Artemis II launches toward the moon: Everything to know about the mission details | Find a Way

Artemis II launches toward the moon: Everything to know about the mission details

Artemis II just sent the first woman and Black man into deep space in the first astronaut mission to the moon since 1972.
By on 
Credit: Photo by Jim WATSON / AFP via Getty Images
Matthews Martins

Perhaps facing reality head on is the most honest way to try to escape it.

153 Comments

Stay informed!

  1. Que pasa si fallan por un par de kilómetros? Sigue de largo?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Does anybody know which software generated the simulation below? Seems to be a realistic implementation of orbital mechanics!

    ReplyDelete
  3. The distance between the earth and moon is vast enough to fit all the other planets of the solar system between them

    ReplyDelete
  4. Casi un millón de kilómetros, 10 días y 90 billones de dólares, velocidad promedio 4,000 km/hr velocidad máxima 27,000 km/hr

    ReplyDelete
  5. I’m just curious how come NASA keeps saying these astronauts are flying further than anyone has ever flown before? Apollo 8, and 13 also went around the moon. Right?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Imagine believing this lollllll

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What isn’t there to believe?

      Delete
  7. Cant they just go straight are they stupid? /s

    ReplyDelete
  8. They're not landing on the moon. They just flying past and returning to earth

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think this makes it way less impressive

    ReplyDelete

  10. "Clark, we can't go to the moon on vacation."

    "Honey, we'll just fly out there and come right back. Look, I've already plotted out the orbital trajectories and everything. It'll be a quick trip, like a week, maybe 10 days tops. What could go wrong?"

    Find out THIS SUMMER in National Lampoon's Moon Vacation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look kids, Aristarchus! Tycho!

      Delete
  11. One wrong move and they become solar satellites.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You mean the scale of the earth relative to the moon? The mission is the same?

    ReplyDelete
  13. the bottom image broke my brain more than any horror movie ever could. space isn't just big. it's an amount of nothing that your mind physically cannot process

    ReplyDelete
  14. The fact that they done that over 50 years ago is INSANE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Technically nothing is really different. The math is the same. The rockets are the same. The tech might be faster and more advance but it all comes down to burning a ton of fuel in a big tube to propel stuff at the right angle and direction.

      Delete
    2. Of course but it’s just crazy how new it all was to them back then and they still had faith to put humans into these rockets.

      Delete
  15. What will they be able to see on the far side of the moon? The dark side that the sun does not reach?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's called the "dark side" because it always faces away from Earth, so we never get to see it from here. It still faces the sun about half the time

      Delete
    2. There is no "dark side" of the moon. The sun reaches all sides. At the poles you have some deep craters where the sunlight can't reach the bottom, but all of the surface is illuminated by the sun.

      Delete
  16. Good thing they launched on April fools day. No jokes here.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Just watched the clip and it’s actually interesting in this simplified version

    ReplyDelete
  18. the spaceee is hugeee

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jokes on you. My phone is smaller than the orbit. Still not to scale.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Can't all the planets fit between Earth and the moon the scale still looks off

    ReplyDelete
  21. That's a neat graphic and shows a bit of the celestial mechnics involved. Cool. The published picture is good for folks who don't have any idea about orbits or the distances involved; this is a lot of people. It's a shame but a necessary evil.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Wasting so much money...when there are so many people starving!

    ReplyDelete
  23. It’s a shame that we had to get back at a cold war era to get to space exploration and missions like this one .

    ReplyDelete
  24. Time to download Kerbal Space Program.

    ReplyDelete
  25. From what I remember in kerbal space program... a return flight like that is the scariest shit because there is no "getting your bearings" of parking in a stable orbit, nope, straight to landing sequence!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Yeah, nobody believe this shit

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. and you know they have a full uninterrupted live stream from launch all the way to where it is right now in space, you can literally just Google it

      Delete
    2. Naa Totally bull

      Delete
    3. Uneducated people like you will never understand what intelligent people can do.

      Delete
    4. 2/10 ragebait

      Delete
    5. Everyone does, it's just you 😭

      Why can't you go look at the launch yourself

      Delete
  27. A rat done bit my sister Nell

    and Whitey's on the moon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I recommend researching the pilot of this mission, the brilliant Victor Glover.

      Delete
  28. All that work just to miss the moon?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they hit it, that would really mess up the mission planning

      Delete
  29. Kerbal players already know, they did the math for Artemis

    ReplyDelete
  30. As a certified Kerbal Space Program gamer, I see a work field

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mind boggling how we can rely on nothing but gravity to fling our fellow humans to and from our little corner of space. This will be the farthest humanity has traveled from Earth

    ReplyDelete
  32. You can fit all the other 7 planets in the solar system (because pluto is not a planet). In the gap between the earth and the moon.

    ReplyDelete
  33. This would greatly help with the lunar expedition in the future if it goes well.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The difference between comment sections on here and on Instagram when it's about the recent launch. Insane...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't have Instagram. How is it different?

      Delete
    2. Half of the comments are flat earthers and consipracy theorists.

      Delete
    3. Aaaaaaaaand thats why I'm not on Instagram 🤣

      Someone once asked me how you should respond to someone who thinks the earth is flat or that the lunar landing was fake. I said you don't. Why would you waste your time? It's like trying to explain how a light bulb works to a monkey. They just aren't smart enough to understand.

      Delete
  35. And they want us to believe that in 1969 they sent a rover and fucked around on the moon and then came back with technology that today would be considered obsolete if used in a standard calculator? Come on. The US has fucked with history and the perception of reality since WW2.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rovers only came in 1971, 3 landings were made before that without a rover.

      Delete
    2. Do you really think this guy cares about facts?

      Delete
    3. If by "they" you mean the people working on this mission, they actually don't care very much if you believe it or not.

      Delete
    4. Eh, science is just an opinion you know.

      Delete
    5. Millions of people saw the launch happen, there are mirrors on the moon we placed that allow us to determine exactly how far away it is from us, the USSR did not say it was fake when they had ever reason to.

      Delete
  36. If they miss the moon will they just continue to float away from earth and have no way to reverse their trajectory?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is correct. The vast majority of their propulsion is from a gravity assist from the Earth and then the moon itself will help them basically turn and head back to Earth.

      If they "miss" they would not be able to return home

      Delete
    2. No they are on an elliptical orbit around Earth that will flyby the moon. The trajectory they are on allows for them to flyby the moon and return to a similar elliptical orbit without using any propulsion

      Delete
  37. They already made the long journey, why not just land and hang out for a bit

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The landing spacecraft are a separate thing and they won't be ready for some years, same story with the lunar surface spacesuits. So no ticket to the surface today sadly

      Delete
    2. Both going into lunar orbit and landing would cost a bunch of extra fuel that the mission straight up doesn't have. It doesn't have the equipment, and would be a more complex mission than this test flight.

      It's not the same as driving a car to the beach and going for a swim while you're there anyway. Just doesn't work that way unfortunately

      Delete
    3. If you're spending tax payer's dollars on a trip to the beach, the lack of a swim and a hotdog is negligible even with post-Iran gas prices. If you are planning a trip with the complexity of reaching the moon, why not include a landing- or even a base, or grow a plant. Not a simple sight-seeing. This is how it works if you shoot for the stars, and your acceptance of otherwise is disheartening. Almost bot-like.

      Delete
    4. Stepping out the car is easy. Landing on the Moon is one of the most difficult things humans can do.

      "If you are planning a trip with the complexity of reaching the moon, why not include a landing"

      Because that would make it significantly more complex, and the hardware hasn't been tested with humans before. It's literally rocket science, it's not a matter of 'well you're there anyway, making a base is a small added effort'

      They're literally going to the fucking Moon, making true what humans across millennia could only conceive of gods doing. And you're like 'meh, they're not even permanently settling a whole new world on their first manned test flight'.
      To me, that is a disheartening lack of enthusiasm.

      "This is how it works if you shoot for the stars"

      No, it isn't. Apollo 11 landed on the Moon. All the other Apollo missions before that were working up to it, testing the spacecraft diligently. There were even three missions around the Moon before landing on it.
      Doing your duty and testing the capability of your technology is absolutely how progress is made

      Delete
    5. That rocket is not a lunar lander. Maybe next time.

      Delete
  38. This mission should be evidence that humans never walked on the moon. If they ‘could do it’ 57 years ago, they shouldn’t need trial runs where they don’t even land.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "We already drove a Ford Model T down to the beach, so there's no need to test our brand new Audi, which has never had people drive it before"

      It's a test flight because it's testing the spaceship, not the feasibility of the concept of going to the Moon

      Delete
    2. You can’t be seriously dull enough to think humans were on the moon. They couldn’t even make a mobile phone yet…

      Delete
    3. And why would they need a mobile phone to go to the moon?

      Apollo was obviously very difficult but absolutely possible with the technology of the time, especially with Space Race motivation and 4.5% of the federal budget (as opposed to 0.35% now) behind it.

      Delete
    4. What an obtuse retort. I didn’t say they needed a mobile phone to go to the moon.

      They just never went.

      Delete
    5. Think about how different tech is from 1969 to now. You can't just plow wildly into using different, brand new and untested technology and pick up where you left off.

      Delete
  39. How the fuck did I miss this news? Isn't this supposed to be huge?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Neat part is that achieving that first loop takes 90% of the fuel (of the upper stages, not counting the launch stages today), and only a little more is needed to make the big loop.

    ReplyDelete
  41. That's it?? I thought they were gonna land on that thing

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. The next mission will have an unmanned lunar lander and the one after that will be manned

      However, I kind of feel like it's worth noting that in the history of mankind only 24 people have orbited the Moon. Saying, *That's it??" seems a little dismissive of what a massive achievement this actually is.

      Delete
  42. Are they going to take high quality pics of the moon or is this just a 'see if we can' kind of mission for the boots on the moon mission that's happening in a few years?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The lunar reconnaissance orbiter kinda takes the price for highest quality pics of the moon so they won't be able to make better pictures than that but they will still make some, capturing our imagination etc. But the primary objective of the mission will be testing the spacecraft with people on board

      Delete
  43. Man Kerbal Space Program was a peak game. I remember doing similar manoeuvres back when I played that a bunch and it’s cool that the knowledge is still relevant. I don’t think I’ve learnt as much from any other game.

    They are thrusting at the periapsis (lowest and slowest point in the orbit) of their orbit of Earth. Even a tiny amount of thrust at that point allows them to easily escape the orbit of their earth.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The gap between the smartest zero point whatever percent of the population and the rest of us is insane.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I wonder what people like Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein thought about regular folks like me. It had to be frustrating for them at times to just deal with the general public.

      Delete
  45. How does this make my grocery bill lower?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're complaining about the wrong thing

      NASA receives less than 0.04% of the total US federal budget

      Meanwhile the US gives up to $800 billion to the ultra rich to bail them out and give them tax breaks

      Up to $300 billion a year for corporate subsidies and loopholes

      Another $150 billion to improper spending and government waste

      Meanwhile NASA, an agency dedicated to making new discoveries and advancing technology (which ALWAYS trickles down into improving our own lives) gets less than $25 billion a year😭😭😭

      orange out 🚪🏃

      Delete
    2. Comment has been removed

      Delete
  46. Please tell me why I should give a shit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because being effectively flung that far out into the deep black of space, your hopes of return relying on slingshotting around a moving rock to get back home to earth… is terrifying.

      Those astronauts are some steely eyed rocketmen and women. And their endeavors benefit all of mankind.

      Delete
    2. In which way does something we did with significantly less tech 60 years ago benefit "all of man kind" today?

      The actual point of the space race was to fine tune the math and technology to build the ICBM and have nuclear first strike capability all over the globe.

      I pay a quarter of every check to insurance that capriciously goes out of network when I need it.

      There's poop in the sausage.

      The bridges are collapsing.

      Tell me why I should give a shit about this.

      Delete
    3. Because this lunar mission, as all missions into space do, gets us one step closer to mining the vast resources of space. Things that we only have because they happen to fall to earth, like gold, silver, platinum, palladium, rhodium, iridium, etc. but are incredibly useful for things like computers will cease to be rare and extremely expensive. The lower cost and more availability there will be more research into using them which will mean life will be easier and better for everyone. That includes you.

      Delete
    4. so we can... accelerate our race to irrelevance and create an actual thinking AI or ?

      Cuz I got bridges collapsing here, now, not space prospecting in 100 years.

      Delete
    5. You’re very odd. And also ill informed.

      The technology from such missions is invaluable to humanity, not only for future space endeavors but often also for a variety of other terrestrial applications. Read up on it. It’s a gateway mission for eventual larger, more permanent human footprint on the moon and longer-term, Mars missions. There’s an awful lot of new technology being tested here.

      Delete
    6. I'll admit to being odd, I'll refute being ill informed.

      I need solutions to problems here, on earth, as I said above.

      Delete
  47. That looks like a small miscalculation will either cause you to crash into the moon or continue flying into space

    ReplyDelete
  48. How am I supposed to interpret that days since launch counter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It...shows the number of days that will have passed since the launch. :p

      Delete
    2. Okay in my defense I seriously thought it took wayyyyy longer to get to the moon than that so it confused me for a second

      Delete
    3. Yeea haha fair, it's a difficult thing to have an accurate gut feeling for

      Delete
  49. Sorry for the dumb question, but what happens if they “miss” the moon ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. If they miss the moon it might be impossible for them to turn around and head back to Earth

      Delete
    2. It’s a free return trajectory. They will only be doing a fly-by, so moon or not, the path they take will be pretty much the same. It allows them to be able to abort a moon landing and return to an elliptical orbit around Earth should something happen, which is what happened on Apollo 13.

      Delete
    3. I believe what they're asking is if they don't get close enough to the Earth do they actually have fuel in the spacecraft to turn them around so they are pointed, and heading, back to Earth

      Delete
    4. Aren’t they using the moon gravity to orbit around and head back to Earth? I imagine that missing the moon they will go in deep space

      Delete
    5. No they won’t orbit around. They didn’t reach escape velocity so if they missed the moon, the trajectory will still have them go around Earth, albeit not exactly the same , but very close.

      Delete
  50. with the top picture, imagine how distorted all the other planets would have to be to fit in between the earth and the moon

    ReplyDelete
  51. That’s f-in’ crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  52. All my time playing Kerbal Space Program has trained me for this

    ReplyDelete
  53. Really shows how wasteful and absolutely pointless the entire mission is. Thanks for sharing!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel sorry for anyone who doesn’t understand how important these missions are.

      Delete
    2. That was a really insightful and thorough explanation of why it's important.

      I have yet to read a legitimate reason why we are doing this. It's absurd.

      Delete
    3. It wasn’t intended to be. I think it’s interesting your expectation was to be spoon fed. Since doing a 3 second search with google is too much of a chore…

      https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/benefits-to-humanity/

      Although perhaps you’ll deem this illegitimate?

      Delete
    4. Lol so the absolute best you could do was to send a general NASA page about why space exploration benefits humanity and almost all of it is about the work on the ISS. Which is actual scientific research. It's pretty telling that given two chances, you still can't explain how it's not a massive waste of time and resources.

      Delete
    5. No, I could do better. I just don’t feel like dedicating much time to presenting you with readily accessible information you’re too lazy to find on your own. If you’re really interested, do a google search and spend 10 minutes educating yourself.

      Delete
    6. Okay, so you've got nothing then. Noted. Would've literally taken less time and typing to just...write two or three reasons. But you can't. Because there aren't any.

      Delete
    7. Read. It’s good for you.

      Delete
  54. I love orbital mechanics. I should go play Kerbal again

    ReplyDelete
  55. Replies
    1. Lander and spacesuits for the Lunar surface aren't ready yet. Time enough to test the spacecraft, the rocket and things like rendezvous maneuvers, also ground operations, rescue and recovery operations

      Delete
  56. This made me actually breathless to watch. Incredible

    ReplyDelete
  57. This is the most impressive thing I have seen about this mission. Makes a LOT more sense now.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Straight out of the movie The Martian!!!👽

    ReplyDelete
  59. I watched something talking about traveling to a star and that technology is advancing so quickly that if we sent a shuttle today and a shuttle in 50 years they would arrive at the same time lol.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Well. "Somebody" did the math!

    ReplyDelete
  61. I don't believe it, that's a moonshot.

    ReplyDelete
  62. It's a 7-day trip at well over 20,000 miles an hour

    ReplyDelete
  63. Can someone provide a full size version of the one that’s to scale? Without the comparison.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See this page, also several different angles https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5610/

      Delete
    2. And thank you! :D

      Delete
  64. Reminds me of my Kerbal attempts to get to the moon. Chasing it down, missing, and running out of fuel and being in an eternal orbit around the planet or sol.

    ReplyDelete
  65. What if they miss?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they miss, the trajectory will still allow them to return to the elliptical earth orbit, which is called a free-return trajectory

      Delete
  66. Most people don't understand the real trajectory, which is why they show you the static one.

    ReplyDelete
  67. We're not even landing? And they expect us to believe they did it 50 years ago?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about testing a new spaceship implies that another spaceship didn't make it further into a different programme?

      That's like saying my grandma couldn't have baked bread last week just because my batch of dough is still busy rising :p

      Delete
    2. No it's like if there was a 50 year old photo of someone baking bread (what they say is bread anyway) one time and no one else has ever baked a loaf of bread since... People would reasonably start to doubt if you can bake bread...

      Delete
    3. And then when they try again after 50 years, should they be surprised they're not immediately opening a bakery? I'm not sure where you want this analogy to go tbh :p

      Either you think it's easy, in which case I'll ask you why it hasn't been done in 50 years, or you think it's hard, in which case I'll ask you why we should be surprised they're flying test missions

      Delete
    4. There is no bakery in this analogy... Loaf of bread=the moon landing...

      Delete
    5. Yea everyone got that. I meant where are you going with the analogy? What are you trying to say lol

      Delete
  68. The moon is 250,000 miles away, Artemis is going roughly 18,000mph, it'll take 14 hours to get to the moon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would be true if it were going in a straight line and the velocity was constant. Afaik it's gonna take 5 days to get there if all goes well

      Delete
    2. Yeah, apparently it's a 10 day trip. They'll go around the earth first to slingshot themselves towards the moon, they go around the moon then back to earth. Wild.

      Delete
  69. Does it use boosters for the initial heading back towards earth before slingshot?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Kinda want to play Kerbal Space Program now

    ReplyDelete
Post a Comment
Previous Post Next Post