A non-wanky space WI

Archibald

Banned
I'm still completing this ATL.

Here's the altered list of US presidents between 1960 and 1984
(don't know if its totally realistic...)

- JFK 1960-1963
- Johnson 1963-1972
- RFK 1972 - 1976
- Reagan 1976 - 1984
 
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...

Saturn IB cost more because use of Redstone and Jupiter Fuel tanks in First Stage
Launch Price $ 107.000 million. in: 1967 price dollars.
($46.7 million build cost)

Titan 3C
Launch Price $ 55.000 million. in: 1975 price dollars.
Titan 3E
Launch Price $ 66.000 million. in: 1975 price dollars.
the Titan cost are so low because DoD launch 10 Titan per year
to fit Apollo on Titan is easy with adapter.
 

Archibald

Banned
Yeah I was wrong.
Maybe I mistaken the Titan III with the Titan IV, which upgrade made very expensive...

I have others ideas for non wanky space WIs.

Here's another. I've found an article narrating how the Shuttle program was nearly killed on 23th April 1970. I'll post a link if you're interested.
It would make a nice whatif : the shuttle program is scrapped, and replaced by a spacecraft launched by a Titan III.
There would be three options in this case

- A lifting body for USAF (one of the atmospheric vehicles was send, two times in orbit by a Titan III in 1972, but this was scrapped in favor of the Shuttle)

- A downgraded Apollo
or
- the "small" Big Gemini

For NASA.

What happen after that, no idea!
This is just a crude atempt...

Considering NASA options (Apollo or Big Gemini) they would cost much, much less than the Shuttle. They would be ready much, much earlier : Big G needed only four years after go head to fly (1967 - 1971) ; Apollo was already flying.

In short NASA has a new manned vehicle for cheap and in 1975.

In think this would allow launching Skylab 2 and maybe others space stations. Maybe we can see a smaller, 100% Nasa, Skylab-like ISS around 1985 ?
 

Thande

Donor
Yeah I was wrong.
Maybe I mistaken the Titan III with the Titan IV, which upgrade made very expensive...

I have others ideas for non wanky space WIs.

Here's another. I've found an article narrating how the Shuttle program was nearly killed on 23th April 1970. I'll post a link if you're interested.
It would make a nice whatif : the shuttle program is scrapped, and replaced by a spacecraft launched by a Titan III.
There would be three options in this case

- A lifting body for USAF (one of the atmospheric vehicles was send, two times in orbit by a Titan III in 1972, but this was scrapped in favor of the Shuttle)

- A downgraded Apollo
or
- the "small" Big Gemini

For NASA.

What happen after that, no idea!
This is just a crude atempt...

Considering NASA options (Apollo or Big Gemini) they would cost much, much less than the Shuttle. They would be ready much, much earlier : Big G needed only four years after go head to fly (1967 - 1971) ; Apollo was already flying.

In short NASA has a new manned vehicle for cheap and in 1975.

In think this would allow launching Skylab 2 and maybe others space stations. Maybe we can see a smaller, 100% Nasa, Skylab-like ISS around 1985 ?

Please, go ahead.

This is a nonwank because, although there would be more and cheaper launches than OTL (and more people in space) the lack of the shuttle's cargo capacity would obviate some of the triumphs we've had in OTL (probably the Hubble Space Telescope...)
 

Archibald

Banned
Well IMHO it would be possible to have a kind of Shuttle in this ATL.

Of course I imagine it for our point of view of 2008, Ie knowing well the actual weaknesses of the Shuttle :) Not very fair !
--- btw it seems that Lutz Kayser, father of the OTRAG rocket, was tasked by the german governement to assess the Shuttle around 1972 (germany was tasked with building Spacelab at the time) and found it deeply flawed. This did not prevent germany flying Spacelab into the Shuttle bay, but that's another story... ---

But well, if you want a viable shuttle with 70's technology, here's some tricks

- build it as a lifting body, not a winged vehicle which is truly the worst configuration available (at reentry...)
- give it only 12 or 15 ton load, not 30
- Maximum weight 45 tons, not 100 like the Shuttle we have today
- No engines on the orbital thing, no expendable tanks : put that into a conventional, cheap rocket (solid or pressure-fed first stage, plus a good old S-IVB (and its proven J-2) as second stage.

- Build it unmanned!!!
Buran proved that with a nice set of redundant computers, you can fly unmanned from the launch pad to the landing.
This was soviet electronics!!!

If you really consider a crew is necessary
- put it into a capsule and launch it separetely
or
- put it into the space station and unload the shuttle from the station with a mechanical arm (Canadarm for example).

In fact this vehicle is a cross between
- the actual Shuttle
- the expendable Shuttle-C of the late 80's
- Buran
- The X-33

Having a lifting body / 12 tons load was NASA dream before USAF came to the rescue in 1972 to help financing the shuttle.

USAF wanted something like
" launching from Vandenberg, we want to come back just after one orbit. Thus we need 2000+ km cross-range at reentry... goodbye lifting body!

Oh, and we also want to launch 30 tons into a raildroad-boxcar-like bay. This just can't fit into a lifting body form, so, again, let's go for delta-wing Shuttle... "

I imagine such shuttle would fly in the 80's or in the 90's. Saturn INT-20 would be perfect to launch it, particularly if you replace the F-1 stage by a big dumb pressure-fed (is Bob Truax here?) or a huge solid booster.
A 260 inch, 3500 tons thrust (!) monster would probably be enough, but it would be VERY difficult to handle.
Having two 156 inch, 1800 tons thrust 4 segments solids would be more reasonable... they would be more or less similar to the Shuttle SRBs, thus you can probably reuse them the same way.
 

Thande

Donor
Yes it would be. This program depend how ambitious NASA is in the 80's.
What, like the Dyna-Soar?

As I say, let's try to avoid wankitude - if some things are more successful than OTL, make other things less successful so it comes out as looking realistic.
 

Archibald

Banned
Well it won't be wanky if you build this thing instead of X-33 for example.

What I meant was, you need a heavy launcher (similar to Saturn INT-20) to launch this thing. Technically, it's feasible.

As I said before, I haven't developed it to date. Gemini Apollo capsules instead of Shuttle sounds ok.

Shuttle in a different form, maybe, but more difficult. This was an exemple of how a good shuttle would look like if we need it in this ATL...
In fact this is simply my alt-history shuttle ;)
 
Last edited:

Archibald

Banned
In fact the lifting body I imagined would COMPLEMENT the Gemini / Apollo capsule.
On one hand, a manned, highly reliable system which is not reusable ;
; on the other hand, an unmanned, highly capable, reusable platform.

Here's an atempt.

Let's say NASA manage to keep Saturn INT-20 only around 1970.
This is not wankin' if you go this way.

No Saturn V (way too expensive) no saturn 1B.

Why keeping Saturn INT-20 ? because it is much less expensive, having only the S-I topped by S-IVB.
Without the heavy, 500 tons S-II second stage the mighty S-I accelerate too much; thus Saturn INT-20 only had three F-1, not five.
This also helped reducing costs.

Saturn INT-20 is a viable option and probably less expensive than the Shuttle.

If Nixon OMB still consider it as too expensive, drop the S-I and its F-1s engines and replace them by a pressure-fed or a solid.

Its LEO payload is around 45 metric tons.

with such rocket you can launch
- Apollo or Gemini heavy spacecrafts
- An unmanned lifting body
- Space Station Modules.
 

Thande

Donor
That sounds interesting - and like the Shuttle, it would keep us Earthbound for a while.


In fact the lifting body I imagined would COMPLEMENT the Gemini / Apollo capsule.
On one hand, a manned, highly reliable system which is not reusable ;
; on the other hand, an unmanned, highly capable, reusable platform.

Here's an atempt.

Let's say NASA manage to keep Saturn INT-20 only around 1970.
This is not wankin' if you go this way.

No Saturn V (way too expensive) no saturn 1B.

Why keeping Saturn INT-20 ? because it is much less expensive, having only the S-I topped by S-IVB.
Without the heavy, 500 tons S-II second stage the mighty S-I accelerate too much; thus Saturn INT-20 only had three F-1, not five.
This also helped reducing costs.

Saturn INT-20 is a viable option and probably less expensive than the Shuttle.

If Nixon OMB still consider it as too expensive, drop the S-I and its F-1s engines and replace them by a pressure-fed or a solid.

Its LEO payload is around 45 metric tons.

with such rocket you can launch
- Apollo or Gemini heavy spacecrafts
- An unmanned lifting body
- Space Station Modules.
 

Archibald

Banned
Well, maybe not! Think about the current Orion scenario ;)

In this ATL the US president decide to return to the moon, say in 1989 :)

Good thing with Saturn INT-20 : it's part from the old Saturn V.

The S-IVB is still there, as Saturn INT-20 2nd stage (not a translunar stage, but there was no big differencies).

This would mean that the "lunar Saturn INT-20" would have two S-IVB stacked : one as second stage, other as LEO payload. Can't see any problem with that!

Of course the S-IVB weight 120 tons fully fueled, so Saturn INT-20 can't put it in LEO.

Unless you add solid rocket boosters!
2 Very, very powerful (roughly the Shuttle SRB)
or 4 less powerfull.

Then go for LEOR way : first launch the capsule, then the S-IVB (eventually with the New Lunar Module, oops, this one has to be developped)

Dock them in LEO, and go to the moon...

I suppose if NASA plan to go back to the moon this way, it can't be totally bad...

If you compare this ATL with the current NASA "clean sheet of paper" Orion program, only elements to develop are

- Solid rocket boosters
- New Lunar Module.

This doesn't sound too costly, even for the 80's.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

Banned
The main difference between this ATL and OTL just lie in
Saturn INT-20 + a manned capsule

instead of

Shuttle.

The first option is much more flexible, thus let more options open for the future...
 
I got some thing for you Archibald

in 1969 made Rockwell a study "North American Rockwell Minimum Cost Booster"
sdoc31ani.gif

to find here http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocspaceother.htm
is Low cost pessure fed Rocket (fuel N2O4/UDMH) to replace Titan rockets

cost around $7 million for build and launch. (against Titan IIIM with $20 Million in 1969 dollar)
if 12 unit are bulid and launch per year.

Payload 20411 kg in low orbit with baseline rocket
from 4535 kg with partital fueld, up to 45359 kg with 3 x first stage cluster

IMHO is $7 million cost to low, but even with cost overrun this Rocket is cheaper as the rest
 

Archibald

Banned
Merci beaucoup!

This thing looks like a Beal BA-2 or a Truax booster : exactly what I needed for my ATL.
I remember the name "Minimum Cost Booster" I had seen it in the book "LEO for cheap". But the detailed design is new to me!
 
Top