(Another reason, that they do not seem to properly weigh,
is that we are so much more concerned to not risk life,
tan we were back then.)

from
https://www.space.com/why-is-getting-to-the-moon-so-hard

Why is it so hard to send humans back to the moon?
News
By Paul Sutter published 11 hours ago
The Apollo program put humans on the moon in 1969. So why haven't we
sent any more since?

Comments (1)
the orion spacecraft above the moon

An illustration of NASA's Orion spacecraft in orbit around the moon.
(Image credit: Lockheed Martin)
Between 1969 and 1972, the Apollo missions sent a total of a dozen
astronauts to the surface of the moon — and that was before the
explosion of modern technology. So why does it seem like our current
efforts, as embodied by NASA's Artemis program, are so slow, halting and
complex?

There isn't one easy answer, but it comes down to money, politics and
priorities.

Let's start with the money. Yes, the Apollo missions were enormously
successful — and enormously expensive. At its peak, NASA was consuming
around 5% of the entire federal budget, and more than half of that was
devoted to the Apollo program. Accounting for inflation, the entire
Apollo program would cost over $260 billion in today's dollars. If you
include project Gemini and the robotic lunar program, which were
necessary precursors to Apollo, that figure reaches over $280 billion.

Related: Astronauts won't walk on the moon until 2026 after NASA delays
next 2 Artemis missions

In comparison, today NASA commands less than half a percent of the total
federal budget, with a much broader range of priorities and directives.
Over the past decade, NASA has spent roughly $90 billion on the Artemis
program. Naturally, with less money going to a new moon landing, we're
likely to make slower progress, even with advancements in technology.

Closely tied to the financial realities are the political realities. In
the 1960s, America was in the midst of the space race, a competition
with the Soviet Union to achieve as many firsts in space, especially
landing humans on the moon. The public was on board and energized by
this idea, as were lawmakers who directed NASA's expansive budget.

That kind of spending, however, was deeply unsustainable. As soon as
America "won," the public quickly lost interest and NASA funding
tumbled. There simply isn't the political or public will to spend that
amount of money for a second shot at the moon.

Get the Space.com Newsletter
Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching
events and more!
Your Email Address
Contact me with news and offers from other Future brands
Receive email from us on behalf of our trusted partners or sponsors
By submitting your information you agree to the Terms & Conditions and
Privacy Policy and are aged 16 or over.

This combination of lower political will and fewer financial resources
forced NASA to make some critical decisions in the late 1990s and early
2000s — decisions that still affect Artemis today.

two massive side booster spew yellow orange fire lifting the core stage
of a rocket as two main engines also ignite

The four Artemis 1 Space Launch System RS-25 engines found on the
vehicle's core stage previously flew on 21 space shuttle missions.
(Image credit: Josh Dinner)
Namely, as the space shuttle program was winding down, NASA
administrators didn't know what to do with the industrial capabilities
and partnerships that led to the shuttle. They decided to keep that
infrastructure in place by reusing many shuttle parts, especially the
engines, and folding them into the Artemis design.

On the other hand, one could argue that it was the right call to keep
that infrastructure in place and aerospace engineers employed, because
it was exactly that technical base that we needed to launch the recent
renaissance in private spaceflight companies — but that's a separate
discussion.

Lastly, the modern Artemis concept has a much different set of
priorities than the Apollo missions did. For example, our risk tolerance
is much, much lower than it was in the 1960s. The Apollo missions were
outright dangerous, with a significant chance of failure. Indeed,
several missions did encounter disasters: the Apollo 1 fire that killed
three astronauts, an engine shutdown during Apollo 6, and the near-fatal
design flaw that nearly led to the deaths of the Apollo 13 astronauts.
NASA, lawmakers and the public are not willing to take on that level of
risk again, especially after the Challenger and Columbia disasters.

RELATED STORIES:
—Return to the moon: The race we have to win (again)

— Return to flight: NASA's Artemis 1 mission to launch using space
shuttle-used parts

— NASA beefing up SLS moon rocket for its Artemis program

The Apollo missions expended enormous sums of money to send astronauts
to the lunar surface for a few dozen hours. They went, collected some
samples, set up some simple experiments, and left.

The Artemis missions are designed around a completely different set of
goals. For one, the astronauts will spend up to a week on the lunar
surface, which requires more food, water, fuel and scientific
instruments. Second, while the Apollo missions treated science as an
afterthought — the main goal was to beat the Soviets — scientific
investigation will take center stage in the Artemis program, meaning it
entails a longer, more complex mission design.

Lastly, the intent of the Artemis program isn't just to return humans to
the moon; it's to begin building the infrastructure to maintain a
permanent human presence there. Everything from orbiting refueling
depots to site selection for future colonies falls under the umbrella of
the Artemis project. It is a much more involved program because it
provides the framework for achieving dreams for generations to come.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions,
night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment,
let us know at: community@space.com.

Paul Sutter
Paul Sutter
Space.com Contributor
Paul M. Sutter is an astrophysicist at SUNY Stony Brook and the Flatiron
Institute in New York City. Paul received his PhD in Physics from the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2011, and spent three
years at the Paris Institute of Astrophysics, followed by a research
fellowship in Trieste, Italy, His research focuses on many diverse
topics, from the emptiest regions of the universe to the earliest
moments of the Big Bang to the hunt for the first stars. As an "Agent to
the Stars," Paul has passionately engaged the public in science outreach
for several years. He is the host of the popular "Ask a Spaceman!"
podcast, author of "Your Place in the Universe" and "How to Die in
Space" and he frequently appears on TV — including on The Weather
Channel, for which he serves as Official Space Specialist.

"a425couple" wrote in message news:YGjVN.535$Xphd.105@fx41.iad...

Why is it so hard to send humans back to the moon?

---------------------------------

Who made the second nonstop solo flight across the Atlantic? You know the
name but perhaps not that no-longer-challenging accomplishment.