Stage cost wise the Saturn-1C and Saturn-II where very close together in cost. It might be better to chop the Saturn-II stage out and just use Saturn-1C and then IVB stage.
Red Star: A Soviet Lunar Landing
- Thread starter SpaceGeek
- Start date
Stage cost wise the Saturn-1C and Saturn-II where very close together in cost. It might be better to chop the Saturn-II stage out and just use Saturn-1C and then IVB stage.
yes, the Titan had to be phase out during 1980s by the Space Shuttle, until january 1986, then the Titan III stay longer in servis until new rocket were designed: Delta IV and Atlas V
the price data is under assumption, the Titan IIIC and Saturn IB launch identical payload of same mass.
so long the Soviet stay in space race, the POTUS stay in Space race, even Ronald Reagan ! (OTL he was major disaster for 1980s US space programs.)
The arrival of Progress 2 on January 22nd 1978 was met with great cheerfulness by the cosmonauts onboard Zarya-4. For the second time only, the Progress was utilized as a resupply ferry. Fresh Fruits ad Vegetables made it all smiles onboard. In Progress's early days the cosmonauts would rushed to unload delivered supplies and reload the Progress with waste. For the Progress refuelling operation, the resident crew fastidiously inspected Zarya-4's fuel lines for leaks over several days. Fuel and oxidizer were transferred on February 02, 1978 and February 03, 1978. On February 05, 1978 nitrogen from Progress 1 purged the lines so they would not spill toxic propellant onto the docking drogue when the supply ship undocked.
On April 21th 1978 the Soviet cosmonauts welcomed another visiting spacecraft. This time instead of tomatoes and onions this ship brought cosmonauts themselves. Aleksei Gubarev and Vladimir Remek visited as the first mission in the "Interkosmos" a program of cooperation between the Soviet Union and friendly governments, giving them access to launch vehicles, satellites, probes and manned spacecraft. Remek, a Czechoslovakian became the first Non Soviet/American in space. Remek's experiment program touched on life sciences, materials processing, and upper atmosphere research. For a breif, weeklong period, there were four cosmonauts swarming the tiny cabin of Zarya unlike the much more spacious American Skylab Station.
Mere days after the visiting crew (Soyuz 17) left, Soyuz 16 left leaving behind a station which was still not finished. Soyuz 18 was to set yet another spaceflight duration record, 175 days, the time needed to reach the planets (Mars and Venus) which layed beyond them for the future to take. The station had, by then, been unoccupied for five months since the last spaceflight. When the cosmonauts arrived they turned on the station's air regenerators and thermal regulation system, and activated the water recycling system to reprocess water left aboard by the first resident crew. De-mothballing Salyut 6 occurred simultaneously with the crew's adaptation to weightlessness, and required about one week. For them, their entire mission layed ahead of them.
July 15th 1978 was an important day for NASA as Skylab C launched for the first time onboard a modified Saturn VB booster. Unlike Skylab B which was little more than Skylab A with the Apollo Telescope Mount removed Skylab C featured a new 10 KWe solar array and was more heavily modified inside and out. Also unlike it's two predecessors Skylab C would be specialized to perform experimental Earth surveys, which the NASA grouped into five main categories. These were: agriculture/forestry/geography; geology/mineralogy; hydrology/water resources; oceanography; and meteorology. This represented a radical shift in the focus of the Skylab program which had until then been focused on the solely on studying the effects of long duration spaceflight (with some auxiliary experiments thrown in for good measure).
Just three days later with the new station in full operational order and with all solar arrays deployed, Skylab 8 launched on the final Saturn IB. The Redstone rockets that comprised it's first stage sent the first Americans into space on Mercury-Redstone and the Booster itself that had launched such missions as Apollo 5 and 7 along Skylab 1 through 8 was now leaving the pad for the final time in history. While it did have history, it was also underpowered and expensive to build and launch. One last, final burn of the S-VIB and the Saturn IB was confined to the history books.
Skylab C's career was just starting however as the new crew arrived and began the activation process experienced twice before on Skylab A and B. Even Skylab C's orbit was noteworthy as it was inclined 50° relative to the equator, so that it could pass over the most populace and agriculturally productive areas of the Earth. The Astronauts spent most of their time testing, calibrating, and modifying a $40-million, 4700-pound suite of 19 experimental sensors covering the spectrum from ultraviolet through visible light to infrared and microwave. They did however, also continue biomedical experiments started on previous Skylab flights. Skylab 8 arrived with the purpose of spending 90 days (three months) onboard the station. However just a month after arrival they were already due for their first visitor...
Enjoyed reading the update. How is re-supply being handled on Skylab-C? The original Skylab sent up all the supplies for all 3 crews at once from food to clothing since space was limited in the Apollo Command Module. No provision was made for re-supply. By Skylab-C is any provisioning being made for re-supply or is it still send up all the supplies for the crews in one shot?
I guess I might as well tell you all now.
The Titan IIIL2 has a maximum payload of 35 tonnes to LEO. The modified CSM has a Habitat/Logistics module attached to it's nose that carries up to 10 tonnes of pressurized consumables and equiptment. It's launched with the crew eliminating the need for a dedicated unmanned resupply vehicle.
It is also filled with garbage which burns up in the Earth's atmosphere on Reentry (along with the Service Module while the Command Module lands safely).
The only payload that can safely be brought down is the couple hundred kg that can be recovered with the crew in the CSM.
Unpressurized payloads can also be brought up in a small payload bay in the Service Module. They need to be removed via an EVA. Unpressurized payloads can also be disposed of by a suited astronaut placing them in the Service Module before reentry.
The Titan IIIL2 has a maximum payload of 35 tonnes to LEO. The modified CSM has a Habitat/Logistics module attached to it's nose that carries up to 10 tonnes of pressurized consumables and equiptment. It's launched with the crew eliminating the need for a dedicated unmanned resupply vehicle.
It is also filled with garbage which burns up in the Earth's atmosphere on Reentry (along with the Service Module while the Command Module lands safely).
The only payload that can safely be brought down is the couple hundred kg that can be recovered with the crew in the CSM.
Unpressurized payloads can also be brought up in a small payload bay in the Service Module. They need to be removed via an EVA. Unpressurized payloads can also be disposed of by a suited astronaut placing them in the Service Module before reentry.
I realize that, since personnel aren't staying in orbit without a launch vessel, that strictly speaking an emergency escape craft such as on the ISS is not actually neccessary, but is something like that even considered? Right now the only option would be a second Apollo, and a spare couldn't be kept operational indefinitely at the station, could it? The fuel would boil off and it wasn't designed to stay operational during the long term.
Perhaps a simplified version of a Command module, just enough to get back to Earth safely, with maybe solid fuel boosters to deorbit, could be built, ferried up to a station, and kept there. After all, it's always possible, sooner or later, that an Apollo might malfunction. Having a backup for landing wouldn't hurt, even if it's a very simple (and cheap) system.
Since we aren't sure about the long term lifespan of Skylab C compared to A and B it might not even be a consideration for this one, but perhaps the station after this?
Perhaps a simplified version of a Command module, just enough to get back to Earth safely, with maybe solid fuel boosters to deorbit, could be built, ferried up to a station, and kept there. After all, it's always possible, sooner or later, that an Apollo might malfunction. Having a backup for landing wouldn't hurt, even if it's a very simple (and cheap) system.
Since we aren't sure about the long term lifespan of Skylab C compared to A and B it might not even be a consideration for this one, but perhaps the station after this?
The Apollo Command Module used Hypergolic rocket fuels, so no boil off for fuel. The decision with Skylab was always to have a Skylab rescue crew on stand-by. However the reaction time was slow. It was assumed that the crew could shelter in-place in the station until the rescue craft arrive. Which could take a week or more.
The CSM is an lifeboat for Skylab A, B, C... in the same way that the Soyuz was a lifeboat for Salyut stations, Mir and for the ISS today. The CSM remains docked for 90 days (currently it's only 90 days but that will be increased to 180 soon) before the crew leaves. If you want missions longer than 180 days then you send up another CSM with a crew that spends a short duration stay and leaves on the old CSM leaving behind a new CSM for the long duration crew (this is how it worked on Salyut 6&7, Mir and the ISS today). Also, there isn't a sharp upper limit on the CSM's maximum time in space like there is for the Soyuz. It was proposed to use the CSM to return crews from yearlong Mars/Venus flyby missions. So theoretically you could have a CSM up there for a year straight although you really would want to rotate it out before then.
In short, Skylab A, B and C don't have a dedicated lifeboat emergency return vehicle for the same reason that the Salyuts, Mir and ISS don't. It's unneccesary and would serve no purpose that the Soyuz (or CSM in this case) doesn't already serve. It would be pointless whether the station was permanent, or not.
I thought it was just the lander that was hypergolic? Hmm, must have misremembered. And yes, I realized there was always a crew ready on the ground, or at least as ready as could be. How long did it take to prep an Apollo, even one already on the pad, for launch?
Maybe I was thinking of the Soyuz with regard to life span in orbit? I had a vague memory of the Apollo SM not being rated beyond a fairly fixed time limit. I was pretty sure the command module could stay up almost indefinitely, but it has no inbuilt de-orbit capability without the service module. If that works then certainly, that sounds like a plan *grins*
I thought the ISS did have a dedicated lifeboat? A small deltawing glider to return crew back to the ground. I thought it was commissioned fairly recently to replace Soyuz that were used. I guess I misremembered that too. Was that a research project that never got completed?
The Apollo CSM used the AJ10-137 rocket engine which was from AJ10 family of engines. They all used hypergolic fuel. AJ10-137 engine developed a little over 20,000 pounds of force. The derivative of the AJ10 engine was also used on the Shuttle as the Orbital Maneuvering system. Another derivative is used on the Delta II rocket. The same AJ10 engine will probably be used as the main engine of the Orion capsule. Realistically the reaction time was very slow. During Skylab 3 they lost 2 out of the 4 quad RCS on the CSM. They where able to dock to Skylab. However the Skylab rescue crew was activated and from reading they imagined it would have taken 30-days at least for the rescue mission to clear the tower. They where able to discover a work around for the lack of 2 of the RCS quads so it was never needed. The liquid that would be boiling off on the CSM was the fuel cell reactants.
I think the ISS lifeboat you are referring to is this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Return_Vehicle This project was canceled.
Yeah, that was the one I was thinking of. Shame, it sounded a fairly robust and simple (as far as any spaceship is simple!) design.
You may also be thinking of Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser, which is a competitor in NASA's Commercial Crew program and had its first glide and landing tests last year.
The one I was thinking of was from quite a few years ago and was tested (glide tested last I saw) by NASA. I think it was over five years ago I first saw something on it.
I'll certainly check up on the Dream Chaser though, that does look interesting.
For the design you outline here, 35 tons to orbit seems excessive.
Sure, if we look at Apollo Block II, as used for Lunar missions OTL and presumably here, it looks about right; the CSM, fully loaded on the launch pad, massed 30 tons all up, so you've added a 5 ton mission module, mounted on the nose of the CM, and away we go!
But of course the vast majority of the CSM mass was hypergolic fuel in the SM tanks, needed for the high delta-V Lunar orbit insertion (braking not only its own mass but 15 tons of LM) followed by trans-Earth insertion which is the same delta-V approximately as LOI (but with a much reduced mass) and a reserve of propellant for mid-course corrections and final positioning for reentry. Here, once the Titan has done its job of placing the craft into low Earth orbit, how much maneuvering delta-V can you possibly need? Just a few hundred meters per second, tops. I guess you wouldn't need more than six tons of propellant for the mission--and that assumes that somehow or other the whole craft does mass 35 tons; slim it down and you need even less.
The only contingency I can envision where you need the massive fuel load the Block II SM was filled with is if you plan to use the Apollo, docked to a port on the Skylab, to adjust the Skylab's orbit--presumably to push it up to a higher one after it decays somewhat, or maybe at its end of life, do a controlled deorbit.
Otherwise, it makes no sense to load it up to Lunar mission standards--but then either your orbited mass is going to be a lot less than 35 tons or the Mission Module perched on the nose is going to be one huge mother, dwarfing the CM and perhaps the CSM all up!
Furthermore, while once in orbit this arrangement resembles the ETS Apollo Block III+ and Block IV, with a Mission Module and SM sandwiching the return capsule a la Soyuz, you propose launching it like a Soyuz with its Orbital Module already on top of the crew launch/landing capsule. A drawback of the Soyuz design is that with the OM up there, in case of launch abort the escape tower system has to have the thrust to pull not just the crew capsule but the OM off at a brisk acceleration. This is an annoyance but tolerable with Soyuz design as OTL and ITTL successful crew escapes demonstrate, but that's because the OM is pretty light. Here the Mission Module is quite massive, at least rivaling the mass of the CM, so the launch escape system has to have doubled thrust--and that's if the total mass is way less than 35 tons. Bring it back up to your spec and the abort rocket is mainly pulling the Mission Module with the CM tagging along as an afterthought, even though all that mission mass is being discarded along with the rest of the failed launch.
This is why, of course, e of pi and Workable Goblin had their mission module stashed down below the CSM (and their Block III and subsequent, until the Artemis Lunar Block V, service modules were cut down considerably). After reaching orbit they'd turn around and retrieve the MM just as the LM was pulled out on Lunar missions.
And then they had the drawback to deal with you also adopt--now the MM is stuck on the nose, blocking the pilots in the CM from seeing whatever they are approaching to dock. My suggestion was to adopt a secondary pilot station in the front of the MM, with relay controls and the pilot looking out a window "above" the hatch; they rejected that on mass grounds. (You however have lots of mass to play with so I raise it again.)
It is not clear to me whether the authors here feel they must do things differently than pi/Goblin did out of respect for their having gotten there first, or if you honestly feel these alternatives (Titan, launch with MM on the nose) are either superior or more likely.
I'd propose something else, not necessarily superior to the ETS methods and evolutions but competitive anyway. Suppose instead of shortening the SM, the reduced volume of mission-required fuel and other supplies are shoved to the bottom of the existing module volume, and retaining the same outer skin, the cylindrical volume opened up immediately below the CM becomes the pressurized Mission Module section, accessed by a hatch in the CM heat shield? There all your supplies, including those that in your version are stored in vacuum and require a spacewalk to retrieve, are racked right there. The ship docks to the station just as earlier Apollos did, nose-on with the pilots having a clear view, and then supplies are hauled through the CM.
Now of course the escape system only has to lift the CM itself, as per prior Apollo and Mercury practice. The Titan launcher probably won't make a much bigger bang than the Saturn IB would if it blew up--well it might, since the hypergolic fuels are sure to react with each other if they meet whereas the IB's first stage kerosene and oxygen need a spark and perpetuated flame to do so--OTOH the hypergolic reaction might initially be so violent that it throws the bulk of both propellant components apart from each other, leaving them to do their corrosive and poisonous evil separately. I say a Titan launch failure is clearly a much worse thing for the people on the ground than a Saturn IB blowup, clearly. But the relevant thing for the crew in the spaceship is getting out ahead of the blast and fireball, and for that the two might be equivalent. In the worse case, where the propellants do mix and react with each other pretty much entirely, I suppose the blast from the Titan would be worse, therefore the escape system for Titan-launched Apollos must be more powerful. This underscores the need not to burden it with unnecessary mass, hence the Mission Module should not be where you have it, prepositioned on the nose at launch, but stashed away below somewhere, to be skewered after reaching orbit a la pi/Goblin's Block III+ or kept below via a hatch as I am suggesting.
That's "Service Module," a separate capsule from the CM--though the CM also had its own reserve of hypergolic fuels for the attitude control thrusters built into it. Which by the way leaked during the return from the final Apollo mission, the Apollo-Soyuz docking mission of 1975, with unpleasant consequences for the crew.
Since I'm suggesting putting the crewed Mission section down below, a la TKS and Big Gemini, that puts the crew in direct proximity to the fuel tanks. So once again I will put in a brief plea for an alternative propellant--kerosene-peroxide, which can have ISP comparable to the pressure-fed hypergolic main Service Module engine. Hydrogen peroxide is certainly not totally innocuous; it would be a disaster to have it spraying into the inhabited section of the SM, and worse if kerosene also got added to the mix. But far more survivable than the same thing happening with hypergolics!
Also, one can use peroxide for backup purposes--it can be a source of water, of breathing oxygen, and serve other purposes. For instance driving a power generator turbine. It is just as storable as the hypergolic fuels, as is kerosene, which would have a much smaller mass than the peroxide--just 1/7, due to the chemistry of the reaction. So one is mainly storing HTHP, which is quite dense, with the kerosene as almost an afterthought.
That's "Service Module," a separate capsule from the CM--though the CM also had its own reserve of hypergolic fuels for the attitude control thrusters built into it. Which by the way leaked during the return from the final Apollo mission, the Apollo-Soyuz docking mission of 1975, with unpleasant consequences for the crew.
Since I'm suggesting putting the crewed Mission section down below, a la TKS and Big Gemini, that puts the crew in direct proximity to the fuel tanks. So once again I will put in a brief plea for an alternative propellant--kerosene-peroxide, which can have ISP comparable to the pressure-fed hypergolic main Service Module engine. Hydrogen peroxide is certainly not totally innocuous; it would be a disaster to have it spraying into the inhabited section of the SM, and worse if kerosene also got added to the mix. But far more survivable than the same thing happening with hypergolics!
Also, one can use peroxide for backup purposes--it can be a source of water, of breathing oxygen, and serve other purposes. For instance driving a power generator turbine. It is just as storable as the hypergolic fuels, as is kerosene, which would have a much smaller mass than the peroxide--just 1/7, due to the chemistry of the reaction. So one is mainly storing HTHP, which is quite dense, with the kerosene as almost an afterthought.
The problem I can see in switching to a different engine is the long service life of the AJ-10 engine. This type of engine is still used on the Delta-II rocket for the second stage. It was used on the Titan III rocket and and was used on the Shuttle. The engine has a long service life with US launches. The engine is well understood and very reliable. If you are doing a TEI burn you need a reliable engine. I just don't see NASA switching away to use a different engine that uses a different fuel mixture unless there is a very good reason.
I actually didn't think of that. In OTL NASA did have similer plans with Skylab 5 for boosting Skylab into a higher orbit for later use by the Space Shuttle. With the amount of Delta V in the SM that'd be one hell of a reboost. Thank's for the idea.
The CSM doesn't use all that payload capacity. The for Saturn IB missions the CSM had a mass in LEO between 14,768 kg (Apollo-Soyuz) to 21,000 kg (Skylab 4). Assuming perhaps 10 tonnes of cargo (that's what I was thinking) that gives us a total mass in LEO of 25-31 tonnes. If we assume a cargo mass of only 5 tonnes that means a total mass of 20-26 tonnes in LEO.
Also that 35 tonne number is for a 185 km orbit. It's somewhat less as you go to a higher orbit. But yes, it is still true that the Titan IIIL2 is overpowered compared to what the CSM+payload actually masses. If it was overpowered then why did Bahumut-255 and I pick it? Simple.
Titan IIIL2 with Core 4.57 m (14.99 ft) .two booster
LEO Payload: 35,000 kg (77,000 lb) to a 185 km orbit. Payload: 12,000 kg (26,000 lb) to a GTO. Launch Price $: 33.000 million in 1965 dollars.
The reason the Titan IIIL2 was chosen was because
A: It was cheaper than the Saturn IB ($108 million/launch in 1965 dollars)
B: It had much more payload than the Saturn IB ( 18,600 kg (41,000 lb) to a 185 km orbit)
C: It was designed to be man-rated from the start.
D: There are actual designs which have it launching the CSM (so I know they were considering it IOTL and it's compatible)
E: It gives us a launch vehicle that can launch large Space Telescopes, Space Station Modules, Space Probes, GEO satellites for both civilian and military use (essentially it can launch what the Shuttle launch but bigger, cheaper, with no astronauts risked and with no delays)
F: It's evolutionary as it can lead to the Titan IIIL4 (LEO Payload: 45,000 kg (99,000 lb) to a 185 km orbit. Payload: 16,000 kg (35,000 lb) to a GTO. Launch Price $: 38.000 million in 1965 dollars.)
C: It's optimized for delivering payload to a 250 nm / 50 deg space station orbit.
The CSM doesn't launch in that configuration. The CSM launches as though it was a normal Saturn IB launch. Then while in LEO it turns around and docks with the Habitat Module like it would with a LM during a lunar mission.
The Titan IIIL2 decision was only partially because of the fact that we don't want this to simply repeat what E of Pi and Workable Goblin have already done. I'd rather not bodly go where somebody else has already gone before. It's advantages however, (I think) speak for itself.
That's an interesting idea I never considered. Originally I wanted the supplies to be stored in a small payload bay in Service module like you suggested. Except I never thought of having a hatch in the heat shield and allow access to it without EVA. Without that, you would need to perform a spacewalk every single time you wanted to remove consumables/equiptment or fill it with garbage for de-orbit. I'l have to consider that one. The idea of having a hatch in the heat shield was origninally proposed by the Manned Orbiting Laboratory Program (MOL). They found the idea didn't significantly compromise safety (Although that was for a completely different vehicle). I might just change it now, or atleast reconsider it.
It seems the Titan IIIL was considered for 6 SRBs too! Apparently it was contemplated as a booster for the shuttle orbiter in OTL. It sounds like quite a flexible launch system... Look forward to reading how they plan to support a moonbase with these.
fasquardon
fasquardon
It's a viable solution, though it does require a fairly significant overhaul of the SM--the existing structure isn't designed to be a pressure hull, so you're basically designing a whole new SM. Heat shield hatches have a long history of successfull use in the US program, though an unsung one: hatches in the Shuttle TPS covered the landing gear, as well the fuel interface ports for the propellants from the ET.
The problem I have with it is mainly that I don't think there will be enough habitable volume for the five person crew that will be operating the CSM in the future.
Yes, you can sqeeze two more into the CSM but you still need to have an extra habitable volume in the form of a Mission Module or Pressurized SM payload bay. I'm not convinced if the SM payload bay would have enough volume for the extra two crew to stretch their legs.
Plus it would be a pretty radical reworking of the SM. It's not the reentry shield hatch I have a problem with, that's the only thing about the idea I don't have a problem with.