What if no Vietnam War?

[Rule of cool]

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

Do you have any diagrams or good descriptions of that?

 

[Byeman]

1. 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.

2.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.

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

1. All manned CSMs were Block II, even on Saturn IBs. Block Is were never to fly manned after Apollo fire.
2. No, the shuttle was independent of a station
3. they could be but there never was a need for more CSMs.

 

[Byeman]

Do you have any diagrams or good descriptions of that?

https://www.creating-space.art/p/skylab-design-evolution

 

[Rule of cool]

All manned CSMs were Block II, even on Saturn IBs. Block Is were never to fly manned after Apollo fire.

Yes, but if there was a requirement for a few more CSMs Block Is might be bought up to Block II standard instead of building 3 or 4 new Block IIs.

No, the shuttle was independent of a station

The Shuttle was intended to be part of a LEO programme alongside a Space Station, but the funding was such that they both weren't developed at the same time and the Shuttle was developed first with the expectation the Space Station would follow.

they could be but there never was a need for more CSMs.

Not with our history's programme, but this thread is about an alternative history where more CSMs are required. In any case the Saturn IB existed and the Titan IIIM did not, it's an open question if developing a Titan IIIM is more cost-effective than simply biting the bullet, finishing 2 cancelled Saturn IBs and building 3 or so more.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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.

Yes, but if there was a requirement for a few more CSMs Block Is might be bought up to Block II standard instead of building 3 or 4 new Block IIs.

I don't know what @Byeman wrote because I put him on ignore on Thursday morning after posting Message 121.

It was me that suggested bringing Block I CSMs to Block II standard. However, there may not be enough of them, fitting their CMs with a docking tunnel and docking port may be physically impossible and it may be cheaper to build new Block II CSMs.

If the Wikipedia article on the Apollo CSM is correct 20 Block I spacecraft were ordered and 13 were completed.

Of which:

• CSM-002 was launched on A-004 on 20.01.66.
• CSM-009 was launched on AS-201 on 26.02.66.
• CSM-010 had its CM re-designated CM-004A/BP-27 and it's SM was never completed.
• CSM-011 was launched on AS-201 on 25.08.66.
• CSM-012 had its CM severely damaged in the Apollo 1 fire.
• CSM-014 had its CM disassembled as part of Apollo 1 investigation.
  • SM-014 flew on Apollo 6 with CM-020 on 04.04.68.
  • CM-014 was later modified and used for ground testing as CM-014A.
• CSM-017
  • CM-017 flew on Apollo 4 with SM-020 on 09.11.67.
    • Because.
  • SM-017 was destroyed in a propellant tank explosion during ground testing.
• CSM-020
  • CM-020 flew on Apollo 6 with SM-014 on 04.04.68.
  • SM-020 flew on Apollo 4 with CM-017 on 09.11.67.

From which we may have CM-010, CM-014 and CSM-012. The latter is unlikely to be converted to a flight rated Block II CSM because of the Apollo 1 fire.

Leaving 5 which were:

• CSM-001 used for systems compatibility test.
• CSM-004 used for static and thermal structural ground tests.
• CSM-006 used for demonstrating tumbling debris removal system.
• CSM-007 used for:
  • Various tests including acoustic vibration and drop tests, and water egress training.
  • The CM was refitted with Block II improvements. It underwent testing for Skylab at the McKinley Climatic Laboratory, Eglin AFB, Florida, 1971–1973.
• CSM-008 a complete systems spacecraft used in thermal vacuum tests.

Therefore, if what was written about CSM-007 is correct, it looks like Block I CSMs could be refitted to Block II standard.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

@NOMISYRRUC , nice precis.

Thank you.

One thing I omitted (due to forgetting which was due to the time it took to write) that ASTP still happens. As there's a rolling programme of Saturn IBs, Apollo CSM and Resupply Modules (which the Docking Module was derived from) more ASTP missions are feasible while detente lasts.

The extra missions could be Apollo CSMs visiting Salyut space stations or Soyuz spacecraft visiting Skylab B. In the former case the CSMs would be launched with a DM à la the OTL ASTP mission. In the latter case a DM launched by Saturn IB on one of the regular Apollo CSM visits to the space station and attached to one of its docking ports.

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.

That's not a problem in my minimum programme.

However, it is for the maximum programme, because Skylab B wears out in the middle 1980s instead of 1991 and no Saturn Vs are available to launch Skylab C. Furthermore, it couldn't be launched because all the pads at LC-39 were converted to launch space shuttles by the middle 1980s ITTL. The space station itself should not be a problem as the Saturn IB is in production until at least the late 1970s and an extra S-IVB casing could have been made.

My school library had a late 1970s book about the Space Shuttle which included a chapter on how to make a model of the late 1970s HLLV proposal from the Airfix space shuttle kit. The payload was a S-IVB stage from the Airfix Saturn V kit. So the HLLV may be able to launch Skylab C if the HLLV if it's built ITTL.

Or the space station that was to replace Skylab B in 1991 ITTL is brough forward half-a-decade.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Not with our history's programme, but this thread is about an alternative history where more CSMs are required. In any case the Saturn IB existed and the Titan IIIM did not, it's an open question if developing a Titan IIIM is more cost-effective than simply biting the bullet, finishing 2 cancelled Saturn IBs and building 3 or so more.

Again, I don't know what @Byeman wrote, because I have him on ignore.

I suggested that ITTL MOL wouldn't be delayed and then cancelled outright with the 2 unmanned and 5 manned missions planned IOTL launched 1968-70. Therefore, Titan IIIM exists ITTL.

@Byeman wrote (in no uncertain terms) that MOL would still be cancelled, because it was made obsolete by improvements in automation, which made unmanned satellites better and cheaper.

Therefore, according to the man himself, Titan IIIM doesn't exist ITTL.

Checkmate, Lincolnites!

 

[Rule of cool]

suggested that ITTL MOL wouldn't be delayed and then cancelled outright with the 2 unmanned and 5 manned missions planned IOTL launched 1968-70. Therefore, Titan IIIM exists ITTL.

Leaving aside all the other stuff, IIUC one factor against the MOL was the astronauts moving around would make the cameras shake and the pictures blurry.

 

[publiusr]

HEXADOR maybe?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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.

I think the pair of you have the cause and effect of the 5 extra Skylab missions the wrong way around.

I don't want 5 extra Skylab missions so another 2 Saturn IBs would be needed and CSMs for them. I want the 2 cancelled Saturn IBs cancelled (and more CSMs) built so 5 extra Skylab missions.

I've thought for a long time that Congress and the American Taxpayer "cut off their noses to spite their faces" by not giving NASA enough money to launch all the available Apollo hardware and that by spending what's a modest amount of money in the scheme of things, would have got a lot more value for money or to use the American term "More bang per Buck!"

Allegedly, the cancellation of Apollos 18 and 19 in September 1970 only saved $42.1 million. The hardware had been built, the ground infrastructure (Mission Control, LC39, etc.) had to be kept open for Skylab.*

According to this the only saving was on the catering.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

Enough hardware was built for 2 additional Moon landings and 3 additional visits to Skylab A. If the August 1968 cuts are avoided we've got enough hardware for 3 additional Moon landings, Skylab B and 7 additional visits to Skylab A or Skylab B.

It's 7 additional visits to Skylab (A or B) instead of the 5 previously proposed because I recently discovered that 4 Saturn IBs were ordered in 1967 and cancelled in August 1968.

In total sixteen launch vehicles were contracted which were designated as SA-201 to SA-216.

And.

. . . whilst SA-213, SA-214, SA-215 and SA-216 were cancelled in August 1968 before work on them had started, except for the first stages of SA-213 and SA-214.

Source:https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app3/saturn.html
For the CSMs:

• Nos. 111, 115 and 115A are used on the extra Apollo Moon landing missions.
  • Which means CSM-111 isn't available for ASTP.
• That leaves only one flight-rated Block II CSM (No. 119).
• However, I think CSM-102 and CSM-105 are refurbished as flight rated spacecraft ITTL.
• Then there are the 3 non-flight rated Block II CSMs (Nos. 98, 99 and 100) that the Wikipedia article says were built.
• And finally there are 5 Block I CSMs (Nos. 001, 004, 006, 007 and 008) that we may be able to rebuild as Block II spacecraft.

That makes a total of 14 CSMs when 11 are required: 3 for Apollos 18-20, 7 for the extra visits to Skylab and one for ASTP.

Footnote
* ASTP wasn't approved until 1972.

 

[Archibald]

@NOMISYRRUC You can't rebuild CSM Block I into Block II. The CSM Block I was a death trap without a docking collar. After the Apollo 1 fire North American Rockwell brought enormous safety changes to Apollo, turning it into Block II. The few Block I not cancelled or scrapped were expended for Saturn test flights.

 

[Archibald]

A quick Apollo inventory
Block II CSM : 101 to 115A for lunar missions; 116, 117, 118 and 119 for Skylab.
Lunar Module: LM-1 to LM-15
Saturn V: SA-501 to SA-515
Saturn IB: SA-201 to SA-216
-not launched: 209, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216.
-they were left at varied stages of completion (complete; missing the S-IVB; first stage cluster only; split cluster tanks and engines never assembled )

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

A quick Apollo inventory
Block II CSM : 101 to 115A for lunar missions; 116, 117, 118 and 119 for Skylab.
Lunar Module: LM-1 to LM-15
Saturn V: SA-501 to SA-515
Saturn IB: SA-201 to SA-216
-not launched: 209, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216.
-they were left at varied stages of completion (complete; missing the S-IVB; first stage cluster only; split cluster tanks and engines never assembled)

SA-215 and 216 were never begun. If you're including them you should include SA-516 and 517 too.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

@Archibald, please re-read Message 165 where I discussed the feasibility of converting the Block I CSMs to Block II CSMs and for the fates of the 13 Block I CSMs that were built.

 

[Byeman]

Not with our history's programme, but this thread is about an alternative history where more CSMs are required. In any case the Saturn IB existed and the Titan IIIM did not, it's an open question if developing a Titan IIIM is more cost-effective than simply biting the bullet, finishing 2 cancelled Saturn IBs and building 3 or so more.

Titan IIIM was "developed". SRMs and engines were tested. Even a west coast pad built (but not needed for a CSM). Stages were eventually lengthened. Titan IV was basically a MOL. Just because one wasn't assembled doesn't mean it couldn't be built. The Titan production line was active and producing. Saturn lines were long shut down.

 

[Byeman]

Leaving 5 which were:

• CSM-001 used for systems compatibility test.
• CSM-004 used for static and thermal structural ground tests.
• CSM-006 used for demonstrating tumbling debris removal system.
• CSM-007 used for:
  • Various tests including acoustic vibration and drop tests, and water egress training.
  • The CM was refitted with Block II improvements. It underwent testing for Skylab at the McKinley Climatic Laboratory, Eglin AFB, Florida, 1971–1973.
• CSM-008 a complete systems spacecraft used in thermal vacuum tests.

Therefore, if what was written about CSM-007 is correct, it looks like Block I CSMs could be refitted to Block II standard.

not useable for flight. They were test vehicles and became unflightworthy.

 

[Byeman]

Therefore, according to the man himself, Titan IIIM doesn't exist ITTL.

wrong again.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

@Archibald the Block I CM-007 is on display at on display at Museum of Flight, Seattle, Washington and this is what the museum's website has to say about it.

The Museum's Apollo Command Module, known as CM 007 and CM 007A, is the first production-line capsule delivered to NASA for testing and training. It was originally identical to the Apollo 1 Block 1 spacecraft 012, which experienced the fatal fire. After impact and acoustic testing at the North American plant in Downey, California, CM 007 was delivered to NASA's Manned Spaceflight Center in Houston, Texas on April 18, 1966. It was used for water impact and flotation tests in the Gulf of Mexico. In 1967, CM 007 was sent back to North American for modification to Block II configuration. It was re-designated CM 007A and returned to Houston for qualification tests of the redesigned hatch and other changes mandated by the Apollo 1 accident review board. The module was also used for a 48-hour open water test, crewed by astronauts James A. Lovell, Jr., Stuart A. Roosa, and Charles M. Duke, Jr. in April 1968.

In 1971, CM 007A was transported to Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, for extreme cold testing in support of the Skylab program. It was then stored in Houston until 1988, when it was restored for the Museum by the Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center.

Source: https://www.museumofflight.org/exhi...rican-aviation-one-apollo-command-module-007a

 

[Lascaris]

Idle thought but if you don't have a Vietnam war how likely is you get a full blown 2nd Korean war in 1968 out of the Blue House raid and the Pueblo incident?

 

[Rule of cool]

Probably the best bet would be to build a Block III CSM specifically for long duration Space Station missions. Finishing a pair of Saturn Vs and IBs and building a few more IBs for extra Skylab missions is a hefty budget increase, adding 3 or 4 CSMs for that wouldn't be too outrageous for a budget perspective. A Skylab B could be visited by 1 or 2 '90 day' Block IIs and 3 or 4 '120-150 day' Block IIIs.

In any case 2 or 3 extra moon missions and a 5 visit Skylab B will allow the US to build up a bank of records an firsts that they could ride out between AAP and the Shuttle. They could have the longest space duration, first woman, first non-national, first US minority flights etc. All the stuff the Soviets got with Salyut 6 and 7.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Probably the best bet would be to build a Block III CSM specifically for long duration Space Station missions. Finishing a pair of Saturn Vs and IBs and building a few more IBs for extra Skylab missions is a hefty budget increase, adding 3 or 4 CSMs for that wouldn't be too outrageous for a budget perspective. A Skylab B could be visited by 1 or 2 '90 day' Block IIs and 3 or 4 '120-150 day' Block IIIs.

I broadly agree. That is, I think CSM-102 and 105 are rebuilt as flight rated Block II CSMs (which AFAIK was planned IOTL) to fly on 2 of the 7 extra Saturn IB launches and the rest of the Saturn IBs carry new Block II CSMs. The only Block I CSM to be rebuilt to Block II standard is CSM-007 as IOTL and none of the 3 non-flight rated Block II CSMs in the series 098 to 100 are upgraded to flight rated vehicles.

At present I think that at the very least NASA gets everything it asks for to FY 1967, FY 1968 or even FY 1969. Which means it gets all the money it wants for Apollo, AAP, Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter, the Planetary Program and NERVA to FY 1967, FY 1968 or even FY 1969, including enough money to order 18 extra Saturn IBs and 10 extra Saturn Vs.

Then the cuts begin, but they're between one and 3 years "behind the curve" (if that's the right expression) so at the very least 16 Saturn IB, 17 Saturn V and about 25 Block II Apollo CSMs are completed. And at the very least we have 3 extra Moon landings, 7 extra visits to Skylab A (or a combined total of 10 visits to Skylabs A & B) plus some more/better Moon and planetary probes by the end of 1974.

That leaves 14 extra Saturn IBs and 8 extra Saturn Vs cancelled in the TTL equivalent of the August 1968 cuts in various stages of completion. The result will be the TTL version of me writing treatises which regret that they weren't completed and speculating on what NASA would have done with them it if had been given the money to launch them.

In any case 2 or 3 extra moon missions and a 5 visit Skylab B will allow the US to build up a bank of records an firsts that they could ride out between AAP and the Shuttle. They could have the longest space duration, first woman, first non-national, first US minority flights etc. All the stuff the Soviets got with Salyut 6 and 7.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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.

I didn't remember correctly.

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year 1968 (Events of 1967) US defence spending before 1965 was 7.5% of GNP compared to 9.5% now. Spending on Vietnam was $30B annually and the total defence budget for FY 1968 was $69.9B.

The Book of the Year 1969 (Events of 1968) said the defence budget for FY 1969 was $68.9B including $25.8B in Vietnam and total defence spending was 9.8% of GNP.

The Book of the Year 1970 (Events of 1969) said the defence budget for FY 1970 was $75.0B including $25.4B in Vietnam and total defence spending was 9.2% of GNP.

The Book of the Year 1971 (Events of 1970) said the defence budget for FY 1971 was $73.79B ($4.68B less than FY 1970) including $17B on Vietnam. It didn't say what the percentage of GNP on defence was. However, the table on the approximate strengths of the regular armed forces of the world said 8.6%.

The Book of the Year 1972 (Events of 1971) said the defence budget for FY 1973 was $80B which bought less than the budget for FY 1964. It didn't say how much of that was spent on Vietnam, but it did say that a mixed force of about one division (16,000 men) would replace the current two divisions and two brigades in South Vietnam. The text didn't say what the percentage of GNP spent on defence was. However, the table on the approximate strengths of the regular armed forces of the world said 7.8%.

The Book of the Year 1973 (Events of 1972) said the defence budget for FY 1973 was $83.4B with $76.5B likely to be spent. The withdrawal from Vietnam saved $7.5B that was used to finance the all volunteer armed forces.

 

[Rule of cool]

At present I think that at the very least NASA gets everything it asks for to FY 1967, FY 1968 or even FY 1969. Which means it gets all the money it wants for Apollo, AAP, Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter, the Planetary Program and NERVA to FY 1967, FY 1968 or even FY 1969, including enough money to order 18 extra Saturn IBs and 10 extra Saturn Vs.

Then the cuts begin, but they're between one and 3 years "behind the curve"

I hadn't previously understood this part of your idea, but it makes sense because it's like so many other programmes that start optimistic but encounter financial and politic reality.

 

[Byeman]

Probably the best bet would be to build a Block III CSM specifically for long duration Space Station missions. Finishing a pair of Saturn Vs and IBs and building a few more IBs for extra Skylab missions is a hefty budget increase, adding 3 or 4 CSMs for that wouldn't be too outrageous for a budget perspective. A Skylab B could be visited by 1 or 2 '90 day' Block IIs and 3 or 4 '120-150 day' Block IIIs.

CSMs cost more than a Saturn IB.

 

[Byeman]

@Archibald the Block I CM-007 is on display at on display at Museum of Flight, Seattle, Washington and this is what the museum's website has to say about it.
In 1967, CM 007 was sent back to North American for modification to Block II configuration.

which is misleading. It was refitted with Block I improvements like the hatch.

 

[Byeman]

Allegedly, the cancellation of Apollos 18 and 19 in September 1970 only saved $42.1 million. The hardware had been built, the ground infrastructure (Mission Control, LC39, etc.) had to be kept open for Skylab.*

Not just congress's fault, NASA also didn't want to risk any more lunar missions using Apollo hardware.
That is the fallacy with these alternative timelines.

 

[Rule of cool]

CSMs cost more than a Saturn IB.

Which is likely a large part of why grandiose plans of 1967 or so won't be completed even if they are started. In any case there is no immediate alternative and the CSM is a lot of spacecraft compared to Gemini and Soyuz, so high cost doesn't necessarily equate to poor value for money.

 

[publiusr]

high cost doesn't necessarily equate to poor value for money.

I wish more people understood that.

 

[RedLegion]

Only the cost-effectiveness is poor. A 22-ton launcher, and you're taking three crew members and several dozen kilograms of cargo. First, the launch vehicle itself needs to be modified, as it no longer needs to leave lunar orbit. Additionally, the CSM's capacity needs to be increased. So the question arises whether it wouldn't be better to build a new vehicle.

 

[Rule of cool]

Only the cost-effectiveness is poor. A 22-ton launcher, and you're taking three crew members and several dozen kilograms of cargo. First, the launch vehicle itself needs to be modified, as it no longer needs to leave lunar orbit. Additionally, the CSM's capacity needs to be increased. So the question arises whether it wouldn't be better to build a new vehicle.

In general, over the medium term the CSM's cost effectiveness is poor and NASA does need to build a new vehicle, which they did by pursuing the Space Shuttle.

However from the perspective of the late 60s wanting some spacecraft to conduct AAP missions in the early-mid 70s there is no better option available. Trying for a big Gemini or some other spacecraft and perhaps developing a new version of the Titan III to launch it, then building, testing and man-rating all of that will take time and money that will eat into any lower costs that might be expected from such a course of action. That course of action would also be more vulnerable to cancellation than building a few more Saturn IBs and LEO CSMs, and cancellation is the ultimate in dead money.

 

[Byeman]

Which is likely a large part of why grandiose plans of 1967 or so won't be completed even if they are started. In any case there is no immediate alternative and the CSM is a lot of spacecraft compared to Gemini and Soyuz, so high cost doesn't necessarily equate to poor value for money.

That isn't the point. You made sound like adding more CSMs was less than adding more CSMs

Payloads generally are more expensive than the launch vehicle.

 

[Byeman]

high cost doesn't necessarily equate to poor value for money.

I wish more people understood that.

It doesn't apply for most topics that you post on. Nothing justifies the high cost of SLS.

 

[Rule of cool]

That isn't the point. You made sound like adding more CSMs was less than adding more CSMs

Payloads generally are more expensive than the launch vehicle.

No, my point is if a few extra Saturn Vs are built at ~$110m a pop, and a few more Saturn IBs at ~$45m a pop then then they'll find the money for a few more CSMs at ~$70m a pop.

Indeed, given the whole point of the rockets is to launch spacecraft, the extra CSMs will come first and how many rockets they'll need will come afterwards.

 

[Rule of cool]

It doesn't apply for most topics that you post on. Nothing justifies the high cost of SLS.

That's a value judgement that others don't share.

 

[Byeman]

That's a value judgement that others don't share.

There are many in the industry that share it and even many at NASA. The only value is as a jobs program, which was the reason for its existence.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

From SP-4012v1 NASA Historical Data Book
Page 118 of Book and Page 119 of PDF
Table 4-4. Requests, Authorizations, Appropriations, Obligations, and Disbursements-All Appropriations
(in millions of dollars)​

Footnotes

1. The Obligations and Expenditures are actual obligations and disbursements during the fiscal year.
2. The FY 1959 Budget Requests for NACA/NASA amounted to $280,054,000. Requests for transfers from DOD resulted in the transfer of $146,619,532 in obligational authority to NASA.
3. For the FY 1959 Authorization and the Total Authorization see the next three tables for the derivation of these figures.
4. The FY 1959 Authorisation includes $101,100,000 appropriated to NACA, $83,186,300 to NASA, and $146,619,532 transferred from DOD.
5. The FY 1960 Appropriation includes $38,500,000 based on FY 1959 authorization P.L. 86-12.
6. The amounts FY 1961's second line are unobligated balances transferred from DOD ($1,661,488 R&D; $1,070,005 Construction of Facilities).
7. The FY 1962 Authorization includes $71,000,000 supplemental for Construction of Facilities for which existing authorization was available.
8. The FY 1965 Budget Request includes $141,000,000 supplemental request for FY 1964 R&D program.
9. The FY 1965 Appropriation includes $72,494,000 R&D supplemental against FY 1964 authorization.

Source: NASA, Office of Administration, Budget Operations Division, "Budget History, Summary All Appropriations," Jan. 18, 1968; Tables 4-8 through 4-17 of this chapter.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I don't recall where I found this.
Table 8: United States Space Budget
(18-year budget summary - budget authority in millions of dollars)


Is the large reduction in the DoD's space spending between FY 1969 and FY 1970 due to the cancelation of MOL in 1969?​

 

[Byeman]

I don't recall where I found this.
Table 8: United States Space Budget
(18-year budget summary- budget authority in millions of dollars)
View attachment 784162

Is the large reduction in the DoD's space spending between FY 1969 and FY 1970 due to the cancelation of MOL in 1969?​

Likely, but this wouldn't include the NRO.
Launch rates were dropping off and Thor Agena was going away and SLC-6 was finished in the same timeframe.
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4366/1

 

[BlueAbyssal]

That's a value judgement that others don't share.

I share it, and so do many others. You are still correct that high cost doesn’t intrinsically mean poor value, but then one has to be able to have a discussion of what value means, and be able to persuade others to agree, or at least explain why one holds those values.

To the topic, I don’t think the Vietnam War had much material impact on Apollo. If the government had valued it, it could have found the money regardless. The goal Kennedy announced practically guaranteed the program would end once that goal was achieved, as those responsible for funding it would have little reason to keep doing so.

 

[Rule of cool]

I share it, and so do many others. You are still correct that high cost doesn’t intrinsically mean poor value, but then one has to be able to have a discussion of what value means, and be able to persuade others to agree, or at least explain why one holds those values.

As mentioned above, it did have some value as a job creator. That said, I don't disagree, I think the extra production mooted in this thread would be because a big AAP was started but then cut way short because of the lack of a great goal once the Moon has been achieved.

To the topic, I don’t think the Vietnam War had much material impact on Apollo. If the government had valued it, it could have found the money regardless. The goal Kennedy announced practically guaranteed the program would end once that goal was achieved, as those responsible for funding it would have little reason to keep doing so.

I don't think anyone would be saying 'since we don't have to spend $20b on a war in S.E.A. let's throw a few bucks to NASA. However, there would be somewhat less pressure on both the budget and on the politicians coming out of the war. Additionally, the absence of a proxy war the Apollo programme is part of the Cold War competition, so a touch more funding and a later decline isn't an outrageous suggestion.