• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

For All Mankind - Apple TV Series

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,787
Reaction score
4,008
OMFG 1983 really got weird ITTL... no spoilers from me. Just that "Pioneering the space frontier" 1986 report is probably toast...
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,072
Reaction score
1,577
Episode 7 was impressive

Buran is biggest Surprise in Serie
Instead to spend zillion of Rubels and years delay in Development on Soviet Shuttle
The AH Soviets copycat the US shuttle
save allot of time and money

but why they need FOUR full sized SRB and why they build it launch site on Sakhalin island ?
i know it for story sake, but why would put the Soviet there newest program there ?
 

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,494
Reaction score
1,047
The latest episode 8 started good, but became boring onwards. So I skipped the relationship scenes ( as for one example "The Graduate aka Mrs. Robinson" scene).
But we get a 3-view drawing of the "Pathfinder", which will be armed with AIM-54 "Phoenix" as ASAT missiles. In the end scene first gun shots fell on the moon.
 

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,494
Reaction score
1,047
Molly might have here her final flight, because in the first episode of season 2 she spent nearly one hour under high-energy solar radiation while rescuing a Dutch astronaut. She is now losing her eye vision (glaucoma). So she will probably die due to cancer within the next few years, if the story tellers don't give her a heroic exit as a "grande dame".;)
View: https://youtu.be/rZvLaH2Iqvg

In the end scene first gun shots fell on the moon. The one cosmonaut burning in his spacesuit after being shot is quite gruesome. :eek:
View: https://youtu.be/kFWIuJDLddc

( But I am not a space expert to really know if this would happen to a human body in reality.)
 

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,494
Reaction score
1,047
Are they really attempting to put AIM-54 on the SPACECRAFT?
Yes, as quoted from this episode, there will be four AIM-54 ASAT missiles, which are based on the AIM-54C, stored in the cargo bay. No pictures of them stored in the cargo bay or even launched so far.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,287
Reaction score
797
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
If they are on the payload bay, the AIM-54 has a rocket engine (so it could work in space) and radars also work n space so... why not ?

...Because:

* Their aerodynamic surfaces did not work in space at all, so no guidance is possible.
* Their electronics and engines aren't exactly made to work without cooling atmosphere outside, so they would most likely overheat immediately.
* Their autopilot systems are not suited for calculating non-aerodynamical, ballistic interception trajectories, which means that they could not hit anything by definition (the missile simply is not prepared for the situation, when its direction of flight is independent of its orientation)
* Their accuracy most likely not suitable for interceptions on the closing velocities order of magnitude higher than any atmospheric ones.
* What the point of using radar in space? Infrared is much more efficient here.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,287
Reaction score
797
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Are they really attempting to put AIM-54 on the SPACECRAFT?
Yes, as quoted from this episode, there will be four AIM-54 ASAT missiles, which are based on the AIM-54C, stored in the cargo bay. No pictures of them stored in the cargo bay or even launched so far.
...Its so stupid, that it almost painful... (moaning)
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,072
Reaction score
1,577
..Its so stupid, that it almost painful... (moaning)
jep there some stuff that just McGuffins
like Shuttle to Moon (how to Hell they get them from Low to Lunar Orbit ???)

the AIM-54 need hell of modifications to work in space including launch ejector form cargo bay
I'm afraid that those AIM-54 will simply aim on target position and launch

For rest good episode (except the miss Robinson stuff)
back story Cobb see in TV News about Attack on US soldiers in Panama
And Oh bloody Hell what of ending in that Episode...
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,287
Reaction score
797
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
like Shuttle to Moon (how to Hell they get them from Low to Lunar Orbit ???)

It may be theoretically possible to fit enough additional fuel tanks into cargo hold (or a full-scale cryogenic engine stage) to boost Shuttle to the Moon, but there is literally no point of doing so, yes. And Shuttle could not even theoretically made a re-entry from Lunar-Earth trajectory, its heat shielding would not handle the additional heat load.

the AIM-54 need hell of modifications to work in space including launch ejector form cargo bay
I'm afraid that those AIM-54 will simply aim on target position and launch
Even this would most likely not work; I doubt that AIM-54 engine have balanced enough thrust for such function outside atmosphere.

I think, that in 1980s they would most likely use HOE interceptor:

1618039657610.png

Or, if some kind of jury-rigged system is required (budget cuts :) ), the simplified astronaut's MMU, fitted with a infrared seeker, shrapnel warhead, and a pack of solid-fuel boosters behind would be better solution.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,787
Reaction score
4,008
Well admittedly they should have put ASM-135 instead... now that's a missile build to fight in space !
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,287
Reaction score
797
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Well admittedly they should have put ASM-135 instead... now that's a missile build to fight in space !
Yes, it would be closer. I'd say the optimal solution would be upper stage of ASM-135 fitted with storable liquid-fuel stage, capable of providing more delta-v for more complex maneuvering.

1618041103221.png
 

jeffb

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
219
Reaction score
148
You have to wonder why missiles at all. Target trajectories aren't that complicated are they?

Fire up the PDC's?

1618047493315.png
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,072
Reaction score
1,577
It may be theoretically possible to fit enough additional fuel tanks into cargo hold (or a full-scale cryogenic engine stage) to boost Shuttle to the Moon, but there is literally no point of doing so, yes. And Shuttle could not even theoretically made a re-entry from Lunar-Earth trajectory, its heat shielding would not handle the additional heat load.
i think that a Seadragon launch propellant tanks into Low orbit were Shuttle dock and use that for TLI
Reentry would be two phase first aerobreak into low orbit, then heat-shield cool down, follow by standard reentry.

Well admittedly they should have put ASM-135 instead
Bedford mention another missile system, that will be ready soon, do he mean ASM-135 ?

Fire up the PDC's?
I think that Soviet will put in Buran a Rikhter R-23 auto canon (installed in Salut 3 )
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,287
Reaction score
797
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
i think that a Seadragon launch propellant tanks into Low orbit were Shuttle dock and use that for TLI
Reentry would be two phase first aerobreak into low orbit, then heat-shield cool down, follow by standard reentry.

Possible, but very complicated, and again, why use Shuttle, not a specific pure-space craft?

I think that Soviet will put in Buran a Rikhter R-23 auto canon (installed in Salut 3 )

Or we could just boost our IS (Istrebitel Sputnikov) automated interceptor crafts on Luna orbit, and let's "military shuttle" play against automatic torpedoes with much more delta-v (heh) :)
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,287
Reaction score
797
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
You have to wonder why missiles at all. Target trajectories aren't that complicated are they?

Distances and trajectories, as well as mobility of the target, strongly in favor of guided, or beam weaponry in space. Let's not forget, 1000 km distance in space is a close combat.
 

jeffb

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
219
Reaction score
148
You have to wonder why missiles at all. Target trajectories aren't that complicated are they?

Distances and trajectories, as well as mobility of the target, strongly in favor of guided, or beam weaponry in space. Let's not forget, 1000 km distance in space is a close combat.

Not sure I agree with that. Trajectories are essentially ballistic and largely fixed. Target mobility is actually quite low if you consider that firing your RCS system merely telegraphs where you're going to be.
Missile guidance systems have any number of counters, right down to good old chaff. Bullets, not so much.

Have to agree with Michel Van on this one (mostly because the Soviets have obviously already done the math)

Michel Van said:

I think that Soviet will put in Buran a Rikhter R-23 auto canon (installed in Salut 3 )
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,287
Reaction score
797
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Not sure I agree with that. Trajectories are essentially ballistic and largely fixed.
Assuming that target would not move even a bit.
Target mobility is actually quite low if you consider that firing your RCS system merely telegraphs where you're going to be.
And? If you are firing at target with unguided projectiles, as you suggested -

You have to wonder why missiles at all. Target trajectories aren't that complicated are they?

Fire up the PDC's?

- then your current attack failed immediately since target waltzed out of your projectiles interception point. You are forced to launch new attack. And if the target is firing back with more efficient (guided, or beam weapon), your ship would be disabled long before target would run out of reaction mass.

Missile guidance systems have any number of counters, right down to good old chaff. Bullets, not so much.

That's why the most efficient way to guide missile, is to put infrared telescope on it, and exchange data with the ship, to discriminate flares by their shape & excessive brightness.

Have to agree with Michel Van on this one (mostly because the Soviets have obviously already done the math)

In reality, while USSR installed gun as self-defense measure on Salut station, the real Istrebitel Sputnikov was big fast killer robot missile, with big supply of delta-v, capable of countering target attempts to avoid interception.


1618124268255.png
 

jeffb

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
219
Reaction score
148
Yes. On second thoughts, you're almost certainly right. A quick back of the envelope calculation suggests you'd need to throw a hell of a lot of lead to hit anything at 1x10^6 m, even if it was a ~400 sq m target.

That said, something like a shuttle is not going to be very damage tolerant.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,287
Reaction score
797
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
That said, something like a shuttle is not going to be very damage tolerant.

Most likely no. It could probably survive some shrapnel hits to forward-upper hull, as long as nothing vital is hit (and assuming that crew would manage to patch the holes), but hits to bottom would scar the thermal protection, and rear hits would disable the engines.
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,072
Reaction score
1,577
Possible, but very complicated, and again, why use Shuttle, not a specific pure-space craft?
mostly matter of cost
The Original plan of Intergrated Program Plan of 1968 demanded Space Shuttle and Earth orbit Shuttles with a NERVA engine
But IPP cost around 500 billion dollar, no one in Capitol Hill wanted to pay in 1968, also not his successor S.E.I in 1989 with 400 billion dollars.

This Time Line seem have same resistance, let NASA to option Seadragon and Shuttle to Moon.
In fact during Own time line early 1970 and 1990s were studies made to bring the Shuttle into Moon orbit
see earlier post here

 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,287
Reaction score
797
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
mostly matter of cost

Well, then the simplest solution would be Shuttle-based specific pure space craft. Without wings, without thermal shielding, with main engines dropped away after boost. Essentially a Shuttle hull, stripped down to space essentials.

USSR actually have similar idea with Buran:

1618146738769.png
1618146758251.png

Those are suggested military spacecrafts with nuclear space-to-ground payload in their cargo bays.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,287
Reaction score
797
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Made some calculations. Assuming Shuttle as 100 ton total mass (78 tons of orbiter, 22 tons of cargo), we need about 4 km/s delta-V to move from LEO to LMO.

* If we use OMS engines with isp=316, but which work on storable fuel - we need circa 260 tons of fuel added.

* If we use SME engines with isp=452, but which work on cryogenic fuel - we need only about 150 tons of LOX/H2 added.

Frankly, a very bad proposition. Especially considering that we need at least 0,82 km/s to return from Moon to Earth (assuming that we could make aerobraking on Shuttle, which probably would require a lot of additional heat shielding - or inflatable aeroshield)
 

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,494
Reaction score
1,047
Last edited:

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
355
Reaction score
488

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,787
Reaction score
4,008
This is not the familiar shuttle and most importantly it has a "nuclear drive" hopefully with much better specific impulse...
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,287
Reaction score
797
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
This is not the familiar shuttle and most importantly it has a "nuclear drive" hopefully with much better specific impulse...

And? No matter how more efficient nuclear thermal drive is (and more efficient drives would leave near-catastrophic fallout), it would still be unable to haul such shuttle on orbit. To replace the 760+ tons of external tanks with at most 100 tons of internal tanks of this "fatshuttle", the isp should be driven to literally ridiculous parameters.

Not to mention, we have upper limit; the max cargo mass of Galaxy is 127 tons. Even if we lighten the plane as far as possible (get rid of landing wheels, and put on only enough fuel to climb on launch height - i.e. single-use plane) we could not possibly put on more than 200 tons of "fatshuttle".

So even we assume that the "fatshuttle" is as heavy as original Shuttle - which is plainly impossible, because big fat wings would requite strengthening and additional thermal protection, not to mention reactor shielding - we would have 100 tons of "fatshuttle" and 100 tons of fuel. Thus to reach 9,3 km/s delta-v for LEO, we need isp = 1450 m/s!

This is far outside of solid nuclear rockets, and requires liquid-core or gas-core nuclear rocket. Which are not only incredibly complex and problematic to even design, but running in Earth atmosphere, would cause fallout of terrifying proportions.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,287
Reaction score
797
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
P.S. Also, nuclear drives have... problem, when used as first stages. They have less thrust than chemical rockets. The reason is simple - low mass flow. The chemical rocket burn heavy fuel in heavy oxidizer, creating very heavy exhaust gases. It threw A LOT of mass behind.

Nuclear rocket, working, presumably, on relatively light hydrogen (because you do NOT want liquid oxygen in the overheated uranium reactor!), could not manage such flow. The thrust would be lower. And when you are moving through atmosphere...
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,787
Reaction score
4,008
Mostly agree. Unless they have invented pulsed NTR, a TRIGA / NERVA hybrid... the fourth state of NTR: beyond solid liquid and gaseous. 5000 to 13000 seconds, should be enough.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,287
Reaction score
797
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Mostly agree. Unless they have invented pulsed NTR, a TRIGA / NERVA hybrid... the fourth state of NTR: beyond solid liquid and gaseous. 5000 to 13000 seconds, should be enough.

They could avoid all the problem just by putting a drop tanks on "fatshuttle". Which, frankly, should not even exist at all. Why they need shuttle, if they have humongous Sea Dragon launcher? And even the shuttle program would be implemented in this timeline too - it would almost certainty be different, close to the original suggestions (i.e. not a winged space station, but merely a re-usable rocket that boost payload on orbit and immediately dive back into atmosphere).

Frankly, the second season of FAM is a total disappointment.
 

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,494
Reaction score
1,047
IMHO a great review.
View: https://youtu.be/efjp5KZB-vk

The Pathfinder will join Sea Dragon in earth orbit, either just to refeul there or so both space ships go together to the moon. I can't wait to see those scenes in the final episode, even if these scenes will be so unrealistic as dilandu predicts.
There is a Star Trek quote in this episode, but since I grew up with TNG, DS9 and VOY, I didn't notice it. So I concure before the final episode, that season 1 was better than this season 2. :confused:
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,072
Reaction score
1,577
Finally some answers
they refuel on a space station, only question which one Skylab or Fuel depot ?

WTF launch from C-5 and direct using High Thrust Nuclear engine ?! o_O
A C-5 can carry 750,000 lb (340,194 kg) at 41,000 ft (12,000 m)
THERE START UP A NERVA ENGINE AT 12 KM ?! :eek:
All Studies and Proposals goes for 60 ~ 80 km or even only orbital for Nuclear Engine use
But Not so low in Atmosphere !

for rest a Fantastic Episode with cliff-hanger that shocked !
 
Last edited:

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,028
Reaction score
2,457
Getting tense. Though I don’t see how they could have got caught with their pants down in the last scene.
 
Top