SunlitZelkova

I prefer the theory Star Wars is just a long dream of Indiana Jones during his nap with Marion by his side on that steamer they took that later got intercepted by the U-Boat.

They can. It was a top secret Imperial project in the later years prior to the Battle of Yavin. RE: Vader finding Leia, my guess is that because the Tantive IV is shown to have launched from that Rebel capital ship, a droid to two plugged into the flight computers and figured out where the ship was due to travel. Just a random guess, because during the Imperial era, only one ship was ever capable of hyper space tracking and it was destroyed circa 2 BBY.

I bought a model train set recently. I'm still working on some stuff to display around it (also in N Scale) but I'll have to post pictures here if my cat attacks it.

Culture can change though. China had abysmal engineering and manufacturing practices as late as the 1980s. By the 1990s it was booming, and of course it became the second largest economy in the world in 2010. I don't know whether that can work with individual companies though. China had the advantage of being guided by the state to a great extent.

Were commercial launches with Delta and Atlas back in the 1990s and 2000s ever shown on TV? I either did not exist or was very little back then so I wouldn't know. I'm not sure if this is a good example. By comparison, I don't recall Delta IV Heavy streams being heavily watched. They certainly get as much traffic on this forum as any F9 launch (not a lot). Both DIVH and F9 pale in comparison to how the thread becomes "Hot!!!" when Starship launches. Unless you are talking about the landings, in which case, yeah, it is impressive how it has become normal. I wonder if there is historical precedent. Did people still fawn over airplanes 9 years after the first flight at Kitty Hawk? It would depend on the country, of course.

It better, even without stopping in LLO, because for my world where the Constellation program succeeds and Musk dies in a car crash in 2012 or so, I was planning to have Red Dragon derived craft be the primary lunar base resupply vehicle (the LSAM with a cargo module would not be able to fly often enough) in the late 2020s.

But you only know if a rocket is not going to explode if it goes through testing. Your proposed vehicle is nowhere near close to testing. Starship and HLS are, and thus will "not explode" much faster than your proposed lander. The creation of any vehicle is a "from the ground up" process. Things change during the detailed design process as issues that weren't realized during the concept phase become known. Variants of your proposed spacecraft might exist, but the actual spacecraft do not. What you are saying is like saying that SLS was "already here" in 2015 because all it is is RS-25s from the Shuttle, a redesigned external tank, SRBs with an extra segment, and a Centaur upper stage. History has clearly shown that utilizing existing components to create a new rocket "fast" is not fast.

"There is beauty in simplicity."- Anonymous

When I read this it just made me think of an aerial version of the Pr. 2 class guard ship lol.

Starship HLS already has a prototype flying in the form of the current ships, and has already appeared in metal in the form of mockups. Even the tanker variants have been manufactured in some form, IIRC. How is this new lander going to get ahead of something that already exists? If we look at a very casual, off the top of my head list of what a rocket needs to do before flying- Become a concept (be birthed as an idea) Undergo preliminary design Build prototype Undergo testing Get certified Fly Starship is currently at Stage 4, HLS is inbetween 3 and 4. Yours is currently at 1. Especially if this lander is going to be contracted out to someone like Boeing or Northrop Grumman, how do you expect these companies with their oldspace way of doing things to overtake Starship development? If you had made this proposal in 2019 I think it would make sense. But there is just no reason to do this now, at this point in time. We have a historical precedent in these types of discussions. During the Apollo era, many argued for utilizing the already available Gemini technology to produce an alternative lunar lander to Apollo just in case the CSM and LM weren't ready in time to meet Kennedy's goal. The legendary James Webb correctly saw this as simply siphoning off already limited resources, that would extend the date of a lunar landing and not quicken it. On the other side of the globe, the Vladimir Chelomei proposed his UR-700 as an alternative to the N1. This siphoned off resources that could have been put into N1 development, and was one of numerous reasons why the Soviets never landed on the Moon with crew. Your proposal to start building a new lunar lander now is also reminiscent of how it took the Soviets until 1964 to start serious work on a crewed lunar landing. There is just no way an expendable lander starting development in 2024 is going to beat Starship HLS to flight, considering HLS began development in what, 2020 or 2021? Also, this approach is not sustainable because the lander can't be reused. It would have to be thrown away every single time. Reusability is what makes a presence sustainable, not whether it uses SLS or not. It isn't like LEO where you can get away with launching a hundred Soyuzes while your economy is trash. Launching stuff to the Moon is expensive. Reusability of at least the lander must be involved or you will only end up with a flag and footsteps program. Ideally we would do away with Orion and have Starship HLS be the ferry to and fro LEO, and it would dock at the ISS/Axiom Station and then crew would descend in a Crew Dragon. I also feel like reentry at lunar speeds is way more dangerous and risky than adding another "propulsively break here" phase to the mission.

David S.F. Portee, a space historian who runs the No Shortage of Dreams blog, says "Reagan wasn't interested at all until after he saw a few Shuttle landings." It should be noted that even if he continued funding of the Shuttle, it was both his administration and Congress that were responsible for dragging their feet so long Space Station Freedom had to become the ISS. I think that portion of the story is tentative though. I have no idea how the direction of spaceflight and government interest would go once we actually land humans on Mars (whether that be in the 80s or in the 2030s). I haven't thought much about it, I'm mainly focused on the general political history (which isn't that much affected by spaceflight) right now. Now that I think about it though, in the aftermath of a program with only a single Mars landing and no hardware left, I could see the successor program becoming something like SLS... designed to keep America looking sort of good in space competition with the USSR, but also mainly to put money into Congressional districts. The ending of my Mars program isn't too unlike that of the Space Shuttle. And a return to the Moon might make sense from the POV of both a NASA administrator helpful to still do something big post-Mars, but not quite as expensive as expendable repetitive Mars missions. On the other hand, given the technology they would be building off of would be Saturn series tech and not Space Shuttle, maybe it would be more capable than SLS. Another factor is what the Soviets are doing. I haven't decided if I want them to build a Moon base or take the same space station route as NASA. But unlike Skylab, any Soviet station would be permanent and easily accessible by Soyuz. So it might be hard to end piloted spaceflight while the Soviets are still doing it.

I wonder if Russian cosmism ever caught on with post-1991 philosophers.

Yes.

Basically the same dynamic with how Skylab B (already existed and would be cheap to launch) got cancelled but we ended up spending tons on the Space Shuttle (didn't exist and cost tons to develop). Same dynamic, different programs. Also, because my Mars program relies on so much legacy tech instead of new stuff, it wouldn't cost as much as the Boeing 1969 proposal or Von Braun's Mars mission proposal. As far as things with Congress goes- It isn't a "for sure" point of divergence in the same way you can say "if the Soviet submarine fired a nuclear torpedo accidentally during the Cuban Missile Crisis" there would be World War III for sure. It requires people not being robots and instead coming up with different ideas, and making different decisions. The manner by which the Soviets land on the Moon first also requires this. If you believe in the inevitability of history (a sort of dialectical materialism) you won't find the story compelling at all, but if you believe in the power of free will and choice, it becomes a bit more plausible.

For All Mankind is an entertaining TV show but is garbage as far as properly depicting how space programs and societal development works. I’ve decided to do my own version, to a certain extent. Agreed. What I’m thinking of right now is that there actually is… taking into account this is the 1970s with stagflation… no restart of Saturn V production. Instead Apollos 15, 19, 20, and even 17 and 18 are canceled to create a pool of Saturn Vs for a Mars mission and space station. Apollo 13 still has its problem, but this time Nixon gets his way and cancels all further Apollo missions afterwards. This leaves 7 Saturn Vs available for a Mars mission. I’m thinking the development campaign goes like this- Stage 1: Skylab A launches into LEO. Four missions are flown to it. We learn how to do space station ops. This stage ends in 1974 (Skylab still has delays and doesn’t launch till 73). Missions are progressively longer here, starting at 20 days and escalating to 90 days in space. Stage 2A: Skylab B, heavily modified to serve as a prototype MTV hab module, is launched in 1975. 3 missions are flown simulating a complete Mars mission. Stage 2B: A prototype NERVA module is launched, and does a complete mission to Mars orbit to verify engines can function that long. Maybe it carries Viking 1 and 2 simultaneously there. Stage 3: The Mars mission. Based on the proposed Mars mission that was going to come at the end of the original STS program, I’m assuming it’s going to take a single, reduced size “Skylab C” (with only three crew) and three S-IVB sized NERVA stages to propel this thing to Mars. That uses up the last of the Saturn Vs. This would take place in 1979 or the early 80s. Unfortunately mass limitations mean the time on the surface is only 15 days. After that, all hardware would be used up. The US would emerge having possibly discovered life on another planet and landed the first man and woman on Mars. In this environment I have no idea what proposals for successor programs would look like. But that’s a question for the future. TL/DR: The space station option seems the most fiscally and politically viable to me. Well, you’re right about colonization. In an expedition scenario it might not be necessary though. They would just be doing science, with little mining involved. IIRC the most recent proposed NASA mission architecture doesn’t even use ISRU (not DRM 5.0, I’m talking about the Deep Space Transport or whatever it’s called). Well the premise is sending people to Mars. The question wouldn’t really matter if we primarily used robots.

I think a test habitat in Earth’s vicinity is necessary, but I’m skeptical of how the Moon could be useful in testing it. We more or less have had something akin to a Mars Transfer Vehicle running continuously in orbit for decades- the ISS. Why do we need to do it on the Moon too? Things that need to be tested under a little gravity, like landers and surface habs, could be done on Earth, which is closer to Mars than Moon because it had atmosphere. On the other hand, it should be noted that IRL in the 70s and in my world, there is a significant Moon lobby. The 60s saw the creation of a decent sized lunar science community and they would have a big voice in deciding a post-Apollo goal. A space station would help with studying how a Mars Transfer Vehicle will behave over long periods of time. But I’m skeptical of why things that need to be tested under gravity, like landers and surface habs, can’t be done on Earth. What is the advantage of leaving from the Moon if you have to launch everything from Earth in the first place? Would 10 small launches from Earth to Moon to build a Mars vehicle on the Moon cost less than 3 big launches from Earth to build the same thing in LEO? I should have added more context. It’s 1969 but the downsizing of NASA was well underway by the time the Soviets surprised everyone by landing first. So it’s going to take a lot of money to restart Saturn V production. On the other hand, the Vietnam War ended earlier due to stronger political pressure over general science and technology vs. war. So the course of the funding is going to look more like how the Soviets cancelled N1 but then went all in on Mir + Buran, instead of cancelling Apollo and underfunding the lone Space Shuttle. Except in this case it will be *option/Moon base or space station* + Mars landing. So Apollo isn’t exactly an “active” Moon program. It’s very much in position for cancellation, only the Saturn V is really guaranteed to survive to the 1980s. There are no serious Moon base studies going on, and Apollo is still on track to end with 20. I personally favor the space station option because it is applicable to a Mars Transfer Vehicle. I feel like the transit through interplanetary space is the most dangerous and unknown aspect of a Mars mission (in 1969). In contrast, stuff that needs to be done under gravity could be done on Earth. Not to say it is best done on Earth, but if you are trying to limit things for budget reasons (think like you’re the White House Office of Budget and Management rather than NASA Administrator), Moon base feels easy to eliminate while space station can actually do things you can’t on Earth. ——————————— It sounds like I have already decided to go with a space station, and to be honest I am leaning toward it, but I still want to hear opinions. I like this discussion we have going.

Fixed!

I like building worlds. Just writing histories, listing facts, even making playlists with the music that might have been popular on the radio in certain decades. I am currently working on two worlds. One where the USSR lands on the Moon first (among a myriad of other points of divergence) and one where the Constellation program succeeds. I was originally considering two paths for the first one: One hyper realistic one with limited budgets and ambitions, and one with fantastic physics and technology where the Space Shuttle flies 7 times a week. I've decided to go somewhat inbetween the two. Not so conservative that the US just builds a simple Moon base and sends astronauts to it for several years before closing down, but not one so fantastic it might as well be Star Wars. I have what the 1960s in my world looks like completely down. But I've reached a crossroads where both the US and USSR have to decide what they want to do in the coming years. There are basically three options- 1) Big space station 2) Moon base + small space stations 3) Crewed Mars landing *An improved crew spacecraft to replace Apollo and Soyuz is automatically included. Because of an improved international situation and domestic politics in this world, a crewed Mars landing is probably a given at some point in the future. Now, it's just a matter of what to do in the meantime. The pros and cons of space station or Moon base don't particularly matter- it's all about which best contributes to a Mars program. I've done some light Googling, but I'd really like to hear from other people. It's a pretty old debate that is still going on, and it would be cool to hear from people more in the know about it (I myself mainly focus on space history rather than present day design decisions, and unfortunately there wasn't much serious discussion on how programs can contribute to others back in the 70s- mostly just wishlisting for cool rockets because they're cool). Share your thoughts after voting and let's discuss!

Changed again! This time it’s a Soviet space poster showing a cosmonaut guiding the way for earthly laborers.

“Yeah, the only time “free dinosaur” and “disappointing” should be in the same sentence is “It’s disappointing I didn’t get my free dinosaur.”- Anonymous Redditor

I guess Roscosmos is trying to make up for the lack of new, working projects with cool shots of existing stuff? I did really like the pictures they took of Soyuz MS-20's launch.

This is a problem with airliners too to some extent. Before the door plug incident, Portland International Airport had another incident in which a depressed, off duty Alaska pilot took drugs and then tried to seize control of a plane. He's now on trial and claims he doesn't remember any of it.

The idea of blockading or claiming territory on the Moon is ridiculous though. There would be no way to enforce it. The whole “we need to get there first to secure territory/freedom” is the dumbest thing ever.

You could share it here. The rules don’t expressly limit it to your own birthday.

https://x.com/cnspaceflight/status/1748332381839471076?s=46&t=Jd73T2beq0JLNtwTy1uR5A A hop test of a prototype methane Falcon 9 clone has taken place. This is the first flight of any hardware for the numerous Chinese F9 clones. *I say clone based on superficial visual resemblance, not configuration. Obviously using methane makes it very different from F9.