1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

So you're telling me that people with 1960s technology were able to do it, but we can't? 

 

In the 60s we were in a space race. Once the Russians were beaten to the Moon and after 6 successful Moon landings, public interest was lost and funding cut.

Its not a case of "we can't" we most definitely can and will. But it's being done on a fraction of the Apollo budget with a lot of old Shuttle tech.

The objective is also more complex. Artemis is about sustaining a long term presence and building a base. Whereas Apollo was about a quick dash to the Moon, as simple as possible. 

 

how does Artemis funding compare with Apollo funding

 

"Artemis is significantly cheaper than Apollo in real, inflation-adjusted dollars, operating on a "shoestring" budget compared to the 1960s. While Apollo cost roughly $257 billion to $309 billion in 2020 dollars, Artemis has spent approximately $105 billion as of 2022, focusing on sustainable, long-term lunar presence rather than the rapid, one-time sprint of Apollo. "

 

Edited March 13Mar 13 by martin-w

Things were much simpler technology wise 55 years ago Dave.  The more complicated things get the more things can go wrong.  Like a juggler able to keep  3 or 4 objects going at a time has trouble with 5 or 6 or 7 objects.

Noel

I think it's a matter of Mo Money/No Money from the government Dave.  Both sides of the isle are guilty of vacillating back and forth whether or not to fund NASA or cut money from the space program.

Let's all hope and pray for the launch and safety of the astronauts🙏🤞 

Has this technology advanced that much in half a century?

Isn't it still an enormous multi stage firework with a handful of guys at the pointy end?

21 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

In the 60s we were in a space race. Once the Russians were beaten to the Moon and after 6 successful Moon landings, public interest was lost and funding cut.

Its not a case of "we can't" we most definitely can and will. But it's being done on a fraction of the Apollo budget with a lot of old Shuttle tech.

The objective is also more complex. Artemis is about sustaining a long term presence and building a base. Whereas Apollo was about a quick dash to the Moon, as simple as possible. 

 

how does Artemis funding compare with Apollo funding

 

"Artemis is significantly cheaper than Apollo in real, inflation-adjusted dollars, operating on a "shoestring" budget compared to the 1960s. While Apollo cost roughly $257 billion to $309 billion in 2020 dollars, Artemis has spent approximately $105 billion as of 2022, focusing on sustainable, long-term lunar presence rather than the rapid, one-time sprint of Apollo. "

 

Yes, when adjusted for inflation, much less money is being spent on the Artemis program than with the Apollo program.

I wonder how much money was spent on the Space Shuttle programme over 30 years? What did they ultimately achieve with that? One space station, a space telescope, and a realisation that traditional style boosters are better after all.

Edited March 14Mar 14 by Christopher Low

I didn't know that this moon landing program costs so much less in today's dollars than the one in the 1960s.  That explains a lot.

Dave

On 3/13/2026 at 6:54 PM, DD_Arthur said:

Has this technology advanced that much in half a century?

 

No in terms of SLS which is just old Shuttle tech. Yes in terms of the Orion craft, given the more advanced technology inside. And yes in terms of the lander which will be either HLS SpaceX Starship that is reusable with more advanced engines and a huge payload capacity. If HLS turns out to be a Blue Origin or other alternative, that too will be more advanced than Apollo.

Edited March 15Mar 15 by martin-w

19 hours ago, dave2013 said:

I didn't know that this moon landing program costs so much less in today's dollars than the one in the 1960s.  That explains a lot.

Dave

 

Essentially they are been asked to do way, way more but on a shoestring budget. Thus its harder than it needs to be.