No Kennedy Moonshot speech. Does a moon landing ever happen?

Assuming Kennedy doesn't set a manned lunar landing as a goal, would a human ever step on the moon?

IIRC Kennedy himself was reluctant about setting the goal, and plenty of other politicians criticized it as wasteful. Polls showed a majority of Americans didn't think Apollo was worth the money. There were even protest gatherings at Cape Canaveral to protest launches.

Given how much opposition there was to OTL Apollo, would a manned lunar landing ever occur? And if so, when?
 
Given how much opposition there was to OTL Apollo, would a manned lunar landing ever occur? And if so, when?
The main opposition of Apollo was who was going to be getting the construction contracts.

But the Lunar plan existed before JFK's speech
from the wiki
The Apollo program was conceived in early 1960 as a three-man spacecraft to follow Project Mercury. Jim Chamberlin, the head of engineering at the Space Task Group (STG), was assigned in February 1961 to start working on a bridge program between Mercury and Apollo.[3] He presented two initial versions of a two-man spacecraft, then designated Mercury Mark II, at a NASA retreat at Wallops Island in March 1961.[3] Scale models were shown in July 1961 at the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation's offices in St. Louis.[3]

After Apollo was chartered to land men on the Moon by President John F. Kennedy on May 25, 1961, it became evident to NASA officials that a follow-on to the Mercury program was required to develop certain spaceflight capabilities in support of Apollo
 
I’m by no means an expert on the Space Race, but I’d say that a Moon landing would still occur, albeit probably sometime in the mid to late 1970s. The Soviets and Americans were already competing to get into space, Kennedy’s goal just created a bigger incentive by turning getting to the Moon into a national goal that excited the public. Without stronger public support, this could turn Soviet and American space ventures into more of an arms race as a part of the Cold War, or at least it would be viewed as such. Getting to the Moon would probably be seen as less of a groundbreaking event that captivated the public like in OTL, but could instead just become another advance in Cold War technology to one up the Soviets. Maybe this more arms race-influenced Space Race would have less manned missions and more launching satellites into orbit, which would be more practical in regards to military use.
 
If the US gives up its pursuit of a Moon landing, and unless the Soviets continue the expense of trying to put a man on the Moon on their own accord, then a moon landing probably would never happen by 2019 ITTL.

Perhaps we see a Chinese moon landing in the 2030s, if China follows a similar course of development to OTL.
 
No speech might have led to a continuation of Gemini using MOL and focusing on space stations before attempting a moon landing.
 
Which speech?

The one before Congress in 1961, or the one at Rice University in 1962?

Kennedy doesn't give the speech unless he's decided to go all in on Apollo. And if he decides to go all in, he gives those speeches.

The Rice speech in particular is iconic, no question, but I am less sure it proves *decisive* in Apollo going forward all by itself. As with many famous speeches, it has grown in stature and importance beyond its perception at the time.
 
Maybe the pre-POD would be a greater emphasis on monitoring Soviet activities from space. That could make the priority building orbital stations instead of a moon shot.
 
A moonshot without infrastructure is (and was) insanely expensive.

A slower program would develop cheaper access to space, probably build a space station much earlier, build orbital fuel depots, etc. I'm guessing a moon landing in the 90s, perhaps.
 
I don't believe that the US would not try to win the public contest for "who is first on the Moon". It was a big PR win when the US landed in 1969, especially after the "Sputnik Crisis". The US will do everything to gain the upper hand in the race for the Moon because if the Soviets land first you would have the Sputnik Crisis on steroids.
 
My gut feeling is no. For the same reason that we haven't returned -- too expensive, too little return.

Kennedy (and then Johnson) were a shot in the arm both for the Moon race and communications satellites. Nixon wouldn't have done it.
 
My gut feeling is no. For the same reason that we haven't returned -- too expensive, too little return.

Kennedy (and then Johnson) were a shot in the arm both for the Moon race and communications satellites. Nixon wouldn't have done it.

If the Soviets made noise that their planned Lunokhod Rovers were only one step on the Path for a Red Flag to be planted on the Moon, you bet Nixon would be for the Space Program in 1962 onwards. It's a race when either group puts on the running shoes.
 
Had Kennedy not decided "We shall go the Moon"
Apollo would be quite different spacecraft as we saw in Moon landings.
In begin of 1961, it was planned as 3 man spacecraft with small laboratory on board as mini space Station for low earth orbit.
with option to do Lunar Fly by later in program.

apoalt.jpg



in my personal view and opinion, the Apollo program was implemented, because Kennedy was killed in Dallas.
Because Apollo is one of his Legacy, the Program was continue until it's goal was reached as Neil Armstrong step on the moon.
Mostly do support of President Johnson until July 1968, were he order the production stop on Saturn V / IB production.

i believe that hat Kennedy had survive Dallas, the Apollo program had died slowly in Capitol Hill in mid 1960s and in wake of a Vietnam conflict
in similar way how Bush jr Constellation program "died" in 2004-2008
under that scenario NASA would have only the Gemini Hardware for low earth orbit and would get in 1968 from Nixon the MOL program transferred from USAF...
 
This is actually easy as Kennedy did not WANT to go to the Moon in the first place but needed a clear 'win' after Gagarin and the Bay of Pigs. So have Sheppard fly first which could have happened if Von Braun hadn't insisted, (and for once over-ridden advisers) on another test flight. Sure it's only 'sub-orbital' but that's not as much of a difference when you're talking about early space firsts. Sheppard is the first man in SPACE while Gagarin is the first man in orbit really does make a difference.

Apollo was already set to be the 'next' program after Mercury, Gemini was only tacked on once it became clear we needed to learn a LOT before pushing on to the Moon. It's very likely the US would have still gotten a "Mercury MkII" vehicle but both it and Apollo would have been aimed at Earth orbit rather than the Moon initially.

And likely the USSR would have still pushed the envelope, such as getting around the Moon first, but they weren't committed to going to the Moon until it became clear that the US was in fact going to go. No US pressure means less pressure on them as well. And by the early 60s the US would have matched and even surpassed the USSR with launch capability as Saturn-1 comes on-line so the 'race' would have likely settled out to a slow build up and expansion of capability instead of the massive and too focused Apollo effort we're used to.

By the mid to late 70s both sides would have been more comfortable with their capabilities, (one reason the USSR rejected Kennedy's call for a joint mission was they were well aware their 'technical prowess' was really on skin-deep and they had the most to 'lose' in any exchange program, by the 70s this was very different) and a joint Lunar landing mission is much more likely to be done.

Randy
 
First off, humankind would still go to the moon with or without Kennedy's moonshot project. Once we're in space and the moon is within reach, we just can't look up to the sky at night without thinking: "One day...." Humanity is like that.

However without Kennedy putting all effort on a direct shot to the moon, space exploration would continue more careful and in some way slower. All popular science books before 1960 laid out the course to the moon as first building a space station in Earth orbit and then using that as a waystation to explore the moon and eventually launch a manned mission. Possibly even have the moon shuttle assembled on the station itself from components sent up one by one.... The Apollo project threw all of this out of the window for a brute force approach along the way developing the docking technology that later would be invaluable in building a space station instead of the other way round. Without Apollo, we would probably stick to the original plan. The Soviet space program mostly did with it's Salyut experimental space station projects. If it would not have been blindsighted by the US lunar program, it would probably have launched a moon mission from one of it's space stations by the late 1970's.
 
that hat Kennedy had survive Dallas, the Apollo program had died slowly in Capitol Hill in mid 1960s and in wake of a Vietnam conflict
in similar way how Bush jr Constellation program "died" in 2004-2008

The only difference that you have to match, and one up what the Russians were doing in the '60s
 
The only difference that you have to match, and one up what the Russians were doing in the '60s

The Soviet Manned lunar program was a mess
Lack of budget, lack of resources, lack of needed Technology, lack of interest of politburo, rivalry between the rocket designers etc.
That all let to down fall of program and in this scenario,
once the KGB confirmed that USA bury there Lunar plans, the Politburo will terminate the L3 Complex (aka cosmonaut Lunar landing)
and put all effort in L1 Complex, a manned Soyuz capsule around the Moon and Almaz + TKS space station for Military (analog of MOL)
So end of 1960s the Soviet made nasty surprise by sending a Human around the Moon, but that's all, no orbit, no landing.

The USA will answer that by sending a modified Gemini around the moon with help of Titan IIIC and two Transstage
But that until soviets terminate there L1 Complex after hand full of flights...

Would interesting scenario for a TL
were Apollo and L3 Complex are abandon programs
and allot of soviet lunar Lunokhod and US Prospector rovers on the Moon.
Gemini and MOL still fly and while soviet use Alma and TKS
Most powerful rockets in world are the Titan IIIM/F and Proton rocket
 
This is actually easy as Kennedy did not WANT to go to the Moon in the first place but needed a clear 'win' after Gagarin and the Bay of Pigs. So have Sheppard fly first which could have happened if Von Braun hadn't insisted, (and for once over-ridden advisers) on another test flight. Sure it's only 'sub-orbital' but that's not as much of a difference when you're talking about early space firsts. Sheppard is the first man in SPACE while Gagarin is the first man in orbit really does make a difference.
However, it would have been a bit of an issue if the Mercury-Redstone 3 flight had fritzed in the same way the Mercury Redstone 2 flight had. It's all very well getting the first man into space, but if he drowns before being recovered because something went wrong, that's not going to do anything good for your credibility.
 
Top