Beyond Apollo- Integrated Program Plan

PREVIOUS POST NEXT POST
43
inShare
Integrated Program Plan “Maximum Rate” Traffic Model (1970)
By David S. F. Portree Email Author April 18, 2012 |  12:57 am |  Categories: Beyond Apollo, Science Blogs



Image: NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
When one reads documents connected with the 1969-1971 Integrated Program Plan (IPP), it is often difficult to decide whether to laugh or to cry. The IPP, a product of George Mueller’s Office of Manned Space Flight, began to evolve as early as 1965, but did not take on the grandiose form NASA Administrator Thomas Paine stubbornly advocated to President Richard Nixon until May 1969.

Paine, a Washington neophyte, expected that the IPP would be NASA’s reward for winning the race to the moon. He believed that, having vanquished the Soviets, it was time for the U.S. civilian space agency to “think big.”

The IPP (image at top of post) included space stations in low-Earth orbit (LEO), geosynchronous orbit (GEO), and near-polar lunar orbit, Saturn V and Saturn V-derived rockets for launching them, a fully reusable Earth-to-LEO Space Shuttle for launching astronauts, cargo, and propellants, a reusable modular Space Tug that could operate manned or unmanned and do double-duty as a “Lunar Module-B” (LM-B) moon lander, a reusable Nuclear Shuttle for LEO-GEO and LEO-lunar orbit transportation, and lunar and Mars surface bases. All of this complex and costly space infrastructure was meant to become operational by 1980.


NASA's third Administrator, Thomas Paine (left) and President Richard Nixon on board the aircraft carrier Hornet awaiting splashdown of the Apollo 11 Command Module Columbia, July 24, 1969. Image: NASA.
The IPP is sometimes wrongly attributed to Wernher von Braun, director of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama. Von Braun was in fact skeptical of the IPP. He did not expect an Apollo-level commitment to spaceflight following Apollo’s culmination, let alone one several times larger. He had spent the 1960s seeking opportunities to expand U.S. manned spaceflight using his Saturn rocket family.  By the time Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon during Apollo 11 (July 20, 1969), however, it was abundantly clear to the pragmatic German-born rocketeer that this would not happen.

Nevertheless, with his political position rapidly eroding, von Braun at Paine’s request tasked MSFC’s artists with pumping out IPP illustrations and its advanced planners with grafting a manned Mars mission onto the cislunar IPP. He then touted the Mars plan to Nixon’s high-level Space Task Group (STG) on August 4, 1969. The first NASA manned Mars mission could occur as early as 1981, von Braun told the STG in a 30-minute presentation.

Nixon had appointed the STG in February 1969 to provide him with alternatives for NASA’s future. Paine, a member of the STG, had won over Vice President Spiro Agnew, the STG’s chairman, enabling him to put forward the IPP as the only choice for NASA’s future. The STG’s September 1969 report offered Nixon three schedules for accomplishing the IPP, but that was not the same as providing three program alternatives. Paine might have offered Nixon a choice between an LEO space station, a moon base, or a man on Mars. Instead, he insisted on a package containing all three.

This was, of course, an ill-considered move. Nixon’s Office of Management and Budget had made it clear that NASA should expect rapidly declining annual budgets, not rapidly growing ones. Nixon interpreted Paine’s stubborn advocacy of the ambitious IPP as a clumsy effort at bureaucratic empire building, not as a sincere proposal for a bold American space program.

In effect, Paine’s inflexibility created a vacuum that the Nixon Administration filled. NASA had supplied a single plan for its future that was unacceptable, so the Nixon White House made its own plan that served the President’s political ends.


NASA's fourth Administrator, James Fletcher, and President Nixon pose with a Space Shuttle model in January 1972. Image: NASA.
First, before accepting the STG report in September 1969, the White House added a fourth IPP schedule with no fixed dates. Nixon then adopted the line that IPP development would proceed as funding became available with the goal of a man on Mars by the year 2000, a date so far in the future as to be meaningless. Next, in July 1970, a year after Apollo 11, Nixon accepted Paine’s resignation, effective on the first anniversary of the STG report (Sept. 15, 1970), and replaced him with the more pliant James Fletcher. Finally, on Jan. 5, 1972, at the start of the 1972 election year, Nixon made the Space Shuttle the sum total of NASA’s post-Apollo manned program. He touted the jobs it would create in California, a state vital to his 1972 re-election bid.

Before that fateful announcement, however, NASA expended considerable effort in the 1969-1971 period on planning the IPP’s execution. Paine’s resignation did not stop the studies. The LEO station and Shuttle received more attention than the other elements because they were viewed together as the program’s first step, but planners looked at all elements of the IPP.

In June 1970, E. Grenning, an engineer with Bellcomm, NASA’s Washington, DC-based planning contractor, developed a “traffic model” based on a modified version of Paine’s IPP Option I (the “Maximum Program”). The model spanned the years 1970 through 1984.

Grenning explained that the IPP was based on two principles. These were “the systematic establishment of semi-permanent manned bases in various locations in cislunar space and eventually in interplanetary space” and the “parallel introduction of low cost transportation systems … for the purpose of economically moving cargo and personnel to and from the bases.”


Image: NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
A major change from the IPP as submitted to Nixon was that the manned Mars program, which would span seven years, was not tied to any specific dates. Grenning explained, however, that, when the decision was taken to proceed with the manned Mars program, its seven-year schedule would need to be tied to existing Earth-Mars minimum-energy transfer opportunities.

Another change was that Grenning listed proposed automated planetary exploration missions. This was a response to protests from scientists, who were understandably eager to explore the many types of bodies in the Solar System. The “Balanced Base” planetary program would include 21 missions, all of which would leave Earth between 1976 and 1984.

In addition, Grenning stretched the IPP over a longer period, so that its elements would not all be in place until 1984. Combined with not providing a specific date for its man on Mars program, this made Grenning’s traffic model for Option I somewhat more conservative than the one in the STG report. it was, however, more conservative only relative to the grandiose Option I Paine championed.

Until 1975, Grenning’s traffic model was entirely based on Apollo spacecraft and Saturn rockets, none of which was reusable. Because it used no reusable vehicles and established no permanent bases, it was simple in execution compared with the traffic model that began to take effect in 1975.

The year 1970 would see three Apollo moon-landing missions, Grenning wrote, each with three astronauts, a Command and Service Module (CSM), and a Lunar Module (LM) launched on a three-stage Saturn V rocket. They would constitute the continuation of the Apollo lunar landing missions that had begun with Apollo 11. It is interesting to note that Grenning’s model, dated June 1970, seemed to exist in a parallel universe; after the Apollo 13 accident in April 1970, Apollo was grounded until January 1971.

The year 1971 would see the first two Extended Apollo missions. An uprated Saturn VB rocket would launch three astronauts, an Extended CSM (XCSM) capable of 16 days of flight, and an Extended LM (XLM) capable supporting two astronauts for three days. The XLM would have a landed payload capacity of 1000 pounds. NASA would fly two Extended Apollo missions per year from 1971 through 1974, plus one in 1975, for a total of nine missions and 54 man-days on the moon.

Once again, Grenning’s model did not match reality. In January 1970, Paine had announced that, far from being uprated, Saturn V would cease production. He had also cancelled Apollo 20, at the time the last planned moon-landing mission, leaving at most seven landings after Apollo 12. Apollo 13 subsequently trimmed that number to six.

In Grenning’s traffic model, 1972 would see the first two-stage Int-21 Saturn V derivative launch the first Apollo Applications Program (AAP) Orbital Workshop (OWS). The AAP OWS was a 22-foot-diameter Saturn V S-IVB third stage converted into a temporary space station. The Int-21, of which a total of 41 would fly between 1972 and 1984, would be capable of placing up to 250,000 pounds into LEO. Saturn IB rockets would launch three CSMs, each bearing a three-man crew, to the first AAP OWS between mid-1972 and early 1973. NASA would launch a second AAP OWS at the beginning of 1974. A total of nine CSMs would deliver crews to the the second AAP OWS by early 1976.

Paine had cancelled Apollo 20 so that its Saturn V could be used to launch the first AAP OWS. In February 1970, NASA announced that the AAP OWS program would be called the Skylab Program, a name that Grenning did not use in his June 1970 traffic model document.

Reusable IPP spacecraft and semi-permanent bases would make their debut in 1975, overlapping with missions using Apollo-Saturn systems and helping to ensure that there would be no gap in U.S. manned spaceflight. As already indicated, these would increase the complexity of NASA manned space operations. Spacecraft and bases would need to be assembled, refueled, and resupplied using other spacecraft and bases that would themselves need to be assembled, refueled, and resupplied.

In 1975, NASA would launch on an Int-21 its first LEO Space Station Module (SSM), the prototype for all subsequent SSMs. Grenning wrote that the LEO SSM, which would orbit between 200 and 300 nautical miles above the Earth, would be used to conduct science, applications, and technology (SA & T) research. It would also serve as a depot for cargo bound for GEO and the moon, a satellite repair base, and an assembly and launch control center for automated and manned planetary missions.


Image: NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
Soon after the LEO SSM reached space, the fully reusable Space Shuttle would take wing for the first time. In the LEO SSM’s first year, winged Shuttle orbiters would visit it three times. The 12-man Shuttle orbiter would lift off vertically on the back of a winged, manned booster larger than a 707 airliner, then would separate and ignite its own cluster of engines to complete the climb to LEO. It would carry up to 50,000 pounds of payload in its 15-by-60-foot payload bay. A Shuttle orbiter would be good for 100 flights before retirement.

In 1975, NASA would also conduct a test flight of the Saturn VC, a beefed-up three-stage Saturn V with a Space Tug/LM-B fourth stage. The Saturn VC, an “interim system” for bridging the gap between Apollo and more advanced IPP lunar systems, would be capable of placing 100,000 pounds into lunar orbit. The LM-B, a Space Tug with landing legs, could operate on the lunar surface for 14 days at a stretch.

The American Bicentennial year of 1976 would see an Int-21 boost a stack of five fully fueled Space Tug/LM-Bs into LEO. With a full load of liquid hydrogen (LH2) fuel and liquid oxygen (LOX) oxidizer, each Tug/LM-B would have a mass of about 50,000 pounds. Space Tug/LM-Bs would be designed for a one-year in-space lifetime. Beginning in 1976, one Space Tug/LM-B would be based at the LEO SSM at all times for use in satellite servicing, spacecraft assembly, Earth-orbital rescue, and other missions.


Image: NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
Early in 1976, a Saturn VC would launch a 50,000-pound SSM and a fully fueled Space Tug/LM-B to near-polar lunar orbit. During 1976, 1977, and 1978, nine Saturn VCs would launch four Space Tug/LM-Bs and five four-man “QCSMs” to the lunar-orbit SSM, enabling a continuous lunar population of four astronauts. The QCSM, which Grenning did not describe, would be an interim system like the Saturn VC. Two-man crews would land on the moon in Space Tug/LM-Bs four times in 1976, five times in 1977, and four times in 1978. Each trip to the lunar surface and back would expend 50,000 pounds of LN2/LOX propellants.

The lunar-orbit SSM would keep two fully fueled Space Tug/LM-Bs on hand at all times. One would land on the moon and the other would stand by to rescue the surface astronauts in the event that their Space Tug/LM-B malfunctioned. After a year of operations, Space Tug/LM-Bs based at the lunar-orbit SSM would be stripped down and turned into tankage for a propellant depot in lunar orbit.

Also in 1976, the Space Shuttle would fly eight times. Six Shuttle missions would deliver astronauts, supplies, and cargoes, including two automated planetary spacecraft, to the LEO SSM. The remaining two missions would see the Shuttle orbiter serve a “tanker” role. Each Shuttle would carry 50,000 pounds of LH2/LOX propellants, enough to refuel one Space Tug/LM-B.


Image: NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
The first two missions of the Balanced Base planetary program, the Venus Explorer Orbiter and the Comet d’Arrest flyby, would depart Earth in 1976. Automated planetary missions would each need two fully-fueled Space Tug/LM-Bs. When the planetary launch window opened, Space Tug/LM-B #1 would ignite its rocket engines to accelerate Space Tug/LM-B #2 and the planetary probe, then would shut down its engines, undock from Space Tug/LM-B #2, turn end for end, and fire its engines again to return to LEO for refueling and reuse.

Space Tug/LM-B #2 would fire its engines to further accelerate the planetary probe, then would shut down its engines and release the probe onto its interplanetary trajectory. Space Tug/LM-B #2 would then turn end for end and fire its engines to slow itself and return to LEO.

In 1977, the Space Shuttle would fly 10 times and the Int-21 would fly twice. The Space Tug/LM-B could not carry enough propellants to change from near-equatorial LEO SSM orbit to polar orbit, so two Shuttle orbiters would launch directly from Earth’s surface into polar orbit to perform sortie (non-space station) missions. Polar sorties would occur at a rate of two per year through 1984.


Image: NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
Eight Shuttle missions would transport crews and cargoes between Earth and the LEO SSM. One of those would deliver to the LEO SSM 50,000 pounds of LH2 propellant for the first NERVA nuclear-thermal rocket engine-equipped Nuclear Shuttle, and four would deliver 50,000 pounds of Space Tug/LM-B propellants each.

One Int-21 would launch the first Nuclear Shuttle and another would launch five fully fueled Space Tug/LM-Bs (four for the robotic planetary program and one for the LEO SSM). The Int-21 would not be able to launch the Nuclear Shuttle to LEO fully fueled, so it would reach space with room in its tank for an additional 50,000 pounds of LH2 propellant. Before a newly launched Nuclear Shuttle departed LEO for the first time, a Shuttle orbiter tanker would rendezvous with it to top off its tank.

Nuclear Shuttles would each be good for 10 missions from LEO to GEO or lunar orbit and back, then would be launched into disposal orbit around the Sun. Some would carry a cargo of spent Space Tug/LM-Bs into solar orbit with them.


Image: NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
Each Nuclear Shuttle mission would expend 240,000 pounds of LH2. Six Space Shuttle tanker flights would be required to refuel the Nuclear Shuttle once. The Nuclear Shuttle would transport to the lunar-orbit SSM six astronauts and 90,000 pounds of cargo, or 100,000 pounds of cargo in unmanned mode. It could return 10,000 pounds of cargo and six astronauts from the moon to the LEO SSM.

The Nuclear Shuttle could deliver 90,000 pounds of cargo and six astronauts to GEO and return six astronauts from GEO to the LEO SSM. After the GEO SSM was established in 1980, all Nuclear Shuttles would perform a shakedown cruise to GEO before traveling to lunar orbit for the first time. If it malfunctioned during its maiden flight to GEO, a Space Tug/LM-B could rendezvous with it to make repairs or return it to the LEO SSM.

The first Nuclear Shuttle would operate only in unmanned mode; its 10 missions would in effect serve as an extended flight test. The first manned Nuclear Shuttle, the second launched, would reach LEO on an Int-21 in early 1979. Four manned and six unmanned Nuclear Shuttle flights would occur each year beginning in 1981, by which time one new Nuclear Shuttle would reach LEO and one old Nuclear Shuttle would be disposed of in solar orbit each year.


Image: NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
In 1977, four Tug/LM-B pairs would launch the Mars Explorer Orbiter, the Mars High Data Orbiter, and two Jupiter-Saturn-Pluto Mariner-class flyby spacecraft. The Tug/LM-Bs would burn the propellants with which they were launched to send the two Mars missions on their way, then would be refueled to launch the twin Jupiter-Saturn-Pluto missions. Grenning noted that dispatching automated spacecraft to destinations beyond the Main Asteroid Belt would need so much energy that the second Tug/LM-B could spare no propellants to return to LEO. It would, therefore, be expended.

The year 1978 would see a Mercury-Venus Mariner flyby, a Venus-Mariner Orbiter, and a Solar-Electric Asteroid Belt Survey depart the LEO SSM. All Space Tug/LM-Bs used to launch these missions would be recovered. In 1979, NASA would launch the 6,000-pound Mars Soft Lander/Rover and two more Jupiter-Saturn-Pluto Mariner-class flybys, expending two Tug/LM-Bs. In 1980, a second Venus Explorer Orbiter would leave Earth, as would two Jupiter Flyby/Probe spacecraft. The latter would expend two Tug/LM-Bs. The year 1981 would see a second Mars Explorer Orbiter, two Saturn Mariner-class Orbiter/Probes, and two more expended Tug/LM-Bs.

NASA would launch only one automated planetary mission, the 8,000-pound Mercury Solar Electric Orbiter, in 1982. Venus would get another Venus Explorer Orbiter and a Venus Mariner Orbiter/Rough Lander in 1983. NASA would also launch its second comet mission, this time a Mariner rendezvous with Comet Kopff. With a mass of 8500 pounds, it would be the heaviest of the 21 automated probes in the Balanced Base program. Mars would get a second High Data Orbiter and a second Soft Lander/Rover in 1984.


Image: NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
Back in NASA’s manned program, between 1979 and 1981 Int-21s would launch three more LEO SSMs. These would be combined with the first LEO SSM to form a “Space Base.” In 1980, an Int-21 would launch into LEO an SSM that would be mated to a Nuclear Shuttle and boosted to GEO. Early in 1979, Space Shuttle missions would begin to fly at a rate of 30 per year; by mid-1980, Grenning had the number of flights ramping up to 90 per year.

As indicated earlier, Grenning tied manned Mars missions to no particular year. Probably the manned Mars program would not begin until NASA had ample experience with long-duration spaceflight, orbital assembly, and Nuclear Shuttle operations; that is, not until 1983 at the earliest. The Bellcomm planner did, however, lay out a seven-year plan encompassing two complete manned Mars missions and the first half of a third. The first and second missions and second and third missions would overlap.


Image: NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
All three would follow a conjunction-class mission profile; that is, they would reach Mars in about six months, remain there for about 18 months, and return to Earth in about six months. For safety, two identical six-man Mars spacecraft would travel as a convoy. At launch from the Space Base, each would comprise three Nuclear Shuttles, a mission module housing the crew, a payload module bearing unmanned probes and supplies, and a two-stage manned Mars Excursion Module (MEM) lander. Both Mars spacecraft would be capable of supporting the entire 12-man mission complement.

Eighteen months before the first mission was set to depart the Space Base, NASA would launch four Nuclear Shuttles on Int-21 rockets and then launch four Space Shuttles to top off their tanks. The following year, the space agency would launch two more Nuclear Shuttles. These would each have a half-load of LH2 propellant because the Int-21s that launched them would also carry one MEM each. Topping off the Nuclear Shuttles’ tanks would need three Space Shuttle flights. Six Shuttle flights would fuel Space Tug/LM-Bs used for Mars spacecraft assembly. A final pair of Int-21s would launch the twin mission modules; a final Space Shuttle would launch the Mars spacecraft crews.


Image: NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
As the countdown clock reached zero, the NERVA engines in the two outboard Nuclear Shuttles on each spacecraft would fire to place the third Nuclear Shuttle, mission module, payload module, and MEM on course for Mars. They would then shut down, separate, turn end for end, and fire their engines again to slow themselves and return to LEO. The center Nuclear Shuttle on each spacecraft would perform course corrections and slow the spacecraft so that Mars’s gravity could capture them into orbit.

After 18 months at Mars, the twin center Nuclear Shuttles would fire again to put the mission modules on course for Earth. They would perform course corrections; then, as they neared Earth, they would fire for the last time to slow the mission modules for capture into Earth orbit. Space Tug/LM-Bs would retrieve the Mars crews and the center Nuclear Shuttles.

The second and third Mars missions would be carried out in much the same way. The four outboard Nuclear Shuttles from the first mission would be reused for the second and third missions and the two center Nuclear Shuttles from the first mission would be reused for the third mission. The second mission would leave LEO before the first mission returned, so would need two new center Nuclear Shuttles. Grenning wrote that the third mission, preparations for which would begin in the fifth year of the seven-year program, might establish the first semi-permanent Mars surface base.

Grenning forecast that the seven-year manned Mars program would need four Space Shuttle flights and four Int-21 flights in its first year to place Mars spacecraft components and (especially) propellants into LEO. Year 2, toward the end of which the first two manned Mars spacecraft would depart from Earth orbit, would need 4 Int-21s and 13 Shuttles. Year 3, during which preparation for the second Mars expedition would begin, would need just one Int-21 and 13 Shuttle flights. NASA would launch 20 Space Shuttle flights and three Int-21s in the Mars program’s fourth year, 10 Shuttle flights and no Int-21s in its fifth, and 24 Shuttle flights and four Int-21s in its sixth. The final year of the program would see no Int-21s and 13 Shuttle flights.

He also summed up the number of flights required to carry out the Maximum Rate cislunar program from 1975, when IPP stations and spacecraft began to replace Apollo-based stations and spacecraft, to 1984. The Space Shuttle fleet would accomplish 518 missions to LEO. The Saturn VC would fly 11 times between 1975 and 1979, when it would be phased out in favor of manned lunar flights via the Space Shuttle, LEO SSM, Nuclear Shuttle, lunar-orbit SSM, and LM-B. The Int-21 would fly 25 times, with a peak annual launch rate of five in 1981.

Was Paine’s IPP in any sense realistic? It depends on the judgement criteria one uses. Certainly, it was not a realistic option for 1970 America due to domestic political and economic considerations.

In addition, one might take issue with its confident assertion that its network of reusable space systems and semi-permanent bases would save money. Complex reusable space systems require either costly development or costly refurbishment. A single failure can take down an entire network of interdependent complex systems, and pioneering systems are more prone to failure than well-established ones. If, for example, a Space Shuttle had exploded, then crew and propellant transport would have ground to a halt throughout the IPP infrastructure.

One might, on the other hand, argue that the IPP’s scale was not adequate for the challenges of piloted space exploration. Even the grand-scale IPP would have permitted access only to cislunar space and Mars. Perhaps we find the IPP grandiose in part because we have been conditioned to “think small” about space exploration. If our plans took in our entire local neighborhood – the Solar System – and sought to be realistic, then they would of necessity demand a scale orders of magnitude beyond that of the IPP.

Reference:

Integrated Manned Space Flight Program Traffic Model Case 105-4, E. M. Grenning, Bellcomm, Inc., June 4, 1970.

Beyond Apollo chronicles space history through missions and programs that didn’t happen.



RELATEDYOU MIGHT LIKERelated Links by Contextly
Blueprint for 1970s Planetary Exploration (1968)
The LUT, the Shuttle, and the Saturn V S-IC Stage (1969)
Making Space Cool Again

I research and write space history with an emphasis on missions and programs planned but not flown. Sometimes I do some important stuff, too.

Read more by David S. F. Portree

Follow @dsfportree on Twitter.

Tags: 1970, Apollo, Beyond Apollo, Geosynchronous Orbit, Integrated Program Plan, low-Earth orbit, lunar orbit, Mars, moon, moon base, Nuclear Shuttle, robot explorers, space shuttle, space station
Post Comment | 34 Comments |  Permalink

inShare
43
Reddit DiggStumble UponDeliciousEmail

Like No


Post as …


WreckNTexan
Yesterday 03:40 PM
There is one huge problem with public funded space missions, the time lines don't work with politicians in office.  They have a short life span, and space goals are long termed goals.  Not much else can be said, Space doesn't provide money for elections and in return don't get handouts

hide 3 replies reply

David S. F. Portree
Yesterday 04:00 PM
It depends on which kind of space missions you mean. It's hard to imagine a big monster like Paine's IPP being funded under any circumstances (maybe if we had to fight off bug-eyed monsters, but otherwise, nope). Robotic missions can go from concept to launch or even mission payoff in a few years at a cost that's under the political radar. Piloted spaceflight along the lines we see now lacks an adequate justification beyond "jobs program" in the minds of most politicos, plus it just makes it onto the radar - mainly, I think, because it's highly visible, almost Hollywood, not so much because of the cost, which is, after all, tiny by most government standards (0.5% of the Fed budget, or less than $20 billion/year). If it were less visible - and I'm not saying that that would be a good thing - I doubt that there'd be much fuss about a sustained expenditure along those lines over years or decades. 

Of course, the big issue is that there's no viable alternative to public-funded spaceflight. Were it not for the ideologically motivated push to get NASA to subsidize "commercial crew," entities like SpaceX wouldn't even exist. NASA...

show more
hide 2 replies reply

bruno_00
Today 10:24 AM
"and so far they haven't demonstrated that they can do anything NASA needs done."

I'll go one step further, and say that they haven't even done anything that NASA didn't already do decades ago.

hide 1 reply reply

David S. F. Portree
Today 10:51 AM
That's entirely true, though they are better than NASA at hyping themselves, I have to give them that. They've got some people convinced that they'll be launching humans to Mars in a few years, for example. Which takes advantage of the fact that many (most?) people don't understand the state of readiness of these start-ups nor the challenges of interplanetary voyages.

The thing people seem to miss is that private enterprise has been involved from the beginning. It's really inexplicable that people miss this. NASA contracts for services of all kinds. Aerospace giants like Lockheed Martin (to name just one) rely heavily on government contracts with the DOD, NASA, NOAA, etc., in addition to building stuff for private entities, such as airlines, when there's a reason to do so (that is, when there's profits in it). NASA sometimes provides GFE (Government-Furnished Equipment), but that's not typical. NASA supervises the contractors, then uses the hardware they build. In most every instance, the contractors remain involved with the hardware they build, again under NASA supervision.

In the case of the start-ups, NASA is being mandated by Congress to buy services from them. That is, to subsidize them. In addition,...

show more
reply

Timothy Culley
Today 06:44 AM
Wow it would have been amazing if all this had happened before I was born. What is really depressing is that the technology existed to do this so long ago and yet here we sit, not even being able to launch ourselves into orbit. 

hide 1 reply reply

David S. F. Portree
Today 07:04 AM
The problem is, it didn't exist. It would have had to have been developed on a crash program basis to hit the target dates in the IPP. Not the way to go.

reply

Ad
Yesterday 09:02 PM
This project would have tremendously accelerated human's technological edge, most ppl don't realize that space tech has been made available and enhanced our everyday life. The costs would ultimately be made back. Instead we choose to spend trillions on killing our very own kind and spending more trillions on newer ways to kill even more of us.

(Edited by author 15 hours ago)
hide 1 reply reply

David S. F. Portree
Yesterday 09:09 PM
I think this plan was seriously flawed and would have failed because of its heavy reliance on complex reusable systems operating in concert.

reply

Tom Billings
Today 12:20 AM
Well, this is the first mention of the IPP I've seen from others in about 30 years. The article seems well done. The collapse into political jobbery after this plan was rightly rejected ( Future human spaceflight as part of the struggle with "the socialist camp" had become politically unimportant in Washington, since after July 24th 1969 few doubted US technical superiority) still disturbs me. IIRC, Nixon had been one of the biggest supporters, inside the White House, of Space activity when Vice President.

The ability of a supposedly conservative administration to simply assume that human activity in the rest of the universe was not to be opened to the rest of the Republic irritates to this day. They kept its functions within Lyndon Johnson's political bases in Houston, Huntsville, and Cocoa Beach, and simply milked it for whatever short-term political gain they could, such as paying off political debts to Senator Jake Garn in Utah, by demanding not just solid boosters, but segmented solid boosters. Not only were liquid propellant boosters cheaper by far to operate, but the solids never had to be segmented.

An Aerojet exec once sat next to me on a cross-country flight,...

show more
(Edited by author 12 hours ago)
hide 1 reply reply

David S. F. Portree
Today 07:22 AM
This is an interesting revisionist view. One thing to chew on - Nixon was probably more liberal and socialist than Barack Obama. I mean, look at their records, not just the labels they wear, and you'll see what I mean. Careful dispassionate research (not cherry-picking) would undermine most of what you say, I'm afraid, but you have some interesting ideas.

I don't have time right now to address all your points - need to get the kid to school - but I'll mull it over and respond in more detail later.

Addendum: OK, I'm back. The Aerojet story is interesting, but one hears many such stories from contractors that don't win. Perhaps there's something to it; I don't know enough about the details to say. Equally likely, this guy was blowing smoke. That said, the Fletcher-Nixon-Thiokol-Garn axis is pretty well substantiated. Another one that raises questions - Grumman in Long Island came up with the Shuttle config basically as flown. Yet North American Rockwell in California got the contract to build it. NASA changed the specs to call for something like Grumman's design, let a lot of contractors submit bids, then picked NAR. Reason - California was...

show more
reply

Sandy
Yesterday 05:01 PM
The idea of humans spreading their vicious tribal hatred beyond the moon is unthinkable. There's no doubt in my mind the only reason governments want to return to the moon is to arm it with nuclear weapons. Get over it, this species of hairless apes will never become space faring adventurers. Word gets around, and if intelligent lifeforms are monitoring us they know all too well what happened when Spanish Conquistadors went looking for adventure. First colonists to Mars will get vaporized. 

hide 6 replies reply

David S. F. Portree
Yesterday 05:02 PM
I think you have a sci-fi movie plot there. But wait - it has been  done already - isn't that AVATAR?

hide 1 reply reply

RaulMaciasMSQ
Yesterday 05:19 PM
AND Pocahontas...AND Ferngully....AND Dances With Wolves...AND the Ewoks..AND...

reply

Imre Beke
Yesterday 06:57 PM
Looking for adventure? You're an idiot...

hide 3 replies reply

David S. F. Portree
Yesterday 09:01 PM
No name-calling. Last warning. 

hide 2 replies reply

horsey_horse
Today 06:10 AM
This is a really interesting blog and probably the best thing featured on Wired's site right now, but I think you should deal with off-topic comments by having a prominent comment policy and by moderating away comments rather than threatening to ban people, including people responding to off-topic comments.

After all, this is Wired: people expect that the only response to the random creationists and crackpots is going to be their own, so it's probably a shock to be threatened with a ban when they were just signalling their disapproval. Tell people clearly and prominently that the discussion is actively moderated and most people will just let you get on with it.

hide 1 reply reply

David S. F. Portree
Today 07:13 AM
If I wrote a prominent comment policy, the only people who would read it are those who wouldn't need it. The bad apples seem barely able to read the posts - often they don't even do that, they just spew nonsense, call names, etc. So, I give them a warning, and if they persist, they are gone.

Basically, I'm doing my best to encourage a reasoned, mutually respectful conversation. The kind people would have around a table, maybe over beers. Just blurting, "You're an idiot" would not be appropriate in that setting, so it's not appropriate here.

reply

bruno_00
Today 10:56 AM
Thanks for an interesting read.  I'm curious to know, do you think there's any strategy NASA could have followed instead of the one it did, which might have resulted in the space program accomplishing more than it has following the Apollo program?  In other words, what would YOU have done instead of the IPP?

Apart from the specific problems of the IPP, It seems to me that the space program was perhaps destined to flounder for two primary reasons:  First, as you mention, the Soviet missile race was a motivating factor, and once that had been won, the political support waned.  But secondly, I think NASA was a victim of its own success.  By the end of the Apollo missions, it had grown to a gigantic monster of an organization, with thousands of engineers and administrators.  With such a large organization, it seems that ANY program is bound to be overly expensive and unwieldy, drowning in bureacracy and choked by internal politics.  No matter what those workers are working on, they've got to be paid, and it's going to be damned expensive.  I think it's nearly impossible for continued progress to be made in this atmosphere, especially if...

show more
reply

stan196
Today 08:15 AM
Richard Nixon was not a JFK. Spending money on space was not his thing nor would he (Nixon) do anything to further JFK's historical legacy.
Nixon went to China as well as committing war crimes in Vietnam( this comment includes all president's except Eisenhower) and impeachable offense's against the U.S.
but he would not pay a dime for space.

(Edited by author 4 hours ago)
hide 1 reply reply

David S. F. Portree
Today 11:21 AM
I think that ditching the JFK/LBJ Apollo Program was a big part of what Nixon was about when it came to space policy decisions. It's said he thought astronauts were heroes and didn't want to deprive America of its heroes, but I find that hard to accept. 

I should add, though, that JFK was not a JFK either. That is, he said repeatedly that he didn't care about space and regretted the expense. It's well documented now that he wanted to extend a hand to the Russians and end the moon race - possibly doing a joint manned moon mission, possibly setting a new, cheaper goal. LBJ was the force behind Apollo - him and his various cronies. NASA was forever shaped by LBJ's political alliances. 

reply

J_Geenty
Today 03:16 AM
The interesting thing with IPP and various other plans is you can see that everyone had a fairly clear idea of what the future could look like up to 1975/1976 and then it all becomes much, much harder to read. With relevant funding you can see how Apollo 14-Apollo 20 would have gone, Skylab A, maybe even Skylab B and upgraded Saturn V and CSM... even a NERVA test flight. It’s even possible to see the crew assignments and that NASA could have completed the programme just using the astronaut corps that existed in 1970. But beyond that it all becomes much harder and this is where I think the planners really struggled. Any politician is going to want a plan that is affordable, attractive in the short term and served a political as well as scientific purpose. The IPP promises Nixon nothing especially new throughout his term in office, other than big spending that another administration will claim the prestige from.
But it’s difficult to see what NASA could have offered in 1969 that would have been attractive. I like the idea of funding Apollo to mission 20, Skylab A, Skylab B and maybe a few lunar duration...

show more
hide 1 reply reply

David S. F. Portree
Today 07:02 AM
This is really excellent - exactly what I like to see. Talking about the article and its implications, not moaning and groaning about present-day space stuff you don't understand or calling for the extinction of humanity. You are top of the class, J_Geenty.

Everything you write is precisely correct. I want to point out here that NASA had other plans that paid more attention to the political cycle. 1970s piloted Mars/Venus flybys using Apollo and Apollo Application Program technology as a bridge to a 1980s Mars landing mission, for example. The first flyby would have left Earth in late 1975, during the second term of the President elected in 1968, and would have flown past Mars before the 1976 election. Unfortunately, the piloted flyby concept was a victim of the Apollo 1 fire and Vietnam. I'll be writing about NASA's October 1966 blueprint for such a program shortly. 

reply

vharmy
Yesterday 11:57 PM
So you had this entry posted under a different title yesterday... after at least 24hrs there were no comments... so then you re-titled it to something more flashy. Woot, you now have commenters. Good for you. Yeah, totally not obvious at all. I've been really enjoy your posts until this.

hide 1 reply reply

David S. F. Portree
Today 07:09 AM
Uh, no. This post has had the same title since it was posted. The only thing that changed is it got promoted to the Wired front page after it had received about 25 FB likes. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply, but it's wrong.

Addendum: You might be thinking of the previous post. I accidentally posted it early - the buttons are too close together! - with my working title. So, I changed it a shorter title. But it was within a couple of hours of the original post.

Frankly, if no one commented on or liked or tweeted any of my posts, I'd still post this stuff.

reply

Trikyneubs
Yesterday 08:39 PM
I wonder how the Vietnam pricetag (in dollars and lives) stacks up to this extremely ambitious proposal.    It would be interesting to know how an accelerated space race would have made our world different than it is.  I imagine ten NASAs doing twenty times what they do now...  shades of "2010 Oddessey Two" come to mind. I guess we are pretty fortunate to have a science minded space program compared to a more military version. What if we had not beat russia to the moon?

(Edited by author 15 hours ago)
hide 1 reply reply

David S. F. Portree
Yesterday 09:00 PM
I calculated for my book HUMANS TO MARS that in 1968 we were spending the entire $25-billion cost of the Apollo Program on Vietnam every 10 weeks. But that doesn't answer your question. The IPP cost estimates were either nonexistent or dubious. Paine told Congress and the press in defiance of Nixon that he wanted a $5-billion NASA budget in 1975. Von Braun told the STG that a budget ramping up to $9 billion in 1979 would pay for the Maximum Rate IPP up through the first manned Mars mission in 1981. Unlike Grenning, he assumed no robotic missions. 

reply

Robert Holland
Yesterday 08:02 PM
Thanks for the article David.

reply

Glenn
Yesterday 06:24 AM
This is utter fiction, complete cold-war hype. The more we learn about human space travel, the more we realize that manned trips to the moon, much less mars, are nothing more than science fiction.

It would not surprise me in the least if the whole Apollo program were revealed to be a cold war hoax.

hide 6 replies reply

David S. F. Portree
Yesterday 06:45 AM
No, this was a flawed plan for post-Apollo space exploration aggressively promoted by a well-meaning but naive Washington neophyte (Paine, a registered Democrat, had seven months of Federal experience when he became acting NASA AA following James Webb's resignation - Nixon probably kept Paine on to have someone to blame if Apollo 11 failed). Humans visited the moon nine times between 1968 and 1972, landing six times and bringing back more than 800 pounds of geologic samples that are still being studied today. I'm not sure what you've learned about human space travel, but long Earth-orbital stays and short lunar sojourns are quite do-able. As for longer lunar stays and destinations beyond the moon, the jury is still out. I favor a variable-gravity space station as our next step.

Beyond Apollo is not a science fiction blog. Admittedly, some of the more grandiose schemes read that way. I hope readers will get something from the context I provide, the analysis, even when the mission planning study I describe is flawed. Bad plans poorly executed are still plans, which is the stuff of this blog.

(Edited by author 1 day ago)
hide 2 replies reply

Kerry_Foster
Yesterday 10:53 AM
David, I think your right about Nixon's keeping Paine.  As to Glenn questioning the lunar landings, where do these people come from?!  The Russians could have and WOULD have denounced a faked landing, their tracking systems and other space assets would have been able to prove it was fake!  Also, why fake Apollo 13? or anything past 11?  That's just stupid, the more data you give the enemy (Russia), the more likely it is they'll catch you!  IF NASA could have faked Apollo 11, and that's a huge if, keeping the stunt going makes no sense.

That said, I love this blog, flawed, poorly executed bad plans and all, it's all cool(some more than other, that's life).  Keep it coming!

hide 1 reply reply

David S. F. Portree
Yesterday 11:08 AM
Kerry:

Yeah, the whole moon hoax phenomenon is interesting. It seems to have started in the mid-1970s with a disaffected contractor technical writer who was laid off and got mad. He wrote this crazy book and published it on his own dime. Most of it was crazy enough that even the hoaxers don't cite it, but that's the first reference to Apollo being faked I've run across. Supposedly the film CAPRICORN 1 was inspired by this book, or a newspaper article about it, and then itself triggered conspiracy buffs who couldn't tell fiction from reality.

But that's all I want to say about that business. It's interesting from a "madness in history" point of view (you know, like the lunatic witch-burning phenomenon of a few centuries back), but that's not a big area of interest for me.

Some articles here will be dull as dishwater, I'm sure, but hopefully they'll all contain at least a few fun nuggets.

reply

DougZ
Yesterday 04:36 PM
Troololololoooo

hide 2 replies reply

David S. F. Portree
Yesterday 04:45 PM
DougZ: I'm concerned for you. It looks like you were starting to type something, was grabbed from behind by something bent on causing you harm, and just managed to hit "send" before you succumbed. Or maybe that your two-year-old kid commandeered your account. If you are still alive, please try again. 

hide 1 reply reply

Gary McDermott
Today 11:16 AM
 DougZ is referring to the meme, 'Don't feed the trolls' and/or suggesting that Glenn's post isn't really worth the effort of responding since it was just designed to get under the skin of people who may actually be interested in the article

reply

About David S. F. Portree


Subscribe
I research and write space history with an emphasis on missions and programs planned but not flown. Sometimes I do some important stuff, too.
Wired Science Blogs
A new network of all-star science bloggers.
Beyond Apollo
David S. F. Portree Clastic Detritus
Brian Romans Dot Physics
Rhett Allain Eruptions
Erik Klemetti The Extremo Files
Jeffrey Marlow Frontal Cortex
Jonah Lehrer Laelaps
Brian Switek Neuron Culture
David Dobbs Rocket Shop
Kristian von Bengtson Social Dimension
Samuel Arbesman Superbug
Maryn McKenna
Read the latest Wired Science Blogs articles
Follow us on Twitter
MOST RECENT STORIES

Integrated Program Plan “Maximum Rate” Traffic Model (1970)
Robot Rendezvous at Hadley Rille (1968)
The LUT, the Shuttle, and the Saturn V S-IC Stage (1969)
Ernst’s Ions Week Concludes: NERVA-Ion Mars Mission (1966)
Anniversary Day
Ernst’s Ions Part 3: Twirling Ion Mars Ships (1962)
Ernst’s Ions Week Continues: Lunar Ion Freighter (1959)
Ernst’s Ions Week on Beyond Apollo: The Cosmic Butterfly (1954)
Manned Mars Surface Missions (1966)
Apollo Space Freighter (1963)

David S. F. Portree
DSFPORTREE
dsfportree @marsroverdriver Non-allergic genes. A little hard to go back and change that though, I guess. . .
14 hours ago · reply · retweet · favorite
dsfportree @Eaterofsun Except they are nearly all USGS maps with nomenclature removed. I am custodian of ~60K such maps. "SPL/Barcroft Media"? BS.
14 hours ago · reply · retweet · favorite
dsfportree @dsfportree @PlanetCharlene Anyway, I suspect you'd have a much better handle on the politics at this stage of the game than I do.
18 hours ago · reply · retweet · favorite
dsfportree @PlanetCharlene That makes some degree of sense. Or maybe it's a tactic to remove the Mars emphasis?
18 hours ago · reply · retweet · favorite

Join the conversation


Corrections | Sitemap | FAQ | Contact Us | Wired Staff | Advertising | Press Center | Subscription Services | Newsletter | RSS Feeds
Condé Nast Web Sites:
Webmonkey | Reddit | ArsTechnica | Details | Golf Digest | GQ | New Yorker

Wired.com © 2012 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. Use of this Site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (effective 3/21/12) and Privacy Policy (effective 3/21/12). Your California Privacy Rights.

The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast.

Ad Choices