The Return: An Alternate History of our Return to the Moon

its possible for SPACE X to launch a modified Dragon capsule into a lunar flyby in only a few months using a Falcon Heavy booster - basically a reprise of Apollo 8 without orbiting the moon Similar to the Soviet Zond program of the same era

Problem is money - Falcon Heavy supposedly cost 150 million a pop, probably closer to 200 million Musk could probably fund it out of his pocket A consortium of millionaires (billionaires) could fund it ala Jules Verne FROM EARTH TO MOON

Question is why do something done 50 years ago One possibility would be to preempt China if tries to send a manned mission to the moon as part of some grand propaganda stunt like the soviets were trying

If want to orbit moon would require an additional stage similar to the retired DELTA P, which ironicly is based on the descent stage of the Lunar module Would need Aerojet to remake it Thats assuming still have the plans and institutional memory to build one
 
its possible for SPACE X to launch a modified Dragon capsule into a lunar flyby in only a few months using a Falcon Heavy booster - basically a reprise of Apollo 8 without orbiting the moon Similar to the Soviet Zond program of the same era

Problem is money - Falcon Heavy supposedly cost 150 million a pop, probably closer to 200 million Musk could probably fund it out of his pocket A consortium of millionaires (billionaires) could fund it ala Jules Verne FROM EARTH TO MOON

Question is why do something done 50 years ago One possibility would be to preempt China if tries to send a manned mission to the moon as part of some grand propaganda stunt like the soviets were trying

If want to orbit moon would require an additional stage similar to the retired DELTA P, which ironicly is based on the descent stage of the Lunar module Would need Aerojet to remake it Thats assuming still have the plans and institutional memory to build one
Not super-relevant because this takes place in the early 1990s, and Falcon Heavy doesn't exist, Dragon doesn't exist, Falcon 1 doesn't exist, SpaceX doesn't exist, and thus just generally the plan doesn't work.
 
It's not, but it seems to contain most if not all the information plus maybe a little bit more (at least a couple additional graphics). It's 20 pages, the AIAA summary paper was 9, I think mostly the last ten pages of the briefing contains the same information as the paper?

It's first half is the 'briefing paper' the second half looks to be copied from the published book of conference papers.

Randy
 
Randy, as Michel notes, the landings for the various hab/science elements don't need to happen in the same window, or even in the same month, as the crew launch, so you can spread the launches over multiple windows and thus multiple months. Power is a concern, but until the crew arrive and fire up the high power systems, the "keep alive" demands will be an order of magnitude or two less than those for crew--more like the few hundred Watts of Mars Science Laboratory or the like then the kilowatts of crew-level life support and the more power-hungry crew science capabilities. It's still a lot of launches, but you've got time to do each pair well spread out.
yeah I think the hab modules and stuff were to be launched a few weeks prior to the launch of crew and would sit dormant until the crew arrived and settled in but like you said it does take place over a wide span of time
 
Capitol Hill could be take it step by step, but you need something external like Russian or Chinese space activity to push them.
Maybe it's a story where the Soviets aren't building Buran, they're moving towards superheavy rockets.

Wasn't the proposed Titan V for ELA?
 
Maybe it's a story where the Soviets aren't building Buran, they're moving towards superheavy rockets.
it was Original plan to build big rocket called Vulcan rocket and launch cosmonauts to the Moon
But then came US Space Shuttle and Soviets Military wanted also one build with same chararistic
so Vulcan became Energiea/Buran...

Wasn't the proposed Titan V for ELA?
No, Titan V was short lived study 1988, for Titan with cryogenic core stage as replacement to cancelled National Launch System.
it biggest issue expensive R&D for new Engine "PW 1000000 lb LH2"

For ELA the Titan IV had be build from 2195 aluminium alloys, like Lightweight ET for Shuttle
However they ELA study look into use of Ariane 5, but they need Four Solids to bring Centaur-G into orbit.
 
I hope,
let say during Apollo program they build 39 A B C
800px-Lc39_warning_lamps.jpg
I have something planned for this…be ready 😃
 
let's look into launch option
Shuttle has two launch pad 39 A and B
Titan IV has SLC 40 and 41

mean two of ELA mission can be launch fast, but really matter is refurbish time of launch pads and prepare the Launcher.
But also important is here the Moon has day/night cycle of 14 days.
Because ELA need day light for remote controlled landing and it take 6 days for hardware to land on Moon.
Either landing happen in Lunar morning or evening
This however from this dependent the launch windows and sequence
Landing in lunar morning means the next launch have to wait 30 days, while landing at lunar evening give 14 days for landing on lunar morning.
This here is important for dual launch of ELA 2# and ELA 3#

proposed launch sequence
launch of Shuttle, follow by Titan IV for ELA #1 the equipment flight,
Refurbish launch pads up to 3 months were ELA 1# that wait on moon passive.
two Shuttles move to launch pads 39 A/B while two Titan IV are ready to launch
first ELA 2# habitat flight, landing on Lunar evening, spends 14 days in lunar night.
14 days later follow Manned ELA3# landing on lunar morning, for 14 days surface mission.

Sad that Launch complex 39 has not pad C or that a SLC-42 exist, it would have made operations much easier.
with launches in 14 day intervals
Randy, as Michel notes, the landings for the various hab/science elements don't need to happen in the same window, or even in the same month, as the crew launch, so you can spread the launches over multiple windows and thus multiple months. Power is a concern, but until the crew arrive and fire up the high power systems, the "keep alive" demands will be an order of magnitude or two less than those for crew--more like the few hundred Watts of Mars Science Laboratory or the like then the kilowatts of crew-level life support and the more power-hungry crew science capabilities. It's still a lot of launches, but you've got time to do each pair well spread out.

Actually looking into the links and details it seems that GD expected to only get two (2) Shuttle and/or ELV flights per year as a baseline, which means the 'assumption' of a three (3) shot architecture needing "rapid" turn around wasn't really there.
First shot sent a 'science' payload to the surface, with a second "manned" mission six months later, with a "hab" for a "three week stay" mentioned but not shown as flown in the text or diagrams. It's 'developed' and "used" but not actually (specifically) shown to be flown in the open documentation.

Now it could be in more detailed reporting but with GD's "assumed" baseline that would mean the science package and habitat get delivered over a year in two flights with the "manned" flight happing early the next year. That's a HECK of a lot more drawn out than the criticisms would make it appear. Wonder how that happened?

Randy
 
Now it could be in more detailed reporting but with GD's "assumed" baseline that would mean the science package and habitat get delivered over a year in two flights with the "manned" flight happing early the next year. That's a HECK of a lot more drawn out than the criticisms would make it appear. Wonder how that happened?
I think if somebody hears a mission plan needs a lot of launches, people are quick to assume it means "in a short amount of time," like days or weeks. We're used to Apollo, not more ISS-style missions that build up their supplies on the surface over months or years. Depots, surface rendezvous with multiple landers, it all lets you make a lot of things less time critical--and because things are less time critical, there's even more option for things to go wrong and still recover from it. If the Centaur to push a crew to the moon fails to launch, you can land the Shuttle, prepare another, and all the stuff on the moon won't care much if it waited six months or a year.
 
I think if somebody hears a mission plan needs a lot of launches, people are quick to assume it means "in a short amount of time," like days or weeks. We're used to Apollo, not more ISS-style missions that build up their supplies on the surface over months or years. Depots, surface rendezvous with multiple landers, it all lets you make a lot of things less time critical--and because things are less time critical, there's even more option for things to go wrong and still recover from it. If the Centaur to push a crew to the moon fails to launch, you can land the Shuttle, prepare another, and all the stuff on the moon won't care much if it waited six months or a year.

What 'erks' me is that even the nominal "supporters" of the concept follow up that 'assumption', which I can see given the cryogenic nature of the propellant but that's NOT what the data/literature says which should be obvious. (On the other hand "I" believed that since I hadn't at the time read any of the original sources) But yes a lot of the 'assumptions' are (as I already made such a mistake in my earlier post :) ) assumed a 'short' window given the nature of the architecture and propellants.
I wonder if a depot concept for the LEV might have been looked at if flying the propellants on-board the Shuttle wasn't going to be accepted?

And I agree that Apollo has caused a LOT of issues over the decades with managing expectations and the nature of reality :)

Randy
 
Chapter 2: Research and Development
Chapter 2: Research and Development

Now for ELA to be the vessel that will set boots on the Moon, a lot of work needed to be done for every part of the newly branded Selene Program named after the Greek Goddess of the Moon Selene. Down in Florida, General Dynamics designers began making mockups of the full ELA stack (the cm and the lander), the standalone capsule, the standalone lander, and mockups for the Space Station Freedom derived Multipurpose Logistics Module Habitation Module (MPLM-H). These were all necessary to visualize how the final hardware would look in action. The Lunar Lander and Command Module were designed to be slim and skinny to fit inside of the shuttle payload bay nice and neatly so all space in the bay could be filled with space for crew excursion and the Canadarm of course. The mission plan on paper was simple: The shuttle would launch an unmanned science package to the Moon on top of the Lunar Excursion Vehicle (LEV or just Lunar Lander) which will house the supplies needed for the habitats, many experiments including a lunar mining experiment, optical telescopes, and solar arrays for extended stays. The next missions which would take place a few weeks or a month after the first one would launch the first MPLM-H module to the cargo/science package sitting idle on the surface. The MPLM-H will house crew food supply and medical gear, radiators, and fuel cells which will be activated upon arrival of crew sometime in the year 2000 or 2001. Then the Crew lands and begins unpacking the science equipment, and stowing MPLM-H equipment to prepare for their 21 days stay on the moon. And from beyond the first three missions, expansion can begin with ideas of arrays of rollout solar panels, lunar construction, and a biological lab habitat. The LEV would be powered by 4 RL-10 engines with extendable nozzles and the ability to throttle either remotely or by crew manually for a soft touchdown. The crew of two would depressurize the Command Module with EVA suits on and would then release the hatch and then make their way onto the ground. Multiple contingency programs were created to combat issues that may arise. These included engine failures, landing leg damage, and in orbit contingencies. In the case of an engine failure, the outcome would be judged by factors such as altitude, and how many engines were lost. If 1 RL-10 engine is lost during descent, then the other 3 can counter the loss of thrust and the landing can be completed. If 2 or more engines are lost and the crew was at a higher altitude, then they could simply abort landing and return home or enter a parking orbit, however if they're too low then there is no chance they can be saved, and their loss will be deemed a loss of crew and vehicle.


Meanwhile as ELA was being sorted out, the mighty Titan IV was in the middle of modification. The Titan IV would be the vehicle that would launch the Centaur-T upper stage. The Centaur-T famously flies onboard the Titan-IV as an optional third stage to boost payloads into final orbits or into interplanetary trajectories. Now it can be modified to serve the purpose of being the booster stage for ELA. Modifications though would need to be made to accommodate for the new payload. The payload adapter was modified with a docking port of sorts so the ELA can mate with it in orbit. The Titan IV itself would need to be modified to carry this large payload into the peculiar orbit necessary for a lunar transfer in the form of Aluminum-Lithium tanks to replace the original material used to make the tanks. The Al-Li tanks made the core stage much lighter which in turn meant it could lift the Centaur-T into the parking orbit necessary. There were ideas of upgrading the SRMs, but it was decided that the current ones were already very capable. Normally, the Centaur-T is powered by two RL-10 engines but for this new payload, it was in need of a more powerful alternative. The RL-10 C-1 was the chosen upgrade for the original dual engines with the C-1 having an abundance of power to launch the payload to its destination without the risk of being underpowered or very long burn times although of course the burn will be long and strenuous.

And finally, the Space Shuttle aka the vehicle that will bring the payload that will make this program possible into orbit. This would be the largest payload the Shuttle will ever launch and for that reason there will need to be upgrades similar to those done on the Titan IV. The original tank design was modified to have the Aluminum-Lithium alloy duo that Titan IV was in the middle of getting fitted into, and the SRBs would be upgraded to have much more thrust in the form of Advanced Solid Rocket Motors (ASRM). Training for the Selene Program for Space Shuttle crews was set to begin in 1993 and the timeline of events of the mission would be done through simulators at the cape. The first simulations followed the events of what will be SLP-001-T (SLP stands for Selene Program, the T stands for Test) with a shuttle crew of 4 and two astronauts on the mid deck who were the lucky few to enter the capsule, one of the Mission Specialists would use the Canadarm to maneuver the Command Module and dock it to the LEV and into the mission configuration, then when the command is given, one by one the two ELA crew will EVA from the shuttle and enter the Command Module after a quick inspection of the docking port, from there they would enter the capsule and go through startup procedures while the shuttle crew waits on standby incase of an error, if no error is found and the mission is clear to continue, the Canadarm would help carefully move the stack out of the payload bay once the LEV is separated from the rest of the ship. In case of an error after separation where the mission would need to be aborted, the stack could be birthed with the shuttle once again, the crew would egress and enter the shuttle once again, the CM would be removed from the LEV, and the crew would return back to KSC or Edwards judging on the conditions. And like anything, this was easier said than done with many criticizing the abort deconstruction as finicky and unnecessary, but the counter argument was that instead of endangering the crew with a return inside a capsule that is unable to finish the mission due to an error, it would be better to collect the equipment, and send it back to the cape for repairs and a reflight at a later date. Even with the critics, the original plan was kept and the original training continued.

And now it was a question of where launches at the cape would occur. Back in the 1960s during the time of Apollo, NASA authorized the construction of pad LC-39C. The pad fell dormant once Apollo became more limited in what could be done and was subsequently closed down in 1973 after Skylab-1. It was never demolished and was kept closed during the early shuttle program as there was no need for shuttles to use it. But now, 39C could be home to launches for the first time in decades now that there was a need for more launches back-to-back. Its first use would be for pad tests with a boilerplate LEV and Command Module in a mockup Shuttle Payload Bay through 1993 and 1995. LC-42 was another pad that was built for glory but was left abandoned but was reopened in 1992 to support the flight of the Titan IV with the modified Centaur-T.

The years between 1990 and 1995 would be years of great accomplishment with many things to do but nothing could prevent General Dynamics from making their dream of “Cheaper, Better, Faster” to the moon real. It was all part of a greater plan and someday the real space shuttles will launch with their own test payloads to prepare the great journey ahead of humanity.
 
Last edited:
anyways here it is! I started the draft for chapter 3 tuesday and should be done by next week...if all goes according to plan
 
Back in the 1960s during the time of Apollo, NASA authorized the construction of pad LC-39C. The pad fell dormant once Apollo became more limited in what could be done and was subsequently closed down in 1973 after Skylab-1. It was never demolished and was kept closed during the early shuttle program as there was no need for shuttles to use it. But now, 39C could be home to launches for the first time in decades now that there was a need for more launches back-to-back.
Is this a point of departure from OTL in...1963 or so? No work on a third pad complex at KSC was ever done as far as I know beyond a few stoplights installed on the main crawlerway--no land clearing or geotechnical work to build up a pad was ever carried out. It also seems unnecessary, as the turnaround of a Shuttle pad could be done in only a few weeks (roughly 17 days launch to launch being the record), with the limit on number of launches which could be generated being more about the VAB work (SRB stacking and the like).
 
Is this a point of departure from OTL in...1963 or so? No work on a third pad complex at KSC was ever done as far as I know beyond a few stoplights installed on the main crawlerway--no land clearing or geotechnical work to build up a pad was ever carried out. It also seems unnecessary, as the turnaround of a Shuttle pad could be done in only a few weeks (roughly 17 days launch to launch being the record), with the limit on number of launches which could be generated being more about the VAB work (SRB stacking and the like).
yes the point of departure happens in 1963. In real life, no work was done but by popular demand over on discord and my Michel in this thread, I made it canon. And yes, although it would seem redundant I feel like personally it could be better for ELA but either way, I found it to be a bit silly and decided "Hey why not" lol.
 
that's probably as far fetched in divergence terms as I'll get and I'll stay in the realm of reality from here forward...also three shuttles looks based lmao
 
And yes, although it would seem redundant I feel like personally it could be better for ELA but either way, I found it to be a bit silly and decided "Hey why not" lol.
I'm not sure it is better for ELA--one of the benefits of ELA is you don't need to launch all the launches it needs at once, and adding additional cost to convert a pad for Shuttle operations (likely to be several billion dollars) is going to take a massive chunk out of the savings ELA is hoping to get over something like First Lunar Outpost by cheaping out on R&D costs. I think it's kind of excessively silly, and would require significantly better justification to make much sense.
 
sorry that it took so long guys I had a busy week and lost the original draft

No worries, we overlook such issues... Once ;)

anyways here it is! I started the draft for chapter 3 Tuesday and should be done by next week...if all goes according to plan

Works, though OUR plan shows daily updates starting the week after and we all know who's "plan" counts here right? (All these authors somehow think THEY get to make the plans and schedules... it's so cute)

also actual spaceflight will be occurring next chapter

Hmmm, our schedule has you working overtime this weekend to get that update out as 'gift' to us...
(You know I'm joking, right? Right? :) )

Randy
(Who is too cowardly to post any of his timeline concepts so can't really complain :) )
 
Top