AH Challenge: Apollo Continuation

Workable Goblin · Aug 23, 2009

Basically, exactly what it says on the tin: Find a POD after 1960 (even better would be after 1966, but 1960 is fine) which allows Apollo to continue and be the main human-launch capability of NASA (much like Soyuz).

My money is that the best POD is not escalating the Vietnam war, by staying with advisers, say. The stress of funding a war (critically, one that was exercising a fair bit of aerospace knowledge and funding), the Great Society, and NASA simultaneously led to the failure (in whole or in part) of all three. Without the war, more resources will be available for NASA, and perhaps without the actual martial competition going on cold warriors will feel more inclined to engage in virtual competition (even after we win the first round).

This is unlikely to result in early Mars landings, though, since the technology just wasn't good enough. In fact, it may not be terribly plausible to even keep going to the Moon much longer. A retrogression to LEO and space station competition might happen, unlike in OTL where the US was at best half-hearted in it's efforts to launch and maintain stations until well after 1991. That *might* still be enough to keep the Saturn V production lines open, at least a little longer, but with the 'wet workshop' concept and modularity, I wouldn't count on it. Even so, we would probably come out rather ahead of where we were, since we wouldn't be wasting resources on an ineffectual Space Shuttle, nor would we have a 10-year gap between manned space missions. I suspect robotic probes would actually come out a little less shafted here than IRL, since the burden and expense of developing a whole new space flight system just wouldn't be there, and the total NASA budget might be a little greater overall. We might see an actual TOPS! Or Voyager! *squees*

Emperor Norton I · Aug 23, 2009

Let's see: No Apollo 13, Nixon doesn't cut the space budget (or he doesn't even get elected and a more pro-space President does), the Space Shuttle Program is denied in lieu of expansion of Apollo; all good POD's.

The problem is Apollo is finite. You can maybe rig a POD where the Saturn V rocket is continues in use for other projects, but Apollo has to end.

Workable Goblin · Aug 23, 2009

Emperor Norton I said:
The problem is Apollo is finite. You can maybe rig a POD where the Saturn V rocket is continues in use for other projects, but Apollo has to end.

The Soyuz is still being used 40 years later, why not Apollo? Sure, the moon missions must end (I mentioned that, specifically), but I see no reason why the CSM could not still be used for earth-orbital missions, such as the mentioned space station program to counter the Soviets, with appropriate ongoing upgrades, of course. (You know, things like longer on-orbit life, better computers, glass cockpit when that comes around, and so on) With that capability around, perhaps SEI-type moves in the '80s or '90s get more traction, since you're using hardware which is proven for lunar use. OTOH, the repeat feel might be even stronger there, which could very well end that pretty quickly.

Emperor Norton I said:
or he doesn't even get elected and a more pro-space President does

The most plausible POD for that seems to be no Vietnam War, again. That way, Johnson (who, IIRC, was by far the most pro-space president in history) goes ahead and runs for a 2 1/2 term, likely gets reelected (no war, after all, and the Great Society is likely chugging along a little better because of that), and there you go. OTOH, the decisions effectively ending the Apollo program seem to have been begun being made slightly before Nixon won, IIRC, though perhaps there would be some reason to reverse that (which I suppose might have been possible as late as 1970 or 71) if he lost.

Emperor Norton I said:
No Apollo 13

The problem with that as a POD is that Apollo was very much being wound down by 1970; a lot of the AAP stuff had already been canceled, in fact I believe the Block II production had been canceled already, the Saturn V production line had been wound down (this was a factor in the '68 stuff I mentioned above), and generally stuff was being retooled in favor of the Shuttle. In fact, no Apollo 13 failure arguably reduces the amount of time Apollo continues for since it focused a great deal of attention on the agency and generally made them look very competent.

Emperor Norton I said:
the Space Shuttle Program is denied in lieu of expansion of Apollo

This, though, is a very good POD. The critical factors it relies on are:
1. NASA realizing that a space shuttle is really, really, not a good idea with '70s tech (difficult, the people there really, really, really, really wanted shuttles, for mostly good reasons)
2. A much more competent administrator than Paine being appointed (someone more like Webb, who I've heard was basically LBJ in miniature) Perhaps if Webb stayed on... (that would require Nixon not get elected for some reason or another)

The problem with 1. is that as I said NASA really did want a shuttle. The critical thing is that they also wanted heavy-lift capability, so the best POD for this POD is them deciding they want that more than a shuttle when choices have to be made. With someone competent at the helm (though honestly once the decision was made even Paine could probably have pushed it through), this seems like quite a plausible one.

One important assumption I make in my original post is that the POD and the effects of continuing the Apollo program have relatively little effect on the Soviets. (Beyond a few obvious things like wiping out Buran) The no Vietnam War POD probably breaks that since Vietnam did become something of an ally for the USSR afterwards and perhaps it would be both more effective at that and more rapidly able to do so without massive US intervention. In fact, in that TL it's plausible that Barry Goldwater or some such gets elected on an interventionist platform (Johnson/Kennedy lost Vietnam--this didn't work against Truman in 1948, though), and the space program dies under the scrutiny (or at least, the civilian portion does). Or maybe it goes nuts since the Republicans want to compete with the Soviets in all spheres. Anyways, do try to make PODs which could plausibly do that, though again it isn't necessary.

Gwendolyn Ingolfsson · Aug 23, 2009

Perhaps have the USSR do a successful manned moon landing soon after the United States, and decide to one-up them by setting up a permanent manned base? That will make the Americans want one too, just to keep an eye on their erstwhile Cold War dance partners. If anything will keep Apollo going – as well as the Apollo Applications Program - it will be something like that.

loneranger · Aug 23, 2009

One POD you could use is an often overlooked one:

Have someone born in your ATL that wasn't born OTL. Have this person rise to power, and WHAM! You can change whatever you want, because it's YOUR character.

Emperor Norton I · Aug 23, 2009

truth is life said:
The Soyuz is still being used 40 years later, why not Apollo? Sure, the moon missions must end (I mentioned that, specifically), but I see no reason why the CSM could not still be used for earth-orbital missions, such as the mentioned space station program to counter the Soviets, with appropriate ongoing upgrades, of course. (You know, things like longer on-orbit life, better computers, glass cockpit when that comes around, and so on) With that capability around, perhaps SEI-type moves in the '80s or '90s get more traction, since you're using hardware which is proven for lunar use. OTOH, the repeat feel might be even stronger there, which could very well end that pretty quickly.

Soyuz is a rocket (and a program, but ignore that for this explanation). Apollo is a program. The Saturn V, however, is a rocket and you may be referring to that rather than a perpetual Apollo program. If you mean the Saturn V continuing usage, that's plausible. The problem, however, is the Russians lacked/still lack money or much cutting edge tech that the US would get. So you can stretch the lifespan of the Saturn V, but I think a more cutting edge model will come in to replace it before 40 years.

Workable Goblin · Aug 23, 2009

Emperor Norton I said:
Soyuz is a rocket (and a program, but ignore that for this explanation). Apollo is a program. The Saturn V, however, is a rocket and you may be referring to that rather than a perpetual Apollo program. If you mean the Saturn V continuing usage, that's plausible. The problem, however, is the Russians lacked/still lack money or much cutting edge tech that the US would get. So you can stretch the lifespan of the Saturn V, but I think a more cutting edge model will come in to replace it before 40 years.

No, Soyuz is a spacecraft. A rocket too, and a program, but the most important bit is a spacecraft. The same for Apollo; I was not referring to the Saturn V continuing in production, but to the Apollo capsule continuing in use. As I said, there is a lot of modernization work you could do--I would imagine mid-90s Block V capsules would have little other than shape in common with their '60s Block II ancestors. Also, look at the modernization programs that the Soviets and Russians undertook for Soyuz--first the TM models, now the TMAs. And I'm pretty sure there's another update in the works. Surely NASA could do something similar.

I was just trying to imagine a scenario where, rather than be diverted for 40 years by a space shuttle, then return to capsule flight, we keep using capsules. The Saturn V has relatively little to do with it, though without the medium-lift capacity of the shuttle it's a lot more plausible for production to continue.

As to your 'more cutting edge' model comment, did you know that NASA was considering a huge variety of methods to improve Saturn V performance? Everything from nuclear uppers to big solid boosters. (visit the Encyclopedia Astronautica to see) Sure, I can see them undertaking to replace the electronics and upgrade the motors, but I don't really see them throwing away the basic design for something new. It's a pretty good rocket, after all.

Gwendolyn Ingolfsson said:
Perhaps have the USSR do a successful manned moon landing soon after the United States, and decide to one-up them by setting up a permanent manned base? That will make the Americans want one too, just to keep an eye on their erstwhile Cold War dance partners. If anything will keep Apollo going – as well as the Apollo Applications Program - it will be something like that.

Hm. The difficulty there is figuring out a plausible way to actually land Soviets on the Moon! Their plan was kind of terrible to be honest--very risky. The best way might be to have Korolev survive--his management and political skills might go a long way towards having the Soviets succeed in landing perhaps in 1970 or so. It would be difficult for them to successfully set up a lunar base, but even a landing might engender feelings that the race is still on.

EDIT: An even better POD, now that I think about it, would be the Soviets realizing in 1961 that Kennedy is serious about his moon mission. OTL, they didn't until 1963, and that had a major effect on their program (especially given their generally lower technology levels). Coupled with that, you really need some central control (ie a NASA-type organization) and better funding (the Soviets got about half as much overall as NASA). All that would go a long way towards eliminating the sclerotic management culture and competition between design bureaus which conspired to destroy their chances.

The Kiat · Aug 23, 2009

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't part of the appeal of the space shuttle was that it could be used as a weapons platform. Deliver its payload and deorbit before the Soviets could shoot it down on the next pass?

Here's a thought; what if Kennedy's speech was something along the lines of 'before this century is out, of landing a man on Mars and returning him safely to Earth'

Emperor Norton I said:
Let's see: No Apollo 13, Nixon doesn't cut the space budget (or he doesn't even get elected and a more pro-space President does), the Space Shuttle Program is denied in lieu of expansion of Apollo; all good POD's.

The problem is Apollo is finite. You can maybe rig a POD where the Saturn V rocket is continues in use for other projects, but Apollo has to end.

trekchu · Aug 23, 2009

What about the Saturn V Shuttle?

The Kiat · Aug 23, 2009

The space shuttle seems like a 35 year detour that was really only good for making the shareholders in aerospace that much wealthier. The same thing seems to be happening with Orion. I mean, why not just modify the Saturn V to carry it instead of building this Ares V (aside from making the company that builds them money). The Saturn V has a great advantage; it works.

Workable Goblin · Aug 23, 2009

The Kiat said:
The space shuttle seems like a 35 year detour that was really only good for making the shareholders in aerospace that much wealthier. The same thing seems to be happening with Orion. I mean, why not just modify the Saturn V to carry it instead of building this Ares V (aside from making the company that builds them money). The Saturn V has a great advantage; it works.

Well, there haven't been any Saturn Vs built in 40 years. It's highly doubtful we *could* replicate them--especially given the absence of many of the engineers and other personnel who worked on the program originally. At the very least we would need to exhaustively dismantle the existing museum Saturn Vs, and even then we wouldn't know why engineers did this instead of that, or how to properly update them with modern computers, guidance systems, materials, and designs. OTOH, the RS-68, SRBs, and ET have plenty of living people associated with them, and are no trouble to replicate. Really, trying to restart the Saturn V production lines would be an exercise in failure. However, the Ares I is just a silly design.

The Kiat said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't part of the appeal of the space shuttle was that it could be used as a weapons platform. Deliver its payload and deorbit before the Soviets could shoot it down on the next pass?

Part of the reason the shuttle got approved was indeed that the Air Force wanted to be able to launch one into a polar orbit, do *something* (probably grabbing Soviet spysats), then land on the same orbit. Weapons, no, espionage yes. That made the shuttle design even less effective and useful than it was going to be, since it needed big wings to get the needed L/D ratio, and a big payload bay to hold Soviet satellites. Ironically, after crippling Shuttle capabilities the Air Force decided it didn't need that capability after all, and never finished SLC-6, the Vandenburg pad they were going to use for that mission.

The Kiat said:
Here's a thought; what if Kennedy's speech was something along the lines of 'before this century is out, of landing a man on Mars and returning him safely to Earth'

I think we'd end up with a whole lot of dead astronauts and a huge inquiry into NASA, as the tech just wasn't there to do it. Even more likely, though, is that Nixon or someone like him shuts down the program since it's not bringing any benefits here on Earth. A 40-year timespan is just too long to be effective against political pressure.

trekchu said:
What about the Saturn V Shuttle?

I think that might be an even sillier idea than the regular shuttle

Seriously though, that's not quite what I'm looking for--continued use of the Apollo CSM as the main human lift system in the US. It might make post-Shuttle developments easier, though.

trekchu · Aug 23, 2009

Well, somehow we have to keep the Saturn V tech around in order to be able to go back to the moon.

The Kiat · Aug 23, 2009

NASA was always to cautious when considering dead astronauts. Not to sound TOO harsh, but they were test pilots, and test pilots get blown up for a living. They knew the risk and accepted it. As for the NASA doctors, well with hindsight, some of their concerns were laughable.

As for a continuation.. I don't know why Apollo was really cancelled. A waste of money (what, compared to Vietnam?) or because some politicians wanted to spend the money at home, to fix the problems (humanity has been trying to fix it's problems since it founded civilization. The whole point of colonization is to get away from those problems). Space travel is a worthwhile investment for the future of our species.

trekchu · Aug 23, 2009

So what could be done to keep the Saturn V technology around so that it could be re-used in the future?

Workable Goblin · Aug 23, 2009

The Kiat said:
NASA was always to cautious when considering dead astronauts. Not to sound TOO harsh, but they were test pilots, and test pilots get blown up for a living. They knew the risk and accepted it. As for the NASA doctors, well with hindsight, some of their concerns were laughable.

It is true that there were some overblown concerns early on, but the Apollo program was actually magnificently designed, apparently: According to a recent article in The Space Review (an e-zine covering space matters which I have found to have generally excellent coverage), there was a 98% chance of crew survival, and a 75% chance of mission success in the early Apollo missions. The planned Mars missions, OTOH--success chances less than 10%, and crew survival chances less than 50%. Basically, a bad, bad deal.

The Kiat said:
As for a continuation.. I don't know why Apollo was really cancelled. A waste of money (what, compared to Vietnam?) or because some politicians wanted to spend the money at home, to fix the problems (humanity has been trying to fix it's problems since it founded civilization. The whole point of colonization is to get away from those problems). Space travel is a worthwhile investment for the future of our species.

It WAS expensive--about $25 billion in then-current dollars, working out to who knows how many 2009 dollars. Vietnam and the Great Society programs certainly had a huge impact on Apollo due to their expense; eliminating one or the other of them would be a good way to ensure continuation (as I said in my initial post). I favor Vietnam since that sucked up aerospace talent and attention, unlike the Great Society. Also, no Vietnam means that the political situation will be more stable, possibly meaning that pro-space Democratic presidents get elected. And LBJ might survive longer, which will likely have some positive impact (especially with Democrats in the White House).

Also, as I mentioned, NASA wanted to move on and thought the Shuttle would reduce costs while improving their capabilities. Since they only had enough money to do one thing, they decided on that. Reasonable, but ultimately incorrect and crippling.

trekchu said:
So what could be done to keep the Saturn V technology around so that it could be re-used in the future?

Well, NASA deciding it wants heavy-lift capability more than the Shuttle? Or at least Congress deciding to allocate more money in the FY 1971 budget for NASA. You really need to make that decision before 1970, though, since Saturn V production was already shutting down.

The Kiat · Aug 23, 2009

Didn't the shuttle turn out to be more expensive than space capsules. It was not really a reusable spacecraft, more like a rebuildable one since they have to replace the tiles all the time.

On a more synical note: aerospace do not design spacecraft for astronauts, they design them for shareholders.

trekchu · Aug 23, 2009

So perhaps, given more money of course, the Shuttle and the Saturn V, the former for reusability and to shuttle up people, and at the same time a limited ( 1 or 2 a year ? ) production of Saturn V, continually updated to shuttle up sattelites, parts for Space stations and perhaps deep-space probes?

Just shooting blind here, but I am interested in this.

Workable Goblin · Aug 23, 2009

trekchu said:
So perhaps, given more money of course, the Shuttle and the Saturn V, the former for reusability and to shuttle up people, and at the same time a limited ( 1 or 2 a year ? ) production of Saturn V, continually updated to shuttle up sattelites, parts for Space stations and perhaps deep-space probes?

That was in fact pretty much what NASA wanted to do: Shuttle for medium-lift payloads and people, Saturn V equivalent for heavy-lift payloads (like space stations). With better funding levels it wouldn't have been a problem. I'm really looking for a way for them to realize the Shuttle is a silly idea, though.

The Kiat said:
Didn't the shuttle turn out to be more expensive than space capsules. It was not really a reusable spacecraft, more like a rebuildable one since they have to replace the tiles all the time.

Yes indeed, the shuttle is no cheaper than capsules thanks to the problems you cite. That's why I'm trying to figure out a way for them to avoid that 40 year diversion

trekchu · Aug 23, 2009

truth is life said:
That was in fact pretty much what NASA wanted to do: Shuttle for medium-lift payloads and people, Saturn V equivalent for heavy-lift payloads (like space stations). With better funding levels it wouldn't have been a problem. I'm really looking for a way for them to realize the Shuttle is a silly idea, though.

Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks for enlightening me. Mind if I use that in my own AH, some day in the distant future?

Workable Goblin · Aug 23, 2009

trekchu said:
Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks for enlightening me. Mind if I use that in my own AH, some day in the distant future?

Oh no, of course not. It's not my idea, it's NASA's