1

Considering that NASA evidently already know how to land astronauts on the Moon (thanks to Apollo), what is the point of the Artemis program? For example, the just-launched Artemis 1 is 1) uncrewed and 2) not landing on the Moon, which are both hurdles that the Apollo missions surmounted. Did NASA regress? If not, what happened to the knowledge gained from Apollo? Was it lost, or is there some other reason why NASA is apparently not making use of it?

I'm surprisingly unable to Google for an answer to this question. I'd have thought it's a FAQ.

Allure
  • 309
  • 1
  • 7
  • 1
    I can't imagine why this was closed. Asking about the goals of a mission seems very on topic for SE. – Greg Miller Nov 16 '22 at 21:36
  • I suggest editing to "How do Artemis goals differ from Apollo's?" – Woody Nov 16 '22 at 22:40
  • I'm less interested in the scientific goals of Artemis than I am in the technical reasons for why NASA can't just reuse Apollo technology. – Allure Nov 17 '22 at 00:46
  • Apollo technology is 60+ years old. Why on earth would we reuse technology that old in something like this? – brhans Nov 17 '22 at 03:01
  • @brhans it worked, and is apparently more advanced than current technology, since as mentioned in the OP it worked with manned spaceflight and also landing on the moon. – Allure Nov 17 '22 at 03:07
  • 2
    @Allure If that's you're main interest, then your question is essentially a duplicate of Why not build Saturn V's again?, the answers to which say that we probably can't, and even if we could, we wouldn't want to do so. NASA has not regressed. It has advanced by quite a bit. – David Hammen Nov 17 '22 at 09:46
  • Also see this 16 year old article at the Space Review. The article says that even if we could rebuild the F-1 engine, we wouldn't want to -- and that was 16 years ago. This article does not mention SpaceX as it was written two years before SpaceX's first successful launch. – David Hammen Nov 17 '22 at 09:50
  • There are lots of aspects of the Apollo program that we most likely could not reconstruct, and even if we could, we wouldn't want to. Computers? No. Being built in the early 1960s, they were archaic when they launched. They are beyond archaic now. Life support? No. Lithium hydroxide is a nice emergency way to remove $\text{CO}_2$, and is still used that way on some vehicles, but it is not the primary technique except for vehicles that are only in space for a few days. Inertial platforms? No. Almost all spacecraft use strapdown inertial navigation systems instead. The list goes on and on. – David Hammen Nov 17 '22 at 10:11
  • @DavidHammen thanks, the answers in that question are very helpful. – Allure Nov 17 '22 at 11:57

1 Answers1

3

Apollo landing sites did not include some interesting places at poles and another side of the Moon where it may be caves suitable for colonization and also some water ice. Such places are more difficult to reach. Apollo sites were selected so that reaching them would not be very difficult - on the Earth's side and close to equator.

Nightrider
  • 2,025
  • 14
  • 22
  • 5
    "Apollo landing sites did not include some interesting places": entirely correct, but somewhat lacking. We landed six places on a planetary body with only slightly less surface area than all of North and South America combined. We barely scratched the surface. – Christopher James Huff Nov 16 '22 at 18:25