Artemis II

[wjbertrand]

This was a test. It was only a test.

As someone in the software / tech business, I'm sure you already know the axiom that you test one thing at a time. Otherwise, when you are analyzing a failure you don't really know for certain what caused or contributed to it.

Actually landing on the moon, and then leaving it to reunite with the orbiter, adds a whole lot more complexity to an already incredibly complicated mission process.

I haven't followed closely enough to know such basic facts as:

• Did this mission even include a landing component?
• If it did, was it real or an untested dummy?
• If it was real, was there fuel for it? Were there provisions aboard? Did the toilets work?
• Has the extraction, separation, rendezvous and docking process already been tested in space (purely terrestrially-based tests don't count, unless they turn up a flaw)?

Baby steps...

This mission did not include a lander of any kind. It’s maybe comparable to Apollo 8 which orbited the moon but was also not equipped with a lander. Apollo 9 tested the lander, but in earth orbit only. 10 took the lander (LM) to the moon and tested undocking, decent (to about 9 miles), followed by ascent and re-docking, all in lunar orbit. No landing was planned.

I understand that Artemis III will test a lander (or landers) in earth orbit. A landing won’t be attempted until Artemis IV in 2028.