What if Apollo/Saturn Had never been Cancelled?

[Lobo]

Would there have been any reason to, at some point in the future, redesign the SIVB to make it 10m diameter too?  So there was a uniform 10m diameter on all the stages?

You'd already probably develop a 10m PLF for the ENT-21, so that you could launch payloads like a Skylab size space station module, without needing it to be exposed to the atmosphere during lauch.

If you had a 10m SIVB, then you could use that same PLF that would have been developed for ENT-21 on the Actual SAturn V for super heavy lift cargo.  A variant of it could hold Apollo on top for a wide body payload under it (as Direct proposed for Orion on Jupiter). 

Seems to be that would be a logical evolution at some point.  the 10m SIVB could be used on ENT-20 too, stacked directly on S1C without the need for the tapered interstage.
But the 6.6m SIVB would be pleanty for quite some time after 1974 I imagine.

[Lars_J]

Why 10m diameter? It would seem more prudent to design a smaller Saturn, especially if there are no immediate Moon or Mars missions.

Just like now, I think 50-70mT would the sweet spot in affordability/capability for a NASA HLV.

[Cherokee43v6]

Since we're in this speculation mode, it reminded me of a movie I saw as a kid.  One of those really bad 70's disaster movies, I think it was called 'Meteor'.  In it they used a Skylab style station as a deep space exploration ship.

In the back of my mind, I still find that one concept intriguing.  Especially as compared to the perceived fragility of the ISS.

How feasible would it have been to create such a ship based on that platform... allowing that it would have required additional launches for fuel and provisioning.

[Downix]

Since we're in this speculation mode, it reminded me of a movie I saw as a kid.  One of those really bad 70's disaster movies, I think it was called 'Meteor'.  In it they used a Skylab style station as a deep space exploration ship.

In the back of my mind, I still find that one concept intriguing.  Especially as compared to the perceived fragility of the ISS.

How feasible would it have been to create such a ship based on that platform... allowing that it would have required additional launches for fuel and provisioning.

That was explored actually in the Apollo Applications Program.  The Venus exploration ship was, fundimentally, a modified Skylab platform.  Only it did not need extra launches for fuel and provisioning.  The docking system (in the LEM space of the S-IVB) and capsule had the lions share of the provisions.  The S-IVB Skylab unit itself had the fuel... in the living area.  Wet lab at it's finest.  Launch to orbit, use the Skylab itself for the orbital escape burn.  Live in the empty fuel tanks.

[demorcef]

Since we're in this speculation mode, it reminded me of a movie I saw as a kid.  One of those really bad 70's disaster movies, I think it was called 'Meteor'. 

Meteor was a kick butt film!

[RyanC]

I did cost calculations for STS development costs a bit back and individually inflated each year's outlay to 2010 dollars in the tables below:

Raw data was from SP-4012 Volumes III and V.

Year   STS (Total)
1970   $70.25
1971   $422.33
1972   $522.00
1973   $975.00
1974   $2,099.50
1975   $3,229.88
1976   $4,618.98
1977   $5,087.16
1978   $4,506.33
1979   $4,914.90
1980   $4,958.15
1981   $4,788.00
Total   $36,192.48
   
Year   STS (Orbiter)
1970   $46.65
1971   $252.86
1972   $78.30
1973   $684.85
1974   $1,605.01
1975   $2,570.77
1976   $3,321.89
1977   $3,237.84
1978   $2,715.62
1979   $2,796.90
1980   $3,218.43
1981   $3,094.80
Total   $23,803.91
   
Year   STS (SSME)
1970   $23.60
1971   $112.44
1972   $235.42
1973   $199.07
1974   $363.80
1975   $385.97
1976   $539.26
1977   $655.92
1978   $659.32
1979   Unknown
1980   Unknown
1981   Unknown
Total   $3,174.80 (1970-78)

Year   STS (SRB)
1970   $0.00
1971   $0.00
1972   $0.00
1973   $8.35
1974   $37.87
1975   $85.63
1976   $314.98
1977   $361.44
1978   $350.69
1979   Unknown
1980   Unknown
1981   Unknown
Total   $1,158.95 (1970-78)

Year   STS (ET)
1970   $0.00
1971   $0.00
1972   $0.00
1973   $0.00
1974   $80.00
1975   $137.70
1976   $251.63
1977   $302.40
1978   $294.02
1979   Unknown
1980   Unknown
1981   Unknown
Total   $1,065.75 (1970-78)

[Mike D]

Skylab was never meant to be resupplied, so even if Apollo hadbe extended, the station would only have had one or two missions left to it.

A follow-on station, however, would have been soon realized.

In fact, the answer to all of this is seen in the Russian space program over the same decades.  They kept their "Apollo", and developed space stations that evolved from their Skylab (Salyut 1) to the Mir Space Station.  We would have done the same, but in the end, our "Mir" would have been a vast cluster of Skylabs.

[aquanaut99]

Skylab was never meant to be resupplied, so even if Apollo hadbe extended, the station would only have had one or two missions left to it.

A follow-on station, however, would have been soon realized.

In fact, the answer to all of this is seen in the Russian space program over the same decades.  They kept their "Apollo", and developed space stations that evolved from their Skylab (Salyut 1) to the Mir Space Station.  We would have done the same, but in the end, our "Mir" would have been a vast cluster of Skylabs.

Which is, more or less, exactly the scenario I presented. Our "Mir" is called "Spacelab" in this timeline, with larger 30+ ton modules.

[Archibald]

This is an excellent question, which I have often asked myself! I actually came to quite similar conclusions.

I'm assuming Shuttle is cancelled in 1971 for budget reasons.

I'm assuming that, too.
 I'm writting this very (alternative) history for a looooong moment - 4 years, and 350 pages so far. Big work in progress. No hope of ever been published, but it is a hell interesting intellectual excercise !

Nixon is not interested in and allocates no money for a lunar return. Instead, NASA's new mission is to be LEO space stations to match recent Soviet developments (and a possible threat of military space stations, which, as we now know, actually flew as Almaz).

Amen to that !

The first big fight is whether to continue the Saturn/Apollo line or whether to centralize everything on the Titan launcher.

Indeed. It is a very interesting question. Another headache is: Block III Apollo or Big Gemini ?

In this scenario, I'm assuming Airforce will oppose making Titan available for manned launches (they want to keep their own booster), so the Saturn line will be continued and used for NASA manned missions.

There we diverge. The way I see it, the damn OMB is quite able to force USAF to concede Titan IIIs to NASA, if that save money when compared to either Saturn or the Shuttle.
OMB put a hellish pressure on NASA, its contractors, and the economists.

What happened was that, late 1971 the shuttle program was a train wreck. NASA had essentially lost control, and OMB had took over. Weinberger muttered in Nixon ear much better that Fletcher...

However, the Saturn V and Saturn IB will both be retired after flying their last missions.

Yep. What boosters remain will be recycled for space station buildup.

NASA proposes to replace them with a New Saturn (based on the INT-20 http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/satint20.htm). This vehicle can be flown in the 2, 3 or 4 F-1A version with a payload to LEO of around 22 up to around 64mT. It would replace both the Saturn IB and be a launcher for future "wet-workshop" derived Skylabs. It will be called Saturn 2, 3 or 4 (depending on the number of engines and with Arabic numerals to set itself apart from the previous generation) .

I have a crush on the Saturn INT-20, too. But it is oversized...

So, I would guess maybe the following timeline:

Up to 1975 (ASTP), as actually happened.

Development of INT-20 continues apace along with the F-1A and J-2S, which is now also optimized for mass production and cost reduction. Pad-39B is reconfigured, with a new permanent access tower for the 85m Saturn 2/3/4. Also, development of the block III Apollo (smaller, lighter SM, and solar panels, optimized for LEO work, up to 5 man crew).

Then:

1976: Maiden flight of Saturn 2
1977: Launch of Skylab-5, using a Saturn 2 and block II leftover. Around 90 days in orbit,
1978: Launch of Skylab-6, using the new block III, 4 man crew, station reboost, 70 days. Skylab B is cancelled for good, instead development of Spacelab, a modular spacestation based on 35 ton blocks to be launched by Saturn 3 and assembled on orbit.
1979: Skylab-7 (4 man, 100 days). Last Skylab flight because the station has major problems, cutting mission short after only 32 days. Maiden flight of Saturn 3.

1981: Launch of Spacelab-A (core module, unmanned, on Saturn 3). Development of Apollo Block-IV, capable of loitering for 200 days) and Apollo-C (cargo version). Maiden flight of Apollo IV in LEO.
1982: Launch of Spacelab-B (hab module, on Saturn 3) and Spacelab-1 (first crew, 3 man, EVA assembly of Spacelab). Spacelab-2 continues assembly. Maiden flight of Apollo C, unmanned, automatic docking test.
1983: Launch of Spacelab-C (experiment module). Spacelab 3, 4, and 5, assembly and science. President Reagan invites "our friends and allies" to participate (yes, we get Space Station Freedom).
1985: Launch of Spacelab-D (2nd experiment module). Launch of Expedition 1, first permanent crew.
From now on, it's pretty much ISS with crew and cargo, with JAXA and ESA participation. Studies begin on a "lunar return" using derived hardware...

I'll leave it at that for the moment. A lunar return in the 1990s is possible. We can continue along this line of thought if there is interest.

This is very much like an earlier atempt I did when it all started, circa 2008.
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=91794

Admittedly,  INT-20 / Block III Apollo is more glamourous than Big Gemini / Titan III...

In fact, the answer to all of this is seen in the Russian space program over the same decades.  They kept their "Apollo", and developed space stations that evolved from their Skylab (Salyut 1) to the Mir Space Station.  We would have done the same, but in the end, our "Mir" would have been a vast cluster of Skylabs

Two words: SPOT ON. A cluster of Skylabs, that's the thing. The  way I see it: Skylab modules light enough to be launched by recylced Saturn IBs (with four or eight minuteman solids, that's 25 tons to LEO.

Cheers !

[alk3997]

I hate to rain on your parade a bit, but assuming you are using this hardware to get out of LEO, then you would have most likely lost a crew in the 1974-1975 timeframe due to solar activity or the reliability of the hardware.  Don't forget to factor the recovery for the crew loss as well as the public's and Congress' reaction to that changing your budget.  Of course that only applies if going beyond LEO.

Your costs are going to be very high using this hardware for LEO only.  You might want to convert a Saturn IB flight to today's dollars and assume you have to build all new hardware (development is the expensive side).

And, then while we are factoring real world stuff in this exercise, don't forget test flights of hardware that has to be changed because the manufacturing processes that originally built those vehicles no longer exists.  A J-2X becomes needed much earlier because you can't build the original J-2 anymore.  I forget how many items on the original Saturn were "lifetime buys", so that NASA stored enough through the last Saturn V and then would have to go back to the drawing board if more were needed.

It's not all roses in this alternate reality, is it?

Andy

[Patchouli]

There were a lot of things that could have been done to improve the Saturn vehicles the most obvious would be to redo the S-IC to be stage and a half this is called the S-ID.

You can have the crew LV be just a S-ID which is called the Saturn V-B

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnvb.htm

Cargo add an S-IVB to the I-ID making the Saturn V-C
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnvc.htm

This had an 81,000kg payload smaller then the Saturn V but larger then the INT-21.
It gets rid of one of the most expensive parts the S-II and cuts the expended F1s down the just 1.

The future would have likely be reusable ferries like the Nerva shuttle or the chemical OTV along with SEP tugs for LEO to lunar transport so TLI would less important then LEO payload.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/otv.htm

As for Apollo I think Big Gemini or some sorta lifting body vehicle would replace it for LEO use.

The Apollo CSM might in an updated form still have been used well into  80s for BEO.
It was in clear need of updates by the 70s but no shuttle they would have had spent only on them.
The most glaring need was the risky pure O2 atmosphere had to go.

Eventually they probably would loose the large SM as confidence in the OTV builtup or one of the LEO lifting bodies modified to BEO.

I hate to rain on your parade a bit, but assuming you are using this hardware to get out of LEO, then you would have most likely lost a crew in the 1974-1975 timeframe due to solar activity or the reliability of the hardware.  Don't forget to factor the recovery for the crew loss as well as the public's and Congress' reaction to that changing your budget.  Of course that only applies if going beyond LEO.

Your costs are going to be very high using this hardware for LEO only.  You might want to convert a Saturn IB flight to today's dollars and assume you have to build all new hardware (development is the expensive side).

And, then while we are factoring real world stuff in this exercise, don't forget test flights of hardware that has to be changed because the manufacturing processes that originally built those vehicles no longer exists.  A J-2X becomes needed much earlier because you can't build the original J-2 anymore.  I forget how many items on the original Saturn were "lifetime buys", so that NASA stored enough through the last Saturn V and then would have to go back to the drawing board if more were needed.

It's not all roses in this alternate reality, is it?

Andy

It depends on a lot of variables.
If they have a lunar base they'd likely have some sorta solar storm shelter.
If in transit the CSM can provide enough shielding by keeping the SM between the crew and the sun.
They might have an increased risk of cancer but I heard it described as the difference between being a little radiation sick and needing a bone marrow transplant.

The danger zone is if they're on the surface away from the base as the LEM it's self provides little protection.

[Joris]

Just noticed that the Saturn V used to launch Skylab had a payload of 75t to LEO.

Adding an upper stage (S-IVB) would increase this to 127t in. 

Doesn't have much Shuttle or Constellation heritage.
But does this pass the law for SLS as it currently is besides that?

I'm semi-seriously asking.

[RyanC]

The most glaring need was the risky pure O2 atmosphere had to go.

It was simple and reliable -- remember that if you get the nitrox mix wrong, it can be very dangerous -- witness G.B. North's accident involving a nitrogen-rich feed during ground testing of early Mercury capsule atmospheric system designs on 21 April 1960.

It's also important to note that the flammability of a O2 environment is related to the pressure it's under -- Apollo 1 was so devastating because it was at 16-17 PSI -- brought about by the need to provide a positive pressure differential between the capsule and sea level 14.7 PSI in order for the plugs out test to work.

That high pressure of 16+ PSI of O2 meant that the enormous amounts of raschel netting and velcro in 012 -- something like 5,000~ square inches of it -- simply *exploded*.

At a flight environment of 5 PSI, fire propagation would be much slower; and in the Block II environment of Betacloth and fireproof paper; there's significantly less flammable materials to burn.

Nitrox systems make sense for a fully developed and mature space infrastructure that has achieved the reliability of modern air travel. For an experimental complex, which is what things are going to be for the foreseeable future, O2 makes more sense, not only because it eliminates pre-breathing for spacesuit EVAs, but also because it allows safety systems to be fully utilized.

In SP-2008-565 Columbia Crew Survival Investigation Report; I found the following items to be incredibly aggravating:

Integration issues include: the crew cannot keep their visors down throughout entry because doing so results in high oxygen concentrations in the cabin

and

Breathing 100% O2 results in O2-enriched air being exhaled into the shuttle cabin. Over time, this increases the O2 concentration in the cabin, amplifying the potential for fire. Therefore, the amount of time that crew members have their visors down and are breathing 100% O2 is limited operationally to reduce this hazard.

Even if they had had some sort of inflatable foamed aeroshell stowed under their seats to survive the thermal environment of re-entry and the breakup of the orbiter cabin, the above doctrine of visors up to limit O2 in the cabin means that they'd never have had a chance to use it; since they all lost consciousness the moment the orbiter depressurized in less than a second or so.

Of course, the solution given in SP-2008-565 was to have some sort of automatic suit activation system to close and lock the visor automatically, similar to the auto-pressurization system on SR-71 suits; rather than simply adopting O2 again, with all the knock on effects that'd have for simplifying EVAs

[Jim]

The most glaring need was the risky pure O2 atmosphere had to go.

Wrong, the post Apollo 1 fix was adequate.

[RyanC]

Uh Jim, I already answered that in my post. Sometimes I use BOLD as a poor man's quote