A non-wanky space WI

Archibald

Banned
Technically speaking, I think that it probably could; the problem is with public nucleophobia.

Would unmanned/NERVA probes help cure this ?
something like "Look, we launched and send nuclear probes for 5, 10 or 20 years now, and nothing nasty happened... "

To avoid the "wankish" syndroma (sounds bizarre) I'd imagined that manned trips into the Solar system were overflights only.
This way you have much less risk, weight, and even better, you can add Venus to Mars. Venus is closer from Earth; USSR had much better luck with this planet.

So I imagined that US manned Mars missions were as follow (in the 80's)

- an simple overflight, dropping Vking-3 and Viking-4 probes.
- second overflight, this time trying a sample-return

- Landing is postponed to the 90's or to... our days, instead of ISS.

Soviet reaction toward Venus consist of a TKS docked to an Almaz, powered by this thing
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/sovermal.htm
A Soviet NERVA, albeit much less powerfull...
 
Last edited:

Thande

Donor
Would unmanned/NERVA probes help cure this ?
something like "Look, we launched and send nuclear probes for 5, 10 or 20 years now, and nothing nasty happened... "

You're using logic and reason ;) Look at the mad protests over Galileo - the fact that NASA had already done it five or six times with Voyager etc. makes no difference to these people :rolleyes:
 
Very nice.

Just out of interest, would the Soviets be able to use TKS to try a Moonshot if it were possible with Big G? IIRC, their major problems in OTL were with the N-1 launcher rather than with the hardware that they would use once they got there.

no joke there were Plans for lunar ALMAS TKS by Chelomei.

this part of KLE Complex Lunar Expedition http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kleition.htm
Lunar versions of the Almaz OPS would be placed in lunar orbit to
conduct detailed reconnaissance of the surface using manned assistance.
supply by Lunar TKS launch with UR-700

LK-700 Lunar landing program http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lk700.htm
 

Archibald

Banned
F*ck, this mean than in my TL we will end being stranded to the Moon orbit.

Still better than being stranded in LEO, for sure...
 

Archibald

Banned
no joke there were Plans for lunar ALMAS TKS by Chelomei.

this part of KLE Complex Lunar Expedition http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kleition.htm
Lunar versions of the Almaz OPS would be placed in lunar orbit to
conduct detailed reconnaissance of the surface using manned assistance.
supply by Lunar TKS launch with UR-700

LK-700 Lunar landing program http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lk700.htm

I thought about putting a Skylab, an almaz or soemthing else around the moon, sadly you have the problem of unstable orbits. Within some month your space station end crashing into the Moon.

Fortunately there's the Lagrange points, the EML- 1/2/3/4/5 things... and a LBG mission there is planned for the late 70's.
 

Thande

Donor
The Americans considered putting a Skylab into orbit around the moon in OTL, but no-one could come up with a convincing reason for why having one there would be useful.
 

Archibald

Banned
I've also tried to rework the European space program to make it more apealing, but that's really difficult.

The first turning point in my alt-history is may 1961, when lunar program goes from USAF-Lunex to NASA-Apollo.

Mc Namara use Apollo as a mean to reduce USAF space military programs. Titan III can't compete with Saturn I, DynaSoar can't compete with Gemini. Make them NASA-friendly, or I'll cancell them!

Thus the choice of the SLS (Space Launching System) instead of Titan III in summer 1961.
DynaSoar is diminished to a sub-orbital spaceplane launch by a Titan-II. When USAF ask later to launch it into orbit using the SLS, Mc Namara simply answer "No. Buy Gemini instead".

So Mc Namara reduce USAF space program, or simply push USAF to use Apollo hardware.
It's just like what he did with combat aircrafts, forcing A-7, Phantom and F-111 into USAF/ USN join programs.

Second turning point : Johnson fix NASA a great post-Apollo program in 1965.
In OTL NASA had to wait after 1969 and Armstrong lunar landing to know its next target.
Well, at the time the context was disastrous : OMB wanted budgets cuts, Nixon was cold on space matters... and we ended with the Space Shuttle for forty years and without space station until 2000.

In this ATL Johnson fix the "ISS goal " twenty years before Reagan.

Space Station program start in 1965, not in 1984.
It is build on the wake of Skylab...

NASA build the station between 1965 and 1980, and from 1975 start new lunar missions using LBG.

The Space Station is partially given to ESA, Japan and private sector. The latter grew much quicker than in OTL with guys like Robert Truax building pressure-fed, cheap rockets (not eaxctly the Sea Dragon, rather Ariane 4 size)
 
Last edited:
Forget to mention the mission profile, which is rather different from Apollo CSM.

Saturn V is quite dead (remember the discussion we had at the secret project board ?)

So, like Orion, there's a rendez-vous in LEO between
- Big G and - S-IVB / LM.

ok that work also
but you need docking structur for LBG conection S-IVB beause LM stucture is to weak to support the load.

Both are launched by the same vehicle, the Saturn INT-20.
jep is cheaper to launch as Saturn V

As its payload is only 50 tons, when launching the 135 tons S-IVB+LM combo it is boosted by two 4-segments /1800 tons thrust /156 inch SRBs (developped by USAF for the SLS, which replace Titan III in my ATL.)
i called that a nasty monster :D
by the way, if the SRB (if 2 x 88 tons) Ignition are made after Saturn Int-20 clear the launch tower
you need no big cuts in lanuchplatform.

As my Big G is launched by Saturn INT-20, it's not the 15 tons /Titan III variant , rather the much bigger one at 47 tons...
why so much mass ? even the 15 tons version (with more fuel) can do lunar Mission

Honestly, the thing which most worry me about LBG (Lunar Big G!) is the hatch in the heatshield.
I fear a Columbia scenario, the hatch blewing up at 40 000 kph while returning earth... that's a potential risk. but as you say Thande

the landinggear doors in Shuttle heatshield never has failed ... jet
the TKS "the hatch in the heatshield" also never failed in the flight test
 

Archibald

Banned
Quote:
As my Big G is launched by Saturn INT-20, it's not the 15 tons /Titan III variant , rather the much bigger one at 47 tons...
why so much mass ? even the 15 tons version (with more fuel) can do lunar Mission
Maybe because I'm still under influence of Apollo CSM (30 tons) and Space Shuttle (75 tons) ? So I see heavy Big G...

Well it all depends from the cargo module after all!
That's the point rise by Thande in the first post of this thread. Btw that's true, you can add the module you like until it use the standard BiG-Gemini crew-module...

I've already started to "build" Big G derivatives, manned or unmanned. One of them has become the OTV, Orbital Transfer Vehicle of the 80's...

by the way, if the SRB (if 2 x 88 tons) Ignition are made after Saturn Int-20 clear the launch tower
you need no big cuts in lanuchplatform.

What do you mean ? Would they blew the launch pad or the Saturn ? Annoying...

Agree on the LM, it was not up the task. Reinforcements needed!
 
Last edited:
Apollo CSM (30 tons)
most of 30 tons are Propellants (18413 kg) used for:

Lunar orbit injection (with heavy LM) 879 meter/sec
adapt orbit 51 meter/sec
LM speration 0.75 and (after rendevous) 0.5 meter/sec
Transver earth injection 949 meter/sec (with out LM)

so delta V is 1880,25 meter/sec for Apollo LM combination

and with LBG LM with S-IVB ?
the S-IVB makes Lunar orbit injection 879 meter/sec
so for LBG delta V is 1010,35 m/sec (with out heavy LM)
there for only 78% more fuel als for low orbit BG

or has the LBG suppy a Lunar orbital station also ?
or stay the LBG als Lunar orbital station durnig long LM mission ?
 

Archibald

Banned
or stay the LBG als Lunar orbital station durnig long LM mission ?

More or less.

I use the 47 tons Big G, of which the "return capsule" weight 7 tons according to Astronautix.

This mean that the cargo / service module weight 41 tons.
Over these 41 tons, part of it (around 10-15 tons) is fuel for the TR-201 engines (Transtage hardware)

Big G need less fuel than the CSM because it doesn't brake into lunar orbit. The S-IVB do it instead...

This mean that there part of the cargo module can be used for crew confort...
 

Archibald

Banned
In this ATL USAF discovers that suborbital spaceplanes are not so bad compared to orbital spacecraft.
USAF develop dynaSoar and put it in service around 1968 as a fast recon plane which partially replace A-12 and SR-71s. It is launched by a Titan II.

In short, the spaceplane is not an orbital shuttle for NASA, its a suborbital recon machine for USAF.

DynaSoar prove difficult to operate, with high maintenance costs; in fact problems are more or less similar to the OTL Shuttle.
This mean that USAF is not very satisfied with DS and quickly seek a replacement in the early 70's.

Contract go to Rockwell around 1972, which mean this machine will "replace" both the B-1A and Shuttle.

The machine is something similar to the Black Horse/ Black Colt / Pathfinder spaceplanes studies of the 90's.

It take off horizontal under power of two turbojets (probably Boeing 2707 GE-4) then rendez-vous with a tanker, a modified KC-10 Extender.
The KC-10 transfer 90 tons of LOX, then the Pathfinder light its rocket and accelerate to mach 15.

The rocket engine is a H-1B (borrowed from Saturn I) 110 tons of thrust, eventually with Aerospike technology.

In OTL the J-2 was used as basis for X-33 aerospike, so why not the H-1 ?

This spaceplane can't reach orbit, SSTO is not possible even today.
It rather release a RL-10 upper stage which boost up to 3500 kg into LEO.

This spaceplane is very interesting for USAF because it can fulfill other roles than satellite launcher.
Ever heard of Prompt Global Strike ? Just replace the RL-10 stage by some cruise missiles...

The Soviet answer to this american spaceplane is the MAKS tripropellant /expendable tank shuttle.
Not exactly MAKS (we are in the 70's) but something like the Bizan or "system 49"
http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/airnched.htm

More to come...
 

Archibald

Banned
Btw NASA set up a kind of Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program in the 70's for the very same reasons this program exist today - if we retrun to the moon, someone else have to resupply the Space Station.

In OTL Klauss Heiss and its firm Spacetran tried to buy a Space Shuttle.

Here they buy the retired Apollo capsule (block 3) from Rockwell, and use it as Crew Rescue Vehicle for the station. There's no Service Module amynore, just the capsule, which weight only 5 tons.

Spacetran launch the capsule using a Titan II with strap-on solids.
The capsule is send unmanned to the station as it's a crew rescue vehicle.
It stay docked to the station for three months, then replace by another.
The spent capsule is send back to earth and bring back payload.

Later Spacetran put the capsule on top of Robert Truax Space Horse pressure-fed cheap booster and start sending turists in space...
 

Archibald

Banned
titan4u.gif


This is how Titan looks when launching the Apollo capsule.

They use Agena to put the capsule into orbit and for orbital manoeuvering toward the space station...
 
you try this combination ?

Titan 34B. ( core of Titan IIIM for MOL ) LEO Payload: 3,500 kg
Titan 3BAS2 ( core of Titan IIIM with 3 stage Centaur ) LEO Payload: 6,600 kg
http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/titan.htm

Apollo for Space Station supply
NAA made Study in 1967 for that : "Modified Apollo Logistics Spacecraft"
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740073531_1974073531.pdf
size 6 Mb

NAA Idea
Servis Modul replace by Cargo Module
with tanks and descent Engine from LM ! (in size of Agena stage, only better)
this is surround by 4 Cargo Canister 3254 kg of usable cargo.
CM adaped for 6 Astronauts (4999 kg)
Launch by Saturn IB or Titan-IIIC

take Titan III C
or strip the ALS down to CM and tanks and descent Engine from LM
for Titan 3BAS2

ALS.png
 

Archibald

Banned
Yes mine is an hybrid of various Titan III (and 4!) models, including the BAS-2 :)

Thanks for the "evolved Apollo" plans. Btw we would need a kind of Beal BA-2 to lift that in orbit... I'm quite sure Bob Truax can do something similar in the 70's (only thing annoying with the guy is its mystic of water-launching its pressure-fed rockets:rolleyes:).

Btw Wallops Island become the main base of private acess to space, under influence of Klaus Heiss
 

Thande

Donor
I must admit, I had no idea that the Titan III would be capable of launching Apollo...

Would this be cheaper than using Saturn Is and IBs?
 

Archibald

Banned
The Titan IIIC (and the modernised Titan 4) had a payload very similar to Saturn IB, around 17 metric tons.

But the Titan was rather expensive to build, probably more than Saturn IB...

Btw Apollo diameter was 3.9 m when Titan core is only 3.05 m.
But the Titan 4 had a 4.3 m Centaur G, using a large shroud. So Apollo could have fit well...
 
Top