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

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.

A lot wasn't going to happen on the manned flight. MR-2 being off course caused the LOX to deplete early than planned which fired the escape rockets making the flight higher and throwing off the recovery area. That wouldn't have happened on a the manned flight. Further (as argued by Sheppard among others) the problems were easily identifed and fixed and there was a delay getting the MR-BD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury-Redstone_BD) booster delivered and ready when the booster for MR3 was already at the Cape and checked out prior to the launch of MR-2. The fixes WERE easy and already applied to the MR-3 booster before the MR-BD booster so while Von Braun insisted that there had to be a 'perfect' flight before he'd sign off on man-rating the Redstone almost everyone ELSE disagreed with him. And for once, (and pretty much based on this fact alone) he refused to back-down or go with the group consensus and arguably it cost the US the 'first'. Going back to Ham's flight it should be kept in mind that BECAUSE it wasn't a manned flight there were fewer recovery ships and they'd have moved a LOT faster to get to a manned flight than a chimp. Meanwhile the capsule leaked yes it wasn't really in danger of going down and unlike Ham the chimp Sheppard had both the means and training to get out of the vehicle if it looked to be in real danger.

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

That's arguable depending on the circumstances. Had Kennedy not supported going ahead with the Bay of Pigs invasion, (and it was a near run thing) or it had aborted as was suggested several times then there's less pressure to 'match' the Russians. And again an American 'first' is going to totally derail that pressure since in just a few years the US will be able to out-match the Soviet lift capability with the Saturn-1 and once they have either TTL-Gemini equivalent or Apollo the 'race' is pretty much a dead even thing.

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 Soviet program was pretty much initially based on grabbing all the 'low-hanging-fruit' firsts they could get with no real rhyme or reason towards an integrated program. They had the initial advantage in both lift capacity and larger spacecraft due to the design of Vostok being bigger than the Mercury spacecraft. Hence they could eventually put two and three people into the vehicle with 'nominal' risk whereas the American's were dead-ended by the Mercury design at one and only one astronaut. The US also couldn't lift anything bigger than Mercury initially without some sort of upper stage for the Atlas which was questionable at the point where Mercury was being designed.

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...

That makes the assumption that a TTL-Gemini actually flies on Titan at all which isn't a given. Initially the Air Force was not interested in providing Titan's for launch purposes at all, and even after they did agree to provide them they had to be ordered to 'fix' a number of issues with the LV before NASA would accept them. Given any other circumstances it may very well be that NASA wouldn't use the Titan and would instead use the Saturn 1 which had more capability and four straight successful flights before the first Titan GLV flight success. Part of the reason this didn't happen OTL was because the extra capability of the Saturn as a Launch Vehicle was so superior to the Titan that it was considered a huge waste using "only" the Gemini since it could carry the proposed Apollo capsule and more into orbit on every flight. So re-winding a bit an alt-Gemini might have been a much more capable vehicle under the circumstances of a "no-Lunar-goal" scenario. Gemini OTL suffered pretty much as much as Mercury did in being required to do to much with a smaller than optimum spacecraft due to launch vehicle constraints which themselves were driven by the need to push for the 'end-goal' of going to the Moon with Apollo.

A more capable Gemini like vehicle and the Saturn 1 means should the US get a hint of Soviet intentions they might just push a TTL-Gemini into a Lunar flyby before the Russians can, again scaling the 'race' back as the Soviets would need to make a decision on continuing to push the envelope or not.

Also keep in mind that both sides had made additional plans for going to the Moon, (eventually) with what they HAD if need be rather than what they wished they had.

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

Both MOL and Titan were very much NOT what NASA wanted and frankly given other circumstances in not having to be so focused on the Moon I have great doubts that either would have been even considered for NASA development. They just weren't what NASA needed despite what the Air Force wanted. MORL on Saturn 1 was vastly more capable and economical than Titan/MOL. Again the limiting factor of Gemini for size and capability was the Titan LV and given Saturn as an alternative it wouldn't make a lot of sense to NOT go with a more capable alt-Gemini and early MORL deployment. The main limiting factor is again Von Braun's (and the US government's in general) conservatism but give the Soviets similar to OTL 'firsts' still happening, (first two, then three man crew and multiple flights at once plus duration records) and the US would likely push forward with development of the alt-Gemini or early Apollo-like, (someone removing Max Faget's hand on the scale towards NAA probably means someone with more capability gets the actual TTL Apollo nod) spacecraft and the US may have several 'firsts' well ahead of the Soviets.

Especially if the Soviets DO fly two separate vehicles in Soyuz and TKS. If it's clear that the Soviet's have both a military and "civilian" (they didn't make any such distinction but the US might well see it that way) space flight system they US might follow suit. But again it's not a given that the alt-Gemini is designed around Titan as per OTL when NASA has no real reason to use it and has Saturn available and ready to go.

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.

Oh we'd go... Eventually but there would have been no 'rush' to do so.

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.

I'm reading "Manned Lunar Landing and Return" (https://www.amazon.com/Manned-Landing-Return-Robert-Godwin/dp/1926837428) currently and it's interesting to see that while this 'path' was very much assumed as the pressure of Soviet 'firsts' and US 'failures' (even with Explorer 1 the US still 'failed' in public more than it seemed the Soviet's did and this carried through public sentiment and government decision making) mounted a LOT of people were starting to see a "Space Station" as less than desirable goal. Many plans began to just assume some sort of 'refueling' depot or assembly "spot" marked with a radio beacon if that. The other major plan was simply to build a bigger booster and send everything to the Moons surface directly. (Note that even the "Earth Orbital Assembly" concept was leaning heavily towards launching a 'direct' landing and return ship after a bit rather than using or building a space station) Ramp that pressure down even a little bit,(which is required to avoid the Kennedy Lunar goal scenario) and yes actually building and working in an orbital space station comes back into vogue pretty easily.

The big question is if the US can put up a large payload 'space outpost' before the Soviets who can, (in theory) launch something like the US proposed "One Man Space Station" (http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2016/11/one-man-space-station-1960.html) on an R7 booster for the 'first' leaving the US to play 'catchup' again with something along the lines of the "Gemini Evolved Space Station" (https://www.wired.com/2012/10/modular-space-station-evolving-from-gemini-1962/) though again I'd lean more towards something Saturn derived even if the 'alt-Gemini' isn't much more capable than OTL Gemini.

Of course a 'better' Atlas can give you this station, (https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a18469/nasa-first-space-station/) but I'd point out that doing the same with a Saturn, (again) makes way more sense since they'd already considered something along the lines of the Manned Orbital Research Laboratory (MORL: http://www.astronautix.com/m/morl.html) which could be supported by either Apollo or Gemini. The related SLA (Saturn Lunar Adapter, though it'd be more likely called the Saturn Adapter Section/Station or SAS) Workshop concept, (http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/File:SLAWorkshop.png) would be an early version likely leading to both or either expansions, (https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4011/p70.htm, https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4011/p135.htm) which would be pretty straight forward to adapt to say flying into orbit around the Moon to support a "light" lander or even a lander based on the design itself.

And again once we get into the early to mid 70s with a 'thaw' in the Cold War and possible cooperation on a Lunar mission we could easily see a joint mission planned TTL in place of OTL's Apollo-Soyuz Project. So around 1975/76 a joint US/USSR (maybe with others) Lunar mission goes from Earth orbit to Lunar orbit and lands a mixed crew for a couple of days to weeks stay on the surface of the Moon and returns. Done right the 'ship' and lander can likely do this again, (the orbital 'ship' at least though given the likely parameters the lander is probably still partially or fully expendable) with some little work.

Randy
 
That makes the assumption that a TTL-Gemini actually flies on Titan at all which isn't a given. Initially the Air Force was not interested in providing Titan's for launch purposes at all, and even after they did agree to provide them they had to be ordered to 'fix' a number of issues with the LV before NASA would accept them. Given any other circumstances it may very well be that NASA wouldn't use the Titan and would instead use the Saturn 1 which had more capability and four straight successful flights before the first Titan GLV flight success. Part of the reason this didn't happen OTL was because the extra capability of the Saturn as a Launch Vehicle was so superior to the Titan that it was considered a huge waste using "only" the Gemini since it could carry the proposed Apollo capsule and more into orbit on every flight. So re-winding a bit an alt-Gemini might have been a much more capable vehicle under the circumstances of a "no-Lunar-goal" scenario. Gemini OTL suffered pretty much as much as Mercury did in being required to do to much with a smaller than optimum spacecraft due to launch vehicle constraints which themselves were driven by the need to push for the 'end-goal' of going to the Moon with Apollo.

A more capable Gemini like vehicle and the Saturn 1 means should the US get a hint of Soviet intentions they might just push a TTL-Gemini into a Lunar flyby before the Russians can, again scaling the 'race' back as the Soviets would need to make a decision on continuing to push the envelope or not.

Also keep in mind that both sides had made additional plans for going to the Moon, (eventually) with what they HAD if need be rather than what they wished they had.

I assume since the Gemini program start early in Apollo program, it would go ahead with Titan II as Launcher
There were allot of proposal to launch a Gemini with Saturn IB with a Centaur as Third stage and escape tower on Top of Gemini
Also proposal to stick a Agena in back of the Gemini to do Lunar orbit mission

64_config_1.png


tumblr_nribbsMWi61r57ixdo6_500.jpg
 
I assume since the Gemini program start early in Apollo program, it would go ahead with Titan II as Launcher
There were allot of proposal to launch a Gemini with Saturn IB with a Centaur as Third stage and escape tower on Top of Gemini
Also proposal to stick a Agena in back of the Gemini to do Lunar orbit mission

64_config_1.png


tumblr_nribbsMWi61r57ixdo6_500.jpg
Not all that different than Zond-5, had the Soviets decided to nut up and grab that somewhat low hanging fruit of men around the Moon in place of Space Turtles.
Even with the more limited controls that the Cosmonauts had in their craft, they probably would have been able to improve reentry than OTL, after ground control lost contact/control of Zond-5 where it was shown that Turtles aren't a replacement for a real pilot.

US would not be able to ignore a Red Drive-by of the Moon. Stunts had to be matched, then one upped.
 
Not all that different than Zond-5, had the Soviets decided to nut up and grab that somewhat low hanging fruit of men around the Moon in place of Space Turtles.
Even with the more limited controls that the Cosmonauts had in their craft, they probably would have been able to improve reentry than OTL, after ground control lost contact/control of Zond-5 where it was shown that Turtles aren't a replacement for a real pilot.

The bigger problem was the Proton, however (not that the Zond's teething problems were to be lightly dismissed). I think you have to accelerate Proton development by at least 4-6 months to give the Soviets a real chance to beat Apollo 8 to the punch - and even then it would have a been a very high risk proposition.

US would not be able to ignore a Red Drive-by of the Moon. Stunts had to be matched, then one upped.

No question.

More to the point, it would commit the Soviets to a lunar program in a way that had not been true before.

The Soviets were always the driver in the Space Race.
 
I assume since the Gemini program start early in Apollo program, it would go ahead with Titan II as Launcher
There were allot of proposal to launch a Gemini with Saturn IB with a Centaur as Third stage and escape tower on Top of Gemini
Also proposal to stick a Agena in back of the Gemini to do Lunar orbit mission

64_config_1.png


tumblr_nribbsMWi61r57ixdo6_500.jpg

While it was obvious from the 'start' that Mercury wasn't very capable, Apollo was initially going to be the "utility" spacecraft of choice for the US. The Block 1 orbital version would be used to gain knowledge and experience for orbital maneuvers and operations. "Mercury MkII" was only brought forward into Gemini when it became clear that the Apollo spacecraft would not be readily available in the context of the Kennedy Lunar Goal. While Vostok was bigger and could be used for expanded missions, Mercury was never more than a 'test' vehicle from the start and the lack of larger boosters was a big driver of the size. In a "No Lunar Goal" scenerio you might see a different Apollo, (for example)
https://falsesteps.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/martin-410-cutaway-diagram.jpg

The Martin design which 'technically' won the competition but 'lost' due to not being an actual 'capsule' as Max Faget demanded. (Even though there was a 'capsule' option in the proposal, http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/z/zmartin1.jpg) So that the US program would have less 'firsts' (which Gemini gave them) but probably a similar to Soyuz capability, (which is where the Soviets went as well) earlier. If Apollo was still going to be delayed "too long" then there were several ideas for "modified" Mercury capsules similar too Gemini, (and from which Gemini was ultimately derived) but I suspect both the quality and utility would have been less than the OTL Gemini.

Much like the attempts to extend Gemini OTL the issue of ensuring Gemini did not upstage Apollo is very much there :) Once Korolev set his sights on Soyuz the same process was applied to Vostok after all :)

Now if the US had somehow had the original 5-engine Atlas to play with initially then I'd also point out Mercury would have been very different as well :) But that's a whole-nother time line :)

Randy
 
Kennedy doesn’t give his speech + Korolev lives = Russians on the moon first.

Ric350

Not really as the Soviet government wasn't THAT interested in going to the Moon either. One fundamental reason they didn't take the American announcement too seriously until it was too late. Both Korolev and Von Braun wanted to go to the Moon... Eventually. But they didn't see either government giving them the resources or funding to do so in a timely manner and were shocked but willing to 'game-the-system' once the Space Race heated up.

Perhaps as a gesture of peace JFK offers a joint soviet us mission in which korlov, Van braun Webb, and goloskov, all work together.

At the time the Soviets refused just such an offer and AFTER Kennedy had set the US goal mind you. And for good reason as they were well aware their "technological lead" was very much a sham and any cooperative program would show this off. Still the seed planted by this lead to OTL's Apollo-Soyuz program so I'd think under different circumstances while the Soviets would still initially refuse Kennedy they'd be open to negotiations and a joint mission could come up by the mid-70s in a "no Lunar Goal" situation.

Not all that different than Zond-5, had the Soviets decided to nut up and grab that somewhat low hanging fruit of men around the Moon in place of Space Turtles.
Even with the more limited controls that the Cosmonauts had in their craft, they probably would have been able to improve reentry than OTL, after ground control lost contact/control of Zond-5 where it was shown that Turtles aren't a replacement for a real pilot.

US would not be able to ignore a Red Drive-by of the Moon. Stunts had to be matched, then one upped.

The Soviets were worried about the negative blow-back from a manned failure and with some reason as nobody had seriously thought that the 'firsts' of Sputnik and Gagarin would be as big as they were. The revers is very much a thing. Thing was in OTL by that point it was clear the Soviets were having serious problems and even if they HAD done a "Lunar drive-by" (another line I may steal :) ) the US was already preparing for Apollo 8 which would ORBIT the Moon rather than flyby and yes I know I suggested above that a manned US suborbital flight would have stolen some thunder from Gagarin this is acceptable in context. For one thing it would very much rattle the US political structure at a time when NASA funding was already being reduced and I've no doubt NASA would have played that up. For another it would be VERY clear that though the USSR may have gone 'around' the Moon neither their spacecraft or program were capable of orbiting or more importantly LANDING on the Moon before Apollo could so while it's a 'point' for the USSR it's a very limited one and "spin-able" by the US and NASA.

If we assume the US in TTL has an alt-Gemini then the same applies in that the US could pretty easily ORBIT a vehicle around the Moon in a counter to the Soviet flyby if not before them. The fact that neither side could really hide what they were doing from the other makes any attempt at a 'Grand Play' of one-up-manship by the mid-60s difficult at best and unlikely in the extreme.

The bigger problem was the Proton, however (not that the Zond's teething problems were to be lightly dismissed). I think you have to accelerate Proton development by at least 4-6 months to give the Soviets a real chance to beat Apollo 8 to the punch - and even then it would have a been a very high risk proposition.

Very high risk no matter what but IIRC there were concepts of using just R7 launches as well as the Proton/R7 combination plan so...

No question.

More to the point, it would commit the Soviets to a lunar program in a way that had not been true before.

The Soviets were always the driver in the Space Race.

But it's odd how the US history only acknowledges that for the fist few years and then takes the narrative that Apollo took on a life of its own. While true on the surface a deeper look shows the need surprise of how much PR the early Space Race ceded to the USSR was never lost on the US. But I'm not sure that a Soviet Lunar flyby would have actually 'committed' the USSR to a full Lunar Program, unless you mean it would have been harder to deny every being in a "race"?

Randy
 
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...

The Apollo you're citing there is far different from the Apollo that existed as of Kennedy's death which was, functionally, the Apollo that would land on the Moon in 1969. If Kennedy gives his speech, then Apollo just needs funding to finish, which is possible -- Johnson can push for Apollo as Veep just as he did as Pres. If Kennedy doesn't give his speech, Apollo never gets out of the pretty drawings stage.
 
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.

The Soviets were not planning or announcing rovers in 1961. They were pretty mum on their Lunar program in general until the mid-60s. Even with Apollo going full-bore, Khruschev (mostly) said "Good luck! Have fun."

More trumpeted were their interplanetary endeavors. Be interesting if Mars made it in 1963...
 
But I'm not sure that a Soviet Lunar flyby would have actually 'committed' the USSR to a full Lunar Program, unless you mean it would have been harder to deny every being in a "race"?

Randy
I think this is the sense--if they've flown around the moon and vowed to land, it's harder to back out of that and impossible to pretend they never were planning to in the first place.
 
Apollo never gets out of the pretty drawings stage.

Saturn I was greenlit past the drawings stage as the as the Jumo V, or Super Juno in December 10, 1957, as a heavy lofter to LEO was needed for future military paymloads.
ARPA recommending that the cluster use the different Rocketdyne engine, the S-3D already used, and that was developed into the H-1, with static testing to begin in late 1959
Here's what it looked like in 1959
Juno_V_Fig_11_DXM.jpg
for upper stages, when the availability of the Centaur was getting closer for Atlas, that too would be an early option.

Anyway, On February 3rd, 1959, the Super Juno was renamed Saturn by ARPA

So Saturn was going to be a good sized booster by 1960, and JFK was onboard for NASA to have this big booster early in his term.

Then Yuri made his flight in April 1961. Some form of hardware, the follow-on to Mercury, was going to be on that Saturn I and called Apollo, and that was going to be complex enough that an intermediate program would also be needed for more testing and experience, since Mercury was just not capable of doing much more than putting a man in a can for a few orbits.
 
The Apollo you're citing there is far different from the Apollo that existed as of Kennedy's death which was, functionally, the Apollo that would land on the Moon in 1969. If Kennedy gives his speech, then Apollo just needs funding to finish, which is possible -- Johnson can push for Apollo as Veep just as he did as Pres. If Kennedy doesn't give his speech, Apollo never gets out of the pretty drawings stage.

"Apollo" was in the cards from roughly 1959 in the original NASA plan as the Apollo cited was to be, initially, an orbital spacecraft to 'follow' Mercury with some trans-Lunar capability. Without Kennedy's speech and goal it will carry on though at a lower level than the Apollo of OTL. The 'sting' of further Soviet firsts will be somewhat overcome by, if things go as planned that is, having a more capable spacecraft doing more in orbit earlier. Though again a version of the Mercury MkII might make an appearance if things drag on too long.

Randy
 
Top