-
What caused the end of Apollo?
by
Proponent
on 12 Jul, 2019 13:01
-
Arguments sometimes rage over which president was responsible for killing the Apollo program.
Attached is the Apollo flight schedule as it stood in October 1962. To my knowledge, this is the earliest official schedule, produced shortly after lunar orbit rendezvous had been selected. The missions with the objective of "lunar exploration" are A-509 through -515. That is to say that the number of landing attempts scheduled was seven -- which is exactly the number that ultimately occurred.
Apollo-Saturn production could have been extended. More missions could have been flown even without additional production. But there is a good case to be made that Apollo's end was inherent in its beginning.
EDIT: Made thread title more descriptive
-
#1
by
libra
on 12 Jul, 2019 18:41
-
A case has been made that John Houbolt clever trick of LOR saved Apollo in the short term but killed it over the long term, as it turned it into a zero infrastructure project an anti-ISS. Hence as you said, Apollo was probably doomed in 1962.
Which doesn't mean the other options were any better: next best was EOR, with had the major unknown of LH2 (and LOX to a lesser extent) in orbit transfer. Von Braun had a "connecting mode" which had the name entailed was kind of docking plenty of Centaurs together until the stack reached S-IVB size.
Apollo was a fantastic achievement but came too early.
In the 50's sci-fi stories (Heinlein for you americans; Hergé, for us Europeans) the first lunar landing happened later, in the 70's, but the "lunar transportation system" was not a seven-expendable-chemical-stages monstrosity like Apollo - S-IC+S-II+S-IVB+SM+LM-descent+LM-ascent, just think about it.
The bottom line was
"Then one guy made a major propulsion breakthrough (nuclear, fairy dust, whatever) and this allowed him to create a "space DC-3" or "Space Boeing 707" that made travel to the Moon economical."
And boom, colonization of the Moon happened just like the Age of Discoveries had happened on Earth, America, Australia, Everest and Antarctica included.
The writers had guessed at least one thing right: no "space DC-3 / Boeing 707 to the Moon" = no economical trip to the Moon = one-shot trip, too expensive.
-
#2
by
dglow
on 12 Jul, 2019 19:18
-
Apollo was a fantastic achievement but came too early.
Maybe. I think we just needed to wind down Apollo more gradually.
A second or third iteration of Skylab supplied by a continuing run of Saturn Is would have done it IMO. This would have allowed a clean handover of human spaceflight to Shuttle while also providing an excellent destination right off the blocks.
NASA's inability to both sustain existing and develop future launch vehicles has been its achilles heel.
-
#3
by
Bob Shaw
on 12 Jul, 2019 19:24
-
In a real sense, the Apollo 1 fire killed Apollo.
It revealed the feet of clay beneath the heroic exterior of the US space program, and led directly to the gutting of AAP, which *was* the future of Apollo after the initial landings. We were lucky to even see the J Missions and Skylab.
-
#4
by
Svetoslav
on 12 Jul, 2019 19:42
-
What do I see here? A thread about who killed Apollo, and Nixon hasn't been mentioned even once
-
#5
by
Bob Shaw
on 12 Jul, 2019 19:55
-
Arguments sometimes rage over which president was responsible for killing the Apollo program.
Attached is the Apollo flight schedule as it stood in October 1962. To my knowledge, this is the earliest official schedule, produced shortly after lunar orbit rendezvous had been selected. The missions with the objective of "lunar exploration" are A-509 through -515. That is to say that the number of landing attempts scheduled was seven -- which is exactly the number that ultimately occurred.
Apollo-Saturn production could have been extended. More missions could have been flown even without additional production. But there is a good case to be made that Apollo's end was inherent in its beginning.
That document is interesting - especially the references to LEO Apollo flights with a CSM and LM Ascent Stage, but no Descent Stage.
-
#6
by
dglow
on 12 Jul, 2019 20:00
-
In a real sense, the Apollo 1 fire killed Apollo.
It revealed the feet of clay beneath the heroic exterior of the US space program, and led directly to the gutting of AAP, which *was* the future of Apollo after the initial landings. We were lucky to even see the J Missions and Skylab.
That's a fascinating take. Is this based on other knowledge, or your personal impression?
-
#7
by
Michel Van
on 12 Jul, 2019 22:41
-
For my Part are one President a Vice President and General sectary responsibleness for killing Apollo
One: Lyndon B Johnson
He order the shutdown of Saturn V production and Destruktion of almost completed SA-516 and SA-517
Two: Spiro Agnew
who's "Space Task Group" recommend a future direction of the US manned space program the Wrong way
a. $500 billion US Space Programm im style of 2001, a Space Odyssey...
and as this is not chosen by Nixon, who had other problems, as the US future in Space for next 30 years.
b. the ambitious Space Transportation System program what became Space Shuttle
Three: Leonid Brezhnev
his lack support or better say ignorance for the need of Manned Lunar program.
let to down fall or Soviet Lunar program and it end in 1975
had Soviet manage to land a cosmonaut on Moon, it's very likely Nixon had reactivade and continue the Apollo program
-
#8
by
rayleighscatter
on 12 Jul, 2019 22:45
-
Kennedy killed it. The program (and frankly NASA as a whole) had a single goal with no real intention for sustainment or follow-up.
-
#9
by
Esteban taterhead
on 12 Jul, 2019 23:36
-
Nixon needing votes for a second term from the space tech industry. NASA being greedy with huge unrealistic future programs (initial AAP, Mars ). Space industrial complex promising the cosmos with the shuttle. Cutting up a perfectly good space station when they knew it worked. ( S-lV ). Doing the same thing 8 times in a row ( Apollos 10 thru 17 ). Sensors in payload bay of service module in lunar polar orbit finds, what the hell is that at the poles ? Send only 2 astros with no landing plan slimmed down to reach polar from LC-39A. A reason for continuing to use the best space systems ever made. John Logsdon book.
-
#10
by
libra
on 13 Jul, 2019 07:33
-
AAP was a complete mess of a program. By contrast there was that LESA study by Boeing - Lunar Exploration Systems for Apollo.
https://www.wired.com/2013/01/the-proper-course-for-lunar-exploration-1965/This is what NASA should have pursued instead of the messy AAP or a Mars shot. A Moon base and nothing else - still with the major caveat that Apollo was not a very cheap and efficient transportation system to the Moon, particularly the Saturn V.
-
#11
by
bkellysky
on 15 Jul, 2019 16:19
-
Like most murder mysteries, there are many suspects, each with a motive.
My memories of the times (I was 13 when Apollo 11 landed) was the Johnson Administration needed money for the Vietnam debacle and social programs. The next President, Nixon, was happy to note the lack of public support for more moon missions and let his budget office cut as much as possible from Apollo.
The American public loved the USA winning the race. Americans love to win and move on to the next challenge. So, a vast number of Americans wanted to know 'why are we going back?'. But the same 'public' used the phrase, "If we can put a man on the moon, we can _____________ .
Reading histories of the truncated Kennedy Administration, I've seen even President Kennedy was concerned Apollo funding would limit his ability to do the other things he wanted to do.
bob
-
#12
by
bkellysky
on 15 Jul, 2019 16:25
-
In a different direction on this topic, even NASA started to worry about this 'giant leap'. Apollo 17 was a pretty clean mission. But what if Apollo 16's main engine gimbal had un-plugged (as Mattingly said he would have aborted the landing after he returned and was told more of the details) and left the crew unable to safely return? What if Apollo 14 failed to dock with the LM after TLI or the landing radar never worked and they crashed attempting a visual landing? What if Apollo 13's second stage center engine had failed catastrophically instead of being shutdown very early?
[Wednesday night, I'm doing a talk about these and other issues that easily could have killed a crew (or at least prevented a moon landing) and the program - the failures that were an option. Conclusion: Flying to the moon is hard.
I figured everyone would have heard all the standard stories by now and by exploring the failures that didn't, but almost did, would be more interesting. I'll let you know how it goes.]
-
#13
by
dglow
on 15 Jul, 2019 17:48
-
[Wednesday night, I'm doing a talk about these and other issues that easily could have killed a crew (or at least prevented a moon landing) and the program - the failures that were an option. Conclusion: Flying to the moon is hard.
I figured everyone would have heard all the standard stories by now and by exploring the failures that didn't, but almost did, would be more interesting. I'll let you know how it goes.]
Will you record and stream/post this?
-
#14
by
Hog
on 15 Jul, 2019 19:38
-
In a real sense, the Apollo 1 fire killed Apollo.
It revealed the feet of clay beneath the heroic exterior of the US space program, and led directly to the gutting of AAP, which *was* the future of Apollo after the initial landings. We were lucky to even see the J Missions and Skylab.
Did the Apollo-1 fire have the same effect on the Apollo program, that STS-51-L Challenger incident had on the Shuttle program?
-
#15
by
Proponent
on 15 Jul, 2019 20:39
-
A case has been made that John Houbolt clever trick of LOR saved Apollo in the short term but killed it over the long term, as it turned it into a zero infrastructure project an anti-ISS.
But neither EOR nor direct, as proposed in 1962, would have established any infrastructure either.
Go back further in time, of course, and it was common place to propose assembling a moonship in LEO -- The Army's (von Braun's) Project Horizon of 1960, for example. I think the problem was the rush to the moon ruled out the time-consuming process of establishing infrastructure.
-
#16
by
brihath
on 15 Jul, 2019 21:16
-
As I understand it, the Saturn V production line was shut down in August 1968, when Lyndon Johnson was President. At that time the plan was to fly lunar missions up to Apollo 20, which would have utilized all the Saturn V's assembled except for one allocated to Skylab.
Apollo 20 was cancelled in January 1970, and Apollo 18 and 19 cancelled in September 1970 during a realignment of missions that moved the Fra Mauro landing target from Apollo 13 to Apollo 14.
Having lived through that era, the Vietnam War was a major contributor to the cutbacks because more and more Federal money was going to the war effort. I recall that my Federal Tax Returns at the time had a tax surcharge that supported the war effort. No single administration, whether Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon "killed" the program, so to speak. Keep in mind that Lyndon Johnson was the major driver for the expansion of the manned space program during the mid-1960's, but even for him the demands of the Vietnam War weighed heavily on him culminating in his announcement in Spring 1968 that he would not seek another term as President.
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_18_20.html
-
#17
by
Bob Shaw
on 15 Jul, 2019 21:24
-
In a real sense, the Apollo 1 fire killed Apollo.
It revealed the feet of clay beneath the heroic exterior of the US space program, and led directly to the gutting of AAP, which *was* the future of Apollo after the initial landings. We were lucky to even see the J Missions and Skylab.
Did the Apollo-1 fire have the same effect on the Apollo program, that STS-51-L Challenger incident had on the Shuttle program?
I would say that it was similarly disheartening, yes. Proxmire & Co took the devastating Apollo 1 enquiry and ran with it. You can't even blame Nixon - the Democrats led the charge.
-
#18
by
dglow
on 15 Jul, 2019 21:33
-
Having lived through that era, the Vietnam War was a major contributor to the cutbacks because more and more Federal money was going to the war effort. I recall that my Federal Tax Returns at the time had a tax surcharge that supported the war effort. No single administration, whether Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon "killed" the program, so to speak. Keep in mind that Lyndon Johnson was the major driver for the expansion of the manned space program during the mid-1960's, but even for him the demands of the Vietnam War weighed heavily on him culminating in his announcement in Spring 1968 that he would not seek another term as President.
Johnson to the generals in 'JFK': "Just get me elected, I'll give you the damn war."
-
#19
by
Rocket Science
on 15 Jul, 2019 21:34
-
The program was effectively killed once President Kennedy's mandate was fulfilled with the successful splashdown of Apollo 11... "Task Accomplished July 1969"
