Eyes Turned Skywards

[Bahamut-255]

That's a possibility. After 20-30 years in low earth orbit, you've probably learned much of what you need to know. (Although I'd make a push for a centrifuge module to be added to Freedom.) At that point, the game may be best turned over to private consortiums.

Insofar as the Centrifuge Module is concerned. Freedom ITTL is already slated to have one fitted, albeit a very small and experimental one. Although a small Centrifugal Gravity Simulating Space Station would be a decent candidate for Post-Freedom.

I think if it's a return to the Moon, it has to be for the long-term, in some way shape or form. At the very least: an orbital or Lagrange station remotely controlling robotic explorers on the surface, or a surface station itself.

Which would almost certainly be preceded by smaller robotic missions to help determine the best sites for such a base. IIRC, IOTL the Lunar South Pole region is the current favoured site for such a base. On account of high He-3 quantities, near perpetual sunlight and water-ice in the permanently shadowed craters.

Yes, the question remains: Why do we return to the Moon? Is it worth it? We know it's far more romantic and inspiring than putzing around in low earth orbit, but... Griffin was never really able to answer that question properly.

Which is why ITTL, just like OTL, you'll get those pushing to send crews straight to Mars, which has a much more complex and interesting history attached to it - depending on who you ask.

Well: I'll be interested to see what our authors come up with. This will only get harder as we depart more and more from our own timeline, and NASA has to think about what it's next HSF project will be post-Freedom, post-Cold War. But so far, it's all been very plausible.

Small wonder it's been so fantastic so far!

 

[Workable Goblin]

Insofar as the Centrifuge Module is concerned. Freedom ITTL is already slated to have one fitted, albeit a very small and experimental one. Although a small Centrifugal Gravity Simulating Space Station would be a decent candidate for Post-Freedom.

Speaking in a completely hypothetical way (for one thing, this would be a Part IV thing at the earliest, and we only have sketches of that as of yet), there are possibilities for infrastructural support of other activities in LEO. Of course, those may rely on private industry themselves.

Which would almost certainly be preceded by smaller robotic missions to help determine the best sites for such a base. IIRC, IOTL the Lunar South Pole region is the current favoured site for such a base. On account of high He-3 quantities, near perpetual sunlight and water-ice in the permanently shadowed craters.

You're a little bit out of date; AFAICT, the North Pole is favored nowadays, more or less for the reasons you cite. I think there's more favorable terrain or something. It's not a huge difference. There's also an argument (if you're going for a scientific station) for a station on the lunar limb, that is near the edge of the visible disk from Earth. Particularly at near-equatorial latitudes, you could easily access the far side for astronomical observations and there would be some ISRU possibilities, although less attractive than exploiting polar ice deposits, if they exist. Of course, if they don't, then an equatorial location is more attractive. Such a location would also be pretty easy to access from Earth and be easy to return from. A limb base was the favored NASA location through most of the '80s and early '90s, actually, because polar ice, while suspected, had no substantial evidence for it yet.

 

[Athelstane]

Hello Bahamut,

Insofar as the Centrifuge Module is concerned. Freedom ITTL is already slated to have one fitted, albeit a very small and experimental one. Although a small Centrifugal Gravity Simulating Space Station would be a decent candidate for Post-Freedom.

It did? I missed that. Excellent.

As for the Centrifugal Gravity Simulating Space Station - I might actually suggest that this would be a way of thinking about a third generation station - still modular, largely built on earth, but rotated in part or whole to simulate low gravity. That seems like the next natural step, because you need some kind of gravity to make space habitable for long duration.

Which would almost certainly be preceded by smaller robotic missions to help determine the best sites for such a base. IIRC, IOTL the Lunar South Pole region is the current favoured site for such a base. On account of high He-3 quantities, near perpetual sunlight and water-ice in the permanently shadowed craters.

Right.

I could see the 90's feature a renewed round of robotic exploration like we've seen over the last decade with LCROSS/LRO, GRAIL, Clementine, etc. to just that end, as prelude to a manned return to lunar space.

If budgets are tight, perhaps NASA combines a lunar orbit or Lagrange station with teleoperated robotic exploration as another phase before deciding whether to really return to the lunar surface for good. Especially if we are contemplating doing the same thing on Mars, using Deimos or Phobos.

Which is why ITTL, just like OTL, you'll get those pushing to send crews straight to Mars, which has a much more complex and interesting history attached to it - depending on who you ask.

Nonetheless - getting to Mars is far more expensive, risky and time consuming, even for just a Deimos station. And that will be a big deterrent. Which is why my guess is that (at least for the first quarter of the 21st century) NASA will opt for what's more feasible: The Moon. Especially if they find water and Helium 3 there.

 

[Athelstane]

Hello truth,

A limb base was the favored NASA location through most of the '80s and early '90s, actually, because polar ice, while suspected, had no substantial evidence for it yet.

Or if you're ambitious, you could do both...

Since NASA would presumably do serious robotic exploration as prelude, my guess is that initial lunar planning in the 80s and early 90's assumes a limb base, then shifts once water is discovered in the polar craters. Having access to in situ resources like that will be hard to resist.

 

[e of pi]

Insofar as the Centrifuge Module is concerned. Freedom ITTL is already slated to have one fitted, albeit a very small and experimental one. Although a small Centrifugal Gravity Simulating Space Station would be a decent candidate for Post-Freedom.

It did? I missed that. Excellent.

See this post, several paragraphs in with the Japan stuff. Not surprised you might have missed it, that was a busy one, very info-dense, and quite some time ago. Summary: 5.5 meter diameter rotor, module built by the Japanese in exchange for the launch of the equivalent of Kibo.

 

[Michel Van]

A Centrifuge Module on Freedom would be nice.

on return to Moon
we have only touch it's surface, still allot to explore.
like Ice on Poles, extinct volcanos or lava tubes and far side of the moon
also is there evidence for water even ocean under the lunar crust

but too proof that, we need drill equipment on Lunar surface
including Drill pipes with a total length of 60 km...

other ideas ?
Telescope optical and Radio on far side of the moon, on wish-list of many Astronomer since Apollo.
Scientific experiment under Lunar gravity, including how humans adapt to this.
like on Spacelab or complet different ?

OTL in begin of 1980s there were allot consideration not to build a Space station but a Moonbase!
But NASA got the Shuttle with low budget and President in White House with lack of interest on space flight...

 

[neopeius]

Congratulations for Post #20 on "Eyes Turned Skywards" !, Truth is Life and e of pi

By the Way
neopeius, your timeline "Sputniks... an Alternate Space Race" is also very good !

Truth, right--Saturn is more versatile and has the virtue of already being developed. The Shuttle's killer hidden cost is the billions in development. It would be interesting to see a cost/mission comparison (not just flyaway unit cost but mission cost). I bet Saturn 5s would be more expensive per launch, but Saturn IIs and other derivatives would not be. And again, no development cost.

Michel, thanks very much. Eyes turned Skywards and Sputniks offer something for everyone.

 

[Puget Sound]

Truth, right--Saturn is more versatile and has the virtue of already being developed. The Shuttle's killer hidden cost is the billions in development. It would be interesting to see a cost/mission comparison (not just flyaway unit cost but mission cost). I bet Saturn 5s would be more expensive per launch, but Saturn IIs and other derivatives would not be. And again, no development cost.

Michel, thanks very much. Eyes turned Skywards and Sputniks offer something for everyone.

I think the AP once calculated that Shuttle cost about $1 billion per launch including development costs...

 

[SAVORYapple]

I think the AP once calculated that Shuttle cost about $1 billion per launch including development costs...

Yes. Though if you left out R&D costs, I think it was closer to $500 million per flight. And if you think about how much a soyuz spacecraft + rocket costs ($100+ million?) and the shuttle's multi-usefulness (7 crew, 20 MT payload to boot), it wasn't actually that bad.

 

[Athelstane]

Yes. Though if you left out R&D costs, I think it was closer to $500 million per flight. And if you think about how much a soyuz spacecraft + rocket costs ($100+ million?) and the shuttle's multi-usefulness (7 crew, 20 MT payload to boot), it wasn't actually that bad.

Of course, that's about 50 times what NASA projected it would cost per flight...

Soyuz isn't perhaps the best yardstick to use; the real comparison is what a Saturn/Apollo legacy system like the Saturn IC/CSM Block III/IV would have cost per flight. But the real issue is the gargantuan development costs for STS, to say nothing of its inflexibility and poor safety.

The STS was a remarkable space vehicle and we accomplished some impressive things with it. But it's pretty clear, even without this timeline, that it was a mistake with big opportunity costs.

 

[Michel Van]

The shuttle was expensive in R&D and maintenance cost

R&D was $43 billion in 2011 dollars
That include SSME, Orbiter and SSRB development.
A flight including refurnish, cost $450 million per mission.

in Eyes turns Skywards, STS was a death proposal.
the contract for S-IVB goes on, Boeing has only make R&D on Saturn I-C Tank, for rest system like F-1 was already payed in Apollo program R&D !
that would be total cost $5 billion on the Saturn I-C program vs $43 billion to STS program.
Apollo CSM Block III is actually a cost reduction on Block II. Out with Fuelcell, Battery in, tanks shorten. Artie is based on Block III hardware.
all this for total cost of under $10 billions in 2011 dollars 1/4 of STS cost!

 

[Athelstane]

The shuttle was expensive in R&D and maintenance cost

R&D was $43 billion in 2011 dollars
That include SSME, Orbiter and SSRB development.
A flight including refurnish, cost $450 million per mission.

in Eyes turns Skywards, STS was a death proposal.
the contract for S-IVB goes on, Boeing has only make R&D on Saturn I-C Tank, for rest system like F-1 was already payed in Apollo program R&D !
that would be total cost $5 billion on the Saturn I-C program vs $43 billion to STS program.
Apollo CSM Block III is actually a cost reduction on Block II. Out with Fuelcell, Battery in, tanks shorten. Artie is based on Block III hardware.
all this for total cost of under $10 billions in 2011 dollars 1/4 of STS cost!

Sure, Michel. But none of that is as sexy as a 2,000 ton "reusable" space truck.

 

[Archibald]

OTL in begin of 1980s there were allot consideration not to build a Space station but a Moonbase!

Certainly ! Nuclear scientist and Reagan science advisor Georges Kayworth really wanted a moon base. Unfortunately the result of his lobbying was Pioneering the space frontier - the first Blue Ribbon report on space of a very long serie that still span to this day... with zero result !

 

[Bahamut-255]

Sure, Michel. But none of that is as sexy as a 2,000 ton "reusable" space truck.

It really needed the quotation marks on the word "reusable". It would seem here, ITTL, that a SpacePlane won't be coming around for a very, very long time. With the critical justification being "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

This would be my greatest gripe on STS. When NASA started work on it, it meant losing the already-proven Apollo CSM. And we all know what that meant.

Maybe the Apollo Block III+ and upcoming Apollo Block IV aren't sexy, but they sure as hell work! And in such a business, that is the critical factor.

 

[Athelstane]

It really needed the quotation marks on the word "reusable". It would seem here, ITTL, that a SpacePlane won't be coming around for a very, very long time. With the critical justification being "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

This would be my greatest gripe on STS. When NASA started work on it, it meant losing the already-proven Apollo CSM. And we all know what that meant.

Maybe the Apollo Block III+ and upcoming Apollo Block IV aren't sexy, but they sure as hell work! And in such a business, that is the critical factor.

And when your launch vehicle goes haywire, you actually have a chance to save the crew, too.

 

[e of pi]

Since people are talking costs, here's some of the cost estimates we use behind the scenes. We're baselining Multibody costs at around $6000/kg, so an M02 costs roughly $150 million, while a Heavy costs about $400m (some of the costs of handling an M02 aren't duplicated 3x by the triple cores of an H03--for one, there's only one upper stage). We're saying that Apollo capsules (Block IV) cost about $80m, roughly the same for an Aardvark or AARDV bus. This makes a Block IV crew flight or Aardvark Block II logistics flight on M02 about $230m. Note that these costs are in 2011 dollars, we find it easier for our purposes.

 

[Bahamut-255]

And when your launch vehicle goes haywire, you actually have a chance to save the crew, too.

As has already been demonstrated ITTL.

Since people are talking costs, here's some of the cost estimates we use behind the scenes. We're baselining Multibody costs at around $6000/kg, so an M02 costs roughly $150 million, while a Heavy costs about $400m (some of the costs of handling an M02 aren't duplicated 3x by the triple cores of an H03--for one, there's only one upper stage). We're saying that Apollo capsules (Block IV) cost about $80m, roughly the same for an Aardvark or AARDV bus. This makes a Block IV crew flight or Aardvark Block II logistics flight on M02 about $230m. Note that these costs are in 2011 dollars, we find it easier for our purposes.

Which means to duplicate a single STS launch, you would need two Saturn M02 launches. One manned, one unmanned. At a cost of $230,000,000 and $230,000,000 respectively for a combined cost of $460,000,000. Against $450,000,000 for a single STS launch.

Meaning a greater safety factor through better abort options and a proven an improved Apollo, with just $10,000,000 extra.

A lot of assumptions on my part here, though the general argument should still be valid.

 

[Athelstane]

Since people are talking costs, here's some of the cost estimates we use behind the scenes. We're baselining Multibody costs at around $6000/kg, so an M02 costs roughly $150 million, while a Heavy costs about $400m (some of the costs of handling an M02 aren't duplicated 3x by the triple cores of an H03--for one, there's only one upper stage). We're saying that Apollo capsules (Block IV) cost about $80m, roughly the same for an Aardvark or AARDV bus. This makes a Block IV crew flight or Aardvark Block II logistics flight on M02 about $230m. Note that these costs are in 2011 dollars, we find it easier for our purposes.

Still too expensive - but that's one aspect of NASA that we could hardly expect to change in this timeline.

That's cost-plus contracts and the Cold War mindset for you.

 

[Shevek23]

I felt post 1116 was a very valuable one, giving us a peek at the economics of Saturn/Apollo/AARDV launches, so I edited the wiki page on "Space Craft and Launch Vehicle Data" to point to it. It's right under the block of data on Multibody configurations.

If the authors are fully committed to these dollar costs for the units they mentioned, I might reedit the text of the post into authoritative language and post the costs as a table. This is my first wiki page edit though, so that might be going too far. Besides this way the authors can edit the post, or change the link to a later, more authoritative post.

I presume for instance that when we're told Apollo "capsules" and AARDVs both cost about $80 million (2011 $) that that includes all the submodules on top of the second stage--SM, CM, MM for an Apollo, the integrated single module plus freight cost for the payload for the AARDV. It seems unlikely to me a whole AARDV costs as little as just a CM, and if the Apollo "capsule" cost doesn't include the other two, we aren't being told much! I'd have said "stack" instead, unless there is a more proper term for the ensemble of modules that makes an Apollo Block III+.

I'd suggest including a table of deflation values for each range of say 5 years, but that would be misleading as well as awkward--presumably the first instances of each type of component cost more in adjusted dollars than later launches, when things have been honed down to a routine and bugs have been flushed out, for the most part. For reader-nerd purposes, there isn't much point in shifting the year of reckoning back and forth.

And of course as recent posts remind us there is the occasional mission failure that requires going over the whole system (which is an added cost to be factored into all later launches) and revising operations to avoid a now-known failure mode that had not been accounted for properly before.

Nice not to have to always include funeral expenses in the figuring.

 

[Shevek23]

And by the way, do the solid boosters work out to cost about the same price per tonne as the liquid stages? Or are they substantially cheaper?