A Sound of Thunder: The Rise of the Soviet Superbooster

[Ry01tank]

[There might be a lesson in that for the SLS program, I think...]

Congress is funny

Whereas, the legacy stock of Atlas V's notwithstanding, ULA can now build their business on just one launch vehicle, which means only one set of supply chains, one set of launch pads, one set of workforces. And if they can get it up to the ~24 launches per year that Tory Bruno is hoping for, they can aspire to a serious reduction in launch costs over what they've been forced to shoulder up until now. I think they should be worried about how competitive it will be in the long term against all of these reusable/partially reusable launchers that are coming in the pipeline, but for the next five years at least, ULA should be golden.

Reusable rockets being more prevelent is still a ways away, Ariane considered flyback engines for the Ariane 6 but the reuse of engines would make their engine production line expensive (less engines to build)

In this regard, it is interesting to think about how differently the launch market might evolve in @nixonshead's timeline, because you can already see the butterflies flocking wildly in his 1980's.

I think ITTL Delta-II would fly earlier, maybe even EELV happens earlier, before the Mcdonnell-douglas-boeing merger, Maybe ITTL Delta 3 is a cross between Delta 2 and Delta 4 heavy (if they keep the blue i'll be happy)
I have a mental image of a Delta-2 in a common core configuration (uprated engines), 3 cores side by side or 5 in a + config

The launcher "gap" would also be very small, otl by Challenger there were barely any rockets left in storage, so it took a year or so to get rockets on the pad. Ariane got alot of business due to this. ITTL Ariane wouldn't have this business, so its butterflied as well

 

[Sasza]

Indeed!

And that was also, in his own, uber-competitive way, what I think Musk was trying to say about D4. Once the single stick (Medium) version was retired, the Heavies had to carry the whole Delta IV infrastructure and supply chain, and when you are launching only one of those per year, it gets difficult to keep the cost down...

[There might be a lesson in that for the SLS program, I think...]

Whereas, the legacy stock of Atlas V's notwithstanding, ULA can now build their business on just one launch vehicle, which means only one set of supply chains, one set of launch pads, one set of workforces. And if they can get it up to the ~24 launches per year that Tory Bruno is hoping for, they can aspire to a serious reduction in launch costs over what they've been forced to shoulder up until now. I think they should be worried about how competitive it will be in the long term against all of these reusable/partially reusable launchers that are coming in the pipeline, but for the next five years at least, ULA should be golden.

In this regard, it is interesting to think about how differently the launch market might evolve in @nixonshead's timeline, because you can already see the butterflies flocking wildly in his 1980's.

Here, however, we have Shuttle-C, which will slowly evolve towards 90 tons of LEO and recovery of as many elements as possible. I don't think we'll see an LRB for STS, but a Sensible Modular Autonomous Return Technology (SMART)-style solution for most rockets after 2000 may become standard.

Nixon wrote that the Soviet Wulkan uses new engines and we still have a huge amount of NK-33 engines, but faster liberation of the US market from STS may result in faster appearance of new RP-1/LOX or even CH4/LOX engines? Maybe we'll also see a flying Barbarian for SDI.

 

[nixonshead]

Couldn't the ACRV be launched by a Titan III and later by a IV?

In addition to the points on cost already made, launching on an expendable vehicle means a need for automated rendezvous and docking capability, adding to the complexity, mass and cost of the ACRV. When launching on shuttle, it's swapped out with the RMS.

On the question of what will be used instead of Spacelab when launching with an ACRV... probably nothing. The spacelab pressurised module only takes up about half the bay and masses around 10t. Freedom ACRV fits behind, and masses arounf 5t, leaving 5-10t for supplies and experiments being transferred in Spacelab.

 

[Athelstane]

In addition to the points on cost already made, launching on an expendable vehicle means a need for automated rendezvous and docking capability, adding to the complexity, mass and cost of the ACRV. When launching on shuttle, it's swapped out with the RMS.

This makes sense. Seems like the most plausible outcome here.

 

[Ry01tank]

Here, however, we have Shuttle-C, which will slowly evolve towards 90 tons of LEO and recovery of as many elements as possible. I don't think we'll see an LRB for STS, but a Sensible Modular Autonomous Return Technology (SMART)-style solution for most rockets after 2000 may become standard.

Nixon wrote that the Soviet Wulkan uses new engines and we still have a huge amount of NK-33 engines, but faster liberation of the US market from STS may result in faster appearance of new RP-1/LOX or even CH4/LOX engines? Maybe we'll also see a flying Barbarian for SDI.

Likely the Barbarian would be renamed to a frendlier name, Delta-III or something else if it does fly ITTL

ITTL the commerical market wouldn't have as much of the "gap" as OTL, but the engine development of the US was basically killed by the RS-25, it wasn't until the late 90s and early 2000's where new engines started coming in (mostly just updates of older ones) and the RS-68, which was a RS-25 spinoff.
The use of Russian engines kept most US rocket development behind still, outside of dedicated programs like RS-68, J-2X (which was stupid expensive and too powerful for commercial use). Merlin was one of the first "new" designs to be used, and the recent development of BE-4 was due to Russia ending engine sales

Raptor, Merlin and BE-4 are the few engines that were totally new designs developed, nearly all other engines used in the US are older designs and updates of said designs (like RS-68 and 27)

 

[Thoresby]

Reusable rockets being more prevelent is still a ways away, Ariane considered flyback engines for the Ariane 6 but the reuse of engines would make their engine production line expensive (less engines to build)

I remember the CEO saying that reusable rockets were bad because once they'd been built you didn't need a workforce anymore. Which was an odd thing to say.

 

[TheKutKu]

I remember the CEO saying that reusable rockets were bad because once they'd been built you didn't need a workforce anymore. Which was an odd thing to say.

It is absolutely not an odd thing to say, when the workforce and workforce allocation is not very flexible due to Geographic return policy, National/cultural barriers, inherently lower intra and interstate mobility of european employees, entrenched unions, National and strategic interests for particular employments and skills .


The shift in workforce that SpaceX did when moving from expendable (most focused on Hawthorne) to reusable F9 (More work on S2 line to the expense of the S1 line, considering they are in the same building in Hawthorne, but the S1 and S2 of an Ariane are integrated in different countries with different subcontractors in others, and at the same time more work in Florida and Vandenberg to support reuse) , to Starship (Complete shift of production line and launch pad to Texas)?

That’s completely unthinkable in an european context.

So Reuse couldn’t be progressively added for an Ariane, it had to be designed for the start with all these constraints in mind, which means that Reuse wouldn’t be authorised until it was a safe bet, which it wasn’t in 2014 and only became one 5+ years later, and also, let’s be honest. Reuse without a launch rate increase (which, for SX, largely depended on Starlink, which is a program that a company like Arianegroup/ADS would never have had the investment to start) *does* result in less hardware being built, which would necessarily make losers in the European Launcher Industrial Puzzle

 

[Athelstane]

It is absolutely not an odd thing to say, when the workforce and workforce allocation is not very flexible due to Geographic return policy, National/cultural barriers, inherently lower intra and interstate mobility of european employees, entrenched unions, National and strategic interests for particular employments and skills .


The shift in workforce that SpaceX did when moving from expendable (most focused on Hawthorne) to reusable F9 (More work on S2 line to the expense of the S1 line, considering they are in the same building in Hawthorne, but the S1 and S2 of an Ariane are integrated in different countries with different subcontractors in others, and at the same time more work in Florida and Vandenberg to support reuse) , to Starship (Complete shift of production line and launch pad to Texas)?

That’s completely unthinkable in an european context.

So Reuse couldn’t be progressively added for an Ariane, it had to be designed for the start with all these constraints in mind, which means that Reuse wouldn’t be authorised until it was a safe bet, which it wasn’t in 2014 and only became one 5+ years later, and also, let’s be honest. Reuse without a launch rate increase (which, for SX, largely depended on Starlink, which is a program that a company like Arianegroup/ADS would never have had the investment to start) *does* result in less hardware being built, which would necessarily make losers in the European Launcher Industrial Puzzle

Nothing in what you've said here - save for one point* - is wrong; but it also clarifies why Europe is structurally no longer able to compete in the global launch market of the 2020's.

______
* Starlink has been a boon in helping SpaceX determine and extend the life of its boosters on reuse, but they have had sufficient cadence for at least the last 3 years with just external payloads alone to justify reuse. In 2024 they are on track to have as many as 50 external payloads, which is more than Ariane 5 launched over the past ten years!

 

[TheKutKu]

why Europe is structurally no longer able to compete in the global launch market of the 2020's.

The falacy is thinking that any other single entity can structurally compete (in the general sense, not compete on individual contracts) on launch with Current SpaceX on an open (non protectionist) basis - with its near total support from the world’s largest space agency, world’s largest military, in a country with the largest IT industry, from the world’s wealthiest man (depending on the week, who’s also deeply invested and just a good manager and a visionary), with great top level manager, access to the best aerospace labour pool in the world, and most importantly, ideologically motivated, because as Musk says, if you want to colonise mars, you necessarily have to dominate the global launch capability.


----

yeah for sure,SpaceX’s external backlog is still impressive, it did take several years to get there, and it’s still only 1/3 of the planned 148 launches, lots of DoD and NASA payloads too, so if you wanna compare with Ariane you have to take that into account, it’s also a structural difference too.

And when you actually remove the DoD and national security launches on both sides, and the crewed/ISS launches on the other... Then you get MUCH closer numbers, Arianespace, with its 3 launchers, was launching ~15 main payload a year through the mid/late 2010s, while F9 only did 24 of such external, NON-DOD, non-ISS main payloads last year (about 1/4 of all launches, this is counting Transporter launches as an "external" main payload).

So yeah, even in the best case, Arianespace wouldn't have been able to do more than double their external payload by themselves. If you double the launch rate but recover 3/4 of the launcher, that's less hardware in the absolute, so less jobs in the traditional, expendable launch vehicle, industrial centers.

 

[Ry01tank]

Europe got most of its business in the 90s and 2000s mostly due to American rivals being more expensive, so companies would go foriegn for launchers, like China, India and Europe
In the 2010s and now the 2020's launch market, there are alot more cheaper options for payloads, GEO is not as big of a business as before (LEO is). Ariane is now the "expensive launcher" where it used to be "the cheap one"

So yeah, even in the best case, Arianespace wouldn't have been able to do more than double their external payload by themselves. If you double the launch rate but recover 3/4 of the launcher, that's less hardware in the absolute, so less jobs in the traditional, expendable launch vehicle, industrial centers.

It would kill the EU launch industry, they are smaller and have less overhead for business, if you launch 100 Ariane 6's you need 100 FS engines, but if you reuse them you need maybe 12-15 with a flyback booster, this makes the engines expensive and the run short, the business would close down due to a lack of profit past the 15 engines
Then whenever more engines are needed you will have to restart that line. its more benifical to keep an expendable then have a reusable due to this. SpaceX can fly reusable due to their high number of launches (and damaged engine bells) which keep their workers employed and production line from stopping

US Military does the same with tanks and aircraft, they will keep the factory pumping out tanks (as an example) and put them in storage as it keeps the business going, if they stop the production line for M1 Abrams tanks, those highly skilled workers (armor welders) will move on and the business would move on and whenever you want to build more you would need to rehire and restart the line. Basically it preserves the capability to BUILD the stuff when other countries have since closed their production lines

 

[Thoresby]

It is absolutely not an odd thing to say, when the workforce and workforce allocation is not very flexible due to Geographic return policy, National/cultural barriers, inherently lower intra and interstate mobility of european employees, entrenched unions, National and strategic interests for particular employments and skills .

I think you're giving him too much credit, if he's said "in order to maintain our industrial base we need a drum beat of orders" that would be a reasonable take. But he said we need to maintain employment as if the aim of Ariane was the skilled jobs it sustains not launching stuff into space.

 

[TheKutKu]

As if the aim of Ariane was the skilled jobs it sustains not launching stuff into space.

Which it partially is, there's no reason to hide that when it's the truth. In Mainland france it's not that big compared to the rest of the aerospace industry, but it's got skills and some level of industrial synergy with ICBMs, and it represents a large part of the French Guyanese Economy (used to be around 30-40% 20 years ago, now it's lower).

I'll never get why maintaining skilled jobs, something which is generally considered a good thing in most sectors, is somehow frowned upon in some part of the astronautical industry? It's good that the state spends part of its budget to maintain industrial excellence! It generally makes consensus in mainstream politics.

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

It would kill the EU launch industry, they are smaller and have less overhead for business, if you launch 100 Ariane 6's you need 100 FS engines, but if you reuse them you need maybe 12-15 with a flyback booster, this makes the engines expensive and the run short, the business would close down due to a lack of profit past the 15 engines
Then whenever more engines are needed you will have to restart that line. its more benifical to keep an expendable then have a reusable due to this. SpaceX can fly reusable due to their high number of launches (and damaged engine bells) which keep their workers employed and production line from stopping

Are we actually sure that is the case nowadays? Given the high automation level of industry and emerging technologies, notably 3d printing, would mass production of an engine be cheaper than a small series per year? Taking less overall effort, materials, workspace and investment?

How much of the current process is automated that the difference in cost of an engine produced in a small batch and in mass production is insignificant?

 

[KAL_9000]

I don't think this has much to do with the timeline anymore, guys. Take it to the general space exploration thread, maybe?

 

[TheKutKu]

Sorry.

Talking about reuse, I do wonder if Vulkan is made with Reuse in mind. IRL it was a common features in the proposals of the Yuzhnoye/OKB-586 11K77 and its variants circa 1974-1975 IRL, before it also got assigned as an Energia booster.
Yuzhnoye focused on making the Zenit-1 reuse equipment with Energia in mind, which made it unsuitable for Zenit-2 launches (staging was too high, it was too assymetric), but since a rocket with similar origins exists there with Vulkan independently of Energia I wonder if they could have conceived it for standalone recovery.

 

[Athelstane]

I don't think this has much to do with the timeline anymore, guys. Take it to the general space exploration thread, maybe?

To haul it back to the timeline, I suppose we can observe that it's almost certain to be a better early 21st century for Arianespace and ESA, since it seems hard to see how you get COTS and CRS in 2006-08. And without those, SpaceX does not survive, even if Elon still founds it in this timeline.

 

[prolemasses]

Like others have said, I think some kind of international lunar base using the Moon Town EZA seems likely following the collapse of the USSR.

Only issue I forsee is that the base module is explicitly mentioned as being powered by the exact same type of nuclear reactor as Zarya 3. In the aftermath of the incident described in the closing chapter, which, while not doing anywhere near the harm of something like Chernobyl, will likely be nearly as devastating both for the USSR's international reputation and overall opinions of nuclear energy, I can see NASA hesitating on signing on to a base powered by the very same type of reactor. Will be interested in seeing what nixonshead has planned here.

 

[Sasza]

In this TL, however, the Volcano must be wider due to the lifting of the TKS, so it is about 4 meters.

 

[TheKutKu]

To haul it back to the timeline, I suppose we can observe that it's almost certain to be a better early 21st century for Arianespace and ESA, since it seems hard to see how you get COTS and CRS in 2006-08. And without those, SpaceX does not survive, even if Elon still founds it in this timeline.

Eh, the Proton was Arianespace’s bane before the F9 was, and the Zenit sea launch was feared too, if both (Proton and Vulkan) had been reliabilised more ITTL thanks to their involvement in crewed spaceflight (and also flew more each year thanks to it and the lower R7 flight rate) if Vulkan was also larger and more capable to GTO, If also the experience on N1F/N1-Baikal’s upper stage could have Resulted in Small hydrolox upper stages for these two launchers, then Ariane would suffer a lot in the late 90s to 2010s, possibly enough to make ESA abandon their IRL Ariane 4-6 policy of using dual GTO comsat launches to support their strategic independence launchers And go for a a Ariane 6-PPH-like minimal launcher (especially if Hermes still fails, as it is likely too, and the european human spaceflight involvement is not more successful than IRL)

Soyuz-Kourou not happening because Soyuz flies less could also make ESA-CNES-Arianespace focus on the <10t medium lift class (which is the most important one for Galileo, or other sovereign satellites) on their own as Ariane 5 is too expensive so that class, could maybe make them go for an Ariane 5’s booster derived launcher that’s affordable for low fly rate as long as A5 flies, or drop A5 and focus on the Medium launch region like A6-PPH, or maybe, ideally, uses that opening to bring a competitor to the traditional Ariane industrial grouping.

In this TL, however, the Volcano must be wider due to the lifting of the TKS, so it is about 4 meters.

Yeah, Zenit was not an ideal launcher due to its Energia compatibility, its diameter could be raised to 4.1m (+10% volume) while still being Railway-carrying-gauge compatible, its GLOW could also be increased by more than 100t while still using the same engines (and there’s a possibility of the equivalent engine being more powerful) , generally with that main propulsion, if the stages can be big enough and maybe S2 made a big lighter, there’s no reason why a Stretched Zenit or TTL’s Vulkan can’t be made F9/Proton class to LEO (so ~20-22 tons), which would be enough to launch the Full FGB-Slava

 

[Athelstane]

Eh, the Proton was Arianespace’s bane before the F9 was, and the Zenit sea launch was feared too, if both (Proton and Vulkan) had been reliabilised more ITTL thanks to their involvement in crewed spaceflight

That's a big "if," though. Reliability was the bane of the Proton-K. Unclear just what Nuxonshead will posit here for what survives in the 1990's Russian space industry, in any case.

Araine's bread and butter has always been GEO, though, and it seems like there was always enough of that to sustain Arianespace.

Soyuz-Kourou not happening because Soyuz flies less could also make ESA-CNES-Arianespace focus on the <10t medium lift class (which is the most important one for Galileo, or other sovereign satellites) on their own as Ariane 5 is too expensive so that class, could maybe make them go for an Ariane 5’s booster derived launcher that’s affordable for low fly rate as long as A5 flies, or drop A5 and focus on the Medium launch region like A6-PPH, or maybe, ideally, uses that opening to bring a competitor to the traditional Ariane industrial grouping.

It's an interesting thought.