FY1966

1. FY1966 A look at diverse advance planning concepts in NASA’s peak funding period David S. F. Portree LROC SOC, ASU-Tempe FISO telecon 23 January 2019

2. Agenda • present an overview of significant trends in early spaceflight advance planning • give examples of planning principles: “bridge,” “logical plan,” “party crasher,” “human-robot partnership” • look at a colorful & pivotal era in advance planning history

3. The first Apollo (1959-1960) • Apollo conceived in 1959 as an Earth-orbital spacecraft – meant to fill in the skills & experience gap between Mercury and a follow-on advanced piloted program • would have been the first bridge program • advanced piloted program candidates included space station (most likely), lunar, planetary – “after 1970” • Mission Module = small space station-type volume • Apollo conceived in constrained planning environment (last year of Eisenhower Administration): assumed evolution, not revolution • lack of high-level enthusiasm (benign neglect) for spaceflight enabled NASA to propose a logical plan

4. 1960 Apollo – General Dynamics design

5. Apollo redirected: “national needs” crashes the party

6. A Man on the Moon by end of the decade

7. Apollo plans & expectations for post-Apollo • Direct Ascent would yield a huge rocket (“post-Saturn”) – logical step toward conquering the Moon & Solar System • Earth Orbit Rendezvous would yield ops experience in Earth orbit – logical step toward conquering the Moon & Solar System • DA and EOR Apollo missions were virtually identical after start of Earth-Moon transfer – debate was over huge rocket vs. Earth-orbital ops, both with eye toward “post-Apollo” • assumed a long-term commitment; logical to assume that USA would not squander the Apollo investment

8. Lunar Orbit Rendezvous crashes the party • beating Russians was real driver, not long-term planning logic • LOR needed neither huge rocket nor Earth-orbit ops – faster & cheaper • did need mission-critical rendezvous & docking in lunar orbit, far from rescue & tracking • Apollo Mission Module made way for Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) + SLA cargo volume • Mercury Mark II/Gemini becomes bridge between Mercury and LOR Apollo

9. Could LOR Apollo Become a Bridge Program? • NASA planners decided that LOR Apollo would be a beginning (called it “Early Apollo”) • in late 1960s new Apollo hardware would build on Apollo investment at “minimal additional cost” (no “blank check” assumed) • not “post-Apollo” – rather, next phase of Apollo • new hardware might include inexpensive pressurized Mission Module (MM) carried in/conforming to SLA • MM = space station module; might be combined with spent S-IVB stage H2 tank to create “wet workshop” • MM = lunar habitat module • MM = interplanetary spacecraft habitat module

10. Lunar Exploration Systems for Apollo (LESA): 1963-1964 • a mix-and-match collection of propulsion modules, payload modules in four development phases • MM habitat, observatory, nuclear power plant, fuel factory, rovers • the return of Direct Ascent (advanced Saturn V) with direct Earth return (Apollo CM-based crew capsule) • Phase I LESA Apollo flights would overlapLOR Apollo flights in ~1968; then LOR Apollo would end • Additional LESA expenditure = $~2.5 billion thru Phase I ( = ~$27 billion LOR Apollo/LESA Apollo Phase I total) • 18-person “semi-permanent” LESA Apollo Moon base beginning in ~1975 (Phase IV)

11. Paradigm Shift: 1964-1966 • Apollo X, Apollo System Extension, Saturn-Apollo Applications, Apollo Applications Program (AAP), Skylab – each was a step in shift away from replacing hardware to build on Apollo investment to adapting existing hardware to build on Apollo investment • aimed to bring Apollo/Saturn “down to Earth”– practical benefits of space • AAP lunar component not “down to Earth,” so always the step-child • long have I wondered – was LOR Apollo-based AAP an LBJ/James Webb ploy to build an “ablative shield” around the basic “beat the Russians” LOR Apollo lunar goal? A clever tactic by master political operators?

12. Apollo-Saturn to Mars and Venus • 1956: Gaetano Crocco proposes piloted Mars/Venus flybys in 1971 • 1962-1963: EMPIRE conceived by NASA MSFC as means of mitigating LOR party crasher (1971 piloted flyby stressed post-Saturn rocket, nuclear thermal propulsion – MSFC areas of interest) • 1964-1965: Mars/Venus piloted flyby missions based on LOR Apollo/next phase Apollo – modified CSM, uprated Saturn V, SLA MM, MM-based robot probe module with 40-inch telescope • would have been the ultimate adaptation of Apollo/Saturn hardware • crew on board flyby spacecraft would keep robot probe cargo healthy, probes based on existing and planned probes would explore on the cheap; an early example of human-robot partnership • meant to lead to late 1970s/early 1980s piloted Mars/Venus orbiters, Mars landings

13. Apollo-based Mars/Venus flyby (MSFC, 1964-1965)

14. Apollo-based Mars/Venus flyby (MSFC, 1964-1965)

15. Mars/Venus flybys (North American for MSC, 1965)

16. Mars/Venus flybys (NAA for MSC, 1965)

17. Mars/Venus flybys (NAA for MSC, 1965)

18. 1966 Internal NASA Studies • NASA Office of Manned Space Flight (OMSF), NASA Office of Research and Technology, NASA Office of Space Science and Applications; human spaceflight NASA centers; Bellcomm; JPL • five study groups – Lunar Exploration, Planetary Exploration, Biosciences, Earth Applications, Astronomy • lunar saw revival of LESA — bucked the trend toward LOR Apollo adaptation • planetary seen as robotic – except by OMSF planners • OMSF planners aimed to give AAP a logical direction & resounding goal equivalent to LOR Apollo’s Man on the Moon

19. 1966 NASA Internal Studies: Planetary Joint Action Group (JAG) • NASA OMSF Planetary JAG exercise began spring 1965 (before 1966 internal studies) – early start meant that the piloted planetary emphasis in the 1966 NASA internal studies was more substantial than piloted lunar emphasis • Mars Surface Sample Return (MSSR) was added July 1966 – teleoperated sample collection, human-robot partnership, near-immediate lab analysis of sample for biologic potential – built confidence among planners that piloted flyby could gain support

20. 1966 NASA Internal Studies: MSSR concept

21. NASA’s budget peaks in FY1966 • FY1966 (1 July 1965-30 June 1966) became peak NASA funding year • planners didn’t know NASA purchase power had peaked – many anticipated bigger budgets in the future (how could USA possibly throw away Apollo investment?) • NASA budget slump in FY1967 was part of an exercise in general Federal budget trimming – view widely held that FY1968 would see more money for NASA than FY1966 (including LBJ request for first big AAP spending – ~$500 million) • Apollo 1 fire made the downward NASA budget trend permanent • growing Indochina commitment, social justice commitment, domestic instability, tax increases became most important factors influencing space policy beginning in FY1967 (gradually replaced the Space Race) • one party crasher after another

22. Planetary JAG Phase II (1967) • Phase II piloted flyby study begun December 1966 • PSAC cool toward piloted flybys in February 1967 report • NASA OMSF pressed ahead despite warnings from Congress – sought September 1975 piloted Mars flyby launch • March 1967: “public” (Fifth Goddard Memorial Symposium) bid for piloted flyby new start in FY1969 soon became a party crasher

23. FY1969 new start goal: a piloted Mars Flyby in 1975 • congressional anger in the Summer of Love – LBJ forced to acquiesce to ~$500 million in NASA cuts • AAP and advance planning funding slashed • absorbed congressional Apollo 1 fire ire – LOR Apollo barely touched • some AAP lunar planning survived in J-class LOR Apollo missions; Skylab was, of course, the main AAP remnant (MDA/AM/ATM/dry OWS corresponded to MM/wet workshop) • In FY1969, advance planning took a sharp turn — that’s a story for another day

24. MSSR-based Minimem (Bellcomm, 1967-1969)

25. MSSR-based Minimem (Bellcomm, 1967-1969)

26. Questions? spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com