AH Challenge: Lunex, not Apollo

Linky

Lunex was the Air Force proposal for a lunar landing program. You can read all you ever wanted to know about it above. With a POD no earlier than 1957, how can you make the Lunex program be chosen over a civilian (ie., NASA Apollo) program to respond to the Soviets? Bonus points if it actually succeeds by 1970 (very technically challenging), double bonus points if it establishes a lunar base, triple bonus points and a Master of Technical Excellence medal if you can keep it on schedule or finish early (this is definitely pushing ASB territory, if not deep within).

While awesome the time scale is completely ASB. The difference between Lunex and Apollo was that Lunex was the optimal way to get to the moon and explore it as part of an overall strategy of exploiting space.
Apollo was about getting a man on the moon ASAP.
The only similarity of the two programs was the moon otherwise they were completely different in terms of time-scale, goals and methods.

Aracnid said:

While awesome the time scale is completely ASB. The difference between Lunex and Apollo was that Lunex was the optimal way to get to the moon and explore it as part of an overall strategy of exploiting space.
Apollo was about getting a man on the moon ASAP.
The only similarity of the two programs was the moon otherwise they were completely different in terms of time-scale, goals and methods.

Click to expand...

That's why it actually succeeding it its goal is such a big bonus. Even landing on the Moon at all in Kennedy's timeframe is a winner!

LUNEX had to be a big Chash crash Program !
and a Military take over of NASA by USAF

USAF belief that money can allowed utopic timetabel
but technical they hab experienced alot of problems

like readyness of J-2 M-1 rocketengine bevor year 1965
the Lifting body was only paperwork !
and USAF had NO idea wat to use for Heatshield

sunday i have time to post more
like about Space Launching System SLS A-388 rocket
and his development Problem in LUNEX Timeline

POD:
Richard Nixon becomes President in 1960

Prolog:
in 1961 Richard Nixon had alot of foreign policy problems
like Cuba invasion disaster, the Sovjet successes with first human in space
Nixon followed the suggestion of his adviser for a manned lunar landing
but Nixon made one big change, because NASA had failed in Mercury Program
The new Program runs under military leadership !
on april 21, 1961 NASA was take over by USAF
Administrator James E Webb was replace by Colonel Kenneth Shultz
(fromer head of AF Office of Development Planning)
then the Air Force presendet the LUNEX program
also inform the end of several NASA program like Apollo, Saturn I

SLS-A388 or how USAF landed in reality
The first of SLS rockets was a important step for LUNEX Program
Two segmented soild booster with a corestage with a J-2 engine (like Ariane 5 !)

the Planned timetabel was utopic: only 30 months
from July 1961 program start, until October 1963 with first Test launch
then July 1964 the first payload launch
and November 1964: first manned launch
NOTE: Saturn I/IB R&D lasted 104 months, Saturn V 58 months

at first everything went well
main contractor became Douglas who also build corestage
(that's almost like the S-IV stage they build in same time)
Thiokol get the contract for soild booster and build them in record time of 18 months !
(They had already R&D a segmented soild prototype for USAF in 1960)

but in march 1962 Rocketdyne J-2 was far from ready for A-388
It neede still 100 firing test and would only be ready at 1966 !
Note: LUNEX has to make then its manned circumlunar flight, with A-388 succesor the AB-825

USAF found a replacement: the Aerojet LR87 LH2 engine
Orginal for Titan I ICBM its was adapted on several fuels. but it has 30% less thrust as J-2,
Aerojet and Douglas came with a simple solution:
instead of J-2 high altitude ignition, the LR87 ignite on launch pad befor the Solid rockets
at moment the solid rocket are jettison, the Corestage is lighter and payload only 11% lower
so after 6 month of delays, on december 1964 the fist launch of A-388
was a first success for the LUNEX program

This was downfall for Rocketdyne,
the A-388 replace Atlas & Saturn I were Rocketdyne provides the engine
the USAF canceld the J-2 also the F-1 engine, because success of the big segmented soild booster

But how do you keep the spacecraft from burning up on reentry?
Ablative heatshield across the whole bottom? What does that do to the mass of the craft on launch? Won't that involve a new launch vehicle?

Michel Van said:

POD:
Richard Nixon becomes President in 1960

Prolog:
in 1961 Richard Nixon had alot of foreign policy problems
like Cuba invasion disaster, the Sovjet successes with first human in space
Nixon followed the suggestion of his adviser for a manned lunar landing
but Nixon made one big change, because NASA had failed in Mercury Program
The new Program runs under military leadership !
on april 21, 1961 NASA was take over by USAF
Administrator James E Webb was replace by Colonel Kenneth Shultz
(fromer head of AF Office of Development Planning)
then the Air Force presendet the LUNEX program
also inform the end of several NASA program like Apollo, Saturn I

SLS-A388 or how USAF landed in reality
The first of SLS rockets was a important step for LUNEX Program
Two segmented soild booster with a corestage with a J-2 engine (like Ariane 5 !)

the Planned timetabel was utopic: only 30 months
from July 1961 program start, until October 1963 with first Test launch
then July 1964 the first payload launch
and November 1964: first manned launch
NOTE: Saturn I/IB R&D lasted 104 months, Saturn V 58 months

at first everything went well
main contractor became Douglas who also build corestage
(that's almost like the S-IV stage they build in same time)
Thiokol get the contract for soild booster and build them in record time of 18 months !
(They had already R&D a segmented soild prototype for USAF in 1960)

but in march 1962 Rocketdyne J-2 was far from ready for A-388
It neede still 100 firing test and would only be ready at 1966 !
Note: LUNEX has to make then its manned circumlunar flight, with A-388 succesor the AB-825

USAF found a replacement: the Aerojet LR87 LH2 engine
Orginal for Titan I ICBM its was adapted on several fuels. but it has 30% less thrust as J-2,
Aerojet and Douglas came with a simple solution:
instead of J-2 high altitude ignition, the LR87 ignite on launch pad befor the Solid rockets
at moment the solid rocket are jettison, the Corestage is lighter and payload only 11% lower
so after 6 month of delays, on december 1964 the fist launch of A-388
was a first success for the LUNEX program

This was downfall for Rocketdyne,
the A-388 replace Atlas & Saturn I were Rocketdyne provides the engine
the USAF canceld the J-2 also the F-1 engine, because success of the big segmented soild booster

Click to expand...

truth is life said:

Linky

Lunex was the Air Force proposal for a lunar landing program. You can read all you ever wanted to know about it above. With a POD no earlier than 1957, how can you make the Lunex program be chosen over a civilian (ie., NASA Apollo) program to respond to the Soviets? Bonus points if it actually succeeds by 1970 (very technically challenging), double bonus points if it establishes a lunar base, triple bonus points and a Master of Technical Excellence medal if you can keep it on schedule or finish early (this is definitely pushing ASB territory, if not deep within).

Click to expand...

Wouldn't Lunex have required leaving a man on the moon for a year before
he could be returned to Earth?

Blair152 said:

Wouldn't Lunex have required leaving a man on the moon for a year before
he could be returned to Earth?

Click to expand...

Erm, no. Try reading the linked report first--or, failing that, at least looking at astronautix's summary page.

truth is life said:

Erm, no. Try reading the linked report first--or, failing that, at least looking at astronautix's summary page.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I will. I remember reading about that in James A. Michener's novel Space. That was one of the possibilities. Send an astronaut to the moon, leave him there for a year, to perform experiments, and launch a rescue ship a later so he can return to Earth.

the LUNEX program had utopic timetabel
1965: recovery of a manned reentry vehicle
1966: manned circumlunar flight
1967: manned lunar landing and return
1968: manned USAF lunar base and Expedition

next in history:
USAF: a manned vehicle odyssey
as in 1958 the Air Force conceived Lunex Re-entry Vehicle it was State of Art
but in 1961 that design become obsolete, a new one was neede until 1965.
in same time USAF neede also a surrogate manned vehicle to train astronauts until then

Dyna-Soar or a death-end street
it was obviously the Dyna Soar become the new Lunex Re-entry Vehicle
but that program run in difficulty, delays and over budget already
Boeing gona finish the First prototype in 1963 and start drop test from B-52
with launch into orbit was not befor 1968
also Dyna-soar hardware was desgin for one men sub-orbital to Orbital mission for several hours
not for 14 days lunar mission with return speed of 37000 ft/sec !
in end the USAF canceled it in 1963 and move it resource and astronauts to LUNEX
like ASSET was orginal a program to verify the metal heatshiel of Dyna-Soar
small biconic Vehicle's launch by Thor rocket
under LUNEX it became Test for heatshields with return speed of 37000 ft/sec
and used Atlas Centaur Rocket

PRIME SV-5 was taken as replacement for orginal Lunex and Dyna-Soar vehicle
but Martin Company neede until 1966 to first testlaunch for X-23
and for bigger manned SV-5 (X-24) it will take until 1968 for drop test
with luck first manned launch in 1970, LUNEX was now in serious problem


Mercury Mark I&II from "fill in the Gap" to "Savior of LUNEX"
USAF ceep the Mercury program running but change from suborbital to orbital mission
and launch the 6 Mercury astronauts during november 1961 to december 1963

already 1958 NASA work on Mercury MkII a two man spacecraft (also build by McDonnell)
in 1961 the USAF push the program a head and laid down the rule:
they rename it Valiant and to be launch with SLS A-388 in 1964.
as transitional program from Mercury to LUNEX
Orginal plan had used man-rating Titan II ICBM abandoned for cost reasion and SLS Program
but delay in A-388 push Valiant mission launch date into beginn 1965
USAF to take prompt action and used Atlas for test and first missions in 1964.
Unmanned Valiant 1-2 and Manned Valiant 3 three orbit and Valiant 4 with first EVA in low orbit.
the rest to Valiant 14 was launch then with A-388 in higher orbit 1965 until 1966

Durning Valiant Program McDonnell made several proposal to USAF
one became later Manned Orbital Labor (in reality a manned Spysat) in 1970
The use of Valiant Capsul for manned lunar landing
the other was a "Winged" Valiant a lowcost Lifting body based on ASSET Hardware
wat can fly and land like a aircraft
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/z/zgemwing.jpg
with Metal heatshield moved on side of capsule, its base became free to expand, the crew from 2 to 4 astronaut
Kenneth Shultz was enthusiastically about Winged Valiant
McDonnell rebuild used Vailant 2 & 3 into Winged prototypes
(defactor the capulse became the fist reused Spacecraft in World)
and launch Valiant 2B them in november 1966 and manned Valiant 3B january 1967
2 year behind the orginal LUNEX program plans for recovery of a manned reentry vehicle in 1965.

would've seen Shuttle like delays and overruns from heating

I'm afraid the Shuttle was a step BACKWARDS, not forwards. Early space pioneers didn't understand that we can't protect spaceplanes from burning up in atmosphere on reasonable budgets. So, like today's Shuttle, it would've seen serious delays and utterly vast cost overruns from that problem.

The right way to have done the Shuttle would've been to tried an X-style prototype, watch it burn up in atmosphere and reasonably cheap heat shielding fail, and given up for awhile.

We're FINALLY, in 2010, with tons of compute power, working on a prototype that has real promise - the waverider. But there's nothing easy about it, and it couldn't've been done much earlier because of the compute power needed; the idea was had decades ago, but computers weren't up to it.

jkay said:

I'm afraid the Shuttle was a step BACKWARDS, not forwards.

Click to expand...

there are no Space Shuttle in this TL
The Valiant (OTL Gemini) take that role !
OTL in 1967 McDonnell-Douglas proposed to NASA the BIG GEMINI
a extend Capsul for 12 Astronauts

i can make winged Valiant version of Big Gemini with Big triangel Heatshield
but that would be for 1980's

but first the Lunar landing !

jkay said:

I'm afraid the Shuttle was a step BACKWARDS, not forwards. Early space pioneers didn't understand that we can't protect spaceplanes from burning up in atmosphere on reasonable budgets. So, like today's Shuttle, it would've seen serious delays and utterly vast cost overruns from that problem.

Click to expand...

The Shuttle saw delays, sure, but it wasn't even close to "vastly" overruning, at least on development cost (operating cost is a whole 'nother matter). Original projections were for a $5.15 billion program--the final cost? About $6 billion. That's a LOT less than a lot of government programs, some of which are obviously simpler, like the NPOESS program. Weather satellites? That was solved almost 50 years ago. Yet it was just canceled due to enormous overruns.

jkay said:

The right way to have done the Shuttle would've been to tried an X-style prototype, watch it burn up in atmosphere and reasonably cheap heat shielding fail, and given up for awhile.

Click to expand...

Well, the most famous X-plane was a spaceplane (of sorts)--the X-15. I don't remember it ever burning up. The main problem with heat shielding is the big four of:
Weight
Fragility
Heat Resistance
and Reusability (if and only if you want to build a reusable vehicle, of course)

RCC, for example, is easily reused and can withstand tremendous temperatures, but is fragile and very heavy (10x denser than the standard tile). Ablative shields are quite heat resistant and tough, but heavy and not reusable. And so on. Cost in of itself is not a major factor, though the upkeep cost of some of the reusable materials is. But the limiter was materials science, not design--after all, the Shuttle worked reasonably well. It didn't "burn up", and while the materials chose were expensive to maintain, that was not originally foreseen, and they weren't just ridiculously expensive to produce.

First POD is ahve Ike not decide on a non-military manned space program. A second is keep RM at Ford. Maybe he could screw up the Mustang just as much as he screwed up with the Edsel

I'm afraid I worded my comment confusingly. I brought up the Shuttle because Lunex' reentry vehicle would've faced many of the same problems, being specced to be flied to earth as today's shuttle, meaning a spaceplane for the return mission.


truth_is_life, operations are still part of costs, aren't they? How happy do you think taxpayers would be about an (admittedly waycool) $6B museum piece in the case no operation budget was provided? Plus, the high op costs created more delays, in effect, because NASA couldn't afford Shuttle flights anything like with the promised frequences.

And, this thread also reminded me of the X-15. I was thinking of the impressive burns on its surface.

jkay said:

I'm afraid I worded my comment confusingly. I brought up the Shuttle because Lunex' reentry vehicle would've faced many of the same problems, being specced to be flied to earth as today's shuttle, meaning a spaceplane for the return mission.

Click to expand...

Well, I understood, pretty much. Lunex is indeed going to face a lot of challenges, but they're mostly materials science challenges. They ain't gonna make their timeline, that's for sure.

jkay said:

truth_is_life, operations are still part of costs, aren't they? How happy do you think taxpayers would be about an (admittedly waycool) $6B museum piece in the case no operation budget was provided? Plus, the high op costs created more delays, in effect, because NASA couldn't afford Shuttle flights anything like with the promised frequences.

Click to expand...

True. But that's again a materials issue. The silica tiles required a lot more maintenance than they thought they would. And even the costs aren't sooo bad. I mean, sure, they're bad. But the marginal cost of adding another Shuttle mission actually is pretty close to the cost of flying another Titan or such (well, if they flew Titans, that is). It's the fact they can't get anywhere near to the maximum flight rate (24/year, dictated by Michoud's ability to manufacture ETs) and a flawed design driven (ironically) by their desire to cut costs that's the main factor leading to the Shuttle's high operations cost and low flight rate.

jkay said:

We're FINALLY, in 2010, with tons of compute power, working on a prototype that has real promise - the waverider. But there's nothing easy about it, and it couldn't've been done much earlier because of the compute power needed; the idea was had decades ago, but computers weren't up to it.

Click to expand...

The Bow-wave rider idea goes back just as far as Lunex, first mentioned in the 1951 by Terence Nonweiler.

It may shock you to know that aircraft and spacecraft were designed by people with slide rules prior to computers being invented, and some of them even managed to fly.

truth is life wrote:
. . . the marginal cost of adding another Shuttle mission actually is pretty close to the cost of flying another Titan or such . . .

Click to expand...

I don't blame you for thinking that and using that kind of accounting, because NASA's been about as honest about Shuttle costs as Bush II has been about his wars - not in the slightest. It worked - it certainly did delay public unhappiness over the Shuttle alot. NASA quotes 450M per launch while wiki gives$250-350M/TitanIV launch. But that doesn't take into account many, many things, like turnaround costs. Wiki gives $1.3B/launch from the total program cost divided by numbers of missions.

Cook wrote:
It may shock you to know that aircraft and spacecraft were designed by people with slide rules prior to computers being invented, and some of them even managed to fly.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and all the King's slide rules and early, slow computers couldn't make the waverider work, could they?

There were plenty of computers before Turing and von Neumann, BTW. They used to use the human kind, running programs on groups of people. Nobody's ever found a computation operation that computers can do and people can do, and vice versa. The issue isn't computers' existence, but how fast they run. Many things need a certain level of computer speed or access to be practical, and the waverider seems to be one of them. The slower your computers are, the coarser and less reliable your simulations are, the more time each takes, and the fewer iterations you can do on a new design; waveriding might also need powerful flight controllers to be practical like certain newer military aircraft.

jkay said:

I don't blame you for thinking that and using that kind of accounting, because NASA's been about as honest about Shuttle costs as Bush II has been about his wars - not in the slightest. It worked - it certainly did delay public unhappiness over the Shuttle alot. NASA quotes 450M per launch while wiki gives$250-350M/TitanIV launch. But that doesn't take into account many, many things, like turnaround costs. Wiki gives $1.3B/launch from the total program cost divided by numbers of missions.

Click to expand...

The number you quoted is not the marginal cost, which is what I was specifically referring to. The two are completely different, in that marginal cost takes into account only the cost of "adding one more", whereas overall cost averaged per-mission is severely affected by things like low flight/production rate, R&D associated with the program, external costs charged to the program, and such. This is why B-2s cost a couple billion per, for example--there were only 21 built. The actual cost of building one more would only by about $700 million--a hefty chunk of change, sure, but less than 1/2 the overall per-aircraft cost. Go here for an explanation of all of this.

So "the fact they can't get anywhere near to the maximum flight rate (24/year, dictated by Michoud's ability to manufacture ETs) and a flawed design driven (ironically) by their desire to cut costs [are] the main factor leading to the Shuttle's high operations cost..." along with the substantial cost to maintain many NASA facilities that was put on the Shuttle's tab, so to speak.

If you were selling gum, and priced only at marginal cost, you'd lose money because you'd never be able to pay for factory upgrades, janitorial service, maintenance, R&D, or the biggest item, long-term labor. I assure you, Russia and Virgin are starting their profit margins from total expected costs. Why should we price Shuttle launches differently? Among other problems, it fails to rightly cost those high, postflighting costs.

If you're a space nut, you're doing your cause no service. The way to progress is via facts, even if they're painful. Every man-made thing and system has defects and problems to overcome, that are important to understand so the next thing you build's better.

By the way, if you check out the X-series' later history, you'll see that one was devoted to trying another way of dealing with spaceplanes' heat troubles (maybe also with a ramjet in case of success?). It failed.