So the choice of a pure oxygen atmosphere wasn't a weight-saving measure? Because I was sure that it was. And Apollo was supposed to be the craft that would support the whole space program, not just the Lunar landing. So it makes sense to give it an atmosphere humans can tolerate for long periods of time. Of course, the space suit issue might mean NASA still went with a pure O2 atmosphere for the capsule and LEM, since humans can tolerate that well enough for the length of mission they'd be doing.
Apollo was originally intended to have a mixed gas atmosphere UNLIKE all previous NASA space craft, (Mercury and Gemini) which used pure-O2 atmospheres but yes the weight of the system was a problem but it was only one of many NAA was having with the design. NASA requested the change in that the capsule as planned the would start with a mixed gas atmosphere and transition as the flight went on switch to pure O2 in flight. Changing this from launch, (while waiting to launch the mixed gas would be replaced with pure O2 through an external connection) saved the weight of the initial mixed gas system and the transition system. After the fire NAA simply put back in the original system and they found ways to reduce mass in other places instead. (Actually off-loading a lot of the required weight 'savings' onto the still being developed LM in fact)
Everything was planned to run on pure O2 to reduce issues with EVA and space suit operations even "space station" studies assumed pure-O2 until after the fire. Skylab ended up having a reduced pressure mixed gas atmosphere but that required the use of pre-breathing for any EVA activity since the suits still always used pure-O2. The biggest issue with Apollo-Soyuz was Apollo's atmosphere was at a much lower setting than Soyuz was which required the whole 'docking tunnel' assembly to get around.
[/quote]It's true, and considering how close OTL's shuttle came to being boosted by an F-1 stage, I could see TTL's shuttle using F-1 modules as its boosters.[/quote]
I blame the KSP "Thin Shuttle" for starting me down the dark path
I think part of the problem is that doing a space program by half-measures is inefficient in terms of money and resources.
No argument and no doubt really
It still boils down to not having sufficient 'reason' to have a more efficient space program which in and of itself is a logic trap.
The smart way to do it if you want bang for your buck (and to be fair, NASA has been asked often to provide bang for buck) is to scale things up. Get a LV that is either big, or flies often servicing infrastructure in Earth Orbit with propellant depots, people in orbit working in small space stations, reusable OTVs, a wide ranging robot probe program and working to develop the technology for deep space human exploration and for either Lunar or NEO mining to provide a resource base in a shallower gravity well.
Agreed but with the context that doing so requires the ability to both assume and plan for 'writing off' a huge amount of the initial and ongoing costs in favor of a longer term 'payoff' if one comes at all. One correction though is the idea that you can go "either" big OR often and in fact going big will invariably lead, initially, to not going often and therefore be far less cost-effective. It is the main conundrum with "going big" (Apollo, Saturn-V/Nova, Shuttle, etc) early on that it makes it seem you are further 'ahead' of the curve than you really are. And something we've been stuck with and can't seem to get over. It is the reason that it is rare to get a proposed launch vehicle that is smaller rather than as big as possible. In the context here the various proposals OTL for a follow on to Apollo were in the majority BIGGER payloads than the Saturn-V could carry, (into the "million-or-more-pounds-to-orbit" in a single launch category) and we 'settled' for about a third (counting the Orbiter mass along with the cargo... Crew on every flight remember AND a "mini-space-station" which was the orbiter itself) of that in the end. And that was arguably exactly the wrong way to go from that point since there was and still is obviously no real 'need' for such large payloads. But here comes SLS which will probably be used even LESS than the Shuttle was.\
In the case being discussed here we have a more 'medium' launch capability that is, due to hoped for cost effectiveness due to a modular nature and mass production, overall cheaper to use more often, (at least the OTL Shuttle flight rate) and can be with a bit more effort and/or budget used once in a while to loft much larger payloads all using the same 'basic' module. As I see it the nature of the 'system' (why not call it the Space Launch System it's not like the Air Force didn't come up with the name in the '60s first
) means that adding something like a reusable crew reentry and landing vehicle, (TTL's "Shuttle") so you can recover the upper-stage engines makes a lot of sense over a pure capsule. Given the "wings-and-wheels" bias of the people involved it won't be that hard of a sell really and NASA can in fact claim to be seeing to the whole 'bucks=bang' situation.
Launch costs being what they are, the pay-off being so far off, and with space development being the priority of a small, politically divided part of the electorate, well, you can understand why Congress doesn't back this stuff. But at the same time, I don't think NASA is so unreasonable to keep putting forward these sorts of things. At least, in view of what the NASA charter, the Presidents and Congress itself tells NASA it is FOR.
Well I CAN in fact understand and even somewhat sympathize but the plain fact is, (and as usual when politicians get together to "chart" a course for a large and complex government agency) what they SAY they want is very often situational and time-period sensitive and almost never what they will want once any parameter changes. What NASA's charter and continued authorization bills SAY the politicians want NASA to do and what those same polticians actually support are worlds apart and always have been. (Prime examples are while NASA is supposed to use "commercial" launch capability as much as possible the actual outcome was clearly to provide funding and support to ONLY certain "commercial" vendors. The fact they got called out on that little fact has made the politicians 'reinterpret' that ruling several times now with language that continues to narrow "who" NASA can actually choose and who they can't)
The simple truth is every time NASA proposes a 'new' strategy in space exploration the politicians see them asking for Apollo and all that implies all over again. And they are not really wrong because for the longest time that was exactly what NASA said they were looking for. As Administrators go O'Keefe got a lot of grief for being a "bean-counter" and not an astronaut or scientist but he did show NASA could probably do the job cheaper than they were. On the other hand he also showed that Congress and the Administration for the most part were themselves not really interested in seeing NASA do that. Sure Congress balked at Constellation but in the end they still backed it because it was quite obviously a 'far future' system that could be milked for pork for decades. Meanwhile had they or the Administration supported O'Keefe's EELV based, (with an SDHLV "in works) program the US would have had orbital manned and ISS support capability to back up the Shuttle by around 2010. Since actually having capability tends to cause NASA to actually plan to USE that capability...
Trying to half-ass (or even worse, quarter-ass) this sort of thing ends up being exorbitantly expensive in the end.
And as long as the majority of that money, (all of it really if you get technical) gets spent on places on Earth that those in charge of the purse stings want it to be spent at who cares? Well obviously a lot of us "Space Cadets" DO in fact care and would greatly prefer that the money be spent at least a titch more efficiently
Thing is OTL NASA has the problem that they simply don't have any alternatives to offer and at the same time need to keep "employing" people whom it's proven Congress doesn't actually care if they stay employed or not.
In the context of "TTL" NASA has an ongoing and pretty robust system in place where they "technically" don't have to go hat-in-hand to beg Congress for money to do anything with because they can in fact "live" within their means. Not that this will actually stop them from occasionally trying or taking advantage of an Administrative or Congressional mood-shift but by the same token they don't have to depend on that happening to do even what is nominally their "job" on a regular basis. H. W. Bush announces the Space Exploration Initiative? NASA still presents 'a' 90-day plan (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Initiative) but it's based on the Nova-SLS and variants. (Oh they ASK for a "new" LV but they don't get it either of course)
Congress balks as per OTL which is fine since all NASA has to do to 'initiate' Space Station Freedom is A) decide on a design, B) Pull enough modules out of storage to stack a Fiji-6-ish HLV on which to stack the core module once it's built, C) go for launch!
The Common Lunar Lander gets nickle and dime'd by Congress of course, (this they can control) but every couple of years there should be enough Fiji modules to toss a significant Lunar orbital mission to the Moon. Look you can take your 'friends' the Russians too! And while I wouldn't trust their 'lander' as far as I can throw it, in the near future when we're looking to toss money towards their scientist NOT going to work for someone to build nuclear weapons, we can have them build modules for Freedom... And if a few of them have some funny attachments that oddly enough look like landing legs and propulsion systems, well you know those crazy Russians right? And why NOT help them to do what they couldn't do on their own and look they offer to take some American's with them! Win/Win.
Compare that to having to ask "Congress-may-I" at every turn
But it also is predicated on NASA being able to reign itself in from tossing out the baby, the crib, Mom, Dad, and then placing an add in the paper for a government designed and built family along with the bathwater. A fundamental acceptance that Apollo was and will remain and aberration rather than any possible or plausible state of budget and support that you are going to return to one day. That you WILL have to make do as one Agency among many with no automatic priority and with a budget that likely will shrink rather than grow and plane and work accordingly. Of all of NASA Von Braun and the Huntsville folks understood what it was like and how to 'make-do' if they had to whereas the rest of NASA was born and raised with the false expectations and experience of Apollo and acted accordingly.
Randy
