• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Space Exploration WIs

There is also a pretty good alternate story to be written about Soyuz abort landings. One could land in China and triggers, by itself, a nuclear war sometimes between 1965 and 1980.

Another fascinating story is that (unbelievably) the Soviets had contigency landing zones for Soyuz all across the planet, and one of them was near Fort Worth, right in the middle of Texas. Imagine the faces on both sides as Soviet cosmonauts got out of the capsule. :LOL:http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Ugol/Ugol.html
 
How much can the UK contribute to the Global Space race? It'd probably require we don't lose all our money, manpower and resources in WW2.
Part of the problem was that the Explosives Act of 1875 banned private rocket experimentation, and that even if it hadn't the early British Interplanetary Society (BIS) members in the 1930s were all fairly young and lacked the funding to do much in the way of major experiments. The result was their deciding to limit themselves to creating smaller less costly pieces of equipment that would be needed for space travel and carrying out intellectual studies. This was nothing to sniff at since their technical study of what would be needed for a manned lunar mission that they published in 1939 whilst in places somewhat misguided, not having access to data on foreign liquid fuel experiments they chose solid fuel, in others it was quite prescient IIRC. The funny thing is that the Explosives Act banned solid fuel rockets; if read in the right light liquid fuelled ones, re-named jet engines, weren't covered. The problem though is that even if the loophole was spotted as already mentioned the BIS lacked the funds to do any serious research. I suppose you could posit a Lady Houston or individual with independent means joining and providing them funding but that's a bit Deus ex machina.

As for contributions to the global space race there were several systems used in the Apollo programme that had British roots, the one I can remember off-hand is the fuel cells used in the service module. Invented by a Welshman, the concept advanced and first practical model built by an Englishman, then licensed to Pratt & Whitney and used in Apollo.
 
Part of the problem was that the Explosives Act of 1875 banned private rocket experimentation,
So it's all Disraeli's fault, him and his daft 3-members-but-only-2-votes electoral system :mad:

This is why it's important to pay attention to electoral reform, lads.
 
For all the attention that Germany, appropriately, gets for things like the V-2 rocket Britain during WWII also had a number of surface-to-air missile projects running which were showing good result, was experimenting with liquid oxygen and petrol fuelled missiles, and a guided air-to-air missile programme as well. Unfortunately a combination of being able to beat the Luftwaffe without them and funding issues post-war meant that they didn't develop as quickly as they might have.
 
Simon nailed the absurd 1875 law pretty well. It really hampered BIS works. this just blew my mind the first time I red about it.
 
I like this one, a true Rule Britannia in Space.

camdenlock_800.jpg
 
Another potential What If is the Soviets successfully launching Polyus into orbit in 1987. Maybe the test equipment arrives sooner so that they're able to catch the faulty inertial guidance sensor or it's simply not defective to begin with, either way the satellite only yaws the planned 180 degrees instead of 360 degrees as in our timeline before rolling 90 degrees and firing its engines. What's the US' reaction a few years down the line when they find out?


I like this one, a true Rule Britannia in Space.

[SNIP]​
Errr... did you actually see the programme that's from? Rule Britannia in Space is not exactly what it made me think of from what I can recall.
 
What's the absolute earliest anyone could reach the moon and back with a crewed mission with a POD after Gagarin? It can be a mega risky mission, just has to be theoretically possible.
 
The interesting aspect of Apollo to me is what if Armstrong and Aldrin died up there? We have the speech of course but it's interesting on a cultural level, how does that affect society?

Do the Russians use it as an objective to "pay respects" or the Americans "bring our boys home"? Does the program retain public support?
 
What's the absolute earliest anyone could reach the moon and back with a crewed mission with a POD after Gagarin? It can be a mega risky mission, just has to be theoretically possible.
Maybe Lunar Gemini in the mid-sixties?
I'm going to answer primarily for the American side. The TLDR is:
Flyby: Late 1965 for a flyby, using circumlunar Gemini (limiting factor being flight proven Gemini, but having the Saturn IB instead of the Saturn I avilable is a nice bonus to mission margin)
Landing: More complicated. Mid to late 1967, maybe even mid 1968.

Any profile using Saturn V or another new-build launcher is unlikely to happen much before late 1968, maybe early 1969. Apollo 8 already launched on only the third launch of the Saturn V, and after a very contentious debate about putting men aboard (the previous flight, AS-502, had some really eyebrow-raising issues which they worked out, but Apollo 8/AS-503 was the first proof that they had solved them--some people wanted one more unmanned launch).

If you avoid Saturn V, your next pacing item is driven less by capsule availability (Apollo isn't going to be ready until early 1967 even if you fix the gas issues during development and short-circuit the Apollo 1 fire) and more by the requirement to use docking to assemble a trans-lunar stack from multiple launches of something like Saturn IB or Titan IIIC. You need about 80-90 tons even if you skimp on the capsule by going with Gemini and use a one-man lander and a need to use non-cryo propellants like hypergols so they don't boil off in the time it takes to launch and dock that many Saturn I payloads may drive up that minimum number due to lower performance than hydrolox propellants. You may be looking at more like 6-7 launches of Saturn IB. Whether you dock together multiple TLI stages launched separately to make up the mass or launch the stage empty and then fill it from tankers, you still need reliable docking on about 8 occasions in this mission profile. If you're unlucky, you're stuck with manned docking, which knocks a Gemini capsule's mass off every tanker/assembly flight, but doing unmanned docking stumped the Russians until 1969 and isn't likely to come tremendously easily to the US before 1968/69. It'd look something like the mission plans I used in Dawn of the Dragon.

Gemini demonstrated docking in orbit on Gemini 8 in March '66, but they didn't manage it a second time until Gemini 9 in July '66 due to issues with the docking system on the target vehicle on Gemini 9 in June '66. Thus, I'd say any mission depending heavily on docking needs to wait for its first test flights until fall 1966. With test flights of the assembly sequence or fueling technologies first, you're looking at maybe late spring or summer of '67 at the earliest for first landing stack through translunar injection, which can either land (risky) or do an Apollo 10-style near-landing demo with a subsequent landing in mid-to-late summer of '67.

You'll need every Saturn pad you can get--LC-34 has one, there's two at LC-37 if you finish both instead of just the one of OTL, and then two or three at LC-39. If you're lucky, you can get 6 Saturns off in only a few days, but the launch and docking campaigns are likely to stretch to closer to a week, maybe even three considering you need 6 perfectly trouble-free launches to a very specific orbit (which will need launch windows about as tight as ISS missions today).

The lander itself is another question, since it too is likely not ready until 1967 or late '68. Even with a Gemini-based lander, you have substantial development work to do on the landing and ascent systems. I'm not sure anyone could have bettered Grumman's schedules--they were incredibly tight. It wouldn't surprise me if the lander ends up being the pacing item, driving things more towards late '67 or '68 (if this is the only new spacecraft, there may be some more ability to accelerate, but not much.) Hence, the TLDR: 1967 really generously, probably more like 1968.

It requires the following:
-Accept a radically limited system, landing only one crew member per flight and using the very small Gemini cabin for the capsule and possible as the lander cabin.
-Push the lander schedule to the breaking point
-Use multiple launches of Saturn IB instead of Saturn V, and solve the issues with docking several transfer stages or transferring propellant from tankers this will require. May require use of hypergols, driving initial mass in LEO to the 100-110 ton mark in spite of the lighter capsule and lander and requiring 5-6 launches if you can dock unmanned on automatic controls. With manned docking controlled by Gemini, you may even need more like 7-8 launches to assemble the mission, and at least a month or so to get everything for a mission launched, onto their respective pads
-Every Saturn pad you can get. Build both pads at LC-37, build three or maybe even four pads at LC-39, find out if you can squeeze in a second pad at LC-34.
-Order Saturn IB in bulk. You'll need them by the dozen. Get McDonnell to build you a cheaper S-IVB and IBM to chop cost out of the Instrument Unit (the two biggest cost centers on the Saturn IB).
 
I've been reading a lot about the Europa II debacle. https://vieux-bouquins.com/7179-large_default/de-la-fusee-veronique-au-lanceur-ariane.jpg

When you think about it, best way toward an early success would be a 100% Franco-British effort (no Germany or ELDO or any other country, bar perhaps Australia for the Woomera launch pad). Since the British already build Blue Streak, France should build a LOX/LH2 stage 2 straight ahead, with British help. It is a matter of blending together the RZ-20 and HM-4, both on a test bench in the late 60's. Perhaps Germany could join later, bringing their advanced design: this one (OTL it went to rocketdyne for the SSME).
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4130.150.html

I would say: Europa I with a Blue Streak / solid fuel stage 2 (cheap and easy to build, as a stop gap) then an Europa II - Blue Streak with LH2 stage two.
Such launcher would be close from an Atlas Centaur in performance, and maybe Europe could enter the lunar race, with a robotic lunar orbiter or lander.

IOTL in 1966 France proposed such a launcher as ELDO-B, but that was rejected by ELDO as too risky, and Europa II was the main drive, plus ELDO was a lost cause.

Such scenario could be a low-end to "the selene project" I linked early in this thread. not quite as exciting, for sure - robotic exploration is a little boring.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top