NASA's Artemis 1 Orion spacecraft leaves moon's orbit to head home

[Admin]

NASA's Artemis 1 Orion spacecraft successfully completed a roughly two-minute lunar departure burn on Thursday (Dec. 1) to begin heading home after successful lunar orbits.

NASA's Artemis 1 Orion spacecraft leaves moon's orbit to head home : Read more

 

[MistahPotatoHead]

"Orion now begins its ten-day trek home"

So, it takes TEN DAYS to get a crewless spaceship from the moon to the Earth. But we're supposed to believe that over FIFTY years ago we sent a MANNED spaceship to the moon, stopped to gather some rocks and sand, and came all the way back in EIGHT DAYS.

 

[Ed Marineves]

"Orion now begins its ten-day trek home"

So, it takes TEN DAYS to get a crewless spaceship from the moon to the Earth. But we're supposed to believe that over FIFTY years ago we sent a MANNED spaceship to the moon, stopped to gather some rocks and sand, and came all the way back in EIGHT DAYS.

I too noted it's a long travel time for a crew, and due to air, food supplies they probably will use a different trajectory when manned.

But this reply expresses some misinderstandings that are worth dispelling. No, they didn't build a spacecraft that only has a gas pedal that goes down halfway, it can fly faster as desired based on how much fuel they choose to expend, and with an empty crew capsule there's no hurry to get there. And 50 years of improvement are baked into it in so many ways. It's like comparing a 1969 Camaro to a Tesla Model S. The Camaro could go fast, had a primitive engine with poor fuel efficiency and smog output, whereas the Model S is faster when needed, more refined and offers a myriad of tech upgrades. A far far better ride.

They haven't been sitting on their thumbs for fifty years. It's great to see the hardware finally flying.

 

[billslugg]

In taking so long to return to Earth perhaps they are trying to practice a "minimum fuel" scenario.

 

[DrRaviSharma]

billslug you are most likely right.

Having worked on Apollo Missions 8-17 including Experiments and Observations as well as Shuttle and Station Planning my opinion is two fold.

1. After 50+ years we are shorter than Apollo 8 in goals as it is human capable robotic mission only,
we do not know about real consumables such as oxygen and water use onboard.

Also why was South pole not part of mission? This could have supplemented hopefully planned orbiters and landers before astronauts go in Artemis 2 and 3.

2. The positive side is that at 10 times the cost per mission, and half century gap, at least these designs aim for long term survivability. We expect more robotic assistance in A2 and A3 missions and yet we are not seeing together the whole picture in 2025-30 time period.

Even though as we have discussed robotic missions being low cost low risk and are quicker, there is rich history from Gagarin and Glen to Apollo astronauts and ISS astronauts and hope humanity stays in near earth space at leas to Moon and hopefully Mars.

Can we expect Congress to be farsighted beyond 10+ years in funding such programs?
We have also missed Fusion, and Fuel CELL OPPORTUNITIES IN THE US FOR PAST 50 YEARS!
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
Chair, Ontology Summit 2022
Senior Enterprise Architect
Particle and Space Physicist