4 ms·
I'm guessing having humans on board makes it easier, since they can tend to the landing instead of having to do it semi-autonomously all the way from Earth
by enlyth 3y ago
I'm guessing having humans on board makes it easier, since they can tend to the landing instead of having to do it semi-autonomously all the way from Earth
- tempestn 3y agoThat does make the most sense. Given the technological gap over more than 50 years, that's the one advantage those missions had, and with 6 successful landings (and none of the failures being in the moon landing phase) it couldn't just be luck.
- dotnet00 3y agoTo an extent, given how crewed spaceflight safety standards have improved since then, it was a combination of luck and only doing it 6 times that no crew was lost on the Moon. Famously there were two versions of the president's speech prepared, one for the case that the astronauts would be unable to return.
- tempestn 3y agoYes, agreed that there was some luck involved, certainly. I'm just saying that there were enough successes that it's statistically significant that their results were better than more recent ones. And agreeing with the parent that the manned component is the best explanation for that.
- EliRivers 3y agoAs I recall, Armstrong chose the landing site personally, using the awesome power of looking out of the window and judging a good descent speed for touchdown. He avoided big rocks and craters.