AHC: NASA Wank

[usertron2020]

Well, it's speculation. Maybe if McDonnell had gotten the contract. Or maybe some lesser, non-fatal accident would have adjusted the culture. We'll never know.

I remember it at the time as being described as "Go Fever". The overwhelming pressure to give a "GO" for every run through, rather than being the one to stick his head up like a nailhead looking to be hammered. Grissom was right, he would have been fired.

On another point or two? Long term space exploration in terms of moon bases, trips to Mars, and Mars bases ignore two principle problems:

1) Cosmic radiation poisoning (no way to shield against it)

2) Bone de-calcification

Not very pretty, and VERY inconvenient, but these have to be brought up.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

How's that going to help NASA? Reagan was JFK on steroids, not only saw NASA through the lens of the Cold War (how can it make the Russkies look bad), he saw space itself through the lens of the Cold War, i.e. militarization of space and funding that instead.

But couldn't that (ie seeing space as a national security issue) wank NASA, at least short term?

 

[woweed]

But couldn't that (ie seeing space as a national security issue) wank NASA, at least short term?

Sure but not in a way the OP imagined i'd think.

 

[Miss Teri]

On another point or two? Long term space exploration in terms of moon bases, trips to Mars, and Mars bases ignore two principle problems:

1) Cosmic radiation poisoning (no way to shield against it)

2) Bone de-calcification

Not very pretty, and VERY inconvenient, but these have to be brought up.

1. I can think of several ways to shield radiation, some of which are used on unmanned craft.
2. That's why people exercise on the ISS.

 

[NathanKell]

But couldn't that (ie seeing space as a national security issue) wank NASA, at least short term?

No, because the Boys in Blue (USAF) would get the funding, not NASA.

 

[e of pi]

But couldn't that (ie seeing space as a national security issue) wank NASA, at least short term?

Not really. Militarizing space doesn't involve crew in orbiting labs, or missions to Mars, or unamnned probes beyond Earth. It involves big spy sats across a range of frequencies, satellites relaying military communications around the globe, and (especially for Reagan) big unmanned stations capable of shooting nukes out of the air. Space Station Freedom and other stuff along those lines was, to Reagan, solidly in the former category--stuff that might need to be done because the Russians were doing it, but which had not necessarily a lot of value outside of the international prestige. In fact, during the majority of the Reagan years, the NASA budget was essentially flat in real dollars, despite being in the midst of Shuttle's Return to Flight and trying to plan how to implement Freedom.

Sort of a longer form of what NathanKell said while I was posting this...

 

[M79]

-1947: Mikhail Tikhonravov proposes a theory of multi-stage rockets per OTL, this time Soviet leadership listens to him and they build a test-rocket using six V2 engines for a lower stage and a single one for an upper stage.

-1948: Korolev refines designs for improved derivatives of V2 rockets and combines aspects of the six-engine cluster into the proposed "R-3" design.

-1950: Test flight of an R-3 missile system is a success in static testing, mathematic projections permit a V2 stage to be placed atop this system and accomplish a satellite launch. Recalculated projections permit a ten-engine R-2 first launch followed up with a single-stage R-2 launch with payload atop it

-December 3, 1950: Barely 72 hours after Douglas MacArthur threatens to use nuclear weapons in the Korean War the Soviet Union places the world's first artificial satellite into orbit. Its radio broadcast of the Soviet national anthem is picked up around the world on shortwave radio and will continue to be picked up for another three weeks

-December 4, 1950: President Truman convenes and emergency meeting as Stalin hails the engineers who made the achievement possible. The R-3 is to be refined and made more precise in its targeting for possible use as a nuclear weapons platform. Truman decides that rocketry is to be made a national priority and that the US must be able to close the "missile gap" as soon as possible. Redstone, a rocket program already under development, is given top priority and a greatly increased budget even as the Korean War rages.

-June 1951: Soviet Cosmo-dog "Mir" becomes the first living inhabitant of Earth to go to space and return safely. The first three animals launched are not mentioned, nor are their deadly fates.

-January 1952: While Russian engineers prepare for a manned flight, the Americans deploy their first multi-stage rocket successfully, this time not only launching a large satellite into a higher orbit but also retrieving a dog in the process after the animal is shot into an altitude of over 150 miles. On return the animal lands unharmed.

-April 1952: Soviet prototype testing of the "R-4" missile system is completed with a range much greater than previously expected, this permits the final checks on the "Strakov" module system

-July 1952: American Charles Yeager is launched into orbit aboard the "Mercury" vehicle ten days ahead of the expected Soviet launch. His two-orbit flyover of the planet is only somewhat marred when radio and early TV crews note he is muttering something to himself just before launch, censors are unable to catch the expletive wording in time. Yeager is found about 100 miles from his expected landing point, his otherwise near-perfect landing just over 215 miles east of Cape Canaveral becomes a worldwide media event

 

[RanulfC]

Ahh how fate works I was looking over the space-pod thread with something similar in mind, specifically that the general POD is that the Atlas as we know it OTL is instead being the monster Convair B-65/SM-65/CGM-16/HGM-16 "Atlas"
(http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-16.html) designed to loft 65 ton H-Bombs at the Soviets

But I also agree that more than one "star" has to align to make things happen. The "race" has to start and remain close to keep both sides on their toes and the general interest has to be maintained which pretty much precludes "foreign entanglement" of extensive duration and cost. And the politics have to be there to continue but all this means the budget won't ever reach "Apollo-as-we-know-it" levels either.

From my reading it would seem that Apollo was always meant to be the "mostly orbital with some application to Lunar" program and in my current treatment I drop Gemini all together as the greater throw weight of the "Atlas" ITTL (6Klbs and a little over versus OTL Atlas which is only 3Klbs) since Mercury can be made much more capable.

As a basis I take the track that it's very much a tit-for-tat between the US and USSR with the Soviets launching Sputnik on-time but the US having a 1-ton "Explorer-Alpha" ready to go only a few months later on the Atlas ITTL. Sheppard is the first man in space (suborbital, Hams flight having gone well there is less reason to delay Sheppards flight) while Gargarin is the first man in orbit. A heavier Mercury with a "propulsion module" and extended support systems thanks to the higher payload of TTL Atlas means the Soviet spectacles are very much matched by US space flights. While Eisenhower gets his demand that the "initial" astronauts are all male, military test pilots he doesn't put a cap on recruitment and NASA continues to enlist more beyond the initial 7. (Including women of the Mercury-13 and minorities)

Unlike most "wanks" the progress would be in a different direction and in some ways "more" while taking longer and seeming to be a lot "less" that what we got from OTL space program. (No Saturn-V I'm afraid though we would probably end up with an actual RLV at the end of the development of the Saturn-1. And I'll state right up front that TTL Apollo ain't NOTHING like OTL Apollo. For just about no other reason than I "wanna" its going to be based on a Convair concept with some GE input )

We for sure probably won't see a circum-lunar flight before the early 70s and a landing will probably not happen before that decade is out, and my logic says that it probably would be a joint US/USSR mission in the end.

Thoughts?

Randy

 

[usertron2020]

1. I can think of several ways to shield radiation, some of which are used on unmanned craft.
2. That's why people exercise on the ISS.

1. You can shield against ultraviolet, x-ray, and gamma radiation well enough. But nothing in the mind of Man (IIRC) can stop any form of cosmic rays from passing through nine feet of lead and concrete shielding as if it were an evening gown.

2. That protects muscles, not bones.

 

[e of pi]

We for sure probably won't see a circum-lunar flight before the early 70s and a landing will probably not happen before that decade is out, and my logic says that it probably would be a joint US/USSR mission in the end.

Thoughts?

Randy

Have you read Kolyma's Shadow? It's got a bit of a different PoD and LV setup than what you seem to be laying out, but seems roughly similar, and of course, Nixonshead's great artwork. Definitely worth your time.

 

[Miss Teri]

1. You can shield against ultraviolet, x-ray, and gamma radiation well enough. But nothing in the mind of Man (IIRC) can stop any form of cosmic rays from passing through nine feet of lead and concrete shielding as if it were an evening gown.

2. That protects muscles, not bones.

After doing some research, I actually find that you were right in your statements. I read that aluminum can shield most cosmic radiation, but even that holds the risk of increasing the secondary radiation. Other, more efficient materials proposed include plastics, liquid hydrogen, and even a magnetic field produced by the spacecraft, but none of those are practical at the moment, so the cosmic radiation is still a very big problem.

As for the exercise, I read that it was for both bone and muscle degradation. However, exercise alone can't stop bone degradation.https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/benefits/bone_loss_prt.htm So, my mistake. Still, I don't think it's impossible for both challenges to overcome.

 

[usertron2020]

After doing some research, I actually find that you were right in your statements. I read that aluminum can shield most cosmic radiation, but even that holds the risk of increasing the secondary radiation. Other, more efficient materials proposed include plastics, liquid hydrogen, and even a magnetic field produced by the spacecraft, but none of those are practical at the moment, so the cosmic radiation is still a very big problem.

As for the exercise, I read that it was for both bone and muscle degradation. However, exercise alone can't stop bone degradation.https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/benefits/bone_loss_prt.htm So, my mistake. Still, I don't think it's impossible for both challenges to overcome.

Don't be embarrassed. I have a degree in biology. Whenever the so-called "hard scientists" try to tell you what can and cannot be done or overcome, remember this: Ask the biologists. They hold us in complete contempt for not using the "hard" complex mathematics of the "real sciences". But for our job, we don't have too. Testing the effects of drying your hair in a microwave oven doesn't require a slide-rule. Meanwhile the "real scientists" continue to look for elephants with microscopes.

 

[RanulfC]

Have you read Kolyma's Shadow? It's got a bit of a different PoD and LV setup than what you seem to be laying out, but seems roughly similar, and of course, Nixonshead's great artwork. Definitely worth your time.

Restarting to read it (again, third times a charm though if I'm correct this is like my fifth actually ) this weekend. Interesting POD for sure but I'm more interested in avoiding the whole Moon in a decade thing.

If I can get past page 2 this time...

As NOMISYRRUC notes the uber-Atlas is a pretty nifty LV to have if things go just right.
(4th pic down here in the side bar: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlas.htm)

It's interesting to read the early history of US ICBM development as we were more than a bit flaky about it all. On the other hand between the various "fill-in-the-blank"-gap and sputnik panic it's a wonder we didn't sink the continent under weapons and defense systems at some point

On the radiation issue its not as bad as it would seem as you can limit the amount of absorption with faster travel times. Aluminum is a problem with most radiations as it spawns secondaries you really want something with a high hydrogen content like plastics or water and that still isn't going to stop the cosmic's but they are rare. Of course in the early days we didn't even know about the Van Allens so there was a LOT of naivety about conditions in space and today there tends to be a lot of the opposite
(Hence the moon landings had to be "faked" because no human could survive passing through the Van Allen Chernobyl Radiation Zone Of Death, etc)

Randy

 

[Miss Teri]

Don't be embarrassed. I have a degree in biology. Whenever the so-called "hard scientists" try to tell you what can and cannot be done or overcome, remember this: Ask the biologists. They hold us in complete contempt for not using the "hard" complex mathematics of the "real sciences". But for our job, we don't have too. Testing the effects of drying your hair in a microwave oven doesn't require a slide-rule. Meanwhile the "real scientists" continue to look for elephants with microscopes.

I am going into college for a Physics/Mathematics degree next fall, so thank you, I suppose.

 

[usertron2020]

On the radiation issue its not as bad as it would seem as you can limit the amount of absorption with faster travel times. Aluminum is a problem with most radiations as it spawns secondaries you really want something with a high hydrogen content like plastics or water and that still isn't going to stop the cosmic's but they are rare. Of course in the early days we didn't even know about the Van Allens so there was a LOT of naivety about conditions in space and today there tends to be a lot of the opposite
(Hence the moon landings had to be "faked" because no human could survive passing through the Van Allen Chernobyl Radiation Zone Of Death, etc)

Randy

Well, its more a matter of accepting what you CAN allow yourself to absorb over a lifetime in outer space. Hence, you can only do so much service on the ISS, or previously the Space Shuttle or Salyut space stations before your "life time limit" is reached. and even then you are probably shaving years off the tail end of your life with the cancer dangers you are bringing upon yourself.

I remember the story of Admiral Hyman Rickover making a "goodwill" visit to a nuclear powered Soviet submarine during the Cold War. Though the Soviets "knew" he was carrying no spy equipment, in fact he slipped in a small slip of film designed to measure radiation exposure underneath his visitors ID pass. In 15 minutes of walking about the sub's reactor area he received what the US Navy would consider a life time's limit of safe radiation exposure!

There is no such thing as a safe exposure to radiation. Just think frex of the melanomas picked up from simple sunbathing

I am going into college for a Physics/Mathematics degree next fall, so thank you, I suppose.

Well, a little humility never hurt anybody. The trick will be to not allow yourself to be "taught" to hold biologists in contempt. It was after all the physicists who for decades told American troops that they'd be perfectly safe marching through radioactive test sites (when physicists know as much about the effects of ionizing radiation on mitochondrial DNA as a biologist does about the inside contents of the Dummy's Guide to Quantum Physics) following above ground atomic bomb testing. Not to mention telling this to civilians. Civilians like nearby Hollywood film crews shooting John Wayne/Agnes Moorehead westerns.

Sorry. Its just that I am old enough to remember getting the tail end of the lies spewing out of the US Government in this arena, so I'm pretty bitter about it. A right wing reactionary (more than willing to believe the government) like the Duke was forced to give his Lifetime Achievement Oscar Speech while dying of cancer.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

1. You can shield against ultraviolet, x-ray, and gamma radiation well enough. But nothing in the mind of Man (IIRC) can stop any form of cosmic rays from passing through nine feet of lead and concrete shielding as if it were an evening gown.

2. That protects muscles, not bones.

1) Actually, that is patently wrong. If nothing else, a layer of 14.7 pounds of oxygen/nitrogen mix per square inch (~10tonnes per square meter) does a fine job of protecting life on earth.

Water's even better, iirc. Now, if you want to say that a 1-10 m thick layer of water around the crew compartment is prohibitive, that's one thing. If you want to claim it's impossible, you're clearly wrong.

2) actually it provides SOME protection for bones, too. But not enough for either.

Again, a large enough craft can be spun or have a spun section to provide the needed gravity (equivalent).

 

[usertron2020]

1) Actually, that is patently wrong. If nothing else, a layer of 14.7 pounds of oxygen/nitrogen mix per square inch (~10tonnes per square meter) does a fine job of protecting life on earth.

Um, we ARE talking about sustaining life in Outer Space? I DID SAY "nothing in the mind of Man", not 'nothing in the mind of God'. Yes, I DO know about the fact that cosmic rays are stopped by our planetary atmosphere. Several miles DEEP planetary atmosphere.

But this is not exactly a practical means for using as radiation shielding when you are LEAVING said planetary atmosphere.

Water's even better, iirc. Now, if you want to say that a 1-10 m thick layer of water around the crew compartment is prohibitive, that's one thing. If you want to claim it's impossible, you're clearly wrong.

Its not impossible, provided you do the construction in outer space, where gravity is no problem. Oh wait...cosmic rays.

2) actually it provides SOME protection for bones, too. But not enough for either.

The biggest contribution made by the Soviet space program in their Salyut series was the problems of long term medical problems caused by substantial times spent in zero-g. And yes, not enough. Maybe we can limit space voyage to senior citizens. At least those who still have good bones.

Again, a large enough craft can be spun or have a spun section to provide the needed gravity (equivalent).

This principle has been understood (relatively) forever.

Again though, such a vessel needs to be constructed in outer space. Which would require space construction and service dockyards in outer space. Which would mean people being exposed to the radiation dangers on said space dockyards for the many years it would take to construct them AND any deep space vessels they construct. Not to mention that those dockyards would have to be built in geo-synchronous orbit if we don't want to see them coming down before they (never mind any deep space ships) even finished being constructed. Then there's the cost of the natural stress factors of a rotational drive system for the space stations/dockyards/deep space craft. If the astronauts/cosmonauts are feeling the gravity, so is everything else.

And who's going to pay for all this?$$$

 

[RanulfC]

Um, we ARE talking about sustaining life in Outer Space? I DID SAY "nothing in the mind of Man", not 'nothing in the mind of God'. Yes, I DO know about the fact that cosmic rays are stopped by our planetary atmosphere. Several miles DEEP planetary atmosphere.

But this is not exactly a practical means for using as radiation shielding when you are LEAVING said planetary atmosphere.

Well you can go all ASB and take Earth with you. That would solve all SORTS of problems... (And create a ton of new ones of course )

Its not impossible, provided you do the construction in outer space, where gravity is no problem. Oh wait...cosmic rays.

Staying inside the Earths magnetic field helps a lot so LEO is good but you can't stay in the cradle forever which is the point I suppose

The biggest contribution made by the Soviet space program in their Salyut series was the problems of long term medical problems caused by substantial times spent in zero-g. And yes, not enough. Maybe we can limit space voyage to senior citizens. At least those who still have good bones.

Enough to prove that long time exposure isn't as harmful as some suppose Proper exercise, etc showed that the long term effects were mild enough to allow going to Mars and such if the radiation issue could be addressed. Strangely enough the main long term issue with having spent a great deal of time in free-fall turned out to be behavioral in that people come back and tend to forget they are back in a gravity field again. Habits like letting objects "hang" while you use your hands for something else get really hard to break

This principle has been understood (relatively) forever.

Again though, such a vessel needs to be constructed in outer space. Which would require space construction and service dockyards in outer space. Which would mean people being exposed to the radiation dangers on said space dockyards for the many years it would take to construct them AND any deep space vessels they construct. Not to mention that those dockyards would have to be built in geo-synchronous orbit if we don't want to see them coming down before they (never mind any deep space ships) even finished being constructed. Then there's the cost of the natural stress factors of a rotational drive system for the space stations/dockyards/deep space craft. If the astronauts/cosmonauts are feeling the gravity, so is everything else.

And who's going to pay for all this?$$$

The mechanics of making a rotational AG system has been discussed in detail for a long time now and we still don't quite know a way to do it "properly" short of building the ship/station itself big enough to rotate as a whole. On the other hand we know now that while there are issues with long term exposure they in general are not as bad as originally feared. But its still better for long distance/time of travel to come up with some work around as no matter how humans are effected it turns out a WHOLE lot of process, (going to the bathroom is SO much easier with even a smidgen of gravity for example are much easier with a definite sense of up and down.

On the Gripping Hand of course the last question is the biggie Who pays for it all and more specifically "why" as the overall long term sustainability of a space program requires something other than JUST national pride.

Granted that "reason" alone will actually carry a program for a good while and if "things" work out during that period your costs and other factors will align to make sustaining space flight more viable but in the end it has to have a much larger "buy-in" by the general population to keep going.

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

IOTL the Soviets had an initial advantage due to the throw weight of the R7 and the Government rode that into the ground pretty quickly. Follow ups, (Voskod, and initial Soyuz) had problems which allowed the US to surpass them and there was never the political will to make the commitment to catch up again.

In a much closer race said government would either have to make an upfront commitment or push an "Apollo" like commitment of their own I suspect which has Alt-history possibilities all its own

Specifically, if my logic is correct the uber-Atlas would allow Krafft Ehrickes Atlas Space Station to be flown sometime around the mid to late 60s which would put the Soviets on the spot instead of the US.
(http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacestations.php)

Randy

 

[usertron2020]

IOTL the Soviets had an initial advantage due to the throw weight of the R7 and the Government rode that into the ground pretty quickly. Follow ups, (Voskod, and initial Soyuz) had problems which allowed the US to surpass them and there was never the political will to make the commitment to catch up again.

In a much closer race said government would either have to make an upfront commitment or push an "Apollo" like commitment of their own I suspect which has Alt-history possibilities all its own

Specifically, if my logic is correct the uber-Atlas would allow Krafft Ehrickes Atlas Space Station to be flown sometime around the mid to late 60s which would put the Soviets on the spot instead of the US.
(http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacestations.php)

Randy

I suspect it was a combination of the Soviets suffering the tragedy of Salyut One and the US Space Program going into a coma post-Apollo 11 that discouraged the Soviets. For the Brezhnev Regime, it was all guns-guns-guns. His government made Reagan's military buildup (possible only due to Brezhnev madcap uncontrollable military spending) look like one put together in Mister Roger's Neighborhood. Mind, this is not commenting on the mega-$$$ the US spends today.