advancing through 1970
March 1970
Charles Townes was frustrated. The 1964 Nobel Prize for its invention of the laser, he had got interested in the manned space program through Georges Mueller, a fellow colleague at the Bell Laboratories – and later, a manager of the Apollo program.
Early 1969, in the wake of Apollo 8 Townes had suggested the new President Richard Nixon to continue Apollo and nothing else - Mars, the shuttle and a space station being only distractions. He had not been heard and once Neil Armstrong had accomplished JFK goal, manned landings on the Moon had been cut one after another.
It was a shame.
Townes had fought teeth and nails against that, to no avail. Townes was the ldear of the Space Science Board, an advisory council set within the U.S.A National Academies. He was an outsider.
The chairman of NASA Lunar Planetary Mission Board, John Findlay position was even more difficult. Unlike Townes Findlay was an insider to NASA, but it actually didn't helped a lot.
Order of the day was cancellation of the last two manned lunar landings. For the scientists it was a hard pill to swallow. Every Apollo up to 14had essentially been a loss to science, as symbolized by the uncooperative Alan Shepard who just hated geology training. Serious science planning had started only with the fifth landing, that is, Apollo 15. Now if Apollo 18 and 19 were to be canned, that would left only twolandings before the program concluded. And none of the scientist astronauts was ready to fly !
"It all boils down to fly - or not - lunar landings after the handful of Skylab earth orbit missions. We consider it can be done; Paine see things differently: a Skylab hiatus amid lunar landings will be unproductive, he says. So cutting lunar landings is the way to go, Paine says." John Findlay said.
"Yet Harrison Schmitt is not ready. He was to fly on one of the cancelled missions ! And even worse than that" Findlay told Townes "our board is being cut on costs ground. So are our fellows at the Astronomy Missions Board. My friend from the National Academies" he declared fixing Charles Townes "be ready to face NASA alone. Next year we will be disbanded. They want to fold us into some big, rigid Advisory Council for an easier access to NASA administrator. I fear they want to control us closer. By the way we don't want to talk to the Administrator: we want to talk to a chief scientist within the damn agency."
Findlay made a pause.
"I know that, you, members of the Space Science Board, are frustrated by your inability to assess manned spaceflight because you are barred from access to the agency internal documents and planning. We had access to that, but are now disbanded. Who will drive manned spaceflight then ? the Space Task Group ? the Space Council ? Both failed miserably. We face terrific difficulties, as shown in the battle to save the last Apollo missions."
"Our option I has Apollo 15 cut, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 19 all piled up about five months apart over the years 1971 to 1973 and then fly the Skylab A missions, which drastically accelerates the schedule. Accordingly Skylab A would also fly somewhat earlier. Paine, however, told us he can't accelerate the schedule like this; for budget reasons lunar landings have to be flown six months apart. So we created another option encompassing that point.
"Our option II is essentially similar except the lunar landings are to be flown six months apart, the whole thing ending in 1974 or so.
"Paine also rejected that option, saying Skylab can't be pushed too late because if a delay of seven or eight months in the launch was to occur, then it would require a high, non-productive expenditure to retain the Skylab teams beyond the scheduled launch date.
"So as you can see, we can neither compress the five lunar landings schedule, nor move Skylab. Paine answer is to cut two more lunar landings; we instead imagined a drastic third option.
"Our option III is to fly Apollo 14, 15 and 16, and 17 about six months apart; then, fly missions to the Skylab A space station in Earth orbit over a period of about 20 months, until 1974; then carry out Apollo missions 18 and 19 six months apart, which would end the lunar landings in the year 1975.
"The long gap between Apollo 17 and 18 would permit lunar scientists to digest data from the previous missions and to design new experiments for the final pair. We noted, however, that the gap might also make Apollo 18 and 19 vulnerable to budget cuts. And the fact is, Paine not even bothered considering that option. Be prepared to lose two more Apollo landings." Findlay was appalled, and furious. So was Townes. What could they do ?
------------------------------
April 29, 1970
Lee Scherer, director of the Apollo Lunar Exploration Office
To:
Frank Culbertson, director of NASA Manned Space Flight Management Council
In this brief document I'll present some options for post-Apollo future. Truth be told, two of them are probably impossible because of recent, and severe, cuts to NASA budget.
I think it is important to review first what the Integrated Program Plan is – how it works.
A lot of people are discussing NASA Integrated Program Plan (short: IPP). It has been presented to President Nixon and largely explained within the press. There is a rising controversy over the IPP – some see it as a bold plan to extend human presence as far as Mars. Others consider it a folly, citing the current political and social turmoil.
So let's put the controversy aside and examine the IPP in detail.
How will lunar missions proceed in the post-Apollo era, I.e after 1975 ?
Current lunar missions up to Apollo 20 entail non reusable hardware. The IPP intends to improve lunar sorties to the point a lunar base may be build, probably in the late 80's. There's also, of course, the case for a manned Mars landing.
Let's focuse on the IPP vehicles, notably for lunar missions.
Today the three stage Saturn V boost the S-IVB, CSM and LM to Earth escape. The IPP scraps the CSM / LM combo and replace them with a brand new vehicle, the dual-use space tug / LM-B.
The space tug is to operate mostly in Earth orbit. Although a tug weight matches the space shuttle payload of 50 000 pounds, it will never launch on its vehicle. Instead multiple space tugs will be orbited by a Saturn INT-21 – that is, a Saturn V without the S-IVB
A space tug is perfectly able to deliver payload to Earth escape – to GEO, to the Moon or beyond – but there chemical propulsion clearly shows its limits.
The space tug payload is pretty limited.
Still the combination of a space tug with the space shuttle – used as propellant tanker – can perform a wide range of missions such as satellite retrieval and repair. It is also possible to stack two space tugs on top of each other for more demanding missions.
The LM-B is nothing more than a space tug modified with landing legs for lunar surface sortie
Unlike the Apollo systems the LM-B is reusable because it uses maximum energy propellants, that is, liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Yet the LM-B overall mode of operation isn't that different from Apollo. The S-IVB is still there for the push out of Earth gravity well. So is the Saturn V as a whole, complete with its S-IC and S-II stages, although they would be uprated. This new breed of Saturn V could place no less than 100 000 pounds – 45 tons – in lunar orbit. That mean it could launch a pair of LM-B. One vehicle would land on the Moon, the other would be kept in lunar orbit for rescue
As it will ramp up LM-B lunar surface missions, NASA would also start to build space bases everywhere – in low Earth orbit, in geosynchronous and lunar orbits.
The main space station module would weight 50 000 pounds, so it could be lifted by a Saturn V in lunar orbit together with a 50 000 pounds LM-B.
Space base doesn't mean space station only. It also entails a propellant depot. The LM-B returning from the Moon would fill their tanks at the depot and escape the Moon gravity well before braking to slow down into low Earth orbit, where the shuttle and first space station would await them.
The space shuttle payload of 50 000 pounds exactly matches the LM-B propellant mass, so the shuttle would be flown as tanker to refuel the space tugs and LM-B.
The LM-B is first and foremost a lunar surface vehicle. So this beg the question of a crew taxi to the lunar orbit space station. As a temporary stopgap the good old Apollo CSM would be used, with its crew of three.
Both CSM and LM-B use vintage, three-stage, non recoverable Saturn V – so that phase of lunar exploration will remains expensive.
The real, major breakthrough that will cut cost of Earth-Moon trips is the Reusable Nuclear Shuttle – RNS, developed through the NERVA program. The RNS essentially replace the S-IVB atop a Saturn V.
When compared to the old S-IVB the RNS would be a great leap forward. The Nuclear Shuttle would transport to the lunar-orbit space station six astronauts and 90,000 pounds of cargo, or 100,000 pounds of cargo in unmanned mode. Most importantly, and unlike the S-IVB, it could return 10,000 pounds of cargo and six astronauts from the moon to the LEO space station.
A noticeable fact is that once again Saturn V would survive. The two stage INT-21 variant would boost a partially fueled nuclear shuttle in Earth orbit. Further propellant would be ferried by space shuttles to fill the RNS tanks entirely.
The LM-B would remain in service as the main lunar lander, except that it would now be boosted by the RNS and not a S-IVB.
The space tug would also survive for all the small missions that wouldn't need the RNS outstanding performance.
By contrast the plain old Apollo CSM would be withdrawn (just like the S-IVB) and replaced by a crew module bolted to the nuclear shuttle. That crew module would be identical to the space tug / LM-B crew accomodations.
As for the Mars shot, it would use a cluster of RNS. Two lateral boosters would push the stack out of Earth gravity well before detaching, turning by 180 degree, and fire their engines to go back to low Earth orbit. More RNS would be used for Mars orbit injection and escape, and return to Earth orbit. Building the stack in low Earth orbit would take a huge number of shuttle flights, completed by rarer Saturn INT-21 rockets.
For the record, in January 1970 the Marshall space flight center presented the contractors with an ambitious RNS traffic model calling for 157 Earth-moon flights between 1980 and 1990 by a fleet of 15 RNS vehicles, each toting 50 tons of cargo !
Now I'll examine three more realistic options.
The first scenario has Apollo program ending with Apollo 19 in 1975. I shall remember you that the last two Apollo missions are under review and may very well be cancelled. In this case Apollo would conclude with Apollo 17 late 1972.
In this first scenario from 1977 onwards Apollo would be replaced by a host of new space systems I described above – the IPP.
At first glance the IPP looks like a balanced program. There are, however, a host of issues with it.
The nuclear shuttle and chemical tug would be developed after the space station and space shuttle, that is, after 1977 – perhaps in 1980. If we consider that Apollo ends late 1972, the resulting eight year gap is quite prohibitive.
There is, however, a more serious issue with that scheme. Most of the hardware I described earlier – I mean the Earth to orbit shuttle, the chemical tug and the nuclear shuttle - would be reusable.
There are two major issues with reusability.
First, reusable hardware generally may be expensive to build, to use and to refurbish.
Secondly, reusable space hardware is only justified through very high flight rates.
I personally can't see any future lunar program large enough to support the costs of a fleet of reusable vehicles. Anyway, the nuclear shuttle by itself has its own safety issues.
Instead I suggest another, cheaper option. Let's cut the nuclear shuttle, the lunar orbit station, the propellant depot and even the Earth orbit station.
What's left ? The Earth to orbit shuttle together with the chemical tug.
I think that, if a maximum effort is done on the shuttle and chemical tug, we might return to the Moon somewhat earlier and at a lower cost, perhaps in 1979.
Of course the tug has to be carefully designed to exploit the shuttle capabilities and performance. In this scenario, two tugs take a crew to lunar orbit. A landing needs four tugs. With a pair of landings at the same site, a mini lunar base might be established as early as 1982.
Finally, as the former director of the Lunar Orbiter program I'd suggest a third option - that NASA would pursue lunar exploration only with robotic vehicles.
As with the other two scenarios, Apollo ends either in 1972 or 1975 – it doesn't really matters. Following Apollo are five big lunar robotic missions – lunar orbiters and lunar landers and long range rovers.
NASA is currently building such a system for Mars - through the Viking program.
So I'd ask, why not use Viking hardware for lunar missions ? A balanced lunar Viking program would cost $1.3 billion.
I'll further describe a lunar Viking program in another document.
Briefly, modifications to the Viking spacecraft include deletion of the bioshield, the aeroshell and the single parachute, and the addition of a single solid-propellant retro-rocket. This is to decelerate the lander to a suitable approach speed, from which the existing liquid-propellant rockets could take over and gently lower the spacecraft to the surface. Up to 1,000 pounds of scientific equipment could be put down in this way and a small automated roving vehicle could be accommodated as part of the lander's payload. The orbiter would remain in orbit around the Moon to survey both the near and far sides.
In conclusion, I personally prefers option two, that, is a reusable chemical space tug with a reusable space shuttle. Even then, that option has a major caveat – beware of reusable space hardware cost, maintenance, and traffic rates.
He is a Canadian with a rich, if not tragic, backstory. He will be a recurrent figure in the TL. 
