Across the high frontier: a Big Gemini space TL
- Thread starter Archibald
- Start date
Political, that Easy part
The most difficult part to make sure Chelomei keep his mouth shut.
Chelomei was most notorious know for his Arrogance and extrem malicious-tougue.
That mean something in Russian language, rich on strong language...
The most difficult part to make sure Chelomei keep his mouth shut.
Chelomei was most notorious know for his Arrogance and extrem malicious-tougue.
That mean something in Russian language, rich on strong language...
Hubble
Archibald
Banned
July 25, 1977
LOCKHEED WINS SPACE TELESCOPE
Lockheed Missiles and Space has beaten Boeing and Martin-Marietta in the competition to build Nasa's Space Telescope. For this major venture, the most important of half-adozen new space programmes begun this year by the space agency, the company will receive $72-8 million for initial financing. At the same time Perkin-Elmer has been chosen to build the optics, principally the 94-inch diameter primary mirror. Initially the mirror was to be 120-inch, but that was cut in 1975.
NASA did address the Space Telescope mirror size in the March 1975 hearings, at which time they were studying three options, the 3.0 meter, the 2.4, meter and the 1.8 meter telescopes. At that time NASA indicated that they were probably going to home in on 2.4 meter. It is less complex and looks to be a lower cost option than the 3.0 meter, but still is capable of good scientific observing in space. The 1.8 meter telescope did not appear to represent a significant step forward over what scientists are capable of doing from ground-based observatories, and other space observatories.While a 2.4-meter mirror reduces the light collecting area by 36 percent when compared to a 3-meter system, a further reduction to a 1.8- meter size reduces this capability by 64 percent or, stated differently, a 3-meter mirror has almost three times the light collecting area of a 1.8-meter mirror.
Central to Lockheed victorious space telescope bid has been Maxwell Hunter, one of the brighest aerospace engineer in the United States.
Hunter joined Douglas Aircraft in 1944. As chief missile design engineer, he was responsible for the design of the Thor, Nike-Zeus and other missiles. And as chief engineer of space systems, he was responsible for all Douglas space efforts, including the Delta launch vehicle and the Saturn S-IV stage of the Apollo moon rocket program.
In 1962, Hunter joined the staff of the National Aeronautics and Space Council in Washington, D.C., which was created at the same time as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration four years earlier to coordinate interagency air and space activities. As an advisor to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, he offered insight into future space programs and the creation of the National Space Policy.
Returning to designing in 1965, Hunter began his association with Lockheed Missiles and SpaceCo. in Sunnyvale, Calif., where he worked in several areas, including the astronautics (rocket) division and the advanced development section. At Lockheed, he was responsible for the design of the Advanced Space Transportation Vehicles - StarClipper and Shuttle, and he originated the concept of using large expendable tanks in shuttle designs, a move that drastically cut costs although it was not enough to save the program.
After he led the proposal that won the Hubble Space Telescope for Lockheed, the company said that Hunter will now manage another important space asset – the Agena space tug, in collaboration with NASA Lee Scherer and (very probably) the military. Over the last years it has been realized that the Agena potential far exceeded the original space tug role, that is, ferrying space station modules from orbital insertion to docking with the space station core module. Although very busy with Lockheed space telescope bid Maxwell Hunter has published a couple of studies over the space tug and the DIAGONAL launch vehicle. Hunter has said that Agena potential is so great it may change the way we are making things in space.
LOCKHEED WINS SPACE TELESCOPE
Lockheed Missiles and Space has beaten Boeing and Martin-Marietta in the competition to build Nasa's Space Telescope. For this major venture, the most important of half-adozen new space programmes begun this year by the space agency, the company will receive $72-8 million for initial financing. At the same time Perkin-Elmer has been chosen to build the optics, principally the 94-inch diameter primary mirror. Initially the mirror was to be 120-inch, but that was cut in 1975.
NASA did address the Space Telescope mirror size in the March 1975 hearings, at which time they were studying three options, the 3.0 meter, the 2.4, meter and the 1.8 meter telescopes. At that time NASA indicated that they were probably going to home in on 2.4 meter. It is less complex and looks to be a lower cost option than the 3.0 meter, but still is capable of good scientific observing in space. The 1.8 meter telescope did not appear to represent a significant step forward over what scientists are capable of doing from ground-based observatories, and other space observatories.While a 2.4-meter mirror reduces the light collecting area by 36 percent when compared to a 3-meter system, a further reduction to a 1.8- meter size reduces this capability by 64 percent or, stated differently, a 3-meter mirror has almost three times the light collecting area of a 1.8-meter mirror.
Central to Lockheed victorious space telescope bid has been Maxwell Hunter, one of the brighest aerospace engineer in the United States.
Hunter joined Douglas Aircraft in 1944. As chief missile design engineer, he was responsible for the design of the Thor, Nike-Zeus and other missiles. And as chief engineer of space systems, he was responsible for all Douglas space efforts, including the Delta launch vehicle and the Saturn S-IV stage of the Apollo moon rocket program.
In 1962, Hunter joined the staff of the National Aeronautics and Space Council in Washington, D.C., which was created at the same time as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration four years earlier to coordinate interagency air and space activities. As an advisor to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, he offered insight into future space programs and the creation of the National Space Policy.
Returning to designing in 1965, Hunter began his association with Lockheed Missiles and SpaceCo. in Sunnyvale, Calif., where he worked in several areas, including the astronautics (rocket) division and the advanced development section. At Lockheed, he was responsible for the design of the Advanced Space Transportation Vehicles - StarClipper and Shuttle, and he originated the concept of using large expendable tanks in shuttle designs, a move that drastically cut costs although it was not enough to save the program.
After he led the proposal that won the Hubble Space Telescope for Lockheed, the company said that Hunter will now manage another important space asset – the Agena space tug, in collaboration with NASA Lee Scherer and (very probably) the military. Over the last years it has been realized that the Agena potential far exceeded the original space tug role, that is, ferrying space station modules from orbital insertion to docking with the space station core module. Although very busy with Lockheed space telescope bid Maxwell Hunter has published a couple of studies over the space tug and the DIAGONAL launch vehicle. Hunter has said that Agena potential is so great it may change the way we are making things in space.
Archibald
Banned
Nasaspaceflight.com has a thread discussion over all the rocket startups. SpaceX is far from being alone. We are living interesting times.
It is the second decade if the fisrt century of a new milenia. Spaceflight is in a race against things like ISIS, growing populism, and global warming.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.0
It is the second decade if the fisrt century of a new milenia. Spaceflight is in a race against things like ISIS, growing populism, and global warming.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.0
Apollo: the space station lifeboat
Archibald
Banned
Document title: James T. McIntyre, Jr., Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget, to Robert A. Frosch, Administrator, NASA, December 23, 1977.
Source: Jimmy Carter Presidential Library, Atlanta, Georgia.
DECEMBER 23, 1977
Honorable George Low
Deputy Administrator,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, D.C. 20546
Dear George:
The interpretation in your December 21 letter that “The President decided that an option for the Apollo space station lifeboat should be negotiated now . . .,” is not a correct reading of the President’s decision. Two decisions would have to be made in the outyears: 1) a decision in the context of the FY 1981 budget on whether to provide additional funds for the option; and 2) a decision then or later to exercise that option.
The President stated his explicit concern that no action be taken that might be interpreted as a possible commitment now by the Government to build Apollo space station lifeboat. The option for a lifeboat should be kept open for future Presidential consideration and it is NASA’s obligation to assure that no actions, contractual or otherwise, are taken that might tend to pre-empt the President’s future decision on Apollo rescue vehicles.
Sincerely,
James T. McIntyre, Jr.
Acting Director
Source: Jimmy Carter Presidential Library, Atlanta, Georgia.
DECEMBER 23, 1977
Honorable George Low
Deputy Administrator,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, D.C. 20546
Dear George:
The interpretation in your December 21 letter that “The President decided that an option for the Apollo space station lifeboat should be negotiated now . . .,” is not a correct reading of the President’s decision. Two decisions would have to be made in the outyears: 1) a decision in the context of the FY 1981 budget on whether to provide additional funds for the option; and 2) a decision then or later to exercise that option.
The President stated his explicit concern that no action be taken that might be interpreted as a possible commitment now by the Government to build Apollo space station lifeboat. The option for a lifeboat should be kept open for future Presidential consideration and it is NASA’s obligation to assure that no actions, contractual or otherwise, are taken that might tend to pre-empt the President’s future decision on Apollo rescue vehicles.
Sincerely,
James T. McIntyre, Jr.
Acting Director
Archibald
Banned
Briefly: NASA and the Soviet Union have started a race over long duration flight (Salyut versus Enterprise). Soyuz can last a long time in orbit if docked to Salyut (six months to a complete year), but Big Gemini can't last more than one to three months - at best.
So NASA wanted Apollo capsules as long duration space lifeboats (and Rockwell was very enthusiast about it), but Carter refuses to fund what he see as a second manned ship (OTL he refused to fund a fifth shuttle orbiter, to NASA dismay). This will have serious consequences down the line...
So NASA wanted Apollo capsules as long duration space lifeboats (and Rockwell was very enthusiast about it), but Carter refuses to fund what he see as a second manned ship (OTL he refused to fund a fifth shuttle orbiter, to NASA dismay). This will have serious consequences down the line...
Europe in space (13) MPLM
Archibald
Banned
In 1978 the Italian Space Agency (ASI), NASA and McDonnell Douglas had an agreement over the Multi-Purpose Logistic Module (MPLM).
The MPLM was a truncated Big Gemini cargo module, light enough to be boosted by an Ariane 3 rocket. The MPLM was to give the Agena a pressurised module. That way the Liberty space station would have another pressurised logistic vehicle beside Big Gemini.
President Carter had just cancelled the Apollo Rescue Vehicle (ARV). This meant that mission duration to Liberty was limited to Big Gemini in orbit endurance, that is, two months when docked to Liberty. In order to cover an entire year, seven Big Gemini would have to be launched every year, but that bursted Titan III safe flight rate. NASA found itself in a quandary, since the Soviets had no such issue with Soyuz. They were breaking flight duration records on Salyut. With the Apollo rescue vehicle canned, NASA sought alternatives to keep Liberty permanently occupied. One of these alternative used the MPLM as an "on orbit lifeboat".
If Liberty was to fail, the crew would jump into the MPLM, detach it from Liberty and sail into orbit. Then they would have to wait for a Big Gemini rescue flight.
Whatever, the MPLM initiative come from the ASI alone, and not from ESA. It was cheap enough that the ASI could fund it by themselve. That avoided the extremely cumbersome ESA funding process where the agreement of every country had to be bargained.
The NASA-ASI deal gave Rockwell ideas. They tried to negociate a similar agreement with Germany DLR (again, not ESA) and the French CNES. Rockwell tried to sell these space agencies its Apollo lifeboat, a capsule that could also be used as a return vehicle for automated platforms.
The MPLM was in fact part of the so-called Space Tug Follow-On Development (FOD). Because that was considered a mere extension of the tug, funding was easier to obtain than for a new start program. Among FOD considered the main two evolutions were
The MPLM was a truncated Big Gemini cargo module, light enough to be boosted by an Ariane 3 rocket. The MPLM was to give the Agena a pressurised module. That way the Liberty space station would have another pressurised logistic vehicle beside Big Gemini.
President Carter had just cancelled the Apollo Rescue Vehicle (ARV). This meant that mission duration to Liberty was limited to Big Gemini in orbit endurance, that is, two months when docked to Liberty. In order to cover an entire year, seven Big Gemini would have to be launched every year, but that bursted Titan III safe flight rate. NASA found itself in a quandary, since the Soviets had no such issue with Soyuz. They were breaking flight duration records on Salyut. With the Apollo rescue vehicle canned, NASA sought alternatives to keep Liberty permanently occupied. One of these alternative used the MPLM as an "on orbit lifeboat".
If Liberty was to fail, the crew would jump into the MPLM, detach it from Liberty and sail into orbit. Then they would have to wait for a Big Gemini rescue flight.
Whatever, the MPLM initiative come from the ASI alone, and not from ESA. It was cheap enough that the ASI could fund it by themselve. That avoided the extremely cumbersome ESA funding process where the agreement of every country had to be bargained.
The NASA-ASI deal gave Rockwell ideas. They tried to negociate a similar agreement with Germany DLR (again, not ESA) and the French CNES. Rockwell tried to sell these space agencies its Apollo lifeboat, a capsule that could also be used as a return vehicle for automated platforms.
The MPLM was in fact part of the so-called Space Tug Follow-On Development (FOD). Because that was considered a mere extension of the tug, funding was easier to obtain than for a new start program. Among FOD considered the main two evolutions were
- adjunction of a pressurised module to the space tug
- turning the tug into a robotic platform
Now That's very interesting development !
Because Rockwell is running true open doors in Germany and France space agencies
In 1978 Germany several agencies study Space Capsule and it's use, mostly as automatic unmanned platform for experiment.
While France, CNES study SOLARIS a robotic platform servise by unmanned Capsule.
Here Rockwell comes and offer the Apollo CM as that Capsule already build tested and flow to Moon.
And that's bargain price since R&D cost were paid by NASA in 1960s and also with option for Manned flight !
All they need is adapter for Ariane 3
by the way
Is the Ariane 3 like OTL or is a two stage version with Oxygen/Hydrogen upper stage ?
Because third stage has diameter of 2,60 meter against 3,9 meter of Apollo CM.
Because Rockwell is running true open doors in Germany and France space agencies
In 1978 Germany several agencies study Space Capsule and it's use, mostly as automatic unmanned platform for experiment.
While France, CNES study SOLARIS a robotic platform servise by unmanned Capsule.
Here Rockwell comes and offer the Apollo CM as that Capsule already build tested and flow to Moon.
And that's bargain price since R&D cost were paid by NASA in 1960s and also with option for Manned flight !
All they need is adapter for Ariane 3
by the way
Is the Ariane 3 like OTL or is a two stage version with Oxygen/Hydrogen upper stage ?
Because third stage has diameter of 2,60 meter against 3,9 meter of Apollo CM.
Oh yes if CNES got chance to get instand Capsule, instead paying zillion of french Franc into Hermes.
Only problem how to sell a America capsule as French national Projects to french politicians ?
let check some facts
Ariane 3 with Solid booster carry into orbit 5900 kg into 5,2° equator orbit of 200 by 200 km
Standard Apollo CM weight is 5,560 kg with out adapter with de-orbit motor and Power supply.
i think they could ripp unneeded equipment out CM. that around 740 kg.
one way to save mass is to use no de-orbit motor, simply launch Capsule so that after several months in orbit,
falls into Atlantic near launch site, simply by orbital decay and little help of the RCS thrusters.
Only problem how to sell a America capsule as French national Projects to french politicians ?
let check some facts
Ariane 3 with Solid booster carry into orbit 5900 kg into 5,2° equator orbit of 200 by 200 km
Standard Apollo CM weight is 5,560 kg with out adapter with de-orbit motor and Power supply.
i think they could ripp unneeded equipment out CM. that around 740 kg.
one way to save mass is to use no de-orbit motor, simply launch Capsule so that after several months in orbit,
falls into Atlantic near launch site, simply by orbital decay and little help of the RCS thrusters.
Archibald
Banned
I did find a brief line from a French book saying that by October 1975 CNES was considering an Apollo shape, but OTL the traction of the space shuttle was too strong and they went for Hermes instead. Fact: until RLVs come someday, the best way of sending men into orbit remains an Apollo capsule ontop of an ELV (hints: see SLS / Orion). I'm giving CNEs that chance, and this is stronger than any ill placed national pride.
OTL last gasp of Apollo was a 1973 Rockwell study of an Apollo stuck into the payload bay of a shuttle orbiter, to be used as an emergency system in a STS-107 case. Mass was 4500 kg, low enough for Ariane.
Another solution would be on orbit capture by an Agena tug with a Canadarm. The Agena is the shining star of this TL - it could do a crapton of space missions, including a proper Skylab desorbit (so that Skylab reentry doesn't wreck Apollo 11 tenth anniversary). More on the International Skylab Desorbit Mission (ISDM) in the next posts.
The infamous AH.com meme
"By the way, it's Kennedy"
should be (for space TLs)
"By the way, it's Apollo"
OTL last gasp of Apollo was a 1973 Rockwell study of an Apollo stuck into the payload bay of a shuttle orbiter, to be used as an emergency system in a STS-107 case. Mass was 4500 kg, low enough for Ariane.
Another solution would be on orbit capture by an Agena tug with a Canadarm. The Agena is the shining star of this TL - it could do a crapton of space missions, including a proper Skylab desorbit (so that Skylab reentry doesn't wreck Apollo 11 tenth anniversary). More on the International Skylab Desorbit Mission (ISDM) in the next posts.
The infamous AH.com meme
"By the way, it's Kennedy"
should be (for space TLs)
"By the way, it's Apollo"
Last edited:
Lockheed (3) - DIAGONAL
Archibald
Banned
Last year Lockheed has taken over the abandonned DIAGONAL small launch vehicle, a derivative of France national launcher Diamant. The only launcher on the small satellite market is the SCOUT. The G1 variant can place up to 200 kg in orbit. Most SCOUT launches relate to the TRANSIT navigation system.
The TRANSIT system is primarily used by the U.S. Navy to provide accurate location information to its Polaris ballistic missile submarines, and it was also used as a navigation system by the Navy's surface ships, as well as for hydrographic survey and geodetic surveying. Development of the TRANSIT system began in 1958. The first successful tests of the system were made in 1960, and the system entered Naval service in 1964.
The Chance Vought/LTV Scout rocket was selected as the dedicated launch vehicle for the program because it delivered a payload into orbit for the lowest cost per pound. However, the Scout decision imposed two design constraints.
First, the weights of the earlier satellites were about 300 lb each, but the Scout launch capacity to the Transit orbit was about 120 lb (it was later increased significantly). A satellite mass reduction had to be achieved despite a demand for more power than APL had previously designed into a satellite.
The second problem concerned the increased vibration that affected the payload during launching because the Scout used solid rocket motors. Thus, electronic equipment that was smaller than before and rugged enough to withstand the increased vibration of launch had to be produced. Meeting the new demands was more difficult than expected, but it was accomplished. The first prototype operational satellite (Transit 5A-1) was launched into a polar orbit by a Scout rocket on 18 December 1962. Since then the constellation has been replenished on a regular basis. SCOUT rockets are launched at a rate of two to three a year, and Lockheed really hopes to tap into this market.
Lockheed however realizes that the small satellite market isn't big enough and as such they intend to create more flight opportunities by flying DIAGONAL boosters to space station Liberty. “This might become a big market and boost our flight rate up to reuse of the L-17 first stage make sense.”
ECONOMICS OF ROCKET REUSE
Lockheed aerospace engineer Maxwell Hunter recently gave a lecture about reusability to a gathering of the AIAA - the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Reflight of a previously used rocket stage on a subsequent flight is dependent on the condition of the landed stage, and is a technique that would have been used on the cancelled Space Shuttle. Maxwell Hunter projects that the reflight step of the DIAGONAL program will be straightforward, because of the multiple full duration firings of the engines that have been done on the ground, and the multiple engine restarts that have already been demonstrated, with no significant degradation seen. DIAGONAL is a simple vehicle - the engines, some structure and the plumbing - but rocket engines, even pressure-fed, are high performance machines with little margin for error. Several industry analysts continue to see potential problems that could prevent economic reuse because costs to refurbish and relaunch the stage are not yet demonstrated. Moreover, the economic case for reuse will be highly dependent on launching frequently, and that is simply unknown. The inherent simplicity of DIAGONAL pressure-fed Valois engine greatly helps, but a major caveat is, could it be scaled-up ? Ariane's Viking is the Valois true heir (with twice the power) but the French gave up pressure-fed technology in favor of a classic turbopump.
Maxwell Hunter recognizes he knows little about pressure-fed rocketry, so he hired America best specialist in the field, the legendary Robert Truax of Sea Dragon fame. "At first the Lockheed hierarchy ordered me to hire Truax, but he refused. He only accepted to be paid as a consultant". This is typical Truax – the man is fiercely independant and refuses to work for either the Government or what he calls "lumbering aerospace giants".
Truax defines himself as a backyard rocketeer churning out rockets out of his home garage. Lockheed reputation did not exactly helped, with the decade-long fuss about their bailout followed by the bribery scandal. Hunter insisted that the space branch of Lockheed had not been tainted by the scandals.
According to Hunter "I learned a lot from Truax. This man and I both pursue the same holy grail, that is, lowering the cost of space transportation. But the similarities stop there – just compare Sea Dragon with my Starclipper shuttle of 1968. I think winged space plane, he thinks big dumb ballistic rocket.
It was Truax that convinced me of DIAGONAL enormous potential. Together we realized that Diagonal might be a very interesting vehicle in the sense that the lower stage was reusable, and the upper Agena a space tug connected to the space station."
If Lockheed is successful in developing the reusable technology, it is expected to significantly reduce the cost of access to space, and change the increasingly competitive market in space launch services. Reusable DIAGONAL could drop the price by an order of magnitude, sparking more space-based enterprise, which in turn would drop the cost of access to space still further through economies of scale.
As of 1978 launch service providers who compete with Lockheed – notably Vought's Scout, but also Atlas, Delta and Titan builders - are not planning to develop similar technology or offer competing reusable launcher options. Lockheed is the only competitor that projected a sufficiently elastic market on the demand side to justify the costly development of reusable rocket technology and the expenditure of private capital to develop options for that theoretical market opportunity. Lockheed is espcifically targeting Vought new Scout-G small launch vehicle.
In order to achieve the full economic benefit of the reusable technology, it is necessary that the reuse be both rapid and complete—without a long and costly refurbishment period. Lockheed Agena (and DIAGONAL) manager Maxwell Hunter gave a realistic appraisal of the potential savings of a reused launch - a 30% saving.
Hunter said that the ability to examine the stage after it has survived the stresses of flight, to put it through qualification and flight acceptance tests to verify and gain confidence in its condition, is the first step toward economical re-use of the launch vehicle. The key to reusability, and lower launch costs, will be quick turnarounds and low refurbishment costs. And that will depend on how the boosters are affected by the stresses of launch, re-entry and landing. The key is how much work is required to return a used rocket to launch readiness.
And that's an unknown, Hunter conceded, adding “I think the business case depends on launching frequently. There has to be costs of refurbishment. Our long-range goal is just to have to pay for the fuel for the second flight.”
“Why is reusing DIAGONAL first stage such a big deal?” Hunter asked “Until now, most of the enormous expense of spaceflight has stemmed from the fact that the rockets carrying payloads to orbit have been thrown away after every flight. Each of these discarded launch vehicles costs many tens of millions of dollars, or more, for just one flight. Imagine how expensive air travel would be if each Boeing or Douglas airliner were used only for one flight and then sent to the junk heap. That absurd waste is the equivalent of what we have been doing in spaceflight since the 1950s. Just recovering only the first stage for reuse on multiple flights would allow us to significantly lower the price of launches for satellites and crewed spacecraft to a level far below what its competitors charge. Our long term goal is to be able to achieve launch costs for around one hundredth of what they currently are.
« If we successfully meet this ultimate challenge, then we are on the verge of the first true Space Age, with all of the spaceflights that have occurred before amounting to an expensive, decades-long process of baby steps leading to this new capability. » Hunter concluded.
The TRANSIT system is primarily used by the U.S. Navy to provide accurate location information to its Polaris ballistic missile submarines, and it was also used as a navigation system by the Navy's surface ships, as well as for hydrographic survey and geodetic surveying. Development of the TRANSIT system began in 1958. The first successful tests of the system were made in 1960, and the system entered Naval service in 1964.
The Chance Vought/LTV Scout rocket was selected as the dedicated launch vehicle for the program because it delivered a payload into orbit for the lowest cost per pound. However, the Scout decision imposed two design constraints.
First, the weights of the earlier satellites were about 300 lb each, but the Scout launch capacity to the Transit orbit was about 120 lb (it was later increased significantly). A satellite mass reduction had to be achieved despite a demand for more power than APL had previously designed into a satellite.
The second problem concerned the increased vibration that affected the payload during launching because the Scout used solid rocket motors. Thus, electronic equipment that was smaller than before and rugged enough to withstand the increased vibration of launch had to be produced. Meeting the new demands was more difficult than expected, but it was accomplished. The first prototype operational satellite (Transit 5A-1) was launched into a polar orbit by a Scout rocket on 18 December 1962. Since then the constellation has been replenished on a regular basis. SCOUT rockets are launched at a rate of two to three a year, and Lockheed really hopes to tap into this market.
Lockheed however realizes that the small satellite market isn't big enough and as such they intend to create more flight opportunities by flying DIAGONAL boosters to space station Liberty. “This might become a big market and boost our flight rate up to reuse of the L-17 first stage make sense.”
ECONOMICS OF ROCKET REUSE
Lockheed aerospace engineer Maxwell Hunter recently gave a lecture about reusability to a gathering of the AIAA - the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Reflight of a previously used rocket stage on a subsequent flight is dependent on the condition of the landed stage, and is a technique that would have been used on the cancelled Space Shuttle. Maxwell Hunter projects that the reflight step of the DIAGONAL program will be straightforward, because of the multiple full duration firings of the engines that have been done on the ground, and the multiple engine restarts that have already been demonstrated, with no significant degradation seen. DIAGONAL is a simple vehicle - the engines, some structure and the plumbing - but rocket engines, even pressure-fed, are high performance machines with little margin for error. Several industry analysts continue to see potential problems that could prevent economic reuse because costs to refurbish and relaunch the stage are not yet demonstrated. Moreover, the economic case for reuse will be highly dependent on launching frequently, and that is simply unknown. The inherent simplicity of DIAGONAL pressure-fed Valois engine greatly helps, but a major caveat is, could it be scaled-up ? Ariane's Viking is the Valois true heir (with twice the power) but the French gave up pressure-fed technology in favor of a classic turbopump.
Maxwell Hunter recognizes he knows little about pressure-fed rocketry, so he hired America best specialist in the field, the legendary Robert Truax of Sea Dragon fame. "At first the Lockheed hierarchy ordered me to hire Truax, but he refused. He only accepted to be paid as a consultant". This is typical Truax – the man is fiercely independant and refuses to work for either the Government or what he calls "lumbering aerospace giants".
Truax defines himself as a backyard rocketeer churning out rockets out of his home garage. Lockheed reputation did not exactly helped, with the decade-long fuss about their bailout followed by the bribery scandal. Hunter insisted that the space branch of Lockheed had not been tainted by the scandals.
According to Hunter "I learned a lot from Truax. This man and I both pursue the same holy grail, that is, lowering the cost of space transportation. But the similarities stop there – just compare Sea Dragon with my Starclipper shuttle of 1968. I think winged space plane, he thinks big dumb ballistic rocket.
It was Truax that convinced me of DIAGONAL enormous potential. Together we realized that Diagonal might be a very interesting vehicle in the sense that the lower stage was reusable, and the upper Agena a space tug connected to the space station."
If Lockheed is successful in developing the reusable technology, it is expected to significantly reduce the cost of access to space, and change the increasingly competitive market in space launch services. Reusable DIAGONAL could drop the price by an order of magnitude, sparking more space-based enterprise, which in turn would drop the cost of access to space still further through economies of scale.
As of 1978 launch service providers who compete with Lockheed – notably Vought's Scout, but also Atlas, Delta and Titan builders - are not planning to develop similar technology or offer competing reusable launcher options. Lockheed is the only competitor that projected a sufficiently elastic market on the demand side to justify the costly development of reusable rocket technology and the expenditure of private capital to develop options for that theoretical market opportunity. Lockheed is espcifically targeting Vought new Scout-G small launch vehicle.
In order to achieve the full economic benefit of the reusable technology, it is necessary that the reuse be both rapid and complete—without a long and costly refurbishment period. Lockheed Agena (and DIAGONAL) manager Maxwell Hunter gave a realistic appraisal of the potential savings of a reused launch - a 30% saving.
Hunter said that the ability to examine the stage after it has survived the stresses of flight, to put it through qualification and flight acceptance tests to verify and gain confidence in its condition, is the first step toward economical re-use of the launch vehicle. The key to reusability, and lower launch costs, will be quick turnarounds and low refurbishment costs. And that will depend on how the boosters are affected by the stresses of launch, re-entry and landing. The key is how much work is required to return a used rocket to launch readiness.
And that's an unknown, Hunter conceded, adding “I think the business case depends on launching frequently. There has to be costs of refurbishment. Our long-range goal is just to have to pay for the fuel for the second flight.”
“Why is reusing DIAGONAL first stage such a big deal?” Hunter asked “Until now, most of the enormous expense of spaceflight has stemmed from the fact that the rockets carrying payloads to orbit have been thrown away after every flight. Each of these discarded launch vehicles costs many tens of millions of dollars, or more, for just one flight. Imagine how expensive air travel would be if each Boeing or Douglas airliner were used only for one flight and then sent to the junk heap. That absurd waste is the equivalent of what we have been doing in spaceflight since the 1950s. Just recovering only the first stage for reuse on multiple flights would allow us to significantly lower the price of launches for satellites and crewed spacecraft to a level far below what its competitors charge. Our long term goal is to be able to achieve launch costs for around one hundredth of what they currently are.
« If we successfully meet this ultimate challenge, then we are on the verge of the first true Space Age, with all of the spaceflights that have occurred before amounting to an expensive, decades-long process of baby steps leading to this new capability. » Hunter concluded.
Last edited:
A note on Pressure feed engine and low cost rocket in USA
off course used the USA Pressure feed engine on Apollo CSM, LM and Agena, but that were small engine for space use not huge engine for first stage like Diamant L-17.
but between 1968 until 1973 the USAF and NASA order study on Low cost Launch rocket
aiming R&D of one billion dollar and launch cost of $8~12 million for 12 launch /year (in 1969 Value)
TRW and Rocketdyne proposed Pressure feed engine with N2O4/UDMH as fuel and thrust of 1,315 tons, 748 tons and 186 tons (metric for TWR engine).
Some of study overlap with Shuttle Pressure Feed Booster, until the Design was frozen for Solid Rocket booster 1973.
After 1973 the Low cost study were terminated for the Holy Shuttle program...
So Maxwell Hunter and Truax should check at TRW and Rocketdyne for those engines studies
Source:
Minimum Cost Design (MCD) Booster Study
SP68-24
By William H. Morita
Rockwell, October 1968
Low Cost Launch Vehicle Study
Final Technical report
NASw-1794
TRW System Group, 23 may 1969
off course used the USA Pressure feed engine on Apollo CSM, LM and Agena, but that were small engine for space use not huge engine for first stage like Diamant L-17.
but between 1968 until 1973 the USAF and NASA order study on Low cost Launch rocket
aiming R&D of one billion dollar and launch cost of $8~12 million for 12 launch /year (in 1969 Value)
TRW and Rocketdyne proposed Pressure feed engine with N2O4/UDMH as fuel and thrust of 1,315 tons, 748 tons and 186 tons (metric for TWR engine).
Some of study overlap with Shuttle Pressure Feed Booster, until the Design was frozen for Solid Rocket booster 1973.
After 1973 the Low cost study were terminated for the Holy Shuttle program...
So Maxwell Hunter and Truax should check at TRW and Rocketdyne for those engines studies
Source:
Minimum Cost Design (MCD) Booster Study
SP68-24
By William H. Morita
Rockwell, October 1968
Low Cost Launch Vehicle Study
Final Technical report
NASw-1794
TRW System Group, 23 may 1969
Archibald
Banned
Yes - I've read that old book "LEO on the cheap" and there were a lot of tentative designs like this, all big and very ugly, although certainly low cost. I'd like the L-17 / Agena because the lower stage can be recovered while the upper stage is tied to the space station and many, many other missions. It is a very unexpected runner in the perenial RLV debate - neither Sea Dragon, nor shuttle. Of course the Agena has to haul itself into orbit, so there is probably not much propellant left to manoeuver once in a 100 miles high orbit.
ITTL DIAGONAL will try to kill SCOUT on the military market. It will also play havoc with OTL Truax, Percheron Conestoga and even AMROC early private launch vehicles of the 80's.
This mean that all the bold rocket boys of the 80's (such as Gary Hudson or George Koopman) won't work on small launch vehicles (Lockheed will kill that market using their usual dirty tricks) so they will either push for RLVs or kickstart commercial space by flying things on Agenas.
(same goes for Elon Musk in ITTL 2001 future - no need to re-invent the wheel with Falcon 1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Rocket_Company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Hudson_(engineer)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conestoga_(rocket)#Percheron
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevefrancis/sets/72157629324639570/
ITTL DIAGONAL will try to kill SCOUT on the military market. It will also play havoc with OTL Truax, Percheron Conestoga and even AMROC early private launch vehicles of the 80's.
This mean that all the bold rocket boys of the 80's (such as Gary Hudson or George Koopman) won't work on small launch vehicles (Lockheed will kill that market using their usual dirty tricks) so they will either push for RLVs or kickstart commercial space by flying things on Agenas.
(same goes for Elon Musk in ITTL 2001 future - no need to re-invent the wheel with Falcon 1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Rocket_Company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Hudson_(engineer)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conestoga_(rocket)#Percheron
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevefrancis/sets/72157629324639570/
Last edited:
Archibald
Banned
Recently I've managed to find simple tools to paste music on space videos. Today's I've pasted "The right Stuff" finale audio (when they launch Cooper into orbit, plus the end credits) onto a video of New Shepard fifth flight. The two just fell into place very nicely.
It was kind of circling the wagons since New Shepard is somewhat repeating the first two Redstone Mercury flights
Hope you'll enjoy it !
It was kind of circling the wagons since New Shepard is somewhat repeating the first two Redstone Mercury flights
Hope you'll enjoy it !
Last edited:
The Space Settlement Society (3S)
Archibald
Banned
"Several people have aspired to lead the modern American pro-space movement at one time or another, and there have been suggestions that the right individual could have brought it together. The names usually put forward are Wernher von Braun, whose background was controversial and who died before the pro-space phenomenon really blossomed; Gerard K. O'Neill, who many believe does not have the political skills required; and Carl Sagan, whose liberal political stance alienates him from many pro-space people and whose criticisms of the manned space program have not endeared him to groups such as the L-5 Society.
As for organizations, the National Space Institute and the L-5 Society each may have had the chance to become the nexus of a pro-space movement, but none succeeded so far. Pro-space citizens groups have not yet coordinated successfully with other parts of the space interest constituency, such as the Aerospace Industries Association. Today the pro-space community remains without a joint organization, a single dominant leader, or a universally agreed platform.
The National Space Institute was created in 1975 but soon Von Braun's declining health prevented him from devoting his full energies to the new organization; the next year he had to gave up the presidency. Von Braun's death in June 1977 was a serious blow for the institute, whose fund raising had never reached the critical mass necessary for exponential growth.
Meanwhile, astronomer Carl Sagan was approached to see if he would be willing to join the board. Sagan reportedly expressed interest but only on the conditions that more scientists be put on the board and that NSI take a broader view of space than the manned spaceflight program. This did not happened, and Sagan went away.
It was hardly a surprise Sagan didn't fit too well into von Braun vision.
According to Sagan himself there can be no doubt regarding von Braun's significance:
"Wernher von Braun played an absolutely essential role in the history of rocketry and the development of spaceflight — equally on the inspirational as on the technical sideHis Collier's articles and his popular books — especially the Conquest of the Moon and the Conquest of Mars — were influential in shaping my teenage view about the feasibility and nature of interplanetary flight. Much later, his 'Mars Project' and I'm sure affected my later view of Martian exploration."
There is little doubt that von Braun's example also encouraged the planetary scientist in his secondary career as a science popularizer and celebrity. However, as an academic scientist with little patience for the military-industrial complex that fostered von Braun's working life, Sagan also found the engineer's smooth compliance with the militarism and racist ideology of Nazi Germany deeply disturbing. The moral that Sagan draws from von Braun's apparent complaisance under the Nazi regime is that
"it is the responsibility of the scientist or engineer to hold back and even, if necessary, to refuse to participate in technological development no matter how 'sweet' — when the auspices or objectives are sufficiently sinister.
While Sagan spent a good portion of his public career working for the scientific exploration of space, he is no fan of von Braun's single-minded devotion to the dream. Despite von Braun's eminence, Sagan can not sanction his predecessor's willing[ness] to use any argument and accept any sponsorship as long as it could get us into space.
In the end Sagan, Von Braun and their respective followers were too different to work together.
At the end of the day Sagan felt much closer from the third major space advocate of the time - Gerad O'Neill.
The argument that cultural diversity would be a highly desirable result of space colonies persuaded many astrofuturists on the left. Sagan himself began revising a long-held skepticism about the human exploration of space because O'Neill's grand idea offered the possibility of utopian experiments on the space frontier. With an eye toward the relevance of space colonization to contemporary concerns, Sagan substituted the term space city for space colony, arguing,
"I think Space Colonies conveys an unpleasant sense of colonialism which is not, I think the spirit behind the idea."
With this gesture toward eschewing the imperialist traditions of astrofuturism, Sagan registers his belief that
"The idea of independent cities in space — each perhaps built on differing social, economic or political assumptions, or having different ethnic antecedents — is appealing, an opportunity for those deeply disenchanted with terrestrial civilizations to strike out on their own somewhere else. In its earlier history, America provided such an opportunity for the restless, ambitious and adventurous. Space cities could be a kind of America in the skies. They also would greatly enhance the survival potential of the human species."
Both Sagan and O'Neill embraced the space frontier as the arena in which the American experience as Utopian experiment could be replayed and vindicated.
It is thus no surprise that Sagan ultimately threw his weight behind the L-5 society rather than the National Space Institute. His move has had the unfortunate result of more isolation on the von Braun side of space advocacy. Many saw this as a missed opportunity to build a single, general pro-space organization. They were right and wrong at the same time. Sagan fame was welcomed at the L-5 society; it helped the movement to survive the collapse of the early dream that happened after 1977. With the help of former JPL director Bruce Murray and planetary scientist Lou Friedman Sagan lost no time changing the orientation of the L-5 society to more down-to-ground objectives. Surviving L-5 advocates balanced the trio views and ensured the society remained in good terms with the human spaceflight community, including the NSI. Sagan tolerated this only because the long term goal of human colonization of space was a valuable, noble concept. After some years the declining National Space Institute merged with the L-5 society and thus was born the Space Settlement Society (also known as 3S)
After the Space Colonies hype faded, the nascent 3S threw its suport behind NASA space station Liberty. They funded a lot of experiments that were flew aboard Agenas or to the space station. A good example is the mini-centrifuge were mammals were tested against different gravity levels.
Then the 3S leadership made a major discovery: that in-space settlement is nowhere present within the NASA charter. They realized that the reason for that absence is that, well, the US governement has no urgent need to send its citizens living on the Moon or Mars or anywhere else. Meanwhile article VI of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty made clear that governments should issues licence to private companies wanting to sell space infinite resources. Sagan, O'Neil, Vishniac and Robin Zubert struggled to define the role of the Space Settlement Society. The society new mission would be first, to smooth the relation between NASA and private companies by working on article VI of the OST. The 3S second mission would be to take the helm from NASA once exploration would be replaced by colonisation and resource exploitation – somewhere in an unimaginable future. The 3S members also started a long term reflexion about the future of space stations. Clearly there was a gap between NASA Earth orbit space stations and O'Neil L5 colonies. At some point the 3S leadership was split between Moon-first and Mars-first partisans. It was Wolf Vishniac that noted that, if emplaced at the right position, a space station could be useful to Moon, Mars, but also asteroid missions. There was a healthy debate about the next space station emplacement – shall it be LEO or further, either in cislunar space or at the edge of Earth sphere of influence ?
As for organizations, the National Space Institute and the L-5 Society each may have had the chance to become the nexus of a pro-space movement, but none succeeded so far. Pro-space citizens groups have not yet coordinated successfully with other parts of the space interest constituency, such as the Aerospace Industries Association. Today the pro-space community remains without a joint organization, a single dominant leader, or a universally agreed platform.
The National Space Institute was created in 1975 but soon Von Braun's declining health prevented him from devoting his full energies to the new organization; the next year he had to gave up the presidency. Von Braun's death in June 1977 was a serious blow for the institute, whose fund raising had never reached the critical mass necessary for exponential growth.
Meanwhile, astronomer Carl Sagan was approached to see if he would be willing to join the board. Sagan reportedly expressed interest but only on the conditions that more scientists be put on the board and that NSI take a broader view of space than the manned spaceflight program. This did not happened, and Sagan went away.
It was hardly a surprise Sagan didn't fit too well into von Braun vision.
According to Sagan himself there can be no doubt regarding von Braun's significance:
"Wernher von Braun played an absolutely essential role in the history of rocketry and the development of spaceflight — equally on the inspirational as on the technical sideHis Collier's articles and his popular books — especially the Conquest of the Moon and the Conquest of Mars — were influential in shaping my teenage view about the feasibility and nature of interplanetary flight. Much later, his 'Mars Project' and I'm sure affected my later view of Martian exploration."
There is little doubt that von Braun's example also encouraged the planetary scientist in his secondary career as a science popularizer and celebrity. However, as an academic scientist with little patience for the military-industrial complex that fostered von Braun's working life, Sagan also found the engineer's smooth compliance with the militarism and racist ideology of Nazi Germany deeply disturbing. The moral that Sagan draws from von Braun's apparent complaisance under the Nazi regime is that
"it is the responsibility of the scientist or engineer to hold back and even, if necessary, to refuse to participate in technological development no matter how 'sweet' — when the auspices or objectives are sufficiently sinister.
While Sagan spent a good portion of his public career working for the scientific exploration of space, he is no fan of von Braun's single-minded devotion to the dream. Despite von Braun's eminence, Sagan can not sanction his predecessor's willing[ness] to use any argument and accept any sponsorship as long as it could get us into space.
In the end Sagan, Von Braun and their respective followers were too different to work together.
At the end of the day Sagan felt much closer from the third major space advocate of the time - Gerad O'Neill.
The argument that cultural diversity would be a highly desirable result of space colonies persuaded many astrofuturists on the left. Sagan himself began revising a long-held skepticism about the human exploration of space because O'Neill's grand idea offered the possibility of utopian experiments on the space frontier. With an eye toward the relevance of space colonization to contemporary concerns, Sagan substituted the term space city for space colony, arguing,
"I think Space Colonies conveys an unpleasant sense of colonialism which is not, I think the spirit behind the idea."
With this gesture toward eschewing the imperialist traditions of astrofuturism, Sagan registers his belief that
"The idea of independent cities in space — each perhaps built on differing social, economic or political assumptions, or having different ethnic antecedents — is appealing, an opportunity for those deeply disenchanted with terrestrial civilizations to strike out on their own somewhere else. In its earlier history, America provided such an opportunity for the restless, ambitious and adventurous. Space cities could be a kind of America in the skies. They also would greatly enhance the survival potential of the human species."
Both Sagan and O'Neill embraced the space frontier as the arena in which the American experience as Utopian experiment could be replayed and vindicated.
It is thus no surprise that Sagan ultimately threw his weight behind the L-5 society rather than the National Space Institute. His move has had the unfortunate result of more isolation on the von Braun side of space advocacy. Many saw this as a missed opportunity to build a single, general pro-space organization. They were right and wrong at the same time. Sagan fame was welcomed at the L-5 society; it helped the movement to survive the collapse of the early dream that happened after 1977. With the help of former JPL director Bruce Murray and planetary scientist Lou Friedman Sagan lost no time changing the orientation of the L-5 society to more down-to-ground objectives. Surviving L-5 advocates balanced the trio views and ensured the society remained in good terms with the human spaceflight community, including the NSI. Sagan tolerated this only because the long term goal of human colonization of space was a valuable, noble concept. After some years the declining National Space Institute merged with the L-5 society and thus was born the Space Settlement Society (also known as 3S)
After the Space Colonies hype faded, the nascent 3S threw its suport behind NASA space station Liberty. They funded a lot of experiments that were flew aboard Agenas or to the space station. A good example is the mini-centrifuge were mammals were tested against different gravity levels.
Then the 3S leadership made a major discovery: that in-space settlement is nowhere present within the NASA charter. They realized that the reason for that absence is that, well, the US governement has no urgent need to send its citizens living on the Moon or Mars or anywhere else. Meanwhile article VI of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty made clear that governments should issues licence to private companies wanting to sell space infinite resources. Sagan, O'Neil, Vishniac and Robin Zubert struggled to define the role of the Space Settlement Society. The society new mission would be first, to smooth the relation between NASA and private companies by working on article VI of the OST. The 3S second mission would be to take the helm from NASA once exploration would be replaced by colonisation and resource exploitation – somewhere in an unimaginable future. The 3S members also started a long term reflexion about the future of space stations. Clearly there was a gap between NASA Earth orbit space stations and O'Neil L5 colonies. At some point the 3S leadership was split between Moon-first and Mars-first partisans. It was Wolf Vishniac that noted that, if emplaced at the right position, a space station could be useful to Moon, Mars, but also asteroid missions. There was a healthy debate about the next space station emplacement – shall it be LEO or further, either in cislunar space or at the edge of Earth sphere of influence ?
Pop culture (3) - Goodbye, Peter Hyams
Archibald
Banned
And now... a little Alt pop culture entry, with butterflies flapping their wings for a better future (I told you I disliked dystopia !)
------------------------
In 1973 Michael Crichton debut film, called Westworld, was a major critical and financial success. Westworld story is that of an android amusement park going awol –with the robots killing the visitors.
According to Crichton himself what inspired him to write it were two different experiences, as it turns out.
"I’d visited Kennedy Space Center and seen how astronauts were being trained – and I realized that they were really machines. Those guys were working very hard to make their responses, and even their heartbeats, as machine-like and predictable as possible. At the other extreme, one can go to Disneyland and see Abraham Lincoln standing up every 15 minutes to deliver the Gettysburg Address. That’s the case of a machine that has been made to look, talk and act like a person. I think it was that sort of a notion that got the picture started."
Westworld rapidly earned a cult classic as a film and later as a serie. Then although Crichton himself disagreed a sequel was planned for realese in 1976 or 1977.
Tentatively called Futureworld the movie was to felt as if it were shot on location at an industrial theme park - thanks to extensive shooting at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.
Paul Lazarus “We needed NASA because in the Futureworld scenario when at the resort, guests choose from a range of theme parks: Medievalworld, Romanworld, and Futureworld. The latter actually simulates an orbiting space station, and that explains why we needed NASA so badly.
Prominent as "sets" were to be such distinctive sights as the giant circular latch of the Space Environment Simulator Laboratory, and one of the Mission Operations Control Rooms, with its familiar rows of computer monitors facing a large bank of tracking screens.
The Space Environment Simulation Laboratory (SESL) in Building 32 at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center was built in 1965. It initially was used to test Apollo Program spacecraft and equipment in a space environment. It can simulate the vacuum and thermal environments that would be encountered. It consists of two human-rated chambers: A (larger) and B. It is an immense room, large enough to swallow entire moonships .
So Futureworld scenario was written in a way that made it highly dependant from NASA infrastructures.
And there according to Lazarus –
“we hit a brickwall. That NASA huge facility we were to film in was overcrowded. As of 1975 NASA was very busy testing Big Geminis and Agenas and space station modules. The SESL churned manned spaceships one after another at an accelerated pace. There was a lot of testing going on that used the SESL... so NASA was unwilling to have a movie filmed there.
"They just didn't have any spare time left. Together with Crichton disaproval that completely sunk Futureworld even before production started. AFAIK the scenario still languish in development hell, and considering Crichton hatred for it, I can't see it being done anytime soon.
"Our failure to obtain NASA cooperation was to be felt again a year later.
Another movie project was to fall by the wayside.
It all started with that poor Peter Hyams, which had just get carbonised by its box-office bomb Peepers. What a disaster that movie had been. Yet Hyams still had plenty of projects, and they somewhat involved NASA. It makes for an interesting, if not sad, story.
The story developed years before, in 1972, when Peter Hyams, then working at CBS's Boston office, was helping to cover the Apollo moon shots. While working there, Hyams witnessed the NASA-constructed simulations to be aired on network news, showing the world what was happening with the craft in space as it flew to its destination. As Hyams watched, he began to notice just how real the simulations looked.
'I grew up with parents who believed if it was in newspapers, it was true,' says Hyams.
'I was part of the generation that believed if it was on television, it was true.
"I remember while working at CBS one day, looking at the monitor and thinking, 'Wait a minute! Everybody is looking at the simulation. Suppose you did a really good simulation?' The NASA moon program was a story with only one camera. Normally, all big stories have tons and tons of cameras for thorough coverage. Not so with the moon shots. It all had to be done from the studio. That raised questions in my mind about how the story could be presented. The whole Watergate backlash kicked in. I once said that I owe my career to H.R. Haldemann.'
Due to the nature of his work at CBS, Hyams had accessibility to vast amounts of NASA research, such as mission books and command module schematics from which to draw inspiration. He began writing the script around 1974-1975, with plans of developing a feature film that he would direct himself.
By that time, Hyams was established in television and feature films as a writer, director and producer. But in the mid-1970s, he directed Fat Chance with Natalie Wood and Michael Caine, a movie considered so bad that it was barely released under the title Peepers, and nearly put Hyams out of business as a filmmaker of any kind.
So Hyams come in my room, and tell me "Gosh, I have a couple of scripts, but nobody will read them. I read them, they were called Capricorn One and Hanover Street. The Capricorn script was kind of space Watergate, with NASA in the ingrate role of Nixon, faking a Mars shot, lying to the public, and ultimately killing reluctant astronauts !
We decided to try and produce the Capricorn One scenario and soon realized that, once again, we would need NASA cooperation. Yet for obvious reasons this was a highly unlikely film to get NASA cooperation, because they were the bad guys in the movie.
It happened that I had a excellent connection in Houston, a nice guy that had helped us for the aborted Futureworld project. The guy had been very sorry when the movie had been canned per lack of time. He had nonetheless told me to stay in touch, that maybe NASA schedule might slow in the years to come, allowing movie maker to use their infrastructures as movie sets.
So I red Hymas Capricorn scenario and called that Houston relation, and he said he would have to see a script. I said to Peter, 'We're dead.'
I sent the script and to my great surprise my contact said, "Oh, it's a good story! We'll be happy to give you our prototype landing module." I was stunned. "Wait, how will you have that script approved by your superiors ?' He said, "If it has to go to NASA Headquarters Washington, you will be finished. Yet even if didn't do Futureworld I really appreciated you, so I'll do it on my own initiative.”
Alas, some weeks later did the shit hit the fan. My Houston connection called back and told me that, although he had loved Hyams scenario, once again NASA busy schedule meant that the scenario would have to go through their Washington headquarters.
Needless to say, when they heard of Hyams scenario NASA top brass hit the roof and my connection in Houston had its head cut short – he was sacked. I had to tell Peter Hyams that Capricorn was dead - and we made Hanover street instead. Even with a post Star Wars Harrison Ford that movie bombed at the box office and definitively buried Peter Hymas career as a film maker.
It happened that O.J Simpson had had a minor role in the Cassandra crossings, and Grade liked his performance.
Even before his retirement from football and in the NFL, O. J Simpson embarked on a successful film career with parts in films such as the television mini-series Roots (1977), and the dramatic motion pictures The Klansman (1974), The Towering Inferno (1974), The Cassandra Crossing (1976). The same year Paul Lazarus started pre-production of Peter Hyams Capricorn One.
O.J. Simpson was one of the first cast, not particularly because of his acting abilities, but because he was represented by the agent who had introduced Lazarus to Grade in the first place, and the agent wanted his client, a recognizable personality who had appeared in Grade's The Cassandra Crossing, to be in the picture. Thus cancellation of Capricorn One was a blown for O.J Simpson, who had been casted as one of the three NASA astronauts faking the Mars landing.
On June 24, 1967, Simpson had married Marguerite L. Whitley at age nineteen. Together they had three children: Arnelle, Jason and Aaren.
Simpson met Nicole Brown in 1977 while she was working as a waitress at the nightclub "The Daisy". Although still married to his first wife, Simpson began dating Brown. Simpson and Marguerite divorced in March 1979.
In August 1979, five months after the couple divorced, Aaren nearly drowned in the family's swimming pool a month before her second birthday. O.J barely come in time to save her. This story somewhat leaked in the press and made Simpson a hero.
Simpson told his friend (and advocate) Robert Kardashian the event forever changed his life. Before the incident he planned to create his own film production company, Orenthal Productions, which dealt mostly in made-for-TV fares. Instead after ending his football career in the early 80's Simpson went into a quiet retirement.
------------------------
In 1973 Michael Crichton debut film, called Westworld, was a major critical and financial success. Westworld story is that of an android amusement park going awol –with the robots killing the visitors.
According to Crichton himself what inspired him to write it were two different experiences, as it turns out.
"I’d visited Kennedy Space Center and seen how astronauts were being trained – and I realized that they were really machines. Those guys were working very hard to make their responses, and even their heartbeats, as machine-like and predictable as possible. At the other extreme, one can go to Disneyland and see Abraham Lincoln standing up every 15 minutes to deliver the Gettysburg Address. That’s the case of a machine that has been made to look, talk and act like a person. I think it was that sort of a notion that got the picture started."
Westworld rapidly earned a cult classic as a film and later as a serie. Then although Crichton himself disagreed a sequel was planned for realese in 1976 or 1977.
Tentatively called Futureworld the movie was to felt as if it were shot on location at an industrial theme park - thanks to extensive shooting at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.
Paul Lazarus “We needed NASA because in the Futureworld scenario when at the resort, guests choose from a range of theme parks: Medievalworld, Romanworld, and Futureworld. The latter actually simulates an orbiting space station, and that explains why we needed NASA so badly.
Prominent as "sets" were to be such distinctive sights as the giant circular latch of the Space Environment Simulator Laboratory, and one of the Mission Operations Control Rooms, with its familiar rows of computer monitors facing a large bank of tracking screens.
The Space Environment Simulation Laboratory (SESL) in Building 32 at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center was built in 1965. It initially was used to test Apollo Program spacecraft and equipment in a space environment. It can simulate the vacuum and thermal environments that would be encountered. It consists of two human-rated chambers: A (larger) and B. It is an immense room, large enough to swallow entire moonships .
So Futureworld scenario was written in a way that made it highly dependant from NASA infrastructures.
And there according to Lazarus –
“we hit a brickwall. That NASA huge facility we were to film in was overcrowded. As of 1975 NASA was very busy testing Big Geminis and Agenas and space station modules. The SESL churned manned spaceships one after another at an accelerated pace. There was a lot of testing going on that used the SESL... so NASA was unwilling to have a movie filmed there.
"They just didn't have any spare time left. Together with Crichton disaproval that completely sunk Futureworld even before production started. AFAIK the scenario still languish in development hell, and considering Crichton hatred for it, I can't see it being done anytime soon.
"Our failure to obtain NASA cooperation was to be felt again a year later.
Another movie project was to fall by the wayside.
It all started with that poor Peter Hyams, which had just get carbonised by its box-office bomb Peepers. What a disaster that movie had been. Yet Hyams still had plenty of projects, and they somewhat involved NASA. It makes for an interesting, if not sad, story.
The story developed years before, in 1972, when Peter Hyams, then working at CBS's Boston office, was helping to cover the Apollo moon shots. While working there, Hyams witnessed the NASA-constructed simulations to be aired on network news, showing the world what was happening with the craft in space as it flew to its destination. As Hyams watched, he began to notice just how real the simulations looked.
'I grew up with parents who believed if it was in newspapers, it was true,' says Hyams.
'I was part of the generation that believed if it was on television, it was true.
"I remember while working at CBS one day, looking at the monitor and thinking, 'Wait a minute! Everybody is looking at the simulation. Suppose you did a really good simulation?' The NASA moon program was a story with only one camera. Normally, all big stories have tons and tons of cameras for thorough coverage. Not so with the moon shots. It all had to be done from the studio. That raised questions in my mind about how the story could be presented. The whole Watergate backlash kicked in. I once said that I owe my career to H.R. Haldemann.'
Due to the nature of his work at CBS, Hyams had accessibility to vast amounts of NASA research, such as mission books and command module schematics from which to draw inspiration. He began writing the script around 1974-1975, with plans of developing a feature film that he would direct himself.
By that time, Hyams was established in television and feature films as a writer, director and producer. But in the mid-1970s, he directed Fat Chance with Natalie Wood and Michael Caine, a movie considered so bad that it was barely released under the title Peepers, and nearly put Hyams out of business as a filmmaker of any kind.
So Hyams come in my room, and tell me "Gosh, I have a couple of scripts, but nobody will read them. I read them, they were called Capricorn One and Hanover Street. The Capricorn script was kind of space Watergate, with NASA in the ingrate role of Nixon, faking a Mars shot, lying to the public, and ultimately killing reluctant astronauts !
We decided to try and produce the Capricorn One scenario and soon realized that, once again, we would need NASA cooperation. Yet for obvious reasons this was a highly unlikely film to get NASA cooperation, because they were the bad guys in the movie.
It happened that I had a excellent connection in Houston, a nice guy that had helped us for the aborted Futureworld project. The guy had been very sorry when the movie had been canned per lack of time. He had nonetheless told me to stay in touch, that maybe NASA schedule might slow in the years to come, allowing movie maker to use their infrastructures as movie sets.
So I red Hymas Capricorn scenario and called that Houston relation, and he said he would have to see a script. I said to Peter, 'We're dead.'
I sent the script and to my great surprise my contact said, "Oh, it's a good story! We'll be happy to give you our prototype landing module." I was stunned. "Wait, how will you have that script approved by your superiors ?' He said, "If it has to go to NASA Headquarters Washington, you will be finished. Yet even if didn't do Futureworld I really appreciated you, so I'll do it on my own initiative.”
Alas, some weeks later did the shit hit the fan. My Houston connection called back and told me that, although he had loved Hyams scenario, once again NASA busy schedule meant that the scenario would have to go through their Washington headquarters.
Needless to say, when they heard of Hyams scenario NASA top brass hit the roof and my connection in Houston had its head cut short – he was sacked. I had to tell Peter Hyams that Capricorn was dead - and we made Hanover street instead. Even with a post Star Wars Harrison Ford that movie bombed at the box office and definitively buried Peter Hymas career as a film maker.
It happened that O.J Simpson had had a minor role in the Cassandra crossings, and Grade liked his performance.
Even before his retirement from football and in the NFL, O. J Simpson embarked on a successful film career with parts in films such as the television mini-series Roots (1977), and the dramatic motion pictures The Klansman (1974), The Towering Inferno (1974), The Cassandra Crossing (1976). The same year Paul Lazarus started pre-production of Peter Hyams Capricorn One.
O.J. Simpson was one of the first cast, not particularly because of his acting abilities, but because he was represented by the agent who had introduced Lazarus to Grade in the first place, and the agent wanted his client, a recognizable personality who had appeared in Grade's The Cassandra Crossing, to be in the picture. Thus cancellation of Capricorn One was a blown for O.J Simpson, who had been casted as one of the three NASA astronauts faking the Mars landing.
On June 24, 1967, Simpson had married Marguerite L. Whitley at age nineteen. Together they had three children: Arnelle, Jason and Aaren.
Simpson met Nicole Brown in 1977 while she was working as a waitress at the nightclub "The Daisy". Although still married to his first wife, Simpson began dating Brown. Simpson and Marguerite divorced in March 1979.
In August 1979, five months after the couple divorced, Aaren nearly drowned in the family's swimming pool a month before her second birthday. O.J barely come in time to save her. This story somewhat leaked in the press and made Simpson a hero.
Simpson told his friend (and advocate) Robert Kardashian the event forever changed his life. Before the incident he planned to create his own film production company, Orenthal Productions, which dealt mostly in made-for-TV fares. Instead after ending his football career in the early 80's Simpson went into a quiet retirement.
Yes, you killed Capricorn One, the holy grail of Moon Hoax mob !
On NASA installation in Media, in OTL allot of Apollo installation were used in Movies and TV like the Famous the Space Environment Simulator Laboratory and it gigantic Gate
but in this TL SESL is inconstant use and other Apollo installation also.
So the production of Six Million Dollar Man and Seven Million Dollar Woman has to look for other tech location (also for Buck Rogers and Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider)
or the 1977 nuclear disaster Movie Red Alert
i just realizes that in 2001: A space time Odyssey has similar outcome because Apollo program is still running and SESL will be used for testing Delos satellite, Space Tugs and external Module for space station.
means not Futureworld nor Capricorn One or Red Alert
On NASA installation in Media, in OTL allot of Apollo installation were used in Movies and TV like the Famous the Space Environment Simulator Laboratory and it gigantic Gate
but in this TL SESL is inconstant use and other Apollo installation also.
So the production of Six Million Dollar Man and Seven Million Dollar Woman has to look for other tech location (also for Buck Rogers and Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider)
or the 1977 nuclear disaster Movie Red Alert
i just realizes that in 2001: A space time Odyssey has similar outcome because Apollo program is still running and SESL will be used for testing Delos satellite, Space Tugs and external Module for space station.
means not Futureworld nor Capricorn One or Red Alert
Archibald
Banned
Thank you for all the references above. Didn't knew them. You said Battlestar galactica ? hmmmm this gonna play havoc with ITTL pop culture.
I did more than killing Capricorn One. I also ruined 2010, the sequel to 2001. I don't like very much Peter Hyams.
Both 2001 and Apollo 8 happened in 1968. A case could be made that Hyams ruined NASA manned spacecraft (with Capricorn One) and Kubrick 2001 (with 2010).
Why did I mentionned O.J Simpson ? Not only because he was one of the three unfortunate astronauts targeted by NASA in Capricorn One. The reason is the f*cking Kardashians. No O.J scandal in 1994, father and laywer Robert Kardashian never become famous, and neither the girls hit the spotline. Good ridance !
I did more than killing Capricorn One. I also ruined 2010, the sequel to 2001. I don't like very much Peter Hyams.
Both 2001 and Apollo 8 happened in 1968. A case could be made that Hyams ruined NASA manned spacecraft (with Capricorn One) and Kubrick 2001 (with 2010).
Why did I mentionned O.J Simpson ? Not only because he was one of the three unfortunate astronauts targeted by NASA in Capricorn One. The reason is the f*cking Kardashians. No O.J scandal in 1994, father and laywer Robert Kardashian never become famous, and neither the girls hit the spotline. Good ridance !
Last edited: