What they should have done was have men of physical capability to land on and explore an uncertain environment with geologists in their ear advising based on close up observations as they came up.
That's what they should have done.
And I'm sure you're referring to the J-class missions, where that was almost literally what was done. Even before Apollo 17 and Jack Schmitt, you had backroom geologists essentially directing the exploration. This, of course, was to amplify the quality of science that the later missions were expected to produce. Apollo 11 was the last test flight. Its sole objective was "To perform a manned lunar landing and return." All science objectives were secondary. If conservative caution were expected to prevail
über alles, then neither Armstrong nor Aldrin were compelled by mission rules to egress the LM. What puzzles me about the claim is the notion that an onsite geologist was essential for the safety of the mission, and that it is irrational to think otherwise. Not just to ensure better science, as we did in later missions, but to ensure safety. I can come up with plenty of terrestrial situations where not having a qualified geologist onsite (or at least heavily involved) can risk serious danger. But none of them is as literally pedestrian as walking around on the surface for an hour or two collecting random samples. The argument goes on to play up the supposed hazards of a "completely unknown" environment. Regardless of what extent you believe that environment to have been unknown, no effort seems to have been made to connect that premise to the conclusion that an onsite geologist was mandatory. What was that geologist supposed to have done to mitigate the effects of allegedly unknown hazards? When protection from those hazards is expressed in terms of custom-designed machinery and procedures for operating that machinery (spacecraft, EMUs, etc.) then what special expertise would a geologist bring to the table, that was
not brought by the people actually assigned to the missions?
I concluded that the argument was a veiled hubristic attempt to assert the supremacy of geology among the sciences. I'm ashamed of my emotional response to what I took the argument to be. Even if that was the intended argument (and I'm not sure it was), it should be addressed fairly without ignorance, insult, and worse hubris on my part.
Also, space is risky business and society was a lot more cavalier than today. We triple check everything these days. A military pilot can't release a missile without there being a mountain of effort it is safe to do so, which is funny given the purpose of the missile is to make things very unsafe for another party.
This is actually something that science rightly praises the military for. In many fields there is the need to manage high-risk technologies responsibly and rationally. Recombinant DNA is an example, as is nuclear and petrochemical industrialization. However, weapons of war are unique in the sense that they are intended to cause harm when used properly. And, with a few notable examples notwithstanding, the military does an amazing job of routinely handling and operating intentionally dangerous technology with minimal collateral damage and mishap. It may not seem like it, but in proportion to the sheer destructive power managed by military systems, it's a near-perfect rate of success. We chalk this up precisely to rigidly set rules and highly authoritarian chains of command. Many of us in the private sector secretly wish, at times, that we could issue instructions to our subordinates and be able to expect rote compliance. In the military that is the norm. Obedience breeds safety.
But yes, we have to recall that Apollo was part of a space
race, and that the Soviet Union too had already suffered a number of failures for the sake of hurry. We sent people to the Moon who were demonstrated to be able to fly experimental flying machines coolly and calmly, and to have temperaments well suited to thinking on their feet and solving unexpected problems creatively and dispassionately.
