Apollo 8, what if it had failed?

[Neopeius]

The "From Earth to the Moon" thread in GTVaM got me thinking about this:

---

In December of 1968, as a weary population reflected on a painful,strife-filled year, three avatars of human hope wearing American flags on their sleeves made their three day trek to the moon. Emerging from radio silence Apollo 8 returned the first images of the Earth from another celestial body, and its crew read passages from the Book of
Genesis in what would be the most televised event in human history.

The trouble began upon their return. A minor malfunction in the engines caused a slight deviation from the proper course, and a subsequent major malfunction shut down the engine systems. Calculations were made--Apollo would not miss the Earth. Instead, she would slam into the atmosphere at far too great a speed. For three frantic days, NASA engineers and the intrepid astronauts worked feverishly to solve the problem. The engine damage precluded course correction, however, and was beyond the capability for internal or external repair.

Just hours from the Earth's atmosphere, NASA hatches a desperate plan. Using the limited lift capability of the Command Module, the spacecraft might just be able to skip off the atmosphere in a trajectory which would bleed velocity and allow safe reentry.

The world waited as the astronauts' radio was silenced in the ionized layers of the atmosphere. News commentators were wordless, and the Mission Control room was eerily quiet. Two minutes. Three minutes. Five minutes. Gene Kranz wiped a sweaty brow. Someone prayed silently.

Ten minutes.

Fifteen minutes.

"It appears something may have gone wrong with re-entry," intoned Eric Sevareid, doing his best to keep his voice level. Others were not so successful. Walter Cronkite bawled openly, apologizing to his audience.

Apollo 8 had ended as Apollo 1's had begun--in fiery catastrophe. A trying year filled with pain, the deaths of Kennedy and King Jr., the riots at the Democratic Convention, the Tet offensive in Vietnam, had been capped by perhaps the strongest blow.

And a second Soviet circumlunar flight was scheduled for early 1969, and this one might be manned...

---

Is the Space Race dead? Does either side ever make it to the moon?

More importantly, how does this year of unmitigated disaster hurt the American psyche and her image around the world?

 

[Gecko of Gorn]

I'd have to doubt that the moon programme would have been scrapped.

The investments, in political and in dollar terms was far too great, IMO. A pay off some sort would required to have been realised.

Add to that the brilliance and political savvy of Von Braun (the most charismatic personality any space programme has ever produced), I'm sure some sort of positive spin would have been put on the hypothetical situation presented above.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Was there ever any danger that Apollo 8 could have really failed in that way?

 

[Neopeius]

Babaganoosh said:
Was there ever any danger that Apollo 8 could have really failed in that way?

Why not? Apollo 13 failed pretty spectacularly, only surviving because the LEM was undamaged.

 

[Mysterion]

Babaganoosh said:
Was there ever any danger that Apollo 8 could have really failed in that way?

The difference being that in the case of Apollo 13, everyone made it home. The suggestion at the top of the thread is Apollo 8's crew not making it home.

Another thought in my head: what if the Apollo 1 fire hadn't happened? Might Gus Grissom had been the first man on the moon? (By virtue of crew rotation and his experience, not that Apollo 1 was going anywhere near the moon)

 

[Neopeius]

Mysterion said:

Babaganoosh said:
Was there ever any danger that Apollo 8 could have really failed in that way?

The difference being that in the case of Apollo 13, everyone made it home. The suggestion at the top of the thread is Apollo 8's crew not making it home.

Another thought in my head: what if the Apollo 1 fire hadn't happened? Might Gus Grissom had been the first man on the moon? (By virtue of crew rotation and his experience, not that Apollo 1 was going anywhere near the moon)

Yes, probably.

How about if Apollo 1 didn't happen, but an Apollo 8 disaster did?

My point behind the first post is this, and I was hoping that people alive at the time might have some special insight on the issue. Three people died in Apollo 1. This threw things for a year and a half. The program was almost canceled then. If Apollo 8 burns up, that's another disaster just one year later, after a year of national malaise.

I can't imagine NASA would just send up Apollo 9 and hope for the best. The whole program is looking fatally flawed right now. Even if there is only a year long delay this time, this gives the Soviets a chance to launch their circumlunar mission (and it might even work!).

So here's the two questions:

1) Do these twin Apollo disasters change the American space program significantly (remember which president is coming into office now as opposed to who was running the show in '67)?

2) What kind of broader, national morale effects does this have? Does Anti-Space take position alongside Anti-War in the counterculture? Does space become a metaphor for Vietnam and a symbol of national hubris?

 

[Hofner]

Speculating on an Apollo 8 disaster is just that, but it seems it could've stopped the Apollo program. There were people who wanted to shut the program down and tried to use the Apollo 1 disaster to do it. An Apollo 8 disaster would've really helped their cause.

For one thing it would've made a lunar landing before the end of 1969 pretty much impossible. Now Kennedy's wording was "before this decade is out" and that was deliberate. Technically the end of the decade was Dec. 31 1970; they were giving themselves a fudge factor. But in a lot of people's minds it's Dec. 31 1969. Missing that deadline might've turned a lot of people off the effort.

Or the tragedy could've made the public MORE determined, it's hard to say.

I saw an interview of the three Apollo 8 astronauts and they said about the most nervous time for them was when it was time to fire up the SPS engine for the trans-Earth burn. One of the fears was that the engine wouldn't fire up for this burn.

Robert

 

[Neopeius]

hofner said:
Speculating on an Apollo 8 disaster is just that, but it seems it could've stopped the Apollo program. There were people who wanted to shut the program down and tried to use the Apollo 1 disaster to do it. An Apollo 8 disaster would've really helped their cause.

For one thing it would've made a lunar landing before the end of 1969 pretty much impossible. Now Kennedy's wording was "before this decade is out" and that was deliberate. Technically the end of the decade was Dec. 31 1970; they were giving themselves a fudge factor. But in a lot of people's minds it's Dec. 31 1969. Missing that deadline might've turned a lot of people off the effort.

Or the tragedy could've made the public MORE determined, it's hard to say.

I saw an interview of the three Apollo 8 astronauts and they said about the most nervous time for them was when it was time to fire up the SPS engine for the trans-Earth burn. One of the fears was that the engine wouldn't fire up for this burn.

Robert

Right, and it's actually more likely that any disaster would have seen them slowing freezing/asphyxiating in space on live television rather than burning up in an instant. Somehow I'd think that would be even more demoralizing.

 

[Mallory]

Neopeius said:
So here's the two questions:

1) Do these twin Apollo disasters change the American space program significantly (remember which president is coming into office now as opposed to who was running the show in '67)?

I was only a teen at the time of that flight, so keep that in perspective.

In my mind, even given the scenario you've presented, the Apollo program continues to move forward. Probably with an even more aggressive schedule. There's a few reasons for this:

1) Space flight (especially to the moon and back) was still viewed as an incredibly risky proposition by the American public. It certainly wasn't looked at as routine (which is why networks pre-empted hours every day to cover the current flight). Everyone always hoped for the best but where certainly prepared for the worst. Especially after some of the close calls in the Mercury and Gemini programs and, of course, the Apollo 1 tragedy. Not even NASA was downplaying the risk.

2) You mentioned some of the events that occurred in 1968. But the space program it was the one thing that seemed to be going right at the time (despite the setbacks). People were generally optimistic and unlike the period since, new and exciting things were always either happening or about to happen. Not quite like the compressed launch schedule we saw with the Mercury and Gemini programs, but it was still a source of national pride, especially in light of all the other events happening both in the States and around the world.

3) The Cold War was in full swing at the time, not just in Vietnam but also in the Middle East and Africa. The stakes were high, but so were the idealogical rewards for whichever superpower got there and back first. Regardless of any setbacks, fulfilling Kennedy’s objective was a national priority. I’m almost positive that the US government would have diverted whatever resources were necessary in order to get back on schedule.

2) What kind of broader, national morale effects does this have? Does Anti-Space take position alongside Anti-War in the counterculture? Does space become a metaphor for Vietnam and a symbol of national hubris?

Nope. It’s possible that the anti-space movement might have gained some momentum but it’s unlikely that it would have had any effect in the relatively short time span that we’d be looking at.(a couple of years at the most).

Bottom line? I suspect the Apollo 9 mission would have continued as planned, that the Apollo 10 mission would have been a repeat (six months later) of the Apollo 8 mission, Apollo 11 would have taken over Apollo 10’s mission and sometime in the November/December time frame Apollo 12 would have gone to the moon and we’d always remember Pete Conrad instead of Neil Armstrong.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

It's possible the Apollo program may have stopped. Was 8 a Block I or Block II spacecraft?

If it was block I, same as Apollo I, the program may have gone on with only Block II spacecraft.

If 8 was a Block II design, then I suspect that Apollo may have been stopped.

The committment to get to the moon was fierce. Perhaps NASA would have blown the dust off of some of those not-quite-wild-eyed Lunar Gemini concepts and gotten there on hardware that was proven to be quite sturdy... OK, still need a new lander, but the capsule was capable.

AG, who felt the ground shake near the VAB one April afternoon in 1972... Go, bird! GO!!

 

[arch101]

Slayton and others have practically admitted that it was their intention for Grissom to command the first landing. Slayton always felt Grissom got a bad deal after his Mercury flight (and subsequent and little-publicized vindication)

 

[Marc]

arch101 said:
Slayton and others have practically admitted that it was their intention for Grissom to command the first landing. Slayton always felt Grissom got a bad deal after his Mercury flight (and subsequent and little-publicized vindication)

If Grisson hadn't died on Apollo 1, would they of sent him again so soon?

 

[Neopeius]

Alpha_Geek said:
It's possible the Apollo program may have stopped. Was 8 a Block I or Block II spacecraft?

If it was block I, same as Apollo I, the program may have gone on with only Block II spacecraft.

If 8 was a Block II design, then I suspect that Apollo may have been stopped.

The committment to get to the moon was fierce. Perhaps NASA would have blown the dust off of some of those not-quite-wild-eyed Lunar Gemini concepts and gotten there on hardware that was proven to be quite sturdy... OK, still need a new lander, but the capsule was capable.

AG, who felt the ground shake near the VAB one April afternoon in 1972... Go, bird! GO!!

That's awesome!

All of the manned Apollos were Block II.

I'm not sure if flawed Apollo leads to Gemini to the moon. That'll involve a couple of years of redesign and probably isn't worth it. Besides, there's still lots of Saturns to use, and unlike this alternate Apollo, the Saturn has proven itself to be excellent. So if the program isn't shut down, I think it stays with Apollo.

I just can't see there not being a delay. Apollo 14 flew almost a year after Apollo 13. A year's delay puts a moon landing in mid-1970. I don't think that's enough time for the Soviets to beat us to a landing, but probably to a circumlunar, which may be enough to maintain momentum in the Russian program.

Which, in turn, might keep the Space Race going longer.

 

[diankra]

Marc said:

arch101 said:
Slayton and others have practically admitted that it was their intention for Grissom to command the first landing. Slayton always felt Grissom got a bad deal after his Mercury flight (and subsequent and little-publicized vindication)

If Grisson hadn't died on Apollo 1, would they of sent him again so soon?

Standard rotation would have put Grissom in line to next fly on the 7th Apollo flight. Under the C/D/E/F/G mission system, the earliest landing attempt would have been on the 5th flight (as indeed happened), but any flight which failed to achieve its mission objectives would be repeated (as happened effectively late in Gemini, after Gemini 8 was cut short, and when EVAs proved prolematical). So you only need two repeats for the 1st landing to be on flight 7, which is Grissom's anyway. And it's down to one repeat if the original second flight (an effective repeat of Apollo 1 with extra science commanded by Wally Schirra) hadn't been taken off the schedule in late 1966.
So yep, in mid-1966 I'd guess most people inthe know would have bet on Grissom being the man most likely to command the first landing, even without Slayton pulling together a special 'Tiger' team, as has been suggested.