alternatehistory.com
1972: NASA hell of a year (9)
here come the post-Skylab space station
This is going to be a very big entry, the largest in the TL so far. After all the new space station is the centerpiece of NASA future.
April 20, 1972
Maxwell Hunter of Lockheed space division went to the stage of the little conference room located in Building 1, Johnson Space Flight Center, Houston, Texas.
On the view graph machine appeared a foil with a title:
AN ARCHITECTURE UTILIZING EXISTING APOLLO ASSETS TO COMPLETE AND RESUPPLY THE 1980 SPACE STATION.
Hunter faced the little group gathered around the table. There were NASA Administrator James Beggs, his deputy George Low, Eberhard Reese from Marshall; Kurt Debus, of the Kennedy Space Center.
There were also representatives from Martin Marietta, the builder of the Titan launch vehicle. Former MSC director Bob Gilruth and his successor at the head in Houston, Chris Kraft, were also present.
To Hunter surprise retired USAF general Bernard Schriever was also there. Schriever: the man behind the formidable build-up of America’s missile force in the 50’s.
Beggs introduced the meeting.
“Future of the human spaceflight program is now assured beyond Skylab and an eventual joint flight with the soviets, the last Apollos. We have a manned ship. We have plenty of options from contractors; lifting bodies, winged ships, and capsules – Corona, Apollo, and Big Gemini.We will pick a winner in August. Whatever manned ship it carries, Titan III-M, being mostly buy off the shelf from USAF, is too little work for our large Apollo workforce.
We have reports of former engineers of ours driving taxicabs, and the Florida space coast looks devastated.
Even if we manage to secure a space station, many Apollo ground-based assets are threatened. Marshall and Launch Complex 39 may fell victim of bean counters, just like the shuttle.
George Low went to the view graph machine.
“As you can see as early as February early sketches of the so-called 1980 space station show a modified Skylab with Crew Transfer Vehicles, and pressurised logistic modules that are gradually added to the workshop, extending its capabilities."
“However our hopes of using the two workshops as the core of the future station are rapidly vanishing.
Skylab A construction is far too advanced, while Skylab B is to be kept in reserve as backup. Beyond that, the Skylabs are not build for resupply, and use outdated Apollo subsystems.
We have four space stations and only three Saturn V to launch them. Or we cancel another Apollo mission, or the second Skylab will have no launcher.
“I suggest that if the first Skylab fail in orbit, parts of its lost experiments should be flown on early Crew Transfer Vehicles, or space station missions, and not on Skylab B." Low continued.
"Another issue is how to emplace the space station modules on the core; how to fly them from orbital insertion to their final destination.
Integration of the propulsion and navigation systems within the modules would make them too heavy for the Titan; we need a separate space tug instead, although much different from the shuttle vehicle.
We did a quick review of existing upper stages - solid-fueled kick stages plus the Agena, Transtage and Centaur.”
“The solid-fueled stage are extremely cheap, but lacks flexibility – no restart. The Transtage is just too big. As for the Centaur...” Beggs marked a pause.
"The Centaur," Gilruth interrupted "should be considered further, if only for long term manned missions to geosynchronous or low lunar orbit.
We could stage such missions from the future low earth orbit manned platform.” He paused.
“I tend to think that, if ten years ago we had started with a space station instead of the race to the Moon, it would have been easier to sustain public support over the long haul. If only we had used it as a platform to support a Moon landing !
As Apollo close from conclusion, we are left with a “what next?” problem that NASA really has to solve. A space station at that point sounds a bit anticlimactic - unless we try and found a way to tie to a manned deep space program."
Beggs was half convinced by the argument.
“So you're telling me the Centaur allows us to extend the range of our manned space operations up to cislunar space." Gilruth nodded. "Fine, but it is still a big step backward compared to Apollo surface operations. We can't even use the Centaur with an ordinary Apollo, first because the ship is too heavy, secondly because the Centaur is not man-rated - a fragile bubble of metal wrapped around very cold liquid hydrogen. That's how I see it. George won't contradict me"
Low was cornered by its past comments on the Centaur reliability, or lack of. "In the end the Agena apeared to be the most reasonable approach. It is small, it is versatile. To you, Maxwell.”
“Let me first summarize the current situation.
"NASA expected to be able to utilize the Space Shuttle to fill the role as the primary crew and cargo delivery system throughout the life of an eventual future space station. However, last October under pressure of president Nixon’s OMB the shuttle effort was put on hold.
We sought alternate means to perform assembly of a space station.
“We imagined that the manned crew capsule could be launched together with a module, and ferry it to the core space station.
“This way of building a space station, however, has been established when the shuttle was assumed to be the primary manned delivery system for NASA. As a result missions as currently planned will not be able to fully meet the 1980 space station non-shuttle cargo delivery requirements, not mentioning the crucial problem of station assembly.
“NASA estimations of the Crew Transfer Vehicle show a mass of 6200 kg, a mass to be shaved of Titan III payload to the space station orbit, around 12000 kg.
This is not acceptable, and Lockheed has been developing a low-risk cost-effective approach for delivering assembly elements, then outfitting hardware, science payloads, and re-supply cargo to the 1980 space station in the incoming non-Shuttle decade.
We adapted our Shuttle Agena tug to the new paradigm.
“Rather than developing new space vehicles, Lockheed’s approach leverages existing Apollo assets to satisfy the projected annual upmass requirements of the 1980 space station.
This ensures maximum utilization of the more than $20 billion of U.S. taxpayer and corporate investments in developing Apollo space systems, launch vehicles, ground infrastructure and processes, and trained personnel. Further, utilizing existing, proven, and operational space assets minimizes development costs and risks.
“Existing Apollo ground infrastructure assets include NASA’s extensive manufacturing, production, integration and launch facilities at Michoud (Louisiana), Huntington Beach in California and the Kennedy Space Center (KSC). NASA’s operational launch site infrastructure at Kennedy Space Center includes Launch Complex 39B for Saturn IB, which would be used to support space station assembly mission requirements.
The payload processing requirements in support of space station module assembly missions are compatible with the Skylab facilities available at KSC for the pre-launch servicing and integration with Saturn V.”
Hunter was now in full sale-pitch mode.
“Last year NASA accorded Lockheed contract NAS9-11949. The object was a study of Agena potential as space tug for the space shuttle. The report was issued February 25, 1972.
Before that - when the shuttle was cancelled - we started running an internal study as how to use the Agena for the build-up of a space station, its logistics, and many others missions. Results have been extremely promising."
Hunter paused.
"So here’s the Agena Service Module. “
The view-graph showed the distinctive shape of the Agena: a slim, silvered cylinder with a squat truss assembly housing varied subsystems.
Others views showed Agena-based missions: the SERT-II electric propulsion testbed, and a Gemini Target Vehicle.
Back in 1965 manned Gemini capsules had performed orbital rendezvous and docking with Atlas-launched Agenas, followed by boosts to higher orbits, Gemini 11 climbing as high as 800 miles.
“For space station assembly the Agena will ride an uprated Saturn IB, which is currently the widest operational U.S. launcher capable of lifting 6.60m large modules to the space station LEO transfer orbit - nominally 300 km circular at 51 degrees inclination.
"In a typical assembly mission the Agena service module - ASM - would be mated to the station module, both being encapsulated in a 6.60m Skylab shroud and mounted atop a Saturn IB launch vehicle.
The ASM and its payload would then be launched into an insertion orbit and join the space station planned 51.6 degree, 250 nautical mile low Earth orbit.
Once in orbit, the Agena, under ground control, would rise the orbit and manoeuvre to bring the module to the vicinity of the space station.
Once close from it, a sophisticated, automated system will perform the final approach and docking manoeuvres. Such system consists of a spaceborne laser radar (LADAR) configured to meet the requirements for rendezvous and docking with a cooperative object in low-earth-orbit.”
“We initiated research on such system for the Shuttle tug, the study I mentioned earlier.
“The LADAR we studied used existing pulsed CO2 laser technology. We analysed the performance of a family of candidate LADARS, and performed tradeoffs studies as a function of size, weight, and power consumption were carried out for maximum ranges of 50, 100, 200, and 300 nautical miles. 50 miles was considered enough, and is now the preferred option.
The investigation supports our contention that a rendezvous and docking LADAR can be constructed to offer a cost effective and reliable solution to the envisioned space missions.
“Logistics will be provided by derivatives of existing boosters such as Atlas, Delta and Titan, If expanded to leftover Saturn IB and Europe future L3B, a very large range of missions might be covered.
Delta, Atlas and L3B might launch stretched or shortened Agena service modules, to be used for space station reboost. This may be used as basis for International flights. The Agena can easily be stored in space; clusters of cheap Agenas might provide a low-cost Earth-Moon Transfer Stage.”
George Low simply asked “Tell us more about the Agena itself, and how do you intend to accomplish the mission with it”
Hunter continued
“The existing Agena D is 5 ft in diameter, weighs approximately 15,000 lbs and uses Acid/UDMH propellant. As conceived, the Agena is a core stage to which mission peculiar equipment is attached.
Off the shelf "peculiars" include two versions of secondary propulsion systems (SPS), cold gas attitude control kits, various battery and power options, as well as communication options.
The Agena has been used as a stable platform providing power and commands to many varied types of payloads--maximum injected payloads have exceeded 8000 lbs. The present Agena engine system using the Bell Aerosystem 8247 engine can restart at least fifteen times in space.
"Back in 1968 Lockheed was developing an advanced Agena using the Apollo propellants. It was a new stage using Apollo propellants having a higher performing Bell engine.”
Hunter shuffled notes, foils and view-graphs charts.
"Gentlemen, the idea of using Agena for a space station is not new. It is at least four years old !” On the view-graph machine appeared the front page of study.
BELLCOMM, INC.
1100 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20036
SUBJECT: A Titan-IIIM Launched Space Station
DATE: July 23, 1968
Program -Case 710
FROM: E. D. Marion and J. A. Schelke
ABSTRACT
To achieve some understanding of the range of orbital programs available in the post-AAP period, Bellcomm initiated a study to see if a space program could be constructed using a series of small specialist space stations. The experiment requirements from the Saturn V Workshop Study were used to size the small space station modules.
The results showed that a group of small space stations could economically support the maximum experiment package. These spacecraft would be launched on a Titan IIIM, and be assembled in space through rendezvous and docking. The crew ascent and return vehicle was the Gemini-B modified to permit aft-end docking. An unmanned logistics vehicle, flying on an Atlas-Centaur class vehicle, proved to be the most economical approach to resupply.”
“As you can see, the idea of a Gemini Agena -serviced space station had been floated many years ago” Hunter added triumphantly.
“Istate that the first Agena in a production group for NASA purposes can be available 18-to-20 months after go-ahead.
Each succeeding bird would require 13 months; less time if mission peculiar subsystems become standardized.
Just think about the potential of such spacecraft !” Hunter enthusiastically added.
”A standard Agena on top an Atlas or a Titan IIIB could reboost the station on its orbit. Again the Bellcomm study we dug out describes such operation.” Hunter added, showing another chart
“(…) the rendezvous capability is included in the Agena vehicle, although the manoeuvre is controlled from the manned station.
A large pressurizable transfer tube connects the cargo compartment to the space station cabin.
Umbilical connections to the logistics vehicle fuel tanks can be made in several ways.
The docking operation itself could join two quick disconnect fittings outside the transfer tube or fittings inside the tube could be connected manually by the crew.
The first operation is to transfer propellants. When this is completed, the propellant tank is severed and the Agena backs away, carrying the propellant tanks and some of the docking structure with it (…)
We discovered that the Agena could perform many missions.
Just think about it !
We could test this tug using the old Skylab workshop and eventually reboost it.
We could desorbit the workshop properly, without risking a crew’s life.
We could add a small pressurised module to the Agena and create a very cheap logistic spacecraft, as described in this study.
We could plug Big Gemini nose into an Agena and boost the ship to higher orbits. The military would love that.
“Agena presently is required to be propulsively desorbited at mission completion. This last firing has been routinely accomplished after orbital durations in excess of 3 months. No restart problems are anticipated in mission times over a year, although we strongly recommend a thorough reexamination of engine components – seals. We could actually store Agenas in orbit !"
Hunter exclaimed.
“In conclusion I would say that an Agena can easily be made into an active rendezvous stage with translation and soft docking capability. In fact, a stage having almost this capability have undergone qualification in an anechoic chamber in 1968. Details are classified”.
"Any comments ?" Beggs asked. "Eberhard ?"
Rees noted “You can’t reboost Skylab with your Agena, not with the main engine. The workshop structure won’t resist, as we found when we envisaged to use Apollo big engine, which has a similar thrust level.”
“So, how will you reboost Skylab ?” Hunter replied
“We will use the Apollo reaction control system. Well, you told us that Lockheed planned an upgraded of the Agena with Apollo RCS, so the Agena might work as well.”
“Indeed. Beyond that we have more ambitious plans” Hunter continued
“The first is the AMV – Agena Manoeuvring Vehicle. This is an Agena without the main engine only RCS thrusters remain. This vehicle will catch platforms in the immediate neighbourhood of the space station, and dock them.
"An extension of this concept is the ATV – Agena Transfer Vehicle. It’s a space tug, much like the cancelled shuttle reusable upper stage. In conclusion, the Agena can perform many unmanned missions, and would be an ideal complement to Big Gemini.”
“Thank you. This Agena looks an interesting, well-thought solution. However your idea of using a Saturn IB, not a Titan III, as launcher, is intriguing at least. Can representatives of Marshall tell us more about current situation of the center, and how many Saturns are left ? Eberhard Rees maybe ?“
“Well, we have hopes that the Shuttle is not totally dead; maybe we will revive the program once the station orbit and completed, around 1983. However my center need work NOW, and in a hurry, if we want to survive the present decade. Shall I remember you what Nixon options mentioned back in 1969 ?"
Two other options, at $2.5 billion, also permit flight of Skylab with its three visits. There could even be a space station in 1980, with Titan III-Gemini for logistics. However, there will be no space shuttle. NASA-Marshall will close, while activity at the Manned Spacecraft Center (Houston) would fall substantially.
“This paragraph was part of an OMB larger review of President Nixon space options for FY71 and beyond. Well, the shuttle had been canned, so over the last six months I attempted diversification, with mixed results.
Marshall attempted to capitalize on Skylab solar observatory success for the Large Space Telescope, but the leadership went to Goddard.
Rees continued
"The Agena might be of interest for us. Indeed it was Marshall that was responsible for the Shuttle space tug – and your mention of the L3B reminded me that the Europeans were very interested by a cooperation.
But the military were reluctant, they didn’t wanted any foreign involvement because of their use of the Shuttle and its tug to ferry some of their classified satellites. At least this problem disappears if we use the tug for assembly of a civilian space station.”
“Indeed. We should discuss further of possible cooperation with ESRO on the subject of the tug.” Beggs answered. “Now tell us, how many Saturns are in existence ?”
Ach so ! That the moment Reese had been waiting for so long.
Fuck the shuttle.
Fuck the Titan.
Long live the Saturns !
It is the last opportunity to return the Saturn to production status.
Don't fool it !
“Of the fourteen Saturn IB build before closure of the production line in 1968, four have been expanded in unmanned tests, and one has been used for Apollo 7.
Three more will boost Skylab crews to the station, and the ninth (AS-209) is held in reserve as rescue vehicle.”
“And so remain five Saturn IBs that have been build for Apollo Applications Program missions now cancelled.
AS-210 will be expanded in a join flight with the soviets; however AS-209 won’t fly if no accident happens, so this rocket will be available as soon as Apollo-Soyuz will land safely, in 1975.
In conclusion five Saturn IB are available, barely enough to build a space station.”
Nobody noticed that Rees had made a major mistake. It was not five, but seven Saturn IBs that had been left.
The procurement of long leadtime components for four additional Saturn IB Launch Vehicles (SA-213 through SA-216) was approved in August 1966.
This approval was granted to retain the option to continue uninterrupted production of the Saturn IB Launch Vehicle if the requirement for additional launch vehicles became firm. The procurement of these additional launch vehicles (SA-213 through SA-216) was approved by Mr. Webb, NASA Administrator, on January 18, 1968. follow-on Saturn IB Launch Vehicles.
Some long leadtime components such as tanks, structures, etc., have already been fabricated for vehicles 213 through 216. Steps are being taken to reorient the production and support activities to give the most economically sound program feasible that will result in qualified, flightworthy launch vehicles.
To Rees credit, these last two Saturn IBs were nothing more than some first stage structure elements and Redstone tanks that had been manufactured and stored at Michoud, but never assembled into stages. Plus their S-IVBs had never been build. Rees later remembered this fact, but it was too late to save Marshall.
“I suppose that these Saturns should be modified to received the Agena. Are further modifications needed ?”
Excellent !
“We discussed of such problem since the shuttle had been cancelled. Result is the Saturn Life Extension Program – SLEP.
Saturn IBs stored at Marshall will be disassembled and their stages send back to Michoud and Huntington Beach for upgrade.
Mods includes Minuteman strapons and Agena integration above the S-IVB - a handful of S-IVBs might be transferred from Saturn V to Saturn IB, to complete the last three clusters.
“Hmm, that’s may be expensive… why not simply add the Agena, or use a Titan III ? In other words how on Earth will we justify to Congress the expense of two similar rockets – Saturn IB and Titan III - flying from launch pads only kilometres away, for years ?” Beggs asked dryly.
That was the very issue, but Rees had plenty of arguments to shoot that one down. Representatives from Martin Marietta, however, shot first.
“The Titan is cheap heavy lift. Back in 1961 the Department of Defence envisaged up to 72 space launches a year from three Titan III pads at the Cape. Yes: seventy-two.
As planning progressed, one pad was eliminated and maximum launch rate cut to five a month. The idea was that the DoD would be launching large numbers of manned and unmanned military spacecraft from the Cape during the 1965 to 1975 period and that such a launching rate would require a rapid-fire assembly and checkout complex.
“As it turned out, only three Titan 3Cs were launched per year in 1965 and 1966 and an average of two flew from the complex over the next years.
Launch rate is not expected to go beyond three or four per year in the next future. Thus as of today an excess of Titans exists, and it is apparent that the costly Titan 3C launch complex will never be used to its full capability.
“Our cost analyses showed that such a facility would save money if a launch rate of 18 per year was achieved.
We expected the Titan 3 family production rate to be 18 vehicles per year from 1970.
A Titan bird for use by NASA, built from scratch, could be made available within 24 months - if pulled from a production line, the availability could be improved to 13 weeks from order.
“However the 1970 production rate we described represents half the plant and tooling capacity.
Obviously this extra tooling has been mothballed. We are not talking about airframes here; contractors have similar overcapacity. Aerojet, for example, could build plenty of Titan engines. At a production rate of 18 per year, Martin-Marietta will deliver Titan IIIs for only $9 million per unit.
“Then we have to clear another interrogation. What solids for the man-rated Titan ? should we use the five segment or the more powerful seven segment rocket motors ?
Favouring the seven segment motor is the fact that USAF consider Titan III-M as man-rated.
Unmanned spaceflight would certainly benefit from more lift-off thrust: Mariner Jupiter-Saturn and Viking could be heavier or faster.
The seven-segment motor, however, should be stacked on the pad, not on the current building, with modifications to the launch pad. Costs could be shared with the Air Force. The five segment main advantage is, well, that it is already in use.”
George Low sighed
“I’d prefer the seven segment solid. Maybe USAF could be involved through Big Gemini MOL-like missions. They have an unfinished pad at Vandenberg they built for the Manned Orbital Laboratory.”
“Flight rate estimation is a difficult problem. Eberhard, any word on the Saturn IB ? How do we justify the use of it to carry the space station modules when Titan is such a bargain ?”
Rees had patiently waited the end of the Marietta rant.
“The first thing to remember is that we only use spare Saturns. We won’t reopen the production line - not immediately.
Secondly, obtaining a space station won’t be easy, unless we draw heavily on Skylab.
In fact Skylabs might be key, even if we can’t really build the station directly from it. Here’s my argumentation for the 1980 station, based on Skylab.
“We can argue we need Saturn V to launch the 1980 space station because it’s a Skylab derivative.
“We can also argue we need the Saturn IBs because Skylab is build from an S-IVB. Station modules could be derivatives of the Skylab workshop – light enough to ride on a Saturn IB if we get ride of the large supply on board, and airlock.
“We can argue that North American Rockwell Space Division need something to replace both the Shuttle orbiter and the Apollo – why not a dry workshop S-II ?
“As Maxwell showed us the Titan is hampered by the CTV reentry module mass. Even with the Agena and a payload equal to Saturn IB, the Titan can’t lift an orbital workshop because Skylab is too wide.
“We have a large stock of Saturn, and we should use them, even if our manned capsule ride to space on top of a Titan. I see no contradictions in that.” Rees added “Otherwise there will be massive layouts, and not only at Marshall. Kurt ?”
Kurt Debus was boss of Cap Canaveral, and an ally of Reese.
“We really need something to fill Launch Complex 39 in the next years. We can’t just demolish such huge infrastructure !
In my opinion, even if we obtain more Skylabs, that’s only two or three more Saturn V over the next ten years, before an eventual shuttle. Saturn V are expensive and scarce, while smaller Saturn IBs are many and cheap.
We already have modified LC-39B for Saturn IB with the milkstool. Adding Saturn IB to Saturn V schedule would give us six to eight launches, depending on how many Saturn V we will use to build the 1980 space station. “
Reese jumped on.
"Gentleman, we have to remember my fellow von Braun opinions about manned spaceflight. Rule of thumb is to never fly astronauts on a launch vehicle with solid rocket motors. Destructive events are generally violent and very fast, overtaking launch escape systems. That why I suggest a gradual path to return Saturn IB to production status."
He took a deep breath.
Don't fool it up !
"I told you five Saturn IB remained in storage. We should launch space station modules with them, introducing gradual upgrades in the process before reopening the production line.
Then, I suggest to lower Saturn cost by sharing technology with the Delta booster. The Delta 3000 features nine small graphite epoxy solid rocket motors, and Apollo engines on its upper stage. We could cluster eight Deltas to create a new Saturn cluster ! The S-IVB second stage would first be modestly upgraded with the J-2S; later the XLR-129 would result in a massive performance boost.
We plan to use that latter engine in the shuttle; flying it on the Saturn first would provide valuable data.
Every step in this process - the small solids, Delta cluster, and XLR-129 - is gradual and flexible, the end result being a very powerful and reliable launcher.
The Delta, like the S-IVB, is build by Douglas; this contractor would thus takeover production of the full rocket."
"Now I would like to talk a little bit more of the S-IVB itself. For its huge size it can nonetheless be made cheap.
A Bellcom memo of April 1969 discussed the matter, and the conclusions remain pertinent even today.
The subject of low cost low earth orbit (LEO) transportation systems is under extensive study throughout NASA, the military and the industry. Approaches under study have included launch vehicles which vary from near term expendable configurations based on Saturn hardware to completely flyback recoverable concepts such as that proposed by General Dynamics/Convair Division.
A major option under consideration is development of a near term intermediate launch vehicle (ILV).
A technology aspect which deserves consideration is a cheap version of the S-IVB Stage 2 which is proposed as the second stage of all candidate neaz term ILV configurations.
The SIVB stage is the only operational manrated cryogenic high performance stage of a size concomitant with an ILV. NASA Marshall has recently funded McDonnell Douglas to initiate design of a "scrubdown" version of the SIVB.
In a recent study the Aerospace Corporation estimated the cost of the NASA 260-inch diameter solid /S-IVB rocket at 260 $/Ib to LEO on the basis of a 15 vehicle buy, launched at a rate of five per year. It may be deduced therefore that SRM/SIVB vehicles are indeed competitive to Air Force configuration SRM/ liquid upper stages.
It is apparent that the SIVB stage is a prime candidate upper stage for a near term ILV. The SIVB is man-rated, in the inventory, and competitive in cost with a new stage when installed above either clustered solid rocket motors of whatever diameter (120 inc, 156 inch or the monster 260 inch).
A cheap S-IVB ?
In all candidate ILV configurations with the exception of the INT-20, the S-IVB is by far the costlier piece of hardware according to the cost analyses which have been carried out. The S-IVB under existing ground rules has been priced out at twice the cost of a typical solid first stage. At the present time however there is abundant evidence that the SIVB can be available at substantially reduced price, in a configuration which also eliminates the need for a separate instrument unit.
On a production basis of 60 vehicles at 12/year (half for Saturn V use), an SIVB for use on a Saturn IB was priced at $4.5 million a copy (launch costs not included). Including J-2 engine the stage cost was roughly $6.5 million.
In the end it might be possible to launch a typical SRM/SIVB (say from E'TR not KSC), for (1969 dollars) $20 million per launch or 200 $/Ib to low earth orbit.
Even in 1965 it was recognized that a "cheap" S-IVB must be as close to a "production run Chinese copy" as possible. The SIVB stage now has demonstrated satisfactory reliability. If low costs are to be attained, testing, instrumentation, inspection procedures, documentation, etc. must be eased in accordance with moving out of an R&D phase and into a true production phase.
More recent MDA studies show that more automated manufacturing techniques and redesign to reduce the number of (sub)assemblies are principal tools to further reduce recurring unit costs. As stated previously, one of the keys to cheap hardware is the "hands-off," minimum inspection, minimum test "Chinese copy" production line.
It is highly probable that the Air Force may be the forcing function behind an ILV program. Previous discussions have shown that there is no apparent reason why a solid / S-IVB launch vehicle could not be used from Vandenberg. The present Cape Canaveral Integrated Transfer Launch (ITL) facility used presently for Titan operations might well be expanded for the ILV operation.
The preceding sections briefly state the utility of a cheap SIVB. However, it is well understood that "cheaper" costing, necessitates a new way of doing business at NASA.
The Saturn V production gapping provides the ideal time span to "phase program plan" a cheap SIVB. One might concede the "maintenance of caPability" concept as necessary or that a reasonable contractor support effort is justified to support Saturn V flight operations. If true, the level of support required to "keep" the MDA facility open at Huntington Beach might well fund a cheap SIVB to the end of Phase C (design) of a phased program plan. A three year program is possible which would probably not require special funds until program approval--say at the end of 2 years (FY71).
The reduction of launch costs of a S-IVB Intermediate Launch Vehicle to say $200/Ib would be in itself a worthy achievement. For the sake of comparison the space shuttle launch cost target is 100 dollars per pound launched to low earth orbit."
"There is a lot of good points made in that report - with the exception of the solid cluster. I suggest instead to use a cluster od Delta rockets."
Reese concluded its sale pitch, and awaited critics and feelings.
They were mixed.
"Shall I need to remember you the Saturn production line was closed five years ago ? And the bureau of budget made clear he wants that Titan III."
George Low noted.
"Many payloads are going to orbit a top a Titan these days, including military satellites.
A sticky point is that the Saturn lacks a third stage to go beyond low Earth orbit. The Centaur is evidently the best choice, but we lost that battle five years ago; Viking will go to Mars atop a Centaur, but that Centaur will be boosted by a Titan, not your Saturn.
This decision is impossible to reverse !"
Reese knew that better than anyone else.
"Indeed. but we could introduce the Centaur at a later date, and fill the gap with different upper stages; for example the Apollo service module, or a stripped down two-stage Lunar Module !
Again, the Delta already features surplus Apollo engines on its second stage... just think about it. Calculation show that a four stage Saturn with all the upgrades I described earlier could be a match for the Titan, even without the high energy Centaur !"
Faces around the table were dubious.
"We should discuss of Saturn and Titan launchers at a later meeting. We can now define a tentative roadmap for the next ten years.” Beggs continued. “We will build a space station from Skylab and S-II stages.
"If Skylab A works, then we won’t need neither Skylab B; I suggest we turn Skylab B into a ground-based mockup of the future space station.
"If Skylab A fails, then we will flown most experiments on a month-long early CTV mission augmented by a logistic module, probably circa 1977, or on the space station at a later date. The CTV will ferry cargo and astronauts to this station, completed by unmanned Agenas. We will fly the remaining Saturn IBs and try to restart the shuttle program, probably in the 80’s.”
The meeting was over, and most people left the room – excepted Beggs, Low, and General Schriever.
So that’s the reason Schriever is there. What will USAF decide… ? Maxwell Hunter really wanted to know. But he was to go.
Once the three were alone, Beggs turned toward Schriever. The Air Force General had returned from retirement to manage the military manned space program – or what was left of it after the shuttle fiasco.
“What a fine meeting that was.” Schriever poked. “That’s a nice future you’re building. As for us military – without a shuttle we will stuck with the Titan III for the next future, trying to drop costs down by flying more missions.
We could also reuse the large solid rocket motors if we parachute them in the ocean. It may save some money.”
“Every program I pushed in the past decade – DynaSoar, Blue Gemini, Manned Orbital Laboratory, all cancelled, aimed to put USAF pilots in orbit.
In November 1966 we placed a MOL mockup in orbit with a Titan.
We reused the Gemini 2 capsule, cut a hatch through the heatshield, and recovered it. I strongly recommend to launch a similar Big Gemini mockup.
It could be Gemini 2 again, or you should cut a hatch through an Apollo heatshield, and bolt it to a boilerplate Big Gemini crew module.
"When the Manned Orbiting Laboratory was canned in June 1969 the first pathfinding flight was tentatively scheduled for February 1972.
It would have been conducted by two Air Force pilots: Commander Jim Taylor and Pilot Al Crews.
Further two-man teams would then have been despatched at nine-month intervals for roughly 30-day orbital stays until the fifth and final manned mission in February 1975.
At least one MOL flight, it was expected, would carry two US Navy officers, probably Bob Crippen and Dick Truly.
So I say - we could bring that program back on the cheap by buying some Big Geminis of yours." Schriever said. "If you ever pick Big Gemini of course !
Whatever, the spaceplane problem will remain unresolved in the next future. DynaSoar might have been a useful testbed for the shuttle, but McNamara cancelled it in December 1963. This marked a serious setback for our strategic reconnaissance systems.
“Gary Power U-2 shot down over USSR in May 1960 meant than even our mach 3 Blackbirds or Oxcarts could no longer overfly USSR.
I thus pushed for a suborbital spaceplane called ISINGLASS. Mach 20, 400 000 ft, dropped from a B-52. Pure rocket – no airbreathing engines. We developed a marvel called the XLR-129 with four time the performance of the J-2. Very high pressure.”
“Thank you, General. The XLR-129 was not exactly suited to the space shuttle; it had not enough thrust. However it formed the basis for the SSME.”
Beggs continued. “We should develop this engine at prototype level, a demonstrator. We will perfect our baseline shuttle in the next years.”
Schriever evidently had not finished yet.
"What about a successor to the X-15 ? Might be useful to gather some data on shuttle reentry or hypersonic regime."
"We have nothing to date. Perhaps it will be a lifting body; we are currently modifying a X-24A into the sleeker X-24B.
Still modestly supersonic, however. Perhaps an eventual rocket powered, mach 8 X-24C could be build, but we lack money. Time is hard for high-speed flight. You saw this with your ISINGLASS..."
"Hell, yes. Perhaps we should blend together a reborn ISINGLASS and your X-24C; both are rocket powered and dropped from a B-52 mothership. The XLR-129 would be perfect."
Schriever continued
"Now let's talk about this Agena tug you described. You ought to know the Agena is a cornerstone of our military space assets. We had and still have many classified projects involving Agena either as upper stage or satellite bus."
Schriever blue eyes narrowed
"those programs are heavily classified; NASA shall and will not interfere with our activities. If you have to use the Agena in the future, we will have to set clear lines that will never be crossed.
The soviets should never be able to gather data on military satellites through civilian programs involving Agenas. Is this clear ?"
Schriever tone left no place for doubt.
"But NASA already used Agena in more sensitive times, for Gemini. USAF and NASA had a workable agreement" Beggs protested.
Low analysed Schriever slightly menacing tone he did not understood immediately. Then he reminded the SAINT program - an Agena was to carry a reconnaissance package in orbit, inspecting satellites with a television camera, reporting to the military on the ground. Next step was obvious - destroy the red satellite ! But Eisenhower had vetoed the idea.
Satellite inspection, by the way, might also be of interest for NASA.
“We really hoped to fly military astronauts onboard the shuttle to deploy satellites. By contrast your Crew Transfer Vehicle might be of little interest to us – with the exception of Douglas entry, what you call Big Gemini.”
What ?
“Big Gemini is similar enough to MOL so that we can fly some military missions from Vandenberg SLC-6. This pad is currently in mothball, finishing it for Big Gemini operations should be straightforward; overall the ship is similar to the Manned Orbiting Laboratory.”
Shit. Old general Schriever is telling us what CTV proposal the military would prefer. He wants the MOL back through Big Gemini. How about that.
George Low waved his arms at the growing tension.
“Now let me says it starts looking like a balanced space program” he noted. “F-1A and XLR-129 engine demonstrators for a future shuttle. CTV flights to a Space Station build with spare Saturns and Agena tugs. Agena unmanned resupply flights. Maybe we could involve the Europeans in this scheme since they were interested in the space tug... thank you, General.”
Schriever walked away.
Beggs had a little discussion with Low.
"That Schriever – Jesus, he is frightening. To think he was nearly NASA administrator in 1969.” Beggs said.
“Yeah, he was and still his a good friend of Nixon.”
With him at the controlsGod know what would have happened to the civilian space program. Low shivered.
“Well, the hell with that cold war General. George, we will need a renewed space station task force.
I, have two names ontop of my list to chair that group.
First is George Mueller. The other is the Ames director, Hans Mark.
Incidentally, we don't know what to do with Ames, they had that PAET - Planetary Atmosphere Experiments Test last June flying on a Scout rocket: a technical success but also a budget buster."
"Didn't Ames planned to fly operational PAETs on a low-cost Venus mission ?"
"Sure, but the project has been put on hold last January. George, is there any interest in having unmanned return capsules on a manned space station ?"
"Perhaps. We should take this into consideration."
In the afternoon Low and Beggs discussed space station costs with George Mueller
Mueller had retreated from NASA late 1969 for a post into private space industry.
On demand of Low since March he had compiled various space station studies made at NASA over the last decade.
“Look what I’ve found” Mueller started enthusiastically “a dozen of space station report and concepts…” he started to pile-up volumes of paper on Low’s desk.
“This is Douglas EOSS – Early Orbit Space Station, kind of six-man Skylab from 1967.
"This one is the SLA workshop, a station build within the Saturn Launch Adapter –how about that ?
"Now have a look at the MORL – Manned Orbiting Research Laboratory, a Langley project.
"The Manned Orbiting Laboratory was the USAF military station, launched atop a Titan III. Boeing concepts are also of interest. This is the Orbital Launch Facility… a single launch, four decks, 33ft space station…
"Lockheed 1965Modular Space Station proposal suggested that future space stations be constructed out of a common 460cm (183in) diameter building block designed to be mounted in the LM adapter of the S-IVB stage… and we have as many as fifty proposals based on Skylab.
“Quite a lot of interesting studies.” Beggs interrupted the flow. “But we are pressed by time… what does these studies tell us about our future space station ?”
“They tell us first that uprated Saturn IBs can launch 22 ft-wide modules.
We can certainly build those modules from S-IVBs, just like Skylab.
We can build a reasonably cheap modular space station with a strong science content. Look at this report” he added, adding another paper entitled Workshop costs estimates based on EOSS and MORL to the pile already menacing George Low desk by its weight.
“$2.5 billions for the MORL, as much as Skylab. MORL was smaller, but a clean sheet, much more sophisticated design. The Langley guys really invented Salyut long before the soviets… we can build something similar.” Mueller added.
“Have a look at the Modular Space Station final reports issued last month. There were two variants: one with very large modules launched by Saturn Vs, another with modules scaled-down to fit in the shuttle payload bay. I recommend the Saturn V launch 12-men space station…
In my own view - Boeing’s four decks, 33ft space station core with four MORLs to complete it. One Saturn INT-21, four Saturn IBs, Helios / Titan III for logistics. Put as much Skylab as possible in the design, and there you are.”
Mueller went away, leaving Low and Beggs facing each other.
"Mueller did a good job - there's no lack of space station concepts, and now we have some idea about how much do they cost."
"Sure. This is not an issue. You know where the real trouble is." Low said.
"You mean, I am - you are - literally assaulted by Marshall and Houston representatives ?" Beggs raised his eyebrows.
"This. Do you really think one of the two centers will give ground ?"
"I give up any hope." Beggs sighed. "The situation is totally deadlocked."
"We need two things." Low said. "We need either a bulldozer or a referee to end that turf fight. A bulldozer to knock the two fighters; or a referee to try a mediation. Pick your solution."
"Do you have something in mind ?" Beggs, like many people, admired Low no-nonsense pragmatism.
"Yes. We need Rocco Petrone as our bulldozer; and we need Bellcomm as a neutral referee."
"Bellcomm ?" Beggs was surprised. "Didn't we disbanded that team ?"
"...Bellcomm" Low muttered with admiration in his voice.
"I consider it one of Jim Webb strokes of genius. He just conjured that we’re going to have problems in communicating with astronauts, and that takes a lot of engineering and a lot of communication expertise. Who has that kind of thing?
"At the time AT&T was the main place for all of this high-caliber engineering. So Jim Webb wrote a letter to the chairman of AT&T requesting the company assistance in the nation’s quest, and asking the company put together a team to work with NASA to resolve all the problems of communication that we were going to encounter, not just with the astronauts, but from the Moon, behind the Moon, because we don’t know what we’re going to deal with.
It seems that the chairman of AT&T took this to the board and the board loved it and they all voted absolutely, put all your best into this thing.
They agreed to get all of the big minds of AT&T with their own support teams and move them lock, stock, and barrel to NASA Headquarters as part of NASA Headquarters to work for cost, because this is working for the nation. It was a national quest we were working on, so there should be no profit in this. The Bell labs did it for the good of our country."
"Amazing" Beggs said.
"So Bellcomm was then put as a component to support NASA Headquarters to work for cost plus $1 a year.
That was in the contract, and Bellcomm did such a good job that the contract has been renewed again and again, until in June 1970 we told them it was the last time. You have to understand that the deal between NASA and AT&T is akin to
“I’m going to give you all those people that you need for as long as the Apollo program is on. The day Apollo ends, goodbye, because these are my own people, I want them back home.”
This is the deal.
"You mean that, by Apollo 17 time - when came the splashdown of Apollo 17 - Bellcomm will fold ?" Beggs said.
"Spot on. But Apollo 17 isn't planned before December of that year." Low noted. "You’ve got to realize Bellcomm is not an experimental laboratory organization. It is a people organization supplying talent to NASA Headquarters to conduct studies, analyze issues and problems, look at what the NASA programs are doing, critique those. They are in a strange role in a sense, it is very unusual. That in itself created some early problems - or solved some, it is just a matter of point of view."
"Which bring us back to our issue of the Marshall / Houston turf war, I suppose."
"Yes. You are well familiar with the Manned Spacecraft Center. The last thing Houston ever wants or needs is more insight and advice from us - from NASA Headquarters and their cronies.
Well, it took a couple of years, but those Bellcomm people were ultimately accepted by the Houston - and Marshall ! - mafias."
"I can imagine their suspicious figures and grumpy comments" Beggs laughed. "What are these outsiders doing? What do they know? We’re the experts.” Low approved.
"Headquarters has always been looked somewhat suspiciously at by the Centers. We all know the usual tete-a-tete that goes on between the field and NASA Headquarters, don't we ?"
Low smiled wyrily.
"Well, in Apollo that was all pretty well overcome, largely I think because Bellcomm has people who, number one, aren’t trying to pretend that they are running the show, but are working with the centers to help define and ensure that everybody are getting the data that supports the Apollo landings. Even if the Bellcomm employees works in the name of NASA Headquarters."
"Amazing." Beggs repeated. "Now that what I call an achievement."
"Webb was a management genius. As for Bellcomm, the real genius behind it is that these people in Washington DC, are not NASA employees but AT&T - and this is paramount.
None of these people have a boss right there, so when Bellcomm employees are asked something by Houston or Marshall directors or managers they answer for the good of the program - not for the interest of the center.
Beggs evidently appreciated the idea.
"Regardless of whose idea it is, who in NASA Headquarters would like it, and who would not like it." he said. "It is irrelevant. It is for the good of the program, period. When back at NASA Headquarters, they can say anything to the Apollo program director, to the NASA Administrator, to anybody in the group, to the engineers, to anyone, for the good of the program, because he has nothing on them."
Low approved and continued.
"When Bellcomm employees work with the Centers, when they goes to any of the Centers, they have a badge that said NASA Headquarters. They have a kind of one-upmanship with people at the Headquarters with the Centers, because they represent NASA Headquarters. That way they can get things done outside of the realm, within the structures at the Centers, because they are outside.
"It is unreal. I’ve never seen anything like it before." Beggs approved.
"In the end Bellcomm big strength is - it’s not aligned, there is no jealousy from within NASA and, most importantly, no pressure."
"Spot on."
"Excellent then, makes one think. How about our bulldozer now, that Petrone ?"
"The way it works is that Bellcomm offices are always in the same building, and in many cases on the same floor as the Apollo Program Director.
Which, incidentally, was (and still is) Rocco Petrone - since August 1969, when he replaced Sam Philips, you see."
"Here we are."
"Rocco Petrone was one of the major dynamos behind the success of Apollo. He was once an Army officer, football player, big and bulky, as tough as nails.
Also smart - he has a PhD even though he was a football player and in the Army. Petrone has another interesting aspect: much like the Bellcomm fellows, he is neither on Huntsville nor Houston side. He managed the Kennedy space center, then he went to Headquarters."
"So he may be our troubleshooter." Beggs suggested.
"Absolutely. I have no worries he will shot any trouble on its way. Fletcher once told me he wanted to send him at Marshall to throw a wrench into the German thoroughly planned dynasty - von Braun was replaced by Rees that was replaced by Lucas, and all maintained statu quo..."
"There's no reason for Marshall alone to endure the wrath of Don Corpetrone." Beggs smiled.
"We are going to make Houston and Huntsville an offer they won't be able to refuse.
Bluntly, if they don't listen our Bellcomm missi dominici, we will send Petrone as a hitman or troubleshooter. Dare I say, it will be Bellcomm last stand.
Just one last question - are they allowed to discuss the space program past Apollo itself ?"
"Of course they are. Unmanned spaceflight, Mars landers, Saturn upgrades, space stations - no taboo. They even assessed the shuttle recently." Low concluded, thinking - the next weeks are going to be fun, for sure.
This is going to be a very big entry, the largest in the TL so far. After all the new space station is the centerpiece of NASA future.
April 20, 1972
Maxwell Hunter of Lockheed space division went to the stage of the little conference room located in Building 1, Johnson Space Flight Center, Houston, Texas.
On the view graph machine appeared a foil with a title:
AN ARCHITECTURE UTILIZING EXISTING APOLLO ASSETS TO COMPLETE AND RESUPPLY THE 1980 SPACE STATION.
Hunter faced the little group gathered around the table. There were NASA Administrator James Beggs, his deputy George Low, Eberhard Reese from Marshall; Kurt Debus, of the Kennedy Space Center.
There were also representatives from Martin Marietta, the builder of the Titan launch vehicle. Former MSC director Bob Gilruth and his successor at the head in Houston, Chris Kraft, were also present.
To Hunter surprise retired USAF general Bernard Schriever was also there. Schriever: the man behind the formidable build-up of America’s missile force in the 50’s.
Beggs introduced the meeting.
“Future of the human spaceflight program is now assured beyond Skylab and an eventual joint flight with the soviets, the last Apollos. We have a manned ship. We have plenty of options from contractors; lifting bodies, winged ships, and capsules – Corona, Apollo, and Big Gemini.We will pick a winner in August. Whatever manned ship it carries, Titan III-M, being mostly buy off the shelf from USAF, is too little work for our large Apollo workforce.
We have reports of former engineers of ours driving taxicabs, and the Florida space coast looks devastated.
Even if we manage to secure a space station, many Apollo ground-based assets are threatened. Marshall and Launch Complex 39 may fell victim of bean counters, just like the shuttle.
George Low went to the view graph machine.
“As you can see as early as February early sketches of the so-called 1980 space station show a modified Skylab with Crew Transfer Vehicles, and pressurised logistic modules that are gradually added to the workshop, extending its capabilities."
“However our hopes of using the two workshops as the core of the future station are rapidly vanishing.
Skylab A construction is far too advanced, while Skylab B is to be kept in reserve as backup. Beyond that, the Skylabs are not build for resupply, and use outdated Apollo subsystems.
We have four space stations and only three Saturn V to launch them. Or we cancel another Apollo mission, or the second Skylab will have no launcher.
“I suggest that if the first Skylab fail in orbit, parts of its lost experiments should be flown on early Crew Transfer Vehicles, or space station missions, and not on Skylab B." Low continued.
"Another issue is how to emplace the space station modules on the core; how to fly them from orbital insertion to their final destination.
Integration of the propulsion and navigation systems within the modules would make them too heavy for the Titan; we need a separate space tug instead, although much different from the shuttle vehicle.
We did a quick review of existing upper stages - solid-fueled kick stages plus the Agena, Transtage and Centaur.”
“The solid-fueled stage are extremely cheap, but lacks flexibility – no restart. The Transtage is just too big. As for the Centaur...” Beggs marked a pause.
"The Centaur," Gilruth interrupted "should be considered further, if only for long term manned missions to geosynchronous or low lunar orbit.
We could stage such missions from the future low earth orbit manned platform.” He paused.
“I tend to think that, if ten years ago we had started with a space station instead of the race to the Moon, it would have been easier to sustain public support over the long haul. If only we had used it as a platform to support a Moon landing !
As Apollo close from conclusion, we are left with a “what next?” problem that NASA really has to solve. A space station at that point sounds a bit anticlimactic - unless we try and found a way to tie to a manned deep space program."
Beggs was half convinced by the argument.
“So you're telling me the Centaur allows us to extend the range of our manned space operations up to cislunar space." Gilruth nodded. "Fine, but it is still a big step backward compared to Apollo surface operations. We can't even use the Centaur with an ordinary Apollo, first because the ship is too heavy, secondly because the Centaur is not man-rated - a fragile bubble of metal wrapped around very cold liquid hydrogen. That's how I see it. George won't contradict me"
Low was cornered by its past comments on the Centaur reliability, or lack of. "In the end the Agena apeared to be the most reasonable approach. It is small, it is versatile. To you, Maxwell.”
“Let me first summarize the current situation.
"NASA expected to be able to utilize the Space Shuttle to fill the role as the primary crew and cargo delivery system throughout the life of an eventual future space station. However, last October under pressure of president Nixon’s OMB the shuttle effort was put on hold.
We sought alternate means to perform assembly of a space station.
“We imagined that the manned crew capsule could be launched together with a module, and ferry it to the core space station.
“This way of building a space station, however, has been established when the shuttle was assumed to be the primary manned delivery system for NASA. As a result missions as currently planned will not be able to fully meet the 1980 space station non-shuttle cargo delivery requirements, not mentioning the crucial problem of station assembly.
“NASA estimations of the Crew Transfer Vehicle show a mass of 6200 kg, a mass to be shaved of Titan III payload to the space station orbit, around 12000 kg.
This is not acceptable, and Lockheed has been developing a low-risk cost-effective approach for delivering assembly elements, then outfitting hardware, science payloads, and re-supply cargo to the 1980 space station in the incoming non-Shuttle decade.
We adapted our Shuttle Agena tug to the new paradigm.
“Rather than developing new space vehicles, Lockheed’s approach leverages existing Apollo assets to satisfy the projected annual upmass requirements of the 1980 space station.
This ensures maximum utilization of the more than $20 billion of U.S. taxpayer and corporate investments in developing Apollo space systems, launch vehicles, ground infrastructure and processes, and trained personnel. Further, utilizing existing, proven, and operational space assets minimizes development costs and risks.
“Existing Apollo ground infrastructure assets include NASA’s extensive manufacturing, production, integration and launch facilities at Michoud (Louisiana), Huntington Beach in California and the Kennedy Space Center (KSC). NASA’s operational launch site infrastructure at Kennedy Space Center includes Launch Complex 39B for Saturn IB, which would be used to support space station assembly mission requirements.
The payload processing requirements in support of space station module assembly missions are compatible with the Skylab facilities available at KSC for the pre-launch servicing and integration with Saturn V.”
Hunter was now in full sale-pitch mode.
“Last year NASA accorded Lockheed contract NAS9-11949. The object was a study of Agena potential as space tug for the space shuttle. The report was issued February 25, 1972.
Before that - when the shuttle was cancelled - we started running an internal study as how to use the Agena for the build-up of a space station, its logistics, and many others missions. Results have been extremely promising."
Hunter paused.
"So here’s the Agena Service Module. “
The view-graph showed the distinctive shape of the Agena: a slim, silvered cylinder with a squat truss assembly housing varied subsystems.
Others views showed Agena-based missions: the SERT-II electric propulsion testbed, and a Gemini Target Vehicle.
Back in 1965 manned Gemini capsules had performed orbital rendezvous and docking with Atlas-launched Agenas, followed by boosts to higher orbits, Gemini 11 climbing as high as 800 miles.
“For space station assembly the Agena will ride an uprated Saturn IB, which is currently the widest operational U.S. launcher capable of lifting 6.60m large modules to the space station LEO transfer orbit - nominally 300 km circular at 51 degrees inclination.
"In a typical assembly mission the Agena service module - ASM - would be mated to the station module, both being encapsulated in a 6.60m Skylab shroud and mounted atop a Saturn IB launch vehicle.
The ASM and its payload would then be launched into an insertion orbit and join the space station planned 51.6 degree, 250 nautical mile low Earth orbit.
Once in orbit, the Agena, under ground control, would rise the orbit and manoeuvre to bring the module to the vicinity of the space station.
Once close from it, a sophisticated, automated system will perform the final approach and docking manoeuvres. Such system consists of a spaceborne laser radar (LADAR) configured to meet the requirements for rendezvous and docking with a cooperative object in low-earth-orbit.”
“We initiated research on such system for the Shuttle tug, the study I mentioned earlier.
“The LADAR we studied used existing pulsed CO2 laser technology. We analysed the performance of a family of candidate LADARS, and performed tradeoffs studies as a function of size, weight, and power consumption were carried out for maximum ranges of 50, 100, 200, and 300 nautical miles. 50 miles was considered enough, and is now the preferred option.
The investigation supports our contention that a rendezvous and docking LADAR can be constructed to offer a cost effective and reliable solution to the envisioned space missions.
“Logistics will be provided by derivatives of existing boosters such as Atlas, Delta and Titan, If expanded to leftover Saturn IB and Europe future L3B, a very large range of missions might be covered.
Delta, Atlas and L3B might launch stretched or shortened Agena service modules, to be used for space station reboost. This may be used as basis for International flights. The Agena can easily be stored in space; clusters of cheap Agenas might provide a low-cost Earth-Moon Transfer Stage.”
George Low simply asked “Tell us more about the Agena itself, and how do you intend to accomplish the mission with it”
Hunter continued
“The existing Agena D is 5 ft in diameter, weighs approximately 15,000 lbs and uses Acid/UDMH propellant. As conceived, the Agena is a core stage to which mission peculiar equipment is attached.
Off the shelf "peculiars" include two versions of secondary propulsion systems (SPS), cold gas attitude control kits, various battery and power options, as well as communication options.
The Agena has been used as a stable platform providing power and commands to many varied types of payloads--maximum injected payloads have exceeded 8000 lbs. The present Agena engine system using the Bell Aerosystem 8247 engine can restart at least fifteen times in space.
"Back in 1968 Lockheed was developing an advanced Agena using the Apollo propellants. It was a new stage using Apollo propellants having a higher performing Bell engine.”
Hunter shuffled notes, foils and view-graphs charts.
"Gentlemen, the idea of using Agena for a space station is not new. It is at least four years old !” On the view-graph machine appeared the front page of study.
BELLCOMM, INC.
1100 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20036
SUBJECT: A Titan-IIIM Launched Space Station
DATE: July 23, 1968
Program -Case 710
FROM: E. D. Marion and J. A. Schelke
ABSTRACT
To achieve some understanding of the range of orbital programs available in the post-AAP period, Bellcomm initiated a study to see if a space program could be constructed using a series of small specialist space stations. The experiment requirements from the Saturn V Workshop Study were used to size the small space station modules.
The results showed that a group of small space stations could economically support the maximum experiment package. These spacecraft would be launched on a Titan IIIM, and be assembled in space through rendezvous and docking. The crew ascent and return vehicle was the Gemini-B modified to permit aft-end docking. An unmanned logistics vehicle, flying on an Atlas-Centaur class vehicle, proved to be the most economical approach to resupply.”
“As you can see, the idea of a Gemini Agena -serviced space station had been floated many years ago” Hunter added triumphantly.
“Istate that the first Agena in a production group for NASA purposes can be available 18-to-20 months after go-ahead.
Each succeeding bird would require 13 months; less time if mission peculiar subsystems become standardized.
Just think about the potential of such spacecraft !” Hunter enthusiastically added.
”A standard Agena on top an Atlas or a Titan IIIB could reboost the station on its orbit. Again the Bellcomm study we dug out describes such operation.” Hunter added, showing another chart
“(…) the rendezvous capability is included in the Agena vehicle, although the manoeuvre is controlled from the manned station.
A large pressurizable transfer tube connects the cargo compartment to the space station cabin.
Umbilical connections to the logistics vehicle fuel tanks can be made in several ways.
The docking operation itself could join two quick disconnect fittings outside the transfer tube or fittings inside the tube could be connected manually by the crew.
The first operation is to transfer propellants. When this is completed, the propellant tank is severed and the Agena backs away, carrying the propellant tanks and some of the docking structure with it (…)
We discovered that the Agena could perform many missions.
Just think about it !
We could test this tug using the old Skylab workshop and eventually reboost it.
We could desorbit the workshop properly, without risking a crew’s life.
We could add a small pressurised module to the Agena and create a very cheap logistic spacecraft, as described in this study.
We could plug Big Gemini nose into an Agena and boost the ship to higher orbits. The military would love that.
“Agena presently is required to be propulsively desorbited at mission completion. This last firing has been routinely accomplished after orbital durations in excess of 3 months. No restart problems are anticipated in mission times over a year, although we strongly recommend a thorough reexamination of engine components – seals. We could actually store Agenas in orbit !"
Hunter exclaimed.
“In conclusion I would say that an Agena can easily be made into an active rendezvous stage with translation and soft docking capability. In fact, a stage having almost this capability have undergone qualification in an anechoic chamber in 1968. Details are classified”.
"Any comments ?" Beggs asked. "Eberhard ?"
Rees noted “You can’t reboost Skylab with your Agena, not with the main engine. The workshop structure won’t resist, as we found when we envisaged to use Apollo big engine, which has a similar thrust level.”
“So, how will you reboost Skylab ?” Hunter replied
“We will use the Apollo reaction control system. Well, you told us that Lockheed planned an upgraded of the Agena with Apollo RCS, so the Agena might work as well.”
“Indeed. Beyond that we have more ambitious plans” Hunter continued
“The first is the AMV – Agena Manoeuvring Vehicle. This is an Agena without the main engine only RCS thrusters remain. This vehicle will catch platforms in the immediate neighbourhood of the space station, and dock them.
"An extension of this concept is the ATV – Agena Transfer Vehicle. It’s a space tug, much like the cancelled shuttle reusable upper stage. In conclusion, the Agena can perform many unmanned missions, and would be an ideal complement to Big Gemini.”
“Thank you. This Agena looks an interesting, well-thought solution. However your idea of using a Saturn IB, not a Titan III, as launcher, is intriguing at least. Can representatives of Marshall tell us more about current situation of the center, and how many Saturns are left ? Eberhard Rees maybe ?“
“Well, we have hopes that the Shuttle is not totally dead; maybe we will revive the program once the station orbit and completed, around 1983. However my center need work NOW, and in a hurry, if we want to survive the present decade. Shall I remember you what Nixon options mentioned back in 1969 ?"
Two other options, at $2.5 billion, also permit flight of Skylab with its three visits. There could even be a space station in 1980, with Titan III-Gemini for logistics. However, there will be no space shuttle. NASA-Marshall will close, while activity at the Manned Spacecraft Center (Houston) would fall substantially.
“This paragraph was part of an OMB larger review of President Nixon space options for FY71 and beyond. Well, the shuttle had been canned, so over the last six months I attempted diversification, with mixed results.
Marshall attempted to capitalize on Skylab solar observatory success for the Large Space Telescope, but the leadership went to Goddard.
Rees continued
"The Agena might be of interest for us. Indeed it was Marshall that was responsible for the Shuttle space tug – and your mention of the L3B reminded me that the Europeans were very interested by a cooperation.
But the military were reluctant, they didn’t wanted any foreign involvement because of their use of the Shuttle and its tug to ferry some of their classified satellites. At least this problem disappears if we use the tug for assembly of a civilian space station.”
“Indeed. We should discuss further of possible cooperation with ESRO on the subject of the tug.” Beggs answered. “Now tell us, how many Saturns are in existence ?”
Ach so ! That the moment Reese had been waiting for so long.
Fuck the shuttle.
Fuck the Titan.
Long live the Saturns !
It is the last opportunity to return the Saturn to production status.
Don't fool it !
“Of the fourteen Saturn IB build before closure of the production line in 1968, four have been expanded in unmanned tests, and one has been used for Apollo 7.
Three more will boost Skylab crews to the station, and the ninth (AS-209) is held in reserve as rescue vehicle.”
“And so remain five Saturn IBs that have been build for Apollo Applications Program missions now cancelled.
AS-210 will be expanded in a join flight with the soviets; however AS-209 won’t fly if no accident happens, so this rocket will be available as soon as Apollo-Soyuz will land safely, in 1975.
In conclusion five Saturn IB are available, barely enough to build a space station.”
Nobody noticed that Rees had made a major mistake. It was not five, but seven Saturn IBs that had been left.
The procurement of long leadtime components for four additional Saturn IB Launch Vehicles (SA-213 through SA-216) was approved in August 1966.
This approval was granted to retain the option to continue uninterrupted production of the Saturn IB Launch Vehicle if the requirement for additional launch vehicles became firm. The procurement of these additional launch vehicles (SA-213 through SA-216) was approved by Mr. Webb, NASA Administrator, on January 18, 1968. follow-on Saturn IB Launch Vehicles.
Some long leadtime components such as tanks, structures, etc., have already been fabricated for vehicles 213 through 216. Steps are being taken to reorient the production and support activities to give the most economically sound program feasible that will result in qualified, flightworthy launch vehicles.
To Rees credit, these last two Saturn IBs were nothing more than some first stage structure elements and Redstone tanks that had been manufactured and stored at Michoud, but never assembled into stages. Plus their S-IVBs had never been build. Rees later remembered this fact, but it was too late to save Marshall.
“I suppose that these Saturns should be modified to received the Agena. Are further modifications needed ?”
Excellent !
“We discussed of such problem since the shuttle had been cancelled. Result is the Saturn Life Extension Program – SLEP.
Saturn IBs stored at Marshall will be disassembled and their stages send back to Michoud and Huntington Beach for upgrade.
Mods includes Minuteman strapons and Agena integration above the S-IVB - a handful of S-IVBs might be transferred from Saturn V to Saturn IB, to complete the last three clusters.
“Hmm, that’s may be expensive… why not simply add the Agena, or use a Titan III ? In other words how on Earth will we justify to Congress the expense of two similar rockets – Saturn IB and Titan III - flying from launch pads only kilometres away, for years ?” Beggs asked dryly.
That was the very issue, but Rees had plenty of arguments to shoot that one down. Representatives from Martin Marietta, however, shot first.
“The Titan is cheap heavy lift. Back in 1961 the Department of Defence envisaged up to 72 space launches a year from three Titan III pads at the Cape. Yes: seventy-two.
As planning progressed, one pad was eliminated and maximum launch rate cut to five a month. The idea was that the DoD would be launching large numbers of manned and unmanned military spacecraft from the Cape during the 1965 to 1975 period and that such a launching rate would require a rapid-fire assembly and checkout complex.
“As it turned out, only three Titan 3Cs were launched per year in 1965 and 1966 and an average of two flew from the complex over the next years.
Launch rate is not expected to go beyond three or four per year in the next future. Thus as of today an excess of Titans exists, and it is apparent that the costly Titan 3C launch complex will never be used to its full capability.
“Our cost analyses showed that such a facility would save money if a launch rate of 18 per year was achieved.
We expected the Titan 3 family production rate to be 18 vehicles per year from 1970.
A Titan bird for use by NASA, built from scratch, could be made available within 24 months - if pulled from a production line, the availability could be improved to 13 weeks from order.
“However the 1970 production rate we described represents half the plant and tooling capacity.
Obviously this extra tooling has been mothballed. We are not talking about airframes here; contractors have similar overcapacity. Aerojet, for example, could build plenty of Titan engines. At a production rate of 18 per year, Martin-Marietta will deliver Titan IIIs for only $9 million per unit.
“Then we have to clear another interrogation. What solids for the man-rated Titan ? should we use the five segment or the more powerful seven segment rocket motors ?
Favouring the seven segment motor is the fact that USAF consider Titan III-M as man-rated.
Unmanned spaceflight would certainly benefit from more lift-off thrust: Mariner Jupiter-Saturn and Viking could be heavier or faster.
The seven-segment motor, however, should be stacked on the pad, not on the current building, with modifications to the launch pad. Costs could be shared with the Air Force. The five segment main advantage is, well, that it is already in use.”
George Low sighed
“I’d prefer the seven segment solid. Maybe USAF could be involved through Big Gemini MOL-like missions. They have an unfinished pad at Vandenberg they built for the Manned Orbital Laboratory.”
“Flight rate estimation is a difficult problem. Eberhard, any word on the Saturn IB ? How do we justify the use of it to carry the space station modules when Titan is such a bargain ?”
Rees had patiently waited the end of the Marietta rant.
“The first thing to remember is that we only use spare Saturns. We won’t reopen the production line - not immediately.
Secondly, obtaining a space station won’t be easy, unless we draw heavily on Skylab.
In fact Skylabs might be key, even if we can’t really build the station directly from it. Here’s my argumentation for the 1980 station, based on Skylab.
“We can argue we need Saturn V to launch the 1980 space station because it’s a Skylab derivative.
“We can also argue we need the Saturn IBs because Skylab is build from an S-IVB. Station modules could be derivatives of the Skylab workshop – light enough to ride on a Saturn IB if we get ride of the large supply on board, and airlock.
“We can argue that North American Rockwell Space Division need something to replace both the Shuttle orbiter and the Apollo – why not a dry workshop S-II ?
“As Maxwell showed us the Titan is hampered by the CTV reentry module mass. Even with the Agena and a payload equal to Saturn IB, the Titan can’t lift an orbital workshop because Skylab is too wide.
“We have a large stock of Saturn, and we should use them, even if our manned capsule ride to space on top of a Titan. I see no contradictions in that.” Rees added “Otherwise there will be massive layouts, and not only at Marshall. Kurt ?”
Kurt Debus was boss of Cap Canaveral, and an ally of Reese.
“We really need something to fill Launch Complex 39 in the next years. We can’t just demolish such huge infrastructure !
In my opinion, even if we obtain more Skylabs, that’s only two or three more Saturn V over the next ten years, before an eventual shuttle. Saturn V are expensive and scarce, while smaller Saturn IBs are many and cheap.
We already have modified LC-39B for Saturn IB with the milkstool. Adding Saturn IB to Saturn V schedule would give us six to eight launches, depending on how many Saturn V we will use to build the 1980 space station. “
Reese jumped on.
"Gentleman, we have to remember my fellow von Braun opinions about manned spaceflight. Rule of thumb is to never fly astronauts on a launch vehicle with solid rocket motors. Destructive events are generally violent and very fast, overtaking launch escape systems. That why I suggest a gradual path to return Saturn IB to production status."
He took a deep breath.
Don't fool it up !
"I told you five Saturn IB remained in storage. We should launch space station modules with them, introducing gradual upgrades in the process before reopening the production line.
Then, I suggest to lower Saturn cost by sharing technology with the Delta booster. The Delta 3000 features nine small graphite epoxy solid rocket motors, and Apollo engines on its upper stage. We could cluster eight Deltas to create a new Saturn cluster ! The S-IVB second stage would first be modestly upgraded with the J-2S; later the XLR-129 would result in a massive performance boost.
We plan to use that latter engine in the shuttle; flying it on the Saturn first would provide valuable data.
Every step in this process - the small solids, Delta cluster, and XLR-129 - is gradual and flexible, the end result being a very powerful and reliable launcher.
The Delta, like the S-IVB, is build by Douglas; this contractor would thus takeover production of the full rocket."
"Now I would like to talk a little bit more of the S-IVB itself. For its huge size it can nonetheless be made cheap.
A Bellcom memo of April 1969 discussed the matter, and the conclusions remain pertinent even today.
The subject of low cost low earth orbit (LEO) transportation systems is under extensive study throughout NASA, the military and the industry. Approaches under study have included launch vehicles which vary from near term expendable configurations based on Saturn hardware to completely flyback recoverable concepts such as that proposed by General Dynamics/Convair Division.
A major option under consideration is development of a near term intermediate launch vehicle (ILV).
A technology aspect which deserves consideration is a cheap version of the S-IVB Stage 2 which is proposed as the second stage of all candidate neaz term ILV configurations.
The SIVB stage is the only operational manrated cryogenic high performance stage of a size concomitant with an ILV. NASA Marshall has recently funded McDonnell Douglas to initiate design of a "scrubdown" version of the SIVB.
In a recent study the Aerospace Corporation estimated the cost of the NASA 260-inch diameter solid /S-IVB rocket at 260 $/Ib to LEO on the basis of a 15 vehicle buy, launched at a rate of five per year. It may be deduced therefore that SRM/SIVB vehicles are indeed competitive to Air Force configuration SRM/ liquid upper stages.
It is apparent that the SIVB stage is a prime candidate upper stage for a near term ILV. The SIVB is man-rated, in the inventory, and competitive in cost with a new stage when installed above either clustered solid rocket motors of whatever diameter (120 inc, 156 inch or the monster 260 inch).
A cheap S-IVB ?
In all candidate ILV configurations with the exception of the INT-20, the S-IVB is by far the costlier piece of hardware according to the cost analyses which have been carried out. The S-IVB under existing ground rules has been priced out at twice the cost of a typical solid first stage. At the present time however there is abundant evidence that the SIVB can be available at substantially reduced price, in a configuration which also eliminates the need for a separate instrument unit.
On a production basis of 60 vehicles at 12/year (half for Saturn V use), an SIVB for use on a Saturn IB was priced at $4.5 million a copy (launch costs not included). Including J-2 engine the stage cost was roughly $6.5 million.
In the end it might be possible to launch a typical SRM/SIVB (say from E'TR not KSC), for (1969 dollars) $20 million per launch or 200 $/Ib to low earth orbit.
Even in 1965 it was recognized that a "cheap" S-IVB must be as close to a "production run Chinese copy" as possible. The SIVB stage now has demonstrated satisfactory reliability. If low costs are to be attained, testing, instrumentation, inspection procedures, documentation, etc. must be eased in accordance with moving out of an R&D phase and into a true production phase.
More recent MDA studies show that more automated manufacturing techniques and redesign to reduce the number of (sub)assemblies are principal tools to further reduce recurring unit costs. As stated previously, one of the keys to cheap hardware is the "hands-off," minimum inspection, minimum test "Chinese copy" production line.
It is highly probable that the Air Force may be the forcing function behind an ILV program. Previous discussions have shown that there is no apparent reason why a solid / S-IVB launch vehicle could not be used from Vandenberg. The present Cape Canaveral Integrated Transfer Launch (ITL) facility used presently for Titan operations might well be expanded for the ILV operation.
The preceding sections briefly state the utility of a cheap SIVB. However, it is well understood that "cheaper" costing, necessitates a new way of doing business at NASA.
The Saturn V production gapping provides the ideal time span to "phase program plan" a cheap SIVB. One might concede the "maintenance of caPability" concept as necessary or that a reasonable contractor support effort is justified to support Saturn V flight operations. If true, the level of support required to "keep" the MDA facility open at Huntington Beach might well fund a cheap SIVB to the end of Phase C (design) of a phased program plan. A three year program is possible which would probably not require special funds until program approval--say at the end of 2 years (FY71).
The reduction of launch costs of a S-IVB Intermediate Launch Vehicle to say $200/Ib would be in itself a worthy achievement. For the sake of comparison the space shuttle launch cost target is 100 dollars per pound launched to low earth orbit."
"There is a lot of good points made in that report - with the exception of the solid cluster. I suggest instead to use a cluster od Delta rockets."
Reese concluded its sale pitch, and awaited critics and feelings.
They were mixed.
"Shall I need to remember you the Saturn production line was closed five years ago ? And the bureau of budget made clear he wants that Titan III."
George Low noted.
"Many payloads are going to orbit a top a Titan these days, including military satellites.
A sticky point is that the Saturn lacks a third stage to go beyond low Earth orbit. The Centaur is evidently the best choice, but we lost that battle five years ago; Viking will go to Mars atop a Centaur, but that Centaur will be boosted by a Titan, not your Saturn.
This decision is impossible to reverse !"
Reese knew that better than anyone else.
"Indeed. but we could introduce the Centaur at a later date, and fill the gap with different upper stages; for example the Apollo service module, or a stripped down two-stage Lunar Module !
Again, the Delta already features surplus Apollo engines on its second stage... just think about it. Calculation show that a four stage Saturn with all the upgrades I described earlier could be a match for the Titan, even without the high energy Centaur !"
Faces around the table were dubious.
"We should discuss of Saturn and Titan launchers at a later meeting. We can now define a tentative roadmap for the next ten years.” Beggs continued. “We will build a space station from Skylab and S-II stages.
"If Skylab A works, then we won’t need neither Skylab B; I suggest we turn Skylab B into a ground-based mockup of the future space station.
"If Skylab A fails, then we will flown most experiments on a month-long early CTV mission augmented by a logistic module, probably circa 1977, or on the space station at a later date. The CTV will ferry cargo and astronauts to this station, completed by unmanned Agenas. We will fly the remaining Saturn IBs and try to restart the shuttle program, probably in the 80’s.”
The meeting was over, and most people left the room – excepted Beggs, Low, and General Schriever.
So that’s the reason Schriever is there. What will USAF decide… ? Maxwell Hunter really wanted to know. But he was to go.
Once the three were alone, Beggs turned toward Schriever. The Air Force General had returned from retirement to manage the military manned space program – or what was left of it after the shuttle fiasco.
“What a fine meeting that was.” Schriever poked. “That’s a nice future you’re building. As for us military – without a shuttle we will stuck with the Titan III for the next future, trying to drop costs down by flying more missions.
We could also reuse the large solid rocket motors if we parachute them in the ocean. It may save some money.”
“Every program I pushed in the past decade – DynaSoar, Blue Gemini, Manned Orbital Laboratory, all cancelled, aimed to put USAF pilots in orbit.
In November 1966 we placed a MOL mockup in orbit with a Titan.
We reused the Gemini 2 capsule, cut a hatch through the heatshield, and recovered it. I strongly recommend to launch a similar Big Gemini mockup.
It could be Gemini 2 again, or you should cut a hatch through an Apollo heatshield, and bolt it to a boilerplate Big Gemini crew module.
"When the Manned Orbiting Laboratory was canned in June 1969 the first pathfinding flight was tentatively scheduled for February 1972.
It would have been conducted by two Air Force pilots: Commander Jim Taylor and Pilot Al Crews.
Further two-man teams would then have been despatched at nine-month intervals for roughly 30-day orbital stays until the fifth and final manned mission in February 1975.
At least one MOL flight, it was expected, would carry two US Navy officers, probably Bob Crippen and Dick Truly.
So I say - we could bring that program back on the cheap by buying some Big Geminis of yours." Schriever said. "If you ever pick Big Gemini of course !
Whatever, the spaceplane problem will remain unresolved in the next future. DynaSoar might have been a useful testbed for the shuttle, but McNamara cancelled it in December 1963. This marked a serious setback for our strategic reconnaissance systems.
“Gary Power U-2 shot down over USSR in May 1960 meant than even our mach 3 Blackbirds or Oxcarts could no longer overfly USSR.
I thus pushed for a suborbital spaceplane called ISINGLASS. Mach 20, 400 000 ft, dropped from a B-52. Pure rocket – no airbreathing engines. We developed a marvel called the XLR-129 with four time the performance of the J-2. Very high pressure.”
“Thank you, General. The XLR-129 was not exactly suited to the space shuttle; it had not enough thrust. However it formed the basis for the SSME.”
Beggs continued. “We should develop this engine at prototype level, a demonstrator. We will perfect our baseline shuttle in the next years.”
Schriever evidently had not finished yet.
"What about a successor to the X-15 ? Might be useful to gather some data on shuttle reentry or hypersonic regime."
"We have nothing to date. Perhaps it will be a lifting body; we are currently modifying a X-24A into the sleeker X-24B.
Still modestly supersonic, however. Perhaps an eventual rocket powered, mach 8 X-24C could be build, but we lack money. Time is hard for high-speed flight. You saw this with your ISINGLASS..."
"Hell, yes. Perhaps we should blend together a reborn ISINGLASS and your X-24C; both are rocket powered and dropped from a B-52 mothership. The XLR-129 would be perfect."
Schriever continued
"Now let's talk about this Agena tug you described. You ought to know the Agena is a cornerstone of our military space assets. We had and still have many classified projects involving Agena either as upper stage or satellite bus."
Schriever blue eyes narrowed
"those programs are heavily classified; NASA shall and will not interfere with our activities. If you have to use the Agena in the future, we will have to set clear lines that will never be crossed.
The soviets should never be able to gather data on military satellites through civilian programs involving Agenas. Is this clear ?"
Schriever tone left no place for doubt.
"But NASA already used Agena in more sensitive times, for Gemini. USAF and NASA had a workable agreement" Beggs protested.
Low analysed Schriever slightly menacing tone he did not understood immediately. Then he reminded the SAINT program - an Agena was to carry a reconnaissance package in orbit, inspecting satellites with a television camera, reporting to the military on the ground. Next step was obvious - destroy the red satellite ! But Eisenhower had vetoed the idea.
Satellite inspection, by the way, might also be of interest for NASA.
“We really hoped to fly military astronauts onboard the shuttle to deploy satellites. By contrast your Crew Transfer Vehicle might be of little interest to us – with the exception of Douglas entry, what you call Big Gemini.”
What ?
“Big Gemini is similar enough to MOL so that we can fly some military missions from Vandenberg SLC-6. This pad is currently in mothball, finishing it for Big Gemini operations should be straightforward; overall the ship is similar to the Manned Orbiting Laboratory.”
Shit. Old general Schriever is telling us what CTV proposal the military would prefer. He wants the MOL back through Big Gemini. How about that.
George Low waved his arms at the growing tension.
“Now let me says it starts looking like a balanced space program” he noted. “F-1A and XLR-129 engine demonstrators for a future shuttle. CTV flights to a Space Station build with spare Saturns and Agena tugs. Agena unmanned resupply flights. Maybe we could involve the Europeans in this scheme since they were interested in the space tug... thank you, General.”
Schriever walked away.
Beggs had a little discussion with Low.
"That Schriever – Jesus, he is frightening. To think he was nearly NASA administrator in 1969.” Beggs said.
“Yeah, he was and still his a good friend of Nixon.”
With him at the controlsGod know what would have happened to the civilian space program. Low shivered.
“Well, the hell with that cold war General. George, we will need a renewed space station task force.
I, have two names ontop of my list to chair that group.
First is George Mueller. The other is the Ames director, Hans Mark.
Incidentally, we don't know what to do with Ames, they had that PAET - Planetary Atmosphere Experiments Test last June flying on a Scout rocket: a technical success but also a budget buster."
"Didn't Ames planned to fly operational PAETs on a low-cost Venus mission ?"
"Sure, but the project has been put on hold last January. George, is there any interest in having unmanned return capsules on a manned space station ?"
"Perhaps. We should take this into consideration."
In the afternoon Low and Beggs discussed space station costs with George Mueller
Mueller had retreated from NASA late 1969 for a post into private space industry.
On demand of Low since March he had compiled various space station studies made at NASA over the last decade.
“Look what I’ve found” Mueller started enthusiastically “a dozen of space station report and concepts…” he started to pile-up volumes of paper on Low’s desk.
“This is Douglas EOSS – Early Orbit Space Station, kind of six-man Skylab from 1967.
"This one is the SLA workshop, a station build within the Saturn Launch Adapter –how about that ?
"Now have a look at the MORL – Manned Orbiting Research Laboratory, a Langley project.
"The Manned Orbiting Laboratory was the USAF military station, launched atop a Titan III. Boeing concepts are also of interest. This is the Orbital Launch Facility… a single launch, four decks, 33ft space station…
"Lockheed 1965Modular Space Station proposal suggested that future space stations be constructed out of a common 460cm (183in) diameter building block designed to be mounted in the LM adapter of the S-IVB stage… and we have as many as fifty proposals based on Skylab.
“Quite a lot of interesting studies.” Beggs interrupted the flow. “But we are pressed by time… what does these studies tell us about our future space station ?”
“They tell us first that uprated Saturn IBs can launch 22 ft-wide modules.
We can certainly build those modules from S-IVBs, just like Skylab.
We can build a reasonably cheap modular space station with a strong science content. Look at this report” he added, adding another paper entitled Workshop costs estimates based on EOSS and MORL to the pile already menacing George Low desk by its weight.
“$2.5 billions for the MORL, as much as Skylab. MORL was smaller, but a clean sheet, much more sophisticated design. The Langley guys really invented Salyut long before the soviets… we can build something similar.” Mueller added.
“Have a look at the Modular Space Station final reports issued last month. There were two variants: one with very large modules launched by Saturn Vs, another with modules scaled-down to fit in the shuttle payload bay. I recommend the Saturn V launch 12-men space station…
In my own view - Boeing’s four decks, 33ft space station core with four MORLs to complete it. One Saturn INT-21, four Saturn IBs, Helios / Titan III for logistics. Put as much Skylab as possible in the design, and there you are.”
Mueller went away, leaving Low and Beggs facing each other.
"Mueller did a good job - there's no lack of space station concepts, and now we have some idea about how much do they cost."
"Sure. This is not an issue. You know where the real trouble is." Low said.
"You mean, I am - you are - literally assaulted by Marshall and Houston representatives ?" Beggs raised his eyebrows.
"This. Do you really think one of the two centers will give ground ?"
"I give up any hope." Beggs sighed. "The situation is totally deadlocked."
"We need two things." Low said. "We need either a bulldozer or a referee to end that turf fight. A bulldozer to knock the two fighters; or a referee to try a mediation. Pick your solution."
"Do you have something in mind ?" Beggs, like many people, admired Low no-nonsense pragmatism.
"Yes. We need Rocco Petrone as our bulldozer; and we need Bellcomm as a neutral referee."
"Bellcomm ?" Beggs was surprised. "Didn't we disbanded that team ?"
"...Bellcomm" Low muttered with admiration in his voice.
"I consider it one of Jim Webb strokes of genius. He just conjured that we’re going to have problems in communicating with astronauts, and that takes a lot of engineering and a lot of communication expertise. Who has that kind of thing?
"At the time AT&T was the main place for all of this high-caliber engineering. So Jim Webb wrote a letter to the chairman of AT&T requesting the company assistance in the nation’s quest, and asking the company put together a team to work with NASA to resolve all the problems of communication that we were going to encounter, not just with the astronauts, but from the Moon, behind the Moon, because we don’t know what we’re going to deal with.
It seems that the chairman of AT&T took this to the board and the board loved it and they all voted absolutely, put all your best into this thing.
They agreed to get all of the big minds of AT&T with their own support teams and move them lock, stock, and barrel to NASA Headquarters as part of NASA Headquarters to work for cost, because this is working for the nation. It was a national quest we were working on, so there should be no profit in this. The Bell labs did it for the good of our country."
"Amazing" Beggs said.
"So Bellcomm was then put as a component to support NASA Headquarters to work for cost plus $1 a year.
That was in the contract, and Bellcomm did such a good job that the contract has been renewed again and again, until in June 1970 we told them it was the last time. You have to understand that the deal between NASA and AT&T is akin to
“I’m going to give you all those people that you need for as long as the Apollo program is on. The day Apollo ends, goodbye, because these are my own people, I want them back home.”
This is the deal.
"You mean that, by Apollo 17 time - when came the splashdown of Apollo 17 - Bellcomm will fold ?" Beggs said.
"Spot on. But Apollo 17 isn't planned before December of that year." Low noted. "You’ve got to realize Bellcomm is not an experimental laboratory organization. It is a people organization supplying talent to NASA Headquarters to conduct studies, analyze issues and problems, look at what the NASA programs are doing, critique those. They are in a strange role in a sense, it is very unusual. That in itself created some early problems - or solved some, it is just a matter of point of view."
"Which bring us back to our issue of the Marshall / Houston turf war, I suppose."
"Yes. You are well familiar with the Manned Spacecraft Center. The last thing Houston ever wants or needs is more insight and advice from us - from NASA Headquarters and their cronies.
Well, it took a couple of years, but those Bellcomm people were ultimately accepted by the Houston - and Marshall ! - mafias."
"I can imagine their suspicious figures and grumpy comments" Beggs laughed. "What are these outsiders doing? What do they know? We’re the experts.” Low approved.
"Headquarters has always been looked somewhat suspiciously at by the Centers. We all know the usual tete-a-tete that goes on between the field and NASA Headquarters, don't we ?"
Low smiled wyrily.
"Well, in Apollo that was all pretty well overcome, largely I think because Bellcomm has people who, number one, aren’t trying to pretend that they are running the show, but are working with the centers to help define and ensure that everybody are getting the data that supports the Apollo landings. Even if the Bellcomm employees works in the name of NASA Headquarters."
"Amazing." Beggs repeated. "Now that what I call an achievement."
"Webb was a management genius. As for Bellcomm, the real genius behind it is that these people in Washington DC, are not NASA employees but AT&T - and this is paramount.
None of these people have a boss right there, so when Bellcomm employees are asked something by Houston or Marshall directors or managers they answer for the good of the program - not for the interest of the center.
Beggs evidently appreciated the idea.
"Regardless of whose idea it is, who in NASA Headquarters would like it, and who would not like it." he said. "It is irrelevant. It is for the good of the program, period. When back at NASA Headquarters, they can say anything to the Apollo program director, to the NASA Administrator, to anybody in the group, to the engineers, to anyone, for the good of the program, because he has nothing on them."
Low approved and continued.
"When Bellcomm employees work with the Centers, when they goes to any of the Centers, they have a badge that said NASA Headquarters. They have a kind of one-upmanship with people at the Headquarters with the Centers, because they represent NASA Headquarters. That way they can get things done outside of the realm, within the structures at the Centers, because they are outside.
"It is unreal. I’ve never seen anything like it before." Beggs approved.
"In the end Bellcomm big strength is - it’s not aligned, there is no jealousy from within NASA and, most importantly, no pressure."
"Spot on."
"Excellent then, makes one think. How about our bulldozer now, that Petrone ?"
"The way it works is that Bellcomm offices are always in the same building, and in many cases on the same floor as the Apollo Program Director.
Which, incidentally, was (and still is) Rocco Petrone - since August 1969, when he replaced Sam Philips, you see."
"Here we are."
"Rocco Petrone was one of the major dynamos behind the success of Apollo. He was once an Army officer, football player, big and bulky, as tough as nails.
Also smart - he has a PhD even though he was a football player and in the Army. Petrone has another interesting aspect: much like the Bellcomm fellows, he is neither on Huntsville nor Houston side. He managed the Kennedy space center, then he went to Headquarters."
"So he may be our troubleshooter." Beggs suggested.
"Absolutely. I have no worries he will shot any trouble on its way. Fletcher once told me he wanted to send him at Marshall to throw a wrench into the German thoroughly planned dynasty - von Braun was replaced by Rees that was replaced by Lucas, and all maintained statu quo..."
"There's no reason for Marshall alone to endure the wrath of Don Corpetrone." Beggs smiled.
"We are going to make Houston and Huntsville an offer they won't be able to refuse.
Bluntly, if they don't listen our Bellcomm missi dominici, we will send Petrone as a hitman or troubleshooter. Dare I say, it will be Bellcomm last stand.
Just one last question - are they allowed to discuss the space program past Apollo itself ?"
"Of course they are. Unmanned spaceflight, Mars landers, Saturn upgrades, space stations - no taboo. They even assessed the shuttle recently." Low concluded, thinking - the next weeks are going to be fun, for sure.
- Archibald
- Word Count: 8.7k