Author Topic: For All Mankind (Read 227803 times)

mjp25 · « **Reply #240 on:** 07/26/2020 08:30 pm »

Click on trailer link.
cross fingers.
repeat in head "please no space shuttles on the moon. please no space shuttles on the moon. please no space shuttles on the..."
darn. Well I guess they're not ON the moon. At least not in the trailer.
I don't really care. It's fun fiction but maybe a quick hand wave explanation of the architecture would be nice.
still excited to see it.
wonder why they felt it necessary to cgi Columbia onto one of the later orbiters.

Thorny · « **Reply #241 on:** 07/26/2020 08:47 pm »

Season 1 showed a President Ted Kennedy embroiled in a sex scandal (with Mary Jo Kopechne!) circa 1974-75, implying he might lose the 1976 election to Ronald Reagan (no Gerald Ford in the mix in this reality.) So Season 2 might be taking place toward the end of Reagan's second term in the early 1980s.

Steve G · « **Reply #242 on:** 07/27/2020 02:24 am »

I'm just uneasy about this series' use of real peoples' names. Presidents, maybe, but even in most movies they use fictitious presidents. Then, of course, shuttles to the moon. I wrote a four-novel time travel series and used less of a creative licence than what I've seen. At least I tried to keep the temporal science as real as possible. Of course, they're published, I'm not . . .

Thorny · « **Reply #243 on:** 07/27/2020 01:10 pm »

Quote from: Steve G on 07/27/2020 02:24 am

I'm just uneasy about this series' use of real peoples' names. Presidents, maybe, but even in most movies they use fictitious presidents. Then, of course, shuttles to the moon. I wrote a four-novel time travel series and used less of a creative licence than what I've seen. At least I tried to keep the temporal science as real as possible. Of course, they're published, I'm not . . .

Well, the "President Ted Kennedy" is intrinsic to the "Soviets Won the Moon Race" storyline that is the core of "For All Mankind". In June 1969, the Soviets shock the world again by winning the moon race. The next month, Congress holds hearings about why Apollo lost the race despite all the money spent on it. Because of those hearings, Ted Kennedy does not go to Chappaquiddick and have the accident which results in Mary Jo Kopechne's death. This keeps him as front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 1972, where he defeats Richard Nixon.

Skylon · « **Reply #244 on:** 07/27/2020 01:21 pm »

Quote from: Steve G on 07/27/2020 02:24 am

I'm just uneasy about this series' use of real peoples' names.

I don’t mind the real people - what I do mind is that having a real name seems to have good odds of marking you for death on this show.

I know Armageddon’s stellar rep on this forum but while watching this trailer all I could think of was a line from that film - “What are you doing with a gun in space?” 😆

libra · « **Reply #245 on:** 07/27/2020 04:42 pm »

With Sea Dragon and Lunar ISRU, even something as grossly inefficient as the Space Shuttle could haul itself into lunar orbit.
It boils down to
- keep the external tank attached
- refuel it from a Sea Dragon or two (probably two, 400 mt*2 = 800 mt)
Also need
- one restartable SSME (out of 3 - one should be enough for TLI)

That stack would weight 110 mt of orbiter and roughly 30 mt of (empty) external tank.

So one has to calculate, how much fuel in the tank to push that 140 mt of empty stack plus the propellant mass in the tank by itself, with a 450 seconds ISP SSME...

Next problem is - how to get out of lunar orbit and return LEO. Biggest unknown is the heatshield of course
Soooo...
- either aerobrake with a (much) beefed up heatshield (but STS-107 risk at 11 km/s - ugh...)
or
- propulsive braking with that restartable SSME and of course the E.T refilled once again (Lunar ISRU ?)
I would rather pick the second option.
Of course if the SSME don't restart, the crew is toast.

Speculation is fun. Oh, and btw... they did the math. I mean, for real - and for the SEI. In 1991.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910014907.pdf

Maybe FAMK writters watched Moonraker too much ?

Michel Van · « **Reply #246 on:** 07/27/2020 06:24 pm »

Ups do i see a Space shuttle Columbia in Deep Space ?!

It would make sense in way...
in 1971 was study to use the STS to go to the Moon, by rendezvous with propellant tank in LEO,
Then goes moon orbit with lander in cargo-bay.

Since they have Seadragon with payload of 550 tonnes in TL. that's hauls the propellant tank is the easy part
Looks like NASA wanted to use STS in TL as backbone for there Space Transport infrastructure in LEO-Moon (and beyond ?)
would reduce cost by using one spacecraft, instead of expensive STS, Nuclear Shuttle or Space Tug.
(and that Sony Picture can use stock footage of good old STS, what cheaper as new expensive CGI)

I bet Lunar Shuttle mission rendezvous with Propellent tank launch by Sea Dragon, (is easy way for refuel)

There objected in other Forums why not use Sea Dragon to Moon (with reduce Payload ?)
yes but is SD manned Rated in the Series ? i not saw a crew escape system on SD Launch in end of season 1.

source material
Cislunar Application of the Space Shuttle Orbiter
Project V1086, J. E. Blahnik; undated (post-July 1971)
attachment to memorandum from Director, Science and Applications,
to Manager, Space Shuttle Program, NASA Johnson Space Center, December 14, 1971.

why do i have this sneaking suspicion, that advisors for that Series are regular visitors on this Forum ?
and also at
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forums/secret-space-projects.26/
and
http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.be

Oersted · « **Reply #247 on:** 07/27/2020 06:57 pm »

I think nit-picking this series on grounds of realism misses the point...

Anyway, if the Shuttle could fly out to the Armageddon asteroid I don't see why it shouldn't be able to go on a little jaunt to the Moon and back.

libra · « **Reply #248 on:** 07/27/2020 07:02 pm »

Ah sure, if you run it on unobtainium from Pandora... of course you need to crush those annoying Naav'is...

ugordan · « **Reply #249 on:** 07/27/2020 07:05 pm »

Quote from: Oersted on 07/27/2020 06:57 pm

Anyway, if the Shuttle could fly out to the Armageddon asteroid I don't see why it shouldn't be able to go on a little jaunt to the Moon and back.

If memory serves me (dear god, I think I'm gonna barf), Shuttle(s) did do a "lunar boost", under full power from all engines, without any fuel tanks attached in The Movie I Refuse To Call By Its Name.

Citing that movie as a reference for acceptable "artistic license" is a bridge too far, but maybe it's just me...

FutureSpaceTourist · « **Reply #250 on:** 07/27/2020 09:14 pm »

Quote from: libra on 07/27/2020 04:42 pm

Speculation is fun. Oh, and btw... they did the math. I mean, for real - and for the SEI. In 1991.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910014907.pdf

Maybe FAMK writters watched Moonraker too much ?

Thanks for the link. For convenience here’s the main conclusion in the report summary:

Quote

The results of the analysis indicate that the Shuttle orbiter would be a poor vehicle for payload delivery missions to lunar orbit. The maximum payload to a circular 100 km lunar orbit is only about 3.2 mt. This performance is particularly poor when it is noted that the initial mass in_earth_orbit is in excess of 846 mt. While the analysis indicates that the use of unconventional mission profiles can greatly improve the payload performance, the orbiter is still shown not to be a viable vehicle for payload delivery missions to the lunar vicinity.

I am a bit surprised to see shuttle in season 2. I’d assumed that with Sea Dragon the timeline would have gone rather differently. Hope it gets some sort of explanation in the series but I won’t hold my breath.

FutureSpaceTourist · « **Reply #251 on:** 07/27/2020 09:18 pm »

Trailer on YouTube

Helodriver · « **Reply #252 on:** 07/27/2020 09:44 pm »

Maybe we'll see in this show's Shuttle timeline a variant of the General Dynamics "Early Lunar Access" hardware using Shuttle and Centaur to reach the moon with an Apollo CSM derived lander.

ncb1397 · « **Reply #253 on:** 07/27/2020 10:07 pm »

Space shuttle in this timeline could have different engineering choices made. Early on in the program there was a choice between aluminum construction and titanium construction. That could have affected both weight and delta-v and re-entry velocities. Given the importance of the lunar base and protecting it, the space shuttle could have been designed to bomb soviet lunar bases from a lunar free return trajectory (technically, in the clip it doesn't show it entering lunar orbit but instead returning to earth from unknown prior orbits). Other choices could have been internal cryogenic fuel beyond the fuel cells to supplement the mission post propellant tank staging at the cost of payload bay space. We know that Nixon signed off on the space shuttle design when presented. That never happened obviously as he was never elected, so some other president could have made some other choice in a similar situation especially given the different space environment at the time of the decision (beyond different decisions by both the DoD and NASA at the time).

Beyond that, the size of the earth in the shot isn't totally inconsistent with say a 60,000 mile apogee elliptical earth orbit. Whether or not it actually got anywhere near the moon is up for debate (before getting upset, probably should just watch the thing from start to finish first).

Nibb31 · « **Reply #254 on:** 07/27/2020 10:14 pm »

The Space Shuttle design, with its huge payload bay, ET and SRBs, was a compromise due to budget constraints and military requirements that had nothing to do with the Moon. If it had been designed by a NASA with unlimited budgets and a focus on going to the Moon, it would have been a totally different vehicle, probably smaller, maybe one of the Saturn V variants.

Michel Van · « **Reply #255 on:** 07/28/2020 12:08 am »

i will be damed

but just found the NASA technical memorandum 104084:

Feasibility Analysis of Cislunar flight using the Shuttle Orbiter

by Davy A. Haynes of Langley Research Center 1991

He proposed that Orbiter+ET refueled with 713 metric ton hydrolox near Space station Freedom
using 5-day Hohmann transfers orbiter could arrive in 100 km lunar orbit with 3.2 metric ton of payload.
if Orbiter get more fuel it could bring more payload to Moon orbit.
He point out issue like SSME restart or ET propellant handling and Increase in OMS propellant capacity

Source
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910014907.pdf

libra · « **Reply #256 on:** 07/28/2020 06:47 am »

Quote from: ugordan on 07/27/2020 07:05 pm

Quote from: Oersted on 07/27/2020 06:57 pm
Anyway, if the Shuttle could fly out to the Armageddon asteroid I don't see why it shouldn't be able to go on a little jaunt to the Moon and back.

If memory serves me (dear god, I think I'm gonna barf), Shuttle(s) did do a "lunar boost", under full power from all engines, without any fuel tanks attached in The Movie I Refuse To Call By Its Name.

Citing that movie as a reference for acceptable "artistic license" is a bridge too far, but maybe it's just me...

ROTFL - made my day !

Somebody should pass a law to forbid Michael Bay from making movies. The world would be a (slightly better) place. LMAO.

mme · « **Reply #257 on:** 07/28/2020 06:53 am »

Quote from: Steve G on 07/27/2020 02:24 am

I'm just uneasy about this series' use of real peoples' names. Presidents, maybe, but even in most movies they use fictitious presidents. Then, of course, shuttles to the moon. I wrote a four-novel time travel series and used less of a creative licence than what I've seen. At least I tried to keep the temporal science as real as possible. Of course, they're published, I'm not . . .

The show has done a pretty good job so far (hand waving some tank sizes and/or related propellent/oxidizer uses.) So I am hopeful there will be in orbit refueling or replacement tank. I was hoping they'd skip the Shuttle or radically redesign it but I guess it's to iconic for much of the audience.

MATTBLAK · « **Reply #258 on:** 07/28/2020 07:21 am »

The show corrected many of Apollo's 'mistakes'. I was hoping they'd design the Space Shuttle to be something other than the vehicle we knew and loved. Meaning; no Solid boosters and no lack of escape system for the Shuttle Orbiter. They should have portrayed F-1 powered Flyback boosters and a large, ejectable cockpit cabin much like the F-111's.

ncb1397 · « **Reply #259 on:** 07/28/2020 04:56 pm »

Here is probably the most important chart from the lunar study linked below. The HELO flight profile to a 12 hour lunar orbit has much better payload mass to lunar orbit of 141,670 kg.

But doing my own mini study: A 110,000 kg wet orbiter with a 26,500 kg SLWT fuel tank only needs 181 t of fuel in order to get into HELO and return assuming that you don't have to do a propulsive braking into low earth orbit (with no payload). That second large ~TLI sized burn to enter low earth orbit really hurts the architecture. A realistic architecture would have to use either multi-pass aerobraking or do direct re-entry with an improved heat shield (which in the alternative universe could be the standard heat shield for the program from the beginning). Unfortunately, the payload bay volume of the shuttle was about 300 cubic meters so could only fit about 100 t of fuel in an internal tank. One possibility would be an internal tank and a smaller external tank that is ejected in the middle of the flight to get the ~180 t fuel mass required. Looking at lunar free return requirements without a stop in lunar orbit puts fuel mass required at ~150 t (pretty much Saturn V territory). Alternatively, it would be about 6-8 shuttle launches of fuel depending on orbit and payload carried. The VAB was sized to process 4 space shuttles simultaneously and so you would likely need a second VAB in order to avoid boiloff...and LC-39C/LC-39D would be nice to have as well. Alternatively, a space station (space station freedom?) with the power and equipment to cryocool large amounts of cryogenic propellant would work.

We know in this universe there is a lunar ISRU supplied lunar module that can go up and down from lunar orbit on its own so the shuttle doesn't necessarily need to carry a heavy payload like a lunar lander. It just has to meet up with the lunar lander in lunar orbit with crew/supplies.