Royal Space Force

[uk 75]

Apart from on the pages of Eagle comic there is no such thing as the Royal Space Force.
1957 ;saw not just the infamous Sandys White Paper but also the launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union.
PM Macmillan and Defence Secretary Sandys realise how vulnerable this makes the West and Britain in particular.
They are not alone, retired Prine Miniater Churchill and his friend anf scientific adviser Lord Cherwell-Professor Lindeman have been meeting with members of the British Interplanetary Society. They agree that.Britain needs a force of Sputniks armed with the new *Super Bomb" (H Bomb).
Rather than entrust this to the existing aervices. Churchill proposes establishing a Spacefleet to be known as the Royal Space Force (RSF). He even puts himself forward to Macmillan as First Space Lord.
Macmillan sees the new organisation as a way of reducing overall defence expenditurr by having an invulnerable deterrent in space or even on the moon. The Australian Prime Minister, Sir Rober Menzies, agrees and suggests that the RSF be based at Woomera.
Work on an orbital nuclear weapon to be launched by Blue Streak from Woomera begins at once. Lindeman suggests a manned orbital station would be a better.way deploying nuclear weapons under human control. Work begins on the boringly named OP (Orbital Platform) One.
The US and the Soviet Union react angrily at first to the militarisation of space, even though they botg have a similar programnes, exrending as far as the Moon. Macmillan reassures both Eisenhower and Kruschev that once OP1 is deployed the UK will decommission its V bombers. OP1 will only carry sufficient nuclear weapons to destroy five major cities in responae to.any threat to London and four other UK cities (Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow and Bristol).
General Curtis Le May tells "Bing" Cross he thinks the idea is "crazy" and urges Cross to argue for the retention of the V bombers.
By 1962 the first nuclear payload modules have been develped and their warheads (Violet Blush) tested at Christmas Island. OP1.has begun construction from components launched by Blue Streak. It will have a 2 man crew, though will also be able to operate automatically. Mercury capsules will be used initially for crew transfers.

 

[Dilandu]

The idea looks interesting, but there are obvious problems with such concept:

* Long reaction time - uness the satellites have a very big ammount of delta-v, they could strike targets only along their orbital path. To hit any specific target with specific bomb, you would need to wait a long time - hours, or even days - till the bomb orbit intersect with it close enough. So unless you are content with hitting any target of opportunity, the only eolution is to have A LOT of bombs on orbit.

* Vulnerability - orbiting bombs could be attacked by nuclear-tipped surface-launched missiles relatively easily. While "active" bombs (i.e. the ones ordered to strike targets) could use decoys and chaffs to avoid being destroyed, the bombs in "waiting" mode could not - the enemy could just filter the decoys after prolonged observation. So the bombs are quite vulnerable to enemy pre-emptive strikes.

* Maintenance - nuclear bombs didn't exactly last forever. They require periodic maintenance - and how exactly orbiting bombs would be serviced? The only practial solution is to de-orbit and land the bomb, and this would require it to be re-launched.

 

[Archibald]

Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(sorry, couldn't resist !)

 

[scautomoton]

Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(sorry, couldn't resist !)

Love that film, although I thought the UK censors were right to remove the assault scene, it didn't really bring anything to the party. But loved all the alternate takes on everyday things like the money, TV screen shape, car design and do on.

 

[Nik]

Don't Forget the British Interplanetary Society, who devised a plausible Moon-mission in ~1938, hastily re-worked it to use liquid fuel after the first pics of V2's turbo-pump wreckage were published...

IIRC, there's an apt 'short' by AC Clarke in which the UK Space Force put missile silos on Moon to match the US & USSR bases. Where-as the rivals dig-in deeply, the 'budget' UK base is on the surface barring a small 'flare' storm-cellar. They only bury their silos Still, unclear how many actually hold missiles. Holes are cheap once you've delivered the rig, but missiles take a lot of expensive mass-haul....
Brits let it be known that their missiles will auto-launch if base suddenly depressurises, such as due assault or bombardment....

IIRC, this base subsequently bluffs the USSR contingent who've survived a nuclear exchange...
Bit like the 'Dirty Harry' scene, went something like, 'Now, did I fire five ? Or six ?? Are you feeling lucky ???"

 

[Dilandu]

Specifically about the suggested idea:

* A single manned space station on low orbit would be BOTH vulnerable to enemy first strike AND slow to react. It would took a lot of time till the target would be alongside station orbit track.

* Its absolutely impossible for UK to be able to start actually building the space station by 1962. You would need to squeeze in mere five years (1957-1962) not only the sucsessful British spaceflight program, but also outstep both USA and USSR in space technology development.

* Mercury is useless as crew delivery craft without such massive re-engineering, that it would be cheaper to just design a new ship from scratch. Seriously, Mercury did not have delta-v for any kind of complex maneuvering, it have no resources for staying in space (even docked with station) for any prolonged time, and it have no docking capability at all.

 

[zen]

Putting aside the unlikeliness of this....
It's more logical to continue with the pyramid reentry vehicle for recovery of personnel.

The options seem more logical in either:-

a) a series of orbital platforms which can launch earthwards.
Expensive but flexible.
Knocking one down would trigger the others to launch as their orbits crossed the target.
This requires quite a constellation.

b) a high stationary orbit over the prime target. But this does risk war during it's placement and is vulnerable until inserted.

 

[mrhopkins83]

The idea looks interesting, but there are obvious problems with such concept:

* Long reaction time - uness the satellites have a very big ammount of delta-v, they could strike targets only along their orbital path. To hit any specific target with specific bomb, you would need to wait a long time - hours, or even days - till the bomb orbit intersect with it close enough. So unless you are content with hitting any target of opportunity, the only eolution is to have A LOT of bombs on orbit.

* Vulnerability - orbiting bombs could be attacked by nuclear-tipped surface-launched missiles relatively easily. While "active" bombs (i.e. the ones ordered to strike targets) could use decoys and chaffs to avoid being destroyed, the bombs in "waiting" mode could not - the enemy could just filter the decoys after prolonged observation. So the bombs are quite vulnerable to enemy pre-emptive strikes.

* Maintenance - nuclear bombs didn't exactly last forever. They require periodic maintenance - and how exactly orbiting bombs would be serviced? The only practial solution is to de-orbit and land the bomb, and this would require it to be re-launched.

I’ve met us. We evidently aren’t opposed to making a lot of bombs. By funding the incredibly high cost of making and supporting contractors making nukes. Contractors to do rapid space lift. Check. We legitimately consider moon bases. Check. contractors plus expansion via great power competition. Imagine if we had a spaceplane for orbital nuke station keeping. We could make it look like Buran. Of conspiracy theory type thinking, which this definitely is, I would put it closer to the government spies on it's citizens with the internet than jet fuel doesn’t burn that hot.

 

[uk 75]

Thanks everyone, especially Dilandu, for joining in this thread.
I just wanted to set a "Royal Space Force" thread rolling.
I was also inspired by the excellent Ministry of Space comic book and Stephen Baxter's Prospero One. There is also Sydney Jordan's Jeff Hawke strip.
My take also owes something to the weapons in 2001 a Space Odyssey.
The idea, poorly thought out, was for a very downmarket version (Almost Mouse on the Moon- another space film).
Apart from the real world Blue Streaks and Woomera the hardware is as basic as you would expect from 50s Britain. OP1 is not much more than a boiler plate cylinder. I used Mercury because it was the other real world space hardware. Could Blue Streak shoot a Mercury capsule into orbit? The typical Brit bodge has only two crew in OP1 .

 

[Dilandu]

b) a high stationary orbit over the prime target. But this does risk war during it's placement and is vulnerable until inserted.

Actually the high orbit weapon system would be more efficient than low-orbit. Due to LONG de-orbiting time, it could not be used as first-strike weapon (it would took days for warheads to reach Earth). On the other hand, due to same travel time & distance, it would be relatively invulnerable to Earth-launched missiles - they would took so long to reach her, that no surprize attack is possible.

A good idea may be a pair of bombardment platforms on oppsing parts of "molnya" orbit - high apogee, low perigee - so they could ajust their orbit inclination in apogee (when it required much less delta-v). The platform in perigee could be attacked quickly, but platform in apogee could not - and if the first would be attacked, the second would be warned and have time to deploy decoys and chaffs.

Of course, such platforms must be unmanned - since they would be going through the radiation belts four times per orbit.

 

[martinbayer]

Thanks everyone, especially Dilandu, for joining in this thread.
I just wanted to set a "Royal Space Force" thread rolling.
I was also inspired by the excellent Ministry of Space comic book and Stephen Baxter's Prospero One. There is also Sydney Jordan's Jeff Hawke strip.
My take also owes something to the weapons in 2001 a Space Odyssey.
The idea, poorly thought out, was for a very downmarket version (Almost Mouse on the Moon- another space film).
Apart from the real world Blue Streaks and Woomera the hardware is as basic as you would expect from 50s Britain. OP1 is not much more than a boiler plate cylinder. I used Mercury because it was the other real world space hardware. Could Blue Streak shoot a Mercury capsule into orbit? The typical Brit bodge has only two crew in OP1 .

I suggest to start from scratch, i.e. any actually existing relevant domestic technologies and capabilities at the exact point of departure in time, and then organically grow towards any desired end state, comic book fantasies be damned. Forget Mercury and aim for a purely British homegrown solution like the pyramid or any derivatives instead. The pyramid itself would have been quickly discovered to be unworkable because of sharp edge heating issues, but live and learn. I think that would be far more realistic than blithely assuming the USA would share Mercury with Britain. Sure, you both may have a special relationship, but in this precious bond only one of you is the Male .

 

[Dilandu]

. I think that would be far more realistic than blithely assuming the USA would share Mercury with Britain.

Agreed. The Mercury would require too much redesigning anyway to be of any use for crew delivery. If British are able to produce the rocket, capable of lifting manned capsule to orbit, they clearly could produce manned capsule by themselves. They could use the same justification as Soviet space engineers - that manned capsule would also serve as re-entry vechicle for spy satellite (as Vostok spacecraft design was based on Zenith spy satellite capsule). 1960s spy satellites required film to be physically delivered to Earth, after all.

 

[martinbayer]

Agreed. The Mercury would require too much redesigning anyway to be of any use for crew delivery. If British are able to produce the rocket, capable of lifting manned capsule to orbit, they clearly could produce manned capsule by themselves. They could use the same justification as Soviet space engineers - that manned capsule would also serve as re-entry vechicle for spy satellite (as Vostok spacecraft design was based on Zenith spy satellite capsule). 1960s spy satellites required film to be physically delivered to Earth, after all.

For absolute beginners, spheres are always a default design choice for crewed vehicles in extreme environments, be they outer space or the Mariana Trench.

 

[Dilandu]

For absolute beginners, spheres are always a default design choice for crewed vehicles in extreme environments, be they outer space or the Mariana Trench.

Quite true. But I suppose, if British decided to have manned spaceflight program, they would likely follow American example with cone-shaped capsule based on ballistic missile RV.

The "Black Prince" would likely be able to push a sinlge-men capsule on LEO. With cryogenic upper stage instead of "Black Knight", it would probably be able to launch two-men capsule. Assuming that SOME American assistance could be received (at least in theoretical matters), it looks doable to launch British manned flight in late half of 1960s.

 

[zen]

Actually the high orbit weapon system would be more efficient than low-orbit.

I agree, when thinking about the total sum of resources required. You'd only need 3 to 4 cover the entire planet. But due to concentration of potential targets, only one or two would be needed.

While lower orbit requires a lot more stations and would likely be based around reaction to the destruction of one.

Beauty of this is construction can be in low orbit first and then boost into higher orbit. Only replenishment of crew and consumables requires the expense of direct flight and potentially a lower orbit station could provide a halfway house for this and support the construction.

 

[Nik]

Yes, 'Mercury' is too small for anything more than 'proof of concept', was barely more than a big jet's escape capsule with added heat-shield.
But, it was literally all they could launch at the time...
The necessary lessons learned, Gemini followed. And, if Apollo had not required / driven that new cabin form, you'd see the Gemini 'grown' per umpteen studies...

Could UK have seen 'Mustard' prial built and flown ??

 

[Dilandu]

Beauty of this is construction can be in low orbit first and then boost into higher orbit. Only replenishment of crew and consumables requires the expense of direct flight and potentially a lower orbit station could provide a halfway house for this and support the construction.

The manned station would be... problematic. It can't use highly elliptic orbits - going through radiation belts four time per orbit is too much for living crew.

 

[Archibald]

Search results for query: *

The Selene project. Now that was one epic TL.

 

[Grey Havoc]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpHPizOiRbE

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwV4RyGOJZM

 

[Scott Kenny]

Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(sorry, couldn't resist !)

That's certainly what I was expecting when I saw the thread title...

Actually the high orbit weapon system would be more efficient than low-orbit. Due to LONG de-orbiting time, it could not be used as first-strike weapon (it would took days for warheads to reach Earth). On the other hand, due to same travel time & distance, it would be relatively invulnerable to Earth-launched missiles - they would took so long to reach her, that no surprize attack is possible.

A good idea may be a pair of bombardment platforms on oppsing parts of "molnya" orbit - high apogee, low perigee - so they could ajust their orbit inclination in apogee (when it required much less delta-v). The platform in perigee could be attacked quickly, but platform in apogee could not - and if the first would be attacked, the second would be warned and have time to deploy decoys and chaffs.

Of course, such platforms must be unmanned - since they would be going through the radiation belts four times per orbit.

Or have one hell of a storm cellar. And those are seriously best made by lifting lots and lots of water. Weight sucks, of course, but I bet 50m^3 of water would provide adequate protection for a crew of 2-4 to live in.

(Need to get the total radiation dose per type for the Van Allen Belts to work out the full setup.)

I agree, when thinking about the total sum of resources required. You'd only need 3 to 4 cover the entire planet. But due to concentration of potential targets, only one or two would be needed.

While lower orbit requires a lot more stations and would likely be based around reaction to the destruction of one.

Beauty of this is construction can be in low orbit first and then boost into higher orbit. Only replenishment of crew and consumables requires the expense of direct flight and potentially a lower orbit station could provide a halfway house for this and support the construction.

I think your best bet would be a low orbit station to transfer people between the lift rocket and the orbital shuttles. Makes the two types better optimizable, instead of lifting straight to the bomb orbit.

 

[Dilandu]

Or have one hell of a storm cellar. And those are seriously best made by lifting lots and lots of water. Weight sucks, of course, but I bet 50m^3 of water would provide adequate protection for a crew of 2-4 to live in.

Probably, but it would be hellishly expensive for sure.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Probably, but it would be hellishly expensive for sure.

That was a time when hellish spending was accepted.

 

[Dilandu]

That was a time when hellish spending was accepted.

Not if the unmanned system would cost two orders of magnitude less (at least).

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not if the unmanned system would cost two orders of magnitude less (at least).

Early nukes required constant maintenance, including things like removing the pit after 15months. Or even required leaving the pit out of the bomb until it was time to drop it!

 

[Dilandu]

Early nukes required constant maintenance, including things like removing the pit after 15months. Or even required leaving the pit out of the bomb until it was time to drop it!

I'm not sure two-man crew of tiny space station would be capable of performing maintenance in extremely limited space of radiation shelter. Frankly, space-basing would likely require a completely new warheads developed; capable of staying without maintenance as long as possible (maybe even gun-type primary? It's simper mechanically, after all)

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'm not sure two-man crew of tiny space station would be capable of performing maintenance in extremely limited space of radiation shelter.

I was assuming at least 50m^3 of crew volume, maybe more. ~20cm of water all around that, plus some other relatively light shielding in layers. Call it a cylinder ~5.5m in diameter and ~13m long. Inner habitable volume is 4m diameter by 11.5m long. This assumes 20cm of water shielding and 50cm of equipment on the outside walls of the cylinder. Right at 50m^3 for crew space and 50m^3 of water shielding.

Had to bust out my spreadsheet and play with the numbers some to make that work.

Frankly, space-basing would likely require a completely new warheads developed; capable of staying without maintenance as long as possible (maybe even gun-type primary? It's simper mechanically, after all)

Agreed, but that would delay the launching of the deterrent.

Issue with gun-type primaries is that they're less efficient and MUST use uranium, not plutonium. Implosion types can get supercritical booms out of significantly subcritical masses, which means much lighter weapons.

 

[Dilandu]

Agreed, but that would delay the launching of the deterrent.

With all respect, but the advancement of British space program to the point, when such manned deterrence station could be created, would still took a decade or more. So designing a completely new warhead - requiring as little maintenance as possible - would not delay the whole project.

 

[Scott Kenny]

With all respect, but the advancement of British space program to the point, when such manned deterrence station could be created, would still took a decade or more. So designing a completely new warhead - requiring as little maintenance as possible - would not delay the whole project.

While I don't think it'd take that long, point taken about it taking at least 5 years so there may be time to also design a new, minimal-maintenance warhead. Does add technical risk to the program, though, if the orbital elements are done before the new warheads are.

 

[Dilandu]

While I don't think it'd take that long,

It may took even longer. Let's start with the problem, that till mid-1960s Britain would not have any booster capable of launching any payload. Even with the best assumptions about Blue Streak, the Black Knight won't be ready to fly till 1963-1964. Then it would took time to develope manned spaceflight technology. At very best, British manned spaceflight may be possible in 1967-1968. Then it would require developing both the heavier booster for space station launch, and automatic orbital docking technology to assemble the station.