To Rise From the Earth: Alternate 'post-Apollo' space program

[simonbp]

Unless you're launching something more than an Apollo CSM, you don't really need 2 F-1As or any uprating to the S-IVB. J-2S is likely, as it is cheaper than the flown J-2, and F-1A is already ready for production as well. So, the optimal crew vehicle is probably:

1: Standard LES/CM, possibly with provision for 5-man rescue mission.
2: SM modified for longer on-orbit life, smaller prop tanks, and removable cargo racks. Possibly replacing SPS with an LM ascent engine, and adding small solar arrays.
3: S-IVB with J-2S and slightly upgraded instrument unit.
4: First stage with single F-1A, height scaled to fit performance of second stage and CSM.
5: New-build, lightweight MLP for use with existing VAB/LC-39. No STS-style fixed launch tower/RSS.

One other thing to consider is an unmanned logistics vehicle. This doesn't need to be as big as Apollo, and could in fact be launched by a Atlas-Centaur. The Multiple Docking Adaptor (MDA) on Skylab was designed for exactly that, and would serve as a perfect place to remotely dock a logistics vehicle.

Finally, I would be supprised if the manned vehicle would be used for planetary mission; Titan IIIC is much better suited for that.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Unless you're launching something more than an Apollo CSM, you don't really need 2 F-1As or any uprating to the S-IVB. J-2S is likely, as it is cheaper than the flown J-2, and F-1A is already ready for production as well. So, the optimal crew vehicle is probably:

1: Standard LES/CM, possibly with provision for 5-man rescue mission.
2: SM modified for longer on-orbit life, smaller prop tanks, and removable cargo racks. Possibly replacing SPS with an LM ascent engine, and adding small solar arrays.
3: S-IVB with J-2S and slightly upgraded instrument unit.
4: First stage with single F-1A, height scaled to fit performance of second stage and CSM.
5: New-build, lightweight MLP for use with existing VAB/LC-39. No STS-style fixed launch tower/RSS.

One other thing to consider is an unmanned logistics vehicle. This doesn't need to be as big as Apollo, and could in fact be launched by a Atlas-Centaur. The Multiple Docking Adaptor (MDA) on Skylab was designed for exactly that, and would serve as a perfect place to remotely dock a logistics vehicle.

Finally, I would be supprised if the manned vehicle would be used for planetary mission; Titan IIIC is much better suited for that.

Yes, I have considered all of this. At first I thought you were proposing one of the 'regular' INT-20 designs (with 3-5 F1s), which is why I proposed limiting it to just two. Then I looked at it more closely which led to me deciding that 50-100% more payload than the Saturn IB was not justified and that you actually hadn't proposed that. The 'uprating' I was thinking of for the S-IVB consisted primarily of replacing the J-2 with a J-2S. The modifications I had in mind for the CSM were almost precisely what you mentioned; longer on-orbit lifespan, solar cell power, smaller engine instead of the SPS. The CM probably needs some modifications for that, too, though. The thinner heatshield that I mentioned to save a few dozen kilos, for example.

As far as the MLP thing is concerned, yes the milkstool is not a long-term solution. Probably, they get designed and built in parallel with the Saturn II, and introduced about the same time.

I'm not sure how much NASA is thinking about logistics vehicle modifications ATM, though it'll probably come up pretty soon with the aggressive three-month cycling schedule. I did think of cannibalizing old LEMs (and eventually building new designs based off of that) to make logistics vehicles that could be carried into space with a CSM. I think LM-based designs are going to have a prominent place ITTL, being adapted for use as basically a MPLM, maybe a lab module later (there was an AAP proposal along those lines for the wet-workshop idea) when Skylab B gets launched. I'm thinking Skylab B is not going to have the ATM attached, but instead a third docking port, to which will be attached different laboratory modules periodically. Probably, this will include components supplied by Europeans and (later) the ESA.

I thought of using the Saturn II for interplanetary missions as a way to cut costs, sort of, and standardize on one vehicle; I think those traits will be prominent in NASA's thinking ITTL. Plus, Saturn's payload to LEO is about 3000 kg bigger than the Titan IIIE (the variant used for probes), so you can use it to launch bigger probes, and the Air Force isn't consuming any of the supplies. OTOH, there are always the small launchers (Atlas, Delta, Scout, etc.) to worry about, since they are probably launching stuff that really doesn't need a Saturn II. So, overall, I think NASA is going to standardize on three rockets:
Saturn II for manned and medium-lift launches
Atlas for small-lift launches (the cheapness of using converted ICBMs can't be beat)
Scout? or some new development like Pegasus for ultra-small-lift launches.

With that last Saturn V standing by in storage for Skylab B around 1977 or 1978...

 

[Archibald]

For two years now I'm toying with similar ideas to yours, so I'll follow this thread with interest.

The big problem with Saturns was that the production line was stopped mid-1968 (yes, Johnson stopped Saturn, not Nixon !).

 

[Workable Goblin]

For two years now I'm toying with similar ideas to yours, so I'll follow this thread with interest.

The big problem with Saturns was that the production line was stopped mid-1968 (yes, Johnson stopped Saturn, not Nixon !).

Yep, know that I figured that it's only been four years gone, so there aren't the huge barriers to production that would appear later in the decade, and...well, the idea of maintaining the knowledge base is quite a powerful one. They do need something to replace the Saturn IB with, too.

EDIT: Plus, there was the 'Saturn-Shuttle' idea toyed around with as late as 1972, which would have required restart of the S-IC production line--ITTL, with no Shuttle, it's at least plausible that F-1 based lower stages get produced.

 

[Workable Goblin]

One thing that is really confusing me (as I dig through rocket performance numbers to figure out what launch vehicle will be carrying the LLM--ATM, it looks like the Saturn II) is that, at least according to Encyclopedia Astronautica and Wikipedia, the Saturn IB could not have launched CSMs, since the boosters could only lift ~45,000 lbs into LEO, but the CSM weighed ~67,000 lbs. Yet I know that they really did launch CSMs. How did this work?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

One thing that is really confusing me (as I dig through rocket performance numbers to figure out what launch vehicle will be carrying the LLM--ATM, it looks like the Saturn II) is that, at least according to Encyclopedia Astronautica and Wikipedia, the Saturn IB could not have launched CSMs, since the boosters could only lift ~45,000 lbs into LEO, but the CSM weighed ~67,000 lbs. Yet I know that they really did launch CSMs. How did this work?

I don't know, but I suspect that oversized engine on the SM got them the last bit into orbit. It was sized for Lunar insertion and departure, not for orbital manoeuvering.

 

[Workable Goblin]

I don't know, but I suspect that oversized engine on the SM got them the last bit into orbit. It was sized for Lunar insertion and departure, not for orbital manoeuvering.

Seems plausible, I'll see if my sources have anything to say about that next weekend. Kinda scuppers my plan to have the Block III not have the SPS on board, though.

 

[Archibald]

One thing that is really confusing me (as I dig through rocket performance numbers to figure out what launch vehicle will be carrying the LLM--ATM, it looks like the Saturn II) is that, at least according to Encyclopedia Astronautica and Wikipedia, the Saturn IB could not have launched CSMs, since the boosters could only lift ~45,000 lbs into LEO, but the CSM weighed ~67,000 lbs. Yet I know that they really did launch CSMs. How did this work?

Easy ! They had just deleted two of the four tanks. Plus the two others were half empty. The SPS (the big engine at the rear) and large service module were quite unuseful for Low Earth orbit missions.
Yes, this was a waste.

Better CSMs were on the drawing board. The Block III would have been lighter, with a smaller engine borrowed from the Lunar Module.
http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&source=hp&q="Block+III+CSM"&meta=&aq=f&oq=

 

[Workable Goblin]

Easy ! They had just deleted two of the four tanks. Plus the two others were half empty. The SPS (the big engine at the rear) and large service module were quite unuseful for Low Earth orbit missions.
Yes, this was a waste.

Better CSMs were on the drawing board. The Block III would have been lighter, with a smaller engine borrowed from the Lunar Module.
http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&source=hp&q="Block+III+CSM"&meta=&aq=f&oq=

Well, that certainly clears up something that had been bothering me. And now my thought-of Block III modifications can go ahead without worrying that they'll prevent the Apollo from getting into orbit, since they'll reduce the weight enough that it won't be a problem.

 

[BigRIJoe]

One thing that is really confusing me (as I dig through rocket performance numbers to figure out what launch vehicle will be carrying the LLM--ATM, it looks like the Saturn II) is that, at least according to Encyclopedia Astronautica and Wikipedia, the Saturn IB could not have launched CSMs, since the boosters could only lift ~45,000 lbs into LEO, but the CSM weighed ~67,000 lbs. Yet I know that they really did launch CSMs. How did this work?

They basically off-loaded propellant from the Service Module. A Saturn 1B could and in fact did (on Apollo 5) launch a fully fueled Lunar Module

 

[BigRIJoe]

You really might consider adding 120 inch strap on boosters to the basic Saturn 1B. These boosters had flown on the Titan 3C since June of 1965, and four of them, clustered around the S-1B stage could have functioned as a Satge 0. The S-1B would have been modified for an airstart,and about 100,000 lbs, or a fully fuled Apollo CSM/LM could have been orbited.


http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturni.htm

 

[BigRIJoe]

You're right, I mixed that up. I mean to put a physicist (Gibson or Garriott, since they're from Group 4 and therefore more senior than Lind--though you could persuade me otherwise), and put a physician. Doh.

(Going back to fix right now)

In the text for David Shayler's book Apollo: The Lost and Forgotten Missions, Lind was quoted as saying he'd be the LM pilot on Apollo 21. We know of course that Apollo 21 was REALLY hypothetically, but Lind was an experienced pilot with more flight time than Schmidt; he was even involved in flying helicopters-an apparent prerequisite for being an LMP.

 

[Workable Goblin]

You really might consider adding 120 inch strap on boosters to the basic Saturn 1B. These boosters had flown on the Titan 3C since June of 1965, and four of them, clustered around the S-1B stage could have functioned as a Satge 0. The S-1B would have been modified for an airstart,and about 100,000 lbs, or a fully fuled Apollo CSM/LM could have been orbited.


http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturni.htm

I think an F-1A first stage with a stretched, J-2S equipped second stage will be adequate to put ~50,000 lbs on orbit, which given the deletion of most of the on-orbit maneuver requirement is a plausible development for the Block III. But...I'm no rocket scientist, just a physics major

In the text for David Shayler's book Apollo: The Lost and Forgotten Missions, Lind was quoted as saying he'd be the LM pilot on Apollo 21. We know of course that Apollo 21 was REALLY hypothetically, but Lind was an experienced pilot with more flight time than Schmidt; he was even involved in flying helicopters-an apparent prerequisite for being an LMP.

Well, there weren't enough Saturn Vs to launch Apollo 21 (if you look at my accounting, you can only get up to 20...and I assure you I have double-checked my figures), so that's...not the best source. Schmitt is going for sure, and I just haven't touched OTL crews. Since there is an Apollo 18 ITTL, it makes sense if he went up there, by the rotation system, but I wanted two missions where one of the scientist-astronauts landed. OTOH, the flying time is a pretty good qualification, maybe if I moved him to Apollo 17 and Schmitt to 18?

 

[BigRIJoe]

Well, there weren't enough Saturn Vs to launch Apollo 21 (if you look at my accounting, you can only get up to 20...and I assure you I have double-checked my figures), so that's...not the best source. Schmitt is going for sure, and I just haven't touched OTL crews. Since there is an Apollo 18 ITTL, it makes sense if he went up there, by the rotation system, but I wanted two missions where one of the scientist-astronauts landed. OTOH, the flying time is a pretty good qualification, maybe if I moved him to Apollo 17 and Schmitt to 18?[/QUOTE]
There was a tremendous amount of political pressure from the "scientific community" to fly a geologist before Apollo ended. Rotating the Apollo 15 backup crew (Gordon Brand and Schmidt ) to Apollo 18 would handle that problem. I think Deke took seniority very seriously, and since Schmittwas from an earlier selection group, he'd probably get the nod before Lind.
From Wikki:
Lind received a Bachelor of Science degree with high honors in physics from the University of Utah in 1953 and a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Physics in 1964 from the University of California, Berkeley where he did research on pion-nucleon scattering, a type of basic high energy particle interaction in the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory. He performed his post-doctoral study at the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska from 1975 to 1976.Lind held the rank of Commander in the U.S. Naval Reserve. He served four years on active duty with the Navy at San Diego and later aboard the carrier USS Hancock. During that time he logged more than 4,500 hours of flight time, 4,000 of which were in a jet aircraft. He received his wings in 1957.

Cancelled Apollo Flights:
Crews

Deke Slayton was the Director of Flight Crew Operations and effectively chose the crews for the flights. During the early Apollo missions he used a rotation system of assigning a crew as backup and then, three missions later, as the prime crew. However, by the later Apollo flights, this system was used less frequently as astronauts left the program, Slayton wanted to give rookies a chance, and astronauts did not want to take backup positions that no longer could lead to prime-crew spots.
In the case of Apollo 18 the crew was probably the Apollo 15 backup crew:[5]

• Richard F. Gordon, Jr. (Commander (CDR))
• Vance D. Brand (Command Module Pilot (CMP))
• Harrison Schmitt (Lunar Module Pilot (LMP))

When Apollo 18 was effectively canceled, Schmitt was moved up to Apollo 17 under pressure from the scientific community, replacing Joe Engle. Schmitt, a geologist, became the only professional scientist and the twelfth man to walk on the Moon.
Slayton's intention for the Apollo 19 crew was the original (prior to cancellation) Apollo 16 backup crew:[5][6]

• Fred Haise (CDR)
• William R. Pogue (CMP)
• Gerald P. Carr (LMP)

For Apollo 20 there is even more uncertainty. Based on normal crew rotation, the crew would likely have been:[5]

• Pete Conrad or Stuart Roosa (CDR)
• Paul J. Weitz (CMP)
• Jack R. Lousma (LMP)

Another possibility was:[7]

• Stuart Roosa or Edgar Mitchell (CDR)
• Jack R. Lousma (CMP)
• Don L. Lind (LMP)

 

[BigRIJoe]

I think an F-1A first stage with a stretched, J-2S equipped second stage will be adequate to put ~50,000 lbs on orbit, which given the deletion of most of the on-orbit maneuver requirement is a plausible development for the Block III. But...I'm no rocket scientist, just a physics major

Agreed! Of course, this would keep the engine production lines open too!

 

[Workable Goblin]

There was a tremendous amount of political pressure from the "scientific community" to fly a geologist before Apollo ended. Rotating the Apollo 15 backup crew (Gordon Brand and Schmidt ) to Apollo 18 would handle that problem. I think Deke took seniority very seriously, and since Schmittwas from an earlier selection group, he'd probably get the nod before Lind.

Yeah...ITTL, I figured that scientists supported Apollo flights, but in return NASA had to fly scientists on the last two Apollo Moon missions, instead of just the last one. So, Deke bumped up Schmitt (coincidentally* getting us the OTL crew), then moved up Garriott from one of the first Skylab flights to Apollo 18. OTL, the rotation system was falling apart because flights were ending and the Shuttle obviously wasn't going to be around for a while, so the more senior astronauts were just leaving the program. Of course, that really, really isn't a problem here, but I think the need to launch a scientist on every Skylab flight will be. Anyways, I figured that the rotation system might be breaking a little bit by this point with the end of the Moon flights, and political pressure gets NASA to put two scientists on the Moon, instead of just one.

*Not really, of course

Anyways, everyone who's following this...I've started thinking about the '80s and man they're gonna be cool. Von Braun would be extremely happy. The Block IV CSM is going to be really good...and wait 'till you see the Artemis and the Selene! I think I'm going to get some of the stuff I'm thinking about down tomorrow, try to summarize the results of the missions up to about 1975 or so, and dig around the library here for research. Probably try to retype everything in LaTeX so it's easier to keep track of, too.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Okay, I've written the epilogue for the whole thing. Enjoy!

Epilogue: July 20th, 1989
Mission Control Center, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas

MCC today is packed. Everyone who possibly can be is packed into the vistor's gallery, and in the control center proper is a group of very special guests: every single living astronaut who has flown to or landed on the Moon. The atmosphere is electrified and humming with excitement. As routine messages cross the floor, the already intense excitement permeating the room builds to an almost unbearable level. Slowly, the room quiets as it becomes clear that the reason for all these people being here is about to materialize. "Houston, Tycho Base here. The Discovery has landed." Suddenly, the room explodes in cheering celebration.

20 years after first landing, the US is back on the Moon.

 

[Nik]

Bravo !!

D'uh, missed this thread until now...

FWIW, must wonder if you could put a 'hacked' skylab MDA into orbit with a CSM, which would then dock with either S-A or S-B and 'Space Tug' the two 'labs together. Linearly to close approach, then switch ports and link in a hammer-head configuration...

 

[Workable Goblin]

D'uh, missed this thread until now...

FWIW, must wonder if you could put a 'hacked' skylab MDA into orbit with a CSM, which would then dock with either S-A or S-B and 'Space Tug' the two 'labs together. Linearly to close approach, then switch ports and link in a hammer-head configuration...

That would probably be overly technically difficult. What I am planning for the post-Skylab B station (to be launched in the mid-80s on the second Saturn V run) is something akin to the OTL Saturn V launched modular station proposals in the late '60s and early '70s.

However, ATM I am leaving this one on hold because
A. I started the Soviet TL which is sucking up more of my attention, partially because I'm less familiar with the subject;
B. I've been a bit busy lately and haven't really as the time to devote to it as well as the Soviet TL;
and C. I want to do a serious rewrite, and because of points A. and B. can't right now. Maybe next week, but I can't promise anything. I will certainly return to it before the end of the year, though.

 

[Wolfman]

This is extremely interesting. I look forward to more about this TL.