The Return: An Alternate History of our Return to the Moon

Chapter 1: Start of Something New
Hey there fellas!

For a while I've been wanting to do a somewhat serious/realistic alternate history post focusing on the Space Shuttle. Specifically, this Alt History is based around a odd but interesting concept: Early Lunar Access. Early Lunar Access (ELA) was an early 90s concept focusing around a "Cheap, Better, Faster" way to get boots back on the moon by the early 2000s. I will also be including some other early 90s concepts that will affect the story in their own right. There will be imagery from real life and kerbal space program alike to truly bring this timeline to life.

PS: I am leaning towards telling a narrative so there will be some discrepancies that don't line up with real life (that doesn't mean it will be a 100% no sense alt history)

Other: If you may be interested in something else, I'm actively working on, I have an Apollo alternate history that I make in Kerbal Space Program up on the ksp forum which is also somewhat mainly story with less realistic elements.
https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.co...rbalized-apollo-era-alternate-history/page/1/ go check it out!

Without further ado let's get into this!

Chapter 1: The Start of Something New

Since the final moon landing in 1972, many have yearned to return to the moon. However, this dream has become more and more less of a possible reality as by 1990 it's been nearly 18 years since we left the moon. But, since the end of the Apollo Program, human Prescence in space has not dwindled. In 1981, Space Shuttle Columbia launched from Kennedy Space Center for the first time setting the country and the world into a new era of Space Exploration. By now it has been clearly known that the Space Shuttle is very capable of launching a multitude of different payloads into orbit and concepts were made to utilize the shuttle with payloads made for beyond earth orbit operations from satellites and probes to possible manned vehicles. But one program stood out amongst the rest: the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI). SEI was originally announced on the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11 by George H.W. Bush and had concepts for large Super Heavy Lift vehicles like the "Comet" HLLV, Common Lunar Lander (CLL), and First Lunar Outpost (FLO). The only issue with these concepts was that it would make the shuttle less important and useful. The HLLV could be fully disposable, and the Saturn V derived version could've used the F-1 engine originally produced in the 1960s making it much cheaper than the Shuttle which wasn't expendable and used complex RS-25 engines. The CLL and FLO, although they were made to be cheap and effective, were very large and would require the massive HLLV to make it to the moon, and lastly there was the Early Lunar Access (ELA) and this was the craft that got a second look. ELA would've used a command module similar to that of the Apollo Command Module, three spherical liquid hydrogen fuel tanks, and four RL-10 engines. And the best detail: it was compact and able to be constructed in orbit by a space shuttle crew. However, a Titan IV would've been used to launch the Centaur-G upper stage into orbit prior to the shuttle launch with the shuttle then rendezvousing with the Centaur, then constructing the ELA, docking it to Centaur, and then finally leaving Earth for the Moon. The process was seen as time consuming and much more expensive due to the Titan-IV and Centaur-G however, ELA itself was somewhat cheap to construct and the Command Module kept a pretty much 1:1 design to the original Apollo Command Module just with technology of the time to replace the old 1960s hardware.

R (4).jpg

Concept art for an ELA mission once in orbit construction was completed.

The Apollo Command Module design would be modified slightly to have two slits pointing downwards for landing, the chosen landing type was by direct landing as to not waste fuel putting the vehicle into an orbit similar to that of Apollo. Then after landing, the crew would egress through the hatch and take a ladder down to the surface and history would be made. The return was according to how it was planned, was going to be rather mundane with the side fuel tanks being jettisoned, and the four RL-10 engines using the rest of the fuel available to set the capsule on a return trajectory over the Pacific Ocean. This would be the flight plan if it was anything more than a concept. By current estimates, the first launch would be around 1997 or 2000 which would set back the whole ELA program beyond what was originally planned for it. The first step to get this project off the ground was mockups. General Dynamics engineers began constructing life sized mockups of the Lander Stage, and Command Module for ground tests and simulations of what the full mission would look like once landing is accomplished. If Americans were to return to the Moon by the beginning of the 21st century, then these steps would become fundamental in putting these goals into reality, not just another dream.
 
ELA's an interesting proposal, given how it substitutes a lot of launches of medium LVs for only one or two launches of a larger-payload vehicle, without using depots. (Three to four landings for flags-and-footprints missions, so about 6-8 launches--certainly a way to buy a lot of Shuttles and Titan IVs, though questionably better than just sucking it up and developing a Shuttle-C so you only need two or three of those!) Do you have the original AIAA paper or anything? (AIAA-93-4219).
 
What is political back ground, that force Capitol Hill to go a head with program ?
In OTL Bush Space Exploration Initiative died fast after it announcement, do lackluster response to it and estimated high cost of $400 billions.
Since Capitol Hill was eager to keep NASA at 1% of Fed Budget. (SEI require 2%~3% of Fed Budget during 30 years)
or NASA just sacrifice the Space Station Freedom to get money for Early Lunar Access ?

Needed hardware for Early Lunar Access:
Upgraded Shuttle with Advance Solid Rocket Motors and lightweight ET (ASRM was canceled do lack of budget) to carry 26 t payload
Modified Titan IV and Modified Centaur G stage (with lightweight tanks like ET) carry a 27 t payload
Alternative a Ariane 5 with four solids to launch Centaur G
Modified Shuttle space suit for Lunar use
new Capsule for 2 Astronauts and Lunar Excursion Vehicle (LEV)
Mini-pressurised Logistics Module from Space Station Freedom modified to as Habitat module on lunar surface
unpressurised rover, "Lunar mining equipment"

Planned mission:
Shuttle 1# launch with fuel LEV 1# with 8,5 tons equipment container into 28° orbit
One day after launch they use the Robot arm to put payload on top of LEV
Two day after launch the Titan IV 1# the Centaur stage to 100 miles away from Shuttle
LEV leave shuttle bay and docks with Centaur
four day after shuttle launch the Centaur launch LEV 1# to Moon were it lands direct three days later.
Shuttle 2# launch LEV2# with Habitat follow by Titan IV 2# LEV lands nearby LEV #1
Shuttle 3# launch LEV3# and capsule follow by Titan IV 3#
The capsule is docked to Shuttle Airlock for crew access, then robot arm move Capsule on LEV 3#
LEV 3# land near by LEV 2# 3# and crew activate the Habitat and onload the equipment container
after 21 days exploration the crew launch with LEV 3# and land in pacific.
with option of a resupply and another manned missions at landing site

how to hell they deal with Hydrogene boil off in tanks ?
 
ELA's an interesting proposal, given how it substitutes a lot of launches of medium LVs for only one or two launches of a larger-payload vehicle, without using depots. (Three to four landings for flags-and-footprints missions, so about 6-8 launches--certainly a way to buy a lot of Shuttles and Titan IVs, though questionably better than just sucking it up and developing a Shuttle-C so you only need two or three of those!) Do you have the original AIAA paper or anything? (AIAA-93-4219).
Actually, no I do not have the AIAA papers I'm mainly going off of information from sites like space.nss.org and Astronautix along with help from friends who have more knowledge with it. ELA anyways is a really cool concept that I'm glad I came across.
 
Probably the same way they are on the wide-body Centaur for Vulcan and that they studied for Centaur in the 2000s: minimize tank penetrations, sun shielding, insulation.
Yeah from my research there isn’t an extreme amount of detail on it but that seems correct
 
Watched

And I'll say that the interior of that capsule is going to be 'interesting' given all the things it was supposed to do :)
Also an article on ELA here: https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4511/1

And some good (and some bad :) ) comments attached

Randy
Appreciate it! I’ll give it read. There is a lack of detail on the interior but the ELA is supposed to be backed up by a lander that has a MPLM based habitat on it so that works I suppose.
 
What is political back ground, that force Capitol Hill to go a head with program ?
In OTL Bush Space Exploration Initiative died fast after it announcement, do lackluster response to it and estimated high cost of $400 billions.
Since Capitol Hill was eager to keep NASA at 1% of Fed Budget. (SEI require 2%~3% of Fed Budget during 30 years)
or NASA just sacrifice the Space Station Freedom to get money for Early Lunar Access ?

Needed hardware for Early Lunar Access:
Upgraded Shuttle with Advance Solid Rocket Motors and lightweight ET (ASRM was canceled do lack of budget) to carry 26 t payload
Modified Titan IV and Modified Centaur G stage (with lightweight tanks like ET) carry a 27 t payload
Alternative a Ariane 5 with four solids to launch Centaur G
Modified Shuttle space suit for Lunar use
new Capsule for 2 Astronauts and Lunar Excursion Vehicle (LEV)
Mini-pressurised Logistics Module from Space Station Freedom modified to as Habitat module on lunar surface
unpressurised rover, "Lunar mining equipment"

Planned mission:
Shuttle 1# launch with fuel LEV 1# with 8,5 tons equipment container into 28° orbit
One day after launch they use the Robot arm to put payload on top of LEV
Two day after launch the Titan IV 1# the Centaur stage to 100 miles away from Shuttle
LEV leave shuttle bay and docks with Centaur
four day after shuttle launch the Centaur launch LEV 1# to Moon were it lands direct three days later.
Shuttle 2# launch LEV2# with Habitat follow by Titan IV 2# LEV lands nearby LEV #1
Shuttle 3# launch LEV3# and capsule follow by Titan IV 3#
The capsule is docked to Shuttle Airlock for crew access, then robot arm move Capsule on LEV 3#
LEV 3# land near by LEV 2# 3# and crew activate the Habitat and onload the equipment container
after 21 days exploration the crew launch with LEV 3# and land in pacific.
with option of a resupply and another manned missions at landing site

how to hell they deal with Hydrogene boil off in tanks ?
Thanks for the questions I had to take a moment to find a reasonable answer so heres what I gotta say about the congress part:

1) It would be better to have ELA over FLO/CLL because of ELA being able to be fit into a shuttle payload bay instead of needing a whole new Launch Vehicle which in itself is much more expensive than ELA on its own.
2) If we are thinking of making it to the moon by the end of the 1990s, something as small as ELA could be enough to finish the goal.
3) The capsule part of ELA can use a recycled design from the Apollo Era which in part makes it much easier to produce since it’s all stuff we’ve made before.
 
As I mentioned at the beginning of this Timeline, the story won’t make sense at all times because I’m focusing on telling more of an intriguing story so there will be points that don’t line up with real life trends.
 
Thanks for the questions I had to take a moment to find a reasonable answer so heres what I gotta say about the congress part:
For one SEI was too expensive with $400 Billion
Also that NASA Administrator R.H. Truly gave a dam about SEI and focus to keep the Shuttle program running.
Had another Administrator look for low cost version of SEI with Small Space station, ELA and Mars Direct for $150 billion. (Goldin in 1989?)
Capitol Hill could be take it step by step, but you need something external like Russian or Chinese space activity to push them.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this Timeline, the story won’t make sense at all times because I’m focusing on telling more of an intriguing story so there will be points that don’t line up with real life trends.
so long the Story is believable and plausibel no problem

3) The capsule part of ELA can use a recycled design from the Apollo Era which in part makes it much easier to produce since it’s all stuff we’ve made before.
That would be Rockwell case to build or more insane to refurbish old Apollo capsules from Museum, with 27 remaining.
in combinations as Crew Rescue Craft for Space Station could secure the program
Also Advance Shuttle for Space Station and ELA would secure funding for Advance Solid Rocket Motors
Alternative they take already in 1986 Aerojet advance Solid rocket as replacement for SRB

Low Cost alternative to Titan IV lightweight tanks
Martin Marietta made proposal to Titan IV series to replace the second stage by hydrolox stage (modified Centaur G in TL?)
also weight reduction by use of composite material parts on rocket could push payload to 34000 kg
Source: Benefits of ALS Technology to Titan Vehicles by Martin Marietta begin 1990s.
 
For one SEI was too expensive with $400 Billion
Also that NASA Administrator R.H. Truly gave a dam about SEI and focus to keep the Shuttle program running.
Had another Administrator look for low cost version of SEI with Small Space station, ELA and Mars Direct for $150 billion. (Goldin in 1989?)
Capitol Hill could be take it step by step, but you need something external like Russian or Chinese space activity to push them.


so long the Story is believable and plausibel no problem


That would be Rockwell case to build or more insane to refurbish old Apollo capsules from Museum, with 27 remaining.
in combinations as Crew Rescue Craft for Space Station could secure the program
Also Advance Shuttle for Space Station and ELA would secure funding for Advance Solid Rocket Motors
Alternative they take already in 1986 Aerojet advance Solid rocket as replacement for SRB

Low Cost alternative to Titan IV lightweight tanks
Martin Marietta made proposal to Titan IV series to replace the second stage by hydrolox stage (modified Centaur G in TL?)
also weight reduction by use of composite material parts on rocket could push payload to 34000 kg
Source: Benefits of ALS Technology to Titan Vehicles by Martin Marietta begin 1990s.
Wow this is a lot lol thank you for the information and I'll make sure not to go past the realm of reality!
 
Also that NASA Administrator R.H. Truly gave a dam about SEI and focus to keep the Shuttle program running.

To be honest he was aware that Congress wasn't going to fund it and Bush was only lackluster in supporting it himself. "Freedom" was DOA no matter what (Congress again) so really the Shuttle was all they had and there would be no funding for a new LV.

Had another Administrator look for low cost version of SEI with Small Space station, ELA and Mars Direct for $150 billion. (Goldin in 1989?)
Capitol Hill could be take it step by step, but you need something external like Russian or Chinese space activity to push them.

Slight correction but Mars Direct wasn't till the early 90s and the Administrator that pushed it was Griffin in the mid-2000's. Despite Zubrin's claims you again had to go to Congress to get funding for a new launch vehicle and it wasn't going to happen at that point in time. And yes the most 'likely' scenario for ELA (or any return to the Moon before the late 2000's) is Russia or China going to the Moon. But simply having Congress have a change of heart about BLEO in the time frame works.

so long the Story is believable and plausible no problem

What he said :)

Randy
 
Appreciate it! I’ll give it read.

Not a problem, I'll also point out a thread and link at nasaspaceflightDOTcom
Thread: (Is actually on FLO but has ELA info/links as well) https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57763.0;all
Link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=18496.0;attach=162819&psig=AOvVaw2Mn53v9t6k024N2PKp6Kue&ust=1677854168941000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=2ahUKEwiTwIj_u739AhVOGDQIHZGvDAwQr4kDegQIARA3

ELA Briefing link: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=57763.0;attach=2154709;sess=0 (E of Pi, is this the AIAA paper you were talking about?)

There's also a DeviantArt series of illustrations for ELA but I can't get the link to work (or post) name of "brickmack" though I'm thinking those are the pics in the thread.

A couple of other good sources are Reddit and (believe it or not) KSP forums and Reddits. (Including at least one "full mission" thread IIRC for KSP1)
Edit: At least one YouTube mission as well:

There is a lack of detail on the interior but the ELA is supposed to be backed up by a lander that has a MPLM based habitat on it so that works I suppose.

Well to be honest they never did get that far :) It likely would have to have been a "new build' vehicle at any rate, but the main 'hesitation' for a lot of people is the "eye-balls-out" nature of the majority of the mission and the nature of 'EVA' once on the surface.

Randy
 
Last edited:
Oh yes and I wanted to point out that a key factor for ELA was it was a 'direct' landing with no Lunar orbit phase which actually meant it had a much broader landing site capability than Apollo did. Meaning places like the poles and such are available.

Randy
 
Something that I'm noting in reading up on ELA was the rather rapid time frame involved or at least assumed. The most common 'complaint' is that you'd need six (6) rapid fire Shuttle/ELV launches which yes would be an issue but in context I'm not so sure that's the "given" it's meant to be. Your main issue is 'consumables' which in the case of the cargo and hab landers (actually hab) is power which seems to come from fuel cells fed by a dedicated "fuel cell reactants" system and maybe the lander element's propellant excess. (Granted there's not a lot of 'crunch' to this since they didn't actually get that far into the planning, but that seems to be the 'basic' idea. And this is before we even get into the rather 'optimistic' engineering schedule :) ) Plus there's the need to phase TLI windows to avoid large delta V midcourse correction burns.

So in order to stay "two to three weeks" (about a Lunar 'day') the crew has to follow the cargo/hab landers pretty quickly, optimal looks to be assumed 4 days "on-orbit" to be ready for an upcoming TLI window with assumed 'average' opportunities every 7-ish days. So ya, you gotta be rackin-n-stackin Shuttles and ELV's to get the three required flights in per "window", which I think is unlikely. So what happens if we stretch things out? We run out of power, have you not been paying attention? :)

Really I've got no idea where Astro_Almond is going with this but I'd suggest that ELA (why does that keep coming out ELO? we may never know :) ) essentially takes the place of the ISS in being a cooperative effort with Russia. IIRC Russia had some pretty good RTG's which could replace the fuel cells on the mission to give an extended capability to 'over-night' while waiting on a longer TLI window allowing a better 'pacing' of the launch assets.
Or am I all wet over here?

Thoughts?

Randy
 
let's look into launch option
Shuttle has two launch pad 39 A and B
Titan IV has SLC 40 and 41

mean two of ELA mission can be launch fast, but really matter is refurbish time of launch pads and prepare the Launcher.
But also important is here the Moon has day/night cycle of 14 days.
Because ELA need day light for remote controlled landing and it take 6 days for hardware to land on Moon.
Either landing happen in Lunar morning or evening
This however from this dependent the launch windows and sequence
Landing in lunar morning means the next launch have to wait 30 days, while landing at lunar evening give 14 days for landing on lunar morning.
This here is important for dual launch of ELA 2# and ELA 3#

proposed launch sequence
launch of Shuttle, follow by Titan IV for ELA #1 the equipment flight,
Refurbish launch pads up to 3 months were ELA 1# that wait on moon passive.
two Shuttles move to launch pads 39 A/B while two Titan IV are ready to launch
first ELA 2# habitat flight, landing on Lunar evening, spends 14 days in lunar night.
14 days later follow Manned ELA3# landing on lunar morning, for 14 days surface mission.

Sad that Launch complex 39 has not pad C or that a SLC-42 exist, it would have made operations much easier.
with launches in 14 day intervals
 
let's look into launch option
Shuttle has two launch pad 39 A and B
Titan IV has SLC 40 and 41

mean two of ELA mission can be launch fast, but really matter is refurbish time of launch pads and prepare the Launcher.
But also important is here the Moon has day/night cycle of 14 days.
Because ELA need day light for remote controlled landing and it take 6 days for hardware to land on Moon.
Either landing happen in Lunar morning or evening
This however from this dependent the launch windows and sequence
Landing in lunar morning means the next launch have to wait 30 days, while landing at lunar evening give 14 days for landing on lunar morning.
This here is important for dual launch of ELA 2# and ELA 3#

proposed launch sequence
launch of Shuttle, follow by Titan IV for ELA #1 the equipment flight,
Refurbish launch pads up to 3 months were ELA 1# that wait on moon passive.
two Shuttles move to launch pads 39 A/B while two Titan IV are ready to launch
first ELA 2# habitat flight, landing on Lunar evening, spends 14 days in lunar night.
14 days later follow Manned ELA3# landing on lunar morning, for 14 days surface mission.

Sad that Launch complex 39 has not pad C or that a SLC-42 exist, it would have made operations much easier.
with launches in 14 day intervals
Perhaps one or the other of these two pads is could be constructed ITTL
 
Something that I'm noting in reading up on ELA was the rather rapid time frame involved or at least assumed. The most common 'complaint' is that you'd need six (6) rapid fire Shuttle/ELV launches which yes would be an issue but in context I'm not so sure that's the "given" it's meant to be. Your main issue is 'consumables' which in the case of the cargo and hab landers (actually hab) is power which seems to come from fuel cells fed by a dedicated "fuel cell reactants" system and maybe the lander element's propellant excess. (Granted there's not a lot of 'crunch' to this since they didn't actually get that far into the planning, but that seems to be the 'basic' idea. And this is before we even get into the rather 'optimistic' engineering schedule :) ) Plus there's the need to phase TLI windows to avoid large delta V midcourse correction burns.

So in order to stay "two to three weeks" (about a Lunar 'day') the crew has to follow the cargo/hab landers pretty quickly, optimal looks to be assumed 4 days "on-orbit" to be ready for an upcoming TLI window with assumed 'average' opportunities every 7-ish days. So ya, you gotta be rackin-n-stackin Shuttles and ELV's to get the three required flights in per "window", which I think is unlikely. So what happens if we stretch things out? We run out of power, have you not been paying attention? :)
But also important is here the Moon has day/night cycle of 14 days.
Because ELA need day light for remote controlled landing and it take 6 days for hardware to land on Moon.
Either landing happen in Lunar morning or evening
This however from this dependent the launch windows and sequence
Landing in lunar morning means the next launch have to wait 30 days, while landing at lunar evening give 14 days for landing on lunar morning.
This here is important for dual launch of ELA 2# and ELA 3#

proposed launch sequence
launch of Shuttle, follow by Titan IV for ELA #1 the equipment flight,
Refurbish launch pads up to 3 months were ELA 1# that wait on moon passive.
two Shuttles move to launch pads 39 A/B while two Titan IV are ready to launch
first ELA 2# habitat flight, landing on Lunar evening, spends 14 days in lunar night.
14 days later follow Manned ELA3# landing on lunar morning, for 14 days surface mission.

Sad that Launch complex 39 has not pad C or that a SLC-42 exist, it would have made operations much easier.
with launches in 14 day intervals
Randy, as Michel notes, the landings for the various hab/science elements don't need to happen in the same window, or even in the same month, as the crew launch, so you can spread the launches over multiple windows and thus multiple months. Power is a concern, but until the crew arrive and fire up the high power systems, the "keep alive" demands will be an order of magnitude or two less than those for crew--more like the few hundred Watts of Mars Science Laboratory or the like then the kilowatts of crew-level life support and the more power-hungry crew science capabilities. It's still a lot of launches, but you've got time to do each pair well spread out.
 
Last edited:
Top