Have to wonder if Britain had been better at revitalising its industries, and chose to stay in the space race with the Commonwealth, if they could have been a contender for the commercial satellite launch cash, and perhaps Europe later if what OTL was Ariane would have been a lot more of an British/International rocket then at French dominated as it was?
A Sound of Thunder: The Rise of the Soviet Superbooster
- Thread starter nixonshead
- Start date
Hard to say. Britain does have the dubious distinction of being the only country (to date IOTL) of developing an independent launch capability, and then giving it up.
Just another example of UK myopic short-termism demonstrated IMHO - and part of the reason France made sure that pulling out of the Concorde programme would be so ruinously expensive, the UK was forced to remain in it IIRC.
But being able to stay within a multi-country effort? It's possible, but not all that likely.
Garrison
Donor
Well the USA helped put the boot in by promising to allow the British to launch satellites on their Scout rocket, and then reneging as soon as the British program was safely dead.
Britain had alot of trouble after WW2, from war debt to loss of resources due to decolonization (which was a Major revinue stream)
Compared to other countries Britain had the short straw on the Marshall plan, Germany and France were completely rebuilt with brand new economies and factories, while britain had older style pre-WW2 factories that were harder to convert to newer materials, not to mention the less subsidies from the US. The war debt also limited spending and basically put a huge burden on the society unlike Germany or france, who didn't have to pay for lend lease costs (France did but far less then Britain)
Britain also suffers from the lack of Pan European nationalism due to being geographically seperate, while this Pan-Europeanism has kinda fallen behind in the last few years (Migrant Crisis, Germany importing Russian energy, Ukraine and then NATO funding), Britain always wanted to remain independent and not rely on others
Britain pulled out of Europa due to costs, Black Arrow was a light launcher and would need to be replaced after 5 years anyways due to heavier payloads (expensive to do)
Britain also pulled out of Hermes due to the fact that it would share costs but it would fly french as a priority (french launcher and over 50 percent hermes being french), and Thatcher said as much "Britain will not pay to fly a frenchman into space"
Hermes also had a bunch of design issues, from no payload bay (pressurized and not openable), resource module (orbital stuff) and 3 crew due to ejection seats.
Concorde was duel developed, one side pulling the plug would have huge costs, it wasn't just france
As i said above, Britain was in seriously rough shape post WW2
I did have an idea of an Inter-Commonwealth Space Agency, but the geographical reality would have huge shipping costs, and have high lattitudes (Canada and Austrailia)
The best place would be Canso, Nova Scotia, it has clear flight paths north, south and east. But given the development costs for launchers it would likely be too expensive and each country would want a piece. Woomera is also a good spot, the issue is remoteness and possibly dropping stages on people (unlikely)
Basically the program would be divided politically, the UK would likely try to brute force it into being UK priority while Canada and Austrailia and New Zealand would want a shared launcher, the high inclinations (44 degrees east minimum) would need more power for geostationary payloads
This all varies with involvement, does the UK build everything or are the rocket stages built in each country?
My idea was basically Kaiserreich inspired, which if you know anything about that timeline idea basically means a Commonwealth vs Germany cold war (if the commies in France and UK fall)
It is always cheaper to just buy rides then build your own, and Black Arrows light payload would need to be upped somehow to keep with heavier payloads
There were plans for a triple Blue Steak first stage with a Black Arrow second stange and either a Black Knight or a solid booster third stage for heavier payloads and at very low costs, as their rockets usually were cheaper than the US or ESA equivalents, + no long duration developmental costs.
I believe there were also some plans for a hydrolox third stage? Or for a second stage with a RZ.20 engine.
Even if Black Arrow could not launch heavier payloads, it could still be part of the light payload class of rockets lile the Scout.
I believe there were also some plans for a hydrolox third stage? Or for a second stage with a RZ.20 engine.
Even if Black Arrow could not launch heavier payloads, it could still be part of the light payload class of rockets lile the Scout.
Still the upfront "starting from absolutely nothing" cost would be huge, Ariane 5 had the Ariane 1-4 and experience to boot for development, Vega was helped by internationalization of the program
This medium launcher built by the UK would likely have some form of nationalism involved given the costs to develope a home grown vehicle, Vega was nearly 44 percent outside funding outside the italians. Basically the UK would want to build the rocket in the UK and not outside as it gives more jobs and helps areospace companies that have basically died off post WW2 (Bombardier in Canada is a shell kept alive by the government)
Ya,
the shipping would be a pain, going to Australia to launch it, a site in Nova Scotia Canada would be more ideal, but thats also my Canadian patriotism talking, plus the inclination's due to a lack of equatorial launch sites, using an island colony could help this
My concern is the eventual heavying of payloads that has occured since the 60s, would lead to a loss of business, the UK at the time was very money tight and Commonwealth Nations were not interested in spending the Money needed to finish development
Eventually stages would need widening or stretching, engines uprated, and then side boosters, then a new replacement launcher
Basically the UK and Commonwealth were barely in a postion to develop their own launcher
That's why I mainly think in the 90s not to buy Soyuz. ESA commissions the development of a new medium launcher (maybe even to a private entity).
It would be interesting if at the same time Falcon 9 was being built in the USA and its smaller counterpart in Europe, which would be more similar to Falcon 5. Both rockets could hit the market at the same time.
It would be interesting if at the same time Falcon 9 was being built in the USA and its smaller counterpart in Europe, which would be more similar to Falcon 5. Both rockets could hit the market at the same time.
Falcon 9 only came about due to Commerical cargo program, the Falcon 1 was not a suitable long term option
ESA would have to put off their mid range launcher until the 2000's at minumum to get Falcon 5 as a viable option, but in this case where ESA decides in 2008 for a mid range launcher they might as well go with the Falcon 9 over the 5, and SpaceX would agree
SpaceX was successful as they could put all their investment into one platform, which is why the last Falcon block is bigger then the first (not including reuse), having both Falcon 5 and Falcon 9 basically divides the spending, the Falcon 9 improvements likely would be slower and Falcon Heavy would be delayed
Not to mention SpaceX would have to have split teams on two Continents, with launch sites in Vandenberg, Kennedy, and Guieana. Manufacturing plants in two countries, shipping a rocket from one continent to another just to have a rocket who's business comes from companies who's satellites are too small for Ariane and big for Vega. This adds a bunch of FIXED operating costs to SpaceX who does there best OTL to keep everything highly centralized to reduce overhead (Headquarters is the factory)
Also too it would be a headache for technology and stuff as the US has SEVERE regulations for technology sharing, given this Falcon 5 would share alot with Falcon 9 but be European built it would basically mean SpaceX would need export license's for the technology, which the US government would need to decide on
Basically if Falcon 5 gets the Merlin upgrades, and reuse technology, the builders of the rocket would know how it worked and could be hired by Arianespace and give them the knowledge on how to reuse rockets, it sounds silly but this has happened, Avro Arrow was a cutting edge plane and when cancelled US companies hired the engineers leading to Jim Chamberlen designing the Gemini capsule. Corporate espionage is bad enough, international corporate espionage is worse. Everybody's laughing until Ariane does a landing on a barge. The US government funded the Russian space program for MIR and parts of ISS to keep Russian engineers from being hired by "Enemy nations"
All of this neccesitates Britain to be in a better post war condition then OTL, the only way i could see this is if it maintained colonies for a longer period (more revenue)
Its hard to pin what people did or didn't want, expecially since these sometimes get skewed to fit a narrative, like Newfoundland nationalists who say the referendum was rigged and that an independent newfoundland would be an economic superpower
Britain would rather the site be in its terretory or in a more friendly commonwealth Nation, (Canada, New Zealand, Australia), OTL sites in England were axed due to concerns of dropping stages on oil rigs in the north sea (and scandanavia)
Canso, Nova Scotia (north eastern tip) would be the best place, no overflights southward and is ocean, 44 degrees is high but not much of a choice (barbatos was an OTL idea but axed), its where i had my shuttle timeline launch site
Lol what? Basically all of Australia is closer to the equator than Nova Scotia. Brisbane is closer to the equator than Cape Canaveral. Pretty much the entire east coast of Queensland should be open for north-to-east launch vectors. The only drawback is how far away eastern Australia is from Europe.
Interesting, thanks! I'd not seen this, but the Zond 9 announcement in the timeline fit to a general pattern of how the Soviets announced things. IIRC, I based it on an OTL announcement for a failed lunar probe.
Regarding the UK space effort ITTL, it's about where it was IOTL, at least in terms of crewed spaceflight. We still have Thatcher's government in place, who are still unwilling to pay to send Frenchmen into space. There may be more going on in quiet meetings with the US, in particular with respect to the more active "Battlestar America" programs ITTL, responding to a preceived more advanced Soviet space capability, but nothing that would be very visible to the public.
It might be good to move that discussion to a fresh thread, yes. As you note, you need to do a fair bit of heavy lifting to get a different and more successful British program because of government policy and economic baseline situation. None of that is really relevant to a TL with a point of departure in the mid-70s.
im more interested in a kaiserriech inspired Canadian space program, there its a lot more plausible for the Commonwealth to be a space power, rivaling Germany
Easier to ship across the atlantic then around the world
This would basically mean UK astronauts on Shuttle and perhaps the moon right?
Though if Canada gets involved with Battlestar America, it could potentially get a person on the moon, Hadfield would be too new so it would have to be somebody else
Ya, the PoD would be huge for this to happen, everybody seems to forget nowadays how fucked Britain was back then, Thatcher helped alot but it wasn't until the 90s and 2000s when Britain was back on its feet
I will put up a thread later today
Titan stages were designed and built with minimal stage wall thickness, that they actually survived reentry and were semi-intact on landing surprised everyone. Especially Martin
The S1 on the other hand was built like a tank and had to be tumbled by on-board thrusters to ensure that it broke up during reentry. It was far LESS likely to be damaged much on landing than the Titan stagesNot sure where you got this idea from. Originally the Saturn 1/1B was supposed to be NASA's workhorse vehicle and thus work was done on making it more economical and versatile. This included work towards future upgrades of the engines, structure, and variants such as mixed solid boosters.
The 15% is AFTER all modifications and upgrades, the Falcon 9 still takes a substantive hit in payload for reuse. Especially the full "boost-back" and landing at the launch site missions. Falcon Heavy has the same problem it has always had (and Starship will face) in the lack of payloads to carry for it's size, there just are not that many.
Hence why the "jury is still out on the question" because SpaceX has never given actual figures for its supposed savings nor is it open with any of the economics on reuse.
The RS-27 was literally an upgraded H1 USING new materials and technology. Had the H1 been reused then the needed materials would have been used to allow the same for the RS-27. (Note that the computer/wiring and electronics were designed for recover/reuse too. Really not that hard to do)
Both the SSME and Merlin have/had parts replace during the refurbishment process. Part of the reason it takes two weeks to turn around an F9 booster is removing and then reinstalling engines that have been refurbished. This reduces over time and techniques and process progress so there's no reason the same would not happen with a reusable H1. The time and figures are from the BASIC test program not a mature one since the reusability was dropped. NDI (Non-Destructive Inspection) process and equipment has improved since the early 60s and there's no reason that would not apply to a reusable H1.
So? Really no reason to assume that such could not take into account recovery and reuse. Really salt water dunking was shown to have far less 'complications' than had been assumed.
Randy
Unlike the falcon 9 the H-1 engines were built in one block with a gas generator design, the Merlin is designed to have a seperatable engine bell (evidenced by the fact a bunch are damaged on every flight).Titan stages were designed and built with minimal stage wall thickness, that they actually survived reentry and were semi-intact on landing surprised everyone. Especially Martin
The H-1 would need modifications for this, i doubt the testing included the engines being dropped from a parachute or hitting the ocean when the S-1 stage rolls over
Basically the Saturn 1 and 1b ended production when enough were built for the present and not future needs. this investment in "future" stuff never happened. And considering that it was expensive to use its likely that even if Shuttle was cancelled and Apollo was used similar to Soyuz for stations and stuff, that the first stage would built into a single tank, as Saturn 1 was a cluster of older tanks for other rockets
Hindsight is 20/20, Due to how NASA was thrown money in the 60s, stuff like Parasail Gemini and other impractical stuff was designed and had money spent on it (Gemini was a deathtrap second to shuttle on abort modes, only that Gemini would burn the crew to death makes it worse).
Basically develop a modular Saturn 1C rocket stage with varying engines, the 3 F-1 engine is the orbital vehicle (Int-17 design, one with S1c and S4b) and 5 engine is on the saturn V, this reduces cost and seperate production lines
So if for example the reuse was built into the OG Falcon 9 which had no improvements it would cost a higher percentage of the total payload to orbit, doing this on a rocket like the Delta, Thor or Atlas means a huge loss of lifting capacity
For the Delta-II the design was already pushing the frame to the max, putting reuseable stuff on the first stage (engine pod or parachutes) would cost a higher percentage of the lift capacity, which would then need to be brought back up with bigger SRB's or a further widening or stretching of the tanks
Given that its estimated for a rocket to cost 100 mil per Falcon 9 per launch, it is likely the reuse gives back 40-50 mil per booster and its engines, the savings come from not building a new booster.
Alot of this stuff is "need to know" and "proprietary" material, so it is unlikely we will see a true launch cost. Expecially ones that have the pure cost and not lump development costs on top of them
It still requires certifying for those old H-1 tests, when stuff is changed enough the old testing data doesn't apply, Boeing did this for the 737 MAX to reduce costs (keep everything the same while changing a bunch)
Merlin is mostly the bell, which was built into the design, H-1 would need to have this built into it
I am tired of arguing, with this timeline PoD of 71 the idea of Reusable Saturn 1 is long past, and H-1 is being replaced, lets talk about commerical launchers and not stuff that doesn't have a future
Last first: Ok I can see that but I'd brought it up to show that to go expendable or reusable was a debate from the very beginning. Most people knew that reusable was desirable but the actual flight rate and usage didn't in fact support that option and expendable made a better economic case.
You can ignore the rest if you want but I'm compelled to be "complete" on this so....
The testing included 'dropping' engines for the estimated roll-over distance into the water. Not much damage found with the basic engine, just as refurbishment was found to be straight forward. Yes the H1 was a tough engine.
Simple reason for this was the switch from the original slow-and-steady progression to being tasked with landing men on the Moon in less than a decade. The Saturn-1/1B could not cover this mission as it was optimized for LEO operations in support of the original tasking. Earth Orbital Rendezvous, which was the preferred initial concept was deemed to take to long to accomplish and had to many critical tasks in the road map to be competitive with the eventual LOR method. Had that not happened then it's highly unlikely that the Saturn V would ever have been built and many more Saturn-1B's would have thereby bringing down the cost.
(And the multi-tank design was actually a lot more efficient and economic than many people give it credit for. The tooling and most of the assembly systems were already paid for making it cheaper in most aspects from a mono-tank design. Moreso the rather "kludge" system actually allowed a very large array of design changes and options such as tank stretches and SRB attachment points that would have been harder to achieve with a new mono-tank design)
Actually the reuse of the Saturn 1 stage was started even before "NASA" was fully involved and most of the initial development money (and requirements) came from ARPA which vacillated back and forth on requirements and costs. Gemini was majorly limited by its launch vehicle in the Titan II. Studies of flying it on the Saturn 1 had an actual launch abort system rather than the ejection seats but the Titan II could not handle the extra weight so the ejection seats were baselined and really nobody was happy with the idea.
The F1 was a horribly heavy and costly rocket engine and again without the Lunar Goal it's not likely to be proceeded with. TTL that's all water under the bridge by the POD but it wasn't inevitable and there was an idea to pivot back to the Saturn 1B and the H1's but NASA was going to fight tooth and nail if they couldn't have the Shuttle with SOMETHING from Apollo. And yes that's likely to be some form of "cheaper" Saturn V derived vehicle. ("Eyes Turned Skyward" does a good job of combining the two options with a new design S-1C using a mono-tank design and a single F1)
Which is why reuse was not considered for those launch vehicles even though some studies were still done. Again flight rate and economics were not there to push anything forward. On the converse side "assists" such as GEM solid motors were found to help increase the payload, which was not an option looked at for the Falcon series.
SRB's and tank stretches were pretty much the go-to option but again the actual flight rate and economics didn't support reuse as being viable at the time.
And a reason that expendables still look economic rather than reuse being "proven".
Pretty common practices in context. Not much different in how the various Merlin designs had to be recertified when they came online. Moreso you have a fairly clear track record and changes will take into account usage. (IE going from an expendable, ablative cooled Merlin to a reusable, long-life Merlin. It's really NOT that unusual for rocket engines to have longer "lifetimes" than a single flight)
The H1 was a bit of a beast, much like the RL10 it was a lot more robust than you'd think
Randy
Just wanted to say it was a nice conversation
I agree that economically expendable is better, but if you are launching willy-nilly like Falcon 9 and Shuttle was supposed too, the reuse is a better option simply as you save some money a bit more
From what i know the only major difference was the fact the 1b had a S-4b stage that replaced the upper stages on the 1
Alot of the lack of development foresight is Apollo, i reread Voyage by Baxter and realized that Ares (the Mars landing) basically killed everything else for the sake of Mars. Apollo did the same with the program at the time, by the end all production lines were done and NASA's best hope for continued Manned flight (in an era where American willingness was low as hell) was Shuttle and its promises
The more i read on the subject, the more i realize Shuttle was the only way. Some argue that Saturn V could fly for the same price per mission (even a NASA administrator), but i ask wtf it would be launching as political will means no Lunar or Mars flights unless the Soviets do it
ARPA was the army right?
I personally call the pre Mercury stuff "The Good, the Bad, and the Nazi's"
My other idea is finding a middle ground engine that is half the thrust of the F-1 and nowhere near as expensive, dividing the thrust on 6 engines would reduce costs from just F-1's. this theoretical S-1C has more growth that can happen for orbital missions
I always wonder that if Shuttle didn't happen and NASA flew Apollo's on Saturn 1b's if a station would happen, NASA support was abysmal post Apollo and Skylab, Skylab-Soyuz would be far to high of an orbit for regular missions. Would Skylab-B have enough support to be flown or would NASA fly "tin-can" missions to nowhere until Reagan called for a station
(Carter was not a big NASA supporter, Ford was ok)
Eyes turned Skyward is a bit to optimistic for me. NASA having 2 stations in 10 years wouldn't happen, Congress would keep the first active for as long as possible to not pay for another. I wouldn't be surprised if Skylab was used into the 90s
I know Musk was against SRB's for that reason, putting SRB's on Falcon adds a bunch but takes away the reuse aspect, but given Falcon 9's improvements without
Didn't know the engine was that tough
Sorry, i took this as "lets have a reusable Saturn 1" and not technical details of having said reusable Saturn 1
I agree that economically expendable is better, but if you are launching willy-nilly like Falcon 9 and Shuttle was supposed too, the reuse is a better option simply as you save some money a bit more
Same here, in most cases below i agree with youYou can ignore the rest if you want but I'm compelled to be "complete" on this so....
Didn't know that, i figured they just dropped it into a salt tank and left it there for a given time, i had the image in my mind of the Merlin bells being wrecked and thinking H-1 would get similar bell damage
From what i have heard Saturn 1 and 1b were expensive for their time, but as you say the projected rate basically collapsed during Apollo with no orbital station and stuff, though i wonder if Saturn 1 did "all up" testing, would there be more left over for orbit missions post Apollo
From what i know the only major difference was the fact the 1b had a S-4b stage that replaced the upper stages on the 1
Alot of the lack of development foresight is Apollo, i reread Voyage by Baxter and realized that Ares (the Mars landing) basically killed everything else for the sake of Mars. Apollo did the same with the program at the time, by the end all production lines were done and NASA's best hope for continued Manned flight (in an era where American willingness was low as hell) was Shuttle and its promises
The more i read on the subject, the more i realize Shuttle was the only way. Some argue that Saturn V could fly for the same price per mission (even a NASA administrator), but i ask wtf it would be launching as political will means no Lunar or Mars flights unless the Soviets do it
My knowledge of pre-Mercury stuff is kinda murky, especially the early days. I know Saturn 1 was flying relatively early (photos with JFK). Ya Gemini was a very wierd vehicle, though the idea of ejection seats i thought was Jim Chaimberlein's idea, not necessary by the launcher
ARPA was the army right?
I personally call the pre Mercury stuff "The Good, the Bad, and the Nazi's"
My Saturn 1C derivative is either a few F-1s or cluster of smaller engines, i agree F-1 is expensive, i was thinking of ETS, when i wrote this
My other idea is finding a middle ground engine that is half the thrust of the F-1 and nowhere near as expensive, dividing the thrust on 6 engines would reduce costs from just F-1's. this theoretical S-1C has more growth that can happen for orbital missions
I always wonder that if Shuttle didn't happen and NASA flew Apollo's on Saturn 1b's if a station would happen, NASA support was abysmal post Apollo and Skylab, Skylab-Soyuz would be far to high of an orbit for regular missions. Would Skylab-B have enough support to be flown or would NASA fly "tin-can" missions to nowhere until Reagan called for a station
(Carter was not a big NASA supporter, Ford was ok)
Eyes turned Skyward is a bit to optimistic for me. NASA having 2 stations in 10 years wouldn't happen, Congress would keep the first active for as long as possible to not pay for another. I wouldn't be surprised if Skylab was used into the 90s
Delta as a whole was a funny case of "the payload is too heavy" and "we WILL make it work". SRB's are cheaper, but for economics even today its worth it to expend then resuse (more expensive, even with SLS)
I know Musk was against SRB's for that reason, putting SRB's on Falcon adds a bunch but takes away the reuse aspect, but given Falcon 9's improvements without
Agreed, just except for Falcon 9 as i like the rocket. Reuse has huge drawbacks
Shuttle was supposed to prove it, but the payoffs of added weight requiring more "power" to achive the same payload capacity as before is costly
i figured with small changes it would be fine, but bigger changes would require recertification (Starliner needing to be certified for Vulcan-Centaur)
RL-10, the gift that keeps on giving and the engine that never diesThe H1 was a bit of a beast, much like the RL10 it was a lot more robust than you'd think
Didn't know the engine was that tough
Last edited: