To Rise From the Earth: Alternate 'post-Apollo' space program

Workable Goblin · Oct 28, 2009

In early 1970, a group of high-level NASA engineers and managers meet in Washington to review the latest information on their budget requests and post-Apollo plans. News is grim. While Spiro Agnew is a spirited defender of the program, having headed the committee which created the latest plan, Nixon is indifferent at best, while Congress is on the war path. The budget, in free-fall since 1968, is to be squeezed even more. The question now is whether to support the development of a new Space Shuttle, a craft which promises to greatly reduce costs and improving access to space, perhaps allowing a future NASA to argue successfully for a return to the Moon or even a mission to Mars, or continue AAP missions, extending the Apollo program into the indefinite future. This has the advantage of being much cheaper in the short run, making it an easier pill to swallow for the President, though it may mean future budgetary and planning problems. On the other hand, it is very well proven hardware, while any new craft will naturally be difficult and expensive to develop. Argument rages for hours around the conference table as the issue is debated. Finally, a consensus emerges: The Shuttle is dead. AAP will be recommended to the President.

The budget news that winter is appalling. Congress sees little reason to continue manned space flight, even with the lower-cost Apollo Applications Program instead of an expensive new shuttle. Deep cuts are made in an already strained program. Apollo 20 had already been cancelled at the beginning of the year due to the end of Saturn V production. Now, Apollo 15 is also cancelled, leaving the lunar flights to end at 18. 15, 16, 17, and 18 will be J-class missions, with extensive scientific payloads and (on Apollos 17 and 18) a geologist on board to further enhance scientific output. The two remaining Saturn Vs freed by these announcements will be used to support the planned Skylab orbital station. One will be modified to launch it, while the other will stand by as a reserve. Several unmanned programs are also cancelled, including new OSO spacecraft and the Voyager Mars mission, the last due as much to the lack of excess Saturn Vs for launch as funding. The TOPS/Planetary Grand Tour program is barely saved by JPL and APS lobbying efforts. It is hard for many to see how much worse it could have gotten.

------
Thoughts? How plausible is the POD is used? What do you think the actual outcome of that would be? (Note that most of the mission cancellations are from OTL, actually)

Thande · Oct 28, 2009

It's possible. I guess the path of development would be that the Saturn IB would eventually be replaced by the cheaper Saturn II, and the Soviets would breathe a sigh of relief as the arena for the space race has now shifted to an area in which they can compete, ie space stations.

AAP did allow for more ambitious projects like the Manned Venus Flyby, but I don't know if and when the budget might exist to make them a reality.

Workable Goblin · Oct 28, 2009

Thande said:
It's possible. I guess the path of development would be that the Saturn IB would eventually be replaced by the cheaper Saturn II, and the Soviets would breathe a sigh of relief as the arena for the space race has now shifted to an area in which they can compete, ie space stations.

AAP did allow for more ambitious projects like the Manned Venus Flyby, but I don't know if and when the budget might exist to make them a reality.

Oh yes. Without the Buran sucking up all their money[1], the Soviets are definitely going to be competing here. That might rekick the space race in '78 or so once they work out the kinks with the N1, which some of their engineers said was pretty close to happening. Anyone want to comment on that?

Manned Venus Flyby is not going to happen, and neither are any out-of-Earth orbit manned missions for a long while. There's nowhere near enough money, nor are there any Saturn Vs to launch them with. I'm imagining a budget similar to OTL but without major development costs so they can afford to run a few more programs like Grand Tour. However, once either the USSR starts to land astronauts on the Moon or a certain Californian gains the White House (I'm not planning on any major political changes since I don't think that's terribly likely), things might pick up and maybe a second run might be made... A Saturn II type thing with J-2s replacing the H-1s to save on costs is certainly plausible, and I will be adopting that idea, thanks!

[1]: Buran was actually taking up a very large part of the Soviet space budget for some time. It's a bit sobering to realize that at the same time the Russians were pouring the majority of their funds into a boondoggle Shuttle, they were also running a highly successful station program.

Sigma7 · Oct 29, 2009

Any chance of launching Sky Lab B?

I believe it was already built, might as well send it up.

They could link it up with Sky Lab A and expand lab space and storage for a more diversified set of 0 G experiments or install new observation equipment like a mini-Hubble (yes, extremely mini-Hubble, but still useful) or a weather station?

I always felt Sky Lab B ended up being nothing but a waste of money because in the end they did nothing with it when they could've used Sky Labs A and B, linked together as the basis for a modular EOS twenty years sooner and billions of dollars cheaper than the ISS.

Workable Goblin · Oct 29, 2009

Sigma7 said:
Any chance of launching Sky Lab B?

I believe it was already built, might as well send it up.

They could link it up with Sky Lab A and expand lab space and storage for a more diversified set of 0 G experiments or install new observation equipment like a mini-Hubble (yes, extremely mini-Hubble, but still useful) or a weather station?

I always felt Sky Lab B ended up being nothing but a waste of money because in the end they did nothing with it when they could've used Sky Labs A and B, linked together as the basis for a modular EOS twenty years sooner and billions of dollars cheaper than the ISS.

I was thinking Skylab B might get launched around 1980 or 1981 to replace the by then rather long in the tooth Skylab A (should I have that damaged as OTL? I think so, as it demonstrates the utility of people in space at a probably precarious budget time). Of course, by then as I said in my last post, NASA might be getting access to a second Saturn V run and thus will be able to build something better than Skylab. Particularly since I think they will continue their space base/large space station studies (much as OTL), and so will have not only a nice proposal to hand to Reagan (again, much as OTL), but will have a much easier time bending metal. So, maybe Skylab B serving in a Salyut 6/7 role bridging to the big space station NASA builds in the late '80s.

Launching Skylab B and docking it to Skylab A is improbable due both to size constraints (both being rather large structures, I suspect they may have run into each other), design issues (they really weren't designed for that, even though they did have two docking ports), and the lack of autonomous guidance or any real way for astronauts or ground controllers to actually control the things as they approach and dock one another. This last is the real killer, no way to control them.

Dathi THorfinnsson · Oct 29, 2009

truth is life said:
Launching Skylab B and docking it to Skylab A is improbable due both to size constraints (both being rather large structures, I suspect they may have run into each other), design issues (they really weren't designed for that, even though they did have two docking ports), and the lack of autonomous guidance or any real way for astronauts or ground controllers to actually control the things as they approach and dock one another. This last is the real killer, no way to control them.

THat's relatively easy. Build a docking module that both would dock to, providing more docking spaces, and space between labs. You could launch said module on a Titan 3, say.

Michel Van · Oct 29, 2009

NASA first plan was in 1968 to replace Saturn IB with a Space Shuttle (same payload like Saturn IB)
but that program mutated 1973 (with help of USAF) into Today Space Shuttle

later 1970's for cost reasion NASA take Titan III rockets because they were cheaper
even proposed as launcher for Low orbit Apollo capsule for Space station.

was there other proposals ?
Saturn INT-05A
Saturn IB-INT-5B
Saturn 1B/260" SRB
thats Saturn I-IVB stage on solid rocket, jep ARES-1 is not so new after all

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturni.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/aj2602.htm

so if they kill the Space Shuttle program back in 1973, we have much money for those projects

for launching Sky Lab B
in OTL was a Saturn V left over after Skylab A launch
http://www.astronautix.com/flights/skylabb.htm

Workable Goblin · Oct 29, 2009

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
THat's relatively easy. Build a docking module that both would dock to, providing more docking spaces, and space between labs. You could launch said module on a Titan 3, say.

I suppose this module would have thrusters and rockets to allow the two stations to manuever to each other? Maybe, but it seems aggressive and complex. I am planning on having Skylab B launched for the ASTP mission in 1977 or 1978, replacing Skylab A, which has been running for several years by that point. A Skylab C might be built around 1980 or so and launched up prior to the large space station modules NASA always wanted being produced with the second run of Saturn Vs (a misnomer really, this 'second run' I want to be improved: J-2S, F-1A, stretched some maybe).

EDIT: Except not, since they won't have any Saturn Vs! Whoops

Michel Van said:
NASA first plan was in 1968 to replace Saturn IB with a Space Shuttle (same payload like Saturn IB)
but that program mutated 1973 (with help of USAF) into Today Space Shuttle

later 1970's for cost reasion NASA take Titan III rockets because they were cheaper
even proposed as launcher for Low orbit Apollo capsule for Space station.

was there other proposals ?
Saturn INT-05A
Saturn IB-INT-5B
Saturn 1B/260" SRB
thats Saturn I-IVB stage on solid rocket, jep ARES-1 is not so new after all
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturni.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/aj2602.htm

so if they kill the Space Shuttle program back in 1973, we have much money for those projects

for launching Sky Lab B
in OTL was a Saturn V left over after Skylab A launch
http://www.astronautix.com/flights/skylabb.htm

Yeah, I know all this

I've had a couple of threads on this subject already, and...well...look at my user title

Plus I've been digging around the last few days.

Dathi THorfinnsson · Oct 29, 2009

truth is life said:
I suppose this module would have thrusters and rockets to allow the two stations to manuever to each other? Maybe, but it seems aggressive and complex. I am planning on having Skylab B launched for the ASTP mission in 1977 or 1978, replacing Skylab A, which has been running for several years by that point. A Skylab C might be built around 1980 or so and launched up prior to the large space station modules NASA always wanted being produced with the second run of Saturn Vs (a misnomer really, this 'second run' I want to be improved: J-2S, F-1A, stretched some maybe).

Oops, all the manoeuvering was done by the Apollo craft. Hmmm.. Ja, I guess I forgot about that. [idiot boy!].

loneranger · Oct 29, 2009

This is going to be very interesting

Subscribed.

Workable Goblin · Oct 29, 2009

PLANNED MISSIONS, 1971-1976
Manned[1]:
Apollo 14, January 1971; Crew: Shepard, Roosa, Mitchell
Apollo 15, July 1971; Crew: Scott, Worden, Irwin
Apollo 16, April 1972; Crew: Young, Mattingly, Duke
Apollo 17, December 1972; Crew: Cernan, Evans, Schmitt
Apollo 18, June 1973; Crew: Gordon, Brand, Garriott[1]

Skylab 2, September 1973; Crew: Conrad, Weitz, Kerwin
Skylab 3, December 1973; Crew: Bean, Lousma, Gibson
Skylab 4, March 1974; CREWS NOT YET SCHEDULED 1974 AND LATER
Skylab 5, June 1974
Skylab 6, September 1974
ASTP ('Apollo 19'), March 1975

SATURN IB STOCKS EXHAUSTED; 1 REMAINING SATURN V
SATURN II and CSM BLOCK-III INTRODUCTION

Skylab 7, June 1975
Skylab 8, September 1975
Skylab 9, December 1975
Skylab 10, March 1976
Skylab 11, June 1976
Skylab 12, September 1976
Skylab 13, December 1976

Unmanned[2]:
Mariners H and I: May 1971
Pioneer F: July 1972
Pioneer G: April 1973
Mariner J: November 1973
Viking A: August 1975
Viking B: August 1975

Skylab 1, September 1973[3]

The painful budget cuts of 1970 forced significant changes in NASA's future planning. Gone were grandiose moon bases and space stations; the agency's efforts would be consumed supporting Skylab and the small stable of unmanned missions planned for the decade. Much of the hardware in NASA's arsenal was however designed to support lunar programs and other impossible adventures. The Block-II CSM was built to withstand direct reentry from the Moon at 11km/s, had a large engine for TEI, and used cryogenic fuels for both propellant and power, all features undesirable or unnecessary for Earth-orbital spaceflight. The Saturn IB was a decent enough vehicle, but could still be improved, for instance by reducing the number of engines on the first stage or switching to a common engine type for both upper and lower stages. In early 1971, just before the launch of Apollo 14, the first of several studies was conducted to examine how best to respond to this new challenge.

A year later, and after three more studies, the Saturn-II and CSM Block III programs were approved. The former would use a cut-down version of the S-IC with only 1 F-1A and a redesigned S-IVB using the upgraded J-2S to launch a payload about as large as the Saturn IB's into earth orbit. Not only would this cut down on costs by centralizing production in just a few contractors, and replacing most other launch vehicles then in use, but many at NASA also viewed it as a way to keep the F-1 and J-2 production lines alive, making it much easier and cheaper to restart Saturn V production in the future. The latter would adapt the current Apollo spacecraft into a design more compatible with Earth-orbital needs. The heatshield would be thinned, duration on the craft would be improved, particularly in power-down mode, and many other improvements were made to allow it to more effectively serve in its role as ferry to the planned Skylab stations. Introduction was scheduled for mid-1975, just after the ASTP mission.

-----
[1] I am not especially creative with creating crews, so if anyone has any better ideas, let me know! Anyways, most of the crews are as OTL or by the rotation system except with some scientist shuffling to let a scientist (physicist, not geologist) go on Apollo 18.

[2] Only the most important and sexy ones (ie., interplanetary ones). If I missed one, let me know! While I think TOPS/GT (I'll just call it Voyager from now on) would advance faster, I don't know enough about launch windows to put it here.

[3] The launch of the station. The gap between this and Apollo 18 is basically OTL

The use of CAPS for a lot of things is just era feeling, not SHOUTING.

Workable Goblin · Oct 29, 2009

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
Oops, all the manoeuvering was done by the Apollo craft. Hmmm.. Ja, I guess I forgot about that. [idiot boy!].

Eh, it was a good idea, though. Anyways, I changed up my plans a bit since Skylab ASTP had already been canned by 1970, so I decided to have basically the OTL mission. I'm still thinking Skylab B will get launched around 1978 or so to replace a (by then) decidedly beat-up Skylab A.

Thande · Oct 29, 2009

I don't think the N1 design was salvageable, clustering all those engines was a fundamentally flawed idea. I say they give up in the early 1970s and develop either UR-700 or a new, vaguely Energiya-like, heavy launcher.

Workable Goblin · Oct 29, 2009

Thande said:
I don't think the N1 design was salvageable, clustering all those engines was a fundamentally flawed idea. I say they give up in the early 1970s and develop either UR-700 or a new, vaguely Energiya-like, heavy launcher.

Well, like I said, some of the engineers I have on good authority thought otherwise. Of course, those were all from Korolev's design bureau

So, maybe...maybe not. I don't have to deal with that for a little while anyways, since the end of the N1 program OTL didn't come until 1974, and I'm just barely there.

Also, it just occurred to me that Saturn-II would be about in the Titan-III throw class. Anyone think that NASA or the Air Force might end up using the same rocket? Maybe Saturn-II-Centaur for heavy solar system probes? A bit like the shuttle, but less chance of explosion...

Workable Goblin · Oct 30, 2009

After the death of Sergei Korolev, the Soviet space program had struggled for years. Not only had his prominence and manegerial skills suppressed many interpersonal conflicts and fights which now began to reemerge, but they suffered one failure after another. The death of Komorov, one of the original cosmonauts, in Soyuz 1, the death of Gagarin in a training accident, the repeated failures of Chelomei's Proton rocket, and worst of all the failure of the first three N1 tests, had destroyed the morale and will of the Soviet engineers and scientists. The dream of landing on the Moon or establishing a giant space station seemed farther away than ever. Nevertheless, there were a few faint glimmers of hope for the program. The last ten Proton launches had had only two failures, Soyuz 11 was just a few days away from landing after the first space station flight in history, and TsKBEM engineers believed that they could fix the remaining problems with the N1. With the ending of the US program, many inside the Soviet space establishment believed that the USSR would soon take the lead.

The successful landing of Soyuz 11 just a few days later[1] gave another critical confidence boost. The many problems that had occurred on their mission, including several fires, nevertheless caused the cancellation of a planned second flight to the station, in favor of launching another station at some later date.

------
And now the Russians get their turn...
[1] I really couldn't bear to let them die (again). Anyways, it felt like I was just writing an OTL history book when I killed them, so I let them live. Alien Space Butterflies fixing the problem or something, you know.

Workable Goblin · Oct 31, 2009

I need to do a little research for my next update, but I won't have the books I need for about a week. So, it'll be a while before I make another update. Until then, feel free to comment on what I've done so far!

simonbp · Oct 31, 2009

I know "Saturn II" was proposed by MSFC, but I really don''t think its the most likely Saturn IB replacement. With six J-Ss, and the full girth of Saturn V, it would be just too big and complex. Plus, the J-2S really sucked at sea level pressure. The three more likely options are:

1. S-IVB with single F-1 first stage: Useful as it keeps the F-1 production like alive, for future uses...

2. S-IVB with single large solid: Think Ares I, circa 1970. This was actually studied pretty extensively for AAP, and would have used a new launch pad. Would have thrust oscialltion issues, just like Ares I.

3. Titan III-M: The cheaoest option the near term, but would run into resistance from USAF/NRO, who don't want NASA getting in the way.

In the case of this TL (no STS, lotsa Skylab), I'd say option 1 is most likely...

Workable Goblin · Oct 31, 2009

simonbp said:
I know "Saturn II" was proposed by MSFC, but I really don''t think its the most likely Saturn IB replacement. With six J-Ss, and the full girth of Saturn V, it would be just too big and complex. Plus, the J-2S really sucked at sea level pressure. The three more likely options are:

1. S-IVB with single F-1 first stage: Useful as it keeps the F-1 production like alive, for future uses...

2. S-IVB with single large solid: Think Ares I, circa 1970. This was actually studied pretty extensively for AAP, and would have used a new launch pad. Would have thrust oscialltion issues, just like Ares I.

3. Titan III-M: The cheaoest option the near term, but would run into resistance from USAF/NRO, who don't want NASA getting in the way.

In the case of this TL (no STS, lotsa Skylab), I'd say option 1 is most likely...

Yes, I only found that out after I posted, when I started browsing astronautix...I, too agree that option 1 is the most likely, though maybe with 2 F1s instead. Maybe if the 'Saturn II' was really a rebranded INT-20 with 2 F-1(A)s on the lower stage and a slightly uprated S-IVB for the upper? With the possibility of a Centaur 3rd stage for interplanetary probes. That makes my plan to have them restart the Saturn V production line circa 1980 a lot more plausible since they'll have actually been building a lot of the equipment for several years. I'm going back to edit my post (if I can).

BigRIJoe · Oct 31, 2009

truth is life said:
PLANNED MISSIONS, 1971-1976
Manned[1]:
Apollo 14, January 1971; Crew: Shepard, Roosa, Mitchell
Apollo 15, July 1971; Crew: Scott, Worden, Irwin
Apollo 16, April 1972; Crew: Young, Mattingly, Duke
Apollo 17, December 1972; Crew: Cernan, Evans, Schmitt
Apollo 18, June 1973; Crew: Gordon, Brand, Kerwin[1]

I think Don Lind would be more appropriate as the LM pilot on Apollo 18 with Kerwin flying the first manned Skylab mission as an MD.

Workable Goblin · Oct 31, 2009

BigRIJoe said:
truth is life said:

PLANNED MISSIONS, 1971-1976
Manned[1]:
Apollo 14, January 1971; Crew: Shepard, Roosa, Mitchell
Apollo 15, July 1971; Crew: Scott, Worden, Irwin
Apollo 16, April 1972; Crew: Young, Mattingly, Duke
Apollo 17, December 1972; Crew: Cernan, Evans, Schmitt
Apollo 18, June 1973; Crew: Gordon, Brand, Kerwin[1]

Click to expand...

I think Don Lind would be more appropriate as the LM pilot on Apollo 18 with Kerwin flying the first manned Skylab mission as an MD.

You're right, I mixed that up. I mean to put a physicist (Gibson or Garriott, since they're from Group 4 and therefore more senior than Lind--though you could persuade me otherwise), and put a physician. Doh.

(Going back to fix right now)