Octopus Overlords

"God protects fools and drunks, Trigg. Mort's a little of both."

Freezer-TPF- wrote:This is way better than the Lee Carvello AAR.

[DOCUMENT INSERT, NASA DIRECTOR TRIGG CUT]

[Memo dated 3-18-61, prepared for Trigg Cutt by Dr. Robert Seamans, Associate Director, NASA]

[Eyes only, Confidential]

Summary of the chiefs meeting last week Trigg, and in light of the White House mandate to get a man to the moon before 1970, I thought it might be a good idea to sketch out exactly what we're looking at for both our short-term and longterm future.

Re: the topic of lunar approach

Mr. Elwin and Mr. Carter brought up Direct Ascent first. This is the "Buck Rogers" method of getting to the moon with one giant spacecraft attached to one giant rocket. The rocket puts the craft into an earth orbit and the craft then enters a burn for a lunar trajectory, burns for lunar orbit, burns for descent, burns for landing on the surface. After EVA on lunar surface, same spacecraft burns for launch, burns for lunar orbit, burns for earth trajectory and all mid-course corrections, burns for reentry.

Mr. Carter was asked to assess how large an engine would be required for the necessary maneuvers here. Assessment: larger than anything we've conceived so far. Mr. Elwin asked by you how much fuel required on board this craft. Mr. Elwin responded that figure was unknown, but perhaps 10-15 times that which was required to put Mercury craft in earth orbit. Dr. Von Braun stated that a lifting platform (rocket in other words) necessary to get a vehicle that heavy even into earth orbit would be something beyond our current engineering ability. Discussion followed on weights and lift capacity of current programs.

Mr. Brock and Mr. Gibson then discussed Earth Orbit Rendezvous. You're well familiar with EOR Trigg, we've discussed it at length and there wasn't much new material presented here, just a nice recap of what we're looking at. EOR is clearly the easiest method to the moon for us to see right now. We simply stage a series of launches to put separate-stages of a single craft into earth orbit, dock these together, and then burn for a lunar trajectory. The lift capability is a minute fraction of what we'd need for Direct Ascent. Obviously the various docking requirements are a concern, but this seems feasible and on the horizon. As you know, this procedure has overwhelming support around Houston, and everyone here and at the Cape seems to be working under the assumption that this is how we get to the moon in 8 years.

Mr. Stone and Mr. Houboult (the Langley guys) then made their presentation on something new they're calling "Lunar Orbit Rendezvous". LOR proposes a single launch lifting a three-stage craft into earth orbit. The craft burns a lunar trajectory, burns a lunar orbit, and then crew enter the lunar module (which itself is a 2-stage ascent and descent craft) to land on moon and then launch out and re-dock with orbiting command module. This proposal introduced almost as many skeptical questions as Direct Ascent, but there may be a few merits worth considering with it.

Interested in your feelings and if we are ready to proceed.

[DOCUMENT INSERT, NASA ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR DR. ROBERT SEAMANS]

[Memo dated 3-20-61, sent from Trigg Cutt to Dr. Seamans]

[Eyes only, confidential]

Robert, thanks for the update. I have been doing a lot of thinking here and entered into discussions with you, Von Braun, and even some of the astronauts. My thoughts:

1. Direct Ascent is a no-go. Every piece of hardware here is too theoretical, from design to the actual alloys and fuels used to get the kind of lift and thrust DA requires.

2. EOR has always been the method I've considered the fastest and safest way to the Moon. Now I'm not sure, though. To EOR, we would need 3 consecutive successful launches of three separate segments of a spacecraft, then three successful earth-orbit dockings. That's six steps with a high degree of variable to them, and if any one of those steps is less than normative we have no lunar mission. If we are against a time crunch in '68-69, the logistics of troubleshooting and rescheduling (as well as crew mission preparedness) seems almost prohibitive with this approach. I'm not abandoning it, but I am pointing out that it may be too time critical.

3. My first impression of LOR was probably similar to yours--interesting, but we don't have the hardware to do it. Honestly, LOR seems like a compromise of DA and EOR, but it might bring more to the table than either. First of all, LOR requires a bigger lifting platform than anything we have. That's our biggest hurdle. Had an interesting sit-down with Von Braun yesterday. As you know, we're almost a go for getting a prototype of the codename Saturn 1b rocket into testing. Von Braun showed me mockups of a modification of the 1b architecture that adds engines and LIFTING CAPACITY to the 1b. Most interestingly, he and his team have actually had this Saturn 1b modification in the works from the beginning and his team seems more enthusiastic about this 5-engine giant than they do about the 1b. This variant on the 1b, (they call it the Saturn V, for the five engines)--along with a booster/kicker stage, would give us enough boost to perform an LOR. Unless you have objections, I'm going to recommend next week that all 1b development be scrapped and Von Braun's team focus exclusively on the S-V.

At this point I'm thinking LOR offers the best compromise of a low number of variables (single launch, two dockings vs. double or triple launch and 3-4 dockings) and feasibility.

Robert, here's the laundry list, then:

1. Delivery platform (Saturn V, which is in development; I hope for a mission launch by 1963)
2. Command module (LOR will require at minimum a 3-man vehicle here; I have some options with this.)
3. EVA suit tech (completed, although we should modify for lunar temps and dust)
4. Docking module (prepare for headaches, since every engineer and astronaut I've had report on this tells us that docking will require numerous missions to work out all variables.)
5. Kicker stage (not yet developed, will have to be started in next 18 months, required for any mission that includes lunar module)
6. Lunar module (not yet developed, will have to be started ASAP for full ground testing and then mission testing in space.)

Also recommend development of more advanced unmanned satellite program concurrent with manned program. Robert, we don't know for absolute certainty that a craft won't sink into infinite layers of loose dust when it attempts to land on surface up there. Need to map moon by satellite and find best landing spots.

Finally (I know this is longform, sorry about that; secretary is at sister's wedding this week) I have thoughts on our command module/spacecraft and the crew.

As stated, this will be a 3-man crew operation. We have 7 astronauts in the program, so obviously that represents a problem. I have reviewed the list of candidates that you gave me for 9 more recruits and I concur with your recommendations. Proceed with training on the following personnel:

1. Armstrong
2. Varity
3. Cesul
4. Daehawk
5. Wiggum
6. Sarkus
7. Percy
8. Debris
9. Pyperkub

As you and I discussed on the phone last week, scrubbing Angel's mission effectively ends the Mercury phase of our manned program. Recommend all crew assigned to Mercury be reassigned to the three-man craft team.

All we need now is a three-man craft. I think we have one. I've looked at one 3-man craft on the boards at North American, codenamed "Apollo". It looks like a good design, basically built from some of the same philosophy as Mercury only expanded to include a service module and docking apparati.

A more intriguing possibility exists though. The guys at Boeing have been working on a low-orbit re-usable "space plane" or space shuttle called Dyna-Soar (hate the name too). Talking with them and Armstrong who has been working on it, the DS can be easily fitted with heat shields, should work well with a service module, would be dock-able with a lunar module, and can be retro-fitted for three crew. Advantage here is obviously re-usability of the space plane, not to mention that with advance controls it seems like it could be made more reliable than a capsule Command module design.

I'm sending along the Dyna-Soar specs for your team to look at one last time, but if you and your team here at Houston give an OK, I think we proceed with that as our moon spacecraft. The DS carries the internal spec name of XMS-1. I recommend the lunar command module variant be nominated as XMS-2, and the craft referred to by that designation by all crews here, and as the Space Shuttle for press and media.

As always, your thoughts appreciated.