Moon 1970s

[uk 75]

As the US looks to go back to the Moon with Artemis my question here is, what might have been feasible in the 1970s to keep the US sending manned expeditions to the Moon?
Clearly, the main obstacle was a political one. With no Soviet manned lunar programme once the US had got to the Moon first enthusiasm for Space drained very quickly. Apollo8's iconic shot of the blue Earth reminded people that there were many things to spend money on down here.
Apart from further scientific work, the Moon did not seem to offer much return for all the money needed to keep going there. Water had not been found in accessible quantities needed to sustain 2001's Clavius base or 1999's Moonbase Alpha.
But the Apollo/Saturn combination worked well and offered both the means to provide orbital labs in Earth and even Lunar orbit as well as making trips to the Moon as routine as Earth orbit missions.
US Industry of course saw more opportunities in the Space Shuttle or a Mars Expedition.
With the benefit of hindsight the Shuttle proved a much less effective launch system than was hoped in the 1970s. Its launches were as expensive and as risky as Saturn launches.
Russia meanwhile kept on using it Soyuz system and this outlasted the Shuttle into the present day.
Some kind of Apollo/Saturn (or Gemini/Titan) combination could have done the same for the US?

 

[Dilandu]

Clearly, the main obstacle was a political one. With no Soviet manned lunar programme once the US had got to the Moon first enthusiasm for Space drained very quickly

Well, essentially you answered your question) If Soviet lunar program would be in better shape and USSR would made a moon landing in, say, 1970-1972, then the political motivationfor continuing competition would be much stronger.

 

[Archibald]

Yeah, the two big issues are

- that Apollo is not a cheap nor efficient transportation system to the Moon as seen in (say) 2001.
Imagine: 8 vehicles (S-IC, S-II, S-IVB, SM, CM, LM-descent, LM ascent) of which 7 are chemical rockets, with three different prop combos (kerolox, hydrolox, storable) and nothing is reusable.

- the Soviet answer was too small, too late (N1-L3).

In my TL even with the excitation of a the discovery of an enormous Marius hills lava tube in August 1967 by Lunar Orbiter 5 - I had to make small Soviet victories to get Nixon merely procuring Saturn 516 & 517 in 1969-70 and bringing back Apollo 18 before Skylab the same year.

- Zond is turned into an unmanned photographic platform with a Zenit camera in place of cosmonauts (Gagarin's Vostok was a Zenit spysat in disguise)

- Ye-8-5 sample scooper Luna 15 manages to beat Apollo 11 at the sample return game in June 1969

- the Babakin - Barmin connection, via the Ye-8-5M drill (Barmingrad / Kolumbus / DLB lunar base)

- N1-L3 is expended into unmanned flights to the Moon surface after 1972 (I had tons of fun with the date of the first N1-L3 unmanned landing: August 9, 1974 - the day of Nixon Watergate disgrace)

- L3M, LK-700 and LEK (Mishin, Chelomei and Glushko respective 2nd generation lunar landing plans) are consolidated into a big one leading to Barmin lunar base.

So it works the following way

- Babakin's Ye-8-5M with Barmin's drill > N1-L3 > consolidated L3M / LK-700 / LEK > Barmin's lunar base.

TBH, the whole thing is a Potemkine lunar plan, and merely a foil to preserve a few more bits of Apollo a bit longer.

 

[Michel Van]

main problems:
Apollo Mission Too Expensive (for Capitol Hill)
Lack Soviet respond, do N1 rocket failure and Energia took to long
Vietnam War escalating Cost
Nixon options for Space flight was a megalomaniacal $500 billion program

I play with that in alternate History: 2001: A Space-Time Odyssey
Were Soviet manage to land first on Moon, pushing Nixon for $50 billion space program
For additional Apollo flights, two Skylabs, a Space Station and Saturn Shuttle.
and R&D for Chemical Space Tugs and Nuclear Ferry.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Clearly, the main obstacle was a political one. With no Soviet manned lunar programme once the US had got to the Moon first enthusiasm for Space drained very quickly

Well, essentially you answered your question) If Soviet lunar program would be in better shape and USSR would made a moon landing in, say, 1970-1972, then the political motivationfor continuing competition would be much stronger.

Saturn V production was terminated in 1968. By 1970, or worse 1972, it'd be *very* hard to resume.

 

[Michel Van]

Saturn V production was terminated in 1968. By 1970, or worse 1972, it'd be *very* hard to resume.

So far i know they mothballed the Production tools until 1973 Nixon take Shuttle, then they scrap them...

 

[uk 75]

While the absence of Soviet moon landings was clearly the main death blow to Apollo I also think that the Moon was something of a disappointment.
No easily usable water or signs of valuable spoils.

 

[Dynoman]

Dreaming a scenario....With the Soviets unable to launch a successful direct ascent Moon-rocket (i.e. N-1) or a EOR mission to the Moon, then turning to near-Earth orbit missions in Salyut, I'm wondering if the Soviets could have approached the US to develop a joint mission to the Moon, similar to its 1975 Apollo-Soyuz flight as a symbol of détente, and each focused their engineering strengths on various aspects of the mission. The prize may be the prospect of Helium 3 mining on the Moon, particularly in the light of the Energy Crisis of 1973.

If the decision was made by the Soviets after the fourth N-1 failure (1972) and after the US decision to withdrawal US forces from Vietnam in March 1973, the Soviets could have approached the US with a plan for a joint-lunar mission as an extended olive-branch to help the US and Soviets 'mend' relations.

Suppose the Soviets, who were focused on automated space hardware, developed automated landing craft that would be assembled in EO, docked near Salyut for crew assisted assembly and launched these from orbit to land them on the Moon as a set of shelters with supplies. The US would provide the manned system to deliver and recover a mixed crew of astronauts and cosmonauts after a stay of a several weeks.

Following the launch with the Soviets, the plan would be to develop the technology and test hardware on the Moon for Helium 3 mining and expand the scope of the Lunar missions for testing and developing an eventual Joint-Mars mission, targeting a landing there in the late 1980s-early 1990s.

 

[Dilandu]

Saturn V production was terminated in 1968. By 1970, or worse 1972, it'd be *very* hard to resume.

If Soviet lunar program would demonstrate more sucsesses, it would most likely not be terminated. Just as precaution.

 

[Archibald]

A long time ago I found a few documents (Nasa congressional hearings and others) that showed how Saturn V 516 & 517 gradually slipped further in time between 1967 and 1972.

 

[uk 75]

Did anyone in the 70s know about Helium 3 on the Moon?

 

[uk 75]

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/soviet-n-1-works-and-space-race-continues.17593/

 

[Archibald]

Did anyone in the 70s know about Helium 3 on the Moon?

Harrison Schmitt started the craze as early as 1978. But it is a pretty bad idea. In fact the Moon has plenty of Thorium and He3, bad luck: Thorium is to fission what He3 is to fusion: the perenial looser.

The Moon has few if none interesting resources to offer. There is no "silver bullet" resource high there Earth hasn't. Aluminum, Titanium, Silicon, solar power ? meh.

I worked my way around that problem by finding uses to the aforementioned resources.
- Aluminum: rockets and fuel
- Oxygen: rocket oxidizer
- Silicon: solar arrays and telescope mirrors
- solar power: SBSP, obviously (Space Based Solar Power).

It would be possible to build a lunar SSTO out of aluminum structure, aluminum fuel, and lunar oxygen. And since lunar escape velocity is a paltry 2700 m/s (instead of Earth daunting 11200 m/s) that thing could deliver giganormous payloads to cislunar space and Earth.

 

[Michel Van]

Lunar Helium-3 and Thorium are McGuffins
not enough on Lunar surface for economic use

But Moon go other raw material:
Ice and Water deposit for supply a Moonbase or made rocket fuel.
Aluminum, Titan, Silicium, iron for construction Moonbase/Colony,
one of wast product of refine is oxygen for Moonbase or used as Rocket propellant,
Oxygen used with slag of the refine, give primitive hybrid rocket, but it get cargo of Moon to space.

But the moon has one raw material of the future: rare-earth elements
They use in Computers, batteries, electric motors, solar cell, alloys, laser, ceramics, optical glas, magnets, superconductors.
The catch is, term rare-earth elements mean is very rare on earth, but not on Moon.
the Crew of Apollo 12 literally walk in rare-earth elements mixture called KREEP.

For moment Governments like China stop there export of rare-earth elements.
While others want more money for it, while EU try recycle it, While Russia invade Ukraine for it deposits...
In mean time billion Tons of rare-earth elements are on Moon surface
Ready to taken for one who land first to exploit it !

In mean time in Texas

 

[Hobbes]

'Rare Earth' minerals are only 'rare' compared to iron. We still have billions of tons of usable deposits here on Earth.

 

[Archibald]

The very name is misleading indeed. Back in the day I liked Dennis Wingo smart idea of lunar PGMs via meteorit impacts.

 

[Deleted member 4286]

As the US looks to go back to the Moon with Artemis my question here is, what might have been feasible in the 1970s to keep the US sending manned expeditions to the Moon?
Clearly, the main obstacle was a political one. With no Soviet manned lunar programme once the US had got to the Moon first enthusiasm for Space drained very quickly. Apollo8's iconic shot of the blue Earth reminded people that there were many things to spend money on down here.
Apart from further scientific work, the Moon did not seem to offer much return for all the money needed to keep going there. Water had not been found in accessible quantities needed to sustain 2001's Clavius base or 1999's Moonbase Alpha.
But the Apollo/Saturn combination worked well and offered both the means to provide orbital labs in Earth and even Lunar orbit as well as making trips to the Moon as routine as Earth orbit missions.
US Industry of course saw more opportunities in the Space Shuttle or a Mars Expedition.
With the benefit of hindsight the Shuttle proved a much less effective launch system than was hoped in the 1970s. Its launches were as expensive and as risky as Saturn launches.
Russia meanwhile kept on using it Soyuz system and this outlasted the Shuttle into the present day.
Some kind of Apollo/Saturn (or Gemini/Titan) combination could have done the same for the US?

 

[publiusr]

Unlike his boss, Spiro Agnew was pro-space.