AH Challenge: Apollo Continuation

I was thinking about a "space-wank" timeline recently, where NASA pretty much gets everything it wants. Apollos 18, 19, and 20 to the Moon are a go. Skylab still goes up, followed by a second Skylab station. Apollo-Soyuz continues as planned, with perhaps a second and longer ASTP mission to the Skylab. There is no shuttle program. The Skylab crews use the Saturn 1B, while the stations themselves are lifted with the Saturn V. NASA plans to send men to Mars by 1986, assembling a large Mars spacecraft in orbit, using manned missions and Saturn 1B and V launches. Perhaps NASA and the Soviets establish a joint lunar outpost by 1990...

Just throwing some ideas out there. Basically you need a pro-space President. Hell, even Nixon could be considered pro-space if the political will and the support of the people were behind it. To get that to happen though...I dunno.
 
I think a key departure would be have Kennedy live and serve two terms followed by Reagan in '68 for two terms.

Sixteen years and an awful lot of funding for NASA right there.

Jettison the shuttle. Eventually, when research develops powerful and functioning aerospike engines, you build VentureStar as the big space truck.

Until then, keep the program going with refined versions of the Apollo hardware:

Cheeper more efficient versions of the Saturn series rockets, imporved versions of the Apollo spacecraft, basically, replace the shuttel program with an Orion and Ares programs in the seventies.

Instead of SkyLab, launch a group of SkyLab sized modules into orbit and build a large modular space station throughout the 1970s. At some point, build a re-usable lunar expeditionary vessel in orbit, based at the EOS limiting the number of Saturn V/Saturn V replacement launchers launches needed for lunar excursions. This vessel would also provide a testbed for a host of long distance tech applications.

At some point, the private sector has to start getting involved in space exploration. The federal government can't do it all and at some point, probably shouldn't.
 

burmafrd

Banned
If the shuttle program had been given the money and leadership that Apollo got it would have been a much better bird. Though its questionable that we could have made it anywhere near what was promised since the technology was just not there. We needed much more powerful rocket fuel but nothing we came up with was anywhere safe enough. And the emphasis that was put on everything being reuseable really hurt as well. Throw away SRB's would have been much cheaper. Bottom line was that we were very ambitious with the shuttle but did not have the money or technology or the leadership to really makeit work like it could have.
 
the problem is that Saturns are REALLY expensive. I forget how much more $/lb in orbit compared to e.g. a Delta or an Ariane, but 2x at least, IIRC.

Boeing had a couple of schemes to make the first stage of the Saturn V reusable, one involving an ADD-ON wing, another involving parachutes and sea recovery. Both perceptibly lessened the load to orbit, and only gave you reusability of the first stage.

Your other big problem is how often you use a system. Titan 4's were really expensive (~.5 billion/launch) partly because the launch rate was only a couple a year.

The problem with manned launches is even worse - if the US maintains its whole Houston spaceflight centre with hundreds or thousands of techs, you'd better have more than 2 flights a year!

A problem with the side mounted shuttle with ceramic heatshields is ice breaking off the external tank and damaging the pretty fragile ceramic tiles.

The ceramic tiles were a wonderful technical solution, but not really very practical, especially when teamed with a side-mount shuttle. With the early shuttle launches, there was a lot of worry about tiles being damaged/falling off, and the incredible jigsaw puzzle tile surface meant that each replacement was essentially custom built. Can we say horribly expensive? And then, when the shuttles happened to survive, they said 'Oh it must not be a problem', until, of course, they lost one.


I do wonder if a 'big Gemini' approach (launched with Titan 3's, possibly landed with parasails and skids) might actually have been the best approach. You could have kept a launch rate that was mildy affordable, maybe learning how to do with less expensive infrastructure, kept the Titans in production, so they're less expensive, etc. Don't know.
 
No matter how Saturn V was expensive in $/kg area, Shuttle had it beaten by 1.5 or 2x. And Shuttle had a far larger standing workforce needed to be payed.

And for someone mentioning Shuttle on Saturn, and to people who laughed at it. It was a very serious proposal. Launch a Shuttle on top of Saturn I-C or whatever was SatV first stage called. There were even designs proposal to eventually make that Saturn first stage into a reusable flyback booster. And would have likely worked far better and safer than OTL design.
 
burmafrd said:
If the shuttle program had been given the money and leadership that Apollo got it would have been a much better bird. Though its questionable that we could have made it anywhere near what was promised since the technology was just not there. We needed much more powerful rocket fuel but nothing we came up with was anywhere safe enough. And the emphasis that was put on everything being reuseable really hurt as well. Throw away SRB's would have been much cheaper. Bottom line was that we were very ambitious with the shuttle but did not have the money or technology or the leadership to really makeit work like it could have.
It's true that the Shuttle could have been much better if it had gotten more money; at the very least, the Air Force and it's silly requirements might be cut out. But that just wasn't going to happen. Even the best case scenario I can see without invoking ASB is a modest Apollo program through the '70s with a few Skylab-type stations and perhaps some movement towards modularity and resupply, picking up in the '80s when the Soviets recover from their post-Korolev slump and without Buran distracting them manage to go nuts. According to Siddiqi, that program was actually consuming the majority of their space funding through the late 70s and 80s. Without that, I would expect that their unmanned probes (even the Mars ones) are more numerous and successful, and their space station program progresses faster. They might even decide to do Apollo redux. (Note that this is a post-1966 departure; earlier departures of course will have more dramatic impacts. I just don't see lunar bases or Mars missions, though)

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
the problem is that Saturns are REALLY expensive. I forget how much more $/lb in orbit compared to e.g. a Delta or an Ariane, but 2x at least, IIRC.
grdja83 said:
No matter how Saturn V was expensive in $/kg area, Shuttle had it beaten by 1.5 or 2x. And Shuttle had a far larger standing workforce needed to be payed.
Actually, the numbers I've seen have the Shuttle and Saturn V costing about the same: $20,000/pound for Saturn, $10,000/kg for Shuttle. Essentially negligible difference.

grdja83 said:
And for someone mentioning Shuttle on Saturn, and to people who laughed at it. It was a very serious proposal. Launch a Shuttle on top of Saturn I-C or whatever was SatV first stage called. There were even designs proposal to eventually make that Saturn first stage into a reusable flyback booster. And would have likely worked far better and safer than OTL design.
Oh yes, I don't dispute that a Shuttle in that style would have worked better. But I don't think it would have been very successful, and the challenge here is continuing the use of Apollo CSMs. Enhanced Shuttles are entirely beside the point :) (But cool, nevertheless)

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
I do wonder if a 'big Gemini' approach (launched with Titan 3's, possibly landed with parasails and skids) might actually have been the best approach. You could have kept a launch rate that was mildy affordable, maybe learning how to do with less expensive infrastructure, kept the Titans in production, so they're less expensive, etc. Don't know.
Well, if you believe Wiki's numbers on the Saturn IB, the Titan IIIE could just about have launched an Apollo into LEO. Perhaps an enhanced version, or some new medium-lift vehicle (something with lots of J-2s, I think) could have taken the IBs role.

(Amusingly, the Wikipedia pages on the Apollo CSM and IB have a bit of dispute over whether the IB could launch a CSM into LEO. According to them, the CSM massed about 30,000 kg, while the IB had a launch capacity of just 15,000)
 
If you want to keep NASA producing 1968-style technology, you have to maintain 1968-style demand.

The POD isn't American, it's Russian. The Russians have to do a better job in the Space Race to keep it going.

A few ways:

1) The Zond circumlunar program does a bit better, enough to be a credible threat in 1968 and make it so it's harder for the Soviets to back down and pretend they were never in the space race.

2) The N-1's engine headaches are worked out providing a reliable, Saturn-class booster. The Russians would need an extra 12-18 months for this. Perhaps a more peaceable Khruschev to Brezhnev transition? An earlier break between Korolev and Glushko? A smarter Kuznetzov?

3) Korolev dies early leaving Chelomei the clear winner. He is authorized to build his UR-700 lunar rocket which is available in 1969. Of course, his rockets sometimes blow up and spew highly toxic fuel over the launch pad...
 
Actually, on your 2) I'd say no break between Glushko and Korolev would be best. Glushko was a pretty good engine designer after all...maybe if he decides to try dabbling his hands in cryogens after all.

EDIT: I'd dispute the statement that the US needs 1968-level demands to maintain the spacecraft. If their budget was cut even more they'd have no choice but to continue using Apollo since they couldn't afford to do anything else. In general, capsule-type spacecraft are more flexible than orbiters.
 
Yes, but there has to be justification for keeping the Saturn assembly line going. That's an expensive assembly line.

The problem with Glushko is he hates Korolev and drags feet on any project they do together. Korolev wants safe propellants and Glushko sees no need for them, largely because they are militarily useless, but also because he just doesn't like the guy!
 
Remember, I don't care about Saturn. For all I'm concerned, they can burn all the Saturn plans in giant bonfires while having Satanic rituals over the flames, as long as they keep using the CSM.

And according to the source I'm using (Siddiqi, Soviet Space Race with Apollo--which admittedly only covers post-Korolev flight, I haven't bought the 'first half' volume), Glushko and Korolev had a fairly congenial relationship until the famous cryogens spat.

EDIT: Anyways, the point is that most of the stuff I've been saying here didn't just come out my rear :) I have plenty of space sources to use, and I do!
 
Last edited:
OK, try this. NASA really wanted a space station and a shuttle, there wasn't going to be funding for both. OTL, they picked the shuttle. Suppose they decide instead to launch Apollo capsules on Titan *4s (quite possibly somewhat different from OTL's Titan 4), or on one of the numerous INT Saturn variants (e.g. 3rd stage with solids).

Use a slightly uprated Saturn V, next batch with reusable first stage to launch heavy payloads, like the space station modules.

Re-build the CSM into one conical, reusable beast with a crew of e.g. 6. Keep flying until today.
 

Archibald

Banned
If you want Apollo to continue, you have to make the program sustainable from the start, from 1961.

To achieve that, you need something smaller than Saturn V.
Indeed the logic behind cancellation of Saturn V (August 1968) was: no commercial usefulness. It doesn't bring money, because there's no 120 tons comsat to launch. Period.

Back in 1961 were "smaller" Saturns, the C2 and C3. That was smaller, less expensive to build. And this may have reduced Apollo overall cost, making it more sustainable.

This is a 1993 study called Early Lunar Access.

http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/ELA.html

ELA was, basically, the Apollo capsule mounted atop the Lunar Module. The resulting ship massed 25 tons. after launch by a shuttle, it made a Earth-orbit rendez-vous with a 25 tons LH2 Centaur upper stage.
The Centaur had enough thrust to boost the CM+LM to the Moon.

Now imagine Early lunar access in 1961, using the Saturn C3.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnc3.htm

I think this would have made Apollo more sustainable: ELA was specifically thought as a very low-cost lunar mission.

Now, how would this take place ? through a different "landing mode debate"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Houbolt

Let's suppose Houbolt was not heard, and NASA goes the most horrendous way - Direct Ascent !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_ascent

The monster Nova booster prove a too difficult endeavour, and the Direct Ascent mode is scaled-down again and again - to Saturn C3 and Earth Orbit Rendezvous, two launches.
This result in something similar to "Early Lunar Access" - much sooner than OTL.
 
I'm not sure the ELA proposal is feasible with 1960s tech. It required some pretty hefty materials science and electronics advances...that said, perhaps a relatively heavy booster (like, yes, a Saturn C-3) would be capable of launching something similar. I'm still a bit skeptical though. And I can't imagine the C-3 would fare any better than the C-5 did when the time comes to wind down the lunar program (it still has about 3 times the LEO loft of any current booster).

And even so, like I keep saying, I just want to keep using the CSM. I seriously doubt the feasibility of continued manned lunar or even less likely interplanetary missions in the late '60s and '70s, regardless of what occurs, since any mission (no matter how economically designed) is going to be very expensive, and it seems unlikely we will avoid OTL's slump in that period.
 
Last edited:
Top