alternatehistory.com
1972: NASA hell of a year (4)
This one for Ranulf - Titan III and alternatives
"The Johnson Space Center (JSC) heavily insists on uprating at least part of the Saturn IB fleet with the high-performance XLR-129 (to replace the Apollo era J-2).
The reason is the Air Force advanced rocket engine remains the closest thing from the lost Space Shuttle Main Engine - with two major caveats. First it lacks thrust, 250 000 pounds instead of the shuttle target of 350 000 pounds.
More annoyingly before the shuttle cancellation the SSME contract had already been attributed to Rocketdyne and not Pratt&Whitney, although it was the latter that tested the XLR-129.
Six months ago a minor controversy erupted when Representative Cotter bluntly charged NASA Dale Myers (and former Rocketdyne employee) of favorizing his former company. These allegations however were rapidly quashed by the Government Accounting Office.
Ground testing of the XLR-129 may resume soon, and JSC clamour for the integration of the advanced engine into the fleet of spare Saturn IB.
There are many issues with that scheme.
Integration of the engine would be extremely difficult and costly; the stock of Saturn is barely sufficient for an eventual space station buildup.
In this context the ARES 1B option has recently gained a lot of traction.
...
"Without the space shuttle NASA is essentially stuck with capsules, yet another issue is what launcher for these capsules. It boils down to Titan III-M versus Saturn IB, although two alternatives have recently emerged – which are somewhat members of the enlarged Saturn family of launch vehicles.
Both alternatives are the result of issues with Saturn S-IB or first stage. A cluster of tanks from the long gone Jupiter missile, the S-IB is rather heavy, inefficient, and expensive to build. Its elimination would results in large savings.
…
Alternative 1 has the S-IVB riding on a downrated (3*F-1A )Saturn V first stage, which remains expensive, oversized and overpowered; that's the Jupiter 120, where the number 120 stands for 120 000 pounds into orbit. For the record, a fully fuelled CSM weights 70 000 pounds - with all that SPS fuel perfectly unuseful for low Earth orbit missions. Consideration has been given to a very large payload module that would be picked up, LM-style, through a 180 degree transposition manoeuver.
…
His name an hommage to Von Braun early missile, the Jupiter 120 is in fact at the center of a whole family of new launch vehicles. Among them is the Jupiter 232, essentially a direct return to the Saturn V launching as much as 232 000 pounds into orbit. Modularity, or a so-called building-block approach, is key to the concept.
…
Alternative 2 is, somewhat ironically, a breeding of Titan and Saturn: a cluster of Titan large solids with Saturn' S-IVB on top. The Titan boosters might be recovered at sea for reuse, lowering launch costs – a system known as the Advanced REcoverable Solid, or ARES. According to a source within NASA astronaut corp that concept has been christened Satan - a portemanteau of Saturn and Titan. As a sidenote, that nickname by itself clearly show astronaut opinion about that launch vehicle.
…
The Ares-Saturn IB, usually shortened the Ares 1B is clearly of interest to NASA. The civilian space agency so far show an evident lack of enthusiasm flying the Titan III, a military space vehicle the Bureau of Budget forced them to use essentially because it is already there.
…
A hybrid of Titan and Saturn that preserves the S-IVB translunar stage, the Ares 1B is certainly an attractive option. Experts however warns the solids performance is too low, and that the J-2 can’t fill the gap.
In this case it would take the new XLR-129 to lift a decent payload to orbit - hence JSC pressing lobbying for it.
This very advanced rocket engine remains a strong candidate to power a reborn shuttle, perhaps in the next decade; but it has not be fully tested yet. Unlike the J-2, it was not designed to be air-started in-flight; cost of the modifications might be prohibitive.
…
It is interesting to note that the XLR-129 formed the core of the Space Shuttle Engine proposals; making the Ares 1B a possible forerunner of a new shuttle.
…
Astronauts are known to be reticent to fly on solid-propelled boosters, which tend to suffer destructive, unpredictible destruct events that can easily outrun escape systems – and kill the crew.
…
It remains to be seen, however, whether Congress and the Bureau of Budget will allocate funds for another launcher which performance essentially duplicates the existing, proven Saturn IB and Titan III.
...
with the death of the Saturn V and space shuttle, NASA might get out of the launch vehicle business sooner than later…something the Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, might suffers from.”
(excerpt from Flight Global, February 1 1972: Jupiter, Titan, Saturn and Ares launch vehicles considered)
PERSONAL NOTE: that part was fun to write because it is crammed with hints to OTL projects - Kudos to those who identify all the references
"The Johnson Space Center (JSC) heavily insists on uprating at least part of the Saturn IB fleet with the high-performance XLR-129 (to replace the Apollo era J-2).
The reason is the Air Force advanced rocket engine remains the closest thing from the lost Space Shuttle Main Engine - with two major caveats. First it lacks thrust, 250 000 pounds instead of the shuttle target of 350 000 pounds.
More annoyingly before the shuttle cancellation the SSME contract had already been attributed to Rocketdyne and not Pratt&Whitney, although it was the latter that tested the XLR-129.
Six months ago a minor controversy erupted when Representative Cotter bluntly charged NASA Dale Myers (and former Rocketdyne employee) of favorizing his former company. These allegations however were rapidly quashed by the Government Accounting Office.
Ground testing of the XLR-129 may resume soon, and JSC clamour for the integration of the advanced engine into the fleet of spare Saturn IB.
There are many issues with that scheme.
Integration of the engine would be extremely difficult and costly; the stock of Saturn is barely sufficient for an eventual space station buildup.
In this context the ARES 1B option has recently gained a lot of traction.
...
"Without the space shuttle NASA is essentially stuck with capsules, yet another issue is what launcher for these capsules. It boils down to Titan III-M versus Saturn IB, although two alternatives have recently emerged – which are somewhat members of the enlarged Saturn family of launch vehicles.
Both alternatives are the result of issues with Saturn S-IB or first stage. A cluster of tanks from the long gone Jupiter missile, the S-IB is rather heavy, inefficient, and expensive to build. Its elimination would results in large savings.
…
Alternative 1 has the S-IVB riding on a downrated (3*F-1A )Saturn V first stage, which remains expensive, oversized and overpowered; that's the Jupiter 120, where the number 120 stands for 120 000 pounds into orbit. For the record, a fully fuelled CSM weights 70 000 pounds - with all that SPS fuel perfectly unuseful for low Earth orbit missions. Consideration has been given to a very large payload module that would be picked up, LM-style, through a 180 degree transposition manoeuver.
…
His name an hommage to Von Braun early missile, the Jupiter 120 is in fact at the center of a whole family of new launch vehicles. Among them is the Jupiter 232, essentially a direct return to the Saturn V launching as much as 232 000 pounds into orbit. Modularity, or a so-called building-block approach, is key to the concept.
…
Alternative 2 is, somewhat ironically, a breeding of Titan and Saturn: a cluster of Titan large solids with Saturn' S-IVB on top. The Titan boosters might be recovered at sea for reuse, lowering launch costs – a system known as the Advanced REcoverable Solid, or ARES. According to a source within NASA astronaut corp that concept has been christened Satan - a portemanteau of Saturn and Titan. As a sidenote, that nickname by itself clearly show astronaut opinion about that launch vehicle.
…
The Ares-Saturn IB, usually shortened the Ares 1B is clearly of interest to NASA. The civilian space agency so far show an evident lack of enthusiasm flying the Titan III, a military space vehicle the Bureau of Budget forced them to use essentially because it is already there.
…
A hybrid of Titan and Saturn that preserves the S-IVB translunar stage, the Ares 1B is certainly an attractive option. Experts however warns the solids performance is too low, and that the J-2 can’t fill the gap.
In this case it would take the new XLR-129 to lift a decent payload to orbit - hence JSC pressing lobbying for it.
This very advanced rocket engine remains a strong candidate to power a reborn shuttle, perhaps in the next decade; but it has not be fully tested yet. Unlike the J-2, it was not designed to be air-started in-flight; cost of the modifications might be prohibitive.
…
It is interesting to note that the XLR-129 formed the core of the Space Shuttle Engine proposals; making the Ares 1B a possible forerunner of a new shuttle.
…
Astronauts are known to be reticent to fly on solid-propelled boosters, which tend to suffer destructive, unpredictible destruct events that can easily outrun escape systems – and kill the crew.
…
It remains to be seen, however, whether Congress and the Bureau of Budget will allocate funds for another launcher which performance essentially duplicates the existing, proven Saturn IB and Titan III.
...
with the death of the Saturn V and space shuttle, NASA might get out of the launch vehicle business sooner than later…something the Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, might suffers from.”
(excerpt from Flight Global, February 1 1972: Jupiter, Titan, Saturn and Ares launch vehicles considered)
PERSONAL NOTE: that part was fun to write because it is crammed with hints to OTL projects - Kudos to those who identify all the references
- Archibald
- Word Count: 850