What if no Vietnam War?

[Scott Kenny]

As I understand it, the 93 figure was for the initial order, with 216 for the final number procured.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ned-interceptor’-imi-program.423/#post-386723

Okay, that would be 18 squadrons of 12. Call it 2 squadrons to each location I said, and add a pair of squadrons in the UK. One squadron at each location is keeping 2 fighters up on patrol, the other squadron is providing scramble interception.

You have just blown my mind!

Carter was a Nuclear Engineer in the Navy; you couldn't get a better President for Three Mile Island than him.

Exactly why he must be POTUS 76-80, or at least VP with enough of the president's ear to say "let me handle this."

Of course, "handling it" means telling the people on-site "Make it stop. Do not release any radiation to the environment. Break equipment if you have to. Call me with a list of the supplies you need and do not have on-site, I will make them appear."

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Whether Apollo would survive or not is tricky, I would say NO. Apollo 1 and Apollo 13 only three years apart truly scared the shit out of everybody: from President Nixon to NASA Houston's Bob Gilruth, astronauts included (even the great John Young, damn it).
More generally, Apollo was not a practical / reliable / economical (think: DC-3 - 707 - 747) transportation system to the Moon. More like a pioneer vehicle: Bleriot XI or Spirit of St Louis.

The following is probably wishful thinking on my part and while some of the facts & figures may not be 100% correct, they are accurate enough for the purposes of this message, so here goes.

Without a Vietnam War there's no need to reduce spending on military spaceflight (unmanned as well as manned) in the second half of the 1960s, so my first piece of wishful thinking is that the Manned Orbital Laboratory project isn't first delayed and then cancelled outright. Therefore, 2 unmanned and a minimum of 5 manned MOLs are launched between the late 1960s and middle 1970s. I don't know what the effect on unmanned military spaceflight might be because I don't know enough about it.

The backlash against civilian spaceflight in general and manned spaceflight in particular still happens. However, my second piece of wishful thinking is that NASA will receive more money 1965-75 due to there being no Vietnam War.

Therefore, I think there will be a lot more money for unmanned space probes. The POD is probably too late to save the cancelled Ranger missions, but I do think we'll have at least one more Lunar Orbiter and several more Surveyors. There may be more Mariner probes to Mars and Venus in the 1960s. The follow-on Voyager Mars/Venus probe is still cancelled, but not until even more money is spent on it IOTL. The succeeding Viking project might not be put back from 1973 to 1975. More money may be spent on the original version of the Grand Tour, but it's probably still abandoned in the early 1970s in favour of the OTL Project Voyager.

More Saturn launchers, Apollo CSMs and Apollo LMs are built before their production lines are closed. At the very least SA-213, SA-214, SA516, SA-517, CSM-115, CSM-115A, LM-13, LM-14 and LM-15 are completed. AIUI the plan was to rebuild CSM-102, CSM-105 and possibly LM-2 as man rated spacecraft, but it wasn't done due to spending cuts from 1965 onwards and as the spending cuts weren't as severe as OTL or at least delayed ITTL they are rebuilt as originally planned IOTL.

Which leads me to the third piece of wishful thinking. Some of the money available due to no Vietnam War is spent on putting this hardware into space.

Apollos 18-to-20 aren't cancelled and due to some more wishful thinking Apollo 15 is still a J-series mission. Assuming that the 3 extra landing attempts were successful the number of successful landings is increased from 6 to 9. However, the amount of extra Lunar exploration is more than 50% due to the Apollo J missions being able to spend up to 78 hours on the lunar surface instead of up to 36 hours in the earlier missions, being able to do more & longer EVAs, carrying a LRV, being able to return a greater weight of samples and having CSMs with SIM bays. The number of ASLEPs left behind is increased from 5 to 8 and the Houston Control Centre which had been receiving the stream of information from them isn't closed on 1st October 1977. IOTL it was a purely economic measure, designed to save the $2M per year cost of the centre.

The number of missions to Skylab is increased from 3 to 8 and assuming that each of the 5 extra missions was of 84 days in duration increased the length of time the space station was occupied from 171 days to 591 days. Except, that the last 6 missions overlapped decreasing the length of time the space station was occupied by one or 2 months. However, the number of man days was still increased from from 513 to 1,773 days and due to missions 3 to 8 overlapping Skylab was a) continuously occupied for over a year and b) there were five occasions when 6 astronauts were aboard instead of the normal 3. ITTL missions 3 to 8 also delivered a Resupply Module (RM) to Skylab. The RM was proposed IOTL and was the basis of the Docking Module (DM) used in the ASTP mission.

Furthermore, the extra money allowed Skylab to run concurrently with the later Apollo lunar missions. Therefore, the Skylab OWS was launched in May 1972 or May 1971 instead of May 1973. The last of the 3 OTL missions to Skylab splashed down in February 1973 or February 1972. The 5 extra missions followed at intervals of 3 months so Mission 8 would splash down in May 1974 or May 1973.

IOTL NASA wanted to use an Apollo CSM with a SIM bay for ASTP to maximise the scientific return, but had to use an ordinary CSM for financial reasons. ITTL more money may be available, but NASA might still have to use a CSM without a SIM bay because all the CSMs with a SIM bay may have been used on Apollos 18 to 20.

More money may be spent on NERVA between 1965 and is OTL cancellation in January 1973 and ITTL the project may linger on until early 1975.

We still have the OTL Space Shuttle that everyone knows and loves, but approval for FSD might be given a year earlier, whether that leads to the first flight being in 1980 instead of 1981 is another matter.

Then it's 1975 and the OTL fall of Saigon and the end of military aid to South Vietnam so return to OTL expenditure on NASA.

That's at the very least.

At the very most the Apollo Applications Programme (AAP) is carried out in full. Though realistically it would be somewhere between. E.g. Skylab is launched in May 1971 but instead of ending with the splash down of Mission 8 in May 1973 the space station was visited by Apollo CSMs at 3-month intervals until Mission 16 splashed down in May 1975. In that case Skylab would have been occupied continuously for 3½ years from November 1971 (when Mission 3 arrived) to May 1975 (when Mission 16 left). In that case it was preceded by Mission 1 (the OTL Skylab 2) in May 1971 and Mission 2 (the OTL Skylab 3) in July 1971.

Edit: Some of that was written by @Michel Van in Message 63 which I didn't see until after I wrote the above.

 

[Rule of cool]

@NOMISYRRUC I like your thinking, Apollo was an amazing feat, and I don't think it achieved as much as it might have.

A couple of points I've picked up along the way. I think the duration of Skylab missions was dictated by the 'day rating' of the CSM, IIUC it was only certified for 90 days in space. That said I suspect it could be modified to extend that time, especially with experience. This might push it out past 100 days, but I doubt it would ever get rated for like 6 months in space. In addition, 1 has to always be kept in reserve for rescue missions to Skylab.

The manned Saturn IB for Skylab were launched from Pad 39 A/B using a 'milking stool to get the CSM and 2nd stage up to Saturn V height. I think this milking stool would preclude rapid switching between manned moon missions and manning Skylab launches and the milking stool has to remain in place during Skylab manned periods to launch possible IB/CSM rescue missions.

I like the idea of more moon missions and Skylab missions. For mine I've have the extra 5 Skylab missions go to Skylab B, which was built but not launched, as that could incorporate improvements learned from the original Skylab missions. I'd also have a 3rd Skylab, that would be optimised for the Space Shuttle with higher atmospheric pressure (apparently Skylab could handle 9psi) and bigger docking ports. That way the Shuttle would have a destination from the get-go.

I like the extra moon missions, but after Apollo 17 there's no need to keep spamming them, they could be done between Skylab missions. Eg Apollo 17, Skylab A-1,2,3, Apollo 18, Skylab B-1,2,3,4,5, Apollo 19, Skylab C.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I like the idea of more moon missions and Skylab missions. For mine I've have the extra 5 Skylab missions go to Skylab B, which was built but not launched, as that could incorporate improvements learned from the original Skylab missions. I'd also have a 3rd Skylab, that would be optimised for the Space Shuttle with higher atmospheric pressure (apparently Skylab could handle 9psi) and bigger docking ports. That way the Shuttle would have a destination from the get-go.

9psi is a bit thin without increasing oxygen levels, it's about the same as 13,000ft up.

I'd want to bump up the O2 partial pressure to compensate, 21kPa or roughly 3psi pure oxygen and the rest nitrogen.

I like the extra moon missions, but after Apollo 17 there's no need to keep spamming them, they could be done between Skylab missions. Eg Apollo 17, Skylab A-1,2,3, Apollo 18, Skylab B-1,2,3,4,5, Apollo 19, Skylab C.

I really like that idea!

 

[Rule of cool]

9psi is a bit thin without increasing oxygen levels, it's about the same as 13,000ft up.

I'd want to bump up the O2 partial pressure to compensate, 21kPa or roughly 3psi pure oxygen and the rest nitrogen.

IIUC the standard pressure in Apollo was 5psi with 100% O2, but Skylab went with 5psi 70% O2 30% N, which was sufficient oxygen for astronauts. This was shown to be a bit of a hassle in the ASTP as it would take forever to repressurise from 5psi 100% O2 to Soyuz' 14.7psi normal atmosphere, so the Soviets dropped the Soyuz pressure to about 10psi to speed transfers up.

IIUC the Shuttle was 14.7psi normal atmosphere, so would take forever to transfer into Skylab if it was 5psi, however if Skylab can take 9psi that would speed transfers up. The O2-N ratios would have to be sorted, but I can't imagine that would be too difficult for NASA to deal with.

I really like that idea!

Even with more money and less pressure NASA would still have to maintain public support, so mixing things up a but would mean people wouldn't get as bored as they did with Apollo 15-17. They could put moon astronauts in Skylab and vice versa, racking up records and noteworthy events to keep interest ticking along.

 

[publiusr]

No Vietnam War might mean no shuttle....with Dyna-Soar perhaps being launched atop Saturn IB.

I think there were calls for solid augmentation of Saturn IB which would have performed better than Titan III. It depends on how noisy the Titan lobby would be.

The Saturn V would still be phased out--just later--+ but the Apollo capsules *might* have made it past the year 2000.

 

[Rule of cool]

No Vietnam War might mean no shuttle....with Dyna-Soar perhaps being launched atop Saturn IB.

I think there were calls for solid augmentation of Saturn IB which would have performed better than Titan III. It depends on how noisy the Titan lobby would be.

The Saturn V would still be phased out--just later--+ but the Apollo capsules *might* have made it past the year 2000.

IIUC the US built 12 complete Saturn IBs and flew 10 of them, they also built another 2 first stages.

If the US decides to have a real go at Skylab space stations as @NOMISYRRUC suggests they'll need to build a few more Saturn IBs. However, I recall reading that the 1st stage was heavy, expensive and inefficient, so perhaps new production S-IBs would have a different 1st stage.

Assuming NASA uses the Saturn IBs and Vs they built they really don't need to build many more to have the sort of extensive space programme in the 70s that is suggested.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

IIUC the US built 12 complete Saturn IBs and flew 10 of them, they also built another 2 first stages.

12 were built and 9 were used. Circa 1967 NASA wanted to order 18 circa, got approval for 2 which were cancelled a year later and only their first stages were completed. That makes a total of 5 and that's why I think that at the very least there would be 5 additional flights to Skylab.

Circa 1967 NASA asked for permission to order 10 Saturn Vs and received permission to order 2. These were SA-516 and SA-517 which were cancelled in August 1968. IIRC (1) Apollo 20 was cancelled early in 1970 when Skylab was upgraded from a Saturn IB launched "wet workshop" to a Saturn V launched "dry workshop". IIRC (2) Apollos 18 and 19 were cancelled later in 1970. IIRC (3) this is when NASA cancelled CSM-115, CSM-115A and Lunar Modules 13 to 15.

In my minimum programme SA-516 and SA-517 are completed so NASA has enough Saturn Vs to make Skylab a "dry workshop" without cancelling Apollo 20.

AFAIK 20 Block II Apollo CSMs were ordered of which 18 were completed and 15 were flown. The cancelled spacecraft were CSM-115 and CSM-115A. The spacecraft that didn't fly were CSM-102, 105 and 119. Another 3 CSMs are required for my minimum programme of 3 extra Moon landings and 5 extra visits to Skylab. Maybe CSM-098, CSM-099 and some of the remaining Block I CSMs could be rebuilt as full-specification Block II CSMs. Maybe another batch of Block II CSMs is built. Whatever, the choice, the money for them is available ITTL due to there being no Vietnam War.

If the US decides to have a real go at Skylab space stations as @NOMISYRRUC suggests they'll need to build a few more Saturn IBs. However, I recall reading that the 1st stage was heavy, expensive and inefficient, so perhaps new production S-IBs would have a different 1st stage.

Assuming NASA uses the Saturn IBs and Vs they built they really don't need to build many more to have the sort of extensive space programme in the 70s that is suggested.

In the maximum effort programme outlined in Message 82 Project Skylab ended in May 1975 when Mission 16 splashed down. I ended it than because that's when the extra money runs out.

If NASA had received permission to build all 18 Saturn IBs requested in 1967 and all 18 were completed that makes a total of 30 built ITTL of which 9 were used IOTL leaving 21 available for additional visits to Skylab for a total of 24 ITTL. If Congress provided NASA with enough money to use them Mission 24 would splash down in May 1977.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

No Vietnam War might mean no shuttle....with Dyna-Soar perhaps being launched atop Saturn IB.

FWIW (1) Dyna Solar was cancelled in 1963 which is too early to be affected by no Vietnam War.

I think there were calls for solid augmentation of Saturn IB which would have performed better than Titan III. It depends on how noisy the Titan lobby would be.

FWIW (2) the un-augmented Saturn IB performed better than Titan III and the augmented version would have used 4 Minutemen as strap-on boosters.

The Saturn V would still be phased out--just later--+ but the Apollo capsules *might* have made it past the year 2000.

My thinking was that the phase out would be in 1975 because that's when Saigon fell IOTL and all other things being equal there's no extra money from Fiscal Year 1976 onwards. I also thought that the post-Apollo 11 backlash against the manned space programme would still happen so there'd be no support for more space spending after 1975.

However, reading some of the other messages has changed my mind. That is that 1970s America will be a considerably happier and more confident place which in the short-term will lead to SA-517 launching the backup Skylab to replace the (ITTL worn out) original circa 1981 and the production of enough Saturn IBs and Apollo CSMs to keep it both Skylabs continuously occupied until the Space Shuttle was ready.

I think the Apollo CSM wouldn't make it past 2000 ITTL because (unfortunately) the Space Shuttle that we know and love still happens. However, if it did we'd be on to Block VII or VIII by the 2000s with lighter, cheaper and more capable avionics plus other improvements that I'm not qualified to comment on but others are. After adjusting for inflation the unit cost of a 2000s CSM would be somewhat to much less than a 1960s Block II CSM due to the learning curve and the series production of at least 120 extra units over 30 years.

 

[RedLegion]

For the Saturn IB to remain in active service, its second stage would certainly need to be replaced with something more economical — most likely a return to the S-IV variant. For larger payloads, additional solid-fuel boosters derived from Titan or Minuteman rockets could be employed.


It is a pity, however, that no extra funding has been allocated for unmanned missions. A dedicated budget for the regular launch of next-generation probes to the outer planets would be highly beneficial.

 

[publiusr]

Saturn IB would also allow for wider optics, dishes, etc.

It might have looked a bit like Ariane 4 had it flown with a hammerhead shroud....I could see Saturn IB perhaps evolving into something like Falcon? Maybe something like Vulcan's Centaur V comes a bit earlier?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

@NOMISYRRUC I like your thinking, . . .

Thank you.

. . . Apollo was an amazing feat, and I don't think it achieved as much as it might have.

So do I.

A couple of points I've picked up along the way. I think the duration of Skylab missions was dictated by the 'day rating' of the CSM, IIUC it was only certified for 90 days in space. That said I suspect it could be modified to extend that time, especially with experience. This might push it out past 100 days, but I doubt it would ever get rated for like 6 months in space. In addition, 1 has to always be kept in reserve for rescue missions to Skylab.

FWIW (1) in the original version of the Apollo Applications Programme (which became Skylab) the first CSM flight to the first of the 4 Orbital Workshops (OWS) that were planned was of 28 days duration, the second was to be of 56 days duration and the other 4 were to be of 90 days duration. All 4 visits to the second OWS were to be of 90 days duration, as were the 2 visits to the OWS launched by Saturn V into geostationary orbit and the 8 visits to the definitive "dry workshop" to be launched by Saturn V in 1971.

So you probably have understood correctly that it was "only" certified for 90 days in space. For comparison, do we know how many days in space the different models of 1970s Soyuz were certified for.

FWIW (2) I wrote "only" certified for 90 days because I think that's sufficient. They'll do what the Soviets did with Salyut 6, Salyut 7 and Mir, which is that the Apollo flights will overlap and for long-duration missions the "cheer up" crew will arrive in a new CSM and return in the old CSM.

Also FWIW (3) Skylab has to be resupplied every 3 months or so ITTL. NASA planned to use Resupply Modules (RM) launched by Saturn IB with the CSM rather than develop an Apollo derived unmanned freighter analogous to the Soviet Progress. Which is a second reason why I think 90 days is sufficient.

The manned Saturn IB for Skylab were launched from Pad 39 A/B using a 'milking stool to get the CSM and 2nd stage up to Saturn V height. I think this milking stool would preclude rapid switching between manned moon missions and manning Skylab launches and the milking stool has to remain in place during Skylab manned periods to launch possible IB/CSM rescue missions.

I like the idea of more moon missions and Skylab missions. For mine I've have the extra 5 Skylab missions go to Skylab B, which was built but not launched, as that could incorporate improvements learned from the original Skylab missions. I'd also have a 3rd Skylab, that would be optimised for the Space Shuttle with higher atmospheric pressure (apparently Skylab could handle 9psi) and bigger docking ports. That way the Shuttle would have a destination from the get-go.

I like the extra moon missions, but after Apollo 17 there's no need to keep spamming them, they could be done between Skylab missions. Eg Apollo 17, Skylab A-1,2,3, Apollo 18, Skylab B-1,2,3,4,5, Apollo 19, Skylab C.

I can't reply to those paragraphs one at a time. I'll have to do it all in one go. Therefore, AIUI, IIRC and AFAIK . . .

Launch Complex 39 as built was capable of 6 launches a year. This was because it was originally expected that 15 Saturn V launches would take place between the first flight in mid-1967 and the first moon landing in late 1969. If I have remembered correctly that's why 15 Saturn Vs were initially ordered. By late 1968 the plan was to launch one Saturn V every 2 months until the first successful landing and then launch one every 4 months until they ran out of Saturn Vs, which was then changed to one every 6 months until they ran out of Saturn Vs.

3 of the 4 bays in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) were connected to the crawler way to the launch pads, 3 crawlers were built and 3 mobile launchers were built. Therefore, I think LC39 as it existed was capable of launching 4 Saturn IB and 2 Saturn V a year. All they need to do is build another milk stool.

Launch Complex 39 as approved was to have had 3 launch pads, but Pad 39C wasn't built IOTL. It might be built ITTL along with more crawlers and mobile launchers. Also provision was made in the original design for Pad 39D, Pad 39E and an extension to the VAB which would have doubled its capacity.

I believe that Pad 39C isn't needed to support the number of launches that I propose, let alone the 39D, 39E, the VAB extension, more crawlers and more mobile launchers. Furthermore, even if Launch Complex 39 as it existed IOTL couldn't launch 4 Saturn IB and 2 Saturn V a year there's no need to update it. Instead they keep Launch Complex 34 and/or Launch Complex 37 open.

According to the AI overview Launch Complex 34 was deactivated in 1969 after the Apollo 7 mission, mothballed in November 1971, and its structures were scrapped in April 1972. Acording to its Wikipedia article Launch Complex 37 was deactivated in 1972 but was rebuilt to launch Delta IV rockets between 1998 and 2002.

Talking of the Delta its first stage engine was closely related to the Saturn I and Saturn IB's first stage engine. Therefore, would building more Saturn IBs reduce the cost of the engines for Delta and Saturn IB? And in a timeline where there's no Space Shuttle and the Saturn IB remains in production to into the 2000s do we see the H-1 engines replaced by a derivative of the RS-27?

The S-I and S-IB rocket stages were sort of 8 Redstones wrapped around a Jupiter. That makes me think that S-I and S-IB stages would have been cheaper if the Jupiter based Juno II launcher had been kept in production instead of the Thor/Delta family due to being built with the same tooling. Does anyone agree or disagree?

 

[Rule of cool]

12 were built and 9 were used. Circa 1967 NASA wanted to order 18 circa 1967, got approval for 2 which were cancelled a year later and only their first stages were completed. That makes a total of 5 and that's why I think that at the very least there would be 5 additional flights to Skylab.

Circa 1967 NASA asked for permission to order 10 Saturn Vs and received permission to order 2. These were SA-516 and SA-517 which were cancelled the next year. IIRC (1) Apollo 20 was cancelled early in 1970 when Skylab was upgraded from a Saturn IB launched "wet workshop" to a Saturn V launched "dry workshop". IIRC (2) Apollos 18 and 19 were cancelled later in 1970. IIRC (3) this is when NASA cancelled CSM-115, CSM-115A and Lunar Modules 13 to 15.

In my minimum programme SA-516 and SA-517 are completed so NASA has enough Saturn Vs to make Skylab a "dry workshop" without cancelling Apollo 20.

AFAIK 20 Block II Apollo CSMs were ordered of which 18 were completed and 15 were flown. The cancelled spacecraft were CSM-115 and CSM-115A. The spacecraft that didn't fly were CSM-102, 105 and 119. Another 3 CSMs are required for my minimum programme of 3 extra Moon landings and 5 extra visits to Skylab. Maybe CSM-098, CSM-099 and some of the remaining Block I CSMs could be rebuilt as full-specification Block II CSMs. Maybe another batch of Block II CSMs is built. Whatever, the choice, the money for them is available ITTL due to there being no Vietnam War.

Firstly, after Apollo 11 and 12 I think some of the wind will be taken from NASAs sails, even without the pressure of the Vietnam war. I have no doubt that plans and production will be trimmed, possibly quite severely although not as severely as OTL, especially if NASA can come up with good alternatives.

For Saturn IBs and CSMs there will have to be 1 or 2 in reserve not allocated to Skylab flights. Definitely 1 allocated for possible rescue missions and another as a 'floating reserve' so NASA isn't on the bones of its arse for rockets and spaceships to use in the programme. It will need more than the 2 cancelled IBs and CSMs, but as you say NASA wanted 18 IBs and got 2 started for a total of 5. If they got started on 5 or more they should have enough for 5 extra Skylab flights. There appears to be enough CSM versions available for a rebuild/upgrade programmes to provide sufficient spacecraft for the extra flights.

What about ASTP?

For Saturn Vs Skylab will need a backup, OTLs Skylab B, and likely a spare rocket to keep options open. If only the 2 extras are built you can get Apollo 18 & 19, Skylab A & B and one more rocket in reserve that might be used as Apollo 20 or Skylab C. Personally I think Skylab C would be the best move, it will give the Shuttle a destination from Day 1, giving it purpose other than as an expensive satellite launcher.

In the maximum effort programme outlined in Message 82 Project Skylab ended in May 1975 when Mission 16 splashed down. I ended it than because that's when the extra money runs out.

Is there any great rush to be finished by 1975? Could the whole programme be stretched out to 1977 or so to minimise the gap to the Space Shuttle?

 

[RedLegion]

Why would anyone need a space shuttle when you have the Saturn 1b? The best option would be to develop a new vehicle, whether it's Gemini B or a completely new project. The Apollo CSM can't fully utilize the potential of the Saturn 1B. The best vehicle would be something similar to the "Big Apollo."

 

[Rule of cool]

FWIW (1) in the original version of the Apollo Applications Programme (which became Skylab) the first CSM flight to the first of the 4 Orbital Workshops (OWS) that were planned was of 28 days duration, the second was to be of 56 days duration and the other 4 were to be of 90 days duration. All 4 visits to the second OWS were to be of 90 days duration, as were the 2 visits to the OWS launched by Saturn V into geostationary orbit and the 8 visits to the definitive "dry workshop" to be launched by Saturn V in 1971.

The AAP had some pretty wild stuff in there, and my guess is some of it wasn't too closely related to reality. A geostationary Space Station, really?

So you probably have understood correctly that it was "only" certified for 90 days in space. For comparison, do we know how many days in space the different models of 1970s Soyuz were certified for.

I couldn't give a source, but I think it crept up from about 60 days to 120 days during the 70s and 80s.

FWIW (2) I wrote "only" certified for 90 days because I think that's sufficient. They'll do what the Soviets did with Salyut 6, Salyut 7 and Mir, which is that the Apollo flights will overlap and for long-duration missions the "cheer up" crew will arrive in a new CSM and return in the old CSM.

Also FWIW (3) Skylab has to be resupplied every 3 months or so ITTL. NASA planned to use Resupply Modules (RM) launched by Saturn IB with the CSM rather than develop an Apollo derived unmanned freighter analogous to the Soviet Progress. Which is a second reason why I think 90 days is sufficient.

90days may be fine, but it does limit what's possible compared to say 120 days, those extra days just give more flexibility and reduce the pressure on launch schedules and the like.

As for resupply, I thought the first step was some sort of package, stowed in the fairing like the ASTP docking adapter, filled with supplies that could be picked up like the LEM and ASTP DA and docked at the spare port for unloading then discarded.

IIUC Skylab deteriorated quite a bit during its 3 visits. I think 1 of its 3 gyrostabilisers was fully not working and another on its way out for starters, not to mention the damage it sustained on launch. This is why I like the idea of Skylab B and even Skylab C modified for better compatibility with the Shuttle.

I can't reply to those paragraphs one at a time. I'll have to do it all in one go. Therefore, AIUI, IIRC and AFAIK . . .

Launch Complex 39 as built was capable of 6 launches a year. This was because it was originally expected that 15 Saturn V launches would take place between the first flight in mid-1967 and the first moon landing in late 1969. If I have remembered correctly that's why 15 Saturn Vs were initially ordered. By late 1968 the plan was to launch one Saturn V every 2 months until the first successful landing and then launch one every 4 months until they ran out of Saturn Vs, which was then changed to one every 6 months until they ran out of Saturn Vs.

3 of the 4 bays in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) were connected to the crawler way to the launch pads, 3 crawlers were built and 3 mobile launchers were built. Therefore, I think LC39 as it existed was capable of launching 4 Saturn IB and 2 Saturn V a year. All they need to do is build another milk stool.

Launch Complex 39 as approved was to have had 3 launch pads, but Pad 39C wasn't built IOTL. It might be built ITTL along with more crawlers and mobile launchers. Also provision was made in the original design for Pad 39D, Pad 39E and an extension to the VAB which would have doubled its capacity.

I believe that Pad 39C isn't needed to support the number of launches that I propose, let alone the 39D, 39E, the VAB extension, more crawlers and more mobile launchers. Furthermore, even if Launch Complex 39 as it existed IOTL couldn't launch 4 Saturn IB and 2 Saturn V a year there's no need to update it. Instead they keep Launch Complex 34 and/or Launch Complex 37 open.

According to the AI overview Launch Complex 34 was deactivated in 1969 after the Apollo 7 mission, mothballed in November 1971, and its structures were scrapped in April 1972. Acording to its Wikipedia article Launch Complex 37 was deactivated in 1972 but was rebuilt to launch Delta IV rockets between 1998 and 2002.

I didn't realise there was so much launch infrastructure, in particular 3 crawlers and 3 mobile launchers. That wouldn't be the bottleneck on the programme.

That said, I still think after the later OTL Apollo missions NASA should alternate Skylab and lunar missions to break up the schedule and attempt to maintain some public interest would be a good move. A ~1974 and ~1976 moon mission could be informed by the earlier missions to get greater benefit.

 

[Rule of cool]

Why would anyone need a space shuttle when you have the Saturn 1b? The best option would be to develop a new vehicle, whether it's Gemini B or a completely new project. The Apollo CSM can't fully utilize the potential of the Saturn 1B. The best vehicle would be something similar to the "Big Apollo."

Because the USAF was to get on board with NASA to create a national space capability and use the Shuttle for military purposes, including launching and maintaining large spy satellites as well as a civilian Space Station programme. The Shuttle's design was driven by the USAF requirement to launch a satellite into a polar orbit and land within a single orbit, the large cross-range requirement driving the big wings.

The USAF cooperation died with the Challenger disaster, the USAF required guaranteed access to space not limited by the grounding of the Shuttle fleet. However, I believe that if there was a space station in orbit like a Skylab B, the Shuttle would be considered a success.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

In the maximum effort programme outlined in Message 82 Project Skylab ended in May 1975 when Mission 16 splashed down. I ended it then because that's when the extra money runs out.

Is there any great rush to be finished by 1975? Could the whole programme be stretched out to 1977 or so to minimise the gap to the Space Shuttle?

Yes there's a very great rush to be finished by 1975, because the extra money runs out in 1975. And no the the whole programme can't be stretched out to 1977 or so to minimise the gap to the space shuttle, because the extra money runs out in 1975. Because there's no extra money after 30th June 1975 - the last day of America's Fiscal Year 1975.

The large-scale involvement of the USA in Vietnam was from 1965 to 1973 but AIUI the US continued to pay large sums of money to South Vietnam right up to the fall of Saigon in April 1975. IIRC (1) the peak years was 1968 or 1969 when the USA spent $25 Billion on the Vietnam war which was nearly a third of the $90 Billion spent on defence in that year. IIRC (2) the second highest year was 1968 or 1969 when $20 Billion was spent.

Some of the money the USA spent between 1965 and 1975 on fighting the Vietnam War IOTL will be spent on NASA between 1965 and 1975 ITTL. That's the premise upon which Message 82 and subsequent posts were based. And before you ask, no some of the extra money that's available 1965-75 can't be put in a bank account to be spent after 1975. Government finance doesn't work that way. It's use it (before 1975) or loose it.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

That said, I still think after the later OTL Apollo missions NASA should alternate Skylab and lunar missions to break up the schedule and attempt to maintain some public interest would be a good move. A ~1974 and ~1976 moon mission could be informed by the earlier missions to get greater benefit.

I wrote that the the Apollo Moon landings and Skylab flights run concurrently IOTL (instead of consecutively as IOTL) before you first suggested that.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Also FWIW (3) Skylab has to be resupplied every 3 months or so ITTL. NASA planned to use Resupply Modules (RM) launched by Saturn IB with the CSM rather than develop an Apollo derived unmanned freighter analogous to the Soviet Progress. Which is a second reason why I think 90 days is sufficient.

As for resupply, I thought the first step was some sort of package, stowed in the fairing like the ASTP docking adapter, filled with supplies that could be picked up like the LEM and ASTP DA and docked at the spare port for unloading then discarded.

Wasn't that what I wrote? Twice? Above and in Message 82? I think it is?

I learned about it over 20 years ago on Encyclopaedia Astronautica.
http://www.astronautix.com/a/apollorm.htmlAccording to the article "A descendent of the RM flew as the Apollo-Soyuz Docking Module" which I also mentioned in Message 82.

ITTL missions 3 to 8 also delivered a Resupply Module (RM) to Skylab. The RM was proposed IOTL and was the basis of the Docking Module (DM) used in the ASTP mission.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

What about ASTP?

ASTP still happens. See this quote from Message 82.

IOTL NASA wanted to use an Apollo CSM with a SIM bay for ASTP to maximise the scientific return, but had to use an ordinary CSM for financial reasons. ITTL more money may be available, but NASA might still have to use a CSM without a SIM bay because all the CSMs with a SIM bay may have been used on Apollos 18 to 20.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The AAP had some pretty wild stuff in there, and my guess is some of it wasn't too closely related to reality. A geostationary Space Station, really?

This is the AAP planning schedule released in March 1966 for the FY1967 budget hearings according to notes that I made many years ago from the Middlesbrough Reference Library copy of "The History of Manned Spaceflight" by David Baker.

Said plan called for 26 Saturn IB and 19 Saturn V launches, accommodating 3 Saturn IB and 3 Saturn V launched laboratories and 4 Apollo Telescope Mounts with the first launch in April 1968. Each of the 6 laboratories could accommodate up to 6 astronauts for short periods. However, only 2 Saturn IB and 2 Saturn V workshops were to be launched so the remaining laboratories must have been spares.

There would be 8 Saturn IB and 9 Saturn V launches 1967-69. All AAP launches in that period would use the Saturn IB.

1968
AAP-1 - A Saturn IB launching an Apollo CSM and a Mapping & Survey System (M&SS) for a 28-day habitation of AAP-2.
AAP-2 - A Saturn IB launching an OWS+AM+MDA. The MDA would have 6 docking ports.
AAP-3 - A Saturn IB launching an Apollo CSM for a 56-day habitation of AAP-2.
AAP-4 - A Saturn IB launching an ATM which would be taken to AAP-2 by AAP-3.

1969
AAP-5 - A Saturn IB launching an Apollo CSM for a habitation of AAP-2 of up to 90 days.
AAP-6 - A Saturn IB launching an Apollo CSM for a habitation of AAP-2 of up to 90 days.
AAP-7 - A Saturn IB launching an Apollo CSM for a habitation of AAP-2 of up to 90 days.
AAP-8 - A Saturn IB launching an Apollo CSM for a habitation of AAP-2 of up to 90 days.

By overlapping the resupply flights it would be possible to carry 6 astronauts for brief periods and provide at least one or two astronauts with a year long sojourn.

1970-71
AAP-9 to AAP-14 - 6 Saturn IB launches.
- AAP-9 launching an OWS+AM+MDA to replace AAP-2.
- AAP-10 launching an ATM which would be delivered to AAP-9 by AAP-11.
- AAP-11 to AAP-14 - 4 Saturn IB launches of Apollo CSMs for overlapping visits of up to 90 days to AAP-9.
AAP-15 and AAP-16 - 2 Saturn V launches into geostationary orbit.
- AAP-15 launching an OWS+AM+MDA and an Apollo CSM.
- AAP-16 launching an ATM and a CSM.
- Each of the two CSMs would dock with the AAP-15 space station for habitations of up to 90 days.

1971-73
AAP-17
- A Saturn V launching the definitive "dry" workshop which unlike the others would be fitted out on the ground for manned habitation.
AAP-18 to AAP-21
- The launch of 4 Apollo CSMs by Saturn IBs at 3 month intervals 1971-72 with supplies and equipment or it could be used to provide one year of continuous operations with the same personnel with the CSM flights merely used for ferrying supplies.
AAP-22 to AAP-25
- The launch of 4 Apollo CSMs by Saturn IBs at 3 month intervals 1972-73. A repeat of AAP-18 to 21 with different crews, delivering in addition a large telescope for celestial observations.

Beyond 1973
Earth orbit operations were presumed to be ready for operations away from Apollo derived hardware with a definitive space station developed separately from AAP work by private contractors. It would be launched by Saturn V for permanent habitation.

Lunar Operations

• Apollo 12 was planned to be the first successful landing, early in 1969.
• The plan was to proceed with a lunar orbital reconnaissance mission using the M&SS. This was the first of 5 missions to the Moon at the rate of one per year 1969-73. The 1969 mission was to be of 14 days duration and the other 4 were to be of 28 days duration.
• 2 lunar landing missions would take place in 1970. Each would provide a 3 day expedition on the Moon's surface.
• 6 lunar landing missions would follow 1971-73 at the rate of 2 per year. Each mission would be preceded by the landing of a modified and unmanned LM carrying a LRV, a shelter and a drill. Each of these missions would spend up to 14 days on the Moon's surface.

Summary
The AAP and post-Apollo G plans envisaged 4 Saturn IB and 4 Saturn V launches a year, but more in some years. This was a far cry from when 100 Saturn IB and 12-15 Saturn V launchings in a year required in the era when each landing was thought to require 20 Saturn IB launches.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

It's 40 years (this year) since this was No. 1 in the British singles chart.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sajngb0W6I


And this parody of the above reached No. 13 in the British singles chart.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3bl4xaFZMM

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Whether Apollo would survive or not is tricky, I would say NO. Apollo 1 and Apollo 13 only three years apart truly scared the shit out of everybody: from President Nixon to NASA Houston's Bob Gilruth, astronauts included (even the great John Young, damn it).

FWIW Apollo 13 as we know it may not happen. The part that blew up was originally in Apollo 10 and was reinstalled in Apollo 13 as an economy measure. Or so I thought, until I checked the source (The Observer's Book of Manned Spaceflight, third edition, 1978) and what it actually said was.

It was 5 years later, in NASA's official Apollo history, before the full details of what went wrong were revealed by Jim Lovell himself. The CSM's Oxygen Tank No. 2 overheated and blew up (putting No. 1 out of action as well) because its heater switches welded shut during excessive pre-launch electric currents. Originally Tank No. 2 had been installed in Apollo 10; there was trouble with it then and it was removed for modification and damaged during the removal. This is how Lovell concluded his description of this famous drama: "Furthermore, other warning signs during testing went unheeded, and the tank, damaged from 8hr overheating, was a potential bomb the next time it was filled with oxygen. That bomb exploded on Apr 14 1970—200,000 miles from Earth".

My intention was to say that with a better funded NASA between 1965 and 1975 (due to no Vietnam War) economy measures like that will be fewer and farther between so the Apollo 13 disaster wouldn't have happened. However, if the warnings had been heeded it could have been avoided anyway. OTOH if the OTL Apollo 13 disaster hadn't happened maybe there would have been a fatal disaster on one of the later Apollo lunar missions of one of the Skylab missions.

 

[Archibald]

About schedules, a decade ago I had mixed AAP & Skylab LEO flights with asteroids / Venus / Mars launch windows in the 1970's, followed by the MEM flight test program for "Mars in 1982" or "Mars in 1986". It was a tightly packed, but awesome, timeline.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Said plan called for 26 Saturn IB and 19 Saturn V launches, accommodating 3 Saturn IB and 3 Saturn V launched laboratories and 4 Apollo Telescope Mounts with the first launch in April 1968. Each of the 6 laboratories could accommodate up to 6 astronauts for short periods. However, only 2 Saturn IB and 2 Saturn V workshops were to be launched so the remaining laboratories must have been spares.

I don't see how they arrived at a total of 26 Saturn IB and 19 Saturn V launches.

I counted 22 Saturn IB launches.

• 2 to launch 2 Orbital Workshops.
• 2 to launch 2 Apollo Telescope Mounts
• 18 to launch 18 Apollo CSMs.
  • 6 to visit the Orbital Workshop launched in AAP-2.
  • 4 to visit the Orbital Workshop launched in AAP-9.
  • 8 to visit the Orbital Workshop launched in AAP-17.

Adding one Saturn IB for the spare Saturn IB launched Orbital Workshop and one Saturn IB for the Skylab Rescue mission only increases it to 24.

I counted 22 Saturn V launches.

• 5 for the Lunar M&SS missions to be launched 1969-73.
• 2 for the Lunar landings in 1970.
• 6 for the Lunar landings in 1971 to 1973.
• 6 for LM Trucks that supported the 6 Lunar landings in 1971 to 1973.
• 1 to launch the AAP-15 Orbital Workshop into geostationary orbit.
• 1 to launch the AAP-16 mission to AAP-15.
• 1 to launch the AAP-17 Orbital Workshop.

Another was needed for the spare Saturn V launched Orbital Workshop and more would be needed for the Voyager Mars & Venus probes that NASA planned to launch in the early 1970s.

 

[Byeman]

The following is probably wishful thinking on my part and while some of the facts & figures may not be 100% correct, they are accurate enough for the purposes of this message, so here goes.

Without a Vietnam War there's no need to reduce spending on military spaceflight (unmanned as well as manned) in the second half of the 1960s, so my first piece of wishful thinking is that the Manned Orbital Laboratory project isn't first delayed and then cancelled outright. Therefore, 2 unmanned and a minimum of 5 manned MOLs are launched between the late 1960s and middle 1970s. I don't know what the effect on unmanned military spaceflight might be because I don't know enough about it.

There was no reduction in military spaceflight. MOL was cancelled because it was a bad idea and unmanned missions could do it cheaper and better.

 

[Byeman]

The S-I and S-IB rocket stages were sort of 8 Redstones wrapped around a Jupiter. That makes me think that S-I and S-IB stages would have been cheaper if the Jupiter based Juno II launcher had been kept in production instead of the Thor/Delta family due to being built with the same tooling. Does anyone agree or disagree?

a. Juno II was a crappy launcher.
b. Jupiter and Saturn tank production were independent.
c. There were less than 25 S-I and S-IB stage made. Not enough to matter.
d. The USAF didn't use Jupiter, it used Thor and that is what made Delta cheap. In 1961 (2nd year of Delta) there were 3 Deltas and 20 Thor launches.
e. Jupiter had no presence at Vandenberg

 

[Byeman]

No Vietnam War might mean no shuttle....with Dyna-Soar perhaps being launched atop Saturn IB.

I think there were calls for solid augmentation of Saturn IB which would have performed better than Titan III. It depends on how noisy the Titan lobby would be.

The Saturn V would still be phased out--just later--+ but the Apollo capsules *might* have made it past the year 2000.

Stop with the lobby misinformation.
A. Dynasoar was rightfully canceled and it was before war spending got big
b. Shuttle had nothing do with the Vietnam War
c. Saturn IB was too expensive in any form.

 

[Byeman]

Because the USAF was to get on board with NASA to create a national space capability and use the Shuttle for military purposes, including launching and maintaining large spy satellites as well as a civilian Space Station programme. The Shuttle's design was driven by the USAF requirement to launch a satellite into a polar orbit and land within a single orbit, the large cross-range requirement driving the big wings.

The USAF cooperation died with the Challenger disaster, the USAF required guaranteed access to space not limited by the grounding of the Shuttle fleet. However, I believe that if there was a space station in orbit like a Skylab B, the Shuttle would be considered a success.

wrong. The cross range was driven by abort requirements for polar missions (98 degrees) and not the one orbit mission (which was at a lower inclination 104 degrees )

 

[Byeman]

Crap load of wrong information on this thread

 

[Rule of cool]

I'm having a look at the Apollo and Applications for the first time in years, it seems to go through more changes than the British defence budget.

Astronutix has this summary of AAP plan changes:

• Program as of December 1966: First Launch: June 1968. Wet Workshops: 2. Dry Workshops: 2. ATM's: 4. Saturn IB's: 22. Saturn V's: 2.
• Program as of May 1967: First Launch: January 1969. Wet Workshops: 2. Dry Workshops: 2. ATM's: 3. Saturn IB's: 25. Saturn V's: 2.
• Program as of October 1967: First Launch: March 1970. Wet Workshops: 1. Dry Workshops: 1. ATM's: 1. Saturn IB's: 17. Saturn V's: 1.
• Program as of June 1968: First Launch: November 1970. Wet Workshops: 1. Dry Workshops: 1. ATM's: 1. Saturn IB's: 11. Saturn V's: 1.
• Program as of July 1969: First Launch: July 1972. Wet Workshops: 0. Dry Workshops: 1. ATM's: 1. Saturn IB's: 3. Saturn V's: 1.

The 'wet' workshop seems like a highly inefficient way of going about things, the dry workshop launches three things; 'dry' workshop, ATM, and earth resources mapping system in one go. Having a lot more money, apparently NASA requested $450m for AAP in 1967 and got $42m, might be worse as it commits NASA to the highly expensive wet workshop with its' attendant lot of Saturn IB launches.

Given Saturn IBs and Vs were ordered then cancelled it's presumably possible to order and get delivered enough Saturns to have a somewhat larger Moon programme as well as a second and more extensive Skylab mission if the budget was larger from a lack of pressure arising from the Vietnam war.

 

[Rule of cool]

wrong. The cross range was driven by abort requirements for polar missions (98 degrees) and not the one orbit mission (which was at a lower inclination 104 degrees )

So, the Shuttle's design was driven by the USAF's polar/high inclination requirements? I've misremembered the details?

 

[RedLegion]

So, the Shuttle's design was driven by the USAF's polar/high inclination requirements? I've misremembered the details?

NASA created the shuttle itself. They developed the bay requirements themselves based on the modules needed for the station. They went to the USAF, and they said, "Okay, but they weren't interested." Then the Deputy Secretary of the Air Force contacted NASA and said they weren't interested at all (he was also the head of the National Space Agency), but NASA ignored him because he was only a deputy (the National Space Agency was classified at the time).

 

[publiusr]

HEXAGON drove the size in part. Apollo capsules would have been less problematic than Gemini had MOL persisted.

With no Vietnam War and/or no Great Society (take your pick) aerospace might have been healthier, with some cancelled designs getting a second look.

X-37 survived the death of OSP. Dream Chaser, on the other hand, withers because it only has private monies behind it--no DoD largesse.

In short...what Air Force wants--Air Force gets.

 

[Rule of cool]

Saturn IB was too expensive in any form.

What's the cheaper alternative?

 

[Byeman]

What's the cheaper alternative?

Titan

 

[Byeman]

NASA created the shuttle itself. They developed the bay requirements themselves based on the modules needed for the station. They went to the USAF, and they said, "Okay, but they weren't interested." Then the Deputy Secretary of the Air Force contacted NASA and said they weren't interested at all (he was also the head of the National Space Agency), but NASA ignored him because he was only a deputy (the National Space Agency was classified at the time).

That isn't true. Read "The Space Shuttle Decision".

 

[Byeman]

HEXAGON drove the size in part. Apollo capsules would have been less problematic than Gemini had MOL persisted.
.

Only the length of the payload bay.
Wrong
A. Gemini was not problematic,
B. Apollo and MOL did not mix. Apollo was too complex. And it would have be harder to get to the lab from Apollo.

With no Vietnam War and/or no Great Society (take your pick) aerospace might have been healthier, with some cancelled designs getting a second look.

Not really. There would have been less. Vietnam helped aerospace

X-37 survived the death of OSP. .

No, X-37 wasn't part of OSP, it was part of SLI.

In short...what Air Force wants--Air Force gets.

Nope, again you don't understand history. The Air Force was just the truck driver for the NRO until the 70s. The USAF didn't really have any space systems of its own until DSP. DMSP was original an NRO program. DSCS, Transit and FLTSATCOM were DOD/Army and Navy. GPS and MILSTAR were 80's USAF.

 

[Rule of cool]

Titan

Could you be a little more specific?

IIUC the Titan IIIC cost $18m (compared to $45-50 for Saturn IB) but didn't have the power to lift the Apollo CSM into orbit. It looks like the Titan IIIE might have had the power, but it didn't fly until 1974.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

There was no reduction in military spaceflight. MOL was cancelled because it was a bad idea and unmanned missions could do it cheaper and better.

No. MOL was first delayed and then cancelled outright due to the Vietnam War. Without said war the first manned MOL would have been launched before the project was cancelled IOTL.

Yes, improvements in automation made satellites cheaper and possibly better. That's why I think the programme will end with the 5th manned MOL mission.