NASA’s Artemis 1 mission, which was launched on Nov. 16, 2022 to the moon, was an awesome success. The launch and subsequent return of the Orion capsule on Dec. 11, 2022, from the moon was an awesome achievement on our path to return humans to the moon within the near future.
As we did within the Apollo program, we’re taking an “evolutionary approach” with incremental steps to prove the brand new hardware and retire the chance on our path toward everlasting presence on the moon and maintaining U.S. leadership in space exploration. Also, it has been over 50 years since we went to the moon, so a brand new generation is learning to get us back to the moon to remain. NASA recently released the Artemis Architecture Definition (ADD) . It makes the purpose quite a few times in regards to the evolutionary approach to exploration. Artemis 1 was uncrewed and successfully demonstrated our recent systems to succeed in lunar orbit and return. Artemis 2 will include the crew and, much like Apollo 8, place astronauts in lunar orbit before returning to Earth.
Artemis 3 is planned to be the mission to return humans to the surface of the moon. The one change I might recommend to NASA’s plans in step with the “evolutionary approach” is for Artemis 3 to return to Tranquility Base, near the moon’s equator, versus the plan to go to the South Pole. I agree with eventually going to the South Pole for all the explanations spelled out in NASA’s White Paper on “Why Artemis Will Give attention to the Lunar South Polar Region,” which is consistent with the papers developed by Dr. Paul Spudis and Dr. Ben Bussey over 15 years ago. The South Pole is where we want to go for long run, sustained lunar exploration, lunar resources, and science investigation. Nonetheless, we must always plan for that location after Artemis 3. My rationale for making this advice relies on lower risk, traffic/hazard management on the South Pole, and historical reasons.
Lower Risk – The explanation Apollo didn’t land on the lunar poles and went near lunar equator as an alternative was resulting from risk and ensuring our astronauts returned safely. Artemis 3 shall be the first-time humans’ step back on the moon in over 50 years. There shall be many firsts, including recent space suits, in-space docking of Orion and Starship, not to say the primary time Starship will touchdown on the moon with humans. We must always take the incremental risk step of constructing the following landing near a spot we’ve got been before to make sure our recent lander works in the bottom risk environment before taking up tougher landings on the pole.
NASA deemed the equator was one of the best place to land Apollo for safety and risk concerns because: 1. Orbital mechanics and launch windows are simpler to and from the moon; 2. It’s smoother than the poles; 3. The approach and landing doesn’t need to worry about large craters, cliffs or boulders, unlike the pole; 4. The equator landing site affords excellent direct line of site communications with Earth while the communications on the pole may be difficult; and 5. There may be adequate lighting through the day on the equator with the sun high within the sky versus very low within the sky on the pole casting very long shadows and areas that can’t be easily seen. Shadowing complicates visibility, navigation, hazard recognition and the usage of solar arrays for power.
![](https://i0.wp.com/spacenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/image004.jpg?resize=490%2C148&ssl=1)
We must always take to heart two recent lunar landing attempts that resulted in failure. The primary was the Israeli “Beresheet” lander launched on Feb. 22, 2019, and the second was Japan’s ispace Hakuto-R lander which made an unsuccessful landing on April 26, 2023. The Hakuto-R’s original relatively flat landing site was modified to a deep crater area and caused an altitude estimation software error because it went over the crater rim, per the recent investigation released by Ispace. Their evaluation stated that the simulations and training were inadequate to account for the rugged terrain versus the unique flat terrain. We’d like to supply our astronauts with a low-risk approach and landing to a known, flat area to validate all the brand new hardware, software, and their training.
South Pole Traffic/Hazard Management – The prime real-estate on the South Pole for a lunar base is on the “Connecting Ridge” between Shackleton Crater and the deGerlache Crater. The remaining of the South Pole poses technical challenges with the dramatic landscapes. This location will not be a big area, and we must be deliberate about which hardware is de facto needed to be at this prime location and never clutter it with man-made hazards and threats to surface operations for future missions, as identified within the NASA Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy document, “Lunar Landing and Operations Policy Evaluation” published Sept. 30, 2022.
History – Our return to the moon shall be historic regardless, but I consider could possibly be much more inspirational by returning astronauts to where we landed for the primary time, Tranquility Base. It will be an inspirational homage from the Artemis generation to the Apollo generation. A lot of us watched the unique Apollo 11 black and white grainy images on our TV in 1969 in awe. Are you able to imagine now seeing the Apollo 11 site in modern high-definition color? It will also provide great insights into what happens to our hardware we left behind over 50 years of exposure to the sun and deep space. Finally, by landing near the Apollo 11 site, we could help secure the location as a very important historical site per the One Small Step to Protect Human Heritage in Space Act, passed by Congress in 2020.
There may be definitely a technical risk and safety case to be made for going to Tranquility Base on our first time back to the moon in 50 years, but there’s also the very essential historical impetus to return to where Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins and NASA inspired the world on July 20, 1969.