What if no Vietnam War?

[NOMISYRRUC]

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

a. Juno II was no crappier than contemporary Atlas and Thor launchers. The reliability of Atlas and Thor/Delta improved over time and the reliability of Juno II would have improved over time as well.

b. Chrysler built Redstone, Jupiter, S-I and S-IB in the same factory (with the S-Is using the tooling for Redstone and Jupiter) but not necessarily a the same time as AIUI production of Redstone and Jupiter ended as production of the S-I began. If Jupiter had remained in production as a space launcher instead of Thor & Delta then it would have been at the same time as production of the S-Is and S-IBs built IOTL and any additional S-IBs that were built ITTL.

c. I thought it was 24 flight rated articles consisting of 10 S-I and 14 S-IB. It would have mattered if production of the S-IB had continued, which is what I clearly meant.

d. and e. These are the stumbling blocks.

As I understand it the Jupiter and Thor IRBM programmes were of equal size with a similar number of development launches and the same number of missiles deployed. Therefore, the number of Jupiter and Thor IRBMs built was about the same and therefore at this stage Thor wasn't cheaper than Jupiter.

What made the difference was that Thor was an Air Force programme and Jupiter was an Army programme. Thus Thor had an unassailable lead over Jupiter due to the NIH principle. Therefore, it's necessary to go back well into the 1950s to change the IRBM programmes to give Jupiter the unassailable lead due to the NIH principle or preferably stop Thor from being developed in the first place.

One POD may be having President Eisenhower decree that IRBMs belong to the Army and ICBMs belong to the Air Force. With the result that Thor's transferred to the Army instead of Jupiter being transferred to the Air Force giving Jupiter an unassailable lead over Thor.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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.

FWIW from David Baker's books it's 10 tonnes for a Saturn I, 18 tonnes for a Saturn IB, 22 tonnes for a Saturn IB with 4 Minuteman SRBS, 13 tonnes for a Titan IIIC and 13.6 tonnes for a Titan IIID. It didn't say what they were in long tons. It didn't say what the earth orbit payload of a Titan IIIE was but did say that its escape payload was 3.7 tonnes and that the escape payload of a Titan IIIC was 1.7 tonnes.

Does that mean that the orbital payload of a Titan IIIE was in the region of 26 tonnes?

Titan IIIM may have been able to lift an Apollo CSM into Earth orbit.

 

[Byeman]

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.

Wrong. It was cancelled because HEXAGON was funded instead. Problems still would have delayed it, it wouldn't have launched earlier.

 

[Byeman]

FWIW from David Baker's books it's 10 tonnes for a Saturn I, 18 tonnes for a Saturn IB, 22 tonnes for a Saturn IB with 4 Minuteman SRBS, 13 tonnes for a Titan IIIC and 13.6 tonnes for a Titan IIID. It didn't say what they were in long tons. It didn't say what the earth orbit payload of a Titan IIIE was but did say that its escape payload was 3.7 tonnes and that the escape payload of a Titan IIIC was 1.7 tonnes.

Does that mean that the orbital payload of a Titan IIIE was in the region of 26 tonnes?

Titan IIIM may have been able to lift an Apollo CSM into Earth orbit.

Vietnam wasn't the reason Apollo was canceled. There was no need to launch more CSMs into orbit. Saturn IB couldn't compete for other missions.

 

[Byeman]

a. Juno II was no crappier than contemporary Atlas and Thor launchers. The reliability of Atlas and Thor/Delta improved over time and the reliability of Juno II would have improved over time as well.

b. Chrysler built Redstone, Jupiter, S-I and S-IB in the same factory (with the S-Is using the tooling for Redstone and Jupiter) but not necessarily a the same time as AIUI production of Redstone and Jupiter ended as production of the S-I began. If Jupiter had remained in production as a space launcher instead of Thor & Delta then it would have been at the same time as production of the S-Is and S-IBs built IOTL and any additional S-IBs that were built ITTL.

c. I thought it was 24 flight rated articles consisting of 10 S-I and 14 S-B. It would have mattered if production of the S-IB had continued, which is what I clearly meant.

d. and e. These are the stumbling blocks.

As I understand it the Jupiter and Thor IRBM programmes were of equal size with a similar number of development launches and the same number of missiles deployed. Therefore, the number of Jupiter and Thor IRBMs built was about the same and therefore at this stage Thor wasn't cheaper than Jupiter.

What made the difference was that Thor was an Air Force programme and Jupiter was an Army programme. Thus Thor had an unassailable lead over Jupiter due to the NIH principle. Therefore, it's necessary to go back well into the 1950s to change the IRBM programmes to give Jupiter the unassailable lead due to the NIH principle or preferably stop Thor from being developed in the first place.

One POD may be having President Eisenhower decree that IRBMs belong to the Army and ICBMs belong to the Air Force. With the result that Thor's transferred to the Army instead of Jupiter being transferred to the Air Force giving Jupiter an unassailable lead over Thor.

A. Wrong. We are talking space launch vehicles. Juno II had a 40% success rate (crappier than others). Juno II only flew 10 times. In the same period: 4 Deltas, 24 Thor Agenas, 6 Thor Ablestars, and 16 Thor Ables and had much higher success rates. As for Atlas, it wasn't a Jupiter competitor.

C. More Saturn IB production would have little affect since it would be at a low level. For Saturn I, it was two per year. Space launch Thors were production was in high gear in the 50's. Just in the time between the last Juno II and first Saturn I launch, 10 or so Thor flew.

Even if the Army managed IRBMs, it didn't manage space launch for Air Force missions. Thor was used with Able before Juno II flew. And planning for Thor Agena dated back to 1956. Just as Juno II existed even though the USAF managed Jupiter deployment. Thor and its space launch variants would have still existed if the Army managed Thor deployment. NASA bought Delta independently of the USAF and Army) and it didn't even look to Jupiter.

 

[Byeman]

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?

No. What "wider" optics? Fairing size had no bearing on the cameras used, they were all less than a meter. Dishes were not limited buy fairing size (see TDRS). Titan IIIE did the job, did it well and for less money. No reason to spend money on the Saturn IB and the huge LC-39 infrastructure.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

What killed all the big space station projects talked about in the late 40s and through the 50s was the development of transistors.

Manned stations were required due to the need to replace vacuum tubes in the electronics on a regular basis. Transistor electronics means no tubes to replace. No tubes to replace means no need for people to replace the tubes, and much smaller unmanned satellites doing the job.

So instead of a weather station with 3-6 people up for several months at a time (and an AF Space Command with thousands of astronauts due to all the different satellites), you'd have a single weather satellite that gets launched in one rocket and stays up for however long the fuel lasts.

 

[Byeman]

Wrong. It was cancelled because HEXAGON was funded instead. Problems still would have delayed it, it wouldn't have launched earlier.

Also, there was more of a push to make MOL unmanned if were to go forward.

 

[Michel Van]

What's the cheaper alternative?

Titan IIIM with modified Apollo light weight CSM for Low Orbit.

i don't know if USAF is willing to build Titan IIIL/4 for NASA to Launch heavy Apollo CSM.
because it beyond the Payload the USAF has for Military application in 1970s.
but both are far cheaper as Saturn INT studies !
(maybe SATAN a S-IVB with four UA1205, what i and Archibald came up)

On AAP
Like I wrote in previous post
wenn the Soviets not land on Moon, IT'S GAME OVER for Apollo, maybe with one, two Skylabs.

On MOL
Putting Astronauts in Spy sats increase the complexity and problems.
Something the Soviet learn with enorm cost with Salyut 2, 3, 5 (they bases on Almaz program)

On Dyna Soar
it was dead Horse, far over budget, no ready to fly Hardware and worst no purpose,,,
taken over by ICBM and unmanned Spy sats also X-15 and Gemini Capsule ready to fly
it cancelation was to put the X-20 program out it misery...

 

[Rule of cool]

Titan IIIM with modified Apollo light weight CSM for Low Orbit.

i don't know if USAF is willing to build Titan IIIL/4 for NASA to Launch heavy Apollo CSM.
because it beyond the Payload the USAF has for Military application in 1970s.
but both are far cheaper as Saturn INT studies !

Skylab had an orbital height of about 430km and an inclination of 50 degrees instead of the usual 28 degree inclination of a due east launch from Cape Canaveral. ASTP's orbit was lower at about 220km but an even higher inclination of 51.8 degrees while carrying the docking module's extra weight. These are pretty impressive LEO feats for a 60s rocket and likely explain the difference between the Saturn IBs payload to "LEO" and the CSMs weight.

Astronautix regularly quotes payload to a 185km LEO for the 60s Titan IIIs, is that a 'standard' LEO at a defined inclination (presumably 28 degrees) for comparison purposes like aircraft have a 'standard' day? If so any Titan needs a massive increase in power to go from ~13,000kg to 185km @ 28 degrees to 14,700kg to 430km @ 50 degrees. Presumably any such capability will cut into the price difference between a suitable Titan III and the Satrun IB.

 

[Michel Van]

Astronautix regularly quotes payload to a 185km LEO for the 60s Titan IIIs, is that a 'standard' LEO at a defined inclination (presumably 28 degrees) for comparison purposes like aircraft have a 'standard' day? If so any Titan needs a massive increase in power to go from ~13,000kg to 185km @ 28 degrees to 14,700kg to 430km @ 50 degrees. Presumably any such capability will cut into the price difference between a suitable Titan III and the Satrun IB.

The Titan IIIM was planed to launch MOL Into Polar orbit, a manned Spy-Sat with mass 14476 kg.
It would able to Launch weight reduce Apollo CSM into 51,8 degree 185 km orbit.
with weight reduction i mean, two tanks out, reduce fuel cells, removal of unnecessary equipment for Lunar mission.
reduce Mission time for flight to Skylab and return with long hibernation of capsule dock to station.
you can get the CSM to 15500 kg and Titan IIIM get to Orbit, form there CSM move to Skylab.

On cost in 1972
Saturn IB launch cost $55 Million
Titan IIIC launch cost $23 Million (Half of Saturn IB)
Titan IIIM launch cost $29 Million (still cheaper as Saturn IB)

how look like (source https://x.com/Truthful_ast)

 

[RedLegion]

The construction of launch platforms for Titan rockets, allowing NASA to use them, would require modifications at Cape Canaveral — unless the USAF made its own facilities available.
The most expensive element of the Saturn IB remains the S-IVB second stage with its J-2 engine. I am not sure what plans existed for optimizing its production, but it was still very much a one-off design. An alternative could have been a return to the upgraded S-IV stage with six RL-10 engines.


The first stage was relatively inexpensive, as it was based on a cluster of tanks. Tests showed that H-1 engines, even after immersion in seawater, could still be reused following inspection. In addition, the clustered design itself was highly durable, which made the integration of solid-fuel boosters much easier.

On cost in 1972
Saturn IB launch cost $55 Million
Titan IIIC launch cost $23 Million (Half of Saturn IB)
Titan IIIM launch cost $29 Million (still cheaper as Saturn IB)

Yes, this was due to the fact that the USAF had built up large stockpiles of these rockets. However, I am not a supporter of hypergolic propellants — everyone remembers what happened around Baikonur when the Protons kept crashing. Logically, in the post-Apollo era, the most optimal approach would have been to find a partner willing to partially co-finance the development of new launch vehicles.

 

[Rule of cool]

Logically, in the post-Apollo era, the most optimal approach would have been to find a partner willing to partially co-finance the development of new launch vehicles.

They did, NASA built the Space Shuttle as its new launch vehicle, and a pretty good one it was too despite its lack of purpose in the 80s.

IIUC the purpose of Saturn IB talk is to facilitate the use of built but unused and cancelled Saturn Vs for 2 or 3 more moon missions and a second Skylab which would have ~5 visits. I can't recall the exact numbers, they're in the thread somewhere, but to achieve this NASA needs to build the 2 cancelled Saturn Vs and IBs plus build a handful (4 or 5) rockets to launch CSMs to the second Skylab. Given these numbers, and the fact that the Shuttle is already in development I don't think trying to scale up a Titan III and 'man rate' it is very likely compared to building a handful more Saturn IBs.

 

[Michel Van]

The original production run of Saturn V was 17 units and from unit 18 improved with J-2S engines.
Johnson Killed the production with unit 15 finished and unfinished SA-516 & SA-517 were scraped.

on Saturn IB
SA-209 unused
SA-211 unused
SA-212 second stage became Skylab A, first stage scraped (SA-515 - S-IVB became Skylab Backup)
SA-213 only first stage build, scraped
SA-214 only first stage build, scraped

Had Skylab go on, it could give 3 mission for a second Skylab and Rescue mission if needed
only needed were two, three S-IVB stages...

 

[Rule of cool]

The original production run of Saturn V was 17 units and from unit 18 improved with J-2S engines.
Johnson Killed the production with unit 15 finished and unfinished SA-516 & SA-517 were scraped.

on Saturn IB
SA-209 unused
SA-211 unused
SA-212 second stage became Skylab A, first stage scraped (SA-515 - S-IVB became Skylab Backup)
SA-213 only first stage build, scraped
SA-214 only first stage build, scraped

Had Skylab go on, it could give 3 mission for a second Skylab and Rescue mission if needed
only needed were two, three S-IVB stages...

Therefore, to get 5 extra Skylab missions as NOMISYRRUC suggested another 2 Saturn IBs would be needed and CSMs for them.

 

[Michel Van]

Therefore, to get 5 extra Skylab missions as NOMISYRRUC suggested another 2 Saturn IBs would be needed and CSMs for them.

That depends who long stay the crews on Skylab
Skylab 1 hab 172 day use
It got 140 days of food, 232 days water and air for 312 days if used by 3 man crew.
(Skylab 4 took 28 days on food supply to the station)

Same goes for Skylab B (B for backup)
Both stations could support crews up to 232 days
that would be 3 missions each 70 days (third mission has to bring own food for 70 day)

from here onwards new Skylabs could be build in regards of Resupply by cargo vessel
North American Aviation made studies for Apollo resupply craft for Space station in 1960s
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/modified-apollo-logistics-spacecraft.4268/

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Therefore, to get 5 extra Skylab missions as NOMISYRRUC suggested another 2 Saturn IBs would be needed and CSMs for them.

For What It's Worth
Part One
Tentative planning schedule for the Apollo program at 29th July 1969
Source: http://www.astronautix.com/a/apollo18.html

​

Apollo 20 was cancelled on 4th January 1970 when it was decided to upgrade Skylab from a Saturn IB launched dry workshop to a Saturn V launched Wet workshop.

Congressional cuts to NASA's FY 1971 budget resulted in the cancellation of Missions H-4 (Apollo 15) and J-5 (Apollo 19) on 2nd September 1970. As a results Missions J-1 to J-3 which were Apollos 16 to 18 became Apollo 15 to 17.

Furthermore, the Apollo 13 disaster put Apollo 14 back from July 1970 to January 1971. A combination of the Apollo 13 disaster and budget cuts meant Apollos 15 to 17 were launched later than planned as well. In the July 1969 schedule launches were to be every 4 or 5 months. The gaps between Apollos 14 to 17 were between 6 and 9 months.

This was the result

​

I thought that at the very least NASA would be allowed to complete Saturn Vs SA-516 and SA-517 if there was no Vietnam War, so there would be no need to cancel Apollo 20 when Skylab was upgraded to a dry workshop. I also think that Apollo 18, 19 and 20 would have survived the September 1970 cuts to NASA's FY 1971 budget.

This is the result

​

The launch dates for Apollos 18, 19 and 20 are from Mark Wade's Astronautix.com and are when he thought they would have been launched if they weren't cancelled.

It should be 4 Apollo H and 5 Apollo J missions as per the schedule of July 1969. However, it's actually 3 Apollo H missions and 6 Apollo J missions because Apollo 15 is still flown as an Apollo J mission ITTL instead of the Apollo H mission that was planned in July 1969.

CSM-111 which was to have been Apollo 15's CSM when it was an Apollo H mission was eventually flown atop SA-210 in the ASTP. Therefore, either there isn't an ASTP ITTL or a Skylab mission has to be cancelled.

I've kept Apollo 13 and Apollo 14 as Apollo H missions, but I think there's a good chance that they'll be upgraded to Apollo J missions too. That's because the original AAP proposal of March 1966 had 2 Moon landings in 1970 that were to spend 3 days on the lunar surface. That made them Apollo J missions in all but name and ITTL there may be enough extra money in the "at the very least" alternative version of events to have them flown as planned in the original AAP proposal.

The Apollo 13 disaster still happens because I can't prove that the faulty component removed from Apollo 10 was installed on Apollo 13 as an economy measure. However, if Apollo 13 had been an Apollo J mission LM-7 Aquarius would have been designed to spend 78 hours on the lunar surface instead of 36 which would have helped.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

That depends who long stay the crews on Skylab
Skylab 1 hab 172 day use
It got 140 days of food, 232 days water and air for 312 days if used by 3 man crew.
(Skylab 4 took 28 days on food supply to the station)

Same goes for Skylab B (B for backup)
Both stations could support crews up to 232 days
that would be 3 missions each 70 days (third mission has to bring own food for 70 day)

from here onwards new Skylabs could be build in regards of Resupply by cargo vessel
North American Aviation made studies for Apollo resupply craft for Space station in 1960s
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/modified-apollo-logistics-spacecraft.4268/

I've already explained (twice) that they use this.
http://www.astronautix.com/a/apollorm.htmlFurthermore, the original plan (as already explained) was for the AAP Dry Workshop (which became Skylab) to be visited by 8 Apollo CSMs at intervals of 3 months between 1971 and 1973. As each visit was to have been for around 90 days Skylab must have been capable of holding 720 days worth of supplies or there was a way to resupply it.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Therefore, to get 5 extra Skylab missions as NOMISYRRUC suggested another 2 Saturn IBs would be needed and CSMs for them.

For What It's Worth
Part Two​

Yes indeed. To recap.

12 Saturn IB and 15 Saturn V were initially built. Circa 1967 NASA tried to order another 18 Saturn IBs and another 10 Saturn Vs for totals of 30 and 25 respectively. NASA got permission to order 2 of each, which were cancelled a year or two later, so all that was completed were the first stages of the 2 Saturn IBs (SA-213 and SA-214).

I think that at the very least Congress would have given NASA the money to finish the launchers ordered circa 1967 if there was no Vietnam War. So, a minimum of 14 flight rated Saturn IBs and 17 flight rated Saturn Vs were completed ITTL. Therefore, there was no need to cancel Apollo 20 when Skylab was upgraded from a Wet Workshop to a Dry Workshop.

5 of the 14 Saturn IBs built ITTL were launched 1966-68 leaving 9 available for AAP/Skylab. That's enough for 8 regular visits to Skylab and one on standby for the Skylab Rescue mission. If there was no Skylab Rescue mission ITTL its Apollo CSM and Saturn IB would be used to perform the ASTP mission ITTL. If there was a Skylab Rescue mission ITTL the final Skylab mission would be cancelled to provide the necessary hardware. That is unless the final Skylab mission was the one that failed in which case ASTP would be cancelled because there wasn't the hardware to do it.

All other things being equal Skylab is launched in May 1973 but it's launched by SA-516 instead of SA-513. Does using a different launcher prevent the OTL accident? Don't know. Does using a different launcher result in a more serious accident? Don't know either. So I'm presuming that it's the same as IOTL.

Skylab 2 is still launched in May 1973 and is still of 28 days duration. Skylab 3 is still launched in July 1973 and is still of 59 days duration. Skylab 4 is still launched in November 1973 and is still of 84 days duration. And that is where things change.

The 5 extra missions were named Skylab 5 to Skylab 9. They were launched at intervals of 3 months from February 1974 to February 1975.

Skylab 4 to Skylab 9 overlapped and the space station was continuously occupied for 18 months from November 1973 to May 1975. The overlapping of Skylab 4 to Skylab 9 also meant that 6 astronauts were aboard the space station for short periods. Each of these 6 missions delivered a Resupply Module (RM) to Skylab, which was launched with its Apollo CSM and docked to one of the 5 docking ports that it had ITTL. (See footnotes.)

However, all other things were not equal. Not cancelling SA-516 and SA-517 circa 1968 probably means that the decision to make Skylab a dry workshop is made in 1968 rather than 1970. Also Skylab may be launched a year or two sooner with Skylab 9 splashing down in May 1974 or May 1973. Or more (or all) of the 18 Saturn IBs requested circa 1967 are built and there can be as many as 24 CSM flights to Skylab instead of 3 with the possibility of having it continuously occupied for 66 months (5½ years).

Which long-windedly brings us to the supply of Apollo CSMs. We need a minimum of 9 for the "at the very least" programme and 25 if all 18 extra Saturn IBs are built. We've go 4 flight rated Block II Apollo CSMs (116 to 119). We don't have CSM-111 ITTL (which was used for the ASTP IOTL) because its used for Apollo 15.

There is also CSM-102 which was used to checkout Launch Complex 34 and CSM-105 which was used for acoustic tests. AFAIK the plan was to make them flight rated CSMs after the tests were completed and that said plan was not carried out due to budget cuts. ITTL the budget cuts are less severe so they may be rebuilt as flight rated CSMs, which brings the total to 6 when we need a minimum of 9.

According to the Wikipedia article on the Apollo CSM a total of 3 non-flight rated Block II CSMs were built with the designations CSM-098, 099 and 100. Maybe NASA can "do a Challenger" on them hand have them rebuilt as flight-rated CSMs in the same way that they had the Space Shuttle structural test article STA-099 rebuilt into the flight rated OV-099 Challenger. And if they can't or if it's cheaper, they order some brand new Apollo CSMs from Rockwell.

Footnotes

1. Since I wrote my original message I've come around to @Rule of cool's suggestion that the Apollo CSM's orbital rating would have been increased from 90 days to at least 120 days, because (as he wrote) it would make the above easier.

2. The Multiple Docking Adapter (MDA) on the OTL Skylab had 2 docking ports but only one was used. The MDA on TTL's Skylab had 5 docking ports. I'd like it to have a sixth docking port at the rear as well. I don't know if that was technically feasible, but there would be enough money to do it ITTL if it was.

3. Follow this link to Astronautix.com for more details on the Resupply Module.
http://www.astronautix.com/a/apollorm.html

 

[Rule of cool]

It appears as if NASA did with Apollo what militaries of the era did with their aviation missions and have a backup aircraft ready for every mission. I've read that the if USN wanted 2 F4, A6, F14 etc for a mission they'd get 3 ready, and Black Buck 1 had a spare Vulcan and Victor and both were needed. This means that at least 1 Saturn V and 1 or 2 IBs will not fly, or at least until the flight isn't important enough to be relied on. Apollo 13 and Skylab showed that stuff does go wrong, which is why I would like to see Skylab B launched rather than keeping the damaged original Skylab going.

The Apollo Resupply Module's extra weight over the CSM means that a modified Titan isn't an option, NASA will need to at least finish those 2 cancelled IBs and build a few more and either man rate the 'spare' CSMs or build a few more for the extra CSMs.

I don't know how many docking ports can be squeezed into the MDA, but I'd think maybe another 2 would be easy enough. The outside 'bottom' end of the Skylab was occupied with a radiator and gas bottles for the RCS and the inside was the O2 tank used as a waste compartment. There's a heap of space for more a docking port at that end, but I suspect that would require considerable engineering and therefore expense. If you're going to do that much work to a follow-on Skylab I'd also like to see the solar panels on swivels, so that the spacecraft doesn't have to have a limited attitude to the sun to get full power, and can point in other directions and still get full electrical power.

 

[Rule of cool]

the original plan (as already explained) was for the AAP Dry Workshop (which became Skylab) to be visited by 8 Apollo CSMs at intervals of 3 months between 1971 and 1973.

How realistic was this 1967 version of the AAP in technical terms? I can't imagine a wet workshop being remotely practical with CSMs, Shuttles maybe. Skylab had heaps of gear, a wet workshop would just be an empty fuel tank with whatever could be loaded into it from the tiny CSM. Presumably the wet workshop would be fitted with a docking mechanism so the CSM could connect to purge the fuel and get int there to do the experiments.

Not until the dry workshop does the Space Station portion of the AAP become a practical proposition in my mind. Therefore one of the later AAP plans is more appropriate than the 1967 plans.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

It appears as if NASA did with Apollo what militaries of the era did with their aviation missions and have a backup aircraft ready for every mission. I've read that the if USN wanted 2 F4, A6, F14 etc for a mission they'd get 3 ready, and Black Buck 1 had a spare Vulcan and Victor and both were needed. This means that at least 1 Saturn V and 1 or 2 IBs will not fly, or at least until the flight isn't important enough to be relied on. Apollo 13 and Skylab showed that stuff does go wrong, which is why I would like to see Skylab B launched rather than keeping the damaged original Skylab going.

The Apollo Resupply Module's extra weight over the CSM means that a modified Titan isn't an option, NASA will need to at least finish those 2 cancelled IBs and build a few more and either man rate the 'spare' CSMs or build a few more for the extra CSMs.

I don't know how many docking ports can be squeezed into the MDA, but I'd think maybe another 2 would be easy enough. The outside 'bottom' end of the Skylab was occupied with a radiator and gas bottles for the RCS and the inside was the O2 tank used as a waste compartment. There's a heap of space for more a docking port at that end, but I suspect that would require considerable engineering and therefore expense. If you're going to do that much work to a follow-on Skylab I'd also like to see the solar panels on swivels, so that the spacecraft doesn't have to have a limited attitude to the sun to get full power, and can point in other directions and still get full electrical power.

If that's a reference to me having all the Saturn IBs, all but one of the Saturn Vs launched and all the available Apollo CSMs launched in a TL where there's no Vietnam War the answer's yes and no.

Until the early 1980s NASA certainly had a backup crew for every manned mission. However, it didn't necessarily have a backup launcher and spacecraft for every manned mission.

E.g. the Apollo landing schedule at July 1969 used all 9 available Saturn Vs. At first glance it only used 9 of the 10 remaining flight rated Apollo LMs, but in reality it used 9 out of 9 flight rated articles because LM-15 was to be the Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM) for the Wet Skylab.

Initially there was to be only one Dry Skylab. That is in January 1970 when Apollo 20 was sacrificed to make way for Skylab A. There couldn't be a backup Dry Skylab until September 1970 when Apollos 15 and 18 were cancelled.

Re whether the MDA could take more docking ports, there are plenty of line drawings and artists impressions of the Wet Skylab in books and on line showing that its MDA had 5 docking ports. Therefore, I see no reason (because there are no reasons*) why the MDA on the Dry Skylab can't have 4 docking ports.

Also I'm not doing that much work into a follow-on Skylab, I'm putting that much work into the Skylab that was actually launched IOTL. Said work will also be put into the OTL backup Skylab too.

* That's a Boomtown Rats reference.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kobdb37Cwc

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I don't know how many docking ports can be squeezed into the MDA, but I'd think maybe another 2 would be easy enough. The outside 'bottom' end of the Skylab was occupied with a radiator and gas bottles for the RCS and the inside was the O2 tank used as a waste compartment. There's a heap of space for more a docking port at that end, but I suspect that would require considerable engineering and therefore expense. If you're going to do that much work to a follow-on Skylab I'd also like to see the solar panels on swivels, so that the spacecraft doesn't have to have a limited attitude to the sun to get full power, and can point in other directions and still get full electrical power.

Also I'm not doing that much work into a follow-on Skylab, I'm putting that much work into the Skylab that was actually launched IOTL. Said work will also be put into the OTL backup Skylab too.

I wrote in Message 89.

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 spent several hours last Tuesday expanding that until I accidentally wiped the whole thing when it was 95% complete. Briefly, what it said was.

• 17 flight rated Saturn Vs were completed instead of 15.
  • As a result there were 10 landing attempts instead of 7.
  • Apollos 13 to 20 were Apollo J missions.
  • Apollo 13 wasn't a failure due to the warnings about the faulty oxygen tank being heeded.
  • All subsequent Apollo missions were successful.
  • The ASLEP monitoring facility wasn't closed in 1977 and it remained open until at least half the 9 ASLEPs left on the Moon ITTL failed.
• The OTL Skylab A (with 4 or 5 docking ports) was launched by SA-516 in 1971.
  • Apart from being 2 years earlier than IOTL, Skylab 2, Skylab 3 and Skylab 4 were the same as IOTL.
    • However, Skylab 5 and every subsequent mission overlapped with the preceding mission.
      • Therefore, Skylab A was continuously manned from November 1971 (when Skylab 4 docked) until it was abandoned in 1981 and Skylab B was launched to replace it.
      • As a result one Apollo CSM was launched every 3 months from November 1971 to at least November 1980 and possibly as late as November 1981. It depends upon when Skylab B was launched.
      • Skylab A was regularly womanned because the first female astronauts were recruited in the early 1970s instead of the late 1970s.
    • Some of the Apollo CSMs delivered Resupply Modules (RM) that were launched on the same Saturn IB à la the RM derived Docking Module (DM) used for ASTP.
    • Other Apollo CSMs delivered Mission Modules (MM) that were launched on the same Saturn IB à la the RM derived Docking Module (DM) used for ASTP.
    • The Saturn IBs that launched the Apollo CSMs, MMs and RMs had a number of Minuteman derived strap-on boosters that allowed them to launch heavier payloads. The extra payload would be used for heavier MMs and RMs rather than heavier Apollo CSMs.
    • As Saturn IBs were being built at the rate of 4 per year to support the launch rate of 4 per year its possible that an uprated Saturn IB called Saturn IC with longer stages and uprated engines may come into service in the late 1970s.
  • Launches of Saturn IB were transferred from Launch Complexes 34 and 37 to Launch Complex 39 in 1970.
    • LC-39 as it existed was capable of 6 launches a year.
    • However, ITTL there was the money to build Pad 39C, more crawlers and more launchers if required.
    • They would be required for the TTL Space Shuttle.
• The OTL Skylab B was launched by SA-517 in 1981 to replace its worn out predecessor.
  • It had 5 or 6 docking ports because there was no integral ATM.
  • It was visited by Saturn IB launched Apollo CSMs (delivering RMs & MMs) until the Space Shuttle could take over.
    • Skylab B initially had a permanent crew of 3 astronauts and could accommodate 6 for short periods.
    • However, the permanent crew was increased to 12 astronauts when the space shuttle entered service and more modules were added.
  • The Space Shuttle was able to deliver much bigger and much heavier Mission Modules that the Saturn IB (which was launching an Apollo CSM at the same time) so Skylab B quickly resembled the OTL Mir-1.
    • Except the core module weighed 5 times more than Mir's core module and its Mission Modules were heavier too.
    • Some of the extra modules may belong to foreign space agencies. E.g. there may be an ESA module built instead of Spacelab.
• The space station that was started in the early 1980s IOTL and eventually became the American portion of the International Space Station was intended to replace Skylab B in 1991 ITTL.
  • Whether, it did is another matter.
  • Skylab B may soldier on for years like Mir-1 did.
• The Space Shuttle.
  • America's Taxpayers weren't willing to pay the $10-15 billion that the totally reusable Space Shuttle was expected to cost.
  • However, they were willing to pay the $7 billion that the OTL Space Shuttle with Liquid Rocket Boosters (LRB) was estimated to cost. The OTL Space Shuttle with Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB) which was estimated to cost $5.5 Billion.
  • I'll leave it to others to say whether it would have been: in service any sooner; any safer; more reliable, and; capable of making more flights per year than the OTL Space Shuttle with SRBs.
  • I do think that 6 flight rated Orbiter Vehicles will be in service by 1985.
    • The extra vehicles will be OV-101 Enterprise converted to a flight rated orbiter (as originally planned IOTL) and OV-105 Endeavour brought forward from 1992 to 1985.
      • And.
    • I do think that enough spare parts to assemble 2 additional orbiters (OV-106 and OV-107) will be built ITTL instead of enough to assemble one (OV-105) IOTL.
  • I do think that the 2 extra orbiters in service by 1985 will allow NASA to attempt 50% more flights with the result that 3 orbiters are lost between 1986 and 2003 instead of 2.
    • The short straw is drawn by the OV-101 Enterprise which is lost sometime between the OTL loss of Challenger and the OTL loss of Columbia.
    • OV-106 is built to replace Challenger.
    • OV-107 is built to replace Enterprise.
    • A third set of spare parts was made to replace the sets used to build OV-106 and OV-107.
    • However, they weren't used to build a Space Shuttle to replace Colombia.
  • ITTL the loss of Challenger in 1986 left a number of astronauts stranded aboard Skylab B.
    • That is they would have been stranded if a modified Apollo CSM or something like a Big Gemini hadn't been docked to it in case the Space Shuttles were grounded for long periods.
    • Ditto if the loss of Endeavour happened while Skylab B was still in service.
  • One of the Shuttle-derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles (HLLV) may be built ITTL.
    • If it is, one of its jobs will be to launch modules to Skylab B that were too heavy and too bulky for the Space Shuttle.
    • And another of its jobs will be to launch the components of Skylab B's successor.
  • I do think that there will be some expansion of the ground infrastructure to support the larger fleet of orbiters. So if Pad 39C, more crawlers and more mobile launchers weren't built in the early 1970s as part of Project Skylab, they would be built between 1975 and 1985 as part of the Space Shuttle programme.

That took nearly 4 hours to write. So, not exactly briefly.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

How realistic was this 1967 version of the AAP in technical terms? I can't imagine a wet workshop being remotely practical with CSMs, Shuttles maybe. Skylab had heaps of gear, a wet workshop would just be an empty fuel tank with whatever could be loaded into it from the tiny CSM. Presumably the wet workshop would be fitted with a docking mechanism so the CSM could connect to purge the fuel and get int there to do the experiments.

I don't know how practical the 1967 version was in technical terms. I do know that the Apollo 1 fire put it back to 1969. I also know that the Wet Workshop was to be launched with a 5-port Multiple Docking Adapter (MDA) and an Airlock Module (AM). Plus there are cutaway drawings of the proposed Wet Workshop which show that it was more than just an empty fuel tank.

Not until the dry workshop does the Space Station portion of the AAP become a practical proposition in my mind. Therefore one of the later AAP plans is more appropriate than the 1967 plans.

That might be why none of the 3 Wet Workshops were to be occupied for longer than 15 months while the Dry Workshop was to be occupied for 2 years.

The obvious thing to do is have one Dry Workshop launched in 1968 instead of the 2 LEO Wet Workshops that were planned. Then the 14 Saturn IBs assigned to the OTL AAP-1 to AAP-14 could be used to launch 14 Apollo CSMs. That would allow 28 days AAP-1, 56 days AAP-2 and 12 overlapping visits of 3 months duration by AAP-3 to AAP-14. This is replaced in 1971 by the OTL AAP-17 dry workshop.

Which isn't possible because the required Saturn V won't be made available until after the first successful Moon landing. Unless, the extra money available due to having no Vietnam War allows more Saturn Vs to be ordered in 1965 instead of the OTL attempt to order more in 1967.

 

[Rule of cool]

If that's a reference to me having all the Saturn IBs, all but one of the Saturn Vs launched and all the available Apollo CSMs launched in a TL where there's no Vietnam War the answer's yes and no.

Until the early 1980s NASA certainly had a backup crew for every manned mission. However, it didn't necessarily have a backup launcher and spacecraft for every manned mission.

E.g. the Apollo landing schedule at July 1969 used all 9 available Saturn Vs. At first glance it only used 9 of the 10 remaining flight rated Apollo LMs, but in reality it used 9 out of 9 flight rated articles because LM-15 was to be the Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM) for the Wet Skylab.

Initially there was to be only one Dry Skylab. That is in January 1970 when Apollo 20 was sacrificed to make way for Skylab A. There couldn't be a backup Dry Skylab until September 1970 when Apollos 15 and 18 were cancelled.

Re whether the MDA could take more docking ports, there are plenty of line drawings and artists impressions of the Wet Skylab in books and on line showing that its MDA had 5 docking ports. Therefore, I see no reason (because there are no reasons*) why the MDA on the Dry Skylab can't have 4 docking ports.

Also I'm not doing that much work into a follow-on Skylab, I'm putting that much work into the Skylab that was actually launched IOTL. Said work will also be put into the OTL backup Skylab too.

I'm coming around to the opinion that the Saturn/Apollo procurement and flight operations were a lot like military aircraft procurement and flight operations, although much more closely aligned. There were Mk1, 2, 3 or A, B, C models of components and the As/Mk!s could be bought up to improved standards. Major components were sort of in a 'supply pool' and swapped between rockets/missions, especially as plans changed over time.

As such I'm not thinking about building more rockets to stick to any specific plan, but rather to give NASA more options for the later half of the planned programme of launches/missions. Things are bound to go wrong, IIRC the Apollo moon mission rockets and spacecraft had 6 million parts and at 99.99% reliability some 6,000 parts will fail, some will be more serious than others. Additionally the early missions were launched under assumptions that they will either prove or disprove, so later missions need to be flexible enough to incorporate these lessons.

As such I'd think a better funded and supplied NASA might well launch every Saturn rocket, even the extra ones being proposed, but they won't launch the very last ones as part of an early plan. Only after they've achieved the missions they deem highest priority, which will need backups, will they decide to launch the final rockets on 'optional' missions which have a high likelihood of success, a likelihood that increases with the lessons of each mission.

 

[Byeman]

Skylab had an orbital height of about 430km and an inclination of 50 degrees instead of the usual 28 degree inclination of a due east launch from Cape Canaveral. ASTP's orbit was lower at about 220km but an even higher inclination of 51.8 degrees while carrying the docking module's extra weight. These are pretty impressive LEO feats for a 60s rocket and likely explain the difference between the Saturn IBs payload to "LEO" and the CSMs weight.

The Saturn IB CSMs had 30-35klb of propellant offloaded vs the 65klb of the lunar versions

 

[Rule of cool]

I've finally figured out the wet workshop, my mind had this utterly wrong. Basically the 3rd stage of a Saturn V was full of space station gear and that would be (hydraulically) moved into the empty and purged 2nd stage of a Saturn V and deployed.

These concept pictures are extremely early, they talk about astronauts using Gemini. I still like the Skylab dry workshop, with the MDA and ATM, better.

 

[Rule of cool]

The Saturn IB CSMs had 30-35klb of propellant offloaded vs the 65klb of the lunar versions

Sure, but launches to these altitudes and inclinations is going to need the much greater power of the Saturn IB compared to the late 60s Titan III variants which might be capable to launching a CSM to a 185km/28 degree orbit.

 

[Byeman]

1. The construction of launch platforms for Titan rockets, allowing NASA to use them, would require modifications at Cape Canaveral — unless the USAF made its own facilities available.

2.The most expensive element of the Saturn IB remains the S-IVB second stage with its J-2 engine. I am not sure what plans existed for optimizing its production, but it was still very much a one-off design. An alternative could have been a return to the upgraded S-IV stage with six RL-10 engines.

3Yes, this was due to the fact that the USAF had built up large stockpiles of these rockets.

1. The USAF would share the them just like it did for Viking, Voyager and Helios.
2. The S-IV with RL10 didn't have close to the same performance.
3. Wrong. The Titan III vehicles were purpose built and different than the ICBM version. Most of the ICBMs were built before the space launch Titan III went into production.

 

[Byeman]

They did, NASA built the Space Shuttle as its new launch vehicle, and a pretty good one it was too despite its lack of purpose in the 80s.

Huh? it had a purpose in the 80s. The Challenger accident delayed more than 20 large payloads.

IIUC the purpose of Saturn IB talk is to facilitate the use of built but unused and cancelled Saturn Vs for 2 or 3 more moon missions and a second Skylab which would have ~5 visits. I can't recall the exact numbers, they're in the thread somewhere, but to achieve this NASA needs to build the 2 cancelled Saturn Vs and IBs plus build a handful (4 or 5) rockets to launch CSMs to the second Skylab. Given these numbers, and the fact that the Shuttle is already in development I don't think trying to scale up a Titan III and 'man rate' it is very likely compared to building a handful more Saturn IBs.

Those Saturn IBs were already built. The second Skylab would have had only two visits.

 

[Byeman]

It appears as if NASA did with Apollo what militaries of the era did with their aviation missions and have a backup aircraft ready for every mission. I've read that the if USN wanted 2 F4, A6, F14 etc for a mission they'd get 3 ready, and Black Buck 1 had a spare Vulcan and Victor and both were needed.

No, not true. The next mission was the back up. The final backup was an unused vehicle that lost its mission.

 

[Byeman]

How realistic was this 1967 version of the AAP in technical terms? I can't imagine a wet workshop being remotely practical with CSMs, Shuttles maybe. Skylab had heaps of gear, a wet workshop would just be an empty fuel tank with whatever could be loaded into it from the tiny CSM. Presumably the wet workshop would be fitted with a docking mechanism so the CSM could connect to purge the fuel and get int there to do the experiments.

Wet workshop is not even practical now,.

 

[Rule of cool]

@NOMISYRRUC , nice precis. I still think the last 5 Skylab manned missions should be to Skylab B, the IIUC the original was in pretty bad condition after it's 3 visits.

 

[Rule of cool]

Wet workshop is not even practical now,.

I've just figured out how it worked this morning, and I don't like it at all.

 

[Rule of cool]

Huh? it had a purpose in the 80s. The Challenger accident delayed more than 20 large payloads.

Large payloads could be launched by other means, ones that don't require expensive and precious people.

 

[Byeman]

I'm coming around to the opinion that the Saturn/Apollo procurement and flight operations were a lot like military aircraft procurement and flight operations, although much more closely aligned. There were Mk1, 2, 3 or A, B, C models of components and the As/Mk!s could be bought up to improved standards. Major components were sort of in a 'supply pool' and swapped between rockets/missions, especially as plans changed over time.

nope, it wasn't. The CSMs were basically the same for all the lunar missions, except for outfitting the SIM bay on the J missions. The J mission LMs had their descent propellant tanks enlarged to allow for more landed weight. The Skylab and ASTP CSM had propellant tanks and fuel cell removed and batteries added.

 

[Byeman]

Large payloads could be launched by other means, ones that don't require expensive and precious people.

Not until after the Challenger accident and the development of the Titan IV.

 

[Byeman]

Sure, but launches to these altitudes and inclinations is going to need the much greater power of the Saturn IB compared to the late 60s Titan III variants which might be capable to launching a CSM to a 185km/28 degree orbit.

Not true. And anyways, it wasn't to launch CSMs. That was dead with end of Skylab and ASTP. It was proposed to launch probes with Saturn IB and Titan III was cheaper.

 

[Byeman]

I've finally figured out the wet workshop, my mind had this utterly wrong. Basically the 3rd stage of a Saturn V was full of space station gear and that would be (hydraulically) moved into the empty and purged 2nd stage of a Saturn V and deployed.

That was the early version. The version before the change to Skylab was to used the S-IVB of a Saturn IB.

 

[Rule of cool]

nope, it wasn't. The CSMs were basically the same for all the lunar missions, except for outfitting the SIM bay on the J missions. The J mission LMs had their descent propellant tanks enlarged to allow for more landed weight. The Skylab and ASTP CSM had propellant tanks and fuel cell removed and batteries added.

It has been discussed on the thread that if some more IBs were built they could be flown with Block I CSMs that were bought up to Block II standard. Given they were only doing LEO having less propellant and batteries instead of fuel cells is fine.

Not until after the Challenger accident and the development of the Titan IV.

The Challenger disaster showed that a single national launcher system was a bad idea, however single national launcher system was a consolation prize due to a lack of a space station.

Not true. And anyways, it wasn't to launch CSMs. That was dead with end of Skylab and ASTP. It was proposed to launch probes with Saturn IB and Titan III was cheaper.

You're the one who suggested that extra any CSMs would be launched by Titans because Saturn IBs were too expensive.