No ASB, and keep the POD after 1900. By the end, have humans walking on Mars by the year 2019.
They don’t have to stay long, just a quick walk around is fine.
They don’t have to stay long, just a quick walk around is fine.
AHC: Put humans on Mars by this year
- Thread starter Ioannis Kapodistrias
- Start date
My try, rough overview
1988 Dick Cheney died of Hearth Attack
1992 Robert Zubrin proposed Mars Direct
2003 no invasion of Irak or a scale down version under "War on Terror" effort.
2005 President Bush announced the Constellation Program with Return to Moon and Manned Mars landing under Mars Direct architecture.
2013 Hardware Testing; Heavy Booster launch, manned Capsule in orbit, Return to Moon under Moon Direct.
2018 first Mission of Mars Direct launch of Return Vehicle to Mars
2019 second mission of Mars Direct launch manned, lander touch down near refueled Return vehicle.
2020 Crew of Mission return to Earth
1988 Dick Cheney died of Hearth Attack
1992 Robert Zubrin proposed Mars Direct
2003 no invasion of Irak or a scale down version under "War on Terror" effort.
2005 President Bush announced the Constellation Program with Return to Moon and Manned Mars landing under Mars Direct architecture.
2013 Hardware Testing; Heavy Booster launch, manned Capsule in orbit, Return to Moon under Moon Direct.
2018 first Mission of Mars Direct launch of Return Vehicle to Mars
2019 second mission of Mars Direct launch manned, lander touch down near refueled Return vehicle.
2020 Crew of Mission return to Earth
Riain
Banned
The CP wins WW1 but without Versailles their rocket talent gets to work on a level more akin to Goddard in the US. A 4 way space race occurs from the 50s on more of a slow burn, with space stations leading to moon bases and in turn building on that to reach Mars.
In my mind a long term incremental program means a lot of infrastructure is already in space making a Mars mission less of a one shot project.
In my mind a long term incremental program means a lot of infrastructure is already in space making a Mars mission less of a one shot project.
overninethousands
Banned
Well, that exactly what Bush 41 promised in 1989 - people on Mars by 2019 ! As said earlier, Mars direct is best hope, with a Shuttle derived launcher. If only Robert Zubrin had a different, less abrasive personality...
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
earlier antibiotics, like in the 1920s
And these days, I’m liking the theory that WWI was hard to avoid, but WWII relatively easy, even given T of V.
So, larger population means larger economy, and we take it from there!
And these days, I’m liking the theory that WWI was hard to avoid, but WWII relatively easy, even given T of V.
So, larger population means larger economy, and we take it from there!
Heck, if we'd just kept the same pace as we did during Apollo, we'd have been on Mars by 1990.
Yep! Can close the thread now
The great but sadly late Sir Patrick Moore reasoned that the cost of 1 year in Iraq could have 'with lots of change left over' have financed a 10 year manned base on Mars
overninethousands
Banned
Yes and No
Yes, because phased approach (NASA STG, 1969: Shuttle + nuclear shuttle + space station + fuel depot + Moon & Mars)
No, because space infrastructures are expensives (Mars Direct)
Depends whether you have a huge budget or a shoestring budget. NASA started with the former and ended with the later.
Also the space advocates have split into two opposites factions: essentially Zubrin vs the late Paul Spudis.
Zubrin: Moon is boring, been there, done that, let's go to Mars
Spudis: Moon can be a training ground for Mars, plus fuel station. Mars too far and too expensive and too dangerous.
On and on, goes the argument, in circles, sterile, and silly: both Moon and Mars would be better...
The required level of funding is the problem. Honestly, it would take something like finding a deserted alien base/space ship to make either superpower want to spend that much.
We must remember the priorities of the times. In 1970, there was pressure to keep funds on earth to solve other problems. Then there was a concern that since Mars once had water, there could have been primitive life that left spores that create an environmental disaster on earth. As unlikely as that threat is, it is not zero. Another concern is the effect of living outside the earth's magnetic field. We have no data, other than that 12 men who went to the moon for a short time had no visible effects. That would suggest a moon lab, with plants, bugs, mice and robots, serviced maybe once a year. The moon lab is simple compared to a Mars issue with life support.
The moon landings, by today's risk standards, would probably be too risky to try, given the scientific benefits or lack thereof. (But the real benefits then were political). And that's where we are.
The moon landings, by today's risk standards, would probably be too risky to try, given the scientific benefits or lack thereof. (But the real benefits then were political). And that's where we are.
Riain
Banned
With an OTL Space Race PoD I agree, which is why I suggested a PoD of the CP winning WW1 to create 3 or 4 power blocs capable of supporting a robust space program. Such power blocs could between them create a lot of space infrastructure including many more moon visits which gives much more data on living outside the magnetic field.
Ioannis Kapodistrias wrote:
Interesting concept… Hmmm, a timeline full of FLEM I wonder?
https://www.wired.com/2014/01/to-mars-by-flyby-landing-excursion-mode-flem-1966/
https://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/2010_04_04_archive.html
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26594.0
But first to review some of the other ideas:
Michel Van: Dick Cheney wasn’t the ‘problem’ though, that would be the fact that Congress has specifically and directly had a policy of “NASA is not going to Mars or anywhere beyond LEO if we have anything to say about it” since the mid-60s and there’s nothing to indicate that his not being around would make things any different. Zubrin and others HAVE pitched variations of “Mars Direct” to Congress, (Griffin while he was Administrator was MD’s biggest advocate and supporter and what the Aries V was all about) and have gotten zero (0) support for the idea. BECAUSE actually, it was in fact one of the more ‘faster/cheaper’ means of getting to Mars without building up any ability to sustain the effort or expand it.
Like most Space Advocates Zubrin has mostly bought into the “Presidential Powers” fallacy and though later joined up with the ongoing “March Storm” Congressional “briefings” (http://allianceforspacedevelopment.org/2019-march-storm/) which have had little effect beyond an uptick in hotel and services profits in Washington during what is nominally an ‘off’ season, he still firmly believes that a Presidential “Kennedy” moment is all that is needed to kick things off. Congress makes a bit of ‘show’ of these ‘storms’, says some quick sound-bites, vague pronouncements, etc, and then promptly spends no money on actually doing anything. They ‘spend’ money that directly benefits the entrenched interests BUT have zero interest in actually letting NASA either build up actual capability or going anywhere. You have to change THAT factor for development to go anywhere.
(Now having said that IF I ever get around to taking-on/expanding one of those “Trump Saves Space!” timelines we’ve had on here my POD will be Zubrin and Trump running into each other at a March Storm event)
Riain: The problem is without Versailles the German government has very little reasons to support rocket work just like the US and others didn’t OTL. The restrictions on artillery in Versailles was what lead to enhance government support for missile development in Germany so without that restriction there is very little chance German development will be significant. Goddard and other US rocket pioneers were constantly starved for funding and support just like everyone else. The US Rocket Society was in fact bigger and better (self) funded than the Germans were before the government began supporting them and the Soviet rocket development had at least a bit more support and funding till Stalin purged it. It did not help that Goddard, like the Wrights before him, was a lot less cooperative and tended towards active hostility towards other researchers. Granted he had experience and was probably not far from wrong in how the ‘cooperation’ would have worked but he WAS invited to share in the GALCIT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guggenheim_Aeronautical_Laboratory) effort but he didn’t trust the director, (Theodore Von Karman) nor was he all that interested in their (at the time) focus on solid propellant work.
Quite right really, it’s how you get a sustainable and robust exploration program. It is also pretty much exactly the opposite of how anyone “does” space even though it would make more sense.
Overninethousand wrote:
Neither Bush took into consideration what “Congress” wanted so they were doomed from the start. It did not help that neither was willing to actually politically support their proposals either. I originally liked the concept behind “Mars Direct” but it rapidly became apparent that despite what Zubrin and supporters said “Mars Direct” would literally be “Apollo-on-steroids” with some added doo-dads (ISRU) that would only barely make it affordable rather than sustainable. Of course Zubrin came right out and SAID he was all for repeating Apollo, (and somehow expecting a different outcome) right in the original proposal but I’d missed that initially. Want a “less abrasive” Zubrin? I give you Elon Musk who’s “plan” is literally as close to Mars Direct as he can get it AND with reusable space ships! Unfortunately his planning still lacks infrastructure so is highly vulnerable to disruption.
Geography Dude:
Actually WWI was tragically avoidable had the will been there to do so. I recommend (
) Extra Credits, “World War I: The Seminal Tragedy “ to see how achingly close so many came to NOT plunging Europe into total war. And you missed the biggest and hardest to solve issue. It’s not population, economy or even technology really it all boils down to justification and will which has always been the main points lacking in OTL. The actual ‘utility’ of Space is minimal though it has some very niche applications once certain technological milestones are reached. But those can (and are) serviced best by automation not people and since most folks who talk “Space Exploration” mean sending people which is a huge problem since they are expensive to transport and maintain. And like high speed aviation, space launch is expensive to develop and operate so as long as the up-front cost is high, demand will remain pretty low.
Arguably what we needed was a continued incremental development of “aircraft” into faster and higher versions that eventually lead to near-orbital and then orbital vehicles by virtue of tapping into the Terrestrial shipping and passenger transport system. Maybe not as ‘easy’ as developing missiles but probably a more sustainable.
Scott Washburn wrote:
Actually the budget and effort required was estimated to be about double of Apollo at least so again you have to find a justification and will to do so. Apollo itself was never meant to be maintained which is why the budget began to shrink in 1965 and once the first landing and return was accomplished support vanished. I’m of the mind that we’d have been far better off if Apollo as we know it had not happened. Granting that NASA’s original plan would have had the first trip around the Moon in the mid-70s with a landing ‘sometime’ after that, the pace and planning was low-risk, (and if you think NASA et-al are “risk averse” today you need to read the histories) and incremental in building up both capacity and capability over time. Under the original plan, (again assuming you can keep a steady budget and support from Congress) by the time we were ready to go to the Moon we’d have had a number of orbital stations and platforms with extensive experience in orbital assembly, propellant transfer, along with experience living and working in space. We would also have a robust, sustainable and likely ‘cheap’ surface to orbit transport system in place for both cargo and personnel. Instead we spent tons of money on effort on a single “goal” with a short time line of which the majority was unaffordable over long periods and difficult (and expensive) at best to try and re-work for other missions. We continue to do this to this day both in planning and execution making each new “Program” the end all, be all of NASA’s goals and focus. As it’s said, repeating the same thing with the same result over and over and expecting the outcome to change is more than a bit daft but since that’s the only way NASA can function post-Apollo…
Mark E. wrote:
Your funding and support were going down, not up by 1970 having started down around 1965. With no new Saturn-V’s in the pipeline since the production lines were shut down around 1966, (and mothballed in 1967/68) you have to significantly increase the budget, (both to re-open the production and to begin new production) plus keep the budget at around 1965 levels to sustain that production. And that’s before the budget and support needed for all the other development and production items to put together a viable Mars mission. The Soviets were never comfortable with the Apollo-Soyuz mission because it highlighted their programs flaws and issues which is why they never agreed to any further missions.
Cryhavoc101 wrote:
I’d doubt that in actual context because the cost of developing the transportation system and getting the base set up and running would be a lot higher than the cost to run it per year. Even using “Mars Direct” and its rather optimistic assumptions and a ‘bare’ base that’s still quite the chunk of change AND no one keeps in mind the overall “cost” of the war tends to include all the support and “normal” activates costs that are inherent with operating the military on a daily basis.
StealthyMarat wrote:
Doesn’t address the actual issues as both sides were ‘done’ with more advanced (manned) space projects by the beginning of the 70s. Now had the Soviet’s been willing to keep their hand in, (they could have generated a Mars or Venus flyby in the early 70s at great risk) there might have been a bit more to the “Space Race” but both sides had pretty much decided to keep human activity limited to Cis-Lunar space and mostly that in Earth orbit. While there was arguably ‘some’ movement during the R&D for “Star Wars” it was never going to amount to much for general use and arguably most of it got sucked up by the SSTO crowd which was exactly the wrong ‘launcher’ for cheap access anyway.
Analytical Engine wrote:
As an “Orion” fan I can’t really argue for further development, (hey can we have our name back now?) but really it wasn’t all that useful in a general sense. While it could get a literal ton of payload to orbit once, (you only ground launch it once without some MAJOR infrastructure) it would require a support structure of inexpensive and robust surface to orbit transport for any long term utility.
And here’s where it gets dark…
You also have to turn the making of atomic weapons, (sure the “pulse units” are not GOOD weapons but they are never the less still nuclear weapons with all that implies) into a production line system. Churning out thousands a year and really is any other nation going to ‘trust’ you they are all for use in the Orion? Even so the Orion itself was also designed as a “battleship” with all that implies for space command and control and the offensive/defensive equation. A single “accidental” discharge of a pulse unit would wipe out half the LEO and GEO satellites in the blink of an eye. And the lovely “Casaba Howitzer” Directed Energy Weapon was developed directly from the standard Orion pulse units. Had we gone ahead with the development of Project Orion at the very least no ban on weapons testing or limitations would have been possible at worst the USSR would have been forced to ‘respond’ in kind and there was a very good reason placing nuclear weapons in orbit was banned in the OST. At best we might agree to keep all our and the Soviet’s “Orion’s” out beyond the Moon, (arguably possible since lighting a pulse unit any closer to Earth does to much damage) but even with their actual utility the ‘side-effects’ are immense and rather scary.
The development of the Z-Pinch Mag-Orion is very much a step back towards offering a solution to the many ‘other’ issues of Orion and frankly I personally believe that we really NEED Orion in our toolkit because it is the only possible ‘near-term’ defense we have against threats from outer space. (See “GABRIAL” Asteroid Defense and “Pulsed Plasma Propulsion”) But it is still far from solving all the problems that would allow us to utilize Orion fully.
My take and then next post will be a bit long:
Simplest is Sheppard flies on time and becomes the First Man in Space instead of Gagarin who becomes the First Man in Orbit. With less pressure to show a clear ‘win’ Kennedy does increase NASA funding and Mercury is extended with a Mercury MkII program while Apollo is accelerated. By the late 60s both the US and USSR have orbital stations of various types and begin to make moves towards circumlunar flights. My preference is for the Soviets to get the first ‘flyby’ while the US follows up with a lunar orbital flight and return. AS we get in the early 70s work is done to arrange a joint US/Soviet Lunar landing in the early 80s. Find a way to keep Reagan out of office and the chances are better this comes off but even so it probably built up enough momentum to allow at least a single flight before both sides retreat back to Earth orbit. Maybe a couple.
Meanwhile the tech transfer from the mission allows the Russians to pull off a Venus flyby in the late 80s so the US responds with a Mars flyby soon after. After the USSR collapses and stabilizes, helped along by money from a Mir/Freedom hybrid station continued access to orbit allows at first a smattering and then a larger number of tourists and on-orbit free flying laboratories for industrial and medical experimentation. (This is another thing we haven’t really done and at the time was something the private sector was very much willing to pay for as there where a lot of possible products to be made. We’ve mostly blown that opportunity OTL) As these begin making money more resources and finances are available to update and improve the surface to orbit transportation system and as price drop more opportunities become available. By the turn of the 21st Century international space agencies are talking and working on a joint Mars mission as private companies and even individuals are beginning to visit and work on the Moon for longer and longer periods of time. By mid-2018 a Flyby/Landing reconnaissance mission departs the Lunar Gateway station and with an Oberth flyby of Earth heads off to Mars (probably some passes by Venus while we're at it) to plant the first human flags and footprints on a new world. Ad Astra Infinitum!
Randy
Interesting concept… Hmmm, a timeline full of FLEM I wonder?
https://www.wired.com/2014/01/to-mars-by-flyby-landing-excursion-mode-flem-1966/
https://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/2010_04_04_archive.html
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26594.0
But first to review some of the other ideas:
Michel Van: Dick Cheney wasn’t the ‘problem’ though, that would be the fact that Congress has specifically and directly had a policy of “NASA is not going to Mars or anywhere beyond LEO if we have anything to say about it” since the mid-60s and there’s nothing to indicate that his not being around would make things any different. Zubrin and others HAVE pitched variations of “Mars Direct” to Congress, (Griffin while he was Administrator was MD’s biggest advocate and supporter and what the Aries V was all about) and have gotten zero (0) support for the idea. BECAUSE actually, it was in fact one of the more ‘faster/cheaper’ means of getting to Mars without building up any ability to sustain the effort or expand it.
Like most Space Advocates Zubrin has mostly bought into the “Presidential Powers” fallacy and though later joined up with the ongoing “March Storm” Congressional “briefings” (http://allianceforspacedevelopment.org/2019-march-storm/) which have had little effect beyond an uptick in hotel and services profits in Washington during what is nominally an ‘off’ season, he still firmly believes that a Presidential “Kennedy” moment is all that is needed to kick things off. Congress makes a bit of ‘show’ of these ‘storms’, says some quick sound-bites, vague pronouncements, etc, and then promptly spends no money on actually doing anything. They ‘spend’ money that directly benefits the entrenched interests BUT have zero interest in actually letting NASA either build up actual capability or going anywhere. You have to change THAT factor for development to go anywhere.
(Now having said that IF I ever get around to taking-on/expanding one of those “Trump Saves Space!” timelines we’ve had on here my POD will be Zubrin and Trump running into each other at a March Storm event)
Riain: The problem is without Versailles the German government has very little reasons to support rocket work just like the US and others didn’t OTL. The restrictions on artillery in Versailles was what lead to enhance government support for missile development in Germany so without that restriction there is very little chance German development will be significant. Goddard and other US rocket pioneers were constantly starved for funding and support just like everyone else. The US Rocket Society was in fact bigger and better (self) funded than the Germans were before the government began supporting them and the Soviet rocket development had at least a bit more support and funding till Stalin purged it. It did not help that Goddard, like the Wrights before him, was a lot less cooperative and tended towards active hostility towards other researchers. Granted he had experience and was probably not far from wrong in how the ‘cooperation’ would have worked but he WAS invited to share in the GALCIT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guggenheim_Aeronautical_Laboratory) effort but he didn’t trust the director, (Theodore Von Karman) nor was he all that interested in their (at the time) focus on solid propellant work.
Quite right really, it’s how you get a sustainable and robust exploration program. It is also pretty much exactly the opposite of how anyone “does” space even though it would make more sense.
Overninethousand wrote:
Neither Bush took into consideration what “Congress” wanted so they were doomed from the start. It did not help that neither was willing to actually politically support their proposals either. I originally liked the concept behind “Mars Direct” but it rapidly became apparent that despite what Zubrin and supporters said “Mars Direct” would literally be “Apollo-on-steroids” with some added doo-dads (ISRU) that would only barely make it affordable rather than sustainable. Of course Zubrin came right out and SAID he was all for repeating Apollo, (and somehow expecting a different outcome) right in the original proposal but I’d missed that initially. Want a “less abrasive” Zubrin? I give you Elon Musk who’s “plan” is literally as close to Mars Direct as he can get it AND with reusable space ships! Unfortunately his planning still lacks infrastructure so is highly vulnerable to disruption.
Geography Dude:
Actually WWI was tragically avoidable had the will been there to do so. I recommend (
Arguably what we needed was a continued incremental development of “aircraft” into faster and higher versions that eventually lead to near-orbital and then orbital vehicles by virtue of tapping into the Terrestrial shipping and passenger transport system. Maybe not as ‘easy’ as developing missiles but probably a more sustainable.
Scott Washburn wrote:
Actually the budget and effort required was estimated to be about double of Apollo at least so again you have to find a justification and will to do so. Apollo itself was never meant to be maintained which is why the budget began to shrink in 1965 and once the first landing and return was accomplished support vanished. I’m of the mind that we’d have been far better off if Apollo as we know it had not happened. Granting that NASA’s original plan would have had the first trip around the Moon in the mid-70s with a landing ‘sometime’ after that, the pace and planning was low-risk, (and if you think NASA et-al are “risk averse” today you need to read the histories) and incremental in building up both capacity and capability over time. Under the original plan, (again assuming you can keep a steady budget and support from Congress) by the time we were ready to go to the Moon we’d have had a number of orbital stations and platforms with extensive experience in orbital assembly, propellant transfer, along with experience living and working in space. We would also have a robust, sustainable and likely ‘cheap’ surface to orbit transport system in place for both cargo and personnel. Instead we spent tons of money on effort on a single “goal” with a short time line of which the majority was unaffordable over long periods and difficult (and expensive) at best to try and re-work for other missions. We continue to do this to this day both in planning and execution making each new “Program” the end all, be all of NASA’s goals and focus. As it’s said, repeating the same thing with the same result over and over and expecting the outcome to change is more than a bit daft but since that’s the only way NASA can function post-Apollo…
Mark E. wrote:
Your funding and support were going down, not up by 1970 having started down around 1965. With no new Saturn-V’s in the pipeline since the production lines were shut down around 1966, (and mothballed in 1967/68) you have to significantly increase the budget, (both to re-open the production and to begin new production) plus keep the budget at around 1965 levels to sustain that production. And that’s before the budget and support needed for all the other development and production items to put together a viable Mars mission. The Soviets were never comfortable with the Apollo-Soyuz mission because it highlighted their programs flaws and issues which is why they never agreed to any further missions.
Cryhavoc101 wrote:
I’d doubt that in actual context because the cost of developing the transportation system and getting the base set up and running would be a lot higher than the cost to run it per year. Even using “Mars Direct” and its rather optimistic assumptions and a ‘bare’ base that’s still quite the chunk of change AND no one keeps in mind the overall “cost” of the war tends to include all the support and “normal” activates costs that are inherent with operating the military on a daily basis.
StealthyMarat wrote:
Doesn’t address the actual issues as both sides were ‘done’ with more advanced (manned) space projects by the beginning of the 70s. Now had the Soviet’s been willing to keep their hand in, (they could have generated a Mars or Venus flyby in the early 70s at great risk) there might have been a bit more to the “Space Race” but both sides had pretty much decided to keep human activity limited to Cis-Lunar space and mostly that in Earth orbit. While there was arguably ‘some’ movement during the R&D for “Star Wars” it was never going to amount to much for general use and arguably most of it got sucked up by the SSTO crowd which was exactly the wrong ‘launcher’ for cheap access anyway.
Analytical Engine wrote:
As an “Orion” fan I can’t really argue for further development, (hey can we have our name back now?) but really it wasn’t all that useful in a general sense. While it could get a literal ton of payload to orbit once, (you only ground launch it once without some MAJOR infrastructure) it would require a support structure of inexpensive and robust surface to orbit transport for any long term utility.
And here’s where it gets dark…
You also have to turn the making of atomic weapons, (sure the “pulse units” are not GOOD weapons but they are never the less still nuclear weapons with all that implies) into a production line system. Churning out thousands a year and really is any other nation going to ‘trust’ you they are all for use in the Orion? Even so the Orion itself was also designed as a “battleship” with all that implies for space command and control and the offensive/defensive equation. A single “accidental” discharge of a pulse unit would wipe out half the LEO and GEO satellites in the blink of an eye. And the lovely “Casaba Howitzer” Directed Energy Weapon was developed directly from the standard Orion pulse units. Had we gone ahead with the development of Project Orion at the very least no ban on weapons testing or limitations would have been possible at worst the USSR would have been forced to ‘respond’ in kind and there was a very good reason placing nuclear weapons in orbit was banned in the OST. At best we might agree to keep all our and the Soviet’s “Orion’s” out beyond the Moon, (arguably possible since lighting a pulse unit any closer to Earth does to much damage) but even with their actual utility the ‘side-effects’ are immense and rather scary.
The development of the Z-Pinch Mag-Orion is very much a step back towards offering a solution to the many ‘other’ issues of Orion and frankly I personally believe that we really NEED Orion in our toolkit because it is the only possible ‘near-term’ defense we have against threats from outer space. (See “GABRIAL” Asteroid Defense and “Pulsed Plasma Propulsion”) But it is still far from solving all the problems that would allow us to utilize Orion fully.
My take and then next post will be a bit long:
Simplest is Sheppard flies on time and becomes the First Man in Space instead of Gagarin who becomes the First Man in Orbit. With less pressure to show a clear ‘win’ Kennedy does increase NASA funding and Mercury is extended with a Mercury MkII program while Apollo is accelerated. By the late 60s both the US and USSR have orbital stations of various types and begin to make moves towards circumlunar flights. My preference is for the Soviets to get the first ‘flyby’ while the US follows up with a lunar orbital flight and return. AS we get in the early 70s work is done to arrange a joint US/Soviet Lunar landing in the early 80s. Find a way to keep Reagan out of office and the chances are better this comes off but even so it probably built up enough momentum to allow at least a single flight before both sides retreat back to Earth orbit. Maybe a couple.
Meanwhile the tech transfer from the mission allows the Russians to pull off a Venus flyby in the late 80s so the US responds with a Mars flyby soon after. After the USSR collapses and stabilizes, helped along by money from a Mir/Freedom hybrid station continued access to orbit allows at first a smattering and then a larger number of tourists and on-orbit free flying laboratories for industrial and medical experimentation. (This is another thing we haven’t really done and at the time was something the private sector was very much willing to pay for as there where a lot of possible products to be made. We’ve mostly blown that opportunity OTL) As these begin making money more resources and finances are available to update and improve the surface to orbit transportation system and as price drop more opportunities become available. By the turn of the 21st Century international space agencies are talking and working on a joint Mars mission as private companies and even individuals are beginning to visit and work on the Moon for longer and longer periods of time. By mid-2018 a Flyby/Landing reconnaissance mission departs the Lunar Gateway station and with an Oberth flyby of Earth heads off to Mars (probably some passes by Venus while we're at it) to plant the first human flags and footprints on a new world. Ad Astra Infinitum!
Randy
Rian wrote:
As noted the answer is very much “it depends” because it in fact does greatly depend on what the situation is. For example, as noted, originally “Apollo” was simply the next ‘follow-on’ program to the limited, single astronaut Mercury. It was to be a three-astronaut, (under the assumption that astronauts would “stand-watch” and 24 hours breaks up into three ‘shifts’ pretty easy) orbital vehicle with possible use in later models for around the Moon flight. This was planned because the US had NASA on a limited budget with few resources dedicated to anything bigger or more elaborate. It was rather ‘lucky’ at the time that the US had been slowly developing the Saturn (what we know as the Saturn-1/1B today) launch vehicle since it was the only ‘heavy’ lift launch vehicle the US would have any time in the near future. So Apollo was planned around the Saturn as was several orbital projects such as orbital laboratories and platforms leading to an eventual Space Station launched and supported by the Saturn and later variants.
At this pace and a relatively ‘low’ cost over time, (between 10 and 20 years) the US could first build up an orbital experience and infrastructure that by the mid-to-late 1970s might allow us to fly a crew around the Moon and maybe land them in the early 80s. (This is AFTER Sputnik but before Gagarin mind you. Not really as ‘bad’ as it sounds as we now know the Russians were actually moving about the same pace, but at the time we did NOT know that…) Any increase in budget or support of course could shorten the time frame or allow more optimized designs but that didn’t look likely to happen.
Then Gagarin flew, and the Bay of Pigs and frankly Kennedy needed a guaranteed “win” so he proposed the Lunar goal and a timeline of less than 10 years and the rest is OTL history…
Instead of slow and easy we rushed to put “a” man on the Moon and return him to the Earth before the deadline and in doing so totally restructured NASA and how it operated and was organized, built ‘optimized’ launch vehicles and systems that didn’t have a great deal of utility outside of that one specific mission and all at a cost we could not sustain. We conclusively “proved” that the US could do wonders if it had the will to do so and that as well once that ‘purpose’ faded we could as quickly abandon the effort. But in doing so we lost the ability or will to find the will to do anything LESS than Apollo even when that path is likely the more effective.
Space infrastructure IS expensive and time consuming to set up but it also spreads the cost over a greater time period and allows tweaks and optimizations along the way to reduce the overall cost. Meanwhile direct ascent is vastly MORE expensive in a shorter period of time and once built and in use resists change or innovation because the mission plan is restrictive and therefore the planning and vehicles built to that plan have little utility outside that plan and mission. Infrastructure allows incremental expansion and inclusion since it doesn’t matter if your payload comes up in ‘chunks’ or in one large shipment. Direct ascent on the other hand works vastly better the bigger ‘chunks’ you can launch so there is little incentive or requirement for incremental launch capacity and a LOT of incentive to put the most payload up in a single launch vehicle as possible.
Hence infrastructure supports and expands the capability of light and medium launch vehicles whereas direct ascent demands heavy and super-heavy launch vehicles. And there’s a HUGE penalty to be paid if a heavy or super-heavy launch vehicle does not fly VERY mission fully loaded. That in fact is the reason the “Shuttle” was aimed at hauling ALL US payloads to space by the late 80s. This would have been all right if it had been able to fly as often or had there been more of them available but this was never the case. And as an HLV it HAD to fly as full as possible EVERY flight to even have a shot at being economical. But it wasn’t to start with and it never reached the flight rates required either. Yet the planned fact it WAS going to be the only way to get to orbit drove satellite design and mass for several years. So that when it stopped being available for launch we had to scramble to put into service “equivalent” mass launchers.
Arguably the Falcon-9 is a good start on a partially reusable medium to low-heavy, (heavy with the heavy but the economics are iffy) payload to orbit vehicle that with some improvement and work could significantly reduce the cost to access space. But we already know that’s not what is going to happen since SpaceX is “moving on” to the bigger and better heavy/super-heavy BFT/Starship. Which will have limited utility for Earth orbital or Cis-Lunar space but is optimized and aimed at Mars. Mars Direct in all but name really. (And yes it refuels with ‘tankers’ but that’s the point since it “requires” multiple flights per mission by the BFR booster and dedicated tanker vehicles while ignoring how much better a ‘propellant depot’ could be. Why? Because in order to have a shot at an economical flight rate for the BFR they can’t fly anything less than a tanker/starship so building and filling a propellant depot is not viable. This is part of the heavy/super-heavy conundrum)
If Blue Origin can avoid the “growth” issue, (questionable since they ARE talking the New Armstrong heavy LV after all) they can pretty easily beat BFR/Starship for the Cis-Lunar markets since they are planning full reusability from the get go. But as we’ll see that’s not made a lot of people happy.
Oh if only that were our ONLY divisive “issues” splitting us up We’ve been pretty split since Apollo and frankly the L5/SSI split was what showed how deep the division(s) run in the movement.
At the very core is the question of how you access space since that then determines where you go from there and how. The two sides are medium/heavy payload versus heavy/super-heavy payload and that pretty much drives everything else. Infrastructure and incremental can and will use medium/heavy lift and can even use heavy/super-heavy but only rarely. Meanwhile direct ascent demands heavy/super-heavy and has no use or need of medium/heavy lift and since that requires it have as close to a full payload every flight it actively discourages competition.
How and how much payload you lift to LEO directly effects further planning and the whole basis for future operations.
Direct ascent appears to be the more ‘cost effective’ (there’s a good reason both Zubrin and Musk are pushing variations of Mars Direct) since you only have to build a “few” heavy/super-heavy launch vehicles and put a “few” payloads on Mars before you have the minimum needed mass to begin and that also takes less time. But it is very much dependent on finding and sustaining the ability to KEEP flying those large vehicles even if they are less ‘cost-effective’ over time. There is a very good reason everyone BUT Musk keeps comparing BFR/Starship to the SLS since quite obviously the most effective way to ‘pay’ for them is by having the government do so. Given that SLS is in fact an entrenched and very obvious ‘government’ project it would take a fundamental shift in the political landscape to switch the two though it could happen. Otherwise Musk has to find “uses” for both the BFR and Starship, so again we hear stuff like “point-to-point” suborbital travel, (as long as you’re willing to possibly go hundreds of miles out of your ‘way’ to save a few hours’ time) huge LEO satellite constellations or some such and the assumption that BFR/Starship will corner the market for launch services. Stop me if this sounds familiar…
Meanwhile infrastructure argues once you have even only medium/heavy lift available on a regular basis you don’t launch huge payloads but smaller more numerous ones more often. You don’t direct the market but let the market adjust to you and so forth. It takes longer, (which Apollo ruined with going to the Moon from scratch in less than 10 years) and overall costs more but you also get vastly more utility out of it. You are after all “half way to anywhere” once you’re on orbit. (Unless you’re waiting on propellant to be trucked up one tanker at a time) Go to Mars? No problem let’s put together a ship to do it and hey we can use that same ship to go to Venus, or further out as long as we don’t throw everything away every trip. And since it’s not limited to what we can put up in a single flight we can make it bigger and more capable easily. One of the things that angered me over the main ‘response’ to the “90 Day Plan” was the fact that no one noted or cared the “cost” was spread over almost 30 years at which point we not only got to Mars but had orbital assembly and manufacturing system in place and a functional Lunar base and several outposts. There was a good REASON it cost so much and took so long and it was the exact opposite of Apollo so that it could be continued at very little cost.
We dabble in space we’re not really ‘exploring’ it, nor are we exploiting it which is frankly a way to make it MORE able to generate interest and sustainability to an actual effort but not something that is likely in the short run. Everything starts with cheap, regular access to LEO and moves on from there. The ONLY reason you "require" heavy/super-heavy lift is if you are either running a government program or trying to get things done under a time constraint without regard to actual long term sustainability. It can be quite handy AFTER you have an burgeoning off-Earth infrastructure and economy but having it now is like insisting we need a Super Tanker to send the Pilgrims to America or we can't do it 'right'.
Randy
As noted the answer is very much “it depends” because it in fact does greatly depend on what the situation is. For example, as noted, originally “Apollo” was simply the next ‘follow-on’ program to the limited, single astronaut Mercury. It was to be a three-astronaut, (under the assumption that astronauts would “stand-watch” and 24 hours breaks up into three ‘shifts’ pretty easy) orbital vehicle with possible use in later models for around the Moon flight. This was planned because the US had NASA on a limited budget with few resources dedicated to anything bigger or more elaborate. It was rather ‘lucky’ at the time that the US had been slowly developing the Saturn (what we know as the Saturn-1/1B today) launch vehicle since it was the only ‘heavy’ lift launch vehicle the US would have any time in the near future. So Apollo was planned around the Saturn as was several orbital projects such as orbital laboratories and platforms leading to an eventual Space Station launched and supported by the Saturn and later variants.
At this pace and a relatively ‘low’ cost over time, (between 10 and 20 years) the US could first build up an orbital experience and infrastructure that by the mid-to-late 1970s might allow us to fly a crew around the Moon and maybe land them in the early 80s. (This is AFTER Sputnik but before Gagarin mind you. Not really as ‘bad’ as it sounds as we now know the Russians were actually moving about the same pace, but at the time we did NOT know that…) Any increase in budget or support of course could shorten the time frame or allow more optimized designs but that didn’t look likely to happen.
Then Gagarin flew, and the Bay of Pigs and frankly Kennedy needed a guaranteed “win” so he proposed the Lunar goal and a timeline of less than 10 years and the rest is OTL history…
Instead of slow and easy we rushed to put “a” man on the Moon and return him to the Earth before the deadline and in doing so totally restructured NASA and how it operated and was organized, built ‘optimized’ launch vehicles and systems that didn’t have a great deal of utility outside of that one specific mission and all at a cost we could not sustain. We conclusively “proved” that the US could do wonders if it had the will to do so and that as well once that ‘purpose’ faded we could as quickly abandon the effort. But in doing so we lost the ability or will to find the will to do anything LESS than Apollo even when that path is likely the more effective.
Space infrastructure IS expensive and time consuming to set up but it also spreads the cost over a greater time period and allows tweaks and optimizations along the way to reduce the overall cost. Meanwhile direct ascent is vastly MORE expensive in a shorter period of time and once built and in use resists change or innovation because the mission plan is restrictive and therefore the planning and vehicles built to that plan have little utility outside that plan and mission. Infrastructure allows incremental expansion and inclusion since it doesn’t matter if your payload comes up in ‘chunks’ or in one large shipment. Direct ascent on the other hand works vastly better the bigger ‘chunks’ you can launch so there is little incentive or requirement for incremental launch capacity and a LOT of incentive to put the most payload up in a single launch vehicle as possible.
Hence infrastructure supports and expands the capability of light and medium launch vehicles whereas direct ascent demands heavy and super-heavy launch vehicles. And there’s a HUGE penalty to be paid if a heavy or super-heavy launch vehicle does not fly VERY mission fully loaded. That in fact is the reason the “Shuttle” was aimed at hauling ALL US payloads to space by the late 80s. This would have been all right if it had been able to fly as often or had there been more of them available but this was never the case. And as an HLV it HAD to fly as full as possible EVERY flight to even have a shot at being economical. But it wasn’t to start with and it never reached the flight rates required either. Yet the planned fact it WAS going to be the only way to get to orbit drove satellite design and mass for several years. So that when it stopped being available for launch we had to scramble to put into service “equivalent” mass launchers.
Arguably the Falcon-9 is a good start on a partially reusable medium to low-heavy, (heavy with the heavy but the economics are iffy) payload to orbit vehicle that with some improvement and work could significantly reduce the cost to access space. But we already know that’s not what is going to happen since SpaceX is “moving on” to the bigger and better heavy/super-heavy BFT/Starship. Which will have limited utility for Earth orbital or Cis-Lunar space but is optimized and aimed at Mars. Mars Direct in all but name really. (And yes it refuels with ‘tankers’ but that’s the point since it “requires” multiple flights per mission by the BFR booster and dedicated tanker vehicles while ignoring how much better a ‘propellant depot’ could be. Why? Because in order to have a shot at an economical flight rate for the BFR they can’t fly anything less than a tanker/starship so building and filling a propellant depot is not viable. This is part of the heavy/super-heavy conundrum)
If Blue Origin can avoid the “growth” issue, (questionable since they ARE talking the New Armstrong heavy LV after all) they can pretty easily beat BFR/Starship for the Cis-Lunar markets since they are planning full reusability from the get go. But as we’ll see that’s not made a lot of people happy.
Oh if only that were our ONLY divisive “issues” splitting us up
We’ve been pretty split since Apollo and frankly the L5/SSI split was what showed how deep the division(s) run in the movement.At the very core is the question of how you access space since that then determines where you go from there and how. The two sides are medium/heavy payload versus heavy/super-heavy payload and that pretty much drives everything else. Infrastructure and incremental can and will use medium/heavy lift and can even use heavy/super-heavy but only rarely. Meanwhile direct ascent demands heavy/super-heavy and has no use or need of medium/heavy lift and since that requires it have as close to a full payload every flight it actively discourages competition.
How and how much payload you lift to LEO directly effects further planning and the whole basis for future operations.
Direct ascent appears to be the more ‘cost effective’ (there’s a good reason both Zubrin and Musk are pushing variations of Mars Direct) since you only have to build a “few” heavy/super-heavy launch vehicles and put a “few” payloads on Mars before you have the minimum needed mass to begin and that also takes less time. But it is very much dependent on finding and sustaining the ability to KEEP flying those large vehicles even if they are less ‘cost-effective’ over time. There is a very good reason everyone BUT Musk keeps comparing BFR/Starship to the SLS since quite obviously the most effective way to ‘pay’ for them is by having the government do so. Given that SLS is in fact an entrenched and very obvious ‘government’ project it would take a fundamental shift in the political landscape to switch the two though it could happen. Otherwise Musk has to find “uses” for both the BFR and Starship, so again we hear stuff like “point-to-point” suborbital travel, (as long as you’re willing to possibly go hundreds of miles out of your ‘way’ to save a few hours’ time) huge LEO satellite constellations or some such and the assumption that BFR/Starship will corner the market for launch services. Stop me if this sounds familiar…
Meanwhile infrastructure argues once you have even only medium/heavy lift available on a regular basis you don’t launch huge payloads but smaller more numerous ones more often. You don’t direct the market but let the market adjust to you and so forth. It takes longer, (which Apollo ruined with going to the Moon from scratch in less than 10 years) and overall costs more but you also get vastly more utility out of it. You are after all “half way to anywhere” once you’re on orbit. (Unless you’re waiting on propellant to be trucked up one tanker at a time) Go to Mars? No problem let’s put together a ship to do it and hey we can use that same ship to go to Venus, or further out as long as we don’t throw everything away every trip. And since it’s not limited to what we can put up in a single flight we can make it bigger and more capable easily. One of the things that angered me over the main ‘response’ to the “90 Day Plan” was the fact that no one noted or cared the “cost” was spread over almost 30 years at which point we not only got to Mars but had orbital assembly and manufacturing system in place and a functional Lunar base and several outposts. There was a good REASON it cost so much and took so long and it was the exact opposite of Apollo so that it could be continued at very little cost.
We dabble in space we’re not really ‘exploring’ it, nor are we exploiting it which is frankly a way to make it MORE able to generate interest and sustainability to an actual effort but not something that is likely in the short run. Everything starts with cheap, regular access to LEO and moves on from there. The ONLY reason you "require" heavy/super-heavy lift is if you are either running a government program or trying to get things done under a time constraint without regard to actual long term sustainability. It can be quite handy AFTER you have an burgeoning off-Earth infrastructure and economy but having it now is like insisting we need a Super Tanker to send the Pilgrims to America or we can't do it 'right'.
Randy
Nitpick time!
12 men landed on the moon, but 27 men have been outside of LEO and thus have been outside the Earth’s magnetic field - the three-man crews from Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17.To what degree do basic political budgetary limits come into it?. I'm assuming a POD sometime about the Gemini 6/7 missions and through Apollo 7 and forward program with a Mars Manned Mission as a long-term objective. From a NASA budget perspective, a Mars Manned Mission project is going to kill pretty much everything else, including the Shuttle Program and a large number if not all of the unmanned missions. I'm just throwing this out there to see what cascade effects the loss of those subsequent missions might have on the space program long term. My technical expertise is limited to that of a young boy in the Sixties going "That is soooo cool!" while watching the Gemini and Apollo missions launch and unfold, so I'm not going there.
