WI: Apollo 11 Astronauts Stranded on Moon

Yeah, it might be too unlikely for the tank failure to be the next flight. I only wonder about it because of the "double whammy" effect. (I was presuming something like an abort explosion: not directly related to design, but an issue of, say, bad landing site choice--anything that doesn't uncover the tank problem.:p)

I think that's definitely the most likely failure possibility.

The landing was easily the highest risk part of the mission. The LM was down to fumes when it landed, and an abort that close to the surface had a high risk of turning fatal.

Other near mechanical problems we saw on the LM on other missions - landing radar failure, accidental abort discrete switch set, LM computer overload, etc. - could have killed the landing, but were less likely to kill or strand the crew. The ascent engine was simple and very reliable - the real problem there might be the rendezvous with the CSM in lunar orbit.
 
Athelstane said:
the real problem there might be the rendezvous with the CSM in lunar orbit.

You've just made me think of another two possibilities: a docking failure (so the LEM can't hook up) & a misfire in docking, taking out both the LEM & CSM.:eek:
 
You've just made me think of another two possibilities: a docking failure (so the LEM can't hook up) & a misfire in docking, taking out both the LEM & CSM.:eek:

I'm not so convinced this would happen, a destructive failure would require uncharacteristic incompetence, and I imagen the astronauts would to anything up to and including an emergency EVA if hard dock failed.
 
I'm not so convinced this would happen, a destructive failure would require uncharacteristic incompetence, and I imagen the astronauts would to anything up to and including an emergency EVA if hard dock failed.
As you say, shy of near-incompetence, the US was pretty darn good at docking by 1969, and they were more than capable of overcoming issues with the systems in the rare cases it was required:

"At the beginning of the mission, the CSM Kitty Hawk had difficulty achieving capture and docking with the LM Antares. Repeated attempts to dock went on for 1 hour and 42 minutes, until it was suggested that Roosa hold Kitty Hawk against Antares using its thrusters, then the docking probe would be retracted out of the way, hopefully triggering the docking latches. This attempt was successful, and no further docking problems were encountered during the mission."--Wikipedia, Apollo 14
 
I'm not so convinced this would happen, a destructive failure would require uncharacteristic incompetence, and I imagen the astronauts would to anything up to and including an emergency EVA if hard dock failed.

Yeah, they are longshots, but it occurs to me there could be unexpected glitches, not unlike the Gemini roll problem, or (for all that) the tank explosion... And I was trying to think of something they couldn't EVA around.;) (That would be a cool outcome, tho.:cool:)
 
Yeah, they are longshots, but it occurs to me there could be unexpected glitches, not unlike the Gemini roll problem, or (for all that) the tank explosion... And I was trying to think of something they couldn't EVA around.;) (That would be a cool outcome, tho.:cool:)

I was imagining, if the docking ports wouldn't hold, the CSM could thrust forward with RCS to hold the LM on as the LM crewmembers jumped from the LM hatch to some sorth of improvized capture mechanism held out of the CM hatch. Although, that may just be Kerbal Space Program talking. :rolleyes:
 
On an unexpected pop cultural level, David Bowie's Space Oddity becomes a number #1 hit in the US, UK, and across Europe as the title song becomes associated as a prescient mournful lament for the lost crew of Apollo 11.

People will accuse him of being involved in some conspiracy, or knowing the doomed crew's fate in advance. Meanwhile Bowie's fame reaches its heights much earlier than OTL.
 
Last edited:
Kirk Kerman said:
I was imagining, if the docking ports wouldn't hold, the CSM could thrust forward with RCS to hold the LM on as the LM crewmembers jumped from the LM hatch to some sorth of improvized capture mechanism held out of the CM hatch. Although, that may just be Kerbal Space Program talking. :rolleyes:
I was thinking more of a pre-docking incident that puts the two spacecraft too far apart to connect. How much RCS fuel did they have, anyhow?:confused:
 
Docking failures

As e of pi says, it would have to be one hell of a mechanical failure for an Apollo mission to utterly fail in an LM-CSM docking. All the drama about Jack Swigert's rustiness in docking in the Apollo 13 movie was just dramatic license - it was never in doubt.

Worst case, Armstrong and Aldrin have to do an EVA. That's only messy in regards to transfer of lunar samples (of which there weren't all that many on Apollo 11 anyway) from the LM to the Command Module. But they had contingency plans for that, and drills on it.
 
I was thinking more of a pre-docking incident that puts the two spacecraft too far apart to connect. How much RCS fuel did they have, anyhow?:confused:
About 250 to 400 m/s worth on the ascent stage--about as much maneuvering margin as an entire Space Shuttle mission, made up of two fully-redundant independent systems. The complete failure of one system would still have left more than acceptable margin for docking on the other system.
 
About 250 to 400 m/s worth on the ascent stage--about as much maneuvering margin as an entire Space Shuttle mission, made up of two fully-redundant independent systems. The complete failure of one system would still have left more than acceptable margin for docking on the other system.
Ah, well... Just an idle thought.:eek:
 
Top