Not your usual stranded Apollo 11 astronauts thread. No really!

So, I know the idea of an Apollo 11 failure has been explored a lot before, but I had a couple of nagging questions that I thought might bring some fresh air (pun intended) to this scenario.


Firstly, and it all hinges upon this question really: Do we have a consensus on the life expectancy for Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin during a 'best case scenario' lunar stranding?


In other words, what is the longest the astronauts can possibly be expected to survive in terms of food, water, and most critically oxygen in a scenario in which the only impediment to lunar takeoff is fuel and there is zero damage to the astronauts, the lunar module, their spacesuits, or their food and oxygen reserves, etc.?


My second question is probably a little absurd but bear with me here...


What if (in the above 'best case scenario') someone, maybe Kissinger or Thomas O. Paine or both but somebody, suggests contacting the Soviet Union for help?


A few mere months after the successful Apollo 11 mission OTL Henry Kissinger became excited about the prospect of NASA contacting their Soviet Russian counterpart concerning what would become the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project.


From Wikipedia:


'In October 1970, Soviet Academy of Sciences president Mstislav Keldysh responded to NASA Administrator Thomas O. Paine’s letter proposing a cooperative space mission, and there was subsequently a meeting to discuss technical details. By January 12, U.S. President Richard Nixon's Foreign Policy Adviser Henry Kissinger enthusiastically espoused plans for the mission, and expressed these views to NASA administrator George M. Low: "As long as you stick to space, do anything you want to do. You are free to commit--in fact, I want you to tell your counterparts in Moscow that the President has sent you on this mission."'


Bear with me.


The Russian Zond 7 launch:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zond_7


...would occur less than a month after Apollo 11's lunar landing.


With the contemporary mindset of the intelligence communities of both sides it would be unbelievable to me if the United States government wasn't aware of the Soviet launch preparations - or indeed the other way around - and I might even go a step further to suggest that the timing proximity of our lunar landing and their lunar flyby were at least somewhat mutually intentional.


Most of the planning and preparatory work for the Zond 7 launch was almost assuredly already complete during this time. So...


What if someone from the White House or from NASA (or both) reaches out to the Soviet Union to request assistance in the form of a controlled landing from a Zond 7 filled with oxygen reserves, food, and water equivalent to the stranded astronaut's short term needs? We could offer to pay for the entire project and dangle some form of an Apollo-Soyuz Joint Lunar Landing Mission as a reward - read: a lunar rescue.

Not only would this be a scientific and diplomatic coup, it would be a necessity, as the existing Apollo mission parameters simply do not allow enough seats for four returning astronauts; as it is my understanding that a minimum of two Apollo astronauts would be required to fly such a mission with a maximum of three returning astronauts in terms of seat-room.


We need to dock with a Soyuz manned by at most only one cosmonaut to even get everyone home.


NASA communicates to the marooned astronauts that there is some form of plan being developed to dissuade them from taking a dramatic approach concerning cessation of their inevitable suffering.


If the Soviets agree, we might see some sort of frantic deep-into-the-night planning and calculation session involving all of NASA and Russia's best and brightest communicating via translators over the phone. The launch is moved up nearly a month in the course of a night and a day and it's only just slightly possible that it barely succeeds.


With a lifeline of supplies Aldrin and Armstrong remain stranded but alive.


Now...


Three near simultaneous Soyuz launches are planned and in the preparation stage (Soyuz 6, 7, and 8) at this time.


These will take some more time to fast-track but with full cooperation it's possible. In OTL these three launches failed to rendezvous with each other as planned, but they all successfully returned to earth. If one, two, or even all three of these are launched unmanned with supplies for the moon we can certainly buy some time.


In the meantime a U.S. unmanned supply launch replacing Apollo 12 can be simultaneously planned and implemented.


Between these two to four unmanned launches the astronauts can be provided with enough food, water, air, supplies, and perhaps additional shelter to buy some time for the Apollo-Soyuz rescue.


Any hypothetical plan for this Apollo-Soyuz mission would be tricky and a bit technical and I'll need some help here. It seems like we could only have four total cosmo/astronauts in space for the mission in order to successfully bring home the rescuers and the Apollo 11 crew (a total of six: three returning with the Soyuz and three returning via Apollo Command Module).


I just wrote out three paragraphs of options for various docking, detaching, and launch combinations and deleted it, realizing both that I was rambling and strangling the possibility for discussion and also that I myself am less than qualified to work for NASA...

For that matter, any one of the unmanned Soyuz or Apollo resupply landings could simply drop surplus fuel if that's all it would take, but I'm not sure Aldrin or Armstrong would be up to attempting a repair and takeoff after such a period of anxiety and exhaustion. That option also robs the U.S. of a minor diplomatic revolution and the U.S.S.R. of a potential (free) lunar landing - albeit a cooperative one. Finally, any spare room for fuel would be room that could be used for food, water, and oxygen and I doubt that even with mission control coaching them through it the astronauts would be capable of such a critical refuel and repair.


At any rate, that should be enough to stimulate some real discussion on the possibilities of this topic.


Could the never before mentioned 'Zond 7' be the fresh possibility we need to finally have some new discussion on the topic of a stranded Apollo 11 lunar rescue?

What would the results be for both countries' space programs and is there a future for more cooperation? A joint moon base (now that essentially supplying something like it had already been extensively accomplished) before an international space station?

What about the diplomatic possibilities?

If I do enough research on this would anyone want to read a half-political/half-pop cultural timeline surrounding this POD with such an event as the centerpiece? And would you rather read a version in which this scenario ended in triumph... or in tragedy?


The 'Zond 7' unmanned supply option...


Discuss!
 
While possible in theory the actual probability of such a feat succeeding would be quite a few digits to the right of the decimal point.

First off you would need whatever circumstance that was catastrophic enough to maroon the astronauts on the moon (e.g crash landing, system failure) to not have any effect on the life support and communication systems.

Off the top of my head I think that EAGLE only held oxygen and battery reserves for approximately 3 days. No where near long enough to hold out for Zond 7 which would probably have a later landing date than OTL due to the extra time that it would take to reconfigure the mission.
Even if you the astronauts could hold out long enough it's doubtful that Zond 7 could be landed with the precision required to come down within walking distance (moonbugy not available yet) of Apollo 11.

With the help of ASB's let's assume we get to this point. The interior of an Apollo LM is little bigger than a small van. This would severely limit the supplies that could be brought inside to days at a push weeks worth when you consider they'd need to receive food, water and oxygen. The only way to get round this would be to develop and construct (within litteraly a matter of hours) some way of storing the necessary supplies outside the LM in such a way that it could survive the vacuum of space.

The issues with 2 men trapped in a space that small for weeks without any toilet facilities don't bare thinking about.

As for the rescue itself the outlook isn't as bleak. During the Skylab missions NASA constructed a 5 seat Apollo CSM in case an emergency rescue of the Skylab crew was required. It's not beyond the relms of possibility that Apollo 12 could be modified in such a way. Perhaps the crew could be somehow reduced to 2 men and extra oxygen brought along. As for the landing itself whether they decide to pilot it down or use some sort of automated system you'd still have the issue of having to land within walking distance of the Apollo 11 site.

All of this assumes that the are no equipment failures (you'd have to make hardware designed to run for a few days last way way beyond its design life) and that the astronauts are able to keep their heads together and not lose hope.

With all that in mind there is simply no chance of a rescue even getting off the ground before the marooned astronauts expired. The most likely way to avoid the space program ending then and their would probably have to be the a successful soviet moonlanding to encourage the US to stay in the game.

As for the Armstrong and Aldrin themselves I'd like to think that once it was obvious something catastrophic had happened to the LM they'd probably spend their final moments donning suits, opening the hatch and climbing down to the bottom rung of the ladder and savouring that one moment where they themselves were at the zenith of human achievement before stepping out onto the lunar surface and walking out to explore this strange new world without looking back as the various lights in the LM go out.
 
The Admiral Hook wrote:
So, I know the idea of an Apollo 11 failure has been explored a lot before, but I had a couple of nagging questions that I thought might bring some fresh air (pun intended) to this scenario.


Firstly, and it all hinges upon this question really: Do we have a consensus on the life expectancy for Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin during a 'best case scenario' lunar stranding?

About 48 hours unfortunately which could possibly be 'stretched' a bit longer but nothing over about 72 (the later missions extended the 'standard' stay time to 75 hours but this was added mass they early LM's didn't have) even assuming they "know" from the moment of touchdown they're in trouble. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module)

In other words, what is the longest the astronauts can possibly be expected to survive in terms of food, water, and most critically oxygen in a scenario in which the only impediment to lunar takeoff is fuel and there is zero damage to the astronauts, the lunar module, their spacesuits, or their food and oxygen reserves, etc.?

Oxygen is actually not the most 'important' bit as the other 'main' problems are battery power and water for the waste heat system. It's a very complex 'dance' of factors so that you don't die of heat or run out of power to run the systems that keep the heating and oxygen flowing. Unless they find a way to recharge the batteries, (and unlike KSP I don't think the engines had alternators on them so firing up the descent engine occasionally will NOT do it) they would be drained in something like 100 or so hours even at minimum usage. Beyond that you only have about 48 hours of life support, (as noted that could possibly be extended but I wouldn't see it going past 72 hours or so maximum) and water for the waste heat rejection system.

Note a LOT of the questions beyond simple survival depend on the 'why' and 'how' of the stranding. Even if they could 'MacGyver' together something to create breathable oxygen from the LM propellants (not totally out there) they still have a hard limit on the amount of water they have for the heat rejection system. (Yes there is an 'alternate' source of 'water' but I'm pretty sure getting the urine into the heat rejection systems tank would be a VERY non-trivial issue)

The main problem of 'rescue' is therefore the simple fact that even if "someone" had a lunar capable LV on the pad at the moment Apollo 11 landed it would take at least three to four day to GET to Lunar orbit, never mind landing near the stranded Apollo LM.

And that's the OTHER big problem; Landing the 'supplies' close enough to the Apollo LM for the astronauts to retrieve and utilize the supplies. It was a 'non-trivial' issue that the LM and CM CO2 filters weren't compatible now add in equipment made for an entirely different spacecraft into the mix...

And Zond wasn't capable of landing in any case, heck it couldn't even enter orbit. What you'd need is something along the lines of the Soviet "Lunokhod" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_programme) Which was in fact initially planned to 'spearhead' a Soviet manned lunar landing by characterizing the landing site and carrying radio beacon's to allow the lander to home in on it. Then of course is the issue of having it be modified to carry the needed supplies to the stranded astronauts which is another non-trivial issue.

Now that of course brings up an idea to me; As a "what-if"
What if Lunokhod 201, (see above Lunokhod article) had launched and landed on the Moon sucessfully in Febuary of 1969? Could land it at Tranquility ahead of Apollo 11 and have it nearby when the Americans land. Have it come rolling up as the American's come down the ladder...

Of course the only thing it could possibly supply the American's with is power assuming they can podge-together a way to run the power to the LM. And you're still pretty much hardwired to a 72 hour life support window.

Randy
 
Top