WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN: Copernicus crater, photographed during Apollo 12, might have been a landing site for a canceled Apollo mission.
Image: NASA
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
When Apollo 11 landed on the moon, NASA's plan was to continue manned lunar missions through Apollo 20. But history turned out differently. The last three missions, still in planning stages, were canceled. Hardware that would have flown to the moon ended up as museum exhibits. And scientists and space enthusiasts were left to contemplate what Apollos 18 through 20 might have accomplished.
On January 4, 1970, less than six months after Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin left humanity's first lunar footprints, NASA announced Apollo 20's cancellation. Eight months later, the agency announced the scrapping of Apollo 19 as well as the original mission slated for Apollo 15 (Apollo 16 was renumbered 15, thereby giving the remaining two missions numbers 16 and 17).
The three expeditions, which may have included landings in Copernicus or Tycho craters, were canceled for multiple reasons. Tighter budgets, imposed by Congress and the Nixon administration, were a major factor. NASA's spending had peaked in the mid-1960s, at which time its labor force of staffers and contractors totaled some 400,000. In January 1970 that workforce had shrunk to 190,000, and NASA was unveiling plans to eliminate another 50,000 jobs.
But the cancellations were "not just about money," says Roger Launius, senior curator at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, noting that Saturn 5 rockets and other hardware already had been purchased. A key motive, in his view, was that NASA officials "weren't sure that it was money well spent." Public interest in seeing men on the moon had declined after Apollo 11, and the mechanical travails that threatened the lives of the crew of Apollo 13 in April 1970 heightened concerns about the risks of lunar missions.
NASA managers at that time were already quite conservative, says astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who was tentatively expected to be on one of the canceled missions. "I think they had much less confidence in the Saturn 5–Apollo systems than did the people who were flying in them and operating them." Schmitt, a geologist who later became a U.S. senator, flew on Apollo 17 instead, his assignment pushed up so at least one scientist would get to explore the moon before the program ended.
The cancellations also reflected competition among NASA priorities, as orbital projects vied with the moon program for money and hardware. One consequence of curbing Apollo was freeing a heavy-lift Saturn 5 to launch the Skylab orbital station in 1973. The prospective development of a space shuttle—endorsed by a presidential task force in 1969—had begun diverting attention at the agency, as well.
Apollo's benefits to science did not ensure political and bureaucratic support. "Each mission became more scientifically productive as the program went on," says Paul Spudis, senior staff scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston. But "the simple fact that each mission was providing a great scientific return didn't really impress very many people other than lunar scientists."
The three missions were canceled two to three years before they would have flown, so plans were still fluid as to their landing sites, crew assignments and other features. Similar to Apollos 15 through 17, but aimed at more scientifically rewarding, albeit riskier, landing sites, they likely would have been what NASA called "J" missions, involving three-day stays on the moon and the use of rovers to expand the scope of exploration. Such missions allowed broader sampling than the earlier "H" missions. (Apollo 11 alone was a "G" mission, focused primarily on landing and return.)
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentSounds like perhaps NASA was told not to return to the moon... by?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo answer your question: The general public.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere was a growing consensus that moon missions were among the many ways the government was wasting money. Politicians responded to the public opinion by cutting back on NASA's budget.
The simple fact is that no saturn 5 was lost,and the goverment wasn't going too,after the great success of mission #17,the oldest rock had been found, and 100,s of pounds of rocks,many of which have yet to be studied,are in the bank,it wasn't worth the risk as we now know how risky it was.We should maybe, observe the same caution, and make this the last shuttle mission before we lose another.We are well on the way with the next heavy launch vehicle ,and finishing the space station would be a good test for it, even if some time is lost.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand we beat those pesky Ruskies to the moon,so what else mattered....while on-going lunar geology was not my first choice for use of Saturn 5 boosters and other NASA resources, it is a predictable shame that when science piggybacks on political motives, science may not be well served.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPolitics triumphed over Human endeavors! Instead of pursuing space exploration, the senators and congressmen decided we needed to give away money to fight hunger and poverty, which all still exist, instead of provide good paying jobs and satisfy the human thirst for knowledge. A lot of well-educated and productive people were cast aside for a bunch of losers who would not even attempt to contribute to society. We should have continued with manned exploration of the moon and beyond. If we did that today, the United States would be much better off than we are right now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistsconway sounds like a bitter old conservative. I suspect that the money going to Apollo wasn't spent feeding the hungry or helping the poor (as that anti-capitalist fool Jesus would have demanded) but rather was spent for military equipment, wars and nuclear weapons ... all high technology stuff which keeps well educated people employed with bloody hands.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't imagine that manned exploration of the moon would have actually accomplished any further benefit to humankind, nor would manned exploration of Mars do so either. Don't worry, though, the Military-Industrial complex still gets its $500+ billion a year to drop bombs on the hungry and impoverished people of the Third World.
wars, starvation and disease all suck....but manned space exploration is the ultimate science. It combines all other disciplines. That may not directly help those suffering from some natural disease immediately, or alleviate some child's hunger today, tomorrow or even next year and longer. BUT....BUT.... it may save a life 50-100 years from now as a result of the system of knowledge and information built up BECAUSE of a manned space program. oh yes and money sucks to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is time to fully internationalise space exploration. No single country can afford it, and mankind needs a positive goal in the face of possible environmental and economic collapse. The 'developing ' nations such as China and India are gung ho with programs that repeat what has already been done: international leadership is needed to direct the resources we have available to worthwhile goals, and create a template for international cooperation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you really want to help the poor and the sick, don't start complaining about the cost of spacetravel, just cut costs on something you do yourself and donate the money to medical and helpprojects. Start with yourself!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy spend tax dollars on exploring the moon/space when we can build $2 billion dollar bombers to go blow up a $400 grass hut.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHarrison Schmidt for president
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHarrison Schmidt for president
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJack, I am perplexed by your reasoning: you risked almost nothing in the adventures to the moon, yet you now personalize, analyze, and reject the risks willingly embraced by others as if you were the protective Mother-of-Us-All. What are you "scared of"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbsent a profitable business model, there will be no sustainable human presence in space. Had Columbus discovered Antarctica (by analogy, the moon) instead of the Americas, no-one would have gone back. For a viable profit motive, look at all the communications satellites.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope we do attain self-sustaining lunar, asteroidal or Martian colonies for the resulting technological breakthroughs and to avoid keeping all our eggs in one basket in case there's a planet-wide catastrophe.
They never went to the moon. The missions were faked in a studio. Here's a link to some of the evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisspurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487