A more sustainable Apollo program (doesn't stop in 1972)

[Archibald]

Here's an atempt toward a sustainable lunar program in the 60's.

OTL Saturn V was canned as too expensive. Too big, no commercial nor military use for it. NASA lacked budget to continue production.
So Saturn V production line was stopped in August 1968, and definitively closed in January 1970.

If you want a perene lunar program, you have to go back to the roots. To 1961.

At the time were varied Saturns projects.

Saturn C1 & C2 had a small first stage, with eight H-1 engines. This led to Saturn IB.

Saturn C3 had two F-1s, and boosted 35 tons to Earth orbit.

Saturn C4, C5 and C8 were monsters, with four to eight F-1s. And 90 to 180 tons to LEO.

Two F-1s, 35 tons > Four F-1s, 90 tons. There was a gap between the C3 and C4. The Apollo program just failed to last because of this gap.

A three-F1s, 55 tons to LEO Saturn would have been enough to conduct lunar missions, and still much cheaper than Saturn V.

So let's start from the Saturn C3, not C5.

You have two boosters.

A two-F1 saturn (let's call it Saturn II) replaces Saturn I/ IB.

A three-F1 Saturn (Saturn III) replaces Saturn V.

So, how do we go to the Moon, on the cheap, with those boosters ?

By Gemini to the Moon.

The lunar lander become an hybrid between the Lunar Module and a Gemini capsule.
Just like this concept http://www.astronautix.com/craft/gemcraft.htm

A bit smaller, for two men only.

So you use the Saturn II to boost the 30 tons Gemini Lunar Lander to Earth orbit.

Once there, a Saturn III boost a S-IV onto the same orbit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IV

The Gemini Lunar Lander (GLL) dock to the S-IV. The stage fire its RL-10, and boost GLL to Earth escape velocity.
The GLL then land on the Moon directly.
The mission acomplished, the Gemini capsule blast off from the lunar surface, directly toward Earth.

NASA doesn't develop
- J-2
- S-IVB
- Apollo CSM
- Saturn V

Big savings !

What would the POD be ? 1961, and the lunar mode debate.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/monograph4/splash2.htm

http://history.nasa.gov/monograph4/mount.htm

Jim Chamberlin - well known of CF-105 Arrows fans - not only backed Houbolt early, he was also the driving force behind the Gemini capsule until 1963.

The Houbolt-Chamberlin connexion may result in a different lunar program - to the moon on the cheap, with smaller rockets.

 

[Workable Goblin]

I'm quite skeptical of any plans to use Gemini to explore the Moon. To my mind, it would actually be worse than OTL--the Gemini is much less capable a spacecraft, after all, and so it would be even harder to maintain operations after the end of the program. Plus, the relatively small and incapable spacecraft could cause many other problems wrt endurance, especially psychological, not to mention the small amount of equipment you could take.

OTOH, an EOR-type program (better, an EOR-LOR hybrid) could save money and allow the building up of more useful infrastructure which would promote continuing flights later on.

Of course, I have my own TL dealing with this...

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

If you're interested in this idea, talk to Mark Whittington. Search for his name on the boards. He's written a book that covers this exact thing.

 

[Thande]

I'm quite skeptical of any plans to use Gemini to explore the Moon. To my mind, it would actually be worse than OTL--the Gemini is much less capable a spacecraft, after all, and so it would be even harder to maintain operations after the end of the program. Plus, the relatively small and incapable spacecraft could cause many other problems wrt endurance, especially psychological, not to mention the small amount of equipment you could take.

Gemini has its advantages, though. Much, much cheaper, safer, and there's always Big Gemini to expand the living area - which perhaps could later be used as a moonship as well as an orbital craft.

 

[Archibald]

In some way Gemini was more advanced than apollo. It came later, around 1961.
(before Kennedy NASA was to jump from Mercury to Block I CSMs. Once Apollo directed toward the Moon, Gemini filled the LEO-gap).
Longuest Apollo mission: Apollo 7, 11 days.
Longuest Gemini: Gemini "I-forget the number", but it lasted 14 days. The crew was definitively bored near the end.

I've heard of Mark Whittington before, but never entered contact with him. Maybe I should try
From him I know Children of Apollo - what else did he wrote about ?

 

[Workable Goblin]

Gemini has its advantages, though. Much, much cheaper, safer, and there's always Big Gemini to expand the living area - which perhaps could later be used as a moonship as well as an orbital craft.

Cheaper I can see...but safer has me scratching my head. AFAIK, Gemini suffered one major malfunction in 10 manned flights, a thruster malfunction on Gemini 8, which nearly killed the crew. Apollo had two major malfunctions, one in a ground test (which obviously could have happened on Gemini as well, and had as much to do with bad procedures and QC as the spacecraft design itself) and one on an operational flight. Much like with Gemini 8, this was overcome, though with more clever engineering than good piloting for fairly straightforward reasons. But those numbers don't really indicate any safety difference to me. After all, if you compare the Block II CSMs with the Gemini capsules--more fair, no Block I hardware was flown, after all--then they are exactly equal. No astronauts died, one major life-threating malfunction apiece.

@Archibald: But there was no need to orbit an Apollo for 14 days since Gemini had been a test mission to see if anyone could survive that long in space. Besides, if you want to get technical, the longest Apollo flight (Skylab 4, IIRC) lasted 84 days

Of course, any Gemini lunar-landing program is going to be called Apollo, just because that name had been picked for the lunar-landing program back in...'59, I think. But there is scope for refining the Apollo program quite a bit.

Saying that Gemini was more advanced because it came "later" is a bit misleading, don't you think? Apollo's design had only been finalized in 1960, and they wouldn't start bending metal for a while yet.


I'm really trying to understand why people like Gemini so much. Like I said, it always seemed a bit weird to me, but there are an awful lot of Gemini partisans out there.

 

[Thande]

Cheaper I can see...but safer has me scratching my head. AFAIK, Gemini suffered one major malfunction in 10 manned flights, a thruster malfunction on Gemini 8, which nearly killed the crew. Apollo had two major malfunctions, one in a ground test (which obviously could have happened on Gemini as well, and had as much to do with bad procedures and QC as the spacecraft design itself) and one on an operational flight. Much like with Gemini 8, this was overcome, though with more clever engineering than good piloting for fairly straightforward reasons. But those numbers don't really indicate any safety difference to me. After all, if you compare the Block II CSMs with the Gemini capsules--more fair, no Block I hardware was flown, after all--then they are exactly equal. No astronauts died, one major life-threating malfunction apiece.

Actual accidents have no bearing on considering how safe a spacecraft is (weird, I know ). I was referring to the fact that Gemini used ejector seats rather than an LAS.

Your Skylab example is a bit misleading because the Apollo astronauts weren't living primarily in Apollo, whereas in Archibald's Gemini mission they were obviously confined to Gemini.

As to why Gemini is so popular, try this page.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Actual accidents have no bearing on considering how safe a spacecraft is (weird, I know ). I was referring to the fact that Gemini used ejector seats rather than an LAS.

Oh. All right, but why are ejector seats safer than an LAS?

Your Skylab example is a bit misleading because the Apollo astronauts weren't living primarily in Apollo, whereas in Archibald's Gemini mission they were obviously confined to Gemini.

I knew it was misleading, that's why I put the winky But it is true that none of the Apollo flights needed that duration, and that Gemini was a test program partially concerned with testing whether spacecraft and people could last that long, so it seems a bit misleading to cite the lack of equally-long Apollo missions to justify Gemini superiority.

As to why Gemini is so popular, try this page.

Well, I know that Gemini had a vast number of variants proposed etc. But, basically I was wondering why people would rather go with an LOK-LK capacity proposal for lunar landing--something with almost no expansion value whatsoever, barely even capable of the mission in the first place--instead of, well, Apollo. Even Astronautix admits that the original Gemini LOR plan would only have been slightly faster and cheaper than Apollo, and much less capable for scientific missions.