What If The Apollo 13 Accident Never Happened?

The Actual History

On April 11, 1970, Apollo 13—NASA's third planned lunar landing mission—lifted off from Kennedy Space Center with astronauts James Lovell (Commander), Fred Haise (Lunar Module Pilot), and Jack Swigert (Command Module Pilot) aboard. Swigert had joined the crew just 72 hours before launch, replacing Ken Mattingly who had been exposed to German measles. The mission proceeded normally for the first two days as the spacecraft made its journey toward the Moon.

Then, approximately 56 hours into the mission (at 9:08 PM EST on April 13), during a routine stirring of the oxygen tanks, a spark ignited within oxygen tank number 2 in the Service Module, causing it to explode. The explosion damaged multiple systems, including the second oxygen tank, and critically compromised the spacecraft's power, electrical, and life support systems. Lovell famously reported to Mission Control: "Houston, we've had a problem here."

What followed was an extraordinary demonstration of improvisation, engineering ingenuity, and human resilience. With the Command Module Odyssey rapidly losing power and oxygen, NASA flight controllers and engineers quickly determined that the Lunar Module Aquarius—designed only for a brief lunar landing excursion—would need to serve as a lifeboat for the return journey. This required developing emergency procedures on the fly for power conservation, carbon dioxide removal, and navigational corrections.

The crew powered down the Command Module to preserve its remaining resources for re-entry, moved into the Lunar Module, and used its limited systems to maintain life support and provide thrust for course corrections. They endured temperatures near freezing, severely rationed water, and managed growing exhaustion as they worked with ground controllers to overcome each new challenge.

A critical moment came when they needed to adapt the Command Module's square carbon dioxide scrubber cartridges to fit the Lunar Module's round openings—accomplished with materials like duct tape, plastic bags, and cardboard available onboard. Flight controllers developed what they called "the mailbox," enabling the crew to continue filtering carbon dioxide from their cabin air.

After a tense six-day mission—far longer than the Lunar Module was designed to support three astronauts—Apollo 13 successfully splashed down in the Pacific Ocean on April 17, 1970. Though the mission's primary objective of landing on the Moon was abandoned, Apollo 13 was labeled a "successful failure" for the remarkable feat of returning the crew safely against overwhelming odds.

In the aftermath, NASA conducted a thorough investigation, identifying the cause as damaged insulation inside the oxygen tank, which had been dropped during factory testing years earlier. This damage set the conditions for the tank's heating elements to overheat during the pre-launch countdown, ultimately creating the environment for the in-flight explosion.

The Apollo 13 mission had profound effects on NASA's approach to safety, spacecraft design, and mission planning. While Apollo 14 would successfully complete a lunar landing in February 1971, the near-disaster of Apollo 13 contributed to growing budgetary and political pressures that ultimately led to the premature conclusion of the Apollo program with Apollo 17 in 1972. The mission became a defining moment in NASA's history and in popular culture, later immortalized in books, documentaries, and the acclaimed 1995 film "Apollo 13" directed by Ron Howard.

The Point of Divergence

What if the Apollo 13 accident never happened? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the fateful explosion in the Service Module's oxygen tank was averted, allowing Lovell, Haise, and Swigert to complete their planned lunar landing in the Fra Mauro highlands.

Several plausible mechanisms could have prevented the accident:

Proper handling during testing: The most direct divergence point traces back to 1965, when the oxygen tank was dropped at the factory during testing. In our alternate timeline, North American Aviation technicians either didn't drop the tank or immediately reported the incident, leading to the tank being replaced rather than approved after superficial inspection.
Thorough post-incident inspection: After the tank was damaged, subsequent testing revealed issues with draining the tank. In our timeline, engineers modified the tank to use higher voltage heating elements without updating the thermostatic switches. In the alternate timeline, these modifications triggered a more comprehensive safety review that caught the incompatibility between the 65V switches and the 115V ground power they would be subjected to.
Pre-flight testing detection: The problematic tank underwent abnormal heating during countdown demonstration tests weeks before launch, damaging internal insulation—a warning sign missed in our timeline. In the alternate timeline, more sensitive temperature sensors or more conservative test protocols detected the anomaly, leading to replacement of the tank before launch.
Altered tank stirring procedure: The explosion occurred during a routine "cryo stir" procedure designed to mix the contents of the tanks. In our alternate timeline, NASA might have developed a different protocol for this procedure that didn't create the conditions for a spark, or the timing of the stir might have been different enough to avoid ignition.

The most probable divergence would involve the original factory damage being properly addressed, as this was the root cause that set up all subsequent problems. In this scenario, tank #2 would have been rejected after the 1965 incident, replaced with a properly functioning unit that would perform normally throughout Apollo 13's mission.

With the oxygen tank functioning properly, Apollo 13 would have continued on its trajectory to the Moon, with Lovell and Haise descending to the lunar surface in the Lunar Module Aquarius while Swigert remained in orbit aboard the Command Module Odyssey. The mission would then complete the planned exploration of the Fra Mauro formation—an important geological target that, in our timeline, had to wait for Apollo 14 to explore.

Immediate Aftermath

Successful Fra Mauro Landing

With no Service Module explosion to derail their mission, Apollo 13 would have proceeded with its planned lunar landing at Fra Mauro on April 15, 1970. Commander Jim Lovell, making his second trip to lunar orbit but his first lunar landing, would have become the first person to journey to the Moon twice and the fifth human to walk on its surface.

The landing site at Fra Mauro was scientifically significant, chosen to sample material believed to have been ejected from the massive Imbrium impact basin. Geologists were particularly eager to study this material as it might provide insights into the Moon's early formation and bombardment history.

Lovell and Haise would have conducted two EVAs (Extravehicular Activities) totaling approximately 9-10 hours on the lunar surface. Their primary objective would have been reaching the rim of Cone Crater, about 1,000 feet in elevation from the landing site. This objective proved challenging even for Apollo 14 astronauts Alan Shepard and Edgar Mitchell, who nearly reached the rim before having to turn back due to time constraints and navigation difficulties.

Scientific Returns

The scientific payload for Apollo 13 included:

The ALSEP (Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package), a collection of instruments powered by a radioisotope thermoelectric generator
S-band transponder experiment to measure the lunar gravitational field
Lunar portable magnetometer to measure magnetic properties
Solar wind composition experiment
Various tools for collecting and documenting geological samples

Had these experiments been deployed, they would have provided valuable data complementing the findings from Apollo 11 and 12, expanding our understanding of lunar geology and environment. The Fra Mauro samples, believed to be 4.3 billion years old and originating from deep within the lunar crust, would have provided crucial insights nearly a year earlier than our timeline, potentially accelerating certain areas of lunar science.

Public and Political Reception

A successful Apollo 13 mission would have occurred at a critical time for NASA. By 1970, public interest in lunar landings had already begun to wane following the historic first landing of Apollo 11. Budget cuts were looming, and missions beyond Apollo 17 were already being canceled.

A successful third lunar landing mission would likely have been celebrated but might not have captured public imagination to the extent that the real-life "successful failure" did. Paradoxically, the dramatic rescue of Apollo 13 in our timeline generated renewed public interest and support for NASA at a critical juncture, showcasing the agency's ingenuity and dedication.

In the alternate timeline, President Nixon would still have congratulated the crew on a successful mission, but without the dramatic elements of an against-all-odds rescue, the mission would have received more routine coverage, similar to Apollo 12. The landing would have reinforced America's space supremacy during the Cold War, but likely without the emotional resonance that the actual Apollo 13 mission generated.

Impact on Subsequent Apollo Missions

The most immediate difference would be that Apollo 14 wouldn't need to assume the Fra Mauro landing objective. NASA might have assigned Alan Shepard's crew to a different site with unique scientific value, potentially on the lunar far side if communications technology permitted, or to one of the other candidate sites like Tycho or Copernicus craters that were eventually abandoned in our timeline.

The successful completion of Apollo 13's mission would also have allowed NASA to incorporate any new findings from Fra Mauro into the planning for subsequent missions without the delay experienced in our timeline. The investigation into the oxygen tank failure that consumed significant NASA resources in mid-1970 would never have happened, potentially allowing more focus on enhancing future missions.

Most importantly, NASA would have avoided the spacecraft redesigns and additional safety measures implemented after the Apollo 13 failure. While these improvements were valuable, they required time and resources that might otherwise have been directed toward mission expansion or other objectives. The confidence in the Apollo hardware would have remained unshaken, potentially leading to more ambitious profiles for the later Apollo missions.

Long-term Impact

The Fate of Remaining Apollo Missions

In our timeline, three planned Apollo missions (18, 19, and 20) were canceled due to budget cuts, with Apollo 17 in December 1972 becoming the final lunar landing of the 20th century. Without the Apollo 13 crisis, would NASA have completed the full complement of planned missions?

Extended Apollo Program

While budgetary pressures were the primary reason for cutting the program short, the Apollo 13 accident in our timeline reinforced concerns about astronaut safety and the risks of continuing lunar missions. In a timeline where Apollo 13 succeeded:

Public engagement: Without the dramatic rescue story, public interest might have continued its gradual decline, still leading to reduced political support for expensive lunar missions
Safety perception: NASA might have become more confident—perhaps overconfident—in the Apollo hardware, potentially leading to less conservative mission planning for later flights
Apollo 18-20: These missions might still have faced cancellation due to budget constraints, but NASA might have fought harder to preserve them without the sobering near-disaster experience

The most likely outcome would be that Apollo 18 might have been preserved, possibly repurposed as a joint US-Soviet mission that was briefly considered in our timeline, but Apollo 19-20 would still be canceled due to the fundamental budgetary and political realities of the early 1970s.

Evolution of Lunar Science

The successful Apollo 13 mission would have accelerated lunar science in several important ways:

Earlier Recovery of Fra Mauro Samples

The Fra Mauro formation samples, believed to be ejecta from the Imbrium Basin impact, would have been collected in April 1970 rather than February 1971. This could have accelerated understanding of the Moon's early bombardment history by nearly a year.

Enhanced Mission Planning

Insights from the Apollo 13 exploration of Fra Mauro would have informed the planning for Apollo 14-17, potentially leading to different landing site selections or modified scientific priorities. The original Apollo 14 crew might have been redirected to a more challenging site, such as Tycho Crater, which was considered too risky in our timeline.

Expanded Experimental Package

Without the Apollo 13 failure, NASA might have felt more comfortable adding weight and complexity to subsequent missions. In our timeline, later Apollo missions saw extended stay times, the lunar rover, and more comprehensive experiment packages. In the alternate timeline, these enhancements might have been accelerated or expanded further.

Skylab and the Apollo Applications Program

The Apollo Applications Program, which gave us Skylab in our timeline, was already facing significant budget reductions by 1970. However, the absence of the Apollo 13 crisis might have affected this program in subtle ways:

Hardware Confidence

In our timeline, significant engineering resources were dedicated to understanding and fixing the Apollo 13 failure. Without this diversion, more attention might have been available for Skylab development, potentially resulting in a more refined station or earlier launch.

Modified Hardware Legacy

The lessons from Apollo 13 influenced spacecraft design philosophy for generations. Without those lessons, subsequent spacecraft designs might have evolved differently, perhaps with less emphasis on redundancy and emergency systems, or with different approaches to life support and power systems.

Impact on US-Soviet Space Relations

By 1970, the Space Race had effectively been won by the United States. However, the trajectory of international space cooperation might have been affected:

Apollo-Soyuz Timing

The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project of 1975 marked the first international human spaceflight. Without the Apollo 13 crisis demonstrating the dangers of space travel to both nations, the impetus for cooperation might have developed differently. The project might still have occurred but possibly with different objectives or timeline.

Soviet Lunar Program

The Soviet Union's troubled N1 rocket program, intended to support their own lunar landing, was already facing insurmountable problems by 1970. A successful Apollo 13 mission would have added another American triumph, potentially hastening the Soviet decision to abandon their lunar landing plans and focus on space stations, which they ultimately did.

Space Shuttle Development and Priorities

NASA's focus had already begun shifting toward the Space Shuttle program by 1970. The absence of the Apollo 13 crisis would have affected this transition in several ways:

Resource Allocation

In our timeline, the Apollo 13 investigation consumed significant NASA resources and attention. Without this diversion, more engineering talent might have been available for early Shuttle development, potentially accelerating certain aspects of the program.

Design Philosophy

The Apollo 13 experience profoundly influenced spacecraft design philosophy, emphasizing redundancy, emergency capabilities, and robust life support systems. Without these lessons, the Space Shuttle might have been designed with different priorities or safety approaches.

Cultural Impact and NASA's Image

Perhaps the most significant long-term impact relates to NASA's organizational culture and public image:

The "Successful Failure" Narrative

In our timeline, Apollo 13 became known as NASA's "successful failure" – a demonstration of the agency's problem-solving abilities and commitment to astronaut safety. This narrative has been central to NASA's identity for decades. Without this defining moment, NASA's cultural self-image might have evolved differently, perhaps maintaining more of the bold, risk-taking ethos of the early space program.

Public Perception

The Apollo 13 rescue captivated public attention in a way that routine successful missions had ceased to do. Without this dramatic story, public engagement with the later Apollo missions might have been even lower, potentially affecting NASA's funding and priorities into the 1970s and beyond.

Legacy Through 2025

Looking forward to our present day of 2025, a world where Apollo 13 succeeded would have subtle but significant differences:

Historical Narrative

The heroic "Apollo 13" story—immortalized in books, documentaries, and the 1995 film—would not exist in the alternate timeline. Jim Lovell would be remembered as the commander of a successful lunar landing rather than for the famous line "Houston, we've had a problem." The phrase itself would never have entered the cultural lexicon.

Space Program Development

Without the hard lessons of Apollo 13, subsequent spacecraft design might have followed a different evolutionary path. The International Space Station, commercial spacecraft like SpaceX's Dragon, and NASA's Orion might incorporate different approaches to redundancy, emergency systems, and life support.

Risk Assessment

The Apollo 13 experience profoundly shaped NASA's approach to risk management. Without this formative crisis, modern space programs might operate with different safety philosophies, potentially accepting either more or less risk in various aspects of mission planning.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Margaret Chen, Professor of Aerospace History at MIT, offers this perspective:

"The Apollo 13 accident, while nearly tragic, served as a crucial correction to NASA's organizational culture at a critical time. Without that sobering experience, NASA might have continued with an increasingly routine approach to lunar missions, potentially leading to a more catastrophic failure later in the program. The accident forced a reassessment of systems, procedures, and the entire approach to risk management that benefited all subsequent human spaceflight programs. In a timeline where Apollo 13 succeeded, we might have seen a different kind of failure later—perhaps one without the miraculous recovery."

Former NASA Flight Director Harold Mitchell provides a different view:

"A successful Apollo 13 mission would have given us invaluable additional scientific data from the Fra Mauro highlands nearly a year earlier than we actually received it. This might have influenced the planning for Apollo 14 through 17 in ways that maximized scientific return. While the Apollo 13 rescue demonstrated NASA's problem-solving capabilities, it also consumed enormous resources and engineering attention that might otherwise have been directed toward enhancing later Apollo missions or accelerating Skylab. There's also the psychological factor—success breeds confidence, and confidence enables innovation. The Apollo 13 failure, despite the successful recovery, introduced a degree of conservatism into NASA operations that persisted for decades."

Dr. James Wong, Curator of Space History at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, suggests:

"The cultural impact of losing the Apollo 13 story cannot be overstated. For generations of Americans, the Apollo 13 mission has represented the ideal of cool-headed problem-solving in the face of potential disaster. It's become a metaphor invoked in countless situations beyond spaceflight. Without this cultural touchstone, our collective narrative about space exploration would be notably different—perhaps more focused on achievement and less on resilience. The mission has inspired countless young people to pursue careers in engineering and space science specifically because it demonstrated how ingenuity could save lives in the most extreme circumstances. A successful Apollo 13 would have given us more moon rocks, but we would have lost an invaluable story about human capability in crisis."