Apollo without the Moon

[Shortline614]

When Project Apollo was first considered by NASA in 1960, it was going to be the follow-up to Project Mercury. The program was a lot less grandiose than what we eventually got. Apollo would start with missions similar to those flown during Gemini such as long-duration spaceflight, spacewalks, rendezvous, and docking. These missions would be followed by those to Space Stations and a circumlunar flight sometime around 1970. Actual lunar surface missions would follow in the late 1970s.

After the Soviets launched the first man into space in 1961, President Kenndy changed Apollo's objective to landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth before the end of the decade. NASA's original Apollo plans went out the window as the Moon became Apollo's sole focus. In order to save time some of the missions planned for Apollo were switched to Gemini while the Space Station plans were put on hold until Skylab.

So what would Apollo be like without the rush to the Moon? The Apollo spacecraft itself would look a lot more like Soyuz as one of the original requirements for the Apollo CSM was a "research module." The Saturn V would not be needed as the lunar goal would most likely be accomplished via the Earth Orbit Rendezvous mode using smaller Saturn rockets. (Remember one of the main reasons Lunar Orbit Rendezvous was seleced was that the CSM and LM could be developed in parallel speeding up total development time.) I put the rest to you.

 

[Godot]

I'd be curious to see how this would butterfly the Soviet program, honestly. Part of the problem with the Soviet Moon program was the rush, and iirc they called it off after a couple of technical failures. Without competitive pressure, and with a bit more time taken, there could be a Red flag up there?

 

[Coivara]

I remember some talk at Rocketpunk Manifesto and such places, that everyone thought a Lunar mission would come in the 70s-90s. They thought instead there would be things like orbital bases first, and then the Moon, upon which a moonbase would be built or something lkike that.

There's an argument that the Moonshot was essentially American Vinland, not Colombo. Something done at the far possible end of the technology of the time, and therefore could't be followed by a consistent effort.

 

[RanulfC]

When Project Apollo was first considered by NASA in 1960, it was going to be the follow-up to Project Mercury. The program was a lot less grandiose than what we eventually got. Apollo would start with missions similar to those flown during Gemini such as long-duration spaceflight, spacewalks, rendezvous, and docking. These missions would be followed by those to Space Stations and a circumlunar flight sometime around 1970. Actual lunar surface missions would follow in the late 1970s.

Correct, Apollo "Mk1" would be orbital while the "MkII" would have some ability to say circumnavigate the Moon. The idea of going to the Moon by the 70s was heavily dependent on funding which at the time (1958 to 1961) was rather limited.

After the Soviets launched the first man into space in 1961, President Kennedy changed Apollo's objective to landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth before the end of the decade. NASA's original Apollo plans went out the window as the Moon became Apollo's sole focus. In order to save time some of the missions planned for Apollo were switched to Gemini while the Space Station plans were put on hold until Skylab.

Actually "Gemini" didn't exist at that point with only some vague notions of a possible "Mercury MkII" being bandied about since, (as you note ) Mercury hadn't even flown at that point. (One of the main reasons the Soviets did not take Kennedy seriously was total American experience in "space" was about 15 minutes and he was talking about going to the Moon )

It was quickly realized that Apollo was still years away from being ready and in order to go to the Moon the US would have to have a LOT more experience at a variety of technology and techniques and Mercury was simply to limited a platform to do the needed work. So "Mercury MkII" became the Gemini spacecraft and program to fill in the gaps prior to Apollo and Apollo was refocused on the Moon. (Suddenly money was no longer that much of an issue )

So what would Apollo be like without the rush to the Moon? The Apollo spacecraft itself would look a lot more like Soyuz as one of the original requirements for the Apollo CSM was a "research module." The Saturn V would not be needed as the lunar goal would most likely be accomplished via the Earth Orbit Rendezvous mode using smaller Saturn rockets. (Remember one of the main reasons Lunar Orbit Rendezvous was selected was that the CSM and LM could be developed in parallel speeding up total development time.) I put the rest to you.

Actually Apollo could look nothing like OUR Apollo or even Soyuz as "technically" North American didn't "win" the competition The actual winner was Martin with their model 410 spacecraft. North American got the nod due to some 'insider' work having built exactly what the lead engineer at NASA wanted rather than what NASA had specified in their competition. You're correct that with available support and funding it's likely the Saturn V never gets built and the 'workhorse' is some form of the Saturn 1 LV. "Rendezvous" would have been the standard mission whether it be in Earth or Lunar orbit as it was a more openly utilitarian mission plan.

I'll speculate a bit more in a bit

RAndy

 

[Crowbar Six]

I'd be curious to see how this would butterfly the Soviet program, honestly. Part of the problem with the Soviet Moon program was the rush, and iirc they called it off after a couple of technical failures. Without competitive pressure, and with a bit more time taken, there could be a Red flag up there?

If you mean the N1 booster blowing up on the pad in one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history, then yes they certainly had a couple of snags.

 

[neopeius]

I'd be curious to see how this would butterfly the Soviet program, honestly. Part of the problem with the Soviet Moon program was the rush, and iirc they called it off after a couple of technical failures. Without competitive pressure, and with a bit more time taken, there could be a Red flag up there?

Without competitive pressure, I don't think the Soviets ever bother to go for the Moon.

 

[RanulfC]

I'd be curious to see how this would butterfly the Soviet program, honestly. Part of the problem with the Soviet Moon program was the rush, and iirc they called it off after a couple of technical failures. Without competitive pressure, and with a bit more time taken, there could be a Red flag up there?

If you mean the N1 booster blowing up on the pad in one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history, then yes they certainly had a couple of snags.

Without competitive pressure, I don't think the Soviets ever bother to go for the Moon.

Actually the 'competitive' pressure would still be there but just not as frantic as it was. By the time the Lunar goal was announced in 1961 the US was well on it's way to exceeding the USSR in lift capability, (the Saturn 1) and was planning Apollo which would be a significant leap from Mercury and Vostok (at least until Soyuz came on-line) as well as our growing successes with automated satellites and probes.

The Soviets had an early lead due to the size of their boosters but were slowing down due to the limitations on those boosters as well as from being a much less focused program than the one run by NASA. This was made very clear OTL when NASA carried out the Apollo program and did indeed managed to land a man on the Moon and return him safely to the Earth in less than a decade.

Without the 'panic' that lead to the Lunar goal decision it's likely that a more slow and steady program would have been undertaken by both sides. Like this would have been a pretty steady swapping of 'firsts' for the decade of the 60s with a general move towards more cooperative efforts moving into the early 70s. Given that the two sides would likely be developing orbital capability through the 60s I would not be surprised if a joint Lunar mission was proposed for the late 70s or early 80s.

Randy

 

[Garrison]

I remember some talk at Rocketpunk Manifesto and such places, that everyone thought a Lunar mission would come in the 70s-90s. They thought instead there would be things like orbital bases first, and then the Moon, upon which a moonbase would be built or something lkike that.

There's an argument that the Moonshot was essentially American Vinland, not Colombo. Something done at the far possible end of the technology of the time, and therefore could't be followed by a consistent effort.

I suspect that without the moon race in the 1960s a moon landing would be become the same as plans for a manned mission to Mars, always a decade away.

 

[RanulfC]

I suspect that without the moon race in the 1960s a moon landing would be become the same as plans for a manned mission to Mars, always a decade away.

At some point given any plausible orbital expansion the simple fact that the Moon is "right there" (especially compared to Mars for example) will mean that going will become more and more likely as time goes on. Given a decade of space station and orbital operations you will have all the necessary elements to go to the Moon, land and come back and you'll have everything in place to do it as often as you wish, pretty much whenever you wish.

One need only look at the available Soyuz/Salyut and Apollo/Skylab technology and imagine Lunar missions using that instead of the Apollo/LEM/Saturn V.

I remember some talk at Rocketpunk Manifesto and such places, that everyone thought a Lunar mission would come in the 70s-90s. They thought instead there would be things like orbital bases first, and then the Moon, upon which a moonbase would be built or something like that.

There's an argument that the Moonshot was essentially American Vinland, not Colombo. Something done at the far possible end of the technology of the time, and therefore couldn't be followed by a consistent effort.

The argument is essentially correct in that doing the Moon the way the US did was (by design keep in mind) the hardest and most expensive method, but it was the fastest which was the point. It was never meant to be sustainable and that was only 'attempted' to be tacked on late into the program.

Everyone KNEW how it was supposed to go, cheap and regular orbital access, a space station, Lunar reconnaissance and finally a landing using THAT technology but that would have taken to long and there was a goal to meet. Oh we could have stepped back far enough to use Apollo technology but the moment had passed and since we were going back to basics Apollo was scrapped in favor of starting all over again.

And we still don't and are not doing orbit (let alone the Moon) "right" though we've finally gotten around to some credible reusability. (Far from perfect and arguably still not very efficient given the artificial 'requirements' placed on the designs) We still need to build up orbital infrastructure and operations because that's always going to be the first and most important step, even though OTL's "Apollo" has ruined almost everyone's "perception" on what needs to be done and how

And to put this somewhat into context of the thread:
Instead of proposing the Moon President "Whomever" instead proposes an orbital space station project as the US priority. At this point the Soviets are still doing Vostok/Voshkod while the US has Mercury and Apollo in the wings. (The US didn't really know about Soyuz at this point) By early 1963 (assuming some priority work) the Saturn 1 is available to put larger payloads into orbit pretty regularly. So the US could have a "space station" in orbit by late 1963 (using a Gemini spacecraft initially and then Apollo later on) using the Saturn Adapter Section initially.
(You can bet that Korolev-et-al will immediately push for a Soviet Moon mission, doubt they will get it. Though that might push the idea of Soviet Lunar flyby to the fore)

The Soviets push forward the Almaz/Salyut and by the late 60s both sides have space stations up on a regular basis.

Now as background what we know as the "Apollo-Soyuz Test Project" was a joint mission proposed in the mid-60s and prior to Soyuz flying the USSR will likely reject any kind of 'joint' mission as to that time their technology is visibly lagging behind the Americans. (Which any joint mission will expose) But once Soyuz if flying successfully, (late 60s) there is a more relaxed attitude between the Super-Powers and going into the 70s a joint Lunar mission could likely get traction. Now this won't happen (likely) till the late 70s or early 80s and depending on the butterflies in politics that could mean it might never happen at all but the planning would be there.

Randy

 

[Garrison]

At some point given any plausible orbital expansion the simple fact that the Moon is "right there" (especially compared to Mars for example) will mean that going will become more and more likely as time goes on. Given a decade of space station and orbital operations you will have all the necessary elements to go to the Moon, land and come back and you'll have everything in place to do it as often as you wish, pretty much whenever you wish.

Honestly I look at American politics through the decades and I'm afraid that no one would be willing to stump up the money for a moon mission. Maybe it comes into the realm of the possible with manned space stations are a thing but I wouldn't hold my breath without Kennedy seizing the moment in 1961. Just look at how long its been since the last moon landing and the utterly painful progress of Artemis.

 

[defconh3ck]

I think one of the big things you might see is the original "Apollo" name be used for a space station series, as proposed originally. LEO stations were a lot of NASA's focus before the shift to the moon sorties. Perhaps a fleshed out LEO might result in lower cost of access, perhaps a lunar shot by the late 80s to the 2000s? Maybe we'd get real good at reusable rocketry, but I'm just speculating.

 

[RanulfC]

Honestly I look at American politics through the decades and I'm afraid that no one would be willing to stump up the money for a moon mission. Maybe it comes into the realm of the possible with manned space stations are a thing but I wouldn't hold my breath without Kennedy seizing the moment in 1961. Just look at how long its been since the last moon landing and the utterly painful progress of Artemis.

Yep, that's exactly the POINT here in look how long it's taken to go back and how we're doing it. It's close enough to being "Apollo" all over again as makes no practical difference. (There ARE differences and you can argue this time is a bit better thought out and with better technology but it essentially repeats most of the mistakes of Apollo)

Without the Kennedy Lunar goal, (and keep in mind even HE regretted it within a few months given the cost and complexity) we don't try and leap-frog over the well known and well understood requirements by cramming all that work into about a five year period, and then spending the next 3 years trying to make it all work. (And amazingly it did... mostly)

Instead we spend the next decade actually learning how to live and work in space in LEO while we "probe" the heck out of the rest of the Solar System and really get to know the neighborhood. By this point the US and USSR have warmed relations somewhat, (or ended the world in nuclear fire but lets stay on the optimistic side for the moment ) and we can likely see some planning for a joint mission to the Moon. (Considering how long ASTP took planning is likely for an 80s mission)

Now unlike OTL neither side needs a massive Saturn V or N1 but pretty much the Saturn 1(ish) and Proton(ish) launchers they already have. The "lunar" vehicle isn't some dinky little LEM but essentially a modified space station module that's turned into a lander.

(Borrowed from Encyclopedia Astronautica)

All for the cost of a "standard" space station module (modified) and some form of the TTL hydrolox Apollo Service Module stage which is likely a "standard" configuration "Space Tug" in TTL. Orbited by a 'standard' Saturn 1 variant and deployed and checked out in orbit before going to the Moon. Cost is vastly lower than any single OTL Apollo mission and likely could get away with NOT being a single 'line item' in an overall budget.

Perfectly plausible and has the 'bonus' that if it started out as a cooperative effort there's going to be international pressure to fully carry it out and if the cooperative effort falls apart, (someone like Reagan gets into power) then the very fact the "Russians" are looking at going makes it a political imperative that the US not fall behind....

Once you have orbital infrastructure and operations going on a regular basis, (note we don't have this as of yet either) then the 'cost' and effort of going to the Moon is actually pretty trivial. You must need the political incentive to do so and that's a lot less of an issue when it's clearly something that can be done with the equipment, procedures and operations you already have in place

Back in context of "America" you can say that OTL Apollo and Leif Ericson was the same in that it was a highly ambitious, high cost operation that netted some 'benefits' but was ultimately unsustainable due to both the cost and complexity whereas Columbus pretty much used "off-the-shelf" parts and procedures that made the effort vastly cheaper. (Of course as per usual such analogies need to have it pointed out that had Chris not found processed and worked gold in large quantities his effort would not have been 'sustainable' either but them's the breaks. Keep in mind that while using essentially the same technology and a bit more primitive in fact French, Irish and English fishermen WERE in fact making a huge profit off "North America" since the late 1300s. So... )

Randy

 

[modelcitizen]

If you mean the N1 booster blowing up on the pad in one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history, then yes they certainly had a couple of snags.

The Nedelin Catastrophe!

Based on what I've read/skimmed, the Americans were very lucky to have Professor Von Braun who was very particular about safety and would postpone rocket launches at the seeming drop of a hat.
I assume some folks probably whined that they should just launch anyhow. Nonetheless.
Von Braun would also apparently over-engineer for safety etc.

In contrast (from what I've read/skimmed) the Soviet space people were under pressure for results and soon. Corners got cut, unusually dangerous fuels were used, etc.

The Nedelin Disaster

A rush job ended with nearly 100 lives lost when a fully-fueled rocket ignited on the launchpad during testing.

www.smithsonianmag.com

I know Von Braun was a Nazi. He was one of the bad guys. (I'm Jewish, ffs.)

But...

Arguably, he did a LOT for NASA and the world.

Oh yeah, Von Braun was into big spectacular Disney-level space stations.

 

[RanulfC]

The Nedelin Catastrophe!

Based on what I've read/skimmed, the Americans were very lucky to have Professor Von Braun who was very particular about safety and would postpone rocket launches at the seeming drop of a hat.
I assume some folks probably whined that they should just launch anyhow. Nonetheless.
Von Braun would also apparently over-engineer for safety etc.

In fact that's one of my 'preferred' POD's for a "less pressure/no Moon" timeline

Alan Sheppard should have been the first man in space. He was scheduled both booster and capsule were at the Cape but an anomaly with the last chimp shot had made Von Braun nervous so he did what he normally did and polled all the engineers, (go with Sheppard's flight) technicians, (go) astronaut (hell yes go!) and the did something he NEVER did and ignored all that to demand another test flight. Sheppard had been scheduled to fly a week before Gagarin and the extra test flight set them back a month.
(In this case Von Braun was actually "wrong" and everyone else right )

Override Von Braun, (or convince him to take some risks, that happened later in the Saturn V testing so it can be done) and Sheppard flies first. Sure it's "only" suborbital but it IS a significant first and the US doesn't have another "Sputnik" moment like they did OTL.

I know Von Braun was a Nazi. He was one of the bad guys. (I'm Jewish, ffs.)

But...

Arguably, he did a LOT for NASA and the world.

Not to excuse it but Von Braun was a Nazi for the same reasons a LOT of German's were "Nazis" in that it was a means to an end and not something they actually believed in. Von Braun's goal was building rockets and he was opportunist enough to use whatever means he could find to achieve that goal. He specifically went and got captured by the American's for the same reason.
Unfortunately for his plans the US was initially less interested in his work since they had actually moved beyond it by the time he arrived in the States so he and his team were initially just stuck off in a corner to let their knowledge stagnate till it was useless to the Soviets but then the Korean war came around and then he was designing missiles for the Army.

Perhaps his "biggest" contribution though wasn't actually engineering...

Oh yeah, Von Braun was into big spectacular Disney-level space stations.

Actually "Colliers" since that's where he first got the idea into general circulation And that's where he actually shown in being a presenter and popularizer of the idea of space flight and the potential of rockets. He was highly enthusiastic and he could get others excited about it too. He manage to expand an opportunity into publishing the idea of space flight no longer being "just" science fiction and make the average American truly believe that space flight was just around the corner.
(Part of the "Sputnik" panic was the fact that most American's believed the US was the most advanced technology country in the world and ONLY they had the ability to launch a satellite. The shock of that not being true as pretty devastating. Pile on top of that loosing out to the first man into space to the Soviets as well and you can clearly see why the Lunar goal was chosen)

Randy

 

[FellowTraveller5]

As I recall, Von Braun got arrested by the Gestapo in the late years of the war for talking about space flight. Apparently, any motivation other than bombing Britain constitutes "damaging the war effort". Strings had to be pulled to spring him and get him back to work.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Gather 'round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun
A man whose allegiance
Is ruled by expedience
Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown
"Nazi, Schmazi!" says Wernher von Braun

Don't say that he's hypocritical
Say rather that he's apolitical
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun

 

[RanulfC]

As I recall, Von Braun got arrested by the Gestapo in the late years of the war for talking about space flight. Apparently, any motivation other than bombing Britain constitutes "damaging the war effort". Strings had to be pulled to spring him and get him back to work.

Part of the reason Dornberger encouraged Von Braun to join the SS was because it was more difficult for an SS member to be arrested than those outside the SS. The Gestapo had to obtain permission from the local SS headquarters to arrest a member as I understand it. (The other main reason being to have access to a different "power group" outside the Army and Air Force for funding and support)

And yes, at that point Von Braun was caught actively complaining about building 'war' rockets rather than space ships (apparently a proposal to use a test A4 for instrumented research flights into the upper atmosphere had been rather vehemently turned down and he was ordered to get back to work on production problems) and was vehement enough about it the local Gestapo arrested him thinking he was 'just' some engineer. As Dornberger was 'just' an Army general (dime a dozen right? ) they ignored his requests to turn over Von Braun and apparently it was when they found out Von Braun was an SS officer they finally let him go.

Gather 'round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun
A man whose allegiance
Is ruled by expedience
Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown
"Nazi, Schmazi!" says Wernher von Braun

Don't say that he's hypocritical
Say rather that he's apolitical
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun

The thing is that's pretty much every rocket engineer because at the heart of it they were originally weapons of war. And not just rocket engineers as a personal example is my official job for most of my military career was involved with maintaining and delivering various munitions that I was well aware of "where they were coming down". I didn't get to decide who they would be dropped on or when but I proudly did everything to ensure they worked when used. Kind of puts me in the same category.

The Nazis paid the bills so you build what they want, when the US Army paid the bills he built what they wanted. Finally when NASA was paying the bills he pretty much built what HE wanted so ...

The thing was while he was pragmatic about it he also wasn't apparently shy about what his actual goals were and for the most part the "Powers That Be" ignored the latter to access the former which says something.

Randy

 

[FellowTraveller5]

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun

Oh, he did care. His complaint was that his rockets were coming down on the wrong planet. That's (more or less) an exact quote.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Oh, he did care. His complaint was that his rockets were coming down on the wrong planet. That's (more or less) an exact quote.

Eh, this isn't a thread for me to gripe about Von Braun.

 

[RanulfC]

I think one of the big things you might see is the original "Apollo" name be used for a space station series, as proposed originally. LEO stations were a lot of NASA's focus before the shift to the moon sorties. Perhaps a fleshed out LEO might result in lower cost of access, perhaps a lunar shot by the late 80s to the 2000s? Maybe we'd get real good at reusable rocketry, but I'm just speculating.

"Olympus" was tossed about during the AAP studies but IIRC the "name" had come earlier as the possible space station component for the original "Apollo" program. Considering how tentative THAT was in 1961 anything is possible but I'm pretty sure that in a timeline like this "Mercury MkII/Gemini" might not look like we'd expect it to.

On the other hand it took OTL Gemini to put paid to the concept of "orbital transfer" (aka spacewalking) to a station rather than orbital docking so there's that. One interesting 'divergence' that could come about is a Convair study suggestion that could be called "non-rendezvous-docking" which was found in the "Three Astronaut Space System Experimental Laboratory: TASSEL" which might get a try-out. (And yes I've got notes on a timeline where such is used with a modified Mercury capsule and the "Mercury Spacecraft Escape Hatch" to beat some Soviet endurance records )

Another question/idea/concept is that the Air Force drags it's feet enough on modifications to the Titan that NASA might just choose to use the Saturn 1 to launch Gemini instead. Which is a HUGE 'waste' of the booster but damn would it be impressive! And then be pretty easy to 'add' a longer duration space outpost element early on.

On reusability that was an early goal of WVB/Marshall and some of the NASA higher ups before the pace got so frantic. The initial and a couple of the early Saturn 1s had recovery gear hard points built into them as the "plan" had initially been to recover the first stage for study with an eye to reuse. Backing that up they did a LOT of testing of the H1 engines over a large variety of emersion and refurbishment parameters and a good bit of work on "hardening" the stage for such recovery. Without the pressure of getting to the Moon by 1970 (and assuming a bit bigger but not OTL-Apollo level budget) then it would make sense to at least try for recovery and reuse of the first stage.

The "Apollo" capsule WILL actually likely be a capsule all other factors being the same but there's a chance you'd get the M1 shape instead which could be made reusable (in a broad sense) and there might even be more incentive for Dynasoar TTL. All in all though it's likely TTL's Saturn/Apollo would have similar flight operations and schedule as per R7Soyuz OTL at the very least.

Randy