To Rise From the Earth: Alternate 'post-Apollo' space program
- Thread starter Workable Goblin
- Start date
You mean the Buran? If so, it ain't gonna be built ITTL, since the US isn't building their Shuttle, and so there's no reason for the Soviets to waste their money on it (a lot of why they built it IOTL is because the US was doing it--it was very expensive, more expensive than everything else they were doing at the same time combined
)Instead, as I believe I indicated earlier, I'm butterflying the results of the fourth N1 test a little so that it is mostly successful. Since the Soviets are good at space stations and know it, they abandon the insane single-launch N1 moon landing plan and instead use it to launch very big space stations, and later try an EOR-type moon landing attempt in the early '80s. Those two things spur Carter to restart the Saturn V line and approve launch of Skylab B, and Reagan to make space, particularly America's own large station and a moon return, a priority early on (more funding, you see), leading to the 1989 landing. It's not all grins and giggles, though; while I gave unmanned exploration a bit of a boost here early on, that's gonna taper right off later.
With no STS to protect, do some of the pressure fed designs that were suggested get a look in?
Chapter 9 on this site shows some of them.
http://www.dunnspace.com/leo_on_the_cheap.htm
and here
http://web.mit.edu/cats/www/resources/Stevenson_talk.pdf
Chapter 9 on this site shows some of them.
http://www.dunnspace.com/leo_on_the_cheap.htm
and here
http://web.mit.edu/cats/www/resources/Stevenson_talk.pdf
I've been doing some digging and found out that Tom Paine submitted a resignation just after Nixon got sworn in, but was forced to stay on since Nixon didn't care in the least bit about NASA and rejected his resignation. Now, Paine was a giant idiot, so getting rid of him is almost necessary to have a successful post-1968 space program. My question is, who would Nixon likely have appointed as NASA administrator if he had accepted Paine's resignation? Who would have been considered good for the job?
Archibald
Banned
George M. Low is very likely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Low
He was the man behind the decision to send Apollo 8 around the Moon in 1968. Later he become NASA deputy admnistrator (Nasa number two) assisting James Fletcher.
Btw, the most reasonnable / logical follow-on to Apollo was LESA - Lunar Exploration System for Apollo.
http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/2009/12/proper-course-for-lunar-exploration.html
It uses Saturn V to drop hardware directly on the lunar surface, forward of a crew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Low
He was the man behind the decision to send Apollo 8 around the Moon in 1968. Later he become NASA deputy admnistrator (Nasa number two) assisting James Fletcher.
Btw, the most reasonnable / logical follow-on to Apollo was LESA - Lunar Exploration System for Apollo.
http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/2009/12/proper-course-for-lunar-exploration.html
It uses Saturn V to drop hardware directly on the lunar surface, forward of a crew.
The Long-Promised Reboot!
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT:
TO: Thomas O. Paine, (Acting) Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
You resignation letter of the 20th is accepted. May you have the best of luck in your future.
Signed,
Richard M. Nixon
...And let it be resolved:
George M. Low be appointed to the position of Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
YEA: 91
NAY: 6
ABSENT: 2
ABSTAIN: 1
MOTION ACCEPTED
Records of the United States Senate, March 7th, 1969
From the Low Diaries:
February 12th, 1970:
Agnew is as excited as a puppy about the space program, but everyone knows he has no power in the White House. The watchwords these days are "efficency" and "cost control", and with the space program being percieved as a Kennedy program, Nixon will not support massive expansion like the vice president wants. The Space Shuttle seems like the obvious follow-on choice, but the economics barely make sense, and it will cost billions to develop. I think I can sell continuing Apollo-type missions to him on cost concerns.
Houston Chronicle, October 17th 1970:
SHUTTLE CANCELLED; APOLLO FLIGHTS TO CONTINUE
With no new program, we were all just waiting for the axe to fall. All of us, made superflous at a stroke. When the pink slips started arriving the next week, it was almost a relief.
--Unnamed NASA engineer, quoted in Touching the Sky
PROPOSED LAUNCH SCHEDULE, 1971-1975
MANNED:
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, Lind*
Apollo 18, June 1973; Crew: Gordon, Brand, Schmitt
Skylab 2, September 1973; Crew:Conrad, Weitz, Garriot
Skylab 3, December 1973; Crew: Bean, Lousma, Gibson
Skylab 4, March 1974; CREWS NOT YET ASSIGNED 1974 AND LATER
Skylab 5, June 1974
Skylab 6, September 1974
ASTP ('Apollo 19'), Feburary 1975
PROJECTED SATURN IB STOCK EXHAUSTION; IN-SERVICE DATE SATURN II
Skylab 7, June 1975
Skylab 8, September 1975
Skylab 9, December 1975
UNMANNED:
Skylab 1, September 1973
Mariners H and I: May 1971
Pioneer F: July 1972
Pioneer G: April 1973
Mariner J: November 1973
Vikings A and B: August 1975
--Report to the Administrator, December 5th 1970.
What most people don't realize is that Skylab was only originally designed to have enough consumables--food, air, water, fuel--to allow three 90-day habitations. But the plan up to 1975 had *8*, and no one thought that Skylab B would be launched until the later half of the decade, if ever. So, we had to figure out how to reengineer Skylab to be resupplied, and how to resupply it in the first place! Fuel was taken care of easily enough. Docked CSMs could provide reboosts and a degree of manuvering thrusters, and the station relied on gyroscopes to orient itself anyways. For air, water, and food, we were stumped. The CSM couldn't carry enough, of course, not with a crew on board. So we spent a few days going around and around, trying to think of something. Then, during one of our meetings, someone--I forget who--said, "Hey, what about the left-over LMs?". And we realized--yeah, there are a bunch of LMs that we've finished or partially finished that aren't going to the Moon. Maybe a couple of those could carry enough to support 3 guys for 90 days. So we started looking at it, and yeah, a modified LM--with the ascent stage replaced by a logistics container--could be launched by a Saturn II with a few tons of consumables on board. And that's how the LLLV was born.
--Unnamed NASA engineer, quoted in Touching the Sky
-----------------
* EDIT: I went back and reread the thread, and noticed that I had removed Kerwin from the moon flights for several reasons. I went back and edited this update to replace him with Lind, who (in light of the BigRIJoe) seemed a better fit for my "two-scientist" solution (sorry Engle). The reason Kerwin was in there in the first place was that I was working off the notes saved on my computer, which were *not* updated earlier. Let that be a warning to keep your notes and actual story in-synch!
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT:
TO: Thomas O. Paine, (Acting) Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
You resignation letter of the 20th is accepted. May you have the best of luck in your future.
Signed,
Richard M. Nixon
...And let it be resolved:
George M. Low be appointed to the position of Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
YEA: 91
NAY: 6
ABSENT: 2
ABSTAIN: 1
MOTION ACCEPTED
Records of the United States Senate, March 7th, 1969
From the Low Diaries:
February 12th, 1970:
Agnew is as excited as a puppy about the space program, but everyone knows he has no power in the White House. The watchwords these days are "efficency" and "cost control", and with the space program being percieved as a Kennedy program, Nixon will not support massive expansion like the vice president wants. The Space Shuttle seems like the obvious follow-on choice, but the economics barely make sense, and it will cost billions to develop. I think I can sell continuing Apollo-type missions to him on cost concerns.
Houston Chronicle, October 17th 1970:
SHUTTLE CANCELLED; APOLLO FLIGHTS TO CONTINUE
With no new program, we were all just waiting for the axe to fall. All of us, made superflous at a stroke. When the pink slips started arriving the next week, it was almost a relief.
--Unnamed NASA engineer, quoted in Touching the Sky
PROPOSED LAUNCH SCHEDULE, 1971-1975
MANNED:
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, Lind*
Apollo 18, June 1973; Crew: Gordon, Brand, Schmitt
Skylab 2, September 1973; Crew:Conrad, Weitz, Garriot
Skylab 3, December 1973; Crew: Bean, Lousma, Gibson
Skylab 4, March 1974; CREWS NOT YET ASSIGNED 1974 AND LATER
Skylab 5, June 1974
Skylab 6, September 1974
ASTP ('Apollo 19'), Feburary 1975
PROJECTED SATURN IB STOCK EXHAUSTION; IN-SERVICE DATE SATURN II
Skylab 7, June 1975
Skylab 8, September 1975
Skylab 9, December 1975
UNMANNED:
Skylab 1, September 1973
Mariners H and I: May 1971
Pioneer F: July 1972
Pioneer G: April 1973
Mariner J: November 1973
Vikings A and B: August 1975
--Report to the Administrator, December 5th 1970.
What most people don't realize is that Skylab was only originally designed to have enough consumables--food, air, water, fuel--to allow three 90-day habitations. But the plan up to 1975 had *8*, and no one thought that Skylab B would be launched until the later half of the decade, if ever. So, we had to figure out how to reengineer Skylab to be resupplied, and how to resupply it in the first place! Fuel was taken care of easily enough. Docked CSMs could provide reboosts and a degree of manuvering thrusters, and the station relied on gyroscopes to orient itself anyways. For air, water, and food, we were stumped. The CSM couldn't carry enough, of course, not with a crew on board. So we spent a few days going around and around, trying to think of something. Then, during one of our meetings, someone--I forget who--said, "Hey, what about the left-over LMs?". And we realized--yeah, there are a bunch of LMs that we've finished or partially finished that aren't going to the Moon. Maybe a couple of those could carry enough to support 3 guys for 90 days. So we started looking at it, and yeah, a modified LM--with the ascent stage replaced by a logistics container--could be launched by a Saturn II with a few tons of consumables on board. And that's how the LLLV was born.
--Unnamed NASA engineer, quoted in Touching the Sky
-----------------
* EDIT: I went back and reread the thread, and noticed that I had removed Kerwin from the moon flights for several reasons. I went back and edited this update to replace him with Lind, who (in light of the BigRIJoe) seemed a better fit for my "two-scientist" solution (sorry Engle). The reason Kerwin was in there in the first place was that I was working off the notes saved on my computer, which were *not* updated earlier. Let that be a warning to keep your notes and actual story in-synch!
Last edited:
Yes I finally did it! Commentary is very welcome.
As you might expect, I am keeping most of the technical stuff I discussed earlier. The Saturn II mentioned is the earlier-described two-stage F-1A in the bottom and J-2S in the top. The CSM Block III will be introduced at the same time as the Saturn II, just as in the previous one. I'm wondering whether I ought to have "technical" updates where I just describe all the fun rockets and capsules that are coming out, and other such niceties that aren't suited to the main updates style (which I copied from straichos since it is so very good). Will have an update dealing with the Soviet program by the end of the week.
As you might expect, I am keeping most of the technical stuff I discussed earlier. The Saturn II mentioned is the earlier-described two-stage F-1A in the bottom and J-2S in the top. The CSM Block III will be introduced at the same time as the Saturn II, just as in the previous one. I'm wondering whether I ought to have "technical" updates where I just describe all the fun rockets and capsules that are coming out, and other such niceties that aren't suited to the main updates style (which I copied from straichos since it is so very good). Will have an update dealing with the Soviet program by the end of the week.
Last edited:
Very nice, looking forward to a superior skylab. Actually, would it be possible to dock Skylabs A and B in orbit to produce Super Skylab?
As for the CSM, how about introducing some reusability? Make the hull resistant to corrosion, make the interior modular (so that if the whole thing can be saved, at least some can be reused), something to make it a bit more efficient.
No (this is on page 1, I think). The dynamics problems of that would be...formidable. Besides, by the time B is launched, A is going to be 6-7 years old and rather worn out (as I mentioned, it was only supposed to have a few missions to it).
Yes, that will be part of the CSM Block III/IV upgrade plans. I know that for the Block III they're looking into land recovery, either Soyuz-style or with airbags, but ATM I'm not sure if they're going to go for it. That would obviously make it easier. Possibly a reusable heat shield similar to the shuttle's OTL system. Possibly a fully reusable CM for the Block IV + land landing, and partial reusability + land landing for the Block III.
Yes, I know the end of the week has come and gone with no update. Yes, I know that's bad, especially for a struggling little TL like this one. I have an excuse, though! I am ATM working on an (overdue) paper for one of my classes, and I really need to refresh my memory on the Soviet space program. The paper needs to be done by Thursday, while the review is a more open-ended project. I grabbed Siddiqi from my house over the weekend, but it's an open question about how much time I can actually dedicate to reading him for the next little while. I may skip the Soviet update for now and target finishing another US update by the end of the week (probably a technical update for now).
Don't worry about it, anything at all is good
Oh, I've been working...most of this stuff isn't going to come up for a while, but I've been developing the endgame (~1981-1991), aka the cool bits. I plan to keep going up to 2000, but I have a good idea of where we're going to go, first, and how technically plausible it is. For example, the Saturn II I've been talking about has a bit of a weight problem, given the thrust of the F-1A. Not enough to keep it from lifting off, but enough to worry me. Of course, I also need to figure how to get there, which has me thinking a lot about the politics of NASA and how to get around their chronic inability to properly balance the three poles of mission planning, politics, and technical superiority. And about changes that might happen in external politics, such as ELDO not failing and Britain becoming a major partner in European space exploration developments[1], therefore leading to earlier European buy-in in NASA's big early 1980s project (which I am keeping under wraps for now), whether Presidential elections could be significantly affected, which would be a pain since I'm counting on the OTL sequence through at least '91.
Right now I'm wrestling with the problem of what exact upgrades the Block III is going to have, which is critically dependent on the desired mission profiles. I'm wondering whether there might be any desire for long-duration single missions in an Apollo capsule--say, 2-3 weeks--for various purposes, such as manned polar-orbital missions. This requires a more extensive life support system and more onboard EECOM equipment than if it's just a Skylab shuttle, only needs a max duration of 72-96 hours, and can recharge its batteries from the station's solar arrays. I think that even assuming long durations I can beat the target weight of 50,000 lbs (or 22,700 kg) by a fair margin, which means that there will be weight available for equipment or supplies in the SM bays. OTL, those bays were used for a number of experiments in the J-class missions, thus my wondering about long-duration solo missions. However, I don't recall the exact number of bays, where they are in the spacecraft, what's already in them, and so on, so I need to go home to use a book which has those details. I also need to figure out things like how a land-landing capability is going to develop, whether a larger regular crew might be useful, whether a nicety like an installed airlock might come in with the weight savings, what delta-V to aim for (and therefore how much propellant to carry), whether they might make it partially reusable, whether the improved electronics, glass cockpits, and HUDs of the period might be installed in place of the old systems, and so on. Of course, some of this stuff might end up in a later upgrade program before the big fat Block IV, or in the IV itself. But you can see that I need to figure out a lot of things to make a little progress!
Eh, I could probably write a few pages on all the things I'm thinking about...hey, wait, that might be a good idea for a technical update!
---------
EDIT: [1] Or rather, GB growing a pair and very politely pointing out to the French and Germans that their end of Europa held up quite well, thank you very much, while the French and Germans built not a single successful stage, and no, France is not going to take over with the Ariane. Of course, if EF is any indication, the French will huffily take their toys away and go sit in a corner trying to get something going on their own, but this is still an improvement over OTL for my purposes.
Last edited:
Well, you could go with a Saturn III.... Actually, it might (might) be cheaper to go with a modified Saturn V. The development work's been done. If you leave off the center engine, and lighten the upper stages you could have a 'Saturn III' esque machine without massive development costs and with 'engine out' capability, which will help with reliability.
Have an orbital tank farm, and the extra fuel unburnt in most ascents (with all engines) can be used to refuel reusable space tugs, etc.
AND the Brit engines were LOX/Kerosene which is non toxic. OTL, the main highway in French Guyana was closed for days (?weeks?) at a time for every launch due to the toxic fumes blowning across it.
Yeah, we discussed that earlier. The most likely solution is to put two F-1As down there instead of just the one. Besides, my calculations are pretty fuzzy, and it is still lighter than necessary to take off. It would probably be lighter than I estimate since a real rocket engineer would play with the delta-V to minimize the amount of fuel needed, which I haven't (yet). I could, probably. It would be a bit of work, but not too hard...
Space tugs etc. aren't going to go off anytime soon due to cost reasons, though watch this space, you never know what might happen...
Another reason for the Brits to lead and the Franco-German axis to get in line!
Did you know that you can put an Apollo CSM inside a shuttle cargo bay and lift it to orbit? Yeah, that's pretty cool. And you never know, it may come in handy some day!
More substantively, update in the pipes. Expect it tomorrow.
More substantively, update in the pipes. Expect it tomorrow.
One key achievement of the Low period was the development of the Strategic Planning Group. A small team of scientists, engineers, and advisors located in NASA Hedquarters, the SPG was charged with developing short-, medium-, and long-range plans for the agency, mindful of but untroubled by political or economic considerations.
The first incarnation of the SPG--the Space Working Group--was responsible for the decision to cancel the Shuttle project. The SWG pointed out that, given current budget constraints, the US could only afford one manned spaceflight program, and the technology for the Shuttle program was highly experimental and cutting-edge. It would be difficult or impossible to achieve the hoped-for cost reductions under these circumstances, and it would lead to a long interregnum where the US had no space capability whatsoever. Additionally, intelligence developed by several US agencies had shown that the USSR seemed to be refocusing its program towards space stations, something which the US could easily compete in with Apollo hardware, but would be difficult to fund with Shuttle development, likely delaying significant Station operations for several years.
With this report in hand, Low was able to successfully persuade the OMB and President Nixon to support a reduced AAP. Gone were elaborate Moon bases or giant space stations; instead, a new, reduced cost booster would be developed to replace the Saturn IB (sharing significant parts commonality with the Saturn V), and two Skylab missions, using hardware derived from S-IVB upper stages would be flown in the next decade...
--Taming the Fire: The Decision to End the Shuttle (NASA History Series 06:1745)
There was a real debate at JSC about what this new CSM design would be doing, specifically about whether it would do anything besides be a simple Skylab shuttle. The design certainly had the capability to do interesting things independently, as Apollos 15-18 showed; the question was whether it would. The development of the Landsats suggested the most obvious use, Earth observation, would be taken over by cheaper robots, while there was little else the Apollo capsule could do that Skylab couldn't do better. Eventually, the decision was made for us: Apollo would be a ferry to Skylab. Nothing more, nothing less.
--Anonymous NASA engineer, quoted in Touching the Sky
The first incarnation of the SPG--the Space Working Group--was responsible for the decision to cancel the Shuttle project. The SWG pointed out that, given current budget constraints, the US could only afford one manned spaceflight program, and the technology for the Shuttle program was highly experimental and cutting-edge. It would be difficult or impossible to achieve the hoped-for cost reductions under these circumstances, and it would lead to a long interregnum where the US had no space capability whatsoever. Additionally, intelligence developed by several US agencies had shown that the USSR seemed to be refocusing its program towards space stations, something which the US could easily compete in with Apollo hardware, but would be difficult to fund with Shuttle development, likely delaying significant Station operations for several years.
With this report in hand, Low was able to successfully persuade the OMB and President Nixon to support a reduced AAP. Gone were elaborate Moon bases or giant space stations; instead, a new, reduced cost booster would be developed to replace the Saturn IB (sharing significant parts commonality with the Saturn V), and two Skylab missions, using hardware derived from S-IVB upper stages would be flown in the next decade...
--Taming the Fire: The Decision to End the Shuttle (NASA History Series 06:1745)
There was a real debate at JSC about what this new CSM design would be doing, specifically about whether it would do anything besides be a simple Skylab shuttle. The design certainly had the capability to do interesting things independently, as Apollos 15-18 showed; the question was whether it would. The development of the Landsats suggested the most obvious use, Earth observation, would be taken over by cheaper robots, while there was little else the Apollo capsule could do that Skylab couldn't do better. Eventually, the decision was made for us: Apollo would be a ferry to Skylab. Nothing more, nothing less.
--Anonymous NASA engineer, quoted in Touching the Sky
One of the bigger things that has to be done if you want a proper NASA-wank (one that doesn't just go, yay, money for everyone!) is to have NASA management be more competent and prone to planning. That is what I have attempted to do with the SPG, which is modeled after the DPT and NExT that were formed about 30 years later OTL. I'm debating how to get buy-in from the centers and get them to productively contribute, rather than undermining HQ and each other.
EDIT: This is as good a place as any other, does anyone happen to know anything about the Rockwell or McDonnell Douglas X-33 proposal, especially the former? I've looked on Google, but can't find anything really useful. No technical details, etc.
EDIT: This is as good a place as any other, does anyone happen to know anything about the Rockwell or McDonnell Douglas X-33 proposal, especially the former? I've looked on Google, but can't find anything really useful. No technical details, etc.
Cook
Banned
Try asking this mob:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/board,26.20.html
They can usually find whatever you are looking for.