posted 05-10-2005 08:10 PM               

Dec 1966 Original Apollo 2 CSM earth orbital test canceled

Feb 21, 1967 Apollo 1 prime crew = Grissom, White, Chaffee flies two-week mission; Backup crew = Schirra, Eisele, Cunningham

Mar or Apr 1967 AS-206/LM-1 unmanned test

Fall 1967 AS-501 1st unmanned Saturn V test

April 1968 AS-502 2nd unmanned Saturn V test; "pogo" problems delay next manned flight

Late Summer/Early Fall 1968 Apollo 2 1st lunar orbit; prime crew = Borman, Collins/Young*, Anders ; back-up crew = Grissom, Young, Cernan; the mission is swapped as actually happened with Apollo 8 and 9 because the LM-3 is not yet ready to fly
*Collins' bone spur appeared in the summer of 1968, so in this scheme he would have likely lost his assignment, too.
REVISED 5/11
Swap Collins for Young.

Nov-Dec 1968 Apollo 3/LM-3 p/crew = McDivitt, Scott, Schweickart; b/u = Conrad, Gordon, Bean

Mar 1969 Apollo 4 1st LM lunar mission test; p/crew = Schirra, Stafford*, Cunningham; b/u = Cooper, White, Mitchell
*Normal crew rotation would have put Eisele as CMP here, but under this scenario he would not have had flight experience - a requirement for CMP of the first LM lunar orbit mission. Instead, Eisele goes to AAP after his Apollo 1 backup CMP role and possibly never flies.

May 1969 Apollo 5 1st lunar landing attempt; p/crew = Grissom, Collins, Cernan; b/u = Armstrong, Lovell, Haise
REVISED 5/11 Switched Armstrong to CDR from CMP and Lovell vice versa. Lovell flew in the number two slot under Borman so why not Armstrong?

Nov 1969 Apollo 6 p/crew = Conrad, Gordon, Bean; b/u = Scott, Worden, Irwin

Jan 1970 Apollo 14 (like Apollo 20) is canceled.

Apr 1970 Apollo 7 p/crew = Armstrong, Lovell, Haise; b/u = Aldrin?, Mattingly, Duke
Assuming the same defect was present in the SM as in Apollo 13, this would have been the aborted flight.
COMMENT 5/11: Someone suggested Aldrin would not have been given a CDR position. Someone with flight experience would have to fill this spot. Would McDivitt have dropped his manager status to reenter training? Perhaps Stafford????

Sept 1970 Apollo 12 and 13 are canceled.

Jan-Feb 1971 Apollo 8 p/crew = Shepard, Roosa, Mitchell; b/u = Young, Evans, Engle

Aug 1971 Apollo 9 p/crew = Scott, Worden, Irwin; b/u = Gordon, Brand, Schmitt

Apr 1972 Apollo 10 p/crew = Aldrin/McDivitt/Stafford?*, Mattingly, Duke; b/u = Roosa, Pogue, Mitchell
*See comment added on 5/11 under Apollo 7 crew selection.

Dec 1972 Apollo 11 last lunar landing p/crew Young, Evans, Schmitt; b/u = Roosa, Pogue, Duke
Engle still gets bumped!

[This message has been edited by dtemple (edited May 10, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by dtemple (edited May 10, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by dtemple (edited May 10, 2005).]

posted 05-10-2005 08:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom:
Just one question...how would Apollo 2 fly to the Moon before the first unmanned Saturn 5 flight?

---

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
An obvious error on my part - obvious to everyone but me!

I will correct the error.

posted 05-11-2005 05:40 AM               

Deke wouldn't have had Mike Collins do a backup spell after his medical problems either, he'd have gone directly back into rotation. I also find it tough to believe that Deke would assigned Aldrin as a CDR.

If you are going to do a "what if" based on a successful Apollo 1 (using a Block II), then you have to also include some AAP crews that start just after the first lunar landing. You also have to detach the advanced landing missions from mainstream Apollo. Maybe something like this;

Apollo 1 Grissom Schirra
White Eisele
Chaffee Cunningham

Apollo 2 Borman Conrad
Collins Gordon
Anders Williams

Apollo 3 McDivitt Armstrong
Scott Aldrin
Schweickart Mitchell

Apollo 4 Stafford Cooper
Young Chaffee
Cunningham Haise

Apollo 5 Grissom Collins
Lovell Anders
Cernan Irwin

AAP-1 White
Eisele
Kerwin

AAP-2 Bean
Worden
Garriott

posted 05-11-2005 06:33 PM               

I think you are correct on these two points. Collins initially trained for an LMP position but that later got switched to CMP. Aldrin had trained for CMP for a while before getting bumped to LMP. You may recall that Aldrin and Collins swapped seats for a while during the Apollo 11 mission because of their cross-training. Anyway, I forgot Collins would have been acting as CMP - not LMP - in my alternative timeline and would have been replaced by Gordon, not Williams under those circumstances. In reality, McDivitt, Scott, and Schweickart were backed-up by Conrad, Gordon, and Bean. As for Aldin in a CDR position, I agree. From what I recall reading now, that probably would not have happened. Looks like my alternate timeline needs some tweaking. However, I disagree that AAP would have anything to do with the alternate timeline I proposed. I said nothing about AAP not getting trimmed back. I believe AAP would have turned into Skylab anyway. Vietnam was eating up much of the taxpayers money. Fire or no fire, the war would have escalated and cost the same. I will do a little rethinking of the timeline though. It is a fun waste of time!

I have now made some adjustments to the proposed alternate timeline.

posted 05-12-2005 10:03 AM               

quote:

---

Apollo 1 Grissom Schirra
White Eisele
Chaffee Cunningham

Apollo 2 Borman Conrad
Collins Gordon
Anders Williams

Apollo 3 McDivitt Armstrong
Scott Aldrin
Schweickart Mitchell

Apollo 4 Stafford Cooper
Young Chaffee
Cunningham Haise

Apollo 5 Grissom Collins
Lovell Anders
Cernan Irwin

AAP-1 White
Eisele
Kerwin

AAP-2 Bean
Worden
Garriott

[/B]

---

So after,Lunar Mission :Apollo 6-Conrad,Gordon Williams,Apollo 7-Armstrong Aldrin Mitchell,Apollo 8-Cooper Chaffe Haise (or Young ,and Cooper on AAP?),Apollo 9 Collins Anders Irwin ?

posted 05-12-2005 08:37 PM               

BASELINE JAN 1967 (no AS-205)

AS-204 FEB 1967 Grissom-White-Chaffee
b/u C mission Schirra-Eisele-Cunningham

AS-258 JAN 1968 McDivitt-Scott-Schweickrt
b/u D Stafford-Young-Cernan

AS-503 JUL 1968* Borman-Collins-Anders
b/u E Conrad-Gordon-Bean

*date even more speculative than the rest of this....

AS-504 OCT 1968 Armstrong-Aldrin-Cunningm
b/u F Grissom-Lovell-Eisele

Crews named after AS-204

AS-505 MAR 1969 Stafford-Young-Cernan
b/u F-2 Scott-Roosa-Mitchell

Absent the C-prime mission of Apollo 8, and based on expectations in the astronaut office, at least two F missions will be needed, maybe three.

AS-506 JUL 1969 Conrad-Gordon-Bean
b/u F-3 or G Collins-Anders-Haise

AS-507 OCT 1969 **Grissom-Lovell-Eisele
b/u G or G-2 Shepard-Worden-Irwin

**Grissom was going to be given a _chance_ at the first lunar landing.... the rotation would not have been wrenched out of shape to do that, since Deke had deliberately set up McDivitt, Borman and Stafford as first lunar landing commanders as well (followed closely by Armstrong and Conrad: he had six).

AAP 1 1970 Cooper-Kerwin-Weitz
b/u White-Musgrave-Chaffee

AAP 2 1970 Schweickrt-Gariott-Lousma
b/u Cunningham-Lenoir-Pogue

(Anders, Weitz, Engle, Lousma, Pogue were al in the AAP branch in 1966-67. Why not use the guys who actually wound up flying the missions?)

Some other day we can play the See-Bassett effect.

posted 05-16-2005 09:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by dtemple:

Dec 1966 Original Apollo 2 CSM earth orbital test canceled

Feb 21, 1967 Apollo 1 prime crew = Grissom, White, Chaffee flies two-week mission; Backup crew = Schirra, Eisele, Cunningham

Mar or Apr 1967 AS-206/LM-1 unmanned test

Fall 1967 AS-501 1st unmanned Saturn V test

April 1968 AS-502 2nd unmanned Saturn V test; "pogo" problems delay next manned flight

Late Summer/Early Fall 1968 Apollo 2 1st lunar orbit; prime crew = Borman, Collins/Young*, Anders ; back-up crew = Grissom, Young, Cernan; the mission is swapped as actually happened with Apollo 8 and 9 because the LM-3 is not yet ready to fly
*Collins' bone spur appeared in the summer of 1968, so in this scheme he would have likely lost his assignment, too.
REVISED 5/11
Swap Collins for Young.

Nov-Dec 1968 Apollo 3/LM-3 p/crew = McDivitt, Scott, Schweickart; b/u = Conrad, Gordon, Bean

Mar 1969 Apollo 4 1st LM lunar mission test; p/crew = Schirra, Stafford*, Cunningham; b/u = Cooper, White, Mitchell
*Normal crew rotation would have put Eisele as CMP here, but under this scenario he would not have had flight experience - a requirement for CMP of the first LM lunar orbit mission. Instead, Eisele goes to AAP after his Apollo 1 backup CMP role and possibly never flies.

May 1969 Apollo 5 1st lunar landing attempt; p/crew = Grissom, Collins, Cernan; b/u = Armstrong, Lovell, Haise
REVISED 5/11 Switched Armstrong to CDR from CMP and Lovell vice versa. Lovell flew in the number two slot under Borman so why not Armstrong?

Nov 1969 Apollo 6 p/crew = Conrad, Gordon, Bean; b/u = Scott, Worden, Irwin

Jan 1970 Apollo 14 (like Apollo 20) is canceled.

Apr 1970 Apollo 7 p/crew = Armstrong, Lovell, Haise; b/u = Aldrin?, Mattingly, Duke
Assuming the same defect was present in the SM as in Apollo 13, this would have been the aborted flight.
COMMENT 5/11: Someone suggested Aldrin would not have been given a CDR position. Someone with flight experience would have to fill this spot. Would McDivitt have dropped his manager status to reenter training? Perhaps Stafford????

Sept 1970 Apollo 12 and 13 are canceled.

Jan-Feb 1971 Apollo 8 p/crew = Shepard, Roosa, Mitchell; b/u = Young, Evans, Engle

Aug 1971 Apollo 9 p/crew = Scott, Worden, Irwin; b/u = Gordon, Brand, Schmitt

Apr 1972 Apollo 10 p/crew = Aldrin/McDivitt/Stafford?*, Mattingly, Duke; b/u = Roosa, Pogue, Mitchell
*See comment added on 5/11 under Apollo 7 crew selection.

Dec 1972 Apollo 11 last lunar landing p/crew Young, Evans, Schmitt; b/u = Roosa, Pogue, Duke
Engle still gets bumped!

---

Interesting scenario. Had Apollo 1 succeeded, I don't think NASA would have jumped straight into a lunar mission at that time. They wouldn't have been quite so far behind the 8 ball where time was concerned and I think they would have tested the system once more in earth orbit, with or without the LM.
When they decided to send Apollo 8 into lunar orbit, there was a real risk that the Rooskies might get there first. This coupled with the fact that the Block 2 performed exceptionally well on its maiden flight(Apollo 7)I feel gave NASA the confidence, not to mention the balls, to send BORMAN, LOVELL & ANDERS to the moon for XMAS.
When you consider the level of success of #7,8,9&10, it is a real tribute to all who were involved in making a successful landing on the moon.
(Your crew selections were really good. It might make a good "WHAT IF" book or movie)

posted 05-16-2005 10:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Cassutt:

Some other day we can play the See-Bassett effect.

Michael Cassutt

---

Would Slayton have considered Elliot See one of the weaker guys - "too old womanish" as he put it in his autobiography - if See had not crashed his T-38? How much of his evaluation of See was based on the fatal accident? I suspect there are several guesses which could be made on how history would have been different had the original Gemini 9 landed safely at Lambert Field. We know Slayton planned to send Bassett on to Apollo - in fact he had been given an assignment (the block 1 Apollo 2 backup CMP) though it was not anounced to the public. See might have ended Gemini as a backup CDR on Gemini 12. Perhaps he would have then been sent on to AAP. We know if Bassett had lived, Buzz Aldrin would not have been on Apollo 11. Aldrin only made it onto Gemini 12 because the original GT-9 crew got killed and the original GT-10 backups moved up a notch to become the new GT-9 backup crew. Perhaps Bassett would have been on Apollo 11. Obviously without the crash, Stafford and Cernan would not have flown until Gemini 12. How would that have effected their future assignments? Since Lovell was the GT-12 commander and later flew on Apollo 8 and 13, perhaps Stafford would have been in his place at least on Apollo 8. There may be numerous plausible alternate timelines had See landed his plane safely on Feb. 28, 1966.

posted 05-17-2005 10:36 AM               

<The Apollo-Saturn 205/208 mission might have been flown had the fire not happened. I had not thought of that possibility. However, the LM was not ready to fly by the date proposed. I am not sure how much of the delay was caused by the changes mandated by the AS-204 Rreview Board.

I was using a baseline of January 1967. At that time, the Block I Apollo was still the Block I Apollo -- and 258 was most definitely on the schedule.

As for the delays to LM and Saturn V caused by the fire, they're hard to quantify -- but there WERE delays, if only for financial reasons.

You can make all the assumptions you want in exercises like this. I'm simply laying out the most likely crewing schedule based on the data available in January 1967. The effect of a swap between crews and missions is fairly obvious.

<I also suggest that AAP would have had no effect on the proposed scenario simply because the money was not going to be available.

This was not the case in January 1967. Post-fire, with increasing pressure on the budget, AAP took major hits. But when Deke was looking ahead at the end of Gemini, AAP was still scheduled to follow on the heels of the first couple of landings.

<....With the extra time available, is there any reason to suspect NASA would have performed one more simulation before committing to the first landing? Probably not, since as real events unfolded there was actual consideration given to making Apollo 10 the first landing attempt, so managers were wanting to land as soon as possible. I suppose if LM-4 had performed as well in the alternate timeline as it actually did on Apollo 10, there would have been no repeat flight.

Maybe. But the decisions about a possible Apollo 10 landing and all that were made by a different NASA management in different circumstances.

posted 05-17-2005 10:42 AM               

<Would Slayton have considered Elliot See one of the weaker guys - "too old womanish" as he put it in his autobiography - if See had not crashed his T-38? How much of his evaluation of See was based on the fatal accident?

Yes, would and did. See was considered by several of his contemporaries (though not all) to be a "California pilot" -- great in good weather, shaky in bad.

The real X factor in many of Slayton's evaluations of other astronauts is his judgment of their skill as pilots. I know of several he thought were outstanding (Grissom, Borman, McDivitt) and a couple that he found lacking (such as See).

Whether flying skill is relevant to flying in space is worth debating, but Slayton thought it was.

Assume a successful GT-9 with See and Bassett, and you have See rotating to backup command of GT-12 with either Bean or Williams as pilot, while Bassett joins Borman's crew for Apollo.

Obviously Stafford-Cernan and Lovell-Aldrin wind up in different places, too.

posted 05-18-2005 01:47 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Cassutt:
dtemple asked--

<Would Slayton have considered Elliot See one of the weaker guys - "too old womanish" as he put it in his autobiography - if See had not crashed his T-38? How much of his evaluation of See was based on the fatal accident?

Yes, would and did. See was considered by several of his contemporaries (though not all) to be a "California pilot" -- great in good weather, shaky in bad.

Whether flying skill is relevant to flying in space is worth debating, but Slayton thought it was.

Michael Cassutt

---

posted 05-19-2005 09:48 PM               

I can't imagine Deke Slayton giving someone a spaceflight (let alone commanding a docking mission) because he'd gotten "sentimental" about them.

He seems like a no-nonsense guy on the job. I think Mr. Slayton was obviously concerned with the safety of the astronauts and was also aware of the effect a death in space - especially from pilot error or panic - would have on the program.

Remember Elliot See was on his first flight and could very well have been responsible for Gemini's first docking. To the best of my knowledge there has been no criticism of See's performance as commander of Gemini 9. This leaves aside the Gemini peer rating because A) there is a gentlemen's agreement never to reveal the outcome and B) there are more versions of it than there were people on it.

Therefore, See must have had some qualifications or credentials that suggested him not only for flight but command on his first mission.

I think Slayton's comments reflected his sincere and long-standing opinion of See as a pilot of aircraft. Walt Cunningham related how See flew too slowly at low altitude and didn't apply flaps until prompted, so I think Slayton's opinion was 20/20 hindsight or post-mortem.

However, it's been said many times that there's much more to being an astronaut than aircraft) piloting skill. This is shown to be true by the fact Chuck Yeager wasn't qualified for selection.

There is nothing inconsistant with Slayton giving See a command at the same time as holding the opinion he lacked panache as an aircraft pilot.

posted 05-19-2005 10:39 PM               

Granted, Block I had a limited life, and maybe the root cause of the AS-204 fire was confined to the circumstances involving that particular spacecraft and wouldn't have affected the second Block I flight or any Block IIs. But I can't help thinking that if it hadn't been the Apollo 1 guys getting killed, then maybe another crew would have suffered some other fate along the line, possibly very early in the program given the problems that were faced in certifying the then-most complex spacecraft ever, at the end of 1966/start of 1967.

The Fire jolted everyone into being far more diligent and cautious on the way to the Moon, so on a "worst case" scenario I wonder if, where or when an accident would have occurred, had Apollo 1 flown successfully? Who knows; impossible to say.

I do recall Gilruth getting edgy about losing a landing crew to a failed LM ascent engine much later in the program, to the point where he would have been prepared to cut losses at 13 (maybe a little later, say after 14) and not fly the rest of the program.

Also in some senses, the programn was lucky to avoid a solar flare. There has been lots of talk about the scheduling of lunar flights, mostly concerning lighting conditions at the landing site on arrival. Is anyone aware whether any of the forward planning took into account periods of solar activity? Pretty hard to see how this could have been the case, given the long lead times, and management influences, needed to plan a successful landing mission. Just wondering?

posted 05-19-2005 11:27 PM               

That said, Deke never expressed any reservations about either Freeman or Williams.

As for why See got a critical flight assignment when Deke harbored doubts about his skills with a T-38, Duke's point is spot on: there was more to being an astronaut than flying airplanes.