No-shuttle alternative space timeline

Archibald

Banned
Phase 2 and 3 of Reagan’ lunar program didn’t survived the end of Cold War, which led to budget cuts even for NASA. They were replaced by an “extended phase 1“ in 1992, essentially GEO missions using Saturn INT-30 and the S-IVB tug.
At the time Skyhab was near completion. It included a dozen of international modules, some of which were Europeans, others were Japanese. The station was supposed to end its life around 2002 after 20 years in orbit, albeit it could probably be extended for five years or even to 2010.
Follow ons were already studied, but opponents voiced against “another LEO station”. At the time ESA and the private sector already planned Salyut-sized space stations. They were the Man Tended Free Flyer and the Industrial Space Facility. Russia announced in November 1991 that despite economic problems it would still use OS-1 in the 90’s, albeit the country was opened to "international discussions" for follow-ons.

Robert Zubrin, Buzz Aldrin and Robert W.Farquhar then pushed for a mission to the Earth-Moon Lagrangian (EML-1 and EML-2) points.
On 26th September 1992 a Saturn INT-30 roared to the sky. Minutes later the fully-fuelled S-IVD entered a 185 km parking orbit. Hours later a Saturn INT-20 block 3 (F-1B, J-2T-300k engines) put a 65 tons Gemini-D spacecraft with a crew of five into the same orbit. Gemini D docked to the S-IVD, creating a 200 tons spaceship which was boost to a trans-lunar-trajectory at 40 000 kph. The spectacular trip was to last three weeks and included a lunar swing-by to send the spacecraft to EML-2.
http://s68.photobucket.com/albums/i24/Archibaldlecter/Space%20Stations/?action=view&current=LEO-lunar-L220transfer.gif
Life onboard Gemini-D marked lot of progresses when compared to Apollo thanks to a much superior internal volume and crew accommodations (including a shower and a toilet). On October 1st 1992 the spacecraft made a lunar swingby and accelerated toward what Farquhar had called “the interstellar highway toll” or
EML-2, a point it reached 9 days after it left Earth which was now 400 000km away. The day was October 4th 1992, 35 years after Sputnik.

Once there it entered a halo orbit. The crew spent 5 days studying the dark side of the moon. EVAs were performed and a small communication satellite was released. The aim was to study moon-earth communication via an EML-2 satellite.
The S-IVD was fired again to send Gemini-D toward the Earth, where the crew landed safely on 13th October 1992 (Columbus and Yeager…)
More missions followed in 1995 and 1997, including a direct, shorter flight to EML-2 and another to EML-1. They convinced NASA that its next space station should be located at one of the Lagrangian points, not in LEO.

Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin discussed the proposal at various meetings between 1995 and 1997. An agreement was reached in November 1998. Hardware and experience from MOK and Skyhab would be invaluable while building the new complex…
As Farquhar, Aldrin and Zubrin declared to the IAF congress in November 1992 “EML-2 can be considered as the toll of interplanetary missions. Building a space station there, even a small one, would greatly help returning to the Moon and going to Mars. EML-2 point gives continuous communications coverage for all far-side lunar operations while being an excellent point of departure for a Mars spaceship.”
After cancellation of the N-1 the development of its block S cryogenic stage (powered by three RD-57 engines) had continued. The block had found its way as third stage of Chelomei UR-700 booster.
The block S and S-IVD were used to send stations modules to EML-2 via a lunar swingby.
First of these module was the DOS-7, an improved Salyut module with multiple docking ports. Thanks to internal rivalries between engineers Chelomei had started building it even if OKB-1 MOK space station had replaced Salyuts at the time.
The module had been in mothballs for years and now was to form the core of the forthcoming Emily station.
US 40 tons sections were derivatives of Gemini-C cargo module. Emily-1 was an austere and robust space station for 5 astronauts, located 400 000 km from Earth.
An american-russian crew stayed 80 days at Emily-1 in 2004, opening a new era.
 

Thande

Donor
Very nice!

BTW, your pictures of the ATV attached to various manned craft in the other thread now seem strangely prophetic, given Astrium's announcement...
 

Archibald

Banned
Very nice!

BTW, your pictures of the ATV attached to various manned craft in the other thread now seem strangely prophetic, given Astrium's announcement...

Yup, thank you for the info. Nothing surprising with the proposal. They already tried to attract attention on a similar concept three years ago, calling it "ATV large payloads return". The payload was supposed to go back to earth within a large pressurised capsule... but it seemed that the word astronaut was taboo at the time :rolleyes:

The very same day the russians announced that they had "reached a deal to build ACTS" which is basically an ATV / Soyouz hybrid.

So now Europe has two manned spceacraft projects... but final decision lay in an ministerial conference planned late november in the Netherlands. Time will tell...
 

Thande

Donor
Yup, thank you for the info. Nothing surprising with the proposal. They already tried to attract attention on a similar concept three years ago, calling it "ATV large payloads return". The payload was supposed to go back to earth within a large pressurised capsule... but it seemed that the word astronaut was taboo at the time :rolleyes:

The very same day the russians announced that they had "reached a deal to build ACTS" which is basically an ATV / Soyouz hybrid.

So now Europe has two manned spceacraft projects... but final decision lay in an ministerial conference planned late november in the Netherlands. Time will tell...
I think there are two factors influencing this:

1) The ATV worked!!!11111 Champagne all around!!!111

and

2) The Russians are being wankers about the ACTS and want to take European money and do all the stuff themselves.

So hopefully the manned ATV concept will be approved. ACTS is cool too but I don't think the ESA can trust the Russians these days.
 

Archibald

Banned
Europe and ESA

Back to 1971, which is really the crucial date in this ATL.

The year after the shuttle was cancelled and Mishine fired was also troublesome for the european space program.
Europa F11 ended in failure on november 9th 1971 in Kourou. This triggered a major crisis within ELDO.
At the time studies were on the way for Europa L3B. It had 4* M40/M55/ Viking on its first stage instead of Blue Streak; and a big cryogenic H20 engine on its second stage.
A less risky concept was proposed by the CNES having a Viking on second stage and a small HM-7 cryogenic engine as third stage.
This was the L3S.
Europa 2 was cancelled in april 1972, and after many talks the L3S was elected to replace it in july 1973.
ESRO and ELDO were merged into a new agency, the ESA.
Another project was already on tracks, the Black Diamant.
It date back from 1968 but had been at the time reduced to the Black Arrow fairing on the Diamant B.
The project was revived within ESA. The Gamma mk.301 would be used on the second stage, the first being Diamant ' Amethyste. But the gret idea (suggested by a young ingeneer called Alan Bond) was to launch the rocket from a Vulcan bomber flying at 60 000 ft.
A.Bond also suggested to base the Vulcan at Cayenne international airport.
France agreed to cancel Diamant BP.4 in favor of the new project.

The Black Diamant flew for the first time in 1977. Payload was 320 kg in low earth orbit.

(More to come)
 

Archibald

Banned
The Black Diamant flew for the first time in 1977. Payload was 320 kg in low earth orbit.
Later a scaled-down variant of Ariane upper stage (powered by a HM-7 cryogenic engine) was used as third stage. Payload rose to 500 kg while the Amethyste first stage was mass produced and modified to be reusable (it was a robust pressure-fed design able to withstand a parachute landing in the ocean).

Ariane program progressed smoothly in the 70’s and Ariane 1 successfully took off in December 1979. Improved variants were already planned.

Ariane 2 had a bigger fairing plus two or four solid rocket boosters and flew in 1983.

From 1973 things had evolved quickly in the field of European manned spaceflight. Germany had led the effort toward an ESA participation in the Skyhab station.

A modified Gemini-C space station module had been offered to ESA under the name Spacelab. ESA task was to fill the module with scientific experiments, the module being carried by a Gemini-C spacecraft to the station.
Patrick Baudry was a crew member of this mission launched late 1983. Jean Loup Chretien had already flown to Skyliout in 1978 on a TKS soviet spacecraft. Both men had since backed CNES effort in favour of a European manned spacecraft.
This had started around 1977 and took the form of a capsule. This capsule would carry 4 astronauts; a docking module on the nose, have a weight of 8 tons and a 4 meter diameter. It was to be light enough to be launched on top of an Ariane 3 rocket.
This was essentially an Ariane 2 which cryogenic stage replaced by the manned capsule. SRB were replaced by four Viking liquid boosters. Thus Ariane 34L had eight Vikings instead of four and carried 9000 kg in low earth orbit. Of course an escape tower was provided.

In 1979 the Ariane 4 study was disclosed. It really represented the “second generation Ariane”. Main difference was that the low-energy Vikings were replaced by cryogenic HM-60 Vulcain. Three variants of Ariane 4 were studied
- Ariane 4R was a 9*Viking / Vulcain / HM-7, Ariane-3 derivative
- Ariane 4C had 4*Vulcain/ Vulcain second stage/ HM-7 pure cryogenic rocket
- Ariane 4P a single Vulcain + two big SRB / HM-7
(From Capcom espace excellent website)
Ariane5CPR.jpg


Ariane 4R was quickly eliminated and the Viking with it.

The SRB and 4 Vulcain variants were deeply assessed.
As Frederic D’Allest (boss of the CNES at the time) later stated:

“When selecting the basic Ariane 5 layout ESA clearly had to choose between commercial payloads and human spaceflight. SRB were cheaper but not considered man-rated while the 4-Vulcain variant had more growth potential for the future. The choice of the 4 Vulcain variant was a strong move in favour of long term manned spaceflight”

Ariane4et5.jpg


So the 2nd Generation Ariane ended with a layout similar to its older sisters: four engines on first stage, another in second stage.
They were no longer Vikings, rather Vulcain. While thrusts were rather similar, hydrogen had much higher energy than NO2/ UDMH storable propellants. Payload rose from Ariane 3 10 tons to Ariane 4 25 tons. Solid strapons could boost payload even more.

Ariane 4 was to replace Ariane 3 to launch the MESV (Manned European Space Vehicle, later called Heracles).

Ariane 3 flew in 1986 and launched the Heracles capsule for the first time in November 1988. The 100% cryogenic Ariane 4 followed in 1991. It was really a 20% scaled-up Ariane 3 with Vulcain engines.

Since 1983 ESA planned much heavier payloads.

To boost them in LEO Ariane 4P SRB were resurrected and added to Ariane 4, giving the Ariane 5 heavy launcher able to boost 90 000Ibs in low earth orbit. It took off in May 1995.

The heavy payloads were the embryonic station called the MTFF (Man Tended Free Flyer), its high performance cargo dubbed the ACV (Automated Cargo Vehicle) and the MTPF (Man Tended Polar Platform).

The MTFF and MTPF become more important in the 90’s when NASA and the RKA announced that they will partially gave up LEO after Skyhab and OS-1 stations reach the end of their lives around 2005, in favour of the Emily-1 station.

This decision prompted Europe to study an ACV / Heracles hybrid which overall concept was similar to Gemini-C and the TKS. This represented the 2nd generation of ESA manned spacecraft and flew in October 2003.

(In this ATL
Ariane 1 = Ariane 1
Ariane 2 et 3 = Ariane 40 / 42 etc. (aside Ariane 44L)
Ariane 3 = Ariane 44L
Ariane 4 and 5 = introduction of the Vulcain engine (these rockets are hybrids of OTL Ariane 5 -C, -P, –R studied in the early 80’s, see Capcom espace pic above)
 
Last edited:

Archibald

Banned
Phase 2 and 3 of Reagan’ lunar program didn’t survived the end of Cold War, which led to budget cuts even for NASA. They were replaced by an “extended phase 1“ in 1992, essentially GEO missions using Saturn INT-30 and the S-IVB tug.
At the time Skyhab was near completion. It included a dozen of international modules, some of which were Europeans, others were Japanese. The station was supposed to end its life around 2002 after 20 years in orbit, albeit it could probably be extended for five years or even to 2010.
Follow ons were already studied, but opponents voiced against “another LEO station”. At the time ESA and the private sector already planned Salyut-sized space stations. They were the Man Tended Free Flyer and the Industrial Space Facility. Russia announced in November 1991 that despite economic problems it would still use OS-1 in the 90’s, albeit the country was opened to "international discussions" for follow-ons.

Robert Zubrin, Buzz Aldrin and Robert W.Farquhar then pushed for a mission to the Earth-Moon Lagrangian (EML-1 and EML-2) points.
On 26th September 1992 a Saturn INT-30 roared to the sky. Minutes later the fully-fuelled S-IVD entered a 185 km parking orbit. Hours later a Saturn INT-20 block 3 (F-1B, J-2T-300k engines) put a 65 tons Gemini-D spacecraft with a crew of five into the same orbit. Gemini D docked to the S-IVD, creating a 200 tons spaceship which was boost to a trans-lunar-trajectory at 40 000 kph. The spectacular trip was to last three weeks and included a lunar swing-by to send the spacecraft to EML-2.
http://s68.photobucket.com/albums/i24/Archibaldlecter/Space%20Stations/?action=view&current=LEO-lunar-L220transfer.gif
Life onboard Gemini-D marked lot of progresses when compared to Apollo thanks to a much superior internal volume and crew accommodations (including a shower and a toilet). On October 1st 1992 the spacecraft made a lunar swingby and accelerated toward what Farquhar had called “the interstellar highway toll” or
EML-2, a point it reached 9 days after it left Earth which was now 400 000km away. The day was October 4th 1992, 35 years after Sputnik.

Once there it entered a halo orbit. The crew spent 5 days studying the dark side of the moon. EVAs were performed and a small communication satellite was released. The aim was to study moon-earth communication via an EML-2 satellite.
The S-IVD was fired again to send Gemini-D toward the Earth, where the crew landed safely on 13th October 1992 (Columbus and Yeager…)
More missions followed in 1995 and 1997, including a direct, shorter flight to EML-2 and another to EML-1. They convinced NASA that its next space station should be located at one of the Lagrangian points, not in LEO.

Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin discussed the proposal at various meetings between 1995 and 1997. An agreement was reached in November 1998. Hardware and experience from MOK and Skyhab would be invaluable while building the new complex…
As Farquhar, Aldrin and Zubrin declared to the IAF congress in November 1992 “EML-2 can be considered as the toll of interplanetary missions. Building a space station there, even a small one, would greatly help returning to the Moon and going to Mars. EML-2 point gives continuous communications coverage for all far-side lunar operations while being an excellent point of departure for a Mars spaceship.”
After cancellation of the N-1 the development of its block S cryogenic stage (powered by three RD-57 engines) had continued. The block had found its way as third stage of Chelomei UR-700 booster.
The block S and S-IVD were used to send stations modules to EML-2 via a lunar swingby.
First of these module was the DOS-7, an improved Salyut module with multiple docking ports. Thanks to internal rivalries between engineers Chelomei had started building it even if OKB-1 MOK space station had replaced Salyuts at the time.
The module had been in mothballs for years and now was to form the core of the forthcoming Emily station.
US 40 tons sections were derivatives of Gemini-C cargo module. Emily-1 was an austere and robust space station for 5 astronauts, located 400 000 km from Earth.
An american-russian crew stayed 80 days at Emily-1 in 2004, opening a new era.

Updated variant of this part.
My Internet connection die 5 weeks ago and was hard to repair.

Phase 2 and 3 of Reagan’ lunar program didn’t survived the end of Cold War, which led to budget cuts even for NASA. They were replaced by an “extended phase 1“in 1992, essentially GEO missions using Saturn INT-30 and the S-IVC tug.
At the time Skyhab was near completion. It included a dozen of international modules, some of which were Europeans, others were Japanese. The station was supposed to end its life around 2002 after 20 years in orbit, albeit it could probably be extended for five years or even to 2010.
Follow ons were already studied, but opponents voiced against “another LEO station”. At the time ESA and the private sector already used Salyut-sized space stations. They were the Man Tended Free Flyer and the Industrial Space Facility. Russia announced in November 1991 that despite economic problems it would still use OS-1 in the 90’s.

Robert Zubrin, Buzz Aldrin and Robert W.Farquhar then pushed for a mission to the Earth-Moon Lagrangian (EML-1 and EML-2) points.
In 1991 NASA post-Skyhab options were
-another LEO station
-a moon orbiting space station
-a moon base
None of them was found very attractive by Bush Sr. A LEO station was deja-vu at a time Europe, Russia and even the private sector had their LEO infrastructure.
Moon orbiting station was the preferred option but was found unfeasible because of the mascons. These masses concentration within the moon made the lunar gravitational field very bumpy. Thus lunar orbits were highly unstable, leading to crashes on the moon after some months, or costly and numerous reboosts.

A Moon base was tempting but horribly difficult and expensive, even more if the base was permanently manned.

EML- points on the other hand offered not only interesting “steps” on the road to the moon (EML-1) but also an ideal point of departure for both Moon and Mars expeditions in the case of EML-2.
In the end NASA decided in favour of EML- stations rather than lunar orbit or lunar surface infrastructures. What decided the space agency was the f act that space stations were easier to build (thanks to 20 years of experience) than lunar surface infrastructures.

On 26th September 1992 a Saturn INT-30 roared to the sky. Minutes later the fully-fuelled S-IVD tug entered a 185 km parking orbit.
Hours later a Saturn INT-20 block 3 (F-1B, J-2T-300k engines) put a 65 tons Gemini-D spacecraft with a crew of five into the same orbit. Gemini D docked to the S-IVD which boost the ship to a trans-lunar-trajectory at 40 000 kph. The spectacular trip was to last three weeks and included a lunar swing-by to send the spacecraft to EML-2.
http://s68.photobucket.com/albums/i...ction=view&current=LEO-lunar-L220transfer.gif

Life onboard Gemini-D marked lot of progresses when compared to Apollo thanks to a much superior internal volume and crew accommodations (including a shower and a toilet).
The 8 tons Reusable Crew Module housed five astronauts. Behind them was the heatshield, with a hatch to access the life-support module. This part of Big Gemini had a diameter of 6 m and a length of 20m.
It was filled with
-two storable-propellants tanks for the TR-201 engines used after S-IVB separation
-a SAS for the EVAs, including two MMUs.
-a shower, a toilet, crew accommodations, food, water, and others supplies.
-At the rear was another hatch. It was currently locked as the S-IVB was docked there; but once the stage would be discarded the docking port could be use to dock with LEO stations.
-There was also a bay which contained small lunar probes and satellites. They were released during the mission.
This module would be discarded just before Earth reentry.
The S-IVC tug was docked at the rear of the life-support module. After a LEO rendez-vous its J-2 cryogenic engine send the spacecraft into a TLI, and later braked to enter a halo orbit “around” EML-2.


During the long trip to the moon space probes were released to study the Earth satellite. One of them captured a picture of the massive, 170 tons Gemini-D / S-IVD spacecraft on its way to the moon. The photography become of the most famous of the 90’s and was a major public-relations hit for NASA. Buzz Aldrin noticed that “what we see in this picture is no longer a LEO capsule nor a space station. We can consider it as an embryo of future interplanetary spacecrafts

On October 1st 1992 the spacecraft made a lunar swingby and accelerated toward what Farquhar had called “the interstellar highway toll” or EML-2, a point it reached 9 days after it left Earth. The day was October 4th 1992, 35 years after Sputnik. Once there it entered a halo orbit. The crew spent 5 days studying the dark side of the moon. EVAs were performed and a small communication satellite was released. The aim was to study moon-earth communication via an EML-2 satellite.
The S-IVD was fired again to send Gemini-D toward the Earth, where the crew landed safely on 13th October 1992 (Columbus and Yeager…)
More missions followed in 1995 and 1997, including a direct, shorter flight to EML-2 (no lunar swingby) and another to EML-1. They convinced NASA that its next space station should be located at one of the Lagrangian points, not in LEO. Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin discussed the proposal at various meetings between 1995 and 1997. An agreement was reached in November 1998. Hardware and experience from MOK and Skyhab would be invaluable while building the new complex… the Emily International Station (EMLIS) was born.

Farquhar, Aldrin and Zubrin declared at the historic 1992 IAF congress in November that “EML-2 can be considered as the toll of interplanetary missions. Building a space station there, even a small one, would greatly help returning to the Moon and going to Mars. EML-2 point gives continuous communications coverage for all far-side lunar operations while being an excellent point of departure for a Mars spaceship.”

After cancellation of the N-1 the development of its block S cryogenic stage (powered by three RD-57 engines) had continued. The block had found its way as third stage of Chelomei UR-700 booster.
The UR-700 was a costly rocket and the end of Cold War was nearly lethal to the program. NASA had no interest in the thing, even if contrary to Saturn INT-20/30 it didn’t need LEO rendez-vous operations.
It was ESA which saved the giant rocket. Ariane 5 was powerful enough for a small manned spacecraft, but not for building a space station at EML-2. Thus in 2001 ESA agreed to finance some UR-700 launches, and joined the Emily program.

First of these module was the DOS-8, an improved Salyut module with multiple docking ports. Thanks to internal rivalries between engineers Chelomei had started building it even if OKB-1 MOK space station had replaced Salyuts at the time. The module had been in mothballs for years and now was to form the core of the forthcoming Emily station.
DOS-8 was send to EML-2 in February 2003.

US 40 tons radiation shielded sections were derivatives of Gemini-C cargo module. Emily-1 was an austere and robust space station for 5 astronauts. It entered service in January 2005.

Emily-1 and Emily-2 modular space stations included radiation shielding, as they were out of the protective Earth magnetic field. They were in fact used as testbeds for future Mars vessels. They helped solving three major problems
-human long term exposure to a zero-G environment
-test of radiation shielding systems for crew and electronics
-building big structures located at EML-2 librations points.

This proved very useful for the next step of space exploration, Mars. When nuclear thermal (such as NERVA) propulsion proved politically impossible because of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents, Aldrin and others advocated instead the “Mars cycler”, gravitation-powered spacecrafts.
They were basically big, highly-redundant space stations orbiting the Sun between the Earth and Mars. In fact they were considered as unpowered shuttles between the two planets. Problem was the very long duration of the trip; it was partially solved by having 3 to 5 “cyclers” crossing their respective orbits. By transferring astronauts from one cycler to another the trip was much shortened. An S-IVD-powered Gemini-E spacecraft was supposed to catch a Mars cycler from EML-2 Emily space station. The aim was a Mars flyby around 2020.

Two austere space stations were build. Emily-1 and Emily-2 were located on each side of the moon; only Emily-1 was permanently manned.
Emily-2 was much more modest, in fact while Emily-1 had been build around the DOS-8 core, Emily-2 was nothing more than a backup Salyut with a US module.
The aim of both stations were rather different.
Emily-1 was a “safe heaven” for missions to the moon, and a relay for mining lunar raw materials on their way to Earth. It was also used to send unmanned platforms to ESL-1 and back, 1.5 million kilometres away.
Emily-2 was an astronomical observatory, a communication relay, and the starting point for manned missions within the solar system, catching Earth-Mars or Earth-Venus cyclers…
 

Archibald

Banned
Btw I've recently discovered the "Early Lunar Access" study of 1992, which prove that you don't need superboosters (such as Energia, Saturn V or... Ares V) to reach the moon.

It seems that a Titan IV plus a Space Shuttle are enough (now we would talk about Delta IV and Ariane 5).

E.L.A used a Centaur as a tug, LEO rendez vous, and direct ascent to put a two-men lunar module on the lunar surface!

Thus it seems that the Big Gemini - Titan III ATL can also end with a "return to the moon" program (albeit more modest than the one described here!)

It is based on the same documents as the Big Gemini - Saturn INT-20 ATL.
Stay tunned!
 

Archibald

Banned
Edit

Here's the whole story

The no-Shuttle alternative timeline.
Whatif the Space Shuttle had been scrapped in 1970 under pressure of Nixon’s OMB?

This alt history is based on this article


How Jim Fulton Saved the Space Shuttle
by
Frank Sietzen, Jr.
Sunday, September 21, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------

It was a cold day of January 1970. Congressman Jim Fulton was on this way to the House of Representatives Manned Spaceflight Subcommittee when he felt a nasty pain on its left arm, obviously a heart attack. Ambulances were called and rushed to the rescue, but it was too late and he died minutes later.
Two month later, in the spring of 1970, the House of Representatives Manned Spaceflight Subcommittee sought to bolster the anemic administration request for NASA by a budget boost. It recommended to the full Committee on Science and Astronautics a whopping increase to the manned effort, nearly all for what members then called a "recoverable craft" and a space station. This set in motion a showdown with the full committee, and ultimately for the full House, on what character of manned effort would proceed. The focus was the mark-up for the FY71 NASA Authorization bill.
There, supporters of the reusable logistics vehicle outlined in Nixon's study were hoping to move the concept forward in a big way. If, on the other hand, the project failed to get support for the upcoming Fiscal Year, it would mean the future of manned flight after Apollo and Skylab would most likely end, with resources being shifted to unmanned robotic probes. If critics succeeded in stripping funding for the project (called by NASA a "Space Shuttle"), it would be increasingly difficult - if not impossible - to prevail later. And with the Nixon Administration still uncertain as to the importance it might place on a Shuttle, defeat would make it less likely that Nixon would embrace the idea as his own manned space goal.
Thus, much was riding on the 1971 NASA budget.
Rep. Joseph Karth (D-MN) was the third ranking member of the full committee.
Rep. George Miller (D-CA.) was its chair.
Rep. Olin E. ‘Tiger' Teague (D-TX) was chair of the Manned Flight Subcommittee.
Rep. James Fulton had been its ranking Republican before his death. Many Democrats were grateful for Fulton's intense support for NASA programs, although he often succeeded in irritating some of them with endless questions and advocacy.
Fulton believed a Space Shuttle was crucial if manned flight beyond Apollo were to continue. Karth, by contrast, was a voracious critic of manned spaceflight, and in particular took a dim view of all of the talk about recoverable craft, space stations, and especially Mars missions.
Karth in particular was suspicious of NASA's claims for the cost of its programs. For projections of robotic missions, Karth once referred to such projections as "asinine". "NASA must consider members of Congress stupid idiots," he blasted.
Development of a Space Shuttle was unneeded, and the cost projections "totally unrealistic", Karth predicted. Teague's subcommittee had added $80 million directly for acceleration of Space Shuttle studies, and a total $300 million for advanced Shuttle prototypes, testing, and additional funding for manned space-related infrastructure. The debate began.
Karth told the full science committee that he would support funds for the remaining Apollo missions 16 and 17 but not for the Space Shuttle. He worried aloud that by pushing to start developmental work on the Shuttle before final designs or configurations were selected, Congress would be locked into the need for providing ever larger amounts as the Shuttle took shape.
Rep. Don Fuqua (D-FLA) shot back defending the Teague recommendations. "We're trying to get the best for our space dollar," Fuqua said. The nation needed the reusable capability that the Shuttle offered; and thereby should fund the Shuttle now. But others also objected to the increases.
Some said the $300 million added was too much. "This program is losing romance with the American people," said Rep. Thomas Downing (D-VA). But Teague backed his budget and the need for the Shuttle.
Teague called Nixon's budget for NASA and his indecision on the Shuttle as being "too little". At that time, the White House Bureau of the Budget was also battling NASA over funding to start the Shuttle project. Teague took a dim view of the B0B (predecessor to the Office of Management and Budget - OMB) role in restricting NASA. "I'll bet you this subcommittee of mine knows more about this program than the Bureau of the Budget does!" he told the full committee. The committee voted, and narrowly endorsed Teague's Shuttle increases.
But Karth's anti-Shuttle alternate budget became the official minority position, as the House Appropriations Committee moved the bill to the House floor for debate. Karth had three Democrats supporting his alternative, and three Republicans all from the committee. This bi-partisan split and the narrow passage of Teague's increases gave Shuttle critics hope that they could craft a coalition to kill the Shuttle on the House floor. But to defeat the Shuttle once and for all, Karth would need to rely upon conservative Republicans to an unusual degree.
Although Fulton had come to strongly believe in starting the Shuttle, his death doomed the program. With Fulton dead, the Republicans (in the minority) now managed their efforts through Rep. Charles Mosher (R-OH). Mosher was deeply troubled by the increases to federal spending. The $300 million proposed by Teague's subcommittee and adopted by the full science committee was too much for him to support. Mosher went to see Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford (R-MI). Ford had little love for the Shuttle idea as well, and was also concerned about the big increase. If Nixon wanted the Shuttle, why didn't he say so? And if Nixon would accept the increases, he should day that, too. Instead, the White House was still silent on what kind of space program it envisioned after Apollo.
Together, Ford and Mosher agreed to support cutting the Shuttle funds from the NASA bill when it got to the House floor. In essence, they would join forces with Karth, who was also planning a move of his own.
Mosher called together his supporters- Reps. Roudebush, Winn, Frey, and Price. Had Fulton been present, an anti-Shuttle coalition would have been much harder to assemble among the Republicans. But his death meant that Mosher cuts would stand.
The final debate began on April 23, 1970, less than two weeks after the crippled Apollo 13 had returned from the Moon.
Chairman Miller rose to defend his requests for NASA increases for the proposed Shuttle project. "The key to success for the nation's future space effort lies in the development of a low-cost recoverable and reusable space transportation system," Miller told the House. "The Space Shuttle will dramatically reduce the cost of putting people and cargo into space."
Mosher rose to attack the increases. He expressed dismay that manned spaceflight was getting so large a budget boost beyond the administration's request, and in light of the reductions being made to robotic space missions.
Karth now rose and proposed a substitute. He would fund the Shuttle at a study level only. His amendment would strip out $240 million of Teague's increases, and cut another $50 million from manned spaceflight and another $110 million from Nixon's NASA request. If it passed, there would be no manned space flight after Skylab.
Karth also suggested that in effect funding for the Shuttle in the 1971 Fiscal Year was the opening gambit in a NASA effort to override Nixon and get support for a manned Mars mission. "This mission to Mars will cost $50 to $100 billion before its over," Karth said. The Shuttle was but a down payment on the idea. Even the space station could only be justified by its role in planning more advanced manned missions. And he was against that, too.
Fuqua had heard enough. "I am puzzled by the statement that the Shuttle is in some way mixed up with the Mars landing," he said, looking in Karth's direction. Other Shuttle advocates rose to suggest that mentioning Mars were just an attempt to blunt the arguments for the Shuttle's abilities as a logistics vehicle. By attaching the Shuttle to Mars-and even to a space station- the project might be killed outright. Both Mars and the space station were highly unpopular topics in Congress in the spring of 1970.
These arguments continued, right up to the roll call. In 1970, there were no provisions for electronic voting. Members had to stand in lines, one for or one against. One line was to vote for the Karth amendment, killing Shuttle funding. The other was against – i.e. for the Shuttle
But the battle wasn't yet over. Several members continued to argue over the Shuttle's true purpose as they lined up to vote. Confusion broke out, with some members saying later they thought they were in line to vote to kill the Shuttle, not the Karth amendment. The chair called the total- a 53-53 tie. Under the rules, the proposed amendment failed.
But now, under the House rules, the Republicans could offer to recommit the bill. Mosher was ready to do so, but he had a compromise of his own. He would attach Karth's budget ceiling to the bill, effectively stripping the Shuttle, again, from the NASA FY71 budget. As the ranking Republican on the full committee present Mosher now decided to stop Shuttle funding. Ford then agreed to support Mosher's cuts.
Ford then huddled with chairman Miller. An exhausted Miller then announced that Karth's amendment would be the one introduced-and that Miller now embraced it and not his original opinion favourable to the Shuttle. A voice vote was quickly called and passed easily, given that seniority was everything to Republicans. And word now spread that Nixon would probably scrap the Shuttle.


This was done a month later and left NASA in deep sorrow. Thomas Paine left NASA and was replaced by James Fletcher.
Future of US manned spaceflight now looked rather gloomy.
Or it will stop, or Nixon could endorse three options for a manned spacecraft
- USAF lifting body
- Apollo CM block.3 (with a new Service Module)
- Big Gemini
Nixon openly stated to Weinberger that manned spaceflight couldn’t stop, thus the options were reviewed again in May 1970. In the end Big Gemini was chosen. It would enter service around 1975 and include “technologies studied for the Shuttle”. This meant that the 9-crew capsule would have to land on the ground and being reusable.

Then during summer 1970 debate raged over the launcher. Titan IIIC sounded the less costly option, but NASA really disliked the idea of launching Big G on top of this rocket. The space agency argued that SRBs were non man rated; it growth potential was near zero, meaning its payload could not improve much despite Big G promises, even if seven-segments SRB were added.
Olin E. Teague then suggested using Saturn INT-20. It was basically a Saturn V without second stage, meaning it was so overpowered that F-1s engines had to be shut-down or delete in order to limit G-forces at take off!

Teague arguments were as follow

-Saturn INT-20 used proven hardware and saved part of Saturn launchers while much less expensive to build

-Saturn production line stayed open, which could be interesting in the long term

-The rocket had 100 000Ibs payload, enough to lift decent size space station modules

-Big Gemini itself (when launched by Saturn INT-20) had a 60 000Ib cargo payload, even if the cargo module was expended

-It kept the S-IVB stage alive, thus allowing more moon missions if NASA budget rose later (by using cheap Titan UA-1207 boosters Saturn INT-20 could boost a S-IVB in low earth orbit, thus allowing late LEOR lunar missions)

-It was a launcher powerful enough to replace the cancelled Shuttle. Teague argued that NASA still needed a new launcher to boost its new manned spacecraft.

-Titan III was no solution as its payload was even weaker than Saturn IB while diminishing crew safety.

In October 1970 Saturn INT-20 was officially chosen to replace the Shuttle. But the debate was not over. From November OMB battled NASA on Saturn costs, which had to be drastically diminished. The OMB essentially targeted S-IC first stage costs. Two ways were explored in 1971 to address this problem

-Deleting more and more F-1 on the S-IC, leaving only two and having F-1A (20% more power) as compensation.

-Having pressure-fed or solid first stages as cheap strapons or first stage.

NASA found that thanks to its expendable cargo module Big G was less sensitive to size variations of its launcher than the Shuttle considered before it. Variations in the number of F-1 made that the vehicle mass ranged from 100 000 to 300 000 Ibs! Quite simply, different cargo modules were studied for these different masses.

(What follow is an extract from the book “The Big G decision” by DenisJenkins)

---- For two years choice of the booster was still unsettled.
The S-IC studies.
Boeing's situation was of course advantageous, for that company's S-IC was Saturn INT-20 first stage. On the other hand the burden of reducing costs by making it reusable fell on the company.
Boeing first proposed to remodel its S-IC by turning it into a big airplane. It would receive wings, a tail, a nose with a flight deck, and 10 jet engines for the return to its launch site. Though the standard S-IC had never been built for reentry and reuse, thermal protection would not be a problem; modest thickenings of its aluminium skin now would provide heat sink. To emphasize its short-term feasibility, Boeing's technical artists presented top and side view sin lavish detail, even specifying the location of the onboard power units and the choice of tires for the landing gear. At a time when NASA still expected to defer building a flyback booster for several years, one member of the study team emphasized that "our proposal is the reusable booster."
Sadly the winged S-IC fell by the wayside around the end of 1970, amid criticism even within the Big G community. John Yardley, who headed the work at McDonnell Douglas, told AviationWeek, "You just could not build the world's largest airplane without all the problems that would go with a 700,000-pound craft. And it doesn't buy you much flying it back if you can do the same job in a cheaper way."
Boeing and NASA-Marshall, however, would not be denied, as they proposed a new alternative: a pump-fed booster. Though this again was to be an S-IC variant, it would be without wings, tail, jet engines, landing gear, or crew compartment. Instead it amounted to the standard S-IC, fitted out to land in the ocean by using parachutes. A retro-rocket was to cushion its impact in the sea; it then would float like a ditched airplane as it awaited rescue. After refurbishment, it would fly again.
At the time deletion of one to three F-1s had been considered and found feasible.


Deleting a single F-1 was found necessary because the S-IVB was much lighter than the S-II, thus Saturn INT-20 acceleration was dreadful. Not only dynamic pressure and 6G accelerations could broke up the rocket or damage its payload; the fifth F-1 simply didn’t rose payload significantly compared to a 4*F1 layout. Boeing then proposed to delete more F-1s to diminish costs.
Boeing was home to the S-IC and was teamed with Grumman. In their report of September 1 1970, they had proposed that the standard S-IC, which needed no development, would give lower costs in an interim program (Boeing had built only 15 S-ICs for the whole of Apollo.) Now, in February, Boeing continued to root for the home team by coming out in favour of its pump-fed booster. This report also came out strongly against solid rockets, urging that they "should be eliminated from further consideration."
The solids and pressure-fed alternatives.
156 and 260 inch solid motors had received a share of attention at the time. But a key group of Saturn design reviewers, at the Manned Spacecraft Center, had come around instead to recommending a single pressure-fed booster that would take the form of a conventional first stage.
The strong case of a solid motor also gave a strong case for choosing the solid motor. No one had previously tried to recover and reuse a solid booster; those of the Titan III had simply plopped into the deep, to provide homes for fishes. Early in January, a NASA official had said, "It is not contemplated at this time that a solid-rocket booster would be recoverable." Yet the modest staging velocity of the solids, as low as 4000 ft/sec, meant that their heavy casings could easily serve as a heat sink. They also could withstand the stress of dropping by parachute into the ocean. NASA-Marshall and its contractors found that reusability of these solids would cut the cost per flight to around $10 million, allowing the INT-20 to maintain its advantage and to capture its traffic from expendables. 22
Within the OMB, Daniel Taft, who worked with the NASA budget, saw an opportunity-and smelled a rat. The opportunity existed because NASA's own estimates proposed that a suitable solid rocket motor would cost up to a billion dollars less to develop than a pressure-fed booster. In addition to this, the Air Force had already developed the 120-inch solids of the Titan III, thus providing a base of experience along with confidence in the validity of the new cost estimates for solids. Pressure-fed versions carried no such experience and no such confidence, for they had never been built before.
NASA, however, liked the S-IC and pressure-feds, and Taft knew that to lead it to solids would not be easy. In a memo to Rice, late in January, he laid out the issues. He wrote that "NASA's schedule for the selection of the final configuration...is extremely tight (March 1)." Drawing on Rice's back-channels to the contractors, Taft noted that one such source had recommended that pressure-fed designs should be studied for six to twelve months. Taft also asked "whether NASA can overcome its instinctive dislike" of solid rocket motors. He added:

NASA has recently let contracts with the four major solid rocket contractors ($150 K each) for quick (1 month) studies of development and production costs and technical aspects of SRMs. This is truly a hasty last minute effort by NASA which can hardly be expected to make up for NASA's failure to study SRMs seriously in the past. Of course, the requirement for Marshall's involvement in the INT-20 program would be quite weak if SRMs were selected. Ironically, Marshall, which has little understanding of SRMs and much to lose by their selection, is managing the SRM contractor effort....

[418] If left to their own desires, NASA would probably select the INT-20 with the pressure-fed booster. This is regrettable because we consider the pressure-fed booster to be a high risk option from the standpoint of both investment cost and operating cost....

At this time I believe that we should lay our cards on the table and explain frankly to NASA our concerns about the risks involved in the pressure-fed booster.... 19

During the subsequent week, contractors presented briefings and gave their recommendations concerning the choice of booster. Low wrote that these briefings "yielded there commendations for each contractor that were most predictable based on vested interests." They also were predictable based on the contractors' choices during a similar exercise six months earlier, when they had compared expendable boosters for interim use. On both these occasions, Boeing's recommendations had been particularly egregious.
The INT-20 would use two 156-inch boosters which were as large as could travel on American railroads. Only nine such solids had been test fired-five by Thiokol, four by Lockheed-and Marshall would have plenty to do in bringing them to a level of reliability that would allow them to carry astronauts.
Aside Boeing and its S-IC contractors liked the idea. Lockheed was a major builder of solids. In September, it merely had weighed the merits of competing sizes and arrangements of solids, drawing on this in-house expertise. Now, however, it compared a range of alternatives that included liquid boosters-and found again that solids were best. The February briefing from North American Rockwell was also in character. In September, that company had found no reason to choose between the alternatives of the day. Now it hedged anew, stating that one could choose either solids or a conventional liquid first stage, depending on what cost goals were most important.
McDonnell Douglas also liked solids. It certainly had long experience with liquids, having built the Thor missile, the Delta launch vehicle, and the S-IVB, the third stage of the Saturn V. It also was familiar with solids, being accustomed to use them to provide the widely-used Delta with extra boost at launch. It had endorsed solids in September; it now did so again. In addition to this, its report carried a lengthy review of their safety…which in the end worked against the solids!
The review covered 2128 solid-motor firings, as Delta strap-ons, Titan III boosters, Minuteman ICBMs, and the small four-stage Scout. Thirteen had failed, in ways that were pertinent to the Shuttle, and McDonnell Douglas took care to note both the causes of the failures and the changes in design or in quality-control procedures that could prevent them from recurring. The report noted particularly that in the event of such recurrences, it would usually be possible to safely abort a Shuttle launch. However and unluckily for Douglas and Lockheed, there was an exception which NASA proved very sensitive at.
This would happen if the hot, high-pressure gas within a solid motor succeeded in burning through its casing. Large solids were built in segments, pinned together at their joints, and such joints posed particular hazard of a burn through. The report noted: 21
PROBLEM
REMEDY
ABORT CONSIDERATION
.
CASE BURNTHROUGH
INCREASE CASE INSULATION THICKNESS; USE TWO "O" RINGS BETWEEN SEGMENTS
IF BURNTHROUGH OCCURS TIMELY SENSING MAY NOT BE FEASIBLE AND ABORT NOT POSSIBLE
Thus solids were rejected in March 1971.

NASA had now to consider the danger of the sea, for inevitably, some liquid boosters could be lost. The high cost of a liquid booster meant that losing even one of them would be quite expensive. Moreover, although the pump-fed booster would save on development costs through its use of the existing F-1 engine, its thin-walled structure would easily sustain damage while afloat. Despite that, and thanks to Marshall experience in large liquid-propellant boosters, the reusable S-IC option was chosen. The center had been deeply worried about SRB options, as they were out of its range of action. Now it had obtained a liquid-propellant booster, a choice had to be made between the pressure-fed and F-1 option. Worries arose about reusing the F-1, but Marshall answered these concerns citing the following studies
“Although the engines of the 1960s had not been designed for long life in service, tests had shown that they already were close to achieving this.
The RL-10, with 15,000 pounds of thrust, had been the first to show this. As early as 1963, individual engines had been operated for over two and a half hours, with more than 50restarts. By 1969, the total duration for a single test engine exceeded that of 50 shuttle missions, while a thrust chamber, sans turbopumps, received a series of test firings that totalled more than11 hours. 5
The engines of Apollo showed similar life. TheF-1 was rated for 20 starts and 2250 seconds in total duration. Yet by replacing the liquid-oxygen pump impeller and the turbine manifold at 3500 seconds, test engines achieved as many as 60 starts and total durations of 5000 to 6000 seconds. The J-2 did even better, with a test engine running for 103 starts and 6.5 hours, without overhaul.
"We never wore out an engine of the J-2 type, "recalls Rocketdyne's Paul Castenholz, who managed its development. "We could run it repeatedly; there was no erosion of the chamber, no damage to the turbine blades. If you looked at a J-2 after a hot firing, you would not see any difference from before that firing. The injectors always looked new; there was no erosion or corrosion on the injectors. We had extensive numbers of tests on individual engines,"which demonstrated their reliability. “

In the end Saturn INT-20 kept its S-IC stage. Number of F-1 was nevertheless cut to two. Although this sounded weak the introduction of the more powerful F-1A helped rising payload to 100 000 Ibs. ----
Boeing gave the following numbers for Saturn INT-20. Payload with two F-1s was 36 000 kg, with three, 78 000 kg, and four engines gave 133 tons! Surprisingly this was superior to Saturn INT-21 which used the S-II and five F-1s to put 118 tons in LEO. Boeing added that such payload allowed a return to the Moon via the LEOR profile. A 4*F-1 Saturn would put a fully fueled S-IVB into a LEO orbit for a rendez-vous with the manned spacecraft. Once docked profile of the mission would be similar to Apollo…
In the booster debate Teague had found an ally called Caspar Weinberger, none other than deputy director of the OMB.
This helped secure Saturn INT-20 and Big G. They were presented to the president in December 1971.

NASA presented the INT-20 / Big G combination as a modular, partially recoverable, economical system. It consisted of four main parts
-S-IC. The big Saturn stage had been improved thanks to the Shuttle studies. Now its engines were recovered and their numbers varied following the mission profile. Two variants were planned. - One was reusable (via a heatshield, parachutes, retrorocket and the ocean) and only had two engines - Another had four engines and was not recovered
- S-IVB. It was not reusable, rather mass-produced to reduce its costs. Thus Douglas had found lot of uses to the stage - Second stage of Saturn INT-20 - Space tug - Space station module (of Skylab fame) - SSTO. Douglas suggested using the S-IVB to launch the fully reusable Big Gemini Crew Module (7 tons) alone. It would act as a crew shuttle between the KSC and the LEO stations. One engine, one (cheap) stage… the S-IVB SSTO could also carry 8 tons of cargo to the stations.
- The Big Gemini spacecraft consisted of two main segments.
- The cargo module was not reusable, which was the main drawback of the system compared to the cancelled Shuttle. Consideration was given to a “recoverable cargo module” and lots of studies were made over the years. In the 70’s they consisted of a lifting-body, with a titanium/ alloys “heat sink” structure. It would have landed at Edwards AFB. In the 80’s retrorockets and parachutes were introduced; later airbags were considered. None of these projects was ever build, as NASA turned its mind to deep space missions later.
- At least the crew module was fully reusable, including its heatshield. It landed on the ground with a retrorocket and parachutes. In the 80’s the system was replaced by a (X-38 like) parachute which allowed aircrafts-like landings, thus an undercarriage was added.
Nixon announced in February 1972 that future manned system would consist of Saturn INT-20 and Big Gemini, to enter service around 1976. Main effort would be targeted to Skylab and ATSP follow-ons, or a combination of the two. Remaining Apollo hardware (Saturn IB, CSMs and Saturn V SA-514 and -515) would be expanded as stopgap until 1975.
From 1970 to 1974 things won’t change a lot in the USA compared to OTL. Apollo 15, 16 and 17 lunar missions, Skylab A teething problems happen as in OTL. Of course Saturn INT-20 and Big G are prepared to their first flight planned for late 1975.

Aside the noisy booster debate the period from september1970 to September 1971 was a hard time for NASA. Now that the Shuttle was dead and Big Gemini the only option, choosing the rocket which will boost the spacecraft proved crucial to NASA future. But that’s was not the main problem.

The Shuttle had not only been the ferry to the space station; it was much more than that. It was NASA great program for the decade, aiming at diminishing the cost of space transportation. Big Gemini could not really replace the Shuttle as a “superscience” program, as this spacecraft would need no technology breakthroughs to be build.

NASA solved these problems by turning its mind towards space stations. They were now considered the key elements of the manned spaceflight program rather than the ferry spacecraft the Shuttle (or Big G now) were.

Skylab had been considered as only a first step into this new area, while much more ambitious projects had been drawn. Obviously the next step should be a permanently manned space station with a crew of 6 or more. As Von Braun noticed in a memo in December 1970, the very last Saturn V could be used to boost the core of a future modular space station, probably in the late 70’s. Problem was Skylab B, which was gave no improvement toward the –A, while eating a precious Saturn V.

Saturn V production line had been definitively closed in January 1970 and there were no hopes of reopening it in a context of shrinking budgets, even for two or three rockets. NASA demands for building Saturn SA-516, SA-517 and SA-518 had been regularly turned down between 1965 and July 1968, after what production rate had slumped until the line closed 18 months later.

This meant that even with cancellation of Apollo 20 in January, only a single Saturn V would be available for Skylab A in 1973, essentially leaving its sibling without rocket to launch it. Fletcher had no other choice than cancel two more Apollo missions, Apollo 18 and Apollo 19 in September. Production of Saturn INT-20 was a different matter and was supposed to start in 1973 only.

At the same time discussions were on the way for an american-soviet rendez-vous in space. Two ideas were examined in 1969-1971. They were

-Docking an Apollo to a Salyut, which was the leading option until December 1971, when it was found impossible adding a second docking port to first generation Salyuts;

-Docking Skylab B and a Salyut.

Both ideas were rejected on technical grounds, mainly because of pressure levels within spacecrafts. It was found easier to dock a Soyuz to an Apollo CM via an airlock carried by the US capsule. This was done in July 1975 with the famous, highly successful ATSP mission; but the idea of docking space stations together was not dead.

Skylab A was finally launched in May 1973 but was damaged one minute in flight. The antimeteroit shield tore loose and broke a solar panel, temperature within the station climbed to unacceptable levels, the other solar panel didn’t extended. Over the next 9 months, three Apollo CMs docked to the wrecked station and their crews repaired it. In the end the whole planned program was accomplished. Skylab A was then abandoned and boosted to a highest orbit by the crew of “Skylab 5” CSM in April 1974.

Now it was time to launch Skylab B, using one of the remaining Saturn V. But it was no longer similar to its sibling. Salyut/ Skylab studies had led to another concept, brainchild of Von Braun (even if he was no longer at Marshall). When Skylab A had been launched the huge S-II stage had followed it in orbit, before tumbling across the atmosphere and being destroyed at reentry. Von Braun openly stated that this was a waste, as S-II dimensions were clearly superior to Skylab stations. So he drafted an audacious plan. It summarized 10 years of Wet Workshop, Skylab A and Salyut/ Skylab B studies and operations. The aim was to change the S-II into a crude “Wet Workshop” and kept it linked to Skylab B while in orbit. Not only it would triple the internal volume available for the astronauts; its atmosphere would be made similar to a Soviet Salyut. The S-II was to form the link between the two stations or a kind of giant sas. In short, NASA considered easier to have the airlock within its own station. To achieve this result the S-II would be modified as follow

–A set of solar arrays similar to Skylab A and B

–Hatches and venting systems in the huge LOX and hydrogen tanks, to allow astronauts transits and experiences

–An airlock between Skylab B and the S-II for transition from Salyut to Skylab atmospheres

–The central J-2 was to be removed and replaced by a docking port.

Later, an Apollo CSM would carry an improved ATSP airlock/ docking module; finally a Salyut would dock there. Having only four J-2 instead of five would of course mean less energy, Ie lower orbit. This was not a problem as Soviet hardware tended to have lower orbit than Skylab / Apollo due to lower efficiency of Proton / Soyuz rockets. The Skylab B / S-II / Salyut complex would therefore have a compromised orbit (inclination and altitude) to ease soviet operations. A compromise was found at 50° and 280 km. Various means of boosting the altitude of the complex were studied.

They were

[FONT=&quot]oA fully fuelled Apollo Service Module launched by a Titan III or [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]oA Big G cargo module launched by a standard Saturn INT-20 or [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]oAn S-IVB launched by an uprated Saturn INT-20. [/FONT]

Saturn SA-514 was to be used for the operations and was taken out of storage late 1973. The S-II was modified by North American (now Rockwell) in 1974. Planned launch date was September 1975, just after ATSP, and in time for 4th July 1976 bicentennial celebrations. The operation would expend the last CSM / Saturn IB vehicle. Big G had already been tested in late 1975 and its first manned flight was planned for early 1977.

On 21st September 1975 Saturn SA-514 roared to the sky, shattering Florida. Minutes latter the Skylab B and the S-II were placed into a 280 km orbit. Lessons learned from Skylab A payed, and the launch was uneventful. In late October the very last Apollo capsule was launched by Saturn SA-212. It carried the Salyut docking module. The CSM carefully docked the module at the rear of the complex, then undocked, and headed to the standard docking port on the “dry” part of the station. The crew stayed there for 70 days. March 1976 saw the first flight of the Gemini-C ferry spacecraft, with John Young and Robert Crippen at the controls.

Big Gemini (now known as Gemini C) Gemini C-2 mission followed on July 4th 1976. It rendezvoused with the first soviet Soyuz crew to the station. The mission was highly successful; pictures of the Gemini C and Soyuz spacecrafts docked to the big station were broadcasted during the night. US astronauts celebrated the Independence Day talking with the president and addressing mankind a peaceful message.

Next step was to add the Salyut to this.

Nixon decision to scrap the shuttle puzzled the soviets. But they had, too, their own worries. The N1 giant rocket had blown up its launch pad in February and July 1969. Korolev was badly missed; its successor Mishin was really not up to the task. The N1 and lunar program nevertheless continued over the year 1970, even if the soviets had been beaten on the moon and the rocket was totally unreliable. But opposition to Mishin was mounting. Chelomei and Glushko met in September 1970 and agreed to join their forces against OKB-1 and its N-1 rocket. The aim was to replace it by a storable propellant rocket with fewer engines, none other than the monster UR-700. Glushko influence was thus decisive in December 1970 to avoid cancellation of work on Chelomei booster. Glushko was in good terms with Afanasyev, itself close from Brezhnev and Kosygin. Mishin was finally removed from the head of OKB-1 in September 1971 after the death of Soyuz 11 crew and the third failure of the N1. Glushko, Okhapkin and Kozlov were offered the head of OKB-1. Okhapkin accepted. Ustinov was furious and worried as he had backed Mishin in 1966.

The consequence of all this was a major reorganisation of Soviet spaceflight program in late 1971.

On 17th February 1972 Central Committee of the Communist Party and Council of Soviet Ministers Decree “On work on UR-700, DOS (Salyut) and MKBS/ MOK civilian space stations, TKS manned ferry, and cancellation of the Almaz, N1' and L3” was issued. This meant that Chelomei’ Almaz was cancelled and space stations gave to Okhapkin OKB-1. Already-build Almaz had to be changed into unmanned spy satellites, or civilian Salyuts. Soyuz T and the TKS were to be used to ferry crew and cargo to the stations, but they wouldn’t be ready until the late 70’s. An interim Soyuz would fill the gap. Soyuz T was kept as an insurance against a possible TKS failure; in fact it was one of Ustinov cards against Chelomei.

DOS-1 had been visited by Soyuz 11 and manned for 24 days in June 1971, but the crew had been killed while returning Earth. DOS-2 and “Cosmos 557” (in fact the abortive Salyut 3) failed respectively in 1972 and 1973 in desesperates launches attempts to beat Skylab A. Almaz stations were launched unmanned within the same period, some of them failing, too, in the process. Salyut 4 was finally a success, but not before January 1975.

Then a second generation Salyut followed. It had two docking ports. The program was accelerated after Salyut 4 and Skylab B successes. Salyut 6 (DOS-5) joined the complex in late 1976. The huge station now weighed 145 tons. During the next three years, TKS, Soyuz T and Gemini-C ferried crew and cargo to the complex.

On 24th December 1977 Gemini C-8 and TKS-3 docked to each end of the station, which for the first time weighed more than 200 tons. This was truly the climax of Soviet- US “Join space program”… before the 1978 breakdown.


From 1978 relations between the USA and USSR began to sour, and Skyliout (as Leonov and Slayton had nicknamed it in 1977) was the victim of the end of detente. The Soviets first announced that they will only send Soyuz spacecrafts to it, not TKS.

Although an impressive achievement by itself, the station was plagued by various problems. Among them was its very low orbit, which implied monthly reboosts by either Gemini C or the TKS. Skylab B had never been build for resupply, even if Gemini-C partially solved the problem. The S-II quickly showed its limits: its accommodations were non existents; the structure was weakened by the changing atmosphere from Salyut to Skylab. Last but not least each nation had its own 2nd generation modular station project, MOK and Skyhab.

Soviet and American crews nevertheless met at the station until 14th November 1979 and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Programs to boost the station were scrapped, but Skylab-A “incident” in July 1979 forced NASA to desorbit the thing. This was the last cooperative effort between the two nations for 10 years. After a last Gemini-C mission in December 1980 Skyliout burned over the South Pacific on 23rd March 1981. ;-)

At the time both countries had their own giant space station program under way. MOK and Skyhab were to be launched by the last Saturn V and the new UR-700, and later completed by smaller modules.

Development of the Skyhab core had been plagued by NASA shrinking budgets after 1975. Big G, Saturn INT-20 and Skyhab were considered too expensive by President Gerald Ford and consideration was given to cancel the whole program. As a consequence North American and Douglas were asked in 1977 to study cheaper ferry spacecrafts and space stations using their stages and capsules knowledge. North American had built the S-II and the Apollo CSM; Douglas had built the Gemini and S-IVB. The aim was to combine their knowledges to create a flexible, alternative LEO space transportation / space station system.

NAA and Douglas revolutionary answers were based on S-II and S-IVB expendable SSTOs. These SSTO would be used for all roles: cargo and crew ferries, but also space station modules!

Saturn cryogenic upper stages had excellent mass fractions, to the point that Philip Bono had noticed in the 60’s that “they could be used as expendable, 1st generation single-stage-to-orbit launchers”. Bono admitted that adding a heatshield and a recovery system would reduce payload to zero, so these SSTO would stay in orbit before decaying and being destroyed. Even worse was the fact that the engines were destroyed with the SSTO, and they had to be expensive annular aerospikes to improve performances. Thus the concept had not been taken in consideration for the Shuttle studies in 1969- 1971. Now it was back on the tracks thanks to Gary Hudson. The young engineer had studied the pros and cons of Bono expendable SSTOs. The pros = the SSTO went into orbit with its payload. The cons = it couldn’t return to Earth because recovery systems would simply negate its payload (which was already lower than conventional rockets because there was no staging. Staging improved performances, as Tsilkovski had brilliantly demonstrated earlier).

Hudson then turned the problem differently: if the SSTO is stranded in orbit, what we can we do with it? Answer took the form of what NASA had called -ten years earlier- the “wet workshop” approach. This consisted in turning a propulsive rocket stage into a space station. The astronauts would have to change the huge tanks into living quarters. Hudson improved the idea by mixing it with the “dry” option, in which the station was no longer a propulsion stage; it was outfitted on the ground, not in space. Hudson suggested adding a small, pressurised living quarter as payload of the SSTO. From this pressurised module the astronauts could vent the tanks. Hatches would allow the crew to enter the tanks later for the outfit.

Douglas and NAA demonstrated that many SSTO could be docked together to form a big LEO station. Four payloads were defined: a manned, unexpensive ferry capsule; a cargo module; a multiple docking module; a pressurised module attached to the SSTO and used as a crew accommodation. The latter meant that the SSTO station would be a mix of dry and wet workshop. A small, pressurised crew module would be manned first; from it astronauts would slowly convert the “wet” part of the SSTO into living quarters or laboratories. Even if the “wet” part failed, the dry module would still be available, even if it represented only a small fraction of the S-II or S-IVB stages. By the way their LOX and H2 tanks now had hatches and vents systems; the stages itself had solar arrays, as Skyliout S-II. Douglas and NAA defined tradeoffs between stage performances and station hardware added to them.

Douglas and NAA plans were as follow. A first SSTO would be launched, carrying a pressurised living quarter with a single docking port. A second SSSTO would follow, carrying a multiple docking module, dubbed “node 1”. Once “node 1” in service, multiple SSTO would be added, each having a dry module with a docking port, each being vented of its residual propellants. Once the modular station automatically built, crew and cargo ferries would start their rotations between the KSC and the station.

There led the difference between Douglas and NAA plans.

Each firm built a SSTO stage with different performances. The S-II was superior to the S-IVB, but it was no longer in production and was much costly because of its 5 engines. But Douglas and NAA also built two competing capsules, Big G and the Apollo CM!

The lower performances of the S-IVB pushed Douglas to separate cargo and crew rotation. Big G’ 7-tons crew module would be launched alone on a S-IVB; a cargo module would follow on another SSTO. Douglas argued that this was still cheaper than the huge S-II (because only two engines were wasted) and more flexible. It added that Big G crew module was entirely reusable and landed on the ground.

NAA approach was different due to higher performances of the S-II stage. Cargo and crew were launched on a single SSTO; they consisted of “Apollo CSM block.3”. The Apollo capsule was modified to carry 5 astronauts (as Big G) and 15 tons of cargo in a new module. The SPS and its fuel tanks had been deleted in favour of a cargo module. None of the two parts was reusable; but NAA argued that a single launch was less costly, and that the S-II volume was much superior to the S-IVB once in orbit.

Both firms recognized that all SSTOs couldn’t be used as station modules; regular cargo and crew rotations would rapidly saturate the docking ports. They nevertheless suggested putting the stages onto parking orbits to create others stations later!


The S-IVC = a omniscient stage (from stages to Saturn part.2, 2005)

The Douglas S-IV saga could have ended with Saturn IB and Apollo CM in 1978. But scrapping of the Shuttle in spring 1970 gave this stage a second life. As the Centaur, Transtage and Agena before it, this stage became America workhorse for space exploration.
The S-IVB and its improved variants were quickly used in a wide range of roles. USAF had interest in the J-2 since project Lunex, so it was not a surprised that the S-IVB was part of the ALS, replacement of the Titan III in the late 70’s. By sharing the stage with USAF NASA lowered its price thanks to a higher production rate. Both services agreed on the J-2T-250K annular aerospike to the replace the standard J-2, giving birth to the S-IVC. This engine revealed the true potential of the S-IVC as 1st generation SSTO, a fact which was not lose by USAF when launching the X-24D.

NASA also found other roles for the S-IVC aside second stage of Saturn INT-20. Reagan decided in favour of a “faster better cheaper” moon program in the mid – 80’s. The S-IVD variant was created as an expendable tug for Moon applications. Its goal was to boost Gemini-C, the LLV, and New Lunar Module to EML-1, EML-2 or lunar orbit.




In the end Skyhab overcome its difficulties, and theses concepts were scrapped in 1978. Construction of the core started in 1976 and, as Skyliout, modules were open to international cooperation. NASA targeted Europe.

Europe become the third major space power in the early 80’s. This was a major achievement considering the Europa fiasco. The rocket had blown up in flight on 9th November 1971, and the whole program had been cancelled in spring 1972. The Europa 3/ L3 projects had been pursued by the CNES in the form of the L3S, and barely adopted by ESA, the new European space agency, in July 1973. At the time NASA’ Skylab follow-on Skyhab was already studied, as its launcher was the very last Saturn V. Thus NASA proposed ESA a module, dubbed Spacehab. Germany led the effort and a compromise was found with the CNES, which wanted first an European rocket. Both projects received the go ahead late July 1973. The module was built in ten years and launched on January 25th 1984. Negotiations between ESA and NASA were difficult and in the end ESA was not very satisfied of the results.

Since 1977 the CNES and ESA had others projects. They consisted of an “Improved Ariane”, a new cryogenic, more powerful “Super Ariane” and… a manned spacecraft dubbed “Solaris” by Frederic D’Allest, boss of the CNES. The latter had the shape of an Apollo capsule with a docking/cargo/ manoeuvring module on the nose, the whole thing weighed 9 tons and was launched by the “Improved Ariane” (later Ariane 3 and 34L). Improved Ariane would double the number of Viking to eight, by adding liquid-propellant strapons to the standard Ariane 1&2 core. It was a natural follow on to Ariane 1 and 2 and its development was easy while Super Ariane was not clearly defined at the time, three variants being studied. All introduced a new, cryogenic engine to replace the Viking: it was the HM-60 Vulcain. “Improved Ariane” later become Ariane 3.

Ariane C had 4*Vulcain on first stage; Ariane P, a Vulcain and two big SRB; Ariane R had nine Vikings and a HM-60 second stage. The latter was a direct follow-on to the Improved Ariane but proved unpractical and was quickly rejected. The Ariane C variant was elected. Thus the Super Ariane (later known as Ariane 4) become a rocket with 4*Vulcain on first stage, and another on second stage. In short, when topped with the HM-7 it was the first 100% cryogenic launcher in the world!

The Super Ariane and the Solaris capsule programs were adopted by the European ministers in Rome late January 1985. At the time (one year after Spacehab launch) ESA morale was rather high; the CNES wisely used this spirit to suggest and impose its manned capsule.

A phased program was defined. The phase A started in 1986 and saw the development of Solaris block.1 and Ariane 3 to carry crews and cargo to the Spacehab module. After 1992 phase B saw the development of “autonomous Spacehab” stations, Solaris block.2, and cryogenic Ariane 4.

During phase A Solaris block.1 was to use the Ariane 3 rocket for a manned flight planned around 1991.

For phase B the Solaris block.2 would benefit from Ariane 4 superior performances, as others “heavy” payloads such as the ACV cargo and MTFF/ MTPF small stations. Thus the capsule would receive a much heavier cargo module, which could no longer be located on its nose at take off. So the cargo and manoeuvring module (CMM) was relocated on the rear and a hatch dug in the heatshield, leaving the nose port free for docking with the MTPF or MTFF. Solaris block.2’ cargo module was very similar to the ACV, Automated Cargo Vehicle. The two vehicles formed a duo very similar to the old Progress/ Soyuz combination

Phase C planned for the year 2005 included the development of Ariane 4H, which added high-thrust solid boosters to the Ariane 4 core, enough to boost an 80 000 Ibs payload to LEO. Modifications were considered important enough to justify a new name, thus creating the Ariane 5 heavy launcher. Phase C was drafted in late 1992 after NASA successes at EML-2. It included the Vinci cryogenic tug, an improvement of the ACV for lunar missions. The 35 tons tug would be send in LEO by an Ariane 5. Then a 15 tons Solaris block.3 (launched by an Ariane 4) would dock with it. The Vinci will then send the spacecraft in a TLI trajectory.


Back in the early 80’s temperature of the Cold War had gone to the bottom after Brezhnev death in 1981. Andropov and Reagan had started rattling their sabres, more exactly their space weapons. Both MOK and Spacehab stations were suspected of military activities by the other side.

Skyhab was boosted in space on May 16th 1982 by the very last Saturn V. MOK central core followed on 6th July 1983. Over the following years the two space complexes were slowly completed. Soviets modules were derivatives of Salyut and FGB (TKS cargo module) while NASA docked various 50 tons modules to Skyhab using Gemini C and/ or Saturn INT-20.

This was the time when spaceplanes projects were resurrected on both sides of the iron curtain. They should act as “reusable ferries” between the ground and spaces stations. Since 1971 and the cancellation of the Shuttle USAF studied a lifting-body, flexible rocket plane. Progresses were closely monitored by the Soviets, which had their own project. The X-24D project was officially disclosed to the world by Reagan in January 1982. The US President linked the USAF spaceplane and Skyhab on its bellicist, anti-communist usual rhetoric tone. Andropov answered three days later by disclosing MAKS and announced “imminent launch” of the MOK. He stunned the world when he announced that a second core was in the jigs, and was a true “battle station”. The monster, 110 tons module called “Polyus” was launched by an UR-700 in 1985 but failed to reach orbit.

USAF had shown much interest in the S-IVB stage of Saturn, particularly since Philip Bono had demonstrated in the late 60’s that it would make a simple, expendable Single-Stage-To-Orbit with few modifications. Once NASA obtained Saturn INT-20 in 1971, improved engines were introduced. On the second batch were introduced F-1A uprated engines, while the single J-2 of the S-IVB was replaced by an annular aerospike derivative. The S-IVB becomes the S-IVC.

This improved even more the stage potential as an expendable SSTO. USAF first grabbed the S-IVC for its ALS heavy launcher which replaced the Titan III in 1981. It had all what USAF wanted: unexpensive, flexible SRBs as first stage, topped by high energy upper stage. As an air Force general noticed ironically “this was simply a revival of the Space Launching System cancelled in 1961 in favour of the Titan III”. Once the Air Force put its hands on the S-IVC and its aerospike engine, they decided to use the stage as an SSTO to put a 10 tons spaceplane into orbit. This was fallout of NASA “cheap stations” studies. The spaceplane was a straightforward derivative of the X-24B, and kept its rocket engine to manoeuvre into orbit. The S-IVC would itself place it into orbit with the X-24D, separate, and re-enter the atmosphere. Later the S-IVC received sensors to complete X-24D mission. Using a single stage eliminated range safety issues and allowed USAF to launch its spaceplanes from Edwards, Groom Lake, White Sands (and not only Vandenberg).

NASA and USAF agreed in the late 70’s that the 156 inch boosters should be recoverable thanks to parachutes and water landing.

So the Soviet answer to this was MAKS, a tripropellant / expendable tank / air-launched (from an An-124) mini Shuttle. The american machine flew in 1987; the Soviet spaceplane was cancelled when USSR crumbled in 1989. Both were supposed to wage war in space, intercepting ICBM warheads and destroying them with advanced kinetic missiles.

---

Skyhab was slowly built from 1983 to 1992. Debate had raged in the late 70’s about how building the space station without the Shuttle, but Gemini-C proved up to the task.

Gemini-C usually docked to the station by the rear end of its cargo module. When the spacecraft left the station the cargo module was jettisoned before reentry and burned into the atmosphere.

When building the station, the cargo module was simply replaced by the station element to carry, which stayed attached at the end of the mission. Thus only the reusable crew module left the station. This implied that every station module carried by Big G had two hatches. One was located between the module and the station; the other between the module and the manned capsule (through the heatshield). The latter was generally sealed after the capsule separation (albeit plans were drafted to use these hatches for docking more modules or making EVAs).

In 1986 Reagan decided to give the final blow to USSR. He announced that “We will go back to the Moon before the end of the Century”. He described a realistic plan based on LEOR, Saturn INT-20, improved Big Gemini, S-IVC expendable tug, and S-IVE LLV (Lunar Logistic Vehicle), plus of course the NLM, New Lunar Module.

This program was deeply analysed in Aviation Week the following week.


It amounted to three phases.

In phase 1 Saturn INT-20 would receive ALS’ 156 inch reusable boosters to rise its payload to 250 000 Ibs, the aim being to send an S-IVD tug in LEO. The new rocket was logically called Saturn INT-30.
Once the tug in orbit it would dock to the rear of Gemini-D. This was an improved Gemini-C with a modified cargo module. It included two TR-201 with propellant tanks. The result looked similar to Apollo SPS. This phase was the cheapest and was supposed to end in 1995. It included missions to GEO, lunar flybys and orbits. LEO stations such as Skyhab, ISF, MTFF and OS-1 were included in this program as “rescue platforms”. Gemini-D would be fitted with a folding aerobrake/solid-retrorocket in its nose.


The aim was to avoid a direct reentry from lunar orbit to Earth. The spacecraft would use the Earth upper atmosphere to lower its speeds from 40 000 to 28 000 kph and enter a low earth orbit. Then it would dock to a station or reenter the Earth atmosphere at 28 000 kph.
This method diminished risks of heatshield failure; a crippled, Apollo 13 –like spacecraft would have a less risky reentry, or it could be replaced by a LEO rescue capsule after docking to one of the stations. The capsule also had a lighter heatshield.
clip_image007.jpg

Phase 2 would see development of two lunar vehicles. The New Lunar Module was to use a RL-10 while the LLV (Lunar Logistic Vehicle) was an S-IVD modified to land on the moon. This was supposed to end in 2010.

Phase 3 would mark “the beginning of a new era”, Ie the building of a permanent lunar base for 6 men.

Aviation Week disclosed that Phase 1 had been probably studied since 1983, and that there were certainly hidden reasons behind the new lunar program. One of them was the Soviet UR-700 superbooster. After teething problems the first giant rocket had flown in 1981 from N-1 pads in Baikonur. Its second flight in 1983 had send the OS-1 station core in LEO, where it had been complemented by Proton-launched 20 tons Salyut and FGB modules over the years.
But others payloads were to use UR-700. First of them was Polyus, in fact the backup OS-1 core changed into a “battle station”. While it failed to reach orbit it nevertheless raised many concern in Pentagon. But even more worrying (at least for the CIA) was the UR-700 Buran Geosynchronous Platform.

An extract of a CIA memo stated
“The UR-700 can place Buran observation platforms of 18 to 21 metric tons in geostationary orbit. These platforms provide continuous multispectral monitoring of the Earth surface in the visual, ultraviolet, and infrared bands. Any environmental changes are noted and radio and laser links used to command low orbit satellites to take a detailed look at the problem. While presented as “Earth Observation Platform” they can probably fulfil militaries duties as well. Typical orbit: Geosynchronous orbit. Mass: 18,000 kg (39,000 lb). Associated Launch Vehicle: UR-700. “


Between 1983 and 1985 two events decided Reagan to launch phase 1. First were Polyus and Buran platforms. Second event was the disclosure of the Zarya program.
Salyut DOS-7 was the fourth “second generation” Salyut. Salyut 5 had been docked to Skylab B, while Salyut 6 and 7 had been launched in 1976 and 1978. Dubbed “Salyut 8” in the western world, the backup station had been cancelled after completion in favour of OS1. This waste was again a result of a conflict between Chelomei and Ustinov… which suddenly ended with the bizarre death of both men in December 1984!
DOS-7 was finally used in a different role under the name Cosmos 1999.

The station was fitted with Almaz mapping radar and observation systems.
An old LK lunar lander and a VA capsule were docked on each end of the Salyut. The whole 35 tons thing was send to the moon in December 1985 by a UR-700 with a high energy upper stage.

Three days later the LK left the station and landed on the moon. Its ascent stage later took off and docked again to DOS-7. Then the VA capsule was boosted toward Earth by a FGB tug. It safely landed on Earth where its crew – a dog called Leonid – was recovered.

Thus the Soviets had demonstrated they mastered the whole manned lunar operation cycle.

All this explained why Phase 1 of the lunar program was discretely backed by USAF, which official implication in the program led in the solid boosters.
The aim was to mount militaries manned missions in GEO to monitor soviets platforms there. Cover for these classified missions was NASA “destination Mankind 2.0” program.
(OTL destination mankind =
http://altairvi.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html)
Destination Mankind was part of Phase 1, a test of Gemini-D in sun synchronous orbit. This result in a highly successful mission in 1988. More classified/USAF missions followed in 1989 and 1990 after what they were cancelled when USSR crumbled.




Phase 2 and 3 of Reagan’ lunar program didn’t survived the end of Cold War, which led to budget cuts even for NASA. They were replaced by an “extended phase 1“in 1992, essentially GEO missions using Saturn INT-30 and the S-IVC tug.
At the time Skyhab was near completion. It included a dozen of international modules, some of which were Europeans, others were Japanese. The station was supposed to end its life around 2002 after 20 years in orbit, albeit it could probably be extended for five years or even to 2010.
Follow ons were already studied, but opponents voiced against “another LEO station”. At the time ESA and the private sector already used Salyut-sized space stations. They were the Man Tended Free Flyer and the Industrial Space Facility. Russia announced in November 1991 that despite economic problems it would still use OS-1 in the 90’s.

Robert Zubrin, Buzz Aldrin and Robert W.Farquhar then pushed for a mission to the Earth-Moon Lagrangian (EML-1 and EML-2) points.
In 1991 NASA post-Skyhab options were
-another LEO station
-a moon orbiting space station
-a moon base
None of them was found very attractive by Bush Sr. A LEO station was deja-vu at a time Europe, Russia and even the private sector had their LEO infrastructure.
Moon orbiting station was the preferred option but was found unfeasible because of the mascons. These masses concentration within the moon made the lunar gravitational field very bumpy. Thus lunar orbits were highly unstable, leading to crashes on the moon after some months, or costly and numerous reboosts.

A Moon base was tempting but horribly difficult and expensive, even more if the base was permanently manned.

EML- points on the other hand offered not only interesting “steps” on the road to the moon (EML-1) but also an ideal point of departure for both Moon and Mars expeditions in the case of EML-2.
In the end NASA decided in favour of EML- stations rather than lunar orbit or lunar surface infrastructures. What decided the space agency was the f act that space stations were easier to build (thanks to 20 years of experience) than lunar surface infrastructures.

On 26th September 1992 a Saturn INT-30 roared to the sky. Minutes later the fully-fuelled S-IVD tug entered a 185 km parking orbit.
Hours later a Saturn INT-20 block 3 (F-1B, J-2T-300k engines) put a 65 tons Gemini-D spacecraft with a crew of five into the same orbit. Gemini D docked to the S-IVD which boost the ship to a trans-lunar-trajectory at 40 000 kph. The spectacular trip was to last three weeks and included a lunar swing-by to send the spacecraft to EML-2.
http://s68.photobucket.com/albums/i...ction=view&current=LEO-lunar-L220transfer.gif

Life onboard Gemini-D marked lot of progresses when compared to Apollo thanks to a much superior internal volume and crew accommodations (including a shower and a toilet).
The 8 tons Reusable Crew Module housed five astronauts. Behind them was the heatshield, with a hatch to access the life-support module. This part of Big Gemini had a diameter of 6 m and a length of 20m.
It was filled with
-two storable-propellants tanks for the TR-201 engines used after S-IVB separation
-a SAS for the EVAs, including two MMUs.
-a shower, a toilet, crew accommodations, food, water, and others supplies.
-At the rear was another hatch. It was currently locked as the S-IVB was docked there; but once the stage would be discarded the docking port could be use to dock with LEO stations.
-There was also a bay which contained small lunar probes and satellites. They were released during the mission.
This module would be discarded just before Earth reentry.
The S-IVC tug was docked at the rear of the life-support module. After a LEO rendez-vous its J-2 cryogenic engine send the spacecraft into a TLI, and later braked to enter a halo orbit “around” EML-2.
clip_image009.jpg

During the long trip to the moon space probes were released to study the Earth satellite. One of them captured a picture of the massive, 170 tons Gemini-D / S-IVD spacecraft on its way to the moon. The photography become of the most famous of the 90’s and was a major public-relations hit for NASA. Buzz Aldrin noticed that “what we see in this picture is no longer a LEO capsule nor a space station. We can consider it as an embryo of future interplanetary spacecrafts

On October 1st 1992 the spacecraft made a lunar swingby and accelerated toward what Farquhar had called “the interstellar highway toll” or EML-2, a point it reached 9 days after it left Earth. The day was October 4th 1992, 35 years after Sputnik. Once there it entered a halo orbit. The crew spent 5 days studying the dark side of the moon. EVAs were performed and a small communication satellite was released. The aim was to study moon-earth communication via an EML-2 satellite.
The S-IVD was fired again to send Gemini-D toward the Earth, where the crew landed safely on 13th October 1992 (Columbus and Yeager…)
More missions followed in 1995 and 1997, including a direct, shorter flight to EML-2 (no lunar swingby) and another to EML-1. They convinced NASA that its next space station should be located at one of the Lagrangian points, not in LEO. Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin discussed the proposal at various meetings between 1995 and 1997. An agreement was reached in November 1998. Hardware and experience from MOK and Skyhab would be invaluable while building the new complex… the Emily International Station (EMLIS) was born.

Farquhar, Aldrin and Zubrin declared at the historic 1992 IAF congress in November that “EML-2 can be considered as the toll of interplanetary missions. Building a space station there, even a small one, would greatly help returning to the Moon and going to Mars. EML-2 point gives continuous communications coverage for all far-side lunar operations while being an excellent point of departure for a Mars spaceship.”

After cancellation of the N-1 the development of its block S cryogenic stage (powered by three RD-57 engines) had continued. The block had found its way as third stage of Chelomei UR-700 booster.
The UR-700 was a costly rocket and the end of Cold War was nearly lethal to the program. NASA had no interest in the thing, even if contrary to Saturn INT-20/30 it didn’t need LEO rendez-vous operations.
It was ESA which saved the giant rocket. Ariane 5 was powerful enough for a small manned spacecraft, but not for building a space station at EML-2. Thus in 2001 ESA agreed to finance some UR-700 launches, and joined the Emily program.

First of these module was the DOS-8, an improved Salyut module with multiple docking ports. Thanks to internal rivalries between engineers Chelomei had started building it even if OKB-1 MOK space station had replaced Salyuts at the time. The module had been in mothballs for years and now was to form the core of the forthcoming Emily station.
DOS-8 was send to EML-2 in February 2003.

US 40 tons radiation shielded sections were derivatives of Gemini-C cargo module. Emily-1 was an austere and robust space station for 5 astronauts. It entered service in January 2005.

Emily-1 and Emily-2 modular space stations included radiation shielding, as they were out of the protective Earth magnetic field. They were in fact used as testbeds for future Mars vessels. They helped solving three major problems
-human long term exposure to a zero-G environment
-test of radiation shielding systems for crew and electronics
-building big structures located at EML-2 librations points.

This proved very useful for the next step of space exploration, Mars. When nuclear thermal (such as NERVA) propulsion proved politically impossible because of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents, Aldrin and others advocated instead the “Mars cycler”, gravitation-powered spacecrafts.
They were basically big, highly-redundant space stations orbiting the Sun between the Earth and Mars. In fact they were considered as unpowered shuttles between the two planets. Problem was the very long duration of the trip; it was partially solved by having 3 to 5 “cyclers” crossing their respective orbits. By transferring astronauts from one cycler to another the trip was much shortened. An S-IVD-powered Gemini-E spacecraft was supposed to catch a Mars cycler from EML-2 Emily space station. The aim was a Mars flyby around 2020.

Two austere space stations were build. Emily-1 and Emily-2 were located on each side of the moon; only Emily-1 was permanently manned.
Emily-2 was much more modest, in fact while Emily-1 had been build around the DOS-8 core, Emily-2 was nothing more than a backup Salyut with a US module.
The aim of both stations were rather different.
Emily-1 was a “safe heaven” for missions to the moon, and a relay for mining lunar raw materials on their way to Earth. It was also used to send unmanned platforms to ESL-1 and back, 1.5 million kilometres away.
Emily-2 was an astronomical observatory, a communication relay, and the starting point for manned missions within the solar system, catching Earth-Mars or Earth-Venus cyclers…
 
Great thread

I like this. One question though. I read an article on-line several years ago that claimed that during the lead up to the shuttle decision a company came up with a very simple booster based on either the lunar lander or the lunar ascent vehicle. Preliminary calcs and tests showed that it would be very inexpensive and very reliable. Company involved was shocked when their ideas were ignored in favor of the shuttle. Does anybody on the thread know anything about this? Is it the same thing as the pressure-fed rocket someone mentioned up-thread? I lost the bookmark to the article in a computer crash and several searches failed to turn it up.
 

Archibald

Banned
I think it was Aerojet or TRW.
The LM was a simple pressure-fed design, burning storable propellants and gave 10 000 Ibs of thrust (4.4 metric tons, I'm more familiar with this)

AND they scaled up this engine, up to 125 metric tons thrust
(roughly 225 000Ibs if I remember well)
This went as far as the test bench, but found no use.

There's a huge book/ Pdf on the net called "LEO on cheap" which mention every pressure-fed engines made.

Btw Andrew Beal aerospace tested a powerful pressure-fed engine years ago for their Beal BA-2 (stillborn) rocket.

A bit heavy to download, but darn interesting to read.
 

Archibald

Banned
The Emily stations modules had to be radiation-shielded to protect astronauts and avionics from Solar flares and cosmic rays.

This implied much heavier modules. Their skin was a mix of Kevlar and... water, up to 15 cm thick (!). Thanks to that radiations were contained to 50 rems even at the peak of the worst solar flare ever registered.

To reduce weight, modules dimensions were cut to Salyut size.
Crew confort was rather primitive, although all needed accomodations were provided.
Emily 1 'DOS-8 core was mainly used as a stripped-down node between the radiation-shielded modules, while Emily-2 was even smaller.
 
Top