Ocean of Storms: A Timeline of A Scientific America
- Thread starter BowOfOrion
- Start date
I completely agree. Having seen a bit of it (I bought a very badly done DVD online a few years ago) I think, like everything else involving space, the public would have much more interest in it in Ocean of Storms.This show,or rather its equivalent,would hopefully last more than 1 season in this timeline:
The Cape (1996 TV series) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I think my biggest stretch of the imagination with OoS is that the American people, after forty years of spaceflight are still as enamored with it as ever. Cale Fletcher is as adored in his time as John Glenn was after Friendship 7.
Personally, I've never understood how the public of OTL ISN'T enamored with spaceflight. It's as baffling to me as quantum physics.
Check the premiere dates.
FAM has Ocean of Storms feels in it!
In all seriousness, FAM does good work (though it's a bit soapy for my taste) and anyone who is bringing attention to space and alternate history at the same time is good for our community. I welcome the comparison.
I think it's actually pretty simple; human beings have an astounding ability to normalise the extraordinary into the mundane. We did it to avoid becoming catatonic in bad times, but unfortunately that means we now fail to appreciate the good.
For example, look at reusability, and how the Falcon 9's changed people's mentality. Reusability isn't extraordinary, it's normal. I've heard that normal people nowadays become shocked hearing that the old Saturns got ditched into the ocean, and from personal experience, my friends mostly get confused as to why it's so revolutionary. They remember the Falcon Heavy double landing (which has become surprisingly well-known imo), but not the previous couple decades. As for the spaceflight community, if a Falcon 9 crashes or gets expended, it's more of an event than a landing.
I agree with you, I do wish that people maintained more interest. But I anticipate people gaining interest again with Artemis, thanks to its novelty, and then losing it. I only hope that NASA can manage to harness that public excitement better than they did during the 60s/70s.
It's not 'personal' to most people. Sure there are benefits and spin offs but "spaceflight" is for a few folks and it's not all that 'regular'. Interesting but not personally important and frankly that's MOST 'frontiers' till you get massive personal buy-in with direct interaction on a personal level. ("What's in it for me" in a way each person can internalize)
I'd very much say that in "Ocean of Storms" people feel a more personal and closer connection to "spaceflight" despite it not being personally interactive.
It has to become mundane to be "normal". If it's always "fantastic" or "extraordinary" then it's too exotic to be normalized. It has to be routine and 'common' to make a personal connection of relevance to the individual.
Reusability is normal and we've known we could do it for decades but it needed to be shown as 'normal' and 'routine' where being expended became the outlier rather than the norm. (Economics are still a question but pubic perception of it being 'routine' helps there too) It's not really 'revolutionary' as much as it's finally becoming routine and normalized rather than the exception. Hence the ability to see it as such.
As long as space is treated as exotic and limited then interest is going to remain a low levels and you can't really change that unless going into space becomes vastly more common and routine. Space has the issue of no existing 'destinations', industries or resource extraction/exploitation services so it's a pretty step cost and opportunity curve over and above any type of transportation we've known before. That makes it very difficult for people to make a personal connection so it remains in the rare, exotic and extraordinary category of interest. It's not a lot different today than it was before, as long as "space" isn't a regular destination or has some personal significance it's "interesting" in the abstract and a good spectacle but it will fade over time as more immediate concerns take precedent.
Till "I was born in Iowa, I work in space" becomes common we're kind of stuck
Randy
There may be two factors at play.
1. Based upon the pre-accident media coverage of Apollo 13, manned spaceships traveling to the Moon had already become 'routine' less than 9 months after Apollo 11.
2. The space program was seen through political lenses by key factions.
a. Monies to NASA were resented by those who wished to spend them domestically. Never mind that those dollars WERE spent domestically.
b. The space program was seen as a part of the Cold War, and those who disapproved of the Cold War also disapproved of the space program.
1. Based upon the pre-accident media coverage of Apollo 13, manned spaceships traveling to the Moon had already become 'routine' less than 9 months after Apollo 11.
2. The space program was seen through political lenses by key factions.
a. Monies to NASA were resented by those who wished to spend them domestically. Never mind that those dollars WERE spent domestically.
b. The space program was seen as a part of the Cold War, and those who disapproved of the Cold War also disapproved of the space program.
A bit more complicated actually. The Lunar program was expensive and intensive enough that it was pretty much ALL NASA focused on which were causing issues in other areas like science and aviation. Further Apollo was a very focused program that had only one goal, put men on the Moon and bring them back, and had no mandate or expectation for more beyond that. And we'd done that with Apollo 11, proved it was not a fluke with Apollo 12 had Apollo 13 not failed it's likely the program would have been even more cut-back even sooner. It wasn't that space was 'routine' it was that the spectacle was gone and we seemed to just be repeating ourselves.
Because there was another background problem: NASA with the Apollo 1 fire had embarrassed Congress and called into question the whole program which was built on the "legacy" of JFK. Prior to the fire Congress was questioning the expense of the whole program, (heck JFK had second thoughts about it and he'd been desperate to find ANYTHING other than going to the Moon to challenge the Soviet propaganda lead but only the Moon landing looked viable) but due to it being a goal from a "martyred" dead-President they couldn't really do anything. Pile on top that by the point Apollo really ramped up we'd already "beaten" the Soviets publicly with Gemini and many in the public and government were questioning the idea of "Space Race" at all.
The fire gave Congress an opening and they took it. Yes the couldn't endanger the Moon landing but they could now nip around the edges and trim back NASA's ambition which is what they did. Yes one of the 'justifications' was where the money was being spent since it obviously benefited certain States and not others, (and certain NASA centers over others which is why the Shuttle program was so widely dispersed)
In the public the space program was seen as a distraction from social and other issues that were frankly more immediate and therefore more important so the spending and effort was resented and opposed in favor of those more immediate issues. This worked well as justification for more Congressional cuts and so on.
In the end Apollo was a victim of it's own success, as was NASA which had rebuilt itself from the earlier NACA model into an agency dependent on a "Next Big Program" model where they assumed a major budget and support and a single focusing goal to move forward. And that was not how the future was going to be. (NASA still has a hard time with this reality
) The Shuttle was supposed to make spaceflight "routine" but it became "the program of record" and then the ISS and it has not been until very recently that "spaceflight" in general has actually become closer to routine. It's still not really there though you could argue it is for unmanned launches those also don't garner as much 'support' as manned ones. We need many more people "on-orbit" at at time and more routine access and use of orbital space which will build up to operations in Cis-Lunar space and then beyond. Meanwhile we still need to have 'spectaculars" of sending people further and further out to explore.
That's part of the 'draw' and excitement of time lines such as this. Here while one set of people push the boundaries further out another builds the infrastructure, resources an knowledge base to make it function as more than just a frontier.
Keep up the good work BowofOrion
Randy
It's ALWAYS more complicated.A bit more complicated actually. The Lunar program was expensive and intensive enough that it was pretty much ALL NASA focused on which were causing issues in other areas like science and aviation. Further Apollo was a very focused program that had only one goal, put men on the Moon and bring them back, and had no mandate or expectation for more beyond that. And we'd done that with Apollo 11, proved it was not a fluke with Apollo 12 had Apollo 13 not failed it's likely the program would have been even more cut-back even sooner. It wasn't that space was 'routine' it was that the spectacle was gone and we seemed to just be repeating ourselves.
Because there was another background problem: NASA with the Apollo 1 fire had embarrassed Congress and called into question the whole program which was built on the "legacy" of JFK. Prior to the fire Congress was questioning the expense of the whole program, (heck JFK had second thoughts about it and he'd been desperate to find ANYTHING other than going to the Moon to challenge the Soviet propaganda lead but only the Moon landing looked viable) but due to it being a goal from a "martyred" dead-President they couldn't really do anything. Pile on top that by the point Apollo really ramped up we'd already "beaten" the Soviets publicly with Gemini and many in the public and government were questioning the idea of "Space Race" at all.
The fire gave Congress an opening and they took it. Yes the couldn't endanger the Moon landing but they could now nip around the edges and trim back NASA's ambition which is what they did. Yes one of the 'justifications' was where the money was being spent since it obviously benefited certain States and not others, (and certain NASA centers over others which is why the Shuttle program was so widely dispersed)
In the public the space program was seen as a distraction from social and other issues that were frankly more immediate and therefore more important so the spending and effort was resented and opposed in favor of those more immediate issues. This worked well as justification for more Congressional cuts and so on.
In the end Apollo was a victim of it's own success, as was NASA which had rebuilt itself from the earlier NACA model into an agency dependent on a "Next Big Program" model where they assumed a major budget and support and a single focusing goal to move forward. And that was not how the future was going to be. (NASA still has a hard time with this reality
The Shuttle was supposed to make spaceflight "routine" but it became "the program of record" and then the ISS and it has not been until very recently that "spaceflight" in general has actually become closer to routine. It's still not really there though you could argue it is for unmanned launches those also don't garner as much 'support' as manned ones. We need many more people "on-orbit" at at time and more routine access and use of orbital space which will build up to operations in Cis-Lunar space and then beyond. Meanwhile we still need to have 'spectaculars" of sending people further and further out to explore.
That's part of the 'draw' and excitement of time lines such as this. Here while one set of people push the boundaries further out another builds the infrastructure, resources an knowledge base to make it function as more than just a frontier.
Keep up the good work BowofOrion
Randy
Thanks
You can watch it all on Youtube:
I forgot to share this with you all. I came upon this image a couple of years ago and I set it aside, knowing that I'd want to make it a part of Ocean of Storms at some point down the line (this happens a lot).
I loved Shadows of the Empire and it would have been really fun to see it brought to life in some grander way.
I loved Shadows of the Empire and it would have been really fun to see it brought to life in some grander way.
Hello, my dear readers.
Yesterday, I fulfilled a goal I've had for 30 years and I got to visit Johnson Space Center. I got to walk through the MOCR, sit in the commander's seat of SAIL, and watch the screens in ISS Mission Control.
I don't usually post personal matters here, but I can't think of any other group I'd rather share this experience with than all of you. The following are some of the images I recorded. I'll be happy to explain and expand for anyone who wants more information on JSC.
Me in the CDR seat of SAIL
In the original MOCR - restored to it's Apollo glory days
The ISS Mission Control
The Independence (my 2nd time aboard as she used to be housed at Kennedy)
A perfectly good Saturn V sitting in a building. Things like this were a big inspiration for Ocean of Storms. It's always amazing to me that we had perfectly good rockets to go to the Moon and didn't use them. In OoS, this is a well-done replica, not a usable model.
This isn't impressive, but, if I read my maps right, this parking lot would be the site of the new Mission Control Center in OoS (The Ziggurat).
I stood there, realizing where I was, and I could almost picture it.
Yesterday, I fulfilled a goal I've had for 30 years and I got to visit Johnson Space Center. I got to walk through the MOCR, sit in the commander's seat of SAIL, and watch the screens in ISS Mission Control.
I don't usually post personal matters here, but I can't think of any other group I'd rather share this experience with than all of you. The following are some of the images I recorded. I'll be happy to explain and expand for anyone who wants more information on JSC.
Me in the CDR seat of SAIL
In the original MOCR - restored to it's Apollo glory days
The ISS Mission Control
The Independence (my 2nd time aboard as she used to be housed at Kennedy)
A perfectly good Saturn V sitting in a building. Things like this were a big inspiration for Ocean of Storms. It's always amazing to me that we had perfectly good rockets to go to the Moon and didn't use them. In OoS, this is a well-done replica, not a usable model.
This isn't impressive, but, if I read my maps right, this parking lot would be the site of the new Mission Control Center in OoS (The Ziggurat).
I stood there, realizing where I was, and I could almost picture it.
Eh we didn't though. The Saturn V was good but expensive, worse we weren't going to get anymore (thanks to Congress) but we could get Presidential support for some form of less expensive launch system which was supposed to be the Shuttle. (Unfortunately Congress and OMB had a say there)
We are only now seeing a level of access and availability comparable to what we've always needed but again Congress has a big say in HOW we do things so we're inevitably get a side track with a government built and operated launcher (SLS, there's a reason it's called the "Senate Launch System" after all
) and an attempt to repeat Apollo (on the cheap) because that uses the government infrastructure and organization to a maximum extent. Keep in mind that Congress as a whole (less some specific individuals) is still very hostile to "commercial" operations and would love to see them go away. They are pretty much just as hostile to NASA Lunar and Mars aspirations, but that's budgetary and institutional at this point I suspect.The biggest issue of any "post-Apollo" timeline is finding a reason for a more supportive Congress AND finding a way to trim back NASA ambitions to a reasonable level. You happen to have done an excellent job
Randy
Be still my beating heart. If only someone would go back and do this.
Commercial Spaceflight won´t go away anymore, they really should concentrate on regulating the commercial launchers to ensure their safety, safe launch and landing sites, the avoidance of space debris etc. etc. Commercial Space won´t go away, but there needs to be national control over it to prevent it from getting out of control. Things like Starliner and the Starship testflight show that off. I am fascinated by starship to, but Musk shouldn´t have gotten his way to use that Texas facility as a launch site for Starship at all. There were reasons why that area was only authorized for some Falcon 9 testing in the first place, not for launching the largest rocken in the history of humanity. I wouldn´t have liked to risk the historical pads of LC 39 endangered by it, but why not find another site in florida? There are so many former launch complexes on that coast, i am pretty shure it would be possible to arrange the construction of a much better suited Starship facility there. And yes: Musk has a lot of power out of the fact that the US would be incapable to support the international part of the ISS without SpaceX´s cooperation, but still: Musk needs the NASA money as much as NASA needs their capability´s. So on the bottom line i don´t see a reason why musk should get his way?
Oh and the new decision regarding to the second HLS Lander is, in my eyes, another example for an attempt of Congress and the OMB to sabotage NASA successfull cooperation with new Space Company´s. Alpaca would have been the better and much less complicated version... and it´s dev cycle was planned to be completed next year if they would have gotten the contract that Starship got two years ago, but they never stopped working on that thing. There IS a chance that this thing would have been ready for a crew in 2026-2027, fully reusable and designed from a company that has a long history of successfull operations. Instead they choose the contract that needs a lot more new systems to be built, needs multiple LV´s that have never flown etc. etc., it was the offer that´s more expensive in the first place, ..... it could go on and on. In my eyes there are no real technical reasons for that decision and i don´t feel like NASA has had it´s way in that decision. I think that the guys in Congress thought: Okay, we can get multiple things at once when we choose Blue Origin and friends: 1st No more lawsuits against the decision. 2nd Another project to block so much money that NASA can be forced to cut loose other projects. 3rd Another project that will probably perform so pourly that there will come a point where nobody would be surprised if it get´s cancelled after all. And 4th: Keeping Dynetics out of the really large contracts for some more time....
Yes, originally; hence why they had a massive environmental review preceding the launch to update that authorisation to Starship.
Because Florida, at least around KSC, is congested as is. They're already having significant difficulties with getting launch availability in the area for Falcon 9, since they have to close the airspace so often, so it makes sense to go for another area when they're trying to launch at their own pace.
My understanding is that Alpaca was equal to, or lesser, than the National Team's new lander in many technical aspects. However, I'm not certain of that, so anyone feel free to correct me.
But I'm not sure what you're saying about the National Team's offer being more expensive than Alpaca, that has never been the case afaik.
One could argue that "commercial" space started with Soyuz actually
"Commercial Spaceflight" is very much a creation of NASA for NASA and came about because a certain Administrator was looking for a way to stop supporting the ISS in order to focus on Mars. And while Congress wanted an "SDLV" so as to ensure that contracts would go to certain areas and companies they were (and actually remain) very hostile to "other" commercial providers. (Less so once those same providers start providing "incentives" in the form of campaign contributions ) Actually most space advocate groups would prefer that Congress remain "out" of providing regulation to launch providers as would most providers since Congress has a habit of strangling opportunities with regulation when they DO get involved.Which is kind of why Congress tossed the ball to the FAA in the first place
What's really needed is actual commercial destinations for actual commercial space flights but those are only slowly coming on-line. Currently the government and government services are going to remain the main driver for development for the near future.
Ah yes the one that concluded that the environment was not really conducive to launching Starship from Boca Chica and recommended that SpaceX go to the Cape where they already had permission and an effective environmental authorization. There were numerous points made in the assessment that SpaceX would have to meet before they could launch, pretty much none of which SpaceX even bothered to address.
Now SpaceX is building and installing systems for which they have no clearance, no permissions and have been denied and opposed (mostly because SpaceX has never submitted any plans or even outlines for the work or addressing the requirements and regulations already in place) by the organizations that have the power to deny them launch clearance even if the FAA does so. Ya this disaster is going to be something to see.
Boca Chica was never supposed to be this built up but SpaceX wanted someplace where they would not be subject to regulation or restriction and hoped Texas would override any Federal attempts to regulate them. Not at all the smartest move.
Starship has issues on almost every level being economically as well as technically questionable. What we need is a Model 271/DC-2/3 equivalent to LEO not a 747. We technically have that with the Falcon's already and arguably a fully reusable Falcon would have been a better idea but Musk is obsessed with Mars (and the Mars Direct architecture) so that's why he's going with Starship.
So the chose a place with limited launch azimuths, which is unable to support a high launch cadence and is not environmentally or structurally able to support launches of this size.... Not to mention requires shutting down airspace and shipping on an international level for every flight? Smart.
And now that SpaceX has demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of what they are doing on the most basic levels they are now actively denied access to the Cape without showing advanced planning AND testing of a systems and infrastructure to mitigate the known and understood (for anybody that bothered to look anyway) issues with launching such a large vehicle because NASA feels that without such they would endanger not only current ISS operations but much of the Cape's infrastructure and facilities.
To be clear, SpaceX was well aware of the requirements that would be needed to launch from Boca Chica having shown when the 'plan' was launching Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, (which to be clear was never actually the "plan" from the beginning) where they included raising the launch platform and installing a flame trench and water deluge system. Yet they dropped all such plans once they decided to launch a vehicle 10 times more powerful. And in a place where there are even more restrictions and issues, but in the hope they can just ignore all that and launch whenever they want to.
Understand that while current ISS operations "depend" on SpaceX cooperation that such 'cooperation' does not ensure that SpaceX will not be fined and restricted if they continue to defy Federal authority, regulation and common sense. There are other options on the table at this point and there will be more options as time goes on.
Alpaca's main problem was that it had negative mass margin to start with and though they were trying to reduce that mass the design (as of yet) still does not close. The National Team lander initially closed but had had technical issues along with cost issues that had to be addressed before it could be considered. Hence why NASA used 'study' money to grant both teams additional time to close those issues.
SpaceX 'won' the competition really on the grounds it was the only offering that 'fit' into the budget for a Lander given by Congress. (Which was only about half what NASA had requested) And that only after they 're-bid' their offering which was one of the protests by the National Team since no one else was offered the chance to re-bid. (And again there were other issues to address) SpaceX's design offered a lot of possibilities but frankly none of them are as 'near-term' considering the current status of Starship development which is why NASA choose a second lander design which is what they wanted from the start.(Congress is kind of stuck with having 'supported' Artemis they now have to actually monetarily support it to the needed degree, hence they had to up the lander budget enough to fit a second lander design) With other launch options available likely before Starship is along with another lander option NASA has a vastly more likely chance to meet the goals of Artemis that they do with Starship alone.
The main take away from this is that by having a second option NASA now has more leverage to get SpaceX to buckle down and be serious about development if they want to continue to get government money for Starship development.
Randy
According to the FAA's own website "Prior to 2014, space operations were relatively infrequent and the FAA accommodated them on an as needed basis by closing relatively large volumes of airspace for extended periods of time. Today, as the pace of space launches and reentries is increasing, the FAA is directly involved in the airspace planning process and is using technology and operating procedures to"
Basically, they're cutting how long it's closed and working on new tech to work on it. The problem is, you have a limited amount of really good launch sites, as I understand it, and building a new one is not cheap or quick.
Ya the Cape was and is a pretty regular place to launch from and there's no real problems with sealing off the airspace for a launch. The problem is that working with organizations other than NASA has put the FAA in a situation where they are often the sole "authority" and they haven't had the budget or organization to do more than cursory work in a lot of cases.
Well it's not cheap or quick if you do it right at any rate
And no there's a limited set of choices especially as you get higher in power and possibly consequences.Randy