Could the Space Shuttle have succeeded?

[RanulfC]

Hey while looking around the net for stuff to link I found this goodie:
http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2015/08/dreaming-different-apollo-part-two.html

Which in part 2 (linked) note as a source: "The Unmanned Shuttle Decision: Prudence and the Presidency, John Logsdon, NASA, January 1999, pp. 36-49, 53, 111"

Which I can't find on the net but is a rather fascinating suggestion. While I can't see any way Carter could have actually made that kind of decision, (NASA would outright have fought it even if it got the Shuttle canceled, manned was a requirement for them after all) it is an interesting subject I'd not seen before.

Randy

 

[TimothyC]

Hey while looking around the net for stuff to link I found this goodie:
http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2015/08/dreaming-different-apollo-part-two.html

Which in part 2 (linked) note as a source: "The Unmanned Shuttle Decision: Prudence and the Presidency, John Logsdon, NASA, January 1999, pp. 36-49, 53, 111"

Which I can't find on the net but is a rather fascinating suggestion. While I can't see any way Carter could have actually made that kind of decision, (NASA would outright have fought it even if it got the Shuttle canceled, manned was a requirement for them after all) it is an interesting subject I'd not seen before.

Randy

It's made up, like all of the Dreaming of bits he has done.

 

[Athelstane]

And unless you butterfly away Apollo 13, (making it worse will only make things worse) that will scare the heck out of Nixon and Congress anyway. And as we know NASA was well aware they were very lucky to have things turn out as well as it did. They knew they couldn't keep it up and worse we've already had production shut down on all the important Apollo hardware, they couldn't keep it up even if they wanted to and the whole point was to go out on a high note rather than a sour one. (And no, a Soviet flyby is NOT going to make Congress turn the taps back on. Enough to ensure Apollo 11 hits the mark but that's it) Apollo is done and NASA will need to move on. If NASA doesn't play their hand right Skylab could be it for a very long time. Actually in a situation like this you might actually see more support for something like modified Big Gemini with 3 or 4 crew launching on a Titan III and NASA forced to like it.

So much depends on just what the Soviets do here. Like I said: the Soviets were always the driver in the Space Race.

The more public and more aggressive they are, the more likely it is that Nixon will (reluctantly) have to commit to *something*. If the Soviets are going to build a lunar base (even if we're talking something really tiny and briefly man-tended, which I assume we are), it would be a bit awkward if the United States did not have one, too. Maybe Nixon might push a discussion of a join effort, when it came time to talk about ASTP?

I don't disagree that funding cutbacks were inevitable - they had already begun in FY1967! But on the budget levels NASA was getting in the early-mid-70's - which was basically about $3.5 billion, roughly, every year (nominal dollars), with a little over half going to HSF programs, that's pretty arguably enough for at least one lunar mission per year, and arguably even enough for, say, AES development. I mean, assuming that this takes the place of Shuttle development.

The risk is, as you say, that NASA had gotten very lucky, given the odds of 1 in 4 loss of mission and almost 1 in 20 for loss of crew on any given Apollo flight, and if they had kept it up, they would have ended up with something worse than Apollo 13 at some point.

It would take some big brass ones and a lot of chutzpah as well but to be frank I never understood why the Soviets didn't at least try to follow up on the American moon landings.

But they kept trying with the N1 until 1974. They had *not* given up after Apollo 11.

 

[Riain]

I don't think that's accurate. The "5th" Shuttle orbiter was produced IIRC for major spares which were stored. (Yep see Endeavour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Endeavour) So we could pretty easily build a replacement for Challenger but not one for Columbia. "Enterprise" was supposed to be converted to a 'real' orbiter but the funding to do so wasn't authorized I think.



Suspect that was this conflict:
http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2015/08/evolution-vs-revolution-1970s-battle.html

And yes an incrimental approach was rejected for trying for a full-up space station authorization which failed continually till the mid-90s despite President Reagan supporting it. (He didn't really and refused to confront Congress over the idea)



At first not really since the flight rate was so low, more towards peak usage they had turn-aroung down pretty well so you may have been able to add some flights (between 25 and 40 say) but could you squeeze them into the schedule is another question.



Well having an orbiter stay on orbit for 30 days would be a tough task even with the Power Tower since it was life support limited at well. If it's early enough, (see below) then they'd have had to adapt a few museum exhibit Apollo CM's to work as life boats as the Shuttle would still likely only stay a week or so and mostly be used for crew and new module flights. It also impacts the launch and processing schedule since the orbiter will not be avialable to schedule into the line until it finally comes back. (Not world ending but a pain for the maintenance folks )



The problem with that idea is that you can't DO anything with Skylab B until the Shuttle is flying. They only had one full Saturn-1B left over from Apollo/Skylab and only one partially completed Apollo CM unless they pulled one from a museum which they didn't want to do without a VERY good reason. So that's one flight to get Skylab B up and running and then...
Skylab B sits in orbit till sometime after 1982 (1981 flights were qualification and R&D only) so close to 6 years of unattended operation before a crew arrives. And keep in mind they would have had to modify Skylab B to accomodate the Shuttle before it could be launched. (Two of the four "windmill" solar panels have to be kept retracted while the Shuttle is there and I don't think they had the ability to retract on demand so they'd likely need to be removed before flight) And then there is the question of where you fit it into the initial flight schedules:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Shuttle_missions#Flight_statistics

Now here a fifth orbiter might allow scheduling mission on a regular basis to Skylab B and then allowing the others to continue with the OTL schedule. It would depend on when the 5th Orbiter was available. Having Skylab B "might" have helped the Shuttle image and the 5th orbiter might have helped the flight schedule but keep in mind that unlike OTL's Endeavour this one would not have all the upgrades ours did with "lessons learned" from the previous Shuttles. (It also would have a different name I'd think )



You're not wrong at all But as has been famously said about the TSR-2 any government project has a political dimension as well as its physical ones and getting that right is a task in and of itself. NASA has some of the blame because they really didn't want a "shuttle" as the main program but as a side-note to the bigger picture. But it was already going to be a huge part of any project simply because of the size and capabilities that NASA wanted which itself was tied to an over-estimated sense of worth in the governmental scheme of things. "Technically" once the government was flying its Shuttles we should have seen commercial Shuttles flying payloads to orbit for profit but as the hard-logic behind the Shuttle design and operation were that is MUST carry any and all US launches or be unaffordable that obviously wasn't going to be done. I mean there was work done on designing a 300 person 'passegner module' to fit into the cargo bay at one point! And then even at the end there was a credible effort to "buy" a couple of orbiters to use for commercial purposes when the Shuttle was retired. But as was pointed out during the latter effort, even if one COULD purchase a Shuttle and then manage to fund some flights would there be enough demand or market to actually make it sustainable in any sense? Given the cost and complexity of the Shuttle support system this was questionable at best and the fact that it would have tied up equipment and facilities NASA needed to move on towards the SLS would have been a major conflict.

The OTL Shuttle was a compromised design, built to a compromised plan, for a compromised goal aimed at a vague but overly grandious and likely unatainable outcome. We needed, (and still do) a rational and logical approach with a clear goal and attainable vision. We need to make up our minds if we're exploring space, dabbling in it or just goofing off and proceed from there. Currenlty the only thing we're commited to is the rhetoric of space...

Randy

I've read that the vast accumulation of spares, enough to build a while orbiter was sort of a work-around in the 5th shuttle/space station argument, keeping the production lines open for longer to give time for decisions to be made. In the event there were enough spares to make a 5th orbitor. However I'm talking about actually building the 5th orbiter, rather than assembling it from spares after the disaster in 87, so the huge amount of spares of OTL might not be accumulated.

I imagine that in a long-duration orbiter the space station module (that never leaves the cargo bay IIUC) would have the extra life support required. However I wonder about the ability of the onboard rockets etc to keep it stable after a week or so. They'd have to be very frugal with attitude corrections to ensure they have fuel in the final week to keep it pointed where they want.

As for Skylab B, they real dream would be for it to be launched for ASTP, and then be left in parking orbit until 82, I'm sure it could be done technically.

People tend to poo poo politics, call it pork barreling as if there is some alternative pure technical solution to getting things done, yet make constant political compromises in their personal and work lives themselves. No point driving up in a Shelby Cobra if the missus is going to get it in the divorce that it causes.

 

[RanulfC]

It's made up, like all of the Dreaming of bits he has done.

The article yes but it's based on something from OTL. The reference article exists somewhere and the Shuttle could in fact be flown by remote/automatics. (They normally didn't carry the cable needed allow this for rather obvious reasons ) Just thought the idea that Carter could have considered it and why was interesting.

Randy

 

[TimothyC]

The reference article exists somewhere

Randy

No, The Unmanned Shuttle Decision: Prudence and the Presidency by John Logsdon does not exist. He made it up out of whole cloth. Look at the rest of the 'references':

SSM-25 Press Kit, NASA, December 1986
SSM-27 Press Kit, NASA, November 1987
Enterprise, Discovery, Endurance, Adventure: NASA's Orbiter Fleet, NASA Facts, December 1996
Chronology of Space Shuttle/Astronaut Transport Spacecraft Missions, 1980-2011, David S. F. Portree, NASA, 2012, pp. 20-22, 26-28, 33-34, 37-40, 45-55, 61-63, 88-91, A-13

Edit: While there was some consideration for an uncrewed orbiter as an option for higher payloads, the mass savings would have been marginal, as you needed to retain the thermal control systems, as the electronics are in the main crew volume, and will still generate heat. Yes, you can get away with no air scrubbers, and no waste disposal, but other than removing seats and consumables, there isn't a lot you save in mass for a reusable payload fairing and engine pack.

 

[RanulfC]

No, The Unmanned Shuttle Decision: Prudence and the Presidency by John Logsdon does not exist. He made it up out of whole cloth. Look at the rest of the 'references':

My face is red I read that and still didn't pick it up, thanks

Edit: While there was some consideration for an uncrewed orbiter as an option for higher payloads, the mass savings would have been marginal, as you needed to retain the thermal control systems, as the electronics are in the main crew volume, and will still generate heat. Yes, you can get away with no air scrubbers, and no waste disposal, but other than removing seats and consumables, there isn't a lot you save in mass for a reusable payload fairing and engine pack.

From the way it's presented I don't think it was anything to do with payload but basic safety concerns due to all the compromises during the Shuttle development. Unfortunately, most of those concerns never went beyond NASA and the contractors and frankly they all felt the risk was manageable. And in truth it was unless the Shuttle were operated outside its normal parameters, such as happened OTL.

As I noted earlier in context it's an option that was never valid either since requiring a crew on every flight was a main driver for the Shuttle design from the start. (Which makes missing that context even more embarrassing ) In contrast Buran was designed and built with unmanned operations in mind from the start and though the Western press made a big deal about it flying unmanned in context is made more sense than what America and NASA did for the first Shuttle flights.

Randy

 

[fasquardon]

So I am well behind on reading the posts in this thread. I had a thought though.

What if there's no Bay of Pigs? Kennedy decides the operation is too risky. As a result, Castro feels more secure and isn't pushed into Moscow's arms. Cuba doesn't make a big effort to try and get Soviet nukes to deter a US invasion. There's no Cuban missile crisis.

This means Khrushchev has more support at home, so is able to rule the country to the end of the 60s, and retires/is made to retire some time in the early 70s. The more technophilic Khrushchev means that not only is there a bit more support for the Soviet space program, but also more support for Chelomei, who manages to mostly centralize the Soviet space effort after Korolev's death in TTL (Korolev still dies during his cancer operation, unfortunately). Also, there's more support for R&D generally and due to no Cuban crisis scare, the Soviets are expanding their nuclear deterrent at a lesser rate than OTL.

Meanwhile over in the US, Kennedy is under less pressure to get a big win, so instead of OTL's moon goal, he decides he wants a space station since it will both be much cheaper than going for the moon but also more likely to be up while he's still president.

This leads to a much more competitive space race, with a more low-key US effort and a more ambitious Soviet effort. The US still develops the Saturn I and Saturn IB (it's questionable whether the J2 would be funded in this TL, but let's say it is, since NASA are going to see it as a good investment) and perhaps they even go so far as to strap Castor SRMs to a Saturn IB. The Soviets wouldn't give any serious funding to the N1 in this TL (they barely funded it in OTL), so Korolev is more focused on improving the R7 and studying orbital fuel depots, but with the US lead in heavy lift and the Korolev's death in 1966, the US easily beats the Soviets to getting a space station up. And Chelomei takes a few years to get the Soviet effort organized, leading to Soviet designers sabotaging each-other's efforts for a couple of years before they get their own Salyut style station in orbit.

Kennedy (who due to no Cuban missile crisis has not been assassinated) ends his presidency on a high and Johnson is able to win the election of 1968 (let's assume that being VP for most of the 60s means his heart is in better health). With the US victory in space coming at a lower cost, it's a bit more popular with both Congress and the public.

However, once Chelomei has control of the Soviet program, he aims to one-up the Americans by sending an upgraded Soyuz capsule around the moon around about 1970. In this TL, it's the Soviets who take the first picture of the Earth rising over the moon, and the cultural impact is such that Johnson, the politician who pushed for NASA back in the 50s, feels pushed to do something. And since the aerospace recession has occurred in TTL just as OTL, the confluence of factors is such Congress is willing to fund a development project for a re-useable shuttle that can support the build-up of American infrastructure in orbit that NASA thinks it needs to one up the Soviets by actually landing men on the moon.

In these very different conditions, the US would produce a very different shuttle. As per OTL, the shuttle is backed by the politicians largely because of the perceived benefits on Earth. But unlike OTL, it is designed to be developed quickly so that it will be in place to support the moon program of the 70s meaning it has higher peak funding but a much shorter development timetable and takes a much more conservative and evolutionary approach. From using J2S engines as the main engines instead of a complex new engine, re-useable LRBs based on the well-proven Saturn I first stage and a more expensive but better understood all-metal TPS. I think the shuttle that came out of this process would look an awful lot like the OTL shuttle, but maybe 2/3rds the size, very different in its operational details (for example, while the J2S engines might be lit on the pad for reliability, much more of the work getting the vehicle through the thick parts of the atmosphere would be done by the LRBs as compared to OTL's shuttle and its SRBs) and (since the expensive steel alloys and titanium needed for the airframe wouldn't make it economical to mass-produce) much more seen as a test vehicle.

I have no idea if America lands people on the moon quickly enough to fulfil all of Johnson's hopes (and given the Vietnam War will be turning into an utter mess at this same point, Johnson may die of a heart attack in office). But this more evolutionary shuttle, with a moon program and a space station program to support, and stronger Soviet competition, could be seen as a success.

fasquardon

 

[marathag]

Castro feels more secure and isn't pushed into Moscow's arms.

He was in Moscow's arms from the start. Believed in what Leninism could do since the 1940s. He was never going to allow real Democracy on the Island

 

[marathag]

Kennedy (who due to no Cuban missile crisis has not been assassinated)

Depends on what Conspiracy theory you believe
LHO was still going to fixate on him, even without the crisis. Berlin might have been enough for him to start on the path of shooting at General Walker, and it's all downhill from there.

And this isn't getting into the whole 'other shooters in Dallas' stuff

 

[fasquardon]

He was never going to allow real Democracy on the Island

What does that have to do with how closely aligned with Moscow Castro wanted to be?

Depends on what Conspiracy theory you believe

I had thought at time of writing that it was fairly certain that the Soviets played a key role. Doing some checking though, I'm not seeing any sources for that which I'd consider reputable.

fasquardon

 

[Athelstane]

He was in Moscow's arms from the start. Believed in what Leninism could do since the 1940s. He was never going to allow real Democracy on the Island

Yeah.

It's possible that Khrushchev might not ratchet the buildup on Cuba to the extent he did in OTL; but Castro was already on track to fashioning a solid Soviet Bloc state even before the Bay of Pigs.

 

[marathag]

What does that have to do with how closely aligned with Moscow Castro wanted to be?

In 1959, any would-be Caudillo in the Americas gets to choose:
Friendly, indifferent, or unfriendly with the USA.

If choosing unfriendly, that rules out good relations with most 1st World Nations, while open arms from the 2nd World.

You need somebody to buy your Rum, Cigars and Sugar in exchange for manufactured goods and Oil.
oh, and military goods, so you don't worry about coups.

So the Strongman picks, will it be the AR, or the AK rifles?

 

[fasquardon]

In 1959, any would-be Caudillo in the Americas gets to choose:
Friendly, indifferent, or unfriendly with the USA.

Which is completely different than whether Castro was going to allow Cubans to have a serious democracy.

If you remember, the US was fully capable of going ape (to the point of backing outright genocide) when real democracies is Latin America allowed people to "give the wrong answer" and was happy to deal with non-democratic regimes that towed the correct line.

It's possible that Khrushchev might not ratchet the buildup on Cuba to the extent he did in OTL; but Castro was already on track to fashioning a solid Soviet Bloc state even before the Bay of Pigs.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a solid Soviet bloc state". At what point are they close enough to be "solid"? I ask because all the Soviet allies worked to have as much freedom of action as the superpowers were willing to allow them...

This is all getting off topic a bit though. My point here is that less US pressure means the Soviets and Cubans don't have the same fears and opportunities that motivated them to try and station Soviet nukes in Cuba. (I'm not saying that there would definitely be no Cuban missile crisis if there were no Bay of Pigs - just that in my outline TL above, the lesser pressure on Cuba means no missile crisis in that TL - I think that even without a Bay of Pigs invasion there'd still be a chance of the Soviets deciding to try to station missiles in Cuba, just a much lower chance.)

fasquardon