A Sound of Thunder: The Rise of the Soviet Superbooster

[Ry01tank]

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.

We are discussing the future of the program either with or without a Collapse of the Union

In the case of a basically OTL collapse Vulkan manufacturing will be in Ukraine, and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION will not be able to build them themselves and will likely buy Vulkan stages
In the case of a Communist coup or Union of Sovereign Soviet Republics means that the space program will continue but drastically slower then the heights of the 80s and 70s as the reforms will be the priority for the economy
Sovereign Soviet will have issues as Gorbachevs reforms sucked in terms of his economic plan
Should have went with Dengist China route and reformed by privatizing the entire industry with government oversight, Gorbachev let businesses exist but they got their resources from state owned businesses, which introduced new bottlenecks that slowed the economy more

This is an alternate history site, the entire point is hindsight and dissusing what could have happened and the effects of such
like the timeline Decicive Darkness which is basically worst case Japan after WW2

 

[Ry01tank]

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.

Isn't N11 just the second and third stages of the N1?

I was tired last night and didn't think of that

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

Isn't N11 just the second and third stages of the N1?

I was tired last night and didn't think of that

It is the N1 without the big fat stage with 33 engines. Making it into a 20-50? t launch vehicle. (I forgot if this N1 or the original had more stages)

 

[Sasza]

We are discussing the future of the program either with or without a Collapse of the Union

In the case of a basically OTL collapse Vulkan manufacturing will be in Ukraine, and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION will not be able to build them themselves and will likely buy Vulkan stages
In the case of a Communist coup or Union of Sovereign Soviet Republics means that the space program will continue but drastically slower then the heights of the 80s and 70s as the reforms will be the priority for the economy
Sovereign Soviet will have issues as Gorbachevs reforms sucked in terms of his economic plan
Should have went with Dengist China route and reformed by privatizing the entire industry with government oversight, Gorbachev let businesses exist but they got their resources from state owned businesses, which introduced new bottlenecks that slowed the economy more

This is an alternate history site, the entire point is hindsight and dissusing what could have happened and the effects of such
like the timeline Decicive Darkness which is basically worst case Japan after WW2

Only the USSR was already an industrialized economy. You couldn't make reforms like Deng, where a large part of the Chinese community still worked in agriculture. The only hope is to create JV companies like the Czechs.

 

[Ry01tank]

It is the N1 without the big fat stage with 33 engines. Making it into a 20-50? t launch vehicle. (I forgot if this N1 or the original had more stages)

N1 had the full stack
N11 from what i know was the second stage and up (with changes) from the N1
N1 in this tl is Groza

 

[Ry01tank]

Only the USSR was already an industrialized economy. You couldn't make reforms like Deng, where a large part of the Chinese community still worked in agriculture. The only hope is to create JV companies like the Czechs.

What i mean is that Gorbachev's reforms were kinda half-assed, his economic reform was to open businesses for specific fields, the issue was that the resource extraction and prices were decided by the government, which meant that businesses had frequent issues with supply and stuff
Basically, imagine building a radio, you need a bunch of supplies and electrical components, you buy said materials at a fixed rate and build it and sell it. the Soviet government would decide how much resources you would get every month to build radios. After the first month of private business, the radio's are selling off the shelves, as a result you plan on expanding the factory, you go to the local state planning committee and ask for an expansion, they approve. 6 months later after construction is complete you request more resources, but as the supplying companies are owned by the government, they have not expanded to adjust to your higher output, or one critical component has fallen behind in production. This means that the capital spent is not matched by income, and as a result of price fixing you cannot sell your product with a profit, and by the end of the year you are out of business

Basically the Soviet government was super sluggish, reacting to business who's requirements changed every week to every month was too fast for the government planning committees that decided these things. Had Gorbachev done the JV method or Chinese method, the economy could possibly have reacted faster and not dropped
Chinese method was to have state-owned business run like private corporations, basically remove the government out of that sector but tieing it to the government going forward. Stuff like Special Economic Zones was to encourage foreign investment in China, which is why companies flocked there in the 80s-2000s due to extremely low labor cost
The Czechs also did a lottary system for the business, selling it to private people and a business, but the way they did it meant that it was spread out with no "super rich" businessmen like in Russia. Russia basically had auctions which sold companies to the highest bidder, and created the oligarchy overnight

The biggest change to make Gorbachevs reforms more successful was to replace the openness policy, Deng had an iron grip to reform the country and only gave up power slowly to make sure the changes stuck. While Gorbachevs openness policy meant that people knew their government sucked and wanted change, which was what he was trying to do

Free market capitalism like in the west is built on every business and their chains of supply adapting to changes super fast, the Chinese did this to huge success while maintaining their power, even though their "communism/marxism/kinda stalinism" is borderline gone in most cases (besides labor and reeducation camps). Gorbachev was a dedicated communist who believed that it could be made better, his attempt was very well intentioned but not ultimatly successful
As somebody said on this forum earlier, for the Union to stick around they have to be willing to shoot people and have an iron grip for 20 years during the reform

 

[TheKutKu]

N-2 (and N-3) actually, it's NII in roman numerals, oddly enough
.
It also was being worked on up until the cancellation of N1 IRL, I'd like to imagine it maybe went to the point of some pad test article ITTL.

 

[Ry01tank]

N-2 (and N-3) actually, it's NII in roman numerals, oddly enough
.
It also was being worked on up until the cancellation of N1 IRL, I'd like to imagine it maybe went to the point of some pad test article ITTL.

Its like Saturn V derivatives, like MLV and int series
which the INT-21 basically flew Skylab, the only difference being it wasn't specifically built as an Saturn V INT-21 but the base model, just lacking a powered third stage

My personal favorite Saturn V is removing the second and using the S-1C and S-4b, the mass to orbit is like 40 tons

 

[jlckansas]

When it comes to figuring weight you need, remember what is going to be where. tanks for propellent, for station keeping as an example, would just need to have thermal protection and not necessarily be put in an area that would be used for people. Remember about the LEM that had things like the thin skin on the outside to just provide protection at a basic level for what is needed.

 

[Ry01tank]

When it comes to figuring weight you need, remember what is going to be where. tanks for propellent, for station keeping as an example, would just need to have thermal protection and not necessarily be put in an area that would be used for people. Remember about the LEM that had things like the thin skin on the outside to just provide protection at a basic level for what is needed.

Later missions got worse, the heavy downmass that 15 to 17 carried were crazy stringent, 17 was so heavy that band aids were halfed to reduce weight. 16 was delayed by 5 hours before landing so they had the most compressed timeline of all the missions

It very much depends on where the payload is going, earth orbit has lots of margin but further then Geostationary has alot of penatlies. not to mention radiation protection
How the lunar space station got approved with the radiation issues is beyond me
(probably due to the station lobbiests)

 

[Sasza]

With the stations in place, it's harder for people like Proxmire to convince the rest that it's okay to delete it.

 

[Ry01tank]

With the stations in place, it's harder for people like Proxmire to convince the rest that it's okay to delete it.

I remember reading somewhere that NASA didn't save Skylab due to the fact that management wanted a new space station. Keeping Skylab in use would basically end the whole Space Station Freedom idea and lead to the ISS in the 90s, as guarenteed by 1990 Skylab would be in shit condition
I would throw this theory out, but NASA could have saved the station, launching said rescue on Shuttle was not the only option
William Proxmire was a fucking nutcase with axeing budgets, he was against any form of spending. Though the 1978 vote that was one away from ending the Shuttle program was hilarious. SS Freedom was stuck in development because NASA station nutjobs kept proposing huge things, like orbital construction, repair hanger and huge truss's for ships. It took till the late 80s for the final design to be approved, which was nicknamed SS Fred as it was smaller. Though Clintons complete axe of Freedom led to the ISS, which is hilariously smaller still then Freedoms final design. Most designs were rejected as once engineers would do the math and realize the cost or how much flights it would take

My idea would be to launch a skylab rescue on a titan or delta, send shuttle missions and refurbish the station while adding international and new modules

 

[Sasza]

They were right.

They would have spent the entire 1980s renovating Skylab, which was damaged during its premiere.

It's just that if Congress wasn't an idiot and NASA wasn't too greedy, they would be able to build a smaller station the size of Mir by the end of the decade.

 

[Craig]

Keeping Skylab in use would basically end the whole Space Station Freedom idea and lead to the ISS in the 90s, as guarenteed by 1990 Skylab would be in shit condition

Wasn't Freedom a Reagan Administration program? By that time, unexpectedly strong solar activity had expanded the upper atmosphere giving Skylab more drag than had been anticipated, causing its premature de-orbit.

 

[Ry01tank]

Wasn't Freedom a Reagan Administration program? By that time, unexpectedly strong solar activity had expanded the upper atmosphere giving Skylab more drag than had been anticipated, causing its premature de-orbit.

Ya, the sun caused Skylab to reenter a few years earlier then planned. Freedom was a Reagan program that would basically put America in the lead in space. there was international interest with Europe and Japan, Europe was still working on Hermes and the Free flyer space station, while Japan wanted to build a module.
NASA basically kept on stacking proposed designs with shit, from manned tugs to construction bays. this wishlist mentality basically ended the program till Clinton cancelled it

NASA very easily could have saved Skylab, launch a booster reboost the station. It was due to the fact keeping it around would kill their "modular" station design everybody wanted. the Boldy Going timeline references this with the Station lobby going apeshit due to a FUEL TANK being used over a modular design

They were right.

They would have spent the entire 1980s renovating Skylab, which was damaged during its premiere.

It's just that if Congress wasn't an idiot and NASA wasn't too greedy, they would be able to build a smaller station the size of Mir by the end of the decade.

Skylabs renovation would take a few flights, adding 5 pressurized modules and a solar array (or two) for power would offset the oldness and be practical for use, the biggest issue is the atmosphere, which is pure O2 at 5 psi, the Shuttle is Nitrogen and Oxygen at 14 psi, so an ASTP like docking module would be needed for use

As i said above, NASA has always had a wishlist mentality with stuff, its due to the NASA centers being spread over the US, thus decentralizing decisions and leading to turf wars and shit. Zubrin faced criticism for Mars Direct from the Station people due to it nullifying their "station can lead to mars" idea (Freedom and the ISS were also set up to be the manufacturing point for future Mars ships, which Direct nullified)

I have a book called The Space Station and it has concept art for a LOT of designs, its insane how many stupid ideas NASA had. Orbital hangers, satellite repair and refurbishment, fuel depots, orbital assembly dockyard, manned tugs and my favorite is a design which had 2 free flyers in close proximity to the station.
A MIR-sized station would never be in the books for NASA, it is too small and the station lobby would kill it in committees.

 

[Ry01tank]

And the other issue NASA faced was knowing that a 5-year lifespan for a space station would turn into 20 years or more, so there design was bigger so they wern't stuck with a small station
The ISS was supposed to be retired in 2016, that is 8 years ago

In the US the temporary solution is usually the permanent solution, so you can imagine Congress saying "keep the station" while NASA wants a new one as the old station is 20 years old

Thats why LOP-G (Gateway) exists, to replace the ISS (and give astronauts cancer due to no radiation protection)

 

[Sasza]

It would be best if the Skylab missions continued all the time. Otherwise, no one knows what condition the station would be in after such a period of disuse.

 

[Craig]

We REALLY need to start using the Gap between the inner and outer Van Allen Belts (around 7500-8100 miles).
Putting large manned stations in LEO requires too much station keeping and too much general crap sharing the orbits.

 

[Polish Eagle]

I remember reading somewhere that NASA didn't save Skylab due to the fact that management wanted a new space station. Keeping Skylab in use would basically end the whole Space Station Freedom idea and lead to the ISS in the 90s, as guarenteed by 1990 Skylab would be in shit condition
I would throw this theory out, but NASA could have saved the station, launching said rescue on Shuttle was not the only option

In a sense, history repeated in the late 1990s/early 2000s--NASA was rather hostile to MirCorp, viewing it as a competitor to ISS (perhaps with some justification, since at least one ISS partner nation outright said, if we believe MirCorp's people, that they'd switch to Mir if the company lasted long enough and ISS was further delayed--there was never any clarification as to which nation that was, though since it's unlikely that the ones with flagship laboratory modules would suggest that, I think the short list has to be Canada and the UK).

I wonder what the commercialization efforts will look like in a world where Groza is flying.

 

[Ry01tank]

It would be best if the Skylab missions continued all the time. Otherwise, no one knows what condition the station would be in after such a period of disuse.

I think there were 2 Saturn 1b's left and two full Saturn Vs, there was an idea to have Apollo-Soyuz be a series of missions, first would be an Apollo and Soyuz, second Apollo to Salyut, and third Soyuz to Skylab
given skylabs orbit was under the soviet minimum inclination, Skylab B would need to be launched, or Soviets fly on Apollo

The Skylab program didn't get funding due to huge cuts, Shuttle needed all the money it could get. Shuttle is the reason why the gap in probes existed from 77 to 86 which turned to 88 and 89

In a sense, history repeated in the late 1990s/early 2000s--NASA was rather hostile to MirCorp, viewing it as a competitor to ISS (perhaps with some justification, since at least one ISS partner nation outright said, if we believe MirCorp's people, that they'd switch to Mir if the company lasted long enough and ISS was further delayed--there was never any clarification as to which nation that was, though since it's unlikely that the ones with flagship laboratory modules would suggest that, I think the short list has to be Canada and the UK).

I wonder what the commercialization efforts will look like in a world where Groza is flying.

MIR by the late 90s was having huge issues, keeping it in service beyond 2005 would be silly, not to mention the collison and sanitary issues, and the cramped conditions

Groza commericalization would be insane, the launcher is already cheaper then the american equivelent, but the main issue for NASA would be people comparing Shuttle-C launches to Groza and wondering why Shuttle-C costs so much