WI: A better Saturn IB

Hmmmm...so I see. Sorry about that. Yes, I lifted almost all of that post off on older post of mine. Astronautix has taken the page down for some reason. It had to have happened in the last year.

I may have a scan of the 2004 Quest article around somewhere. If I can find it, I'll post it.

Note article is available if you search the site itself. Noted that there is a "t" missing as the link reads "herealmoonhoax" which seems to be through that link and into the search if you don't look carefully

Randy
 
Athelstane wrote on the SLS;
Oh, absolutely.

And they run it by default. Because no administration (at least since LBJ) has been interested enough to seize control of it and redirect it.

Not so much "interest" as support. LBJ had the interest but could get neither Congress nor NASA to back his planning. Congress because they were punishing him and NASA because in the aftermath of the Apollo-1 fire they were being scrutinized and the only thing Congress could do was reduce their budget slightly and enact more oversight and control. They also had BIG plans for post-Apollo and weren't really interested in AAP which Johnson was pushing but which they were not. While Congress was reluctant to do anything to jeopardize the Moon landing they tore apart any possible Apollo follow on or expanded NASA programs. There was no doubt that NASA was being 'punished' and Congress was doing the punishing and there was nothing LBJ could do about it.

I highly doubt that if it came down to who actually controlled NASA we would find that the President does not in fact have more than the ability to set a programmatic goal without Congressional approval while Congress has the ability to do everything BUT set a programmatic goal and unless the two can agree the program drifts.

ARM was merely what the Obama administration felt it had to come up with for an actual mission once they realized they were stuck with SLS and Orion. It was the most affordable thing they could come up with - look ma, no gravity wells. But it has no sizzle, so it's not likely to survive congressional disinterest and NASA science and astronaut corps skepticism. But that just begs the question of what mission SLS *will* fly when the time comes. Because right now, there's nothing else on the board...

Congressional disinterest, (and a couple of attempts at line item veto and zeroing out the budget) has in fact been unable to kill ARM yet. Point of fact both the astronaut and science corps have come around finding interest in ARM as its obviously something that could actually 'fly' and gather useful data even if it is far sub-par to other possible projects. Congress kind of dug themselves into a hole here in that they have flatly rejected Mars, they talk about the Moon but have shown no support for any planning or effort towards going back, and while they disparage ARM they have been unable to kill it despite multiple efforts. I suspect they are beginning to realize they will soon have a very large, very expensive launch vehicle with nothing to launch on it or launch it to and both disinterested in providing either but unwilling to allow an administration the opportunity to define the mission.

...save the developing DSH program. And that means NASA likely ends up spending the 2020's knocking together something like a small Bigelow module based cislunar man-tended station (it's relatively cheap), and runs a handful of very expensive missions to it. And Congress will be reasonably content, so long as the jobs stay in place. They'll fiddle with the European Moon base project, but will balk at spending anything serious on it.

DSH is one of those things that gives me hope a bit because it's being done without official authorization by either Congress or Administration but the majority of it can be done with item budgets below "oversight" levels which are what Congress redirects and vetoes when they can. Congress does not at all like the idea of a Cis-Lunar station manned or man-tended but they have run into the need to fly 'something' on SLS to justify it to the various states and organizations that are seeing little to no NASA money from the program. The big fear is they will authorize DSH to be put into LEO for 'testing purposes' and visit it occasionally with Orion while making speeches about grand new plans but doing exactly nothing.
The hope comes from the numerous projects that are semi-tied to DSH such as the modular SEV, long term life support and various other 'under-the-radar' projects. None of them are so directly tied to any one mission that they can't continue if, say, DSH is cancled.

Really, I think the only way you get a real paradigm shift to commercial lifters is when Congress really is forced into it. Basically, you'll need a congery of established, successful heavy lifters in regular operation, wherein the economic case for using them becomes so overwhelming...and even then, only if said commercial lifters have expanding work forces in some key states and districts.

Actually you don't need 'heavy lifters' as much as you need SOMETHING in regular operation with regular flights on a fairly set schedule but you are exactly right this is something which would force a paradigm change on Congress as well as space operations overall. Which is why Congress doesn't like the idea one bit :) I think it will be inevitable that they will be forced to change positions really. There are more people with money enough to not depend on kissing up, (as opposed to working with) the government who are forcing various changes on the process that Congress is being put into the position of repudiating their past support of 'commercial' space activities in order to stop the commercial revolution or they will have to modify and accept a new position as best they can in a new paradigm. I would not put the former past them if they get the opportunity but I feel the outcome is much more likely to be the latter. Eventually.

So in the meantime, SLS will stagger on through at least the coming administration. Its demise may end up being a gradual wind down.

Only if Congress can't find justification(s) sufficient to avoid wide spread voter/constituent questioning of the program. From their perspective that should be fairly easy since they can always claim it as back-up for when the commercials fail which will technically 'work' long after someone in private rocket ship lands on Mars :)

Randy
 
Athelstane wrote:
In fact, they came fairly close to beating the US to cislunar space. Astronautix has a summary article of the 2004 Quest articles on this...Even after the Soviet Union collapsed, there were still some very strange holes even in the revised narrative of what the Soviets had been doing with their lunar program:>snip<
Of course it would have been a high risk mission, even with a little tweaking - good chance the crew doesn't come back alive. And a Zond circumlunar flight would have been a much more modest achievement than Apollo 8's lunar orbit mission, of course (a distinction which would have been somewhat lost on many publics). But unlike a landing, a circumlunar flight was something the Soviets had a shot of pulling off before decade's end.

Or even beating the Americans, if they had had any more delays of significance.

The key was the 'distinction' that would lost on the general public which is why the Soviets were/would have been willing to take the risk. As a backup they tried several robotic missions to try and steal some thunder from the American march to the Moon but the lack of cohesion and overall goals worked against them. No matter the actual capability presented it would be seen generally as the Soviets 'one-upping' the Americans again and lessening the 'distance' between the USSR and US even when (not if) the US landed first on the Moon.

I suspect it would not have altered much that followed Apollo 8 in OTL since the US was committed though you have to wonder if it would have been Apollo 10 to land rather than Apollo 11. My gut feeling though is it won't cause another surge of space support as by this time most of the untouchability of NASA and the Lunar Program left over from Kennedy was long gone. I would not be surprised to see NASA suggest using the wet workshop concepts and some of the later Apollo Saturn-Vs to attempt to go for a Mars and/or Venus flyby so as to show who's really the boss but it would too late I suspect and get no traction. "Another" American failure to beat the Soviets would have added fatigue to an already weary political/public and fading public support for the Lunar Program and I suspect the funding cuts would have come sooner after the landing than later.

The general circumstances that led OTL to the Shuttle decision would in general still be in place but with I think less incentive to find an overall encompassing 'program' over the choice of a more closely reigned in NASA that was focused more on the first "A" and "practical" applications of science and technology. (Which was a choice Nixon thought about over another 'space' program)

Aside on M1 lifting body as an Apollo: As noted here:
http://astronautix.com/m/m1.html
The M1 was designed for reentry and high speed dynamics versus the standard LB low-speed flight and landing. This was changed in the M2 design which coincidently I found the report which details the design changes that came about:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690029390.pdf

Randy
 

Archibald

Banned
I'm thinking about the wanky scenario where the Soviet Union a) manage to shoot a Zond into lunar flyby before Apollo 8 and b) Luna 15 beats Apollo 1 to the surface to bring back samples.
At the end of the day I don't think much change: what mattered (to worldwide public opinion) most was LAND MEN ON THE LUNAR SURFACE and there the Soviets were years behind (1973 if all went well)
Man around the Moon ? done by Apollo 8 and not the final goal.
Robotic sample return ? really ? who cares about robots ?
 
I'm thinking about the wanky scenario where the Soviet Union a) manage to shoot a Zond into lunar flyby before Apollo 8 and b) Luna 15 beats Apollo 1 to the surface to bring back samples.
At the end of the day I don't think much change: what mattered (to worldwide public opinion) most was LAND MEN ON THE LUNAR SURFACE and there the Soviets were years behind (1973 if all went well)
Man around the Moon ? done by Apollo 8 and not the final goal.
Robotic sample return ? really ? who cares about robots ?

I'm not sure it would be unimportant...

For one thing, a circumlunar mission and a sample return mission before Apollos 8 and 11 respectively could pep up political support for the program in the USSR. That could mean more support for getting men onto the moon or it could translate into more Luna missions (maybe even launching a mission with men in orbit around the moon controlling robot explorers on the surface) as a cheap way for the USSR to say "yes, you got men on the moon, but that was a silly stunt, look at how we do so much useful science with our robots and can afford to keep sending them". More resources being devoted to the Luna program could be quite interesting.

For another thing, a closer moon race might make both sides see other elements of the space race differently. It may add to the sense that the Soviets are winning the race to build capability during the 80s (when Salyut and Mir had some commentators worried).

fasquardon
 
Linking to another post in a different thread but which I think gives a good background to "why the Moon" as well as why the US was behind:
The U.S. Cancels cruise missile development instead of ICBM development

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-u-s-cancels-cruise-missile-development-instead-of-icbm-development.395592/page-2#post-12991471
Archibald wrote:
I'm thinking about the wanky scenario where the Soviet Union a) manage to shoot a Zond into lunar flyby before Apollo 8 and b) Luna 15 beats Apollo 11 to the surface to bring back samples. At the end of the day I don't think much change: what mattered (to worldwide public opinion) most was LAND MEN ON THE LUNAR SURFACE and there the Soviets were years behind (1973 if all went well) Man around the Moon ? Done by Apollo 8 and not the final goal. Robotic sample return ? Really ? Who cares about robots ?

People "care" a lot more about robots than many think :) Sputnik was a 'robot' after all and the 'man-in-the-street' still shows an up-tick in interest any time a probe reports some news. Keep in mind that the Soviets had already 'prepped' the 'man-versus-robot' argument with media reports of their planning on using robots instead of men because it was more 'prudent' and safer than going straight to humans and a Zond shot doesn't actually take away from that stance. As far as the world public in general would see it they would not distinguish between a 'fly-by' and what Apollo 8 does any more than they would initially find a major 'difference' between a man-in-space if Sheppard had gone suborbital before Gagarin went orbital.

Eventually there would be a clearer separation in the public mind but initially it would be the simple fact that the Russians beat the Americans "again" which would be the main point of discussion. America would 'win' by landing a bit later on and while the Soviets could maybe get samples back before Apollo it wouldn't be much of a coup whereas going 'around-the-Moon' certainly would.

The "big" deal would be in the US where it would be the perception that despite spending huge amounts of money and resources, (and killing three astronauts which was still a sore issue between Congress and NASA) the Russians STILL beat us around the Moon. There is a window of 'opportunity' here for the Russians because while NASA is 'on-course' to land keep in mind that the LM wasn't ready yet and had yet to fly. Congress IS going to take note of this and all the delays and it's quite possible the could call another halt to the Space Program while a Congressional review is held on the matter.

Not probably mind you as NASA will be lobbying hard to keep things going and while outgoing LBJ will probably make a fight of it and incoming Nixon admires the space program and astronauts greatly there will be the obvious question of will his new administration have to take another slap in the face if the Soviets have ANOTHER trick up their sleeves? Public opinion, which is turning against the government and presently more ambivalent than excited at best towards Apollo is going to take a down-turn and that could easily start feedback with Congressional feelings in looking for scapegoats.

Get enough sentiment stirred up about the situation and start tossing enough blame around and I can possibly see a delay in continuing the program and the Russians might have an opportunity to make the inevitable US landing less relevant than it was OTL and less clear of a "victory" for the US.

I highly doubt they could pull off a landing and return before the US no matter what but if they did...

Fasquadron wrote:
I'm not sure it would be unimportant...

For one thing, a circumlunar mission and a sample return mission before Apollos 8 and 11 respectively could pep up political support for the program in the USSR. That could mean more support for getting men onto the moon or it could translate into more Luna missions (maybe even launching a mission with men in orbit around the moon controlling robot explorers on the surface) as a cheap way for the USSR to say "yes, you got men on the moon, but that was a silly stunt, look at how we do so much useful science with our robots and can afford to keep sending them". More resources being devoted to the Luna program could be quite interesting.

As noted it would have effects in the US as well and also as noted I suspect it wouldn't cause the US to re-affirm the idea of beating the Russians given the public/governmental mood at the time, though I'd hope to be wrong :) One thing I've always wondered is if one side or the other simply made the choice that it didn't matter who got there first but who 'stayed' in the end. Of course then again I like to play the "Pilgrim Project" scenario over in my mind... Getting that to come together as an actual TL? Eh, not so much :)

For another thing, a closer moon race might make both sides see other elements of the space race differently. It may add to the sense that the Soviets are winning the race to build capability during the 80s (when Salyut and Mir had some commentators worried).

I'd like to think that but under the circumstances my gut tells me that the US would be more likely to 'give up' in a similar manner to OTL USSR and concentrate on lesser capability while looking like they are building up capability to save face. The problem was the US was basing so much on outdistancing the by going for the Moon landing and it seemed pretty clear that we'd gotten out ahead by Apollo 8. But if you have the Soviets "beat" us again at something that seems so close the whole US psyche is going to take a hit. And in fact that was something that was feared and why the announcement of Apollo 8 was delayed to give the Russian's as little warning as possible for fear they would do exactly this.

Spin control was in place and prepped in case the Soviet's DID manage to pull a fast one but I have doubts as to how effective it would have been under the circumstances.

Randy
 
Top