I think mainly, more science return. The Apollo 17 was the first mission to send a scientist to the Moon. So - they would surely have sent more scientists there - and they would have spent more time there, and we would understand the Moon better now.
Also have better moon rock samples to study afterwards - some of the most interesting samples were collected by the geologist on Apollo 17. So more of that.
There are these ideas for alternatives to the lunar module - which could become - a supply truck to supply astronauts for an extended mission on the Moon - and including the idea of a wheeled lunar base that could move from place to place on the Moon. Basically the lunar module turns into a manned lunar rover that can move around on the surface with the astronauts inside.
NASA’s Lunar Module: Everything You Need to Know
This idea was shelved before the astronauts first landed on the Moon.
If they had really taken off on the idea of exploring the Moon perhaps things like this would have been revived?
Though probably not for Apollo 18 - 20. I think for those, more science return than new technology. Was the scientists who were most upset by the decision to halt the program at Apollo 17.
The thing is - that they saved so little by this decision compared with the total cost of the missions.
Carl Sagan said it was like buying an expensive car, taking it for a few drives around the block - and then putting it in a garage and never driving it again.
At the time, Thomas Gold said it was like "buying a Rolls Royce and then not using it because you claim you can't afford the gas." and Harold Urey, said the $40 million saved on operational costs was "chicken feed" compared to the $25 billion already spent. Where No Man Has Gone Before, Ch12-2
On the other side you can argue that each Moon mission did run a finite risk of an accident to an astronaut.
So the more you have, the more opportunities for something to go wrong - as already happened with Apollo 13 and a close escape with Apollo 10.
On the other hand again - with Apollo 14 - 17 all without any major hitch - was it possible that they had managed to reduce the risk hugely by then? Or were they just lucky?
Hard to say - even if the risk per mission was 1 in 2 of failure, you can have 4 successes in a row - chance of that happening if the real risk is 1 in 2 is 1 in 16. So - were they just lucky?
Or had they really cracked all the important issues to the extent that it was justified to continue with it as a science mission.
I don't know. At any rate this wasn't the reason given for cancelling it. They did that as a cost saving measure - and viewed in those terms - doesn't seem to make too much sense - surely somehow they could have found those $40 million to keep going and do some good science on the Moon?
Be sure to read Brandon Blatcher's comment on my answer below.
Also see Brandon Blatcher's answer to If Apollos 18, 19, and 20 had launched as planned, what would we have gained? Was there some new technology that would have been tested?
Also have better moon rock samples to study afterwards - some of the most interesting samples were collected by the geologist on Apollo 17. So more of that.
There are these ideas for alternatives to the lunar module - which could become - a supply truck to supply astronauts for an extended mission on the Moon - and including the idea of a wheeled lunar base that could move from place to place on the Moon. Basically the lunar module turns into a manned lunar rover that can move around on the surface with the astronauts inside.
NASA’s Lunar Module: Everything You Need to Know
If they had really taken off on the idea of exploring the Moon perhaps things like this would have been revived?
Though probably not for Apollo 18 - 20. I think for those, more science return than new technology. Was the scientists who were most upset by the decision to halt the program at Apollo 17.
The thing is - that they saved so little by this decision compared with the total cost of the missions.
Carl Sagan said it was like buying an expensive car, taking it for a few drives around the block - and then putting it in a garage and never driving it again.
At the time, Thomas Gold said it was like "buying a Rolls Royce and then not using it because you claim you can't afford the gas." and Harold Urey, said the $40 million saved on operational costs was "chicken feed" compared to the $25 billion already spent. Where No Man Has Gone Before, Ch12-2
SAFETY ARGUMENT
On the other side you can argue that each Moon mission did run a finite risk of an accident to an astronaut.
So the more you have, the more opportunities for something to go wrong - as already happened with Apollo 13 and a close escape with Apollo 10.
On the other hand again - with Apollo 14 - 17 all without any major hitch - was it possible that they had managed to reduce the risk hugely by then? Or were they just lucky?
Hard to say - even if the risk per mission was 1 in 2 of failure, you can have 4 successes in a row - chance of that happening if the real risk is 1 in 2 is 1 in 16. So - were they just lucky?
Or had they really cracked all the important issues to the extent that it was justified to continue with it as a science mission.
I don't know. At any rate this wasn't the reason given for cancelling it. They did that as a cost saving measure - and viewed in those terms - doesn't seem to make too much sense - surely somehow they could have found those $40 million to keep going and do some good science on the Moon?
Be sure to read Brandon Blatcher's comment on my answer below.
Also see Brandon Blatcher's answer to If Apollos 18, 19, and 20 had launched as planned, what would we have gained? Was there some new technology that would have been tested?
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.4k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0