To Slip The Surly Bonds of Earth - Alternate Apollo Program

If the shuttle is cancelled outright, maybe they end up pursuing a clustered common booster concept, sort of like today's EELVs or Falcon 9? Size the single-core vehicle to be able to put a 20 ton crew transfer vehicle (Apollo Block III?) into LEO, or interplanetary probes, or large DoD satellites. The three-core vehicle with a modified upper stage (maybe just a stretch?) should be able to put up something like 75 tons or more, so station modules the size of Skylab, or a fueled lunar lander.

If you fly one or two crew flights to a station, and launch three satellites a year (really a bit of a slow rate, but...low budget), you're able to divide the fixed portions of operational costs over more launches, and there might start to be some economy of scale benefits on the cores themselves, so you might be able to accomplish some of the benefits intended to be gained with Shuttle, but without the expense of developing a fully reusable space plane.

the close thing to clustered common booster concept in that time
was Martin proposal Titan III with 4 Solid called Titan III 2+2 or aka Titan IIID in 1965
sdoc24ad.gif

even with 3 booster
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=5327
and Titan IIIL4 were up to 4 Soild booster Booster
Titan IIIL2 with Apollo
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=1855
here some nice picture of lost era
Titan IIIM with Apollo CSM
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=1873
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=6830

IMHO
even wen the Space Shuttle had be canceld by US Senat and congress
the R&D of Titan IIIL series is to expensive for them too
if NASA & USAF had concerted on Titan IIIM with 4 x 7-segment solid booster...

by the way Rockwell had made R&D on Apollo Capsul reuse and landing on land !
the Apollo CM Paraglider with landinggear to come down at USAF Edwards or Kennedy Space center
wat had save milions on US dollars payment to US NAVY
http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/Future_Expansion#CM_Parawing
 
Last edited:
The issue with the Titan is that at its maximum capability, it would be a crew launcher. This common core concept would ideally be sized to start at that size and then move up into the mid-heavy to heavy range with multiple cores--indeed, you could go for a five-core cluster arrangement if you wanted, with the vertical stack and vertical roll-out available at LC39.

If the single-core design was something like the Jarvis launcher, using twin F-1s on the first stage, with a hydrolox upper stage--perhaps even an S-IV or variant thereof, the single-core capacity to LEO would be something like 38 metric tons (double shuttle's 20 metric ton cargo capacity, but about 3/5 the Shuttle stack's actual LEO capacity counting the Shuttle's mass). With 2 additional first stages as strap-ons, it would fall into the 79 metric ton range. With 4 strap ons, it might hit 105 tons or more.

Development may not be cheap, but it would be cheaper than shuttle, while offering advantages in flexibility and evolution.
 
yes the Titan III is at its maximum capability

i wounder if a Saturn S-IVB can equipped with Titan Booster UA1205 or UA1207 ?
not as INT-16 cluster of Solid Booster as Frist stage, but like Ariane 5 or SLS A388-A410
either with 2 - 4- 8 Booster with Centaur upperstage
 
I have doubts that that configuration is possible. If it is, it would probably require a non-trivial amount of re-engineering. However, it would produce the following performance, according to Shilling's launch vehicle calculator and data from Astronautix:

2-booster: 16 metric tons
4-booster: 21 metric tons
8-booster: 26 metric tons
 
Ex Astris, Scientia (Apollo 14)

NASA engineers immediately began a study of the failure of Apollo 13; the cause of the accident was determined within a few months, as was the news that – to the relief of all concerned – it was not a design flaw, though it did reveal some problems with other Apollo CSM that needed correction. Apollo 14 could proceed to complete the mission that Apollo 13 had failed to accomplish, exploring the Fra Mauro highlands of the Moon.

Jim Lovell and his crew (Fred Haise as LMP, and Ken Mattingly as CMP) had proven highly receptive to scientific training, unlike their predecessors in Apollo 13; there were high hopes for this flight as a result. Several new innovations would be employed on the flight, which after the delays caused by the Apollo 13 investigation, was planned to launch at the end of January.

In December, the Apollo 16 crew was announced – John Young as commander, with Jack Swigert as his command module pilot and Charlie Duke as lunar module pilot. This was as expected – they had backed-up Apollo 13. The back-up crew of this flight would be critical, as they would expect to rotate to Apollo 19; Stu Roosa – one of the 'heroes of 13', was named as Commander, with William Pogue as his command module pilot, and Gerald Carr as lunar module pilot. Some of the scientist-astronauts had hoped for the lunar module slot, but it was becoming clear that Schmitt was a 'one-off' in the program.

In the final stages of the flight training, a tragedy took place in training as Gene Cernan, back-up commander, crashed his helicopter into the Banana River, and was killed. The whole Corps was present at the funeral. It was quietly acknowledged that he had been 'hot-dogging' with the helicopter, and that the crash was caused by pilot error; this was hushed up. For the purposes of the mission, Al Shepard stepped in as backup commander, with the understanding that he would not fly on Apollo 17 – and this left a gap in the schedule.

Gordo Cooper had been lobbying for a flight for years. He had considered Apollo 13 'his', and had planned to resign when it was given to Shepard; all that kept him in was the knowledge that there were a lot of flights left on the manifest, and then the investigation into the accident on Apollo 13. After the funeral, he once again demanded that Deke Slayton give him '17', and this time – to his surprise – Deke Slayton said yes. He had begun to have the headache of running out of experienced Apollo commanders for later in the series, and was struggling for '19' and '20' without repeating assignments (though Edgar Mitchell and Stu Roosa were now foremost in his consideration.) Deke obtained a high price; Cooper agreed to serve as back-up commander for the last two lunar flights, a dead-end job that no-one particularly wanted. He would inherit Engle and Evans as his crew.

In memorial to the loss of Gene Cernan, the crew of Apollo 14 wore black armbands around their spacesuits for the take-off, and during the lunar spacewalks; a dedication plaque 'to our fallen comrade' was hurriedly designed for the mission, being delivered almost at the last moment. The launch was for once uneventful, and the only major glitch in the mission was a failure on the lunar module radar in the final stages of landing; Jim Lovell elected to land anyway by sight, and still pulled-off a good landing.

The geological traverses yielded rich results, and culminated in the first-ever look inside a lunar crater, as well as the gathering of significant material from around the rim. Scientists would later acclaim the accuracy of the documentation of the bulk of the samples. Apollo 14 returned to Earth on February 9th, 1971 – a complete success by any standards.
 
This is pretty much the TL I'm working on, durnit! :mad:

(But mine will be a bit different, and such ;) Not mad)

I think you underestimate the willingness of NASA to push for the Shuttle. Everyone at NASA, top to bottom, thought the Shuttle was the way to go--they were as much behind lower launch costs then as NewSpace people are now. The Shuttle was very, very near death several times, but each time managed to pull through thanks to the compromises NASA was willing to make--cut down on size? Sure, they would do that. (Although it ended up being unnecessary--but they would have built something the size of the HL-42, if they had to) Make it only partially reusable? Yep, on the table. Delta wing for AF requirements? Why not? I'm handwaving it in my TL, so I'm not too averse to you handwaving it here, though.

And you overestimate the willingness of Nixon--or any US president--to cancel HSF, effectively. If he's not funding new programs, that means US HSF is dead by the mid-70s, at the latest (by that point all existing Saturn IBs, Saturn Vs, and CSMs will have been used, and the production lines had been shut down by the Johnson administration in '68), and that simply isn't going to happen. Not in the Cold War. I mean, even now Obama is trying for commercial crew to follow up the Shuttle for US HSF capabilities. They're going to pay for something, probably a follow-up Apollo. Big Gemini was a contractor proposal, so I don't think it's likely to be accepted, and so a modified Block III Apollo is much more probable.

There are some things with the astronauts that I think are off, but I'm not an expert on the Astronaut Corps (to put it more bluntly: I know less than the first thing about their personal relationships), so I'm not going to bother you about those.
 
Still issues with post-Apollo planning ITTL, I see. Poor Deke, might just have to put himself on the roster for Apollo 20. :p Anyway, the fate of the Apollo applications program should be interesting here. If they fly out Apollo 19 and 20, there's no Saturn V available for Skylab, meaning no ability to switch to a dry workshop design for that. Given the issues the wet workshop was having, that may be the end of Skylab, with a need to find a new station design. I think that there will need to be a new program rapidly--it'd be hard to end Apollo without something in the works to point to

If the Shuttle can't get funding, a multi-core booster like I keep hawking could be useful for a "Retreat to LEO" strategy--temporarily end BEO exploration, but use the new rocket for a campaign of space station flights, starting with a single-module Skylab-type mission, then growing in duration and testing multi-module stations like Salyut grew into Mir. By ensuring development and use of a 70-ton launch capability, these large LEO stations would also preserve the capability to later resume BEO flight more easily via a Constellation-style 2-launch mission profile.
 
Still issues with post-Apollo planning ITTL, I see. Poor Deke, might just have to put himself on the roster for Apollo 20. :p Anyway, the fate of the Apollo applications program should be interesting here. If they fly out Apollo 19 and 20, there's no Saturn V available for Skylab, meaning no ability to switch to a dry workshop design for that. Given the issues the wet workshop was having, that may be the end of Skylab, with a need to find a new station design. I think that there will need to be a new program rapidly--it'd be hard to end Apollo without something in the works to point to

If the Shuttle can't get funding, a multi-core booster like I keep hawking could be useful for a "Retreat to LEO" strategy--temporarily end BEO exploration, but use the new rocket for a campaign of space station flights, starting with a single-module Skylab-type mission, then growing in duration and testing multi-module stations like Salyut grew into Mir. By ensuring development and use of a 70-ton launch capability, these large LEO stations would also preserve the capability to later resume BEO flight more easily via a Constellation-style 2-launch mission profile.

That mean keep the Saturn V production alive
in OTL they scrap almost complet SA-516 and SA-517 in August 1968 and cancel the order for SA-518 to SA-525
the Production line was "mothballed" and later also scrap on order of Thomas O. Paine


Saturn V in two version for LEO
INT-21 (S-IC + S-II) with 76000 to 116000 kg in LEO http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/satint21.htm
INT-20 (S-IC + S-IVB) with 36000 to 113000 kg in LEO http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/satint20.htm

i prefer INT-21 in combination with S-IVB+ Solid Booster
wat give a option for launch BEO mission with stardard Saturn V
 
This is pretty much the TL I'm working on, durnit! :mad:

(But mine will be a bit different, and such ;) Not mad)

I think you underestimate the willingness of NASA to push for the Shuttle. Everyone at NASA, top to bottom, thought the Shuttle was the way to go--they were as much behind lower launch costs then as NewSpace people are now. The Shuttle was very, very near death several times, but each time managed to pull through thanks to the compromises NASA was willing to make--cut down on size? Sure, they would do that. (Although it ended up being unnecessary--but they would have built something the size of the HL-42, if they had to) Make it only partially reusable? Yep, on the table. Delta wing for AF requirements? Why not? I'm handwaving it in my TL, so I'm not too averse to you handwaving it here, though.

And you overestimate the willingness of Nixon--or any US president--to cancel HSF, effectively. If he's not funding new programs, that means US HSF is dead by the mid-70s, at the latest (by that point all existing Saturn IBs, Saturn Vs, and CSMs will have been used, and the production lines had been shut down by the Johnson administration in '68), and that simply isn't going to happen. Not in the Cold War. I mean, even now Obama is trying for commercial crew to follow up the Shuttle for US HSF capabilities. They're going to pay for something, probably a follow-up Apollo. Big Gemini was a contractor proposal, so I don't think it's likely to be accepted, and so a modified Block III Apollo is much more probable.

There are some things with the astronauts that I think are off, but I'm not an expert on the Astronaut Corps (to put it more bluntly: I know less than the first thing about their personal relationships), so I'm not going to bother you about those.

I agree that something is going to happen, but politically there are problems ahead. The NASA Administrator submits a totally blue-sky proposal - instead of Nixon eventually agreeing to Shuttle, he just tells them to use up what they've got. Everyone concerned figures that the next term will be different, that Administrator Low can propose something more reasonable as a follow-up program (likely something similar to the Soviet Union, making the Skylab project look a lot more like the Salyut project - whether serviced by a Block III Apollo, Big Gemini, or something new.)

Then Watergate hits. Nixon isn't going to get anything like this through then. The whole mess is going to get dumped on Gerald Ford's lap.

So it is 1974. Manned Space is going to end in 1976, as things stand. What's he going to do?
 
Still issues with post-Apollo planning ITTL, I see. Poor Deke, might just have to put himself on the roster for Apollo 20. :p Anyway, the fate of the Apollo applications program should be interesting here. If they fly out Apollo 19 and 20, there's no Saturn V available for Skylab, meaning no ability to switch to a dry workshop design for that. Given the issues the wet workshop was having, that may be the end of Skylab, with a need to find a new station design. I think that there will need to be a new program rapidly--it'd be hard to end Apollo without something in the works to point to

If the Shuttle can't get funding, a multi-core booster like I keep hawking could be useful for a "Retreat to LEO" strategy--temporarily end BEO exploration, but use the new rocket for a campaign of space station flights, starting with a single-module Skylab-type mission, then growing in duration and testing multi-module stations like Salyut grew into Mir. By ensuring development and use of a 70-ton launch capability, these large LEO stations would also preserve the capability to later resume BEO flight more easily via a Constellation-style 2-launch mission profile.

What'd you mean there is a window for the Commander's slot on Apollo 20...and Slayton by then will have been back on flight status for four years... ;)

They were planning to launch on a Saturn IB for quite a while with the Wet Workshop; this is what I reckon is going to happen ITTL. Two of them, though, to maximize the launchers. (And this still leaves one left over.) Given manned space continues into the 1980s, its probably more likely that a return to the moon happens than in OTL - Shuttle was extremely expensive, and by then Station was beginning to hurt the budgets as well.

The other angle I'm looking at is the Soviet perspective. They blew four billion roubles on their version of the Orbiter - solely because the Americans were. That money is going to stay in the space program, so where does it go? I haven't actually nailed down anything on this yet.

Possibilities:

  • They just spend more money on existing programs.
  • They actually finish N-1, and have a heavy-lift launcher.
  • Some new program - possibly even lunar-based.


 
I agree that something is going to happen, but politically there are problems ahead. The NASA Administrator submits a totally blue-sky proposal - instead of Nixon eventually agreeing to Shuttle, he just tells them to use up what they've got. Everyone concerned figures that the next term will be different, that Administrator Low can propose something more reasonable as a follow-up program (likely something similar to the Soviet Union, making the Skylab project look a lot more like the Salyut project - whether serviced by a Block III Apollo, Big Gemini, or something new.)

Then Watergate hits. Nixon isn't going to get anything like this through then. The whole mess is going to get dumped on Gerald Ford's lap.

So it is 1974. Manned Space is going to end in 1976, as things stand. What's he going to do?

That's the thing--I don't think Nixon would just say "use up what's there" or Congress would stand for it, since that's tantamount to saying that you don't think HSF should be continued. It didn't show so much in the policy decisions...but Nixon actually really liked spaceflight and astronauts, so while he might cut them a lot, he's not going to outright cancel them. And NASA itself was extremely, extremely willing to compromise to get its Shuttle. If you haven't read the Heppenheimer book (here or here), you really should. NASA histories tend to be really good and with no shame in highlighting blemishes...can't wait for their Shuttle equivalent (it helps that they usually don't write them for a while!)

Also, @ your newer post: Well, the wet workshop had problems. I'll quote Mueller:
Mueller said:
Once I tried even the simple task of closing the valves between the tank [in the Marshall Neutral Buoyancy Facility von Braun had constructed], it convinced me that we couldn't rebuild and refurbish the tank in orbit, so that led me to the decision to go with the dry workshop

That happened in 1969, before or during the Paine Plan presentation. And Mueller was the Associate Administrator for Manned Spaceflight; if he doesn't want the wet workshop to fly, it probably isn't, and he's not going to want it to fly if he thinks it's impossible! (I just got the book Homesteading Space about the Skylab Program for Christmas, and NASA has a good history here, so if you need anything...)

The Russians, meanwhile...well, Mishin is probably going to fall from grace, which means that Glushko is probably going to take over the program. That means you see something very much like Energia from OTL, actually, but probably called "Vulkan" and not designed to carry an orbiter. It might not have hydrolox engines at all, either, but rely on pure kerolox propulsion. It'll probably fly a few years earlier, and they might actually get the chance to use it...which if Reagan is in the WH might kick off Space Race Part II (especially if he's announced SDI). I've been thinking about this a lot, you know...
 
Homesteading Space is an excellent book; you're going to enjoy it.

I certainly agree the Wet Workshop had problems, but as it stands - it is all that they are going to be able to do, and it was part of NASA thinking for a long time. The other bonus is that they have three more years to work on it than they had OTL, which hopefully gives them time to work out the flaws.

Though this definitely means a much reduced-capability Skylab.

Nixon did love the astronauts - and by his lights, he isn't canceling them - NASA is flying men into space until the end of his second term. By then all the Apollo and Saturn production lines are closed down anyway, so the successor program is going to be difficult. The result will be a gap in manned spaceflight probably about as big as what happened IOTL, I reckon. Something new for Reagan.

Mishin was riding for a fall anyway. I can't really see the N-1 being finished unless NASA announces a moonbase, or something that would force the USSR to the Moon. There is an outside chance of a lunar flyby, but that could fall under the same category of OTL - what's the point. (Incidentally, that came amazingly close to actually happening IOTL!)

If Vulkan goes up, that really helps the USSR a lot more than Buran. Either bigger space stations, or flights to the Moon. (Or further? The rallying cry of the Soviet space pioneers was 'Onward to Mars!', after all!)
 

Archibald

Banned
If the Shuttle can't get funding, a multi-core booster like I keep hawking could be useful for a "Retreat to LEO" strategy--temporarily end BEO exploration, but use the new rocket for a campaign of space station flights, starting with a single-module Skylab-type mission, then growing in duration and testing multi-module stations like Salyut grew into Mir. By ensuring development and use of a 70-ton launch capability, these large LEO stations would also preserve the capability to later resume BEO flight more easily via a Constellation-style 2-launch mission profile

Hey, that's my own little space timeline - you nailed it perfectly with the term "retreat to LEO".
Nothing wrong with such retreat - there are plenties of interesting things to do in LEO and with a mir-like space station. What matters is to bury the shuttle deep enough that NASA never try, and even less succeed, to resurect it or any other RLV program.
In the 80's other Reusable Launch Vehicles apears, by different organisations.
DARPA has the Copper Canyon, better known as X-30 or Orient Express.
The SDIO - the Star wars agency - has the DC-X.
Together the military manage to oust NASA out of RLV, well until the 90's. Then the private sector takes over, with the Kistler K-1.

In the end NASA never build the shuttle nor any RLV.
 

Archibald

Banned
What'd you mean there is a window for the Commander's slot on Apollo 20...and Slayton by then will have been back on flight status for four years... ;)

They were planning to launch on a Saturn IB for quite a while with the Wet Workshop; this is what I reckon is going to happen ITTL. Two of them, though, to maximize the launchers. (And this still leaves one left over.) Given manned space continues into the 1980s, its probably more likely that a return to the moon happens than in OTL - Shuttle was extremely expensive, and by then Station was beginning to hurt the budgets as well.

The other angle I'm looking at is the Soviet perspective. They blew four billion roubles on their version of the Orbiter - solely because the Americans were. That money is going to stay in the space program, so where does it go? I haven't actually nailed down anything on this yet.

Possibilities:

  • They just spend more money on existing programs.
  • They actually finish N-1, and have a heavy-lift launcher.
  • Some new program - possibly even lunar-based.



The soviets just hated the shuttle: their decision to build Buran came very, very late (in 1974). Even after Nixon gave the go ahead to the shuttle in January 1972, soviet technical meetings in spring 1972 still rejected every shuttle concept.

The soviets were definitively not interested by a shuttle at the time, if ever ! When they finally decided to build Buran (between 1974 and 76) it was really for paranoid reasons

The soviets thought the shuttle was an orbital nuclear bomber (!) so they decided to build something similar, just to not lose balance of military power.
The soviets thought the shuttle was an orbital nuclear bomber when USAF build the Vandenberg pad for it. What they failed to understood was that the USAF shuttle would be used to drop military satellites into polar orbit, from Vandenberg. No nuclear bombing was ever planned with the shuttle... but the soviet thought so, so they build Buran. Just for the wrong reasons.
This is a true story !

If no american shuttle, no buran. NO WAY.
If NASA hangs with a space station, well, the soviets have Salyut and Mir (from 1976)
If NASA continue lunar exploration, the Soviet plan is that - the dual N-1, L3M massive lander.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/l3m.htm

That what Mishin wanted to build from 1970 to 1974 (when he was sacked).
The original N-1 was doomed to fail, but there was a much improved N-1F, to be fllown in 1976.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n1f.htm

Despite the daring craziness of the whole N-1 design, the N-1F could have worked, provided with more time...and rubbles ! Mishin - or its successor - can save their head saying the N-1 already exists, unlike Vulkan / Energia, which will take twelve more years and billions of rubbles.
 
And then we run into everyone's favorite "They could have gotten N1 working earlier, but Energia is so much better" debate.

NASA needs a launch vehicle after Saturns are expended; and Titan is not the suitable solution. (Expensive, no growth options). Maybe somehow restart production of S-IB and improve it a bit...
 
To get the N1 working requires an earlier POD than 1969, I suspect; the design might have worked, but it wasn't really intended for a lunar mission - more for the assembly of a spaceship to fly to Mars! The testing program was not rigourous enough, with far too little ground testing. Eventually it would have worked, but unlikely that the program would have persisted that far. The sensible option would be to stay with the launchers they had, the R-7 and the Proton can cover most of what they need.

As for shuttle - the USAF is probably going to build a spaceplane at some point, though not for a long time. Reagan might get it going in the Eighties, but it's probably going to take a long time to complete even some sort of X-20 derivative. Without a NASA shuttle, the Soviets would never build one - they couldn't work out why the Americans were.
 
The Stamp Affair (Apollo 15)

Around the time of the Apollo 14 landing, as the preparations for Apollo 15 built to the climax of launch, Administrator Low learned that some of the investigations ordered into Apollo crews had borne fruit; he discovered that the crew of Apollo 15 were planning to take unauthorised stamp covers to the Moon, to be privately sold on their return to Earth. Further, a figurine symbolising 'lost astronauts' that was to be carried to the Moon was to be mass-produced, and again sold on Earth.

Nixon wanted heroes; this he would not want. For George Low, the answer was simple – the prime crew were off the mission. All three of them were called in individually, and told that they would not fly on Apollo 15 or any subsequent mission; each was offered an easy way out of the agency, and would retire over the next twelve months. The 'Stamp Affair' would later leak out in 1973, one of the items discussed on the infamous 'Watergate Tapes'.

The back-up crew learned that they were to fly in May, giving them just enough time to prepare for the launch; they were offered a delay, but opted to launch on schedule. It was apparent that the change of crews had serious implications for later missions. What would have been the Apollo 18 crew – Gordon, Brand and Schmitt – now needed new back-ups.

Deke Slayton would get to tell Tony England that his prayers were answered; he had been told he would serve as Harrison Schmitt's back-up, and so he would – the difference being that this would now lead him to the Moon on Apollo 18 as LMP, and make him the second scientist-astronaut in space – ahead of many with more seniority, but Slayton didn't feel he could renege on the agreement he had made months before – which at the time had been a thankless task. The CMP would be Bruce McCandless, latterly of the Apollo 14 support staff. The commander of the back-up crew was a far more difficult selection.

Al Bean or Pete Conrad, the obvious choices, were now targetted at Skylab A. Three other choices – Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Jim Lovell, all were asked, and all three turned it down for their own reasons – Armstrong and Lovell were tired of the treadmill, and had already both accomplished highly successful flights; Michael Collins was about to leave the agency. Al Shepard wouldn't consider a repeat; in the end, Edgar Mitchell was offered the slot, and accepted; he had also been considering leaving NASA, but the chance to walk on the moon was too good to pass up.

The mission itself was almost an anticlimax. The launch took place on schedule with no problems on July 26, 1971; landing took place at Censorius. The Gordon-Schmitt landing team proved to be a winner from a geologic standpoint, managing to surpass the high standard set by Apollo 14. The return to Earth took place on August 5th, 1971; the 'H' missions had ended on a high, with the improved 'J' missions about to begin.
 
Apollo 12 13 14 15 was orginal planed as H-Mission
H - two-day stays on the Moon, with two moonwalks
Apollo 16 17 18 19 20 as J Mission
J - three-day stays using an Extended LM, with three moonwalks and a Lunar Roving Vehicle
1970 NASA cancelling Apollo 15 H and move to J Mission

but wat if NASA after Apollo 13, cancelling ALL H Mission and go on J Mission at Apollo 14 ?
off course the Mission have to delay from January back to july 1971
 
Top