Quote from: RocketmanUS on 12/10/2014 01:44 amWet launch of the Saturn 1B US could have been used for unpressurised usage. Add meteorite shielding to outside and means to have a hatch or two. For a pressurized usage add again the meteorite shielding on the outside would have to be able to add hatches ( docking and or EVA ) to ends and possible the sides. Have with connection points to install what is needed for crew use. Add components once hatches are installed and connected to station core ( most likely on one of the ends, not side ).Add a new core to the rear of the old. Move any of the add on modules that were still new to the new core with a robotic arm. Deorbit the old core and modules. Also a way to start a new station and detach the new station from the older one. That's the general idea of this type of station but I wonder how practical it really is? A monolithic station is probably worse but we didn't know that then and we've not really tried either.Randy
Wet launch of the Saturn 1B US could have been used for unpressurised usage. Add meteorite shielding to outside and means to have a hatch or two. For a pressurized usage add again the meteorite shielding on the outside would have to be able to add hatches ( docking and or EVA ) to ends and possible the sides. Have with connection points to install what is needed for crew use. Add components once hatches are installed and connected to station core ( most likely on one of the ends, not side ).Add a new core to the rear of the old. Move any of the add on modules that were still new to the new core with a robotic arm. Deorbit the old core and modules. Also a way to start a new station and detach the new station from the older one.
Oh and just for the heck of it an SLA-based lander vehicle Randy
No, ( to clear up line of thinking ) not a single module monolithic station. Wet launch module to add to the station, for unpressurised, pressurised volume or combination.
Land a Saturn 1B ( wet ) US as a Lunar habitat ( base ). Outfit in on the moon. Could give good volume but need many modifications.
The conclusion of the engineers involved in the Skylab project, once they started doing testing on the idea, was that the wet-workshop idea wasn't a very good one due to the difficulty of the labor involved in the conversion, from what I've read.
I'm more inclined to think that a program based on the Saturn IB or Titan would have built a station (past Skylab or Skylab B) out of smaller modules, much like ISS or Mir, to avoid the trouble of cleaning up a used propellant tank while in flight. Some type of tug (whether separate or integral) would be needed to maneuver them to the station, of course.
In my opinion, such a station would be pretty certain since stations would have to be the PoR for Apollo to continue in use rather than being retired in favor of some type of shuttle. Skylab and Skylab B have limited endurance, even if you assume modifications to Skylab B to allow resupply, on-orbit maintenance, and whatever else would be needed to allow it to be used indefinitely, so launching a new station after those would be rather likely--doing otherwise would pretty much mean that the United States would be giving up on human spaceflight, at least when it would probably have to be approved (some time around 1980), given that a return to the Moon wouldn't be a very likely near-term prospect.
One good thing about the Apollo-CM/SM combination was that it pretty much COULD be a "tug" all on its own where as most lifting-body/winged vehicles don't really do this as well if at all. On the other hand any orbital program is going to benifit from the development of in-space tug stages especially with extensive station operations. I've never really understood why that's such an opposed option today.
As I pointed out I'd like to think that there'd be a third "station" launched by the last Saturn-V which would be the 'core' of an expanded and expanding station throughout the 1980s. Skylab-B/II was already built and I don't see to many changes possible at that point so any significant work would have to start pretty much from scratch. In that mode though I can easily see them fitting it out as the core of a new-generation station to keep the US in the HSF game. And given such a more "head-to-head" one-up-manship with the Soviets over orbital operations I suspect getting an actual orbital tug and associated in-space stage might actually have been easier.
Mostly the expense of doing so and the lack of need. It was pretty popular back in the 1970s and 1980s, after all, what with all the studies of building one and the near-miss of ESA almost agreeing to provide it to NASA as their contribution, only for the Air Force to object and the Europeans switching to Spacelab (a good name for Skylab II or III, I might note). There's a lot of people, such as Zubrin, who seem to think that extensive in-orbit operations are or were a mistake, too.And yes, I was thinking of the SM as a tug while I was writing that Probably not the CM so much, that's 6 tons of mass you don't need if you're just moving around station modules; I imagine that the United States would develop at least Progress-level AR&D capabilities in any alternate history where they were doing station instead of shuttle, so it should be possible to build an SM(-derived) tug that doesn't need people on board.
Quote from: RanulfC on 12/10/2014 08:18 pmOne good thing about the Apollo-CM/SM combination was that it pretty much COULD be a "tug" all on its own where as most lifting-body/winged vehicles don't really do this as well if at all. On the other hand any orbital program is going to benifit from the development of in-space tug stages especially with extensive station operations. I've never really understood why that's such an opposed option today.Mostly the expense of doing so and the lack of need. It was pretty popular back in the 1970s and 1980s, after all, what with all the studies of building one and the near-miss of ESA almost agreeing to provide it to NASA as their contribution, only for the Air Force to object and the Europeans switching to Spacelab (a good name for Skylab II or III, I might note). There's a lot of people, such as Zubrin, who seem to think that extensive in-orbit operations are or were a mistake, too.
And yes, I was thinking of the SM as a tug while I was writing that Probably not the CM so much, that's 6 tons of mass you don't need if you're just moving around station modules; I imagine that the United States would develop at least Progress-level AR&D capabilities in any alternate history where they were doing station instead of shuttle, so it should be possible to build an SM(-derived) tug that doesn't need people on board.
Given the extremely strong NASA lobby in favor of Shuttle during the 1970s up to the actual selection, my feeling is that if you want a station to be the PoR during the 1970s, something needs to change before that, about 1968 or 1969. Certainly if, as in the first post of the Titan thread, the STG is changed, that implies changes in 1968-1969. At that time, Skylab is in very early development, so it wouldn't be too much for them to make Skylab B less of a direct copy of Skylab and more of a successor station. It's also early enough that the decisions about which missions to cancel haven't fully played out, so it's not guaranteed that there will be another free Saturn V and upper stage to convert.
I also suspect that NASA will want to move on to dedicated hardware (rather than converted upper stages) sooner rather than later, given what they talked about in the very early Shuttle period, but that's more of a feeling.
QuoteMostly the expense of doing so and the lack of need. It was pretty popular back in the 1970s and 1980s, after all, what with all the studies of building one and the near-miss of ESA almost agreeing to provide it to NASA as their contribution, only for the Air Force to object and the Europeans switching to Spacelab (a good name for Skylab II or III, I might note). There's a lot of people, such as Zubrin, who seem to think that extensive in-orbit operations are or were a mistake, too.And yes, I was thinking of the SM as a tug while I was writing that Probably not the CM so much, that's 6 tons of mass you don't need if you're just moving around station modules; I imagine that the United States would develop at least Progress-level AR&D capabilities in any alternate history where they were doing station instead of shuttle, so it should be possible to build an SM(-derived) tug that doesn't need people on board.The Agena D (or the -E variant that was never build) would have been an interesting option. There were tons of Agena bus flying all kind of missions - from hundreds of KH-7 / 8 spysats to Seasat radar satellite, and of course the Gemini program had used the Agena as a target. Even better, Lockheed actually proposed the Agena as a shuttle tug back in the 72-75 era - first an expendable variant, later a reusable one. The Agena had a HUGE potential - it could have been America very own FGB.
Great idea, Ed. But how much would you have to modify the Atlas to air-start?
Just for fun. Saturn Atlas Centaur. Able to out lift Titan 3C, 3E, and 34D using engines shared by other then-existing NASA launch vehicles. Would today require an Atlas 5-431 or Delta 4M+5,4 to beat.
My only other thought lies with the structural strength of the Atlas. Looking at that wonderful imagineering of yours, Ed, I recall the *very* thin skin of the Atlas, and its relatively weak structural strength. I keep wondering if that oversized upper stage and fairing would crumple the Atlas as it stood on the pad up there.
Why United States in 60s/70s not developed systems for a automatic rendez vous and docking between space modules in orbit?Is maybe the most logical method for built Space Stations.For exemple two Saturn IB launch could assemble a whole station.
Just for fun. Saturn Atlas Centaur. Able to out lift Titan 3C, 3E, and 34D using engines shared by other then-existing NASA launch vehicles. Would today require an Atlas 5-431 or Delta 4M+5,4 to beat. - Ed Kyle
That's using an Atlas II core?
I can't see NASA wanting to use it as they'd already be using the Saturn 1B which with Centaur, would outlift the Titan 3's already (especially with a few minor upgrades). And the S-IVB was man-rated where the Atlas II core was not.
But USAF could be interested in it as a replacement for the Titan's in that 1990's time frame. .....
And a lot of people think we NEED both the experiance and capability extensive on-orbit ops will bring to move forward That's the fun part after all
The problem with that argument under this scenerio is that we HAVE in fact been doing much more orbital operations than IRL so trying to use "but we didn't do that for Apollo" as an example has a lot less attraction.
My thought, (see below) would be mounting a modified LM ascent stage on an SM for a tug. Beefed up structure and removing two of the propellant tanks to provide bays for "heavy" manipulator arms while have a pair of "light-duty" arms on the LS itself. The "circle" on the front instead of the porch/ladder would be an airlock for EVA without de-pressurizing the LM itself. (Really love cut-and-paste in Paint at times )
Still, I don't see NASA "stopping" the Lunar missions after Apollo-11 and after Apollo-13 they would "require" ending on a successful note at any rate so we'd probably have everything up to Apollo-14 at least. Administrator Paine seems to have had a very biased view of what he could get from the Nixon administration and Congress (WVB on the other hand was well of the opinion that even Apollo level funding and support was inevtiably going to go away once the lunar landing goal was achieved and he was correct) and that view as completely at odds with the reality. The STG report is positive and seems to support what would become the Integrated Progam Plan (http://www.wired.com/2012/04/integrated-program-plan-maximum-rate-traffic-model-1970/) but the fact was Paine was specificaly told he was looking at a serious drop in both support and funding and it should have been obvious that the IPP wasn't going to happen. Not as a whole.So the choices pretty much boil down to:1) Building a Space Shuttle2) A small but possibly incremental LEO space station program using Apollo LV and hardware3) Continued lunar and planetary exploration and basesNumber three (3) was out there was no support and there would be no budget for it. Number one (1) was the most attractive of course since it went with the feeling that a reusable, winged space shuttle would be the "key" to continued space operations on a regular (and inexpensive) basis but it would pretty much mean dumping all the existing Apollo hardware and operations for a new set up and vehicle. (There was some support for trying to adapt Apollo technology for use in such a vehicle but never enough and the need to reapportion and gain political support in more states pretty much ended that idea real fast)Finally number two (2) would allow the continued use (and one would assume the restrarting of at least some of the production of) some of the Apollo hardware and systems already developed but would seem mostly likely to be "stuck" in that mode for who knows how long. So I suppose even in hind-sight, if number three (3) is right out of the two choices left only number one (1) makes any real sense unless as postulated here "someone" steps forward and makes some hind-sigh induced 'better' decisions
Continuing with the concept of the thread the harderst part will be convincing the "shuttle/reusable space craft" folks that you can still work on that using the Apollo hardware without going into a dedicated and expensive new vehicle development program. (I'm pretty sure that using the line "I'm from the future and know better" is really NOT going to work out )