What would it take for NASA to secure a second production run of Saturn V's?

Not including test articles, NASA purchased 15 Saturn V's for the Apollo Program. [SA-500-515]. My question is what would it take for NASA to secure a second production run of Saturn V's for a potential space station program in the 70's and 80's?
 
Senator Proxmire being assassinated?

There were many other reasons for the Saturn project being terminated, but Proxmire was a key leader in bringing all those together to kill the Saturn program.

Among other things run out the full Apollo moon exploration program. Fund a robust Skylab program, that requires more than one station. A NASA launch service tat loads multiple satilites on a single primary launch vehicle.
 
Senator Proxmire being assassinated?

There were many other reasons for the Saturn project being terminated, but Proxmire was a key leader in bringing all those together to kill the Saturn program.

Among other things run out the full Apollo moon exploration program. Fund a robust Skylab program, that requires more than one station. A NASA launch service tat loads multiple satilites on a single primary launch vehicle.

I was thinking that the Skylab program would end up something like the proposed Interim Space Station Program, with increasingly complex space stations that would eventually lead to a large modular station sometimes in the mid 80's. http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-bridge-from-skylab-to-stationshuttle.html What way is there for Proxmire to be launched [pun intended] out of office? Because I see him being the major roadblock to any 2nd production run of Saturn V's, and the space program in general.
 
Proxmire being voted out is unlikely--he was very popular in his district both because of a focus on local issues like diary farming concerns and generally on a message that the federal government should spend money productively, not wastefully. An expansion of the Saturn production run could be secured with him in office, it would just take more widespread public and presidential support for the program. Nixon was wary of further missions after Apollo 13, as a major loss in space could undo a lot of the soft power benefits--Apollo 1, but worse. (And several missions came a little close for comfort historically even after 13--14's computer hack around a defective abort button comes to mind.) It's worth noting Apollo 18 was not flown in spite of the hardware being acquired--only 19 and 20 had their Saturn Vs reserved for Skylab launches.

I think you'd either need for the Soviets to not see N1 fail, and thus get a reason to see things through into the second production run, or a lower-loss early history of the American space program so Nixon is less worried.
 
An expansion of the Saturn production run could be secured with him in office, it would just take more widespread public and presidential support for the program. Nixon was wary of further missions after Apollo 13, as a major loss in space could undo a lot of the soft power benefits--Apollo 1, but worse.
So more space hysteria following Apollo 11 produces more long-term support for the space program. Or you can take the Baxter route and have Kenndy survive his assassination, only to become a cheerleader for NASA. No Apollo 13 incident, leaving Nixon more open to manned missions. Apollo 15 remains an H-Class Mission, and Apollos 18-20 are flown into 1974.
 

Lusitania

Donor
I was thinking that a more successful soviet space program that put a man on moon although in early 1970s which then prompts the soviet leadership to anounce the plan to put man on mars by 1990 forcing US to renew funding to NASA to compete.
 
Senator Proxmire being assassinated?

There were many other reasons for the Saturn project being terminated, but Proxmire was a key leader in bringing all those together to kill the Saturn program.

Among other things run out the full Apollo moon exploration program. Fund a robust Skylab program, that requires more than one station. A NASA launch service tat loads multiple satilites on a single primary launch vehicle.

Wrong man to blame, he started relative late to Attack Space program long after Apollo was dead
Apollo and needed Saturn V died in summer 1967 as president Johnson gave the Order to Stop the Production of Saturn IB and V
And He refused to let complete the SA-216 and Sa-217 who were in assembly, so the two Saturn V parts were scrapped
Lucky Someone at NASA gave the Order to Mothball the Saturn V Assembly line for Future use, unfortunately Nixon took Shuttle and Assembly line was scrapped in 1973.

Now how to save Saturn V production line ?
Easy part is let Soviets (or other evil nation you like ) land Cosmonaut on Moon in early 1970s equal efforts of USA, Nixon (or insert the President you like) must do Something !
Continuation of Apollo would be cheaper and show fast results, compare of 10 year Shuttle/space Station program or a 15 years Manned Mars Program that both cost over dozens billions.

i working on a TL called "the Mighty age of Saturn V" were Nixon face this Scenario in 1971 and is forced of continuation of Apollo and Skylab, much to anger of Soviets...

Other option is fare more complicated: reasonable NASA and politicians in Capitol Hill, who give NASA more money as in OTL
In 1967 the Congress and Senate refused the NASA 1968 budget proposal, that was around $5.5 billion.
but in mean time the Cost of Vietnam escalate from $6 billions to $20 billions and Capitol Hill demand cuts and NASA got for 1968 only $4,722 billion and each year it became lower and lower.
hitting $3,255 billions in 1974 after that the Shuttle program let to increase of NASA budget.

Now what if the NASA administration not gave the over top 68 budget proposal, and offer Capitol Hill scale down proposal that ensure the survival of Saturn V production ?
 
Well, for NASA to produce more Saturn Vs, it needs AAP to get enough funding. And for that to happen, likely you need for no Apollo 1 disaster or you need no Vietnam war sucking the budget dry. And even then, probably the Saturn Vs wouldn't be doing much beyond Earth orbit. From what I've read there really doesn't seem to have been enough political support for doing more with the moon, while a bigger space station program might have gotten traction.

fasquardon
 
AAP stand for Apollo Applikation Program, planned in mid 1960s and had to be successor for Apollo program

it was series of Saturn IB Saturn V launches (up to 26 rocket in some studies)
Mostly into Low earth orbit with Labs and Workshops (wet and dry) manned Apollo mission into GEO and some Lunar missions
Like AAP Lunar orbiter and dual landings were the Apollo LM "Taxi" lands next LM "shelter" with Rover for 14-28 day mission on Moon.
after 1967 NASA budget 1968 proposal fiasco, plans were scaled down and Skylab was only survivor of AAP,
and even for it launch they cannibalized parts needed for Apollo Missions...
 
Means, Motive, Opportunity ..
Means = need the cash - so Vietnam War has to be quickly won, lost or at least moving to an obvious imminent rapid conclusion
Motive = need a compelling reason for the 'heavy lifter' = eg Soviets reach the Moon & announce a Moon Base ... (skylab doesn't cut it == you don't need Sat5's to build a space station, even the Shuttle (which is incapable of leaving Earth orbit) could build a space station)
Opportunity == need to 'sell' this to the public .. a Mars Mission could be a reason, or something that requires a Moonbase ...but why ? (have Area 51 fake up Aliens crash-landing on Mars/Moon perhaps :) )
 
Top