Space Program Options open to President Nixon

Something else derived from that programme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby

Sending men to (or rather past) Venus, in the 1970s :eek:

Yeah, I noticed that one.

I suppose the best argument against that is that it would make much more sense to send an unmanned probe - far less risky, you need a smaller rocket, etc.

On the other hand, the case for - if the US had at this time firmly committed to a Mars Programme, in the long term - is that valuable experience of long-term space habitation would be gained.
 
Every departure from the established S/A line is an increase in cost, becuase the development money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is production and flights of proven S/A hardware.

I can't help but wonder what could be achieved with S/A hardware during the 70s & 80s if the billions spent on Shuttle development, infrastructure modification, staff retraining, shuttle production and operations were instead put into S/A production and operations.
 

Archibald

Banned
Notice that these flybys would have been powered by chemical engines - IE modified S-IVB upper stages. Seemed rather risky and heavy unless you replace them by a NERVA-powered nuclear stage. It was called the PPM or Primary Propulsion Module. A Mars or Venus flyby sounds much less expensive than a landing. Maybe it would have been more affordable thus possible in the 80's ? About using Apollo hardware, why not building the Mars or Venus vessel from S-I or S-II stages ? A kind of powered (and bigger) Skylab. What do you think about this combination ? 2*S-II dry workshop, a NERVA nuclear stage and 2 Viking landers give a cheap Mars flyby around 1986.
 
Would a full scale NERVA be a practical proposition in the 80s or would it need the general advances of another decade?
 
For Skylab

NASA had plans to reactivate Skylab for Shuttle in 1979
more here
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790075817_1979075817.pdf

in OTL Shuttle had major problems delay the fist launch to 1981
during that time Skylab fell back to Earth.

back to some quote in thread

is as follow : ok for some more Saturn V, but they are darn expensive!
Development of the Saturn V was expensive, but building in serie make them cheap
(like Ariane 4 Rocket orded and build in units or 50 drop the production cost !)

I've sought the date when Saturne V 'second batch was cancelled.
SA-516 and SA-517 was start to build, but was suspended in August 1968
for second production run there was only 7 more Saturn V = SA-518 to SA-525 (with improved J-2S) planned
more here
The (cancelled) second production run of Saturn Vs

had Robert Kennedy become Prasident instat Nixon, i think he had take the Mars option
Boeing 1969 study "Integrated Manned Interplanetary Spacecraft"

another Alternativ is Mars Direct from Robert Zubrin.
more on Mars Direct
This use Payload how can be launch by two standart Saturn V ! (only One as a Nuclear Mars Direct)
alrady in 1968 were porposal like Mars Direct mode, but ignorde by NASA
 
I would think that picking the $1.5 billion proposal would actually help manned space travel in the long run.

After the malaise of the 1970's, one can easily see Reagan promising to "restore American power" with a new space program/Mars program.
 
I would think that picking the $1.5 billion proposal would actually help manned space travel in the long run.

After the malaise of the 1970's, one can easily see Reagan promising to "restore American power" with a new space program/Mars program.

it would be the dead of US manned space program !
Not only NASA-Marshall but the Manned Spacecraft Center would close, with the Saturn launch facilities at Cape Canaveral shutting down as well.
if Reagan become Preasident in 1980 after 10 years is not much left over,
and there will be two option :

One: restart the US Manned Space program from zero (rebuild facilities, redevelopment of manned space hardware)
Tow: Build gigantic anti-ballistic missile systems aka Strategic Defense Initiative (unmanned)

the 1980s budget support only ONE
and you know, President Reagan made on March 23, 1983 his "Star Wars" speech
 

Archibald

Banned
BUMP!!!


http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch4.htm


Two other options, at $2.5 billion, also permitted flight of Skylab with its three visits, along with the six Apollos. There could even be a space station in 1980, with Titan III-Gemini for logistics.
However, there would be no space shuttle.

NASA-Marshall would close, while activity at the Manned Spacecraft Center would fall substantially.


Marshall and MSC (Johnson) sounds rather, hmmm, ennemies.
It seems that their rivalry complicated space station Freedom genesis in the 80's.

Is Marshall closure possible ?
Would it really have a disastrous effect on NASA future ?

Can Johnson SFC led station studies alone ?

:)
 
Is Marshall closure possible ?
Would it really have a disastrous effect on NASA future ?

Can Johnson SFC led station studies alone ?

:)

it would be the death of NASA
because NASA call it MSFC :
only Center within the nation which is capable of a space vehicle from the idea of the design, development and construction, and the tests to the successful start.

Marshall Space Flight Center is form in 1960 out US Army Ballistic Missile Agency
The MSFC also contains the Huntsville Operations Support Center with Teststands
MSFC development, construction and Test : Saturn I&IB, Saturn V, Space Shuttle & ET, ISS Payloads.

The Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center on the other hand is "Manned Spacecraft Center"
that coordinates and monitors all human spaceflight off the United States
directs all Space Shuttle missions and activities aboard the International Space Station.
(ISS is build by MSFC and run by JSC)

to close MSFC and take JSC over is like
closing a Shipyard and demands a Sailorsschool to build a super tanker in the Schoolyard...
 
Top