What If The Apollo 13 Mission Successfully Landed on the Moon?

The Actual History

Apollo 13 was intended to be the third mission to land humans on the Moon, following the successful Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 missions. Launched on April 11, 1970, the mission was commanded by Jim Lovell, with Jack Swigert as Command Module Pilot and Fred Haise as Lunar Module Pilot.

Mission Planning and Objectives

Apollo 13's primary objectives included:

Landing in the Fra Mauro highlands, a more challenging and geologically interesting site than previous missions
Conducting extensive geological surveys and sample collection
Deploying an Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP) to continue scientific research after the astronauts departed
Improving precision landing techniques for future missions

The mission represented NASA's continued efforts to expand lunar exploration capabilities while maintaining the momentum of the Apollo program.

The Oxygen Tank Explosion

Approximately 56 hours into the mission, at a distance of about 200,000 miles from Earth, disaster struck. During a routine stirring of the oxygen tanks, a spark ignited inside oxygen tank number 2 in the Service Module, causing an explosion that damaged multiple systems:

The explosion blew off an exterior panel of the Service Module
Oxygen tank number 1 was also damaged, leading to the loss of all oxygen stores
The command module's normal electrical power was lost
Propulsion, life support, and environmental control systems were compromised

This critical failure transformed Apollo 13 from a lunar landing mission into a survival scenario. Astronaut Jack Swigert reported the problem to Mission Control with the now-famous words: "Houston, we've had a problem here."

The Rescue Effort

What followed was one of the most remarkable rescue operations in the history of space exploration:

Mission Reconfiguration: The lunar landing was immediately aborted, with the new mission objective becoming the safe return of the crew to Earth.
Lunar Module as Lifeboat: The Lunar Module "Aquarius," originally intended for the Moon landing, was activated and used as a lifeboat. This spacecraft, not designed for such a purpose, became the crew's living quarters for the return journey.
Power Conservation: With limited electrical power, the Command Module was powered down to conserve resources for re-entry. The crew endured temperatures near freezing and had to severely restrict water consumption.
Trajectory Adjustment: Rather than attempting a direct return, NASA implemented a "free-return trajectory," swinging around the Moon to use its gravity to propel the spacecraft back toward Earth.
Carbon Dioxide Challenge: As carbon dioxide levels rose to dangerous levels, engineers at Mission Control improvised a way for the astronauts to adapt Command Module lithium hydroxide canisters to work with the Lunar Module's air filtration system, using only materials available on board.
Re-entry Procedure Development: NASA had to develop new procedures for powering up the Command Module after an extended shutdown, something never attempted before.

The Return and Impact

After a tense journey, the crew successfully splashed down in the Pacific Ocean on April 17, 1970. The mission, while failing to achieve its lunar landing objectives, became celebrated as a "successful failure" that demonstrated extraordinary problem-solving, teamwork, and the resilience of NASA's systems and personnel.

The Apollo 13 mission had several lasting impacts:

Safety Improvements: NASA implemented significant design changes to prevent similar failures in future missions
Public Perception: The dramatic rescue renewed public interest in the space program, which had begun to wane after the initial Moon landings
Cultural Impact: The mission entered popular culture, eventually becoming the subject of books, documentaries, and the acclaimed 1995 film "Apollo 13"
NASA Procedures: The crisis management techniques developed during Apollo 13 influenced NASA's approach to mission planning and emergency response

Apollo 13 stands as a testament to human ingenuity under pressure and remains one of the most famous space missions in history, despite never achieving its primary objective of landing on the Moon.

The Point of Divergence

In this alternate timeline, the critical divergence occurs during the pre-launch testing and preparation of Apollo 13's Service Module in late 1969 and early 1970.

The Oxygen Tank Inspection

The primary divergence point centers on oxygen tank number 2, which in our timeline had a troubled history:

Tank History: In our timeline, the oxygen tank had been previously installed in Apollo 10, then removed and dropped during maintenance, requiring repair.
Thermostat Damage: During repairs, the tank's internal thermostat was damaged, but this went undetected. The damaged thermostat could only handle 28 volts, but the ground equipment used during testing applied 65 volts.
Undetected Issues: Pre-flight testing failed to identify that the tank's internal heating elements had welded shut and could no longer automatically turn off, creating a serious fire hazard.

In this alternate timeline, a more thorough inspection protocol is implemented following the tank's removal from Apollo 10. A quality control engineer at North American Rockwell notices discrepancies in the thermostat testing data and flags the tank for additional scrutiny.

The Technical Fix

Upon closer examination in this alternate timeline:

The damaged thermostat is discovered and replaced with a properly functioning unit
A comprehensive review of all tank components is conducted, revealing and addressing several minor issues that might have contributed to the failure
Additional sensors are installed to monitor tank temperature and pressure during the mission
The tank undergoes more rigorous testing under flight-like conditions

These changes, seemingly minor at the time, prevent the catastrophic failure that would have occurred approximately 56 hours into the mission.

The Mission Proceeds as Planned

With the faulty oxygen tank now properly repaired, Apollo 13 launches on April 11, 1970, just as in our timeline. The crew—Jim Lovell, Jack Swigert (who had replaced Ken Mattingly due to exposure to German measles, as in our timeline), and Fred Haise—experience an uneventful journey to lunar orbit.

The critical moment arrives 56 hours into the mission when, in our timeline, the tank exploded. In this alternate reality, the routine stirring of the oxygen tanks proceeds without incident. The mission continues on its planned trajectory, with the crew preparing for lunar descent and landing at the Fra Mauro formation.

On April 14, 1970, the Lunar Module "Aquarius" successfully separates from the Command Module "Odyssey" with Lovell and Haise aboard, while Swigert remains in lunar orbit. Hours later, Aquarius makes a precise landing in the Fra Mauro highlands, and Commander Jim Lovell becomes the first person to walk on the lunar surface for a second time, having previously orbited the Moon on Apollo 8.

This successful landing at Fra Mauro, rather than the near-disaster of our timeline, sets NASA's Apollo program on a different trajectory, with implications for future missions, public perception of space exploration, and the broader development of space technology.

Immediate Aftermath

The Fra Mauro Exploration (April 1970)

The successful landing of Apollo 13 at Fra Mauro immediately yields scientific benefits that were delayed in our timeline:

Geological Discoveries: Lovell and Haise collect approximately 95 pounds of lunar samples, including rocks dating back to the early formation of the Moon. These samples contain evidence of ancient lunar volcanism and impact events that reshape scientific understanding of lunar geology.
ALSEP Deployment: The Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package is successfully deployed, establishing a scientific station that transmits data back to Earth for years. This particular ALSEP includes enhanced seismic monitoring equipment that provides valuable data about the Moon's internal structure.
Extended EVAs: The astronauts conduct two Extended Vehicular Activities (EVAs) totaling over 10 hours on the lunar surface. During these moonwalks, they travel farther from the landing site than previous missions, using improved life support systems and mobility techniques.
Photography and Documentation: Comprehensive photographic surveys of the Fra Mauro formation provide geologists with detailed visual data about this previously unexplored region, complementing the physical samples returned to Earth.

Public and Political Reaction

The successful completion of Apollo 13's mission generates different reactions compared to our timeline:

Media Coverage: Rather than the dramatic "successful failure" narrative that captivated audiences in our timeline, Apollo 13 receives more routine coverage as the third successful Moon landing. The scientific achievements at Fra Mauro receive attention, but without the human drama of a rescue, public interest continues its gradual decline.
NASA's Reputation: NASA maintains its image of technical competence but misses the opportunity to demonstrate its crisis management capabilities that so impressed the public in our timeline. The agency is seen as efficiently executing its mission rather than heroically overcoming adversity.
Political Context: The Nixon administration, which in our timeline used the Apollo 13 crisis to demonstrate American ingenuity and determination, instead focuses on the scientific achievements of the mission in its public messaging. The successful landing reinforces America's space leadership but generates less emotional resonance than the dramatic rescue.

Impact on Subsequent Apollo Missions

The successful Apollo 13 mission has immediate effects on the remaining planned Apollo flights:

Mission Scheduling: Without the need for a comprehensive review of systems and procedures that followed the Apollo 13 failure in our timeline, the subsequent missions proceed on a slightly accelerated schedule.
Apollo 14: In our timeline, Apollo 14 essentially took over Apollo 13's mission to Fra Mauro. In this alternate timeline, Apollo 14 is retargeted to a different site of scientific interest, possibly the Littrow crater or another location that would provide complementary data to the Fra Mauro findings.
Equipment Modifications: The safety improvements implemented after Apollo 13's failure in our timeline are not immediately introduced. Some would eventually be incorporated through routine design evolution, but others might never be developed without the specific lessons of the crisis.
Confidence Levels: Mission planners and engineers maintain a higher level of confidence in existing systems, potentially leading to more ambitious mission profiles for later Apollo flights but also possibly allowing other potential failure points to remain unaddressed.

Scientific Impact

The immediate scientific impact of Apollo 13's successful Fra Mauro exploration is significant:

Lunar Formation Theories: The samples returned from Fra Mauro, containing material ejected from the Imbrium Basin impact, provide earlier insights into the Moon's geological history than in our timeline, where these samples were not obtained until Apollo 14.
Continuous Monitoring: The ALSEP deployed by Apollo 13 creates an earlier and more complete network of monitoring stations on the lunar surface, enhancing the value of data collected from all stations.
Scientific Publications: By late 1970 and early 1971, the first scientific papers based on Apollo 13's findings begin appearing in journals, advancing lunar science months ahead of our timeline's schedule.

NASA's Internal Dynamics

Within NASA, the successful mission has mixed effects:

Operational Procedures: Without the harsh lessons of the Apollo 13 crisis, some of the improvements in mission planning, simulation, and contingency preparation that emerged from that experience in our timeline do not develop as rapidly or comprehensively.
Organizational Culture: The culture of caution and meticulous attention to detail that was reinforced by Apollo 13's near-disaster in our timeline is not strengthened to the same degree. NASA's organizational approach remains more focused on achievement than risk mitigation.
Budget Discussions: As budget discussions for fiscal year 1971 proceed, NASA can point to continued mission success rather than a dramatic rescue as justification for maintaining Apollo funding. However, the fundamental political and economic pressures for reducing space program budgets remain unchanged.

By the summer of 1970, as Apollo 14 prepares for its launch, the space program proceeds on a subtly different trajectory—one where success has brought scientific rewards but has not generated the powerful narrative of human ingenuity overcoming disaster that, in our timeline, became one of NASA's most inspiring chapters.

Long-term Impact

The Later Apollo Missions (1970-1972)

The successful Apollo 13 mission creates a cascade of changes to the remaining lunar landings:

Mission Targets: With Fra Mauro already explored by Apollo 13, the remaining missions are reconfigured to visit different sites. Apollo 14, commanded by Alan Shepard, might target the Marius Hills volcanic domes or another scientifically valuable location not visited in our timeline.
Extended Capabilities: Without the caution that followed Apollo 13's near-disaster in our timeline, NASA might implement enhanced mission capabilities slightly earlier, such as the Lunar Roving Vehicle (which in our timeline debuted with Apollo 15) potentially appearing on Apollo 14.
Mission Duration: The confidence from an unbroken string of successful landings might encourage NASA to extend surface stay times and EVA durations for later missions, resulting in more comprehensive exploration than occurred in our timeline.
Scientific Focus: The continuous success potentially allows for a more coherent scientific program, with each mission building more directly on the findings of previous landings, rather than Apollo 14 essentially repeating Apollo 13's intended mission.

NASA's Post-Apollo Direction (1972-1980)

The different experience of Apollo 13 subtly influences NASA's direction after the Moon landings:

Skylab Development: Without the specific lessons learned from using the Lunar Module as a lifeboat, some of the emergency procedures and backup systems developed for Skylab might differ. However, the overall Skylab program likely proceeds similarly to our timeline.
Apollo-Soyuz: The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975 occurs largely as in our timeline, representing a thaw in Cold War space relations. However, without the Apollo 13 experience demonstrating the value of international cooperation in crisis situations, the symbolic importance might be somewhat different.
Shuttle Development: The Space Shuttle program, which began development in the early 1970s, might proceed with slightly less emphasis on redundant systems and abort capabilities than in our timeline, where Apollo 13 had reinforced the importance of such features.
Organizational Culture: NASA's approach to risk management evolves differently. Without the powerful example of Apollo 13's near-disaster, the organization might maintain more of its Apollo-era willingness to accept calculated risks, potentially affecting later decisions about safety margins and operational procedures.

Public Perception and Cultural Impact

The cultural and public legacy of Apollo 13 takes a dramatically different form:

The "Missing" Story: Without the dramatic rescue narrative, Apollo 13 becomes a successful but relatively unmemorable mission in the public consciousness, rather than the subject of books, films, and documentaries celebrating human ingenuity in crisis.
Space Program Perception: The public perception of the space program continues its gradual shift toward viewing missions as routine technological achievements rather than experiencing the reminder of space's dangers that Apollo 13 provided in our timeline.
Educational Impact: The Apollo 13 mission of our timeline became a classic case study in engineering problem-solving, crisis management, and teamwork. In this alternate timeline, these educational resources never develop, potentially affecting how these skills are taught in technical and management education.
Popular Culture: The phrase "Houston, we've had a problem" never enters the cultural lexicon. The 1995 film "Apollo 13" directed by Ron Howard is never made, or perhaps a different Apollo mission is dramatized instead.

Technological Development

The successful mission affects technological development in subtle ways:

Fuel Cell Technology: The oxygen tank failure in our timeline highlighted limitations in fuel cell technology that led to specific improvements. Without this catalyst, fuel cell development for space applications might follow a different path.
Life Support Systems: The innovations in carbon dioxide scrubbing and life support conservation developed during Apollo 13's crisis in our timeline emerge more gradually or in different forms.
Monitoring Systems: The enhanced telemetry and system monitoring capabilities implemented after Apollo 13 in our timeline might be developed later or in response to different incidents.
Simulation and Training: NASA's approach to mission simulation and training for contingencies evolves differently without the specific lessons of Apollo 13, potentially affecting preparedness for other types of emergencies.

Long-term Space Exploration Strategy

The alternate Apollo 13 experience influences longer-term strategic thinking about space exploration:

Risk Assessment: Without the powerful example of how quickly a mission can go from routine to life-threatening, NASA's approach to risk assessment and mission planning might maintain more of the optimism and calculated risk acceptance of the early space program.
Mission Design Philosophy: The philosophy of designing spacecraft and missions with robust backup systems and contingency options develops differently, potentially leading to different architectural choices in later programs.
International Cooperation: The Apollo 13 crisis in our timeline demonstrated the value of international cooperation, with tracking stations worldwide playing crucial roles in the rescue. Without this experience, the case for international partnerships in space might rest more exclusively on cost-sharing and diplomatic benefits.
Mars Mission Planning: As NASA eventually begins considering human missions to Mars in the 1990s and beyond, the absence of Apollo 13's lessons about deep-space emergencies might result in different approaches to life support redundancy, abort options, and mission profiles.

The Legacy of Apollo 13's Astronauts

The careers and legacies of Jim Lovell, Fred Haise, and Jack Swigert take very different paths:

Jim Lovell: Rather than being known for his leadership during a crisis, Lovell becomes celebrated as the first person to walk on the Moon twice. His post-NASA career might focus more on his achievements than on the lessons of overcoming adversity.
Fred Haise: As a successful lunar module pilot who walked on the Moon, Haise might have continued to fly in space, possibly commanding a later Apollo mission or Skylab mission rather than becoming a backup commander as in our timeline.
Jack Swigert: Having successfully completed his mission as Command Module Pilot, Swigert's career might have followed a different trajectory than in our timeline, where his role in the crisis brought him specific recognition.

By the 50th anniversary of Apollo 13 in 2020, the mission would be remembered as an important scientific endeavor that advanced lunar exploration, rather than as the "successful failure" that demonstrated human ingenuity in the face of potential disaster. The different legacy would shape not only space history but also how organizations across many fields think about crisis management, problem-solving, and the value of preparation for the unexpected.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Andrew Chaikin, Space Historian and Author:

"A successful Apollo 13 mission would have given us valuable scientific data from the Fra Mauro formation months earlier than we actually received it with Apollo 14. The geological samples from this region were crucial to understanding the Moon's early bombardment history. However, what we would have lost is perhaps even more significant—the powerful demonstration of human ingenuity and teamwork that the actual Apollo 13 crisis provided.

In many ways, Apollo 13's 'successful failure' did more for NASA's reputation than another routine landing would have. It showed that even when things go catastrophically wrong, the combination of well-trained astronauts and ground crews could overcome seemingly impossible odds. This lesson has inspired generations of engineers and has been incorporated into training programs across many high-risk fields, not just spaceflight."

Dr. Ellen Stofan, Former NASA Chief Scientist:

"The scientific impact of a successful Apollo 13 landing would have been substantial. The Fra Mauro formation contains material ejected from the Imbrium Basin, one of the largest impact features on the Moon. These samples helped confirm the giant impact theory of lunar formation and provided crucial dating of the Moon's bombardment history.

From a mission planning perspective, I believe a string of uninterrupted successes might have led NASA to take more scientific risks with later Apollo missions, potentially targeting more challenging landing sites or attempting more ambitious surface activities. However, without the harsh lesson of Apollo 13's oxygen tank failure, some of the safety improvements and redundancy systems that were implemented might have been delayed or approached differently, potentially setting the stage for a different type of failure later in the program."

Gene Kranz, Former NASA Flight Director:

"The Apollo 13 crisis taught us that 'failure is not an option' when human lives are at stake. Without that experience, I believe NASA's mission control culture would have evolved differently. The procedures we developed during those critical hours—the way we broke down problems, developed solutions with minimal resources, and implemented them under extreme time pressure—became a template for how we approached all subsequent missions.

A successful Apollo 13 would have been another impressive achievement, but it wouldn't have tested our teams in the same way. Sometimes you learn more from near-failures than from successes. The Apollo 13 experience shaped not just how we operated in space, but how we trained, how we designed systems, and how we thought about risk. Those lessons have saved lives in other contexts and continue to influence space operations today."

Dr. Roger Launius, Former NASA Chief Historian:

"The public perception of NASA and the Apollo program might have been quite different without the Apollo 13 drama. By 1970, Moon landings were already becoming 'routine' in the public mind, with television networks cutting back coverage. The Apollo 13 crisis renewed public interest and reminded everyone of the dangers involved in spaceflight.

In an alternate timeline with a successful Apollo 13, I suspect the remaining Apollo missions might have received even less public attention than they did in our history. The narrative of 'routine' space travel might have taken hold earlier, potentially accelerating the budget cuts that eventually led to the cancellation of Apollos 18, 19, and 20. Paradoxically, Apollo 13's failure may have given the program a brief second life in the public imagination."

Dr. John Logsdon, Space Policy Expert:

"The policy implications of a successful Apollo 13 are intriguing to consider. In our timeline, President Nixon was deeply involved in the crisis, calling the astronauts' families and being regularly briefed. The successful return became a moment of national pride that Nixon embraced. Without that drama, the Nixon administration's approach to NASA might have continued its trajectory of gradual disengagement and budget reduction without the brief moment of renewed presidential interest.

The long-term impact on NASA's organizational culture might have been even more significant. The Apollo 13 experience reinforced a culture of caution and thorough testing that, while sometimes criticized as overly conservative in later decades, has helped prevent loss of life in many situations. Without that powerful example, NASA's approach to risk management might have evolved differently, potentially with both positive and negative consequences for innovation and safety."