Just as it says on the tin, what if in deciding NASA's post Apollo future Nixon chose to pursue the option of a new reusable spacecraft to service a proposed permanent space station. From the concepts I've seen of the proposed Space Shuttle it looked really cool but I've read that there were concerns that it was too technically ambitious and would have been expensive to develop. How would the U.S. space programme have developed if the Shuttle had got the go ahead?
DBWI: Nixon chooses to build the Space Shuttle
- Thread starter The Oncoming Storm
- Start date
usertron2020
Donor
Assuming Nixon didn't axe Apollo 18-20? No Apollo-Soyuz, no Skylab I-III. The original concept was for a launch vehicle that would itself be a "mega-reusable" vehicle, going into a short low orbit and returning to land at an airstrip (A BIG ONE!) on it's own. Piggy-backed on it would be the Space Shuttle as NASA originally planned it.
Except the military insisted, in exchange for their backing, that the payload of the Shuttle be much larger than NASA wanted, rendering the concept of the "Mega-Reusable Launcher" impossible, as there was no way to build such a launching system to carry such weight and still return for a controlled, safe landing at an airstrip.
NASA even had the idea, with a smaller shuttle design, of allowing the option of hydrogen + NO4 tanks in the shuttle to be connected through adaptors to the main engines allowing for the shuttle to travel to much, much higher orbits. IDK if geosynchronous orbits would have been possible, but if so, they would promise the ability to establish geo-synchronous "permanent" space stations (ala 2001!) rather than the ramshackle low orbit (and decaying) one we have now.
Of course, all this was before space junk made manned flight in space beyond, what, 100 miles (?), so incredibly dangerous. It looks like we didn't even need WWIII, or E=MC[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE], to keep man from reaching the stars.
Except the military insisted, in exchange for their backing, that the payload of the Shuttle be much larger than NASA wanted, rendering the concept of the "Mega-Reusable Launcher" impossible, as there was no way to build such a launching system to carry such weight and still return for a controlled, safe landing at an airstrip.
NASA even had the idea, with a smaller shuttle design, of allowing the option of hydrogen + NO4 tanks in the shuttle to be connected through adaptors to the main engines allowing for the shuttle to travel to much, much higher orbits. IDK if geosynchronous orbits would have been possible, but if so, they would promise the ability to establish geo-synchronous "permanent" space stations (ala 2001!) rather than the ramshackle low orbit (and decaying) one we have now.
Of course, all this was before space junk made manned flight in space beyond, what, 100 miles (?), so incredibly dangerous. It looks like we didn't even need WWIII, or E=MC[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE], to keep man from reaching the stars.
Meh, I'm not impressed by the moonbases. Two men living in a pressurised can for a few weeks doesn't sound like much of a base, even if they did repeat it every year between 1979 and 1989. If they'd put all that effort and lift capacity into one or two bigger and more sustained projects, we might still have one in operation. Anyway, back to the Shuttle.
I think people overstate the danger of space-junk, and having a reusable launch system - even just a small one - would massively increase public interest in space. If it can be refurbished and reused every month, a fleet of even 6 shuttles would make 70 launches a year. And there's no way they'd stop at 6 shuttles, it's just too useful. Cheap space launches (it'd only cost a few million to refit between launches) happening several times a month... what would the world be like?
DISSIDENT
Banned
The moonbases were kind of underwhelming. The last crew left Moon Base Tranquility when I was five years old. I think Nixon wanted to stake US dominance on the lunar surface after Apollo 11 avoiding a Soviet presence there, and that was why he shut down the Apollo launches, vetoed the space shuttle and put all the funding into the moon bases.
Now that there is no Soviet Union, and we kind of called it quits after abandoning the moonbases, I guess the stars belong to ESA science probes and Japanese corporate sattelite launches.
Now that there is no Soviet Union, and we kind of called it quits after abandoning the moonbases, I guess the stars belong to ESA science probes and Japanese corporate sattelite launches.
Archibald
Banned
NASA was fortunate to have George Low as administrator. A pragmatic, he hired Nobel Prize Charles Townes as it special administrator.
Together Low and Townes submitted Nixon Office of Management and Budget a list of budgetary options - ranging from $1 billion to 10 $ billion a year, from no manned flight to Mars in 1982.
For the sake of comparison:
$2 billion option was more Skylabs with Apollo.
Some sort of shuttle, or a true space station with a capsule ferry, could be build from $ 3 billion
Mars was well above $8 billion.
In the end OMB director Caspar Weinberger picked the $4 billion option, barely enough to keep Saturn V in production. This ensured Apollo missions could continue, with the simple addition of a very large unmanned cargo lander delivering 25 000 kg to the lunar surface.
And that's how we ended with a host of moonbases...
Together Low and Townes submitted Nixon Office of Management and Budget a list of budgetary options - ranging from $1 billion to 10 $ billion a year, from no manned flight to Mars in 1982.
For the sake of comparison:
$2 billion option was more Skylabs with Apollo.
Some sort of shuttle, or a true space station with a capsule ferry, could be build from $ 3 billion
Mars was well above $8 billion.
In the end OMB director Caspar Weinberger picked the $4 billion option, barely enough to keep Saturn V in production. This ensured Apollo missions could continue, with the simple addition of a very large unmanned cargo lander delivering 25 000 kg to the lunar surface.
And that's how we ended with a host of moonbases...
Ever since the Clinton administration announced the sale of some of the lunar bases to private enterprise in 1996, there has been concern that with the burgeoning Chinese space program, that many of the lunar bases will actually be purchsed by the Chinese government....
Well they're still up there and the crews did as much mothballing as they could before they left, so they could probably be restored. I suppose it makes pretty good sense for the Chinese, like how they've been developing their aircraft carriers - pick up something someone else developed, use it to learn how the thing operates, then start making your own.
The question is, of course, what will they do with them? The NASA missions - credit where it's due - did most of the reasonably practical lunar geology in those areas, and even a few other useful experiments (I was particularly interested in the tiny farm they grew in Moonbase 7).
I suppose the Chinese could build on that, but any sort of expansion would require something like the cargo lander Archibald mentioned. Anyone know if they have a rocket which can lift enough for that?
The question is, of course, what will they do with them? The NASA missions - credit where it's due - did most of the reasonably practical lunar geology in those areas, and even a few other useful experiments (I was particularly interested in the tiny farm they grew in Moonbase 7).
I suppose the Chinese could build on that, but any sort of expansion would require something like the cargo lander Archibald mentioned. Anyone know if they have a rocket which can lift enough for that?
Even Nixon wasn't that stupid
Look, this is really sort of ASB. Even Nixon (who had less than zero interest in non-military space) wouldn't have been stupid enough to sign off on such a mess. The whole concept was an overly ambitious mass of compromises (required to get multiple buy-ins) that would have never come close to meeting any of its objectives. We might very well have been stuck with that abortion for DECADES, with it draining $$$ from other useful programs. Nothing short of absolute incompetence combined with an almost criminal disregard of the budgetary realities of the time could have led to Nixon doing such a thing.
ASB, pure and simple
Look, this is really sort of ASB. Even Nixon (who had less than zero interest in non-military space) wouldn't have been stupid enough to sign off on such a mess. The whole concept was an overly ambitious mass of compromises (required to get multiple buy-ins) that would have never come close to meeting any of its objectives. We might very well have been stuck with that abortion for DECADES, with it draining $$$ from other useful programs. Nothing short of absolute incompetence combined with an almost criminal disregard of the budgetary realities of the time could have led to Nixon doing such a thing.
ASB, pure and simple
People are too quick to point ASB at anything that isn't very close to OTL. I reckon it could have worked - even if it wasn't everything that was promised, it would still have meant lots of launches every year, and launches that can not only put things up but bring them back as well. Thats got to be good for the space industry as a whole, and public perceptions of it too.
Yes, good point. After all, even if the program did cost way more than it was targeted at, missed most (if not all) of its objectives, and even killed a few astronauts in the process, the American people would understand the overall goal, and would never lose track of what is really at stake...
I concede the point
Even IOTL, with 10 abandoned moonbases, the support of the American people is perhaps the most consistent aspect of the US space program. It really seems to have been important, and even after the end of the Apollo missions (20, wasn't it?) and launches becoming more commonplace astronauts are bona-fide heroes. One crew visited a school near here, and they made a huge impression. Space pressure groups have kept NASA in the manned-launch business. With a reusable launcher, meaning even more launches and people flying in them, I think that could only have increased.
Just conjecture, of course, but it'd be nice to see what the impact of the shuttle could have been in that respect.
Something you may have missed out on. You forget about the N1-F and N1-M. Which the Soviets used to try and maintain parity with the US. Though 5 medium duration - 30-60 days - Moonbases isn't much to sing about in comparison.
Even if the N1 did explode itself in its first four flights - via crash development - all the other launches were successsful. And in some ways, was more advanced than the Saturn V since it was the first production launch vehicle to use Staged Combustion Cycle LOX/Kerosene engines, an act which the Western World had deemed impossible until they proved us wrong.
Not that they've used it since 1992, following the collapse of the USSR, even if many of it's design features are still in use today in Angara & Atlas V.
Had the Shuttle gone ahead, would they have abandoned it just as they had finally resolved all of the design flaws and bugs it had suffered? And then gone for an all-new system to keep pace with the US? Likely.
Even if the N1 did explode itself in its first four flights - via crash development - all the other launches were successsful. And in some ways, was more advanced than the Saturn V since it was the first production launch vehicle to use Staged Combustion Cycle LOX/Kerosene engines, an act which the Western World had deemed impossible until they proved us wrong.
Not that they've used it since 1992, following the collapse of the USSR, even if many of it's design features are still in use today in Angara & Atlas V.
Had the Shuttle gone ahead, would they have abandoned it just as they had finally resolved all of the design flaws and bugs it had suffered? And then gone for an all-new system to keep pace with the US? Likely.