Rockets Red Glare: An Alternate Apollo TL

EDIT:



Well it's been over 40 years since Tranquility Base, and the last attempt, the Ares system seems to have failed to lift of the design board, never mind the launch pad.

So it should come as no surprise that people want to do their own alt-histories to not only put men - and women - on the Moon, but keep them there.

That's why despite my reservations about Simonbp's particular design, I intend to stay tuned in to see exactly what happens here.

I certainly understand the motivation, since e of pi and I have been working on a large no-Shuttle TL recently (and I have been working on a precursor practically since I joined). I was wondering why lately, not why at all.

At least I can find people to tell about it when we actually finish it and start posting, now. Besides the usual suspects, I mean.
 
I certainly understand the motivation, since e of pi and I have been working on a large no-Shuttle TL recently (and I have been working on a precursor practically since I joined). I was wondering why lately, not why at all.

Speak of the devil...anyway, I think some of the motivation comes from the fact that with the end of the Shuttle, it feels like NASA's in the same boat now as it was in the mid 70s: a time of transition, and that the decisions that will be made now will effect American spaceflight for years to come: Whether commercial space dies, survives, or thrives; whether NASA will be able to build a new vehicle at all, what that new vehicle will enable and cost; the next decade or so of unmanned exploration.

All this stuff is going to be effected by what Congress authorizes and funds in the next few years and how the NASA hierarchy takes those goals--whether they swim against them towards their own desires, go with the flow, or what. It is very reminiscent of the 70s in spaceflight, and for those of us who don't have a voice in seeing those questions answered for real, looking back on the earlier example can be instructive and an interesting mental exercise.

Getting away from being all existential and stuff, this is an interesting timeline. Personally, I really don't like all-solid stages, and I'm not even a huge fan of solids in the thrust-augmentation role they serve on, say, Ariane V or STS. They're an inefficient, crude, and environmentally nasty solution in almost every case they can be applied, and the inability to throttle is usually a huge loss both in nominal flight and in corner cases. However, in this TL, with F1 killed, they may be all your engineers have to play with.

Something that I would be curious would be if your TL can indeed accelerate the HLV, you might also be able to accelerate Apollo enough to eliminate the need for Gemini entirely. The Gemini program was largely about proving tech and procedures Apollo would need because Apollo wouldn't be ready in time to be able to develop those procedures during its own time. Speed up the Apollo schedule by two or three years, and it'll be ready at about the same time Gemini would be. In such a case, Gemini may not be considered a worthwhile investment, and thus not authorized (it was only begun months after the Kennedy speech). The increased attention on Apollo during early development might have interesting butterflies: for instance, compare the life support used on Gemini (two-gas) vs. Apollo (pure O2 originally, prior to the Apollo 1 fire, then a mixed-gas atmosphere at launch transition to pure oxygen during ascent).

Anyway, interesting TL. I'm going to awaiting more.
 
Last edited:
Something that I would be curious would be if your TL can indeed accelerate the HLV, you might also be able to accelerate Apollo enough to eliminate the need for Gemini entirely. The Gemini program was largely about proving tech and procedures Apollo would need because Apollo wouldn't be ready in time to be able to develop those procedures during its own time. Speed up the Apollo schedule by two or three years, and it'll be ready at about the same time Gemini would be. In such a case, Gemini may not be considered a worthwhile investment, and thus not authorized (it was only begun months after the Kennedy speech). The increased attention on Apollo during early development might have interesting butterflies: for instance, compare the life support used on Gemini (two-gas) vs. Apollo (pure O2 originally, prior to the Apollo 1 fire, then a mixed-gas atmosphere at launch transition to pure oxygen during ascent).

Anyway, interesting TL. I'm going to awaiting more.

Gemini was a very important Program
first learn use of Spacecraft in Orbit, test Rendezvous and Human reaction for 14 day in Orbit (Mercury had to restrict capabilities for that)
and the most important aspect of Gemini was: give the new astronauts experience of Space Flight
the Bigges delay in Apollo program was Grumman R&D of Lunar module and NAA work on Apollo spacecraft
Gemini had also delays like customize the Titan II and Paraglider by NAA wat was replace by parachute

If you want a fast Apollo program
Go for a Solid booster, ready for test in 23 months ( the Thiokol Corporation on NOVA solid booster in 1960)
stay on direct lunar landing, so no Grumman LM
and no Apollo Hardware by North American Aviation.
 
# Ch.2 A Solid Foundation
# July-December, 1961

"Crash programs fail because they are based on the theory that with nine women pregnant, you can get a baby a month."
- Wernher von Braun

The selection of solid rockets for Nova shocked the spaceflight industry, not least the rank-and-file of the Marshall Space Flight Center. After years of developing the liquid-fueled Saturn rocket, including a nasty fight with ARPA to ensure the vehicle's survival, it felt like a betrayal. On the other hand, it could be worse: there were some rumors that JPL had nearly been given complete control of the Nova program. In the end, though, MSFC kept control of Nova, acting as the key center for engineering and testing. The Manned Spacecraft Center, currently directing the Mercury program out of Langley Research Center, would be relocated to JPL to direct the design of the Apollo spacecraft and train the astronauts [1]. Meanwhile, a large plot of land in the Clear Lake suburb of Houston had been donated to NASA by Rice University (through the work of VP LBJ) [2]. NASA HQ decided this would be the production facility for the solid rockets. The Clear Lake Assembly and Testing Facility (CLATF) would be run as a semi-autonomous annex of MSFC, allowing for tight cooperation between the engineering and assembly sides [3]. CLATF would house government-owned, contractor-operated facilities to construct the stages, before loading them on barges bound for Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

The Nova itself was built of two sizes of solid rockets grouped into four stages. The "Type A" rocket had diameter of 300 inches and a thrust of 6.4 million pounds (28 MN) each [4]. Seven of these behemoths would consist the first stage, while three would make up the second stage. The "Type B" rocket had a diameter of 216 inches, was much shorter, and had a thrust of 0.74 million pounds (3.3 MN). Six Type B rockets would form the third stage, while a single Type B would serve as the final stage, propelling the Apollo spacecraft from a parking orbit around Earth to a Lunar intercept trajectory. Despite its much smaller size, even the Type B rocket was far larger than any solid rocket ever built [5]. There was clearly much work ahead for the MSFC/CLATF team, but once the mental barrier had been broken, von Braun's team fell into their old standby of incremental development.

The first step in this was to design a scaled-down version of Nova, consisting of the second and fourth stages of the full lunar Nova, designated SN-2 and SN-4. This was be "Nova I", and would be used initially to test the Type A and Type B boosters, and launch crew on Earth orbital missions. Next was be "Nova II", which would insert the SN-3 stage between the SN-2 and SN-4 stages to make a vehicle powerful enough to propel Apollo on a circumlunar trajectory. Finally, "Nova III" would add the enormous SN-1 stage to allow Apollo to land on the Moon. The first Nova I launch was planned for the fall of 1964, with the first manned flight in the following year. Three short years did not seem like much to get an entirely new rocket flying, and even Nova I was larger than any rocket ever built. But, with an organized, methodical approach, it could be accomplished.

Meanwhile, the selection of solid Nova had caused no end of consternation for the contractors bidding to build the Apollo spacecraft. They had designed their craft around the much gentler Saturn C-2, and would need to make changes for Nova. Martin and North American Aviation asked for the decision date to be moved back a few months, but to no avail. The Convair Astronautics division of General Dynamics had been working most closely with JPL during the proposal process, and thus barely squeaked by ahead of Martin in the proposal ranking. After several days (and nights) of phone calls, NASA Administrator James Webb announced at a press conference in Washington that Convair would build the main Apollo spacecraft, and Martin would build a lunar landing/ascent stage (based loosely on the second stage of their Titan II). More quietly, Aerojet was given lead on development of the Nova Type A motor, while Thiokol would be lead for the Type B. Thus, all the key contractors were set, and the work of Project Apollo-Nova could begin in earnest.

[1] The MSC/STG had to move at the time, as they were just too close to DC for comfort. Pasadena, in the heart of Southern California's aviation country, was frankly a far better choice than remote Houston. The trigger for the move, though, is JPL's greater influence after the selection of solid Nova.
[2] OTL home of MSC cum JSC
[3] Much like the Michoud Facility in OTL
[4] Compare to the F-1's thrust of 1.5 million pounds
[5] The closest in OTL was a 260-inch rocket built by Aerojet

Nova-types-small.png
 
Wow. With 25 million pounds of rocket on 42 million pounds of thrust, Solid Nova's going to be a hell of a ride. 1.68 T/W off the pad, and that'll only get worse. The grain of the solids will have to be optimized to avoid over-stressing the crew, and the high thrust during Max-Q will make the abort tower requirements larger than a liquid-fueled design.

EDIT: Math error
 
Last edited:
Wow. With 25 million pounds of rocket on 42 million pounds of thrust, Solid Nova's going to be a hell of a ride. 1.79 T/W off the pad, and that'll only get worse. The grain of the solids will have to be optimized to avoid over-stressing the crew, and the high thrust during Max-Q will make the abort tower requirements larger than a liquid-fueled design.

I know, that a thrust/mass of 1.68 at the instant of 1st stage ignition, way above the 1.26 of the Saturn V. And I have concerns about the Max-Q point too. With Liquid Propulsion, you can throttle down shortly before that point to limit the stresses, an option which doesn't exist with all-solid propulsion.

Still, if designed properly, with high quality assurance and effective pogo suppresion systems in place - the Saturn V resolved it through designing the LOX, Kerosene and LH2 pipes to all vibrate at slightly different frequencies from each other to limit the ocsilations to managable levels - the Solid Nova should be a usable design.

Won't change my distrust of them however.
 
I know, that a thrust/mass of 1.68 at the instant of 1st stage ignition, way above the 1.26 of the Saturn V. And I have concerns about the Max-Q point too. With Liquid Propulsion, you can throttle down shortly before that point to limit the stresses, an option which doesn't exist with all-solid propulsion.

Still, if designed properly, with high quality assurance and effective pogo suppresion systems in place - the Saturn V resolved it through designing the LOX, Kerosene and LH2 pipes to all vibrate at slightly different frequencies from each other to limit the ocsilations to managable levels - the Solid Nova should be a usable design.

Won't change my distrust of them however.

It'd be nice if I could avoid messing up basic math--T/W corrected. Still pretty high.

Something I should note about solids in their defense--it is not possible to throttle them on the fly, however, with good design beforehand, you can control their thrust curve via changing the shape of the grain as Wikipedia shows. Solid Nova is worrisome to me, but it's not impractical.
 
# Chapter 3: Spaceships

As the Manned Spaceflight Center began its move west to the grounds of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, they were laying plans for a transition spacecraft between the primitive Mercury then operational and the highly complex Apollo spacecraft being developed by Convair. The working name for the project was "Mercury Mark II", but it was clear that a true transitional spacecraft would bear little resemblance to Mercury. With a completely different entry shape, layout, and landing method, Apollo offered many new technological challenges to be overcome [1].

The Convair Apollo was unusual compared to its competitors in that it had the reentry vehicle entirely enclosed in a pressurized mission module. This design hearkened back to Project Horizon's Lunar lander, and provided the crew with a large amount of interior space. The reentry vehicle itself was based on the Langley M-1 lifting-body design, like the Martin proposal. But unlike the either the Langley or Martin designs, it was designed to have the crew facing "tail-first" in order to minimize forces on the crew during reentry at lunar velocities. This led to the reentry vehicle being launched tail-first, facilitating the large mission module. Also, since the launch escape system was mounted on the reentry vehicle, the vehicle had an asymmetric appearance on the launch vehicle. Also, rather than Mercury's water landing on parachutes, Apollo would land at Edwards AFB using a Rogallo Wing parasail and airbags [2].

The transition spacecraft would thus need to test the most critical parts of the Apollo reentry, descent, and landing systems. In addition, the spacecraft would need to serve as a platform to test preliminary EVA suits and guidance systems. All this would need to completed on a spacecraft that could be developed and flown fast (and preferably cheap) in order to inform the Apollo design. McDonnell, constructor of the Mercury spacecraft, were given the contract to co-develop this new vehicle, called "Gemini" for its two crew. Convair would provide the basic structure of the reentry vehicle, as well as the parasail wing landing system. McDonnell would then outfit this with control and life-support systems based on Mercury, and encase the reentry vehicle in a simple service module to provide ACS, solar power, and deorbit rockets. The vehicle would be launched on Nova I, with first manned flight scheduled mid-year 1965.

Following on from Gemini, the full Convair Apollo would begin flying a year later on Nova II boosted unmanned circumlunar flights. Once the reliability of the system was proven out, the first manned circumlunar flights would follow in mid 1967. Finally, the Nova III would be used to launch a series of unmanned Apollo missions culminating in an autonomous landing in 1968, shortly thereafter followed by a manned landing. After the initial landing, there was talk of a lunar base, and the Martin landing module was ideally suited to support the cargo missions that would be required for such an endeavor. But before anything, Gemini would have to pave the way and show that Apollo could actually work.

[1] Note that one of those challenges is explicitly not orbital rendezvous: Apollo will be a single launch, direct-landing vehicle. IOTL, the most major goal of Gemini was to prove that rendezvous was feasible. ITTL, it is to prove the reentry, landing, and EVA systems.
[2] An overview of Convair's Apollo design: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790076966_1979076966.pdf
 
Simon, I said it before, and I'll say it again more emphatically with this new post's dates: butterfly Gemini into non-existence. IOTL, Rendezvous and Docking was pretty much the primary goal of Gemini. Your landing technique checks can be done with drop tests like these (but with a wing), and EVA isn't a big enough goal to justify an entire program by itself. Ditch Gemini, focus on Apollo. Eliminate those goals and Gemini is two men very slowly getting tired of each other inside of a space the size of a Volkswagon's front seat.

The moon goal can I think, can be better achieved by not diverting funds and focus away from the main program (Apollo) to a capsule whose only role will be a thing to be inside of for up to a week (Gemini in your TL). You'll lose a year you might otherwise have, but then again you'll still have more time remaining before the decade goal than OTL with a better focus on the core program. Sure, you'll have to fly the Gemini-type missions with the real capsule once it becomes available, but it may be ready a bit sooner without the delays from OTL due to HQ's myopic focus on the short term Gemini OTL, and experience with the actual flight hardware is better in my book than experience with something kinda sorta like the flight hardware.
 
Last edited:
Well, in this case I tried to minimize the differences, so TTL Gemini is really more about testing out the Entry, Decent, and Landing. The lifting body entry followed by parasail landing is very different from Mercury, and worth an interim vehicle. And even without that, the full Apollo vehicle is so much more advanced than Mercury that some interim would always be needed.

But again, ITTL, "Gemini" is the Convair Apollo Reentry Vehicle with a very simple service module for power and retro. It's really Block 1 Apollo, but with a different name...
 
Well, in this case I tried to minimize the differences, so TTL Gemini is really more about testing out the Entry, Decent, and Landing. The lifting body entry followed by parasail landing is very different from Mercury, and worth an interim vehicle. And even without that, the full Apollo vehicle is so much more advanced than Mercury that some interim would always be needed.

But again, ITTL, "Gemini" is the Convair Apollo Reentry Vehicle with a very simple service module for power and retro. It's really Block 1 Apollo, but with a different name...

Then call it Apollo Block I or Interim Apollo. OTL Gemini was a completely different spacecraft than OTL Apollo, with completely different processes, launchers, and contractors. Here? Not so much. Gemini will be butterflied, maybe into your TL's Apollo Block I, but Interim Apollo will be a sub-program for proving Apollo (like OTL's Little Joe shots and the Shuttle's Approach and Landing Tests) rather than a separate program like Project Gemini.
 
Top