Apollo 10, not 11, lands on the Moon

The Saint

Banned
Apollo 10 flew the "Snoopy" LEM to within 10 miles of the Moon's surface in May 1969, in a trial run for Apollo 11.

At a pinch and eg if galavanised by an imminent Soviet lunar mission, if NASA had thrown some caution to the wind, could Apollo 10 have landed on the Moon?

Could we have had Cernan and Stafford as the first men on the Moon, 3 months before OTL, and with what consequences, if any?
 
In all honesty I see this as a closed loop what if. The names that everyone remembers are different but the butterflies would have no overarching effects, I would think. (For example, since I was on a ship emigrating to Australia when Apollo 10 flew, I wouldn't see it live on TV like I did with Apollo 11, but I dont think there would be much difference in my life)

The Apollo programme would still finish with Apollo 17, we would have an extra kilo or 2 of moonrocks to play with, Skylab would still become the next Nasa project etc.

I do like the idea of closed loop what ifs as well :) The idea that some events aren't subject to massive change is rather nice
 
There might be slightly more tendency towards taking risks and improvising in NASA. Which might lead to the rocket program being continued besides the shuttle, smaller rockets doing smaller or more modular missions, and so on. It might also lead to more casualties. All in all it's difficult to say which effect that would have. But as Apollo 13 showed, some more heroism might even increase interest in space fare. I see lots of butterflies here...
 
Bright day
It would boost Czech morale, though I doubt Cernan will have Cyech falg with ITTL :(. Though it would be funny if he did have it ;)
 
NASA would've had considerably more public support.

Why?

Gene Cernan has always been a consistently better public speaker and promoter of space travel than Armstrong ever was.

I'm convinced that Armstrongs extreme desire for privacy hurt the program in the 1970s.
 
Apollo 10 flew the "Snoopy" LEM to within 10 miles of the Moon's surface in May 1969, in a trial run for Apollo 11.

At a pinch and eg if galavanised by an imminent Soviet lunar mission, if NASA had thrown some caution to the wind, could Apollo 10 have landed on the Moon?

Could we have had Cernan and Stafford as the first men on the Moon, 3 months before OTL, and with what consequences, if any?
They'd never have gotten back. The LEM was only fuelled halfway, 'cause she was overweight....
 

Archibald

Banned
They'd never have gotten back. The LEM was only fuelled halfway, 'cause she was overweight....

Exactly! Grumman had a hard-time working on the LM, and the early models were overweight.

A more interesting whatif would be, whatif the Apollo 1 fire did not happened ? (outside the fact that a disaster may have happened later... or sooner, in a Mercury / Gemini flight, leading to a much safer Apollo CSM block 1)

Apollo 6 to 7 "gap" (February 1967 - October 1968) was barely enough for Grumman to solve LM problems.

Even with the large delay, Apollo 8 had to go to the Moon alone. With or without Apollo 1disaster, The LM was not ready before march 1969 and Apollo 9.

Maybe more orbital - only flights in the 1967-68 era ?
 

sprite

Donor
Monthly Donor
NASA would've had considerably more public support.

Why?

Gene Cernan has always been a consistently better public speaker and promoter of space travel than Armstrong ever was.

I'm convinced that Armstrongs extreme desire for privacy hurt the program in the 1970s.

I totally agree with this point.

Though one would need to clarify if his OTL opposition to Schmitt was just because he was loyal to his fellow fly-boys or because he was too narrow minded to see that a scientist was needed.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
The Act of Free Choice (which wasn't free nor a choice) was held in July because of the Apollo 11 landing. If it had been done by Apollo 10 then there might have been more media-coverage.
 
If the goal is an earlier landing, I wonder if it didn't make more sense to adapt a LEM to Gemini & accept a 2-man mission, without the 3d man in orbit (which always struck me as a bit useless). Take him out, you also get more consumables, so more stay time (always an issue, IIRC).
 
If the goal is an earlier landing, I wonder if it didn't make more sense to adapt a LEM to Gemini & accept a 2-man mission, without the 3d man in orbit (which always struck me as a bit useless). Take him out, you also get more consumables, so more stay time (always an issue, IIRC).
And if the command module were to run into some sort of problem while up in orbit? The crewmen in the LM would have been stuck on the ground and would have eventually perished.

It was better to do it the way they did, with three man teams.

I do think they could have managed an earlier landing though. All through watching "From the Earth To The Moon" I figured that somewhere along the line had a few accidents not happened, an earlier landing would have been accomplished.
 
not only to Heavy and half fueld
the LM "Snoopy" had another problem

Incorrect switch setting led to wild gyrations when
the LM ascent stage separated at an altitude of 15 km above the lunar surface.
The crew regained control only two seconds before the LM
would have been an an irreversible course to crash on the moon.
quote from here http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo10.htm

to Apollo 1 (or Apollo 4 if had Launch) this was Apollo Block I test called C Mission
only earth orbit, no lunar mission (no docking hatch !)
the orginal plans for 4 manned Block I C-mission, but they was cut to 2 in 1967
after Apollo 1 fire all manned Block I flights were chanceld.
and Apollo 7 was improved Block II

the Apollo 8 mission was Idea by George Low, later approved by James E. Webb.
but WI not ?
in that case Apollo 8 was Earth orbit test for LM in march 1969
so Apollo 10 land on moon with Niel Amstrong and Buzz Aldwin on July 20, 1969

or Apollo 10 problem let to another Luna LM test with Apollo 11
then would be Pete Conrad the first men on moon with his famous words from the Moon
"Whoopie! Man" :D
 
Top