Author Topic: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?  (Read 138463 times)

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #160 on: 12/10/2014 04:57 pm »
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.

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
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.

Oh and just for the heck of it an SLA-based lander vehicle :)

Randy
Land a Saturn 1B ( wet ) US as a Lunar habitat ( base ). Outfit in on the moon. Could give good volume but need many modifications.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #161 on: 12/10/2014 07:00 pm »
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.
I understood the wet-launch modules actually I was just thinking outloud that something like the old "wheel-station" would probably worse maintenance and upgrade wise :)

Multiple smaller modules would probably work "better" but going through all those hatches is going to be a pain :)

Quote
Land a Saturn 1B ( wet ) US as a Lunar habitat ( base ). Outfit in on the moon. Could give good volume but need many modifications.

There was a study of using a landed S-IVB stage, (outfitted with two RL10s for landing motors) to deliver cargo and materials to the lunar surface. Lunar Aplication of Spent Stage or LASS:
http://www.wired.com/2012/11/skylab-on-the-moon-1966/
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apossivb.htm
among others...

Main problem was the usual with wet-stages in the amount of physical labor involved in the conversion. Seriously would have benifited from better space suits and more automation.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline truth is life

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 278
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #162 on: 12/10/2014 07:25 pm »
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.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #163 on: 12/10/2014 08:18 pm »
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.

The main "fault" of the wet-workshop ideas was always the amount of labor needed to get them up and running along with the relative low viability of using a spent stage as pressurized volume. It was never a clear "winner" in any catagory other than you HAD the stage on-orbit... :)

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline truth is life

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 278
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #164 on: 12/10/2014 10:35 pm »
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.

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.

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.

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.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #165 on: 12/11/2014 08:34 am »
Quote
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.

The Agena D (or the -E variant that was never build) would have been an interesting option. There were tons of Agena buses 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.
« Last Edit: 12/12/2014 04:27 pm by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #166 on: 12/11/2014 07:02 pm »
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.

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 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.

Spacelab is a good name for Skylab-II and as you mention later I think with an earlier decision point it could have been a much better follow-on. Somewhere I once had a space station student study/concept for a Skylab follow on called STARlab but I can't seem to find it now.

Quote
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.

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 :) )

Upgrades of the Apollo guidance computer systems would eventually allow unmanned operations to some extent. I can see a couple of these attached to an advanced Apollo lunar stack as TMI boosters that loop back to LEO after boost for refueling and other missions :)

Quote
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.

PD under the circumstances would have to be between the Apollo-1 fire (1967) and Nixon taking office (1969) with NASA being willing to continue to use the Apollo hardware but realizing the hostile nature of political support (or lack thereof actually) and public support fall off at the same time. The decision on the three cancled missions happened in 1970, the Space Task Group report was issued in late 1969 and the obvious lack of support for the Apollo Application Project and the disastrious Integrated Program Plan all happened around the same time so despite the Saturn-1 production being already shut down I feel that around that point is where some tough decisions would have to be made in any case. With no futher Saturn-Vs to be had the fist dropped mission is a given because of the need to launch the Skylab-1 station. Supposedly the next two cancellations were a form of attempted horse-trading with Nixon for future support. Given the recommendations in the 1969 Space Task Group and what Nixon actually offered to NASA I'd have assumed this was obviously not going to work but I wasn't there so I've only hind-sight to go on :)

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 Shuttle
2) A small but possibly incremental LEO space station program using Apollo LV and hardware
3) Continued lunar and planetary exploration and bases

Number 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 :)

In a lot of ways going with number two is a lot more risky but at the same time allows more opportunities than number one even though it would be very hard to see at this point.

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 :) )

Quote
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.

It's most likley an accurte feeling I'd say :) But in a lot of cases "converted" or at least "based-on" might make a lot more sense and be cheaper than using dedicated hardware everywhere. In the case of the proposed modules I've been using the LAS-module though it fits where the SLMAS panels and LEM would be IS a dedicated module rather than a conversion. And I suspect that using the tooling of various equipment would allow cheaper and more rapid build up of speciality modules and parts as well.
My "feeling" :)

Randy
« Last Edit: 12/11/2014 07:02 pm by RanulfC »
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #167 on: 12/11/2014 07:10 pm »
Quote
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.

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.

Some information along that line:
Shuttle Agena reusable upper stage study:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740023215.pdf

I'm pretty sure there was an earlier study as a stand-alone but I can't seem to find it right now.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #168 on: 12/11/2014 09:21 pm »
Still reading the history and it would seem to me that 1972 is the 'drop-dead' deadline. You have to have something "in-place" or it will end up being the Shuttle by default and that will be the WHOLE of the "program" NASA gets if not prevented.

Everything up to and including the Apollo-1 fire seem pretty "set" and at that time (1967) everything is a frantic rush to meet the imposed deadline with some impressive but "afterthought" thinking of the future beyond that point. It won't be till after Apollo-11 (1969) that NASA can actually think beyond the lunar landing and by then its pretty much too late to change without "a miracle occurs" type butterflying. Even then I suspect the butterflies will need to be the size and power of a B-52 to get anything done :)

Kennedy apperantly told Webb that "asides" would not be allowed and NASA was going to the Moon and nothing BUT the Moon under his direction.
Johnson might have had some flexability but Nixon certainly had none. 1967 looks like the pivotal year really and into 1968 and Johnson a key player in many respects.

Politics again, sorry about that :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #169 on: 12/12/2014 04:54 am »
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
« Last Edit: 12/14/2014 09:10 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2191
  • Likes Given: 4620
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #170 on: 12/14/2014 09:51 pm »
Great idea, Ed.  But how much would you have to modify the Atlas to air-start?
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #171 on: 12/15/2014 04:28 am »
Great idea, Ed.  But how much would you have to modify the Atlas to air-start?
I envisioned using three LR105 sustainer engines on the Atlas stage, eliminating the booster package (the sustainers were optimized for vacuum ISP).  Although those were always ground-start engines, I believe that an air-start variant could have been created since they were gas generator cycle engines.  Use of three LR105 engines would also have allowed for deletion of the vernier engines.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 12/15/2014 04:30 am by edkyle99 »

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #172 on: 12/15/2014 03:43 pm »
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 your photoshop skills put my simple paint cut-and-paste to shame, wonderful! :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2191
  • Likes Given: 4620
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #173 on: 12/16/2014 01:17 am »
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.

Wicked-looking stack, though.
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #174 on: 12/16/2014 04:14 am »
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.
The third stage would have been a standard Centaur, which Atlas was already carrying on Atlas-Centaur launches.  The Atlas would likewise have used standard length tanks, perhaps beefed up a bit to handle bending loads.  As for the "thin" skin and its ability to carry heavy loads, see attached!

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 12/16/2014 04:25 am by edkyle99 »

Offline carmelo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #175 on: 12/16/2014 06:37 pm »
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.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #176 on: 12/18/2014 10:21 pm »
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.

Well, in real history there was no need.  Apollo was always piloted.  Our only Space station of that era was Skylab and that didn't require any additional modules to be docked in orbit.  Then we shifted to the Space Shuttle which also by design would always be piloted.  Conceptual space station would be constructed using shuttles with manipulator arms, just like the US portion of the ISS was.

The soviets developed it because they went along a different path.  They had no HLV with the cancellation of N-1, so they had to start with 20-ish tonne modules that Proton could loft, which was Salyut.  When they wanted more than one module, they developed the tech for remote docking so more than one could dock remotely in LEO.  That became the base of Mir.  And later the Russian portion of the ISS.

So we just never needed it.  But I'm sure we could have developed it easily enough in this timeline where Saturn 1B would be our "Proton" launcher.  And in truth, we wouldn't have really needed it until probably the 80's if we'd flown Skylab B, and had converted another S-IVB into a "Skylab C" and launched it on the last Saturn V that was built to launch Apollo 20.  Assuming Skylab B would have lasted longer than Skylab, and a brand new Skylab C to be even longer than that as it could be built with those lessons specifically in mind.  While Skylab B was built as a duplicate to Skylab, it could have/would have been modified prior to launch with lessons learned from Skylab as practicable.  I would feel confident to assume that it would have been modified to allow for at least a limited amount of resupply.  Skylab could have supported at least a 4th mission, and perhaps several with the amount of resupply it actually -was- capable of.  But even if we just say in our timeline Skylab was used for 5 missions.  Skylab B is modified to more readily be resupplied, and a few other tweaks like a 2nd Apollo docking port, so the crews can overlap as they rotate so it can be continuously manned.  So maybe Skylab B lasts for 10-12 missions conservatively. 
Then Skylab C is built specifically to be resupplied by Apollo CSM's.  It should last for several more.  15-20 perhaps.  That probably takes us to near 1980 before we need to look at a new type of modular space station that would require the modules to be remotely docked in LEO like Mir.  And by the 80's the tech would definately be there for it without any issues.

Might even happen before that if NASA were to make an unmanned Apollo CSM to bring large amounts of supplies up to Skylab C, and also take away garbage for both destructive and non desctructive reentry.  Remote docking would be necessary a little sooner in that case. 

 

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #177 on: 12/18/2014 10:32 pm »
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

Ed,

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.  It would get them Titian IVA (Titan 3M) performance, but not Titan IVB performance.  So they'd probably be looking for something that could be upgraded to get that Titan IVB (D4H) performance range as the replacement for the Titan III's in this timeline.
Maybe as an interim LV in the late 80's timeframe, sort of like Titan IVA was, but it should be much cheaper as it would share much with their existing Atlas MLV's. 

Still pretty cool concept though!

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #178 on: 12/18/2014 10:58 pm »
That's using an Atlas II core?
No.  I modeled this using the Atlas stage that was flying at the time with Centaur. 
Quote
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.
Surprisingly, the Saturn-Atlas-Centaur that I modeled would have matched or outperformed the "Saturn IB-Centaur" that NASA wanted until 1965, at least to GTO and beyond. 
Quote
But USAF could be interested in it as a replacement for the Titan's in that 1990's time frame.  .....
My thinking is that NASA and the Air Force would have stayed on their respective separate paths, keeping everyone happy.  NASA would have used a Saturn based rocket rather than Shuttle, augmented by its Atlas Centaur and Delta vehicles.  USAF would have kept flying Titan, augmented by its own Thor and Atlas vehicles.  At some point, everything would have been spun off to commercial services.   

 - Ed Kyle

Offline truth is life

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 278
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #179 on: 12/19/2014 05:08 pm »
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 :)
Well, of course I mean "need" as in "need for current operations" :) I do agree that in-space operations of various sorts are needed for a realistic exploration program beyond Earth orbit, but there's not universal support for either that viewpoint or beyond-Earth orbit exploration, so there hasn't been much support for development on space tugs or other in-space infrastructure that don't have any immediate uses.

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.
Well, in this alternate timeline or the Apollo-Titan one, a space tug of some sort--whether SM-derived or Agena-derived or brand-new--would certainly be needed to support further station development, just in order to rendezvous and dock modules with the base station.

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 :) )
Putting an LM on would be a waste, as again it's mass you just don't need, not with automatic controls of the sort the Soviets demonstrated. If they could do it with Progress, TKS, and Mir, the United States certainly could have.

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 Shuttle
2) A small but possibly incremental LEO space station program using Apollo LV and hardware
3) Continued lunar and planetary exploration and bases

Number 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 :)
Well, there were a variety of factors. Getting the development money needed for #1 was far from certain, and if there's anything NASA does well, it's minimizing development cost even at the expense of operations. It's not too implausible that different interactions between the White House, Congress, and NASA leadership lead the latter to conclude that they just aren't going to get the money needed to develop a Shuttle; in that case, building something out of the old Apollo hardware begins to look attractive. It could be sold, internally speaking, as providing some place for a Shuttle to go, once everyone comes to their senses and agrees to pay for developing one. After all, the Shuttle was conceptually envisioned as a resupply vehicle for space stations early on.

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 :) )

Again, see the above. "We're building a station. Once we finish the station, we can show that building a shuttle will be the most efficient way to support it, and Congress and the White House will give us the budget we deserve." It would be essentially the reverse of the real world's logic for abandoning space station development during the 1970s in favor of a focus on shuttle development, where it was "we're going to build the shuttle, and it will be so efficient that we'll get the go-ahead to build our station".

Tags: Saturn IB saturn 1B 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1