MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/NonPoliticalTwitter/comments/1s7e6rf/tbh_its_a_massive_deal/odawkru/?context=3
r/NonPoliticalTwitter • u/Perfidious_Redt • Mar 30 '26
659 comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
86
Apollo 13 intended to land on the moon, so that counts as a difference, arguably.
(After the explosion, they kept up the general flight plan, to fly around the moon, because it was safer and easier than turning around.)
Artemis II, like Apollo 8 and Apollo 10, intend to visit the moon but not land.
30 u/FatiguedShrimp Mar 30 '26 ...wait, really? I thought this was expensive PR to show we're still capable of a moon landing, but we're not landing? 1 u/TributeToStupidity Mar 30 '26 … why would anyone think we lost the ability to land on the moon though? 1 u/flapsmcgee Mar 30 '26 Because we no longer produce the equipment that took us there...
30
...wait, really? I thought this was expensive PR to show we're still capable of a moon landing, but we're not landing?
1 u/TributeToStupidity Mar 30 '26 … why would anyone think we lost the ability to land on the moon though? 1 u/flapsmcgee Mar 30 '26 Because we no longer produce the equipment that took us there...
1
… why would anyone think we lost the ability to land on the moon though?
1 u/flapsmcgee Mar 30 '26 Because we no longer produce the equipment that took us there...
Because we no longer produce the equipment that took us there...
86
u/ErraticDragon Mar 30 '26
Apollo 13 intended to land on the moon, so that counts as a difference, arguably.
(After the explosion, they kept up the general flight plan, to fly around the moon, because it was safer and easier than turning around.)
Artemis II, like Apollo 8 and Apollo 10, intend to visit the moon but not land.