A Sound of Thunder: The Rise of the Soviet Superbooster
- Thread starter nixonshead
- Start date
Much like in OTL, they are a response to the American shuttle, to ensure that the Americans do not succeed in gaining any advantage which the Soviets do not.
PART TWO BABY!!!! LET'S GO!!!!!! Excited to see what comes next. Part of me wants to make the LEK in Kerbal, somehow... Good stuff as always!
Hi everyone. Thanks for the enthusiastic response to Post1! For those speculating on the US response, we’ll take a look of that in the next Interlude, and, of course, over the rest of the part.
With the Shuttle coming on-line any day now, NASA will soon be launching women quite regularly. IOTL, this triggered the flight of Svetlana Svitskaya to Salyut 7 on Soyuz T-7, after a 19 year gap of women in space. Svitskaya also made a follow-up mission on Soyuz T-12 that included the first female spacewalk - which was announced, by pure coincidence, just a few weeks after NASA announced Kathy Sullivan would be making the first US female spacewalk. Based on this, I invite you to draw your own conclusions on what is likely to occur ITTL
For the latest infromation on the actual planned N-1 missions for OTL, up to N1-23L in 1980, there is a summary based on the latest available information on Nick Steven's substack. I'm intrigued what the two N-1 launched weather satellites planned for 10L and 11L might have looked like!
That would be quite funny. Political tensions between the superpowers are pretty much at their peak in this period, so I'm not sure if any such invitation would be accepted - but maybe. Space is often an area where cooperation continues, even where in other aspects it would be unthinkable.
I toyed with the idea of killing them on re-entry, but decided in the end they'd suffered enough with the moon dust. For the medical effects of the dust, I've managed to delete the links, but I basically extrapolated from symptoms observed on Apollo and research since. Lunar dust is nasty stuff.
With the Shuttle coming on-line any day now, NASA will soon be launching women quite regularly. IOTL, this triggered the flight of Svetlana Svitskaya to Salyut 7 on Soyuz T-7, after a 19 year gap of women in space. Svitskaya also made a follow-up mission on Soyuz T-12 that included the first female spacewalk - which was announced, by pure coincidence, just a few weeks after NASA announced Kathy Sullivan would be making the first US female spacewalk. Based on this, I invite you to draw your own conclusions on what is likely to occur ITTL
As already hinted at in Interlude: The Phantom Moonwalker, the USSR will not survive into the YouTube era. Things will go differently from OTL, but how much and in what direction is something for the future...
An airlock for the lander is one of the aspects that has recently been confirmed as part of L3M planning. I knew it was planned for the later Energia-based lunar missions, but I hadn't realised just how closely those designs followed the original L3M landers (answer: They were basically copies), so I'd left it out. In the Post, I blamed its absence on the need to cut mass, which I think is certainly plausible (remembering “Boris, give me back 800 kilograms.”). Plus, it let me get a more dramatic story
This idea of a joint US-Soviet lunar mission is certainly one that will be in the air of popular culture - I suspect a version of 2010:Odyssey Two/The Year We Make Contact will still exist ITTL.
The Day After is a reasonable take on the aftermath of a nuclear war, I suppose, when you want the fluffy kiddy-friendly version with the edges taken off. For the grown-ups, there's Threads
We'll find out
For the latest infromation on the actual planned N-1 missions for OTL, up to N1-23L in 1980, there is a summary based on the latest available information on Nick Steven's substack. I'm intrigued what the two N-1 launched weather satellites planned for 10L and 11L might have looked like!
Like the collapse of capitalism under the weight of its own contradictions, Marxism-Leninism tells us that defeat of the moon dust problem is scientifically inevitable... it just doesn't mention a specific timescale...
I did indeed post an animation, although there have been some changes as Part 2 was drafted, so neither that animation nor the draft design diagram is 'canon' as such. Don't worry, Baikal will feature in Part 2.
The reason for building a Soviet shuttle are as per OTL, and described in Post 5: Shuttle Studies. Basically, the Chief Designers saw no merit in a shuttle, but the military was worried about what the US planned to do with a (claimed) capability to launch 1700t and return 180t of hardware every year, and decided the USSR needed an equivalent capability. So it's basically fear of a Mineshaft Gap.
Thanks for the comments! Glad you enjoyed it.
Interlude: Everything, Everywhere, All At Once
Interlude: Everything, Everywhere, All At Once
- Excerpt from memo “America’s Future in Space: The Manned Spaceflight Initiative”, from NASA Administrator to the head of the President-Elect’s NASA Transition Team, December 19, 1980
Dear George,
As requested, please find attached an overview of NASA’s proposal for a robust response to the expanding Soviet manned space program in the 1980s and beyond. This Manned Spaceflight Initiative builds upon studies conducted at NASA and by our contractors over the previous years. It proposes an ambitious but achievable program of progressive steps, building on the capabilities provided by the Space Transportation System and Skylab-B Space Station programs already underway, to unambiguously recapture for the United States a position of global leadership in space.
Executive Summary
In launching a large permanently manned space station, and with manned lunar missions expected imminently, there is a perception that the Soviet Union has taken the lead in space. To regain the leading position in the 1980s, the United States must take full advantage of the capabilities of our new Space Transportation System (including both the Space Shuttle manned orbiters and Shuttle-C cargo vehicles) to expand America’s frontiers in space, both for exploration and for the economic promise of new space based industries.
As a vital first step, NASA will begin test flights of the Space Shuttle in 1981, with operational launches starting in 1982. By the middle of the decade, a fleet of four orbiters will perform 60 launches per year, supporting US government and commercial launch needs and allowing the phasing out of the costly expendable launch vehicle fleet.
The Shuttle orbiters will be supplemented by the Shuttle-C heavy cargo launcher, which will make its first flight in 1982. Shuttle-C will provide additional guaranteed launch capability for the heaviest DOD satellites, as well as lifting the Skylab-B space station, and a new generation of heavy interplanetary probes.
To improve the economics of heavy lift, and to support ambitious new missions to the Moon and beyond, further evolutions of the STS system are proposed. Advanced solid rocket motors that are lighter and more powerful than those planned for the initial missions will be developed for both Shuttle and Shuttle-C by the mid-1980s. In addition, a reusable propulsion module will be developed for Shuttle-C, allowing the recovery and reuse of the main engines and associated systems. Finally, a new, in-line heavy lift vehicle will be developed from Shuttle systems, the Shuttle-H. Available by 1986, Shuttle-H will be able to carry payloads almost twice as heavy as Shuttle-C, exceeding the capabilities of the Soviet “Groza” rocket.
To gain experience in long duration orbital space flight, the Skylab-B space station will be launched in 1982. Initial missions to Skylab of up to three weeks will be conducted by the Space Shuttle in a “man-tended” mode, with later missions supporting a permanent crew once the Space Shuttle orbiter fleet is fully operational. Skylab-B will be further expanded with specialised modules, launched by Shuttle orbiter, throughout the decade.
By the end of the 1980s, Skylab-B operations will be supplemented by a new space station located at Earth-Moon L1 Lagrange point. Launched by Shuttle-C and Shuttle-H, this nuclear powered station will support a crew of 10-20 astronauts on a permanent basis, far exceeding the capabilities of the Soviet “Zarya” military space stations. The primary role of this space station will be to act as a gateway for the exploration of the Moon. In the 1990s, the Gateway Station will service a new fleet of cis-lunar nuclear shuttles and large lunar landing vehicles, which will transfer crews from Low Earth Orbit to the Lunar surface. A lunar outpost will be established by 1995.
The unique characteristics of the lunar environment make it an excellent platform from which to conduct astronomy, physics,and life sciences research. The Moon also provides an ideal location, just a 3-day trip from Earth, at which human beings can learn to live and work productively in an extraterrestrial environment with increasing self-sufficiency, using local lunar resources to support the outpost. In this way, the lunar outpost will both advance science and serve as a test-bed for validating critical mission systems, hardware, technologies,human capability and self sufficiency, and operational techniques that can be applied to further exploration. Once the lunar outpost has verified the techniques and demonstrated the systems, the next evolutionary step will be to launch the first human expedition to Mars…
++++++++++++++++++++
“This isn’t going to fly, Bob.”
Dr. Robert Frosch, Administrator of NASA, looked up wearily from the heavy report that had just been thumped onto his desk, obscuring the documents he had been working on. Just one month from now, Frosch would be resigning his post, as was traditional following the election of a new president, and that meant a whole heap of paperwork to clear away first. Charting the agency’s future direction was supposed to be a job for the next administration, but Reagan’s transition team were already poking into everything, demanding summaries and analysis of every aspect of NASA’s work. This report was one of those, grandly titled “America’s Future in Space: The Manned Spaceflight Initiative”. Frosch reached across his desk and flipped idly through the glossy bound document.
“What’s the problem, George? You asked for a report on how we could respond to the Soviets, and here it is.”
Dr. George Low, head of President-elect Reagan’s NASA transition team, leaned in across Frosch’s desk - a desk he himself had briefly occupied as Acting Administrator during the Nixon presidency - and jabbed a finger at one of the lavish illustrations that filled the document.
“This isn’t a plan, Bob, it’s a goddamn Christmas list! I mean look at this stuff! A massive expansion of Skylab; A new super-heavy launch vehicle replacing Shuttle-C; New manned spacecraft for journeys to the moon; A moon base; An orbital propellant depot; Nuclear inter-orbit ferry rockets - nuclear goddamn rockets! And to top it off, a Mars mission by the end of the century!” Low fell back into his chair. “Did you guys forget what happened back in ‘69?”
“I remember ‘69 just fine, George,” Frosch replied testily. “We put a man on the Moon, and then we decided to stop going.”
“Yeah, we stopped going,” Low snapped back. “The President decided to stop going - after von Braun and Agnew scared the crap out of him with their Space Task Group report, demanding Mars by ‘82, and to hell with the cost! NASA can’t be that tone-deaf again, Bob.”
“So what are you telling me, George?” Frosch asked. “That Reagan is fine with Russians on the Moon while we stay in Earth orbit? That maybe Apollo was a mistake, and the Moon’s not such a great place after all? I thought he was all about pushing at frontiers. Well, that takes money!”
“Money the country doesn’t have,” came Low’s reply. “Look, Reagan’s a space enthusiast. He is! But he’s also about a strong defence and limiting the size of the government. If you force him to choose between expending political capital to fund his defense build-up or your Manned Space Initiative, the military’s gonna win, hands down. So cut the crap and focus on the priorities: Shuttle! Skylab! Then a mission to the Moon, using as much existing hardware as possible. No superboosters, no orbital shipyards, no nukes. Americans on the surface, as quickly and cheaply as you can.”
Makes sense, just as it did OTL a decade later but at least this time NASA didn't actually submit the trillion dollar monster. That said "as quickly as possible" means a redux of Apollo J class (at best) so they're still risking a stern chase, especially as even if they essentially rebuild the Lunar module and mate it to some-kind of throwaway Shuttle C based capsule that's still going to require alot of work to produce.
Last edited:
Oooh boy. As much as I’m all for going back to the moon, “quick and cheap” sounds a lot like “flags and footprints” to my ears. And here’s me pulling for at least a lunar outpost…
Last edited:
Also didn't NASA and anybody with a brain already know by this point that anything close to sixty flights a year was a complete no hoper?
Maybe NASA and the President Reagan will have a change in their hearts when the Soviets decide to shock the West by publicly unveiling Barmin's DLB Lunar Base.
Well who knows at this point, for all we could know the "sixty flights a year" quote is just copium from the Shuttle supporters within NASA since a lot of them are likely dishearten that their awesome state-of-art reusable Space-plane could be defeated by a "obsolete" super-heavy launch vehicle that the Shuttle was supposed to have replaced...
Last edited:
I think by '80 they were more realistically expecting like 20-30 by the mid-to-late 1980s, but the 60+ number hung around long enough I'm not sure when it dropped out of common use.
A little late posting here, but...
Lunar Dust, I'll admit that's not something I really considered for these longer-duration Manned Lunar Missions, and being forced to cut their landing/mission short on account of it wasn't something I saw coming.
Still, at least they got back none-the-worse, for the most part - taking Alan B. Sheppard's record of being the Oldest Man on the Moon is something I suppose.
And given how at this point - from where I stand - the Soviet Economic Engine is spluttering as is struggles under the weight of all imposed on it, a cause for celebration I'm certain the Soviet Leadership will take full advantage of.
As for the Interlude:
Low I think has called it right, that plan is D.O.A.
Leveraging everything they can from the existing/in-development STS Hardware though should be doable.
IMHO, there are ways to increase the performance/payload capability of Shuttle-C to better handle BEO/Lunar Missions, and I can see a three-launch architecture to match, then - hopefully for NASA - surpass the L3M system.
EDIT:
One other thing this Interlude reminds me of is the 'Toxic Legacy' of Apollo that I've heard over the last few years. Where the waste-everything-but-time approach - with the necessary funding to allow it - left a good chunk of NASA believing they could keep pushing for more of the same. Long after it became clear to many that those days just weren't coming back. The consequence being the repeated reveals/pushing of Grandiose plans with price tags to match (*cough*90-day-report*cough*) kept resulting in the non-funding or cancelation of said ambitions. This being part of the reason that IOTL there's been no manned BEO Mission since 12/1972.
How things play out here, that'll be something I'll be keeping an eye on.
Lunar Dust, I'll admit that's not something I really considered for these longer-duration Manned Lunar Missions, and being forced to cut their landing/mission short on account of it wasn't something I saw coming.
Still, at least they got back none-the-worse, for the most part - taking Alan B. Sheppard's record of being the Oldest Man on the Moon is something I suppose.
And given how at this point - from where I stand - the Soviet Economic Engine is spluttering as is struggles under the weight of all imposed on it, a cause for celebration I'm certain the Soviet Leadership will take full advantage of.
As for the Interlude:
Low I think has called it right, that plan is D.O.A.
Leveraging everything they can from the existing/in-development STS Hardware though should be doable.
IMHO, there are ways to increase the performance/payload capability of Shuttle-C to better handle BEO/Lunar Missions, and I can see a three-launch architecture to match, then - hopefully for NASA - surpass the L3M system.
EDIT:
One other thing this Interlude reminds me of is the 'Toxic Legacy' of Apollo that I've heard over the last few years. Where the waste-everything-but-time approach - with the necessary funding to allow it - left a good chunk of NASA believing they could keep pushing for more of the same. Long after it became clear to many that those days just weren't coming back. The consequence being the repeated reveals/pushing of Grandiose plans with price tags to match (*cough*90-day-report*cough*) kept resulting in the non-funding or cancelation of said ambitions. This being part of the reason that IOTL there's been no manned BEO Mission since 12/1972.
How things play out here, that'll be something I'll be keeping an eye on.
Last edited:
Interlude: Everything, Everywhere, All At Once
<snip>
“This isn’t a plan, Bob, it’s a goddamn Christmas list!"
Ah yes, NASA being NASA after all
Even more true, but OTL it still took the "Apollo Old-Guard" pretty much retiring or dying to allow any change.
Also true even though most Americans will support 'some' flexibility towards the Moon, (wording or not we actually do consider it 'our' Moon after all
) but Reagan likely still won on a "strong" America to oppose the Soviet's and that means the military. And unless there's been major changes in Congress then both sides are going to oppose any large changes in NASA's budget. As it is the military expansion is going to be enough of a fight that Reagan will drop NASA like a hot potato if it threatens his plans.Kinda sounds like we need an early "ELA" plan but again, NASA after all so
Excellent as always!
Randy
Wouldn't the presence of the Soviets on the Moon have a massive impact on Soviet politics and the whole world in general? I find it a bit doubtful that it will follow OTL but with just extra space stuff, though there's still a long way for this story to go in unexpected directions.
Speaking of more military spending... would nuclear missiles launched from the moon be possible with the N-1 rocket? (Landing and setting them there in case the Soviets want a response to Star Wars? Is this idea possible or even reasonable?)
Speaking of more military spending... would nuclear missiles launched from the moon be possible with the N-1 rocket? (Landing and setting them there in case the Soviets want a response to Star Wars? Is this idea possible or even reasonable?)
It's printed and not labeled "Draft Report" that I can tell which likely means it IS out in the wild, but if it was I suspect Dr. Low would be even MORE angry so ... We'll see I guess
And there will be pressure to 'match' if not exceed what the Soviet's are doing so probably still going to see a lot of expensive and grandiose proposals before they buckle down and actually get started. And that of course assumes that Congress can be stirred to support such things. (And that the Soviets keep flying missions for most of Reagans time in power. Once that stops so does Congressional support)
Arguably it kind of has to be something similar because with Apollo we didn't really have a good 'exploration' plan for actually setting up an outpost and we need to do that first.
As eofpi said the "60 flights a year" (after all it's "only" 15 fights per orbiter, per year
) was still being used for quite a while after the Shuttle first flew. The fact they have a Shuttle C, (and I do hope they get the recoverable engine pod mod which will again depend on Congressional interest) will actually 'help' there. A good question is can (or will) NASA use Skylab B to try out some space industrial process' that industry was actually interested in in the 80s whereas OTL they were too big for the Shuttle and there was no other option till the ISS came around. (And by then most of those interested had moved on)Randy
There will certainly be some butterflies from this, for one the USSR will be a lot less supportive of narratives that the US didn't actually go the Moon as they were OTL, With both the US and USSR competing more in orbit the Flat Earth theory is going to take a bigger hit earlier on. (Both were heavily developed by the early 80s and though fading were gaining much of the 'background' that would resurface in the late 90s and early 00's OTL)
Missiles on the Moon by the early 80s was really a non-starter because it literally gave you no advantage anymore. Both the US and USSR had the ability to track objects in space out to beyond the Moon if they felt it was needed. (By the late 80s it was arguably possible to track a shuttle orbiter around Jupiter firing it's maneuver thrusters
) But OTL there wasn't seen a serious need. It was suggested in the mid-80s to put a manned Command and Control "doomsday" orbiter in an orbit beyond the Moon but the actual utility was questionable at best. Certainly nobody really wanted to station weapons that far out which would be hard to assure "positive" control at all times. (Submarines are much harder to track and much easier to control so....)Randy
With the americans going to the moon after Skylab 2, I wonder if it would be financially interesting to increasingly delegate LEO to partners (being Private companies, Japan and particularly ESA), maybe a bit anachronistical.
You start by adding one or two Spacelabs to Skylab 2, then comes a Spacehab-equivalent, ESA's MTFF. Early ATV could do servicing... A lot of stuff that happened later on IRL, but early enough that ESA would probably be more able to take advantage of it.
Meanwhile, the almost-inevitable shuttle accident while Skylab 2 is active probably increases the need for a backup crewed vehicle, at least as a crew return vehicle. This is where private and international partners can step in.
You start by adding one or two Spacelabs to Skylab 2, then comes a Spacehab-equivalent, ESA's MTFF. Early ATV could do servicing... A lot of stuff that happened later on IRL, but early enough that ESA would probably be more able to take advantage of it.
Meanwhile, the almost-inevitable shuttle accident while Skylab 2 is active probably increases the need for a backup crewed vehicle, at least as a crew return vehicle. This is where private and international partners can step in.
Last edited:
Here, surprisingly, a simpler Hermes may appear, unless there is such strong pressure that the French will choose a vehicle in the Apollo/Soyuz style.
The political realities are obvious, NASA was never going to get Shuttle-H, but they're left with a political imperative to match the Soviets but with a much less appropriate suite of launchers to do it. Which means designing the system architecture is going to be a massive headache.
What can they really do to match the Soviets? They still have original 4 Shuttles right? But with the addition of the Shuttle-C, they will need to assembly any moon lander in orbit and build a space tug. Will they go to the moon with a shuttle? Refueling it in LEO orbit, then in LLO?
Ooooh! Sounds like we might get some earth orbit rendezvous... and Shuttle-Skylab the beloved,,, Call it old fashioned but orbital assembly is a pretty cool method, all these small components combining together, big fan. Can't wait to see what else is in store!