US Shuttle has gone government only - but I kind of doubt it, especially if the Russian government can't afford to complete the two incomplete Baikal orbiters to take strain off of the single operational member of the fleet. I do agree that we might see the N11 concept dusted off, as an alternative to Vulkan, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's as scuffed as OTL's Angara program - especially considering the level of modifications potentially needed.
The US gave it the name of "FOBS" or Fractional Orbital Bombardment System. It was seen as a way to bypass the the majority of the US Early Warning System by coming from the south instead of the north. This was one of the jobs the OTL Proton was designed for. Yes it's a huge escalation and part of the reason it was never deployed.
There was much discussion during the OTL Salyut program on which ones were "Military" and which were "Civilian" as has been noted the Soviet space program had a very fuzzy methodology. In context it was partially used for "justification" for the US orbital "Battle Station" concepts during the heyday of SDI .
Randy
I remembered the name starting with an F, thanks for finding it.
SDI was never very practical, the outright cost for the system would be enormous, in the first Reagan term his rhetoric on the Soviet Union nearly started WW3, and SDI was very early technology, so launchable designs wouldn't fly till 1990 to 95 depending on funding
And even then, launching said defense satellites would only cause an escalation in a time of easing tensions, and counters to the SDI system would be made eventually. Basically space is more of a frontline then it is in OTL, which is scary
The Soviets spending huge amounts on military is a huge reason why arms limitation treaties were so successful, it meant less spending overall, SDI existing meant the Soviets had to have their own, as with the Buran Shuttle the Soviets spent tons for little gain other than parity with the US of A
Nell Lucifer had a similar idea.
My only issue with Biakal reactor recovery shuttles are this, if the shuttle picks the reactor up in space, it will run into the same radiation concerns and exposure that happened to Cyclone. Specifically when the reactor is placed in the bay, as with the max launch weight of the N1 the reactor is partially unshielded
The Second problem is if the reactor is designed to fly on Baikal to the station, Baikal would have to either leave the reactor there, or be stuck on orbit for 5 years, in which case its likely the space soak would make it impossible to return.
R7 is for small satellites, Vulkan is Ukrainian built but FGB modules are mass-produced, giving options where OTL were little. N1 is hugely cheaper than the american counterpart (400 mil per launch).
As i said before, N1/Groza will stick around
The cost per Baikal launch would be expensive, it would be second only to commercial Shuttle-C flights in cost. any commercialization will result in it still being too expensive
Thats the issue with man rated rockets flying cargo, expense. The Soviets could likely keep one around for a few missions, but given the launch and refurbishment costs for such a limited payload to orbit means its impractical. For repairs, it would be suited to the role, but depending on the height of the orbit is maximum the Baikal would be limited, not to mention the 52.6 (or 51.6) minimum inclination would limit reachable satellites
As much as i love the Shuttle look, the whole idea of it was too expensive, as a repair vehicle (Hubble and satellites) and construction vehicle (ISS and EVA experiments) the shuttle was second to none. The problem is that using it as a commercial launcher is stupid as 1, flight rates arn't high and 2, crew are aboard.
Either one of the Baikals stick around as satellite repair vehicles, or they are given to museums or abandoned in a hanger
I see a lot of angst about what is sourced from Ukraine and how the Soviet space effort will be affected by the dissolution of the USSR.
THEY. DON'T. KNOW. THAT'S. EVEN. POSSIBLE.
That's our past. They would not have that kind of precognition. Not even close. They will roll forward into the future, fat, dumb and happy until everything goes to hell.
THEY. DON'T. KNOW. THAT'S. EVEN. POSSIBLE.
That's our past. They would not have that kind of precognition. Not even close. They will roll forward into the future, fat, dumb and happy until everything goes to hell.
A solution to that problem is to simply launch the reactor separately from the station on either a N11 or Vulkan. If the unshielded reactor weights 5 t then you could use the rest of available 20t payload capability of the launcher for shielding.