Constantinople
Banned
Woo! Good to see the US pulling every so slightly ahead. Time for another moon landing! It's been too long!
Red Star: A Soviet Lunar Landing
- Thread starter SpaceGeek
- Start date
Well, actually the last lunar landing was in 1975 (the Soviet L3-9 mission). But you're right in that the US hasn't landed on the Moon since Apollo 19 (1973) although they did do a 28 day lunar orbital mission in 1975 (Apollo 20).
i just asking what happen after the 5 Saturn IB are used up ?
NASA orders Titan IIIM (had to be used on MOL) and launch strip down Apollo CSM to Skylab or build shuttle ?
NASA orders Titan IIIM (had to be used on MOL) and launch strip down Apollo CSM to Skylab or build shuttle ?
Why not just build more Saturn IBs?
The Saturn IB has a launch cost of $100,000,000 in 1965 USD IIRC, that's quite high for something that can only get about 18,500 Kg to LEO. They need something that's not only more capable, but able to meet a wider mission range to try and keep their costs under control.
There another Reasion why the Saturn IB Production stop
The First Stage was Build from Parts of MRBM Jupiter and redstone
Also These stop Production years ago.
The First Stage was Build from Parts of MRBM Jupiter and redstone
Also These stop Production years ago.
The departure of Skylab B-1 was a defining moment of Human spaceflight. The entire idea of a permanent Space Station is continuous occupation and rotation by multiple crews. While the previous Skylab-B crew had set a new long duration record (90 days) there was still more work to be done in order to understand truly what effect 90 days in microgravity has on the human body. Beyond mere survival, astronauts need to be productive and active in Zero Gravity. And even three months was a fifth of the total duration necessary for even the shortest Manned Mission to Mars.
While onboard the second crew continued the intensive biological and life science research begun by the first there was on experiment that Science Pilot Jack Lousma was eager to perform. While the Gemini 9A crew did not get the chance to test the Astronaut Manoeuvring Unit a decade prior and while the MOL program it was originally going to be used for had been cancelled in 1969 the device was well within NASA's agenda. Ten years on and after significant testing inside Skylab A, the Astronaut Manoeuvring Unit finally saw it's first test in Low Earth Orbit. The controlled release of gas allowed Lousma to manoeuvre around Skylab effortlessly even while still attached by a thin safety tether. He then went on to set a 100 meter distance from-spacecraft record, farther than any (microgravity) spacewalk before him.
Inside Skylab-B experiments first flown nearly seven years prior on Apollo 7 were now seeing the tranquillity of weightlessness again. Payloads aimed at furthering the fields of particles & fields, ion wake physics, X-ray astronomy, and UV spectroscopy were now bouncing about the cabin un-tethered from lazy neglect. Once again, while biotechnology and adaptation to space was the main focus of the Space Station auxiliary experiments were performed by the crew rather like how the Gemini Program functioned.
Skylab B's third crew.
While we've had some lively discussion of just what we might expect to see replace the 1B, and even some questions raised about why not just make more, that the 1B is due for replacement is quite obvious to me. (To anyone who has read any of Eyes Turned Skyward the obvious replacement is indeed a Saturn 1C of Goblin/Pi design!
It just works so very well, using the same upgraded Apollo tech your timeline's continued Saturn V derivative program uses.)No, for me by far the more surprising and disturbing puzzle this passage presented was the implication that the Soviet N-11 is now discontinued! Perhaps I missed something but this takes me totally by surprise, and makes me rather sad too. Sure, both the N rockets had some serious teething issues--but having invested in persistently working through and past them, by now both, the smaller N-11 especially, should be shaking down into quite reliable designs, which the Soviets have had extensive experience in launching.
Furthermore, the N-11 parallels the possible relationship of a your-timeline franchise of the Saturn 1C to an ongoing Saturn V program, in its commonalities with its "big brother," the N-1--but far more so. If the Americans start designing a family of rockets based on the F-1A for the sea level stage and J-2S propelled upper stages, they will benefit from economies of commonality in the engine, and probably adopting the best practices to choose from among the three stages' structural/tankage designs a common design there would be chosen too, leading to a range of rockets tailored to various purposes but turned out and launched with remarkable economy. Well, consider how much greater and more immediately applicable the commonalities between the N rockets already are! Basically an N-11 is simply an N-1 that has had its A stage omitted and had the 8 upper-atmosphere optimized engines of the Beh stage replaced with 8 of the A stage design--and there you are, a 20-ton to orbit range workhorse from the exact same workshop floors as the 75 ton heavy.
Clearly all the talk of possible upgrades of the N-1 casts a bit of a cloud over this cozy relationship continuing; if both of the two upper orbital-boost stages of the N-1, Beh and Veh, were converted to hydrogen-lox engines, then the older kerlox Beh and Veh would become obsolete. An improved hydrogen-burning second stage for the N-11 could clearly be a simple substitution of the more advanced Veh for the older one, but trying to launch with a hydrogen burning first stage will be a difficult threshold for Soviet launch tech to cross.
As many readers here know well but others may not have seen explained before, the big advantage of burning hydrogen with LOX is that it is both among the most energetic combinations possible and produces the lightest products (short of a nuclear rocket with pure hydrogen as the working fluid)--the combination leading to an almost unbeatably high ISP and hence lower fuel mass per delta-V achieved. This sounds absolutely fabulous and it is indeed a big winner for deep space applications, or even the major part of a multistage climb to orbit.
However, for several reasons, good old kerosene-lox is much more strongly competitive with hydrogen-lox than one would think from just measuring ISP, and this is especially the case for a first stage that is fired on the ground and works mainly in the lower atmosphere.
To begin with, the higher the ISP, this means the lower the mass and the faster the speed that mass is expelled, to achieve a given thrust--which is again great in vacuum, but in the lower atmosphere, throwing a relatively small mass hard suffers when that thin though energetic stream meets air at sea level densities. All rockets suffer in performance at sea level, with their products slamming into the dense air, which slows the output stream down and can even cause it to stagnate chaotically. But the higher the ISP, the greater the percentage reduction in effective thrust. So, a ker-lox engine that works well in vacuum will also not work as well at sea level, but if its exhaust nozzle is optimized for the average air density it would encounter as a boost engine, the reduction would be modest. For a hydrogen engine of the same thrust in vacuum however, its sea level thrust would be dramatically lower and the different nozzle design to optimize the thrust would be more drastically different from the vacuum ideal. Therefore the advantage of attempting to attain the higher ISP of hydrogen burning is not as great for a first stage as it is for upper stages.
Secondly, thrust is a very important parameter of any rocket but relatively more important for a first stage than an upper stage. First stage engines must make the entire vast mass of the whole rocket, fuel and payload rise and hustle off the launch pad, and shove them as briskly as possible to higher speeds, and do this while the rocket is deep in Earth's atmospheric soup. It so happens, again I think not by accident, that it is easier to design a big, high thrust rocket using larger masses of less energetic propellant. Compare the maximum thrusts of the ker-lox F-1 and the hydrogen J-2; both represent the limits of the American state of the art in the 1960s. Even if the advantage of using hydrogen did not decline as mentioned above, it would be necessary to use 35 J-2 engines to accomplish the thrust of the 5 F-1!
Third, while hydrogen is the lightest propellant one could desire, it is unfortunately also the least dense--despite the fact that one uses dramatically less of it by mass, that smaller mass requires very large tanks, which must also be heavily insulated, and thus are quite heavy relative to tanks needed for the larger masses of "inferior" fuels--this also poses challenges in meeting the structural requirements of rocket stages and raises the aerodynamic drag, which is mainly a factor in the first stage of launch.
If we are going to compromise and use different propellants for different stages, it is clearly best to put the dense and somewhat prodigal ker-lox in the first stage, where its relative disadvantage is lowest and its practical advantages are most valuable. A first stage will always be by far the most massive, so it is worth trading off making it even more massive for making it compact, simple and structurally efficient, whereas we can much better afford to pay the prices hydrogen demands for its premium values in upper stages, where the prices are lower and the advantages show forth more strongly.
So, the Soviets going over to hydrogen upper stages for N-1 casts a bit of a cloud over the N-11 since the smaller rocket's first stage will presumably have to continue to be the old legacy N-1 Beh stage, not the nifty new hydrogen-burning alternate.
On the other hand, we haven't seen any clear sign just when and even if any of the legacy N-1 stages will actually go over to something along those lines anyway. Even if these are on the agenda and will be the next big reveal on the Soviet side of this ongoing space race, I see no reason the old Beh stage cannot continue to be produced for the first stage of an upgraded N-11. Indeed, mixing and matching ker-lox and hydro-lox design stages can be a viable approach to a modular system of launch vehicles covering a large range of masses to orbit; perhaps with hydro-lox upper stages, the strategy of cutting off the bottom of the N-1 can give them a low-mass to orbit rocket based on the ker-lox Veh stage (with 4, or in an enlarged version 6, of the A stage sea-level optimized engines of course) using new or borrowed hydrogen upper stages, to replace the Semyorka perhaps? Then versions of all three ker-lox legacy stages may continue in production with incremental improvements (in control software mainly, I'm thinking, or perhaps redesigned tankage for drag reduction and greater structural efficiency) while benefiting from extensive experience with the basic design, and carrying over use of already established construction and handling facilities.
This is more or less the course I've imagined the Soviets would follow. Apparently the authors have something else in mind though. I can only wait and hope it would be something promising and awesome enough to justify abandoning the N system that has hitherto served them quite well.
Clarifiying something.
The N11 has not be discontinued. It has been discontinued from Manned launch. The only reason the N-11 was used for Manned launches was because
A: It allowed a minimal, early and reliable way of launching Soyuz 7K-L1 circumlunar missions.
B: It had a large enough payload to launch the Soyuz 7K-LOK (Block D included) on a Manned Test flight (where it docked with a LK lander/Block D also launched by an N-11).
There was one circumlunar mission in December 1967, two circumlunar missions in early 1968 and one Medium Orbit dual launch Soyuz/BlockD- LK/Block-D. Those were the only Manned Missions launched by the N11.
No, the N11 is now the workforce of the Soviet Space Program. It replaces the role of the Proton in this TL (only much more reliable).
The N11 has not be discontinued. It has been discontinued from Manned launch. The only reason the N-11 was used for Manned launches was because
A: It allowed a minimal, early and reliable way of launching Soyuz 7K-L1 circumlunar missions.
B: It had a large enough payload to launch the Soyuz 7K-LOK (Block D included) on a Manned Test flight (where it docked with a LK lander/Block D also launched by an N-11).
There was one circumlunar mission in December 1967, two circumlunar missions in early 1968 and one Medium Orbit dual launch Soyuz/BlockD- LK/Block-D. Those were the only Manned Missions launched by the N11.
No, the N11 is now the workforce of the Soviet Space Program. It replaces the role of the Proton in this TL (only much more reliable).
As the third expeditionary crew settled into life aboard Skylab B it was becoming ever clearer that while the effects of long duration spaceflight on the human body eventually cause deterioration of mass and bone mass 90 days was no brick wall for the human body. The human condition was apparently not strictly limited to the Earth. Insect and Animal experiments were providing scientists and biologists with finally beginning to understand, in depth, the nature of the microgravity on life. This early research would later bring practical benefits that we take for granted today.
The more Human side of the program was also taken into account however. Every aspect of the crews daily routine was being designed by psychologists for greater understanding of the "human factor" to manned spaceflight. If humans were ever going to reach Mars they would need to understand properly how to maximize and promote a positive "crew dynamic" and the proper balance between regulation and autonomy. This research had already begun on Skylab B although it wasn't until the flight of Skylab C that this actually became a major component. One of the various lessons learned was that the shower originally installed on Skylab A was impractical, leaked and was expensive while a simple wet cloth proved more convenient.
While Skylab B lacked the Apollo Telescope Mount used by Skylab A for Solar Astronomy and Observation NASA had by no means given up on Manned Astronomy and Observation. While work had already begun on construction and fabrication of large "Free Flying" space telescopes an auxiliary goal of Skylab B was also Cosmic Astronomy. The best example of this was the observation and photographing of Comet d'arrest as it made it's closest approach to Earth on August 12th 1976. The arrival of the fourth and final Skylab B expeditionary crew marked also marked the third and final time Skylab B would experience the hustle and bustle of a six person crew. It was also notable for being the penultimate flight of the Saturn IB (and it's last for 21 more months).The outgoing crew extended the new crew the courtesy of a personal tour of the Space Station (inside and out, something not authorized by Mission control).
As the two CSM’s sat docked at Skylab there was a sense that something was coming to an end, even though for Skylab B4, it was just beginning.
Skylab B4 was the fourth and final mission to visit Skylab B. After the end of their mission in January 1977, no NASA Space Station mission would occur for another year and a half. Being that the case they were under a significant amount of pressure from the agency to make the last few months worth it. It marked the penultimate launch of the Saturn IB which would fly one more time in 1978 to deliver the first Skylab C crew.
The last 90 days of Skylab B's manned lifespan was certainly it's most active and intensive period of scientific research. These last critical months would determine the future of the Skylab program and for NASA space stations in general. 90 days would be the standard period for crew rotations on later Skylab stations. It was found that while human physiology could easily work in space for long periods of time (without impairment) while in space, the effects after returning were less than ideal. Luckily the recovery period was short (at least after just 90 days) lasting a week or so of rest and recovery before being able to play a strong game of tennis. NASA was only just beginning to catch on that regular exercise was the best method for maintaining muscle mass and bone density (although they experimented with plenty of other techniques with little success).
The malfunction of one of Skylab's main communication dishes was a serious concern that threatened to cut short the mission by half. Luckily a tedious multi-hour EVA by ------ and ------- was able to keep the array functioning (albeit with lower efficiency than before). Another EVA successfully recovered tapes taken by telescopes both on Skylab B and in the Apollo Service module. One of the things about the mission was the great lengths taken by psychologists to ensure crew moral and a positive living/working environment. A richer diet was being added including frozen fruits, vegetables, even ice cream and cookies. A variety of recreational activities were introduced including a movie projector for off-hours. This helped alleviate the burden of a much more intensive work week.
While NASA was becoming ever more confident that the challenges associated with micro-gravity could eventually be resolved for even longer flights there was the ever-present concern of cosmic rays. The radiation levels observed in LEO is somewhat smaller although very nearly the same as observed in interplanetary space. If a Mission to Mars were to ever happen NASA would need to quantify the risks to the crew and asses possible mitigation strategies. The continuous monitoring allowed by Skylab B offered considerable benefit to the experiments and allowed in depth investigation into this most important field of inquiry.
And so, three months 11 hours 36 minutes and 2 seconds after they first arrived the hatch for Skylab B closed for the last time. Now empty, the station wasn't planned to be visited again. Unless that is, the Skylab C space station failed during launch. In which case Skylab B would serve as an interim backup until Skylab D could replace it. A targeting error early in re-entry process was quickly resolved by crew and was later narrowed down by NASA investigators to be a computer glitch (all Space qualified electronics are several years behind their counterparts on Earth). And so the final Skylab B crew landed safely. It would be another year and a half before the next Skylab crew took off. But by then, a lot had changed...
Where da dames?
There is a Skylab D planned then? That might explain something I've just noticed--despite the challenge of a Soviet woman on the Moon, NASA has yet to send up any women astronauts. I was thinking it would be tricky--either they send up three complete rookies in a Skylab C or D mission, or some woman goes along with 2 male astronauts to then immediately go up again to mentor 2 other women.
Anyway, with 4 Labs in the pipeline it is easier to see why they haven't got around to it yet. But how long will they procrastinate?
It occurs to me, maybe the post-Apollo 1B launch vehicle will be able to launch more than three astronauts at once, so perhaps the plan to introduce Western women to space travel is to send up three newbie women shepherded by two veteran male astronauts all at once in a brand new 5 person launcher. But that probably demands a redesigned Skylab to accommodate 5 people.
There is a Skylab D planned then? That might explain something I've just noticed--despite the challenge of a Soviet woman on the Moon, NASA has yet to send up any women astronauts. I was thinking it would be tricky--either they send up three complete rookies in a Skylab C or D mission, or some woman goes along with 2 male astronauts to then immediately go up again to mentor 2 other women.
Anyway, with 4 Labs in the pipeline it is easier to see why they haven't got around to it yet. But how long will they procrastinate?
It occurs to me, maybe the post-Apollo 1B launch vehicle will be able to launch more than three astronauts at once, so perhaps the plan to introduce Western women to space travel is to send up three newbie women shepherded by two veteran male astronauts all at once in a brand new 5 person launcher. But that probably demands a redesigned Skylab to accommodate 5 people.
it this TL runs like OTL
just now in 1977 the first woman engineers work at NASA and first female Astronaut group trains in JSC.
What do the later Skylabs look like inside, Spacegeek?
In Eyes Turned Skywards, as you may recall, NASA yanks out the empty waste tank at the bottom of the IVB stage in the Skylab B/Spacelab station to create more living space for the astronauts. Is that being done here?
And in connection with that (since the waste has to go some place)...
Is NASA looking at something like ETS's AARDV/"Aardvark" for resupply? They haven't had the Saturn IB's to spare, I'm sure, but once they have the replacement LV, I have to imagine it's being looked at, if NASA is serious about long-term permanently manned stations in LEO.
In Eyes Turned Skywards, as you may recall, NASA yanks out the empty waste tank at the bottom of the IVB stage in the Skylab B/Spacelab station to create more living space for the astronauts. Is that being done here?
And in connection with that (since the waste has to go some place)...
Is NASA looking at something like ETS's AARDV/"Aardvark" for resupply? They haven't had the Saturn IB's to spare, I'm sure, but once they have the replacement LV, I have to imagine it's being looked at, if NASA is serious about long-term permanently manned stations in LEO.
Yes, given how our timeline played out, this still seems early for women astronauts being given prime slots. But one imagines they are in the pipeline now...
And there's no propaganda victory to be had here (though feminists will be ratcheting up the pressure at home). But NASA in our own history at least made sure that, however late to the game it was, it treated women astronauts as real astronauts with real responsibilities, and not just as PR exercises.
I don't have any real artistic capability, so I wouldn't be able to illustrate the interior. Plus IIRC, in ETS, the keeping the extra living space in SpaceLab was retconned in.
Resupply is something they'll be looking at, since consumables and station-keeping propellant are things that are a lot easier to send up than entire stations.
Keep watching......