archibald
Ensign
The PRC was standing on the edge of an abyss. And Mao said "let's make a Great Leap Forward"
Posts: 359
Likes: 364
|
Post by archibald on Sept 7, 2020 7:39:34 GMT
In the 60's NASA and USAF really fought hard to find a role to astronauts, at the expense of robots.
Let me explain this further.
Hubble > space telescope
Landsat > remote sensing
KH-11 > spy satellite
Viking > robotic Mars explorer
See these four ? They work without a crew. Robots proved they can do the job. Yet in the 60's NASA and USAF fought hard for astronauts to do the job instead.
Hubble > early studies had the telescope attached to a space station. Just like Earth-bound telescopes. Another example is Skylab solar telescope, the ATM.
Landsat > remote sensing. Skylab again - NASA hoped a crewed space station with astronauts could complement Landsat for Earth observation. Even today, the ISS still has a minimalistic variant of this - some sensors attached to it, and astronauts making observations and taking pictures. but nothing that can threaten satellites.
KH-11 > MOL, obviously. A dumb problem with spysats was... clouds. KH-10 with astronauts could take the decision not to waste film if the target area was clouded. Also, astronauts could watch the target area through a kind of periscope and, if they saw something else interesting, take unplanned photos of it.
Viking > Human to Mars... with a twist. Early Mars exploration with robots was a carnage, they failed all the time. NASA then suggested something aa little outrageous: Manned Mars flyby missions with probes. A crewed ship where astronauts would caretake the vulnerable probes. Releasing them from their ships only when very close from Mars.
In the end, all four valiant efforts failed. By the 70's it was obvious that Hubble, Landsat, spysats and Viking did not needed astronauts for their job.
But whatif electronics (and robots) had not been up the task ?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,985 
Likes: 49,390
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 7, 2020 8:13:42 GMT
In the 60's NASA and USAF really fought hard to find a role to astronauts, at the expense of robots.
Let me explain this further.
Hubble > space telescope
Landsat > remote sensing
KH-11 > spy satellite
Viking > robotic Mars explorer
See these four ? They work without a crew. Robots proved they can do the job. Yet in the 60's NASA and USAF fought hard for astronauts to do the job instead.
Hubble > early studies had the telescope attached to a space station. Just like Earth-bound telescopes. Another example is Skylab solar telescope, the ATM.
Landsat > remote sensing. Skylab again - NASA hoped a crewed space station with astronauts could complement Landsat for Earth observation. Even today, the ISS still has a minimalistic variant of this - some sensors attached to it, and astronauts making observations and taking pictures. but nothing that can threaten satellites.
KH-11 > MOL, obviously. A dumb problem with spysats was... clouds. KH-10 with astronauts could take the decision not to waste film if the target area was clouded. Also, astronauts could watch the target area through a kind of periscope and, if they saw something else interesting, take unplanned photos of it.
Viking > Human to Mars... with a twist. Early Mars exploration with robots was a carnage, they failed all the time. NASA then suggested something aa little outrageous: Manned Mars flyby missions with probes. A crewed ship where astronauts would caretake the vulnerable probes. Releasing them from their ships only when very close from Mars.
In the end, all four valiant efforts failed. By the 70's it was obvious that Hubble, Landsat, spysats and Viking did not needed astronauts for their job.
But whatif electronics (and robots) had not been up the task ?
So more Apollo missions and maybe more Skylab mission then. |
|
archibald
Ensign
The PRC was standing on the edge of an abyss. And Mao said "let's make a Great Leap Forward"
Posts: 359
Likes: 364
|
Post by archibald on Sept 7, 2020 15:19:05 GMT
Sure. Apollo Application Program > www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/mscforum/index.php?topic=741.35Saturn V up to 525, that is, 25 instead of OTL 15 boosters. Saturn IB to -228 instead of 214, so twice as much as OTL. Missions to GEO, weather forecast by astronauts, lunar orbit surveys... Mars and Venus flybys, because just "passing by" a planet takes much less energy than stopping in orbit and / or descent / ascent to / from the surface. Earth > Mars > Venus flybys www.wired.com/2012/03/planetary-billiards-triple-planet-manned-marsvenus-flybys-1967/Manned flight to Eros asteroid. commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3070&context=space-congress-proceedingsPlus the MOL. Six missions at least, and perhaps some more. www.thespacereview.com/article/3461/1Manned orbiting telescope up-ship.com/blog/?p=177
Later AAP would be expended into IPP, with the addition of reusable & nuclear thermal space vehicles...
What is really interesting was that, by 1964, Apollo, NERVA, and Orion - chemical, nuclear-thermal, nuclear-pulse propulsion - were all designed to ride a Saturn V into orbit. At least it first stage, the S-IC.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,985
Likes: 49,390
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 7, 2020 15:27:25 GMT
Sure. Apollo Application Program > www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/mscforum/index.php?topic=741.35Saturn V up to 525, that is, 25 instead of OTL 15 boosters. Saturn IB to -228 instead of 214, so twice as much as OTL. Missions to GEO, weather forecast by astronauts, lunar orbit surveys... Mars and Venus flybys, because just "passing by" a planet takes much less energy than stopping in orbit and / or descent / ascent to / from the surface. Earth > Mars > Venus flybys www.wired.com/2012/03/planetary-billiards-triple-planet-manned-marsvenus-flybys-1967/Manned flight to Eros asteroid. commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3070&context=space-congress-proceedingsPlus the MOL. Six missions at least, and perhaps some more. Manned orbiting telescope up-ship.com/blog/?p=177Later AAP would be expended into IPP, with the addition of reusable & nuclear thermal space vehicles...
What is really interesting was that, by 1964, Apollo, NERVA, and Orion - chemical, nuclear-thermal, nuclear-pulse propulsion - were all designed to ride a Saturn V into orbit. At least it first stage, the S-IC.
Could a modified Skylab be used for a lunar orbital base. |
|
archibald
Ensign
The PRC was standing on the edge of an abyss. And Mao said "let's make a Great Leap Forward"
Posts: 359
Likes: 364
|
Post by archibald on Sept 7, 2020 15:35:32 GMT
You would need to land a S-IVB on the Moon. Or putting it into lunar orbit. Could be "dry workshop" (like Skylab) or "wet workshop" (as was Skylab before 1969). "lunar applications of a spent S-IVB stage" - short, LASS. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj1rfixrtfrAhUDxoUKHecSD8cQFjACegQIBxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdm16608.contentdm.oclc.org%2Fdigital%2Fapi%2Fcollection%2Fp16608coll1%2Fid%2F15192%2Fdownload&usg=AOvVaw3hhYBAv4dY-KwNiUljwFJMA Saturn V could launch 120 mt in orbit. 120 mt was also the mass of a fully-fueled S-IVB without a payload. Now if you launch a second rocket with a payload, dock the payload to the S-IVB, and use the big stage as "tug" then - it can send itself and 60 mt of payload into lunar orbit.
- it can land itself and 30 mt of payload, on the lunar surface. Deploy landing legs, throttle-down the J-2 not to dig a huge hole in the lunar surface and send rocks and dust flying around. Touchdown.
It would thus be possible to attach a 30 mt pressurized module to the S-IVB instead of the "Saturn Launch Adapter" which conical shape had 200 cubic meter of volume.
Working from that module the propellant tanks are purged and turned into an habitat - boom, 300 cubic meter + of habitable space.
Total: 1-SIVB = 3 modules = 500 cubic meter.
Two modules like that, 1000 cubic meter: more than the entire ISS (915). This can be done in lunar orbit or on the lunar surface.
NASA scrapped "wet" workshops for Skylab because turning a prop tank into an habitat in zero-G proved to be a giant PITA.
Now if you do that on the Moon, it should be a little easier - there is some gravity there, even if only 1/6 of the Earth...
So yes the S-IVB could have done much more than delivering Apollo + a medium size LM to the Moon...
For all mankind, here we go !
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,985
Likes: 49,390
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 7, 2020 15:54:06 GMT
You would need to land a S-IVB on the Moon. Or putting it into lunar orbit. Could be "dry workshop" (like Skylab) or "wet workshop" (as was Skylab before 1969). "lunar applications of a spent S-IVB stage" - short, LASS. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj1rfixrtfrAhUDxoUKHecSD8cQFjACegQIBxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdm16608.contentdm.oclc.org%2Fdigital%2Fapi%2Fcollection%2Fp16608coll1%2Fid%2F15192%2Fdownload&usg=AOvVaw3hhYBAv4dY-KwNiUljwFJMA Saturn V could launch 120 mt in orbit. 120 mt was also the mass of a fully-fueled S-IVB without a payload. Now if you launch a second rocket with a payload, dock the payload to the S-IVB, and use the big stage as "tug" then - it can send itself and 60 mt of payload into lunar orbit.
- it can land itself and 30 mt of payload, on the lunar surface. Deploy landing legs, throttle-down the J-2 not to dig a huge hole in the lunar surface and send rocks and dust flying around. Touchdown. It would be possible to attach a pressurized module to the S-IVB instead of the "Saturn Launch Adapter" which had 200 cubic meter volume.
Working from that module the propellant tanks are purged and turned into an habitat - boom, 300 cubic meter + of habitable space.
Total: 1-SIVB = 3 modules = 500 cubic meter.
Two modules like that, 1000 cubic meter: more than the entire ISS (915).
So yes the S-IVB could have done much more than delivering Apollo + a medium size LM to the Moon... For all mankind, here we go !
So by the 80s would we have reliable electronics to be able to do large unmanned missions. |
|
archibald
Ensign
The PRC was standing on the edge of an abyss. And Mao said "let's make a Great Leap Forward"
Posts: 359
Likes: 364
|
Post by archibald on Sept 7, 2020 15:55:11 GMT
That's unavoidable, alas. Unless something drastically delays microchips... but then Apollo couldn't really happen...
|
|
|
|
Post by riggerrob on Sept 18, 2020 16:58:31 GMT
Remember that NASA's manned space flight piggy-backed on rockets and guidance systems originally developed for intercontinental ballistic missiles. Without viable electronics, there would be no ICBMs. Without ICBMs, USAF Strategic Air Command would need hundreds more manned nuclear bombers for decades longer. All in all, a longer and more expensive Cold War.
|
|
