What if Apollo/Saturn Had never been Cancelled?

[Lobo]

A couple months back this was hit a bit in another thread, and was a very interesting intellectual exercise.  I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this, or if this belongs in "Historical Spaceflight".  But since this is speculation rather than anything actually historic, I figured the HLV forum might be the best fit for it.

So, for the exercise, assume NASA rejected the concept of a reusable space plane, and STS never got past preliminary concept.  NASA decided to stick with Apollo, Saturn V and Saturn 1B for their program.  Stuck with the clean pad system at KSC.  And never incurred the massive development costs of STS, and didnt' have to build new pads at KSC or modify the VAB or other buildings for STS.  Remember, Saturn and Apollo's hugely expensive development costs were already paid for during the Space Race.  So all there was is yealy overhead, and actual production costs.  How much did the Shuttle cost to develop?  How many Apollo CSM's, Saturn V's and Saturn 1B's could that have purchased?   We already paid for Apollo, why pay for another new LV just 10 years later?

We know Apollo 18, 19, and 20 were cancelled back in like 1968 even thought the hardware was already built (or in production).  It was just the operating funds to perform those 3 mission were cut.  (Which is both sad and maddening when you think about it!)  HOwever, NASA still had whatever budget it had at that time.  Still had that hardware and all of the production facilities to build the Apollo CSM, Saturn 1B and Saturn V.  So, they reject STS, stick with existing hardware, and go from there.
Skylab would likely still be built out of one of the Saturn V's, with the 3 supporting missions which officially ended the Apollo Program.

So, if that didn't end the Apollo PRogram, where does NASA go from there?  Does Skylab stay up and manned for longer as NASA continues to staff it with Apollo/Saturn 1B missions?  Apollo ended in 1974, but Skylab didn't splash until 1979.  So there was time there for more missions.

What else happens between then and now?  HOw would things have -likely- went.  Looking for realistic possibilities here, not best possible scenarios.

To get things going, I think that the Saturn 1B and Saturn V would have been more streamlined to share more components, so it would really be one LV with two configurations, rather than two LV's.  I think over the 70's and 80's, manufacturing streamlining and automation would have gotten good enough that people would realize it's economic value vs. a reusable space plane, as they did in the 80's with the ELV program.
I think the Apollo capsule would have probably evolved into two capsules.  A cheaper, more simple one for LEO operations to Skylab or some other Space station, and a more expensive BLEO version, for longer durations in space.  Maybe it would have grown into something more Orion size.
I also think we would have had something roughly ISS size far earlier, and with just a handful of Saturn V launches, serviced by the LEO version of Apollo and Saturn 1B. 
I also think as the costs over time of building Apollo and Saturn came down, budgets could have been allocated such for a return to the Moon in some capacity, with some longer duration hardware.  The Saturn V and Apollo would give us the ability to get there any time we wanted, all we'd have needed is enough money for a new LEM.  With STS, we lost that ability, and any plan to go back to the moon involved a new LV and capsule.  So it was always a very expensive proposition.  But had we kept Apollo, the groundwork to go back would have been there at any time. 

Anyway, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm curious as to how things might have progress from 1974 to 2011 if STS had never been developed, and NASA stuck with the hardware it spend zillions developing in the 60's. 
What say you?
 

[Downix]

I suspect the IB would have been phased out for the Saturn II, and with the cost-reductions already planned for with Saturn, the Saturn II/V system would have seen quite an interesting change.  I suspect several of the INT's would have been studied and put into service.  By the time 1974 hit, under the constrained budget, the Saturn could have operated, with several Skylab missions per year, and 2 Saturn V missions (moon or elsewhere).  Perhaps Skylab2 would have been launched, and added to the existing unit, almost doubling it's size and capability.  I also suspect several of the low-cost Apollo capsule options, such as the minimal service module studied by North American, would have been put into service for Skylab operations. (No point using a lunar SM for a simple orbital mission)

[Lars_J]

Skylab was not designed to be used for much longer than it was. There was no method of resupply, nor for garbage disposal.

To launch a new Skylab or an additional Skylab component of the same size would have required a Saturn V, and those had already been cancelled.

The only way that scenario works IMO is if you assume that (early) Apollo level budgets would be sustained. Without that fantasy, the most NASA could have hoped for was Apollo + Saturn IB, and evolutionary improvements to both. For space stations, you'd have to settle for a Mir-type station with smaller components.

Going for Shuttle was the right idea - Although in retrospect a smaller more reusable (or evolve-able) Shuttle would have been better.

[go4mars]

Going for Shuttle was the right idea - Although in retrospect a smaller more reusable (or evolve-able) Shuttle would have been better.

Even better yet would have been a big reusable first stage. 

[Downix]

Skylab was not designed to be used for much longer than it was. There was no method of resupply, nor for garbage disposal.

To launch a new Skylab or an additional Skylab component of the same size would have required a Saturn V, and those had already been cancelled.

The only way that scenario works IMO is if you assume that (early) Apollo level budgets would be sustained. Without that fantasy, the most NASA could have hoped for was Apollo + Saturn IB, and evolutionary improvements to both. For space stations, you'd have to settle for a Mir-type station with smaller components.

Going for Shuttle was the right idea - Although in retrospect a smaller more reusable (or evolve-able) Shuttle would have been better.

Not at all, considering the CR programs being performed on all components of the Saturn.  The J-2 for instance was getting a price cut with the J-2S of almost 80%.  The S-IVB was to drop in price to a fraction of what it originally did.  And that was but one system. Following that throughout the entire line, the Saturn V would have dropped to less than $500 million in FY05 dollars, and a Saturn II would have run only $280 million for the same point.

Why would you need an Apollo level budget when your systems would run a fraction of what they originally did *and* you have no R&D budget demands to support it?

[aquanaut99]

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. 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).

The first big fight is whether to continue the Saturn/Apollo line or whether to centralize everything on the Titan launcher. 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. However, the Saturn V and Saturn IB will both be retired after flying their last missions. 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) .

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.

[Lobo]

To launch a new Skylab or an additional Skylab component of the same size would have required a Saturn V, and those had already been cancelled.

The point of the thread is what if the Saturns had not been cancelled.  The budget reduction would have been there, but if Congress and the President and the NASA Administration had all opted to stick with Apollo/Saturn operations under the new budgets, as money allowed.  What could have been done, and what would things looked like?

I don't know the numbers, but I'm sure tens of billions in today's dollars were spent developing and building STS, and modifying KSC for STS operations.  So where did that money come from, and what could it have done to streamline/commonize/automate production of Apollo and the Saturns over that same amount of time, and how many capsules and LV's could have been built for that money?  They'd be launching on the existing ML's in the VAB that was designed specifically for them. 

There -had- to be enough money if not spent on the shuttle for both improvements in manufacturing and several capsules and LV's to be built.

Perhaps Congress authorized funds for the Shuttle that might not have been there if the Shuttle was not approved.  But lets assume for this exercise that all funds available for development of the Shuttle, as well as KSC operations, were available for NASA to spend on keeping Apollo and SAturns going.  But that lunar operations were cancelled until such a time in the future that there was more funding for them.
How would things likely have progressed?

[Lobo]

Going for Shuttle was the right idea - Although in retrospect a smaller more reusable (or evolve-able) Shuttle would have been better.

Even better yet would have been a big reusable first stage. 

This thread is not if a reusable first stage would have been better, just if Apollo and the SAturn's had stayed the PoR, with whatever logical upgrades they would have underwent from 1974 to 2011.  Let's keep in that alternate universe.  ;-)

[Lars_J]

To launch a new Skylab or an additional Skylab component of the same size would have required a Saturn V, and those had already been cancelled.

The point of the thread is what if the Saturns had not been cancelled.  The budget reduction would have been there, but if Congress and the President and the NASA Administration had all opted to stick with Apollo/Saturn operations under the new budgets, as money allowed.  What could have been done, and what would things looked like?

But MY point is that the Saturn V production was already ended in *1968*. Exactly when does the alternate universe of this thread start?

[Downix]

To launch a new Skylab or an additional Skylab component of the same size would have required a Saturn V, and those had already been cancelled.

The point of the thread is what if the Saturns had not been cancelled.  The budget reduction would have been there, but if Congress and the President and the NASA Administration had all opted to stick with Apollo/Saturn operations under the new budgets, as money allowed.  What could have been done, and what would things looked like?

But MY point is that the Saturn V production was already ended in *1968*. Exactly when does the alternate universe of this thread start?

The CR forms were available to order until 1972, however.

[aquanaut99]

To launch a new Skylab or an additional Skylab component of the same size would have required a Saturn V, and those had already been cancelled.

The point of the thread is what if the Saturns had not been cancelled.  The budget reduction would have been there, but if Congress and the President and the NASA Administration had all opted to stick with Apollo/Saturn operations under the new budgets, as money allowed.  What could have been done, and what would things looked like?

But MY point is that the Saturn V production was already ended in *1968*. Exactly when does the alternate universe of this thread start?

Which is why in my timeline there are no Saturn Ib/Vs but a new Saturn-derived vehicle. And which is why we are not going back to the moon until the 1990s at the earliest, then probably using EOR with comparatively smaller rockets.

Incidentally, things may have played out more or less the same if they had selected Titan IIIM instead.

[Rocket Science]

Hey Lobo,
Here is a nice evolution of the Saturn class vehicles up to Nova M-1 beast.
http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/lvfam/saturnc.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-1_(rocket_engine)
http://www.pbase.com/jeffkirk1/image/134179789
I could see 4 Skylab modules around a single node in an “X” configuration. That would have been interesting… 
Robert

[Lobo]

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. 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).

The first big fight is whether to continue the Saturn/Apollo line or whether to centralize everything on the Titan launcher. 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. However, the Saturn V and Saturn IB will both be retired after flying their last missions. 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) .

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.

Interesting.  YEs, that's the kind of "realistic" speculation I'm curious of.  Perhaps they would have kept the Saturn 1B flying until INT-20 was qualified?
They could have however, replace Saturn 1B with INT-20, but kept production available for the S-II, which used the J2 or J2S and would have had engine commonality with SIVB.  So really, you'd then have availability 22 to 64mt with INT-20, and then Heavy lift with INT-21 and Saturn V.
INT-21 is basically what launched Skylab, and had 75mt to LEO, and then obviously Saturn V had 110mt. to LEO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_INT-21

So, to pull on the thread a bit.
Let's say, the S1C stage was modified with a thrust structure that could be arranged to support 2, 3, 4, or 5 F1A engines.  Or if it was unfeasable to have one thrust structure that could accomodate that variety of engines, then make the S1C so it could take either a 2-3 engine thrust structure, or a 4-5 engine thrust structure.  And it's fitted to the appropriate thrust structure depending on what it'll be used for.
S-II pretty much stays as it is and is used for INT-21 75mt heavy lift to LEO missions, and Saturn V heavy lift to BLEO missions (or super heavy LEO missions).
It could have it's thrust structure modified so that less than 5 J2's could be used depending on the mission.  Sounds like that was the idea for INT-21 anyway.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/satint21.htm

SIVB is stays as is and is used as the upper stage on INT-20, and 3rd stage on Satrun V.

F1A's and J2/J2S's are common.
So now you are making 3 common stages (that you were anyway for Saturn V), and two first stage thrust structures (only one more than you were building for Saturn V anyway), and two engines (J2S, F1A, you were making them for Saturn V anyway).
So for basically the same infrastructure as the SAturn V alone, you get the flexibility of about 22mt to 110mt with several capacities in between.

Seems like a pretty good plan, you get a lot of LV's for basically just the production price of maintain one LV line.

Ok, so there's one possibility, others?

[Lobo]

To launch a new Skylab or an additional Skylab component of the same size would have required a Saturn V, and those had already been cancelled.

The point of the thread is what if the Saturns had not been cancelled.  The budget reduction would have been there, but if Congress and the President and the NASA Administration had all opted to stick with Apollo/Saturn operations under the new budgets, as money allowed.  What could have been done, and what would things looked like?

But MY point is that the Saturn V production was already ended in *1968*. Exactly when does the alternate universe of this thread start?

Starts in 1974, but the Saturn line had not been cancelled.  So perhaps there's a time where no new ones are rolling off the line, but assume NASA still had the Saturn infrastructure in place in 1974 (in actuality, it was probably all dismanted by then, I don't know), and could order more or modify it as they wished within their budgets of 1974 on.

For this intellectual exercise, we have to assume the Saturn line was still in play, and then Shuttle concept (whatever date it was proposed and accedpted, I don't know, early 70's I think) was rejected in favor of the hardware that the US had already spent billions and billions of dollars to develop.  That someone said, "You know, we spend a gazillion dollars to develop the hardware, avionics, and infrastructure for Apollo and SAturn, why do we want to scrap it all and build something new before we've even landed on the Moon?  Tell me again how that makes any sense?"
Assume that voice of reason was heard and headed.  :-)

[Lobo]

Hey Lobo,
Here is a nice evolution of the Saturn class vehicles up to Nova M-1 beast.
http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/lvfam/saturnc.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-1_(rocket_engine)
http://www.pbase.com/jeffkirk1/image/134179789
I could see 4 Skylab modules around a single node in an “X” configuration. That would have been interesting… 
Robert

Well, without more lunar missions or Mars mission being funded specficially, I don't think they'd need to Evolve the Saturn V any larger.  Probaby those intermediate variants of the SAturn V between it and the SAturn 1B would be more useful for the types of mission NASA would be doing between 1972 (last lunar mission) and until such a time there was funding to go back to the Moon or go to Mars.
So I don't think a new Hydrolox first stage for the M-1 would have been practical at that point anyway.

Maybe later on there may have been a need, not sure I see it right then though.

[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!