Why isn't Orion landing on the moon

arstechnica.com...

There's a killer pic in the article (I didn't know how to add it to my post), check it out!

NASA's Orion spacecraft reached the farthest outbound point in its journey from Earth on Monday, a distance of more than 430,000 km from humanity's home world. This is nearly double the distance between Earth and the Moon and is farther than the Apollo capsule traveled during NASA's lunar missions in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Orion still has work to do, of course. Its mission will not be complete until the spacecraft maneuvers back around the Moon, returns to Earth, survives reentry into the atmosphere, splashes down into the ocean, and is recovered off the coast near San Diego. That is scheduled to occur on December 11.

Why aren't they landing on the moon? I'm asking because they've already done it, right? Over 50 years ago they were able to navigate a lunar surface landing. It should be easy peezy at this point, again especially since they've been able to do it before.

However, the mission is going so well that NASA has decided to add objectives, such as firing various thrusters for longer than intended to verify their performance. This work will further increase NASA's confidence in the Orion capsule and the propulsive service module provided by the European Space Agency.

Why not a quick landing, eh?

I'm pointing this out because I once heard a "crazy old man" who could have been called a "conspiracy theorist" once said, that they never went to the moon because they never figured out how to land on it. As I've been watching this story, first I thought it was a moon landing mission, but I see in this article that doesn't seem to be the case. I'm sure they've stated that it wasn't a landing mission, but it begged the question as to why not land on the moon while they're up there? From other things I've noticed it looks like they're still trying to figure out the landing part of it.

And yes, I mean no, I've never believed they actually landed on the moon. This has always been one of my own conspiracy rabbit holes. I'm not much of a a conspiracy type mind. More like I don't just blindly trust....and when something's fishy I will dig for the truth. But this one has always made me wonder.
Thoughts or input?

As stated in the information that you posted in the OP says it's going to come down in the ocean. A craft designed to be retrieved from the water would have a hard time landing on the moon.

are there even real people

in the capsule?

i thought it was just dummies the first time?

maybe they want to test stuff first?

I would like to add this. I'm not as for this being a conspiracy as I am it being the truth. I'd be very happy with knowing that all of it was true. It was when I started to hear some of the theories on it, and a few of them really made me wonder. Especially the not ever have actually being able to figure out the landing part theory.
If something like the moon landing was actually staged that would demolish most people's trust in any of it, really.

And I do get that they would want to test everything. It just seemed they were actually focused on the navigation systems. And I do believe it is an unmanned mission. Ummm... If ol Elon and Jeffro can get rockets and people back and forth why would nasa be this far behind, and especially with something they should already know...

This has always pestered me and made me wonder.

arstechnica.com...

The flight, known as Artemis I, does not have any people on board and will not land on the moon. Instead, it is a test flight ahead of the Artemis II mission that will also orbit the moon, this time with astronauts.Nov

So there's the official answer. And yeah, I get that. I put the OP under conspiracies, but it seems to be changed to space exploration.
Just seems to me they should of checked the landing capabilities on the mission.a reply to: AOx6179

a reply to: AOx6179

They don't have the Moon lander part built yet. Still working on the design just like the Apollo missions. The capsule flew to prove it would work before the lander was finished.

originally posted by: AOx6179
arstechnica.com...

Why aren't they landing on the moon? I'm asking because they've already done it, right? Over 50 years ago they were able to navigate a lunar surface landing. It should be easy peezy at this point, again especially since they've been able to do it before.
......
Why not a quick landing, eh?

I'm pointing this out because I once heard a "crazy old man" who could have been called a "conspiracy theorist" once said, that they never went to the moon because they never figured out how to land on it. As I've been watching this story, first I thought it was a moon landing mission, but I see in this article that doesn't seem to be the case. I'm sure they've stated that it wasn't a landing mission, but it begged the question as to why not land on the moon while they're up there? From other things I've noticed it looks like they're still trying to figure out the landing part of it.

Thoughts or input?

As one of the resident rocket scientists here who worked for NASA at the time these decisions were being made, I can tell you that the reason they're not doing a quick landing is because they didn't have enough budget to pay for it. At the very minimum, they would have needed a separate, throttleable rocket stage to soft land the capsule on the Moon (parachutes don't work without air). If that's all they did, then the capsule would have stayed on the Moon and then they could not have tested the heat shield during re-entry at Earth. So, to do the full test, they would have to have launched the capsule back off the Moon, rendezvoused with an Earth return stage, and then lit the rockets back up to return to the Earth.

During the Apollo missions, the Descent Module was the system that did all that stuff. It actually consisted of 3 separate spacecraft. First, there was the descent stage which did the soft landing; it carried the Ascent Module, which carried the Lunar Excursion Module. When it came time to come home, they lit the Ascent Module and left the descent stage behind on the Moon. When they got to Lunar orbit, they jettisoned the ascent stage and then used the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) to rendezvous with the Apollo capsule. They then jettisoned the LEM after the crew transferred into the Apollo capsule and then returned to Earth. In other words, they expended the Lunar descent stage, the ascent stage, and the LEM in order to get a crew from Lunar orbit down to the surface and back. That's 3 separate, man-rated systems that had to be designed, built, and tested. When the current mission was being developed, they didn't have the extra money to develop all those pieces at the same time.

a reply to: AOx6179

Millions and millions and billions of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for just a"pop-in"? We have greater and farther aspirations, more important.

Welcome to ATS. Dig around FORUMS, youll see.

a reply to: AOx6179

here ya go,

Why not a quick landing, eh?

reason was for a test to see if it can do what it's suppose to do first, get them there. in time when the manned flights start they'll see if they can remember how to land.

Well, in Columbus’s first voyage the Santa Maria ran aground on a reef and sank. Columbus left 40 men behind in a fort built of salvaged timbers. They were all killed within the year before Columbus returned. The Pinta had slipped off and was exploring solo by that time so Columbus had little choice but leaving the men behind because there was no room aboard the Nina for the extra crew. The Nina and Pinta reunited and returned to Spain but were separated by a storm. The Pinta returned to port limping from a need of repairs.

So while long voyages at sea were nothing new, accidents happen. So while Orion is unmanned, it would be a risk to remote land and relaunch because people tend to be more resourceful in situations than automated actions.

a reply to: AOx6179

No landing lights, couldn't find any. FAA requires them.

I realize now how elementary my question and OP was. I was "reaching" 🔥☘️🥴💨 on this one.
Great answers,I hadn't thought through tbh. Thanks

originally posted by: AOx6179
I would like to add this. I'm not as for this being a conspiracy as I am it being the truth. I'd be very happy with knowing that all of it was true. It was when I started to hear some of the theories on it, and a few of them really made me wonder. Especially the not ever have actually being able to figure out the landing part theory.
If something like the moon landing was actually staged that would demolish most people's trust in any of it, really.

And I do get that they would want to test everything. It just seemed they were actually focused on the navigation systems. And I do believe it is an unmanned mission. Ummm... If ol Elon and Jeffro can get rockets and people back and forth why would nasa be this far behind, and especially with something they should already know...

This has always pestered me and made me wonder. a reply to: AOx6179

Personally, I wondered why no photos from the other side of the moon yet

One would think the moon would be covered in rovers by now too. So much closer than Mars.

a reply to: putnam6

There have been quite a few so far. The one posted up thread shows the far side.

a reply to: 1947boomer

The LEM (more usually LM) was a two part craft and it comprised the ascent and descent modules. It wasn't a separate thing, it was the thing. The ascent module was the part that the crew lived on on the surface and which returned to orbit, docked with the CSM and was then discarded.

a reply to: AOx6179

They'd already landed several things on the moon before people went so they know, and know, how it's done. They haven't landed this time for the same reason the first two circumlunar apollo missions didn't - you check out the equipment first.

Elon will beat them and they will fly to, land, takeoff and land back on Earth in the same vehicle.
In the future that same vehicle might do the trip again within days to weeks,

"This is the Moon . Attempt no landing there"
They were warned multiple times .

a reply to: AOx6179
I don't think they ever landed on the moon and the more time goes by, I'm starting to think they simply can't land on the moon. It's been 50 years or something. If it were possible, generations of the newer astronauts, scientists, governments would have pushed for it for prestige and profit.

We'll never know as people are so used to the cgi.

a reply to: igloo

They can barely get the funding for this program, let alone to have continued Apollo. Public interest was gone after Apollo 11 landed on the moon. It was all about the race to be first, and once we were, people turned their attention to problems on earth. There was no way that they were going to be able to fund more missions and send a new generation, continuing going non stop after Apollo was canceled.