NASA fails to meet Kennedy's challenge

[sunsurf]

If NASA had failed to get a man to the moon by the end of the decade as Kennedy had challenged, would it make that much difference? People would argue whether the decade ended in 1969 or 1970 but suppose nobody sets foot on the moon until after the end of 1970. Also, assume no major tragedies like the Apollo I fire. Would NASA be in less of a hurry, and would that be a good thing?
Would private enterprise get started earlier?

 

[Theodoric]

I'd think that there would probably be less motivation ofr anyone in the West. Ofcourse, with a prolonged space race, perhaps the Russians could've put a man on the moon first, ashaming the USA. I don't know, perhaps someone with more knowledge of the Russian space program could help.

 

[WCDouglas]

Depends on where/what your POD is...

If your not allowing a major event as POD, such as a SATURN blowing up or losing a crew or a major hardware failure on Apollo 9 or 10... it's hard to keep NASA from not making the 31 DEC 69 deadline. Assuming an abort on Apollo 11 (they came very close OTL), NASA could, and had plans to push the launch schedule left. AS-11 aborts JUL, AS 12 (Conrad) would go in SEP (maybe even AUG), they they fail, AS 13 can go as early as NOV (interestly if NASA is still reaching for the first landing with AS 13 or after I suspect you'll see a hand picked crew with McDivitt or Borman commanding.) I've even seen stuff indicating they could stack and launch AS 14 in late DEC if they really had too. BIG NOTE, this assumes the failures are all because of the learning curve not hardware or a major issue with the systems. Also most of the Manned Flight guys at NASA thought it would take two or even three tries to make the first landing.


BUT to the question; what effect.
1. If it is a series of crew aborts, for various learning curve reasons, with no deaths, no "crisis" events, NASA evenfully gets there, the program still loses support once the objective is reached. It if takes till 14 or 15 and mid-1970 the program is allowed to complete (flying AS 18 and 19) the whole program. The Soviets make big hay, but since it is very doubtfull (with their own major POD) that they would even get into lunar orbit, their propaganda only plays with those who already oppose either America or the Space program.
And...
Maybe with a few bumps in the road the US local become for comfortable with the fact that it is a hard thing to do, and cuts NASA some stack later, instead of expecting prefection every time.

2. If it is a major failure, crew (or crews lost) while I still think the program would have been allowed to try to succeed, after that game over. NASA Manned program would be seroiusly curtailed, maybe even unmanned. For the Soviets a major victory, hammering US/capitalist tech, wasting lives, money... bad all the way around.

 

[sunsurf]

Thanks.
Would private enterprise take over earlier?
Maybe the first landing would be in an unmanned lander, done by remote control, controlled by the command module in lunar orbit, a practice run. That would have problems, but at least no lives are risked. Then the manned landing would be near the unmanned one.
Maybe we would have something more sensible than the space shuttle in this timeline.

 

[neopeius]

A delay in an American landing can only help sustain space development. If there is no American landing until 1970, for whatever reason, there's a good chance the Soviets will launch a manned circumlunar mission in 1969. While there's no chance of getting a man on the moon before 1972, probably, it will also be politically difficult to pretend that they were never in the race to begin with.

So you end up with an American landing in 1970 and a Russian landing in 1972--close enough that both sides feel they need to keep up the pressure. Detente leads to a joint lunar venture in the mid-70s. Space rather than Star Wars helps bankrupt the Soviet Union in the 80s.

 

[Mako_Leader]

More likely the USAF fronts up to the Oval office with their plans for space exploration, which don't involve the existance of NASA. Or the military would forbid its valuable pilots from getting involved with a civilian agency that just keeps blowing them up.

 

[Cook]

It really depends on why they didn’t make it, and if the Russians did.

 

[Polish Eagle]

Thanks.
Would private enterprise take over earlier?
Maybe the first landing would be in an unmanned lander, done by remote control, controlled by the command module in lunar orbit, a practice run. That would have problems, but at least no lives are risked. Then the manned landing would be near the unmanned one.
Maybe we would have something more sensible than the space shuttle in this timeline.

Why would it? NASA and the USAF were already using Atlas and Titan boosters, and I doubt there'd be an incentive to switch to new rockets. If the moon landing fails, NASA might still regress to an LEO program, Skylab (perhaps postponed enough to be met by Shuttle), or maybe some cooperation with the Russians (docking Skylab and Salyut?). In this scneario, private enterprise would take up unmanned cargo launches, but that's only if NASA's funding is cut enough for them to stop producing Apollo or possibly Big Gemini spacecraft.

 

[The Kiat]

The public might forget about Kennedy and his goal, or perhaps just lose interest. When that happens, Congress will axe NASA's budget and go waste the money elsewhere (not that manned space flight is a waste).