Apr 12, 2026
3 min read
Artemis II mission in 2026;April 11At 00:07:27 UTC, the mission was successfully completed with the launch of the Integrity Unit into the Pacific Ocean.Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch and Jeremy Hansen landed about 70 km off the North American coast (32.3º N, 117.8º W) and were captured by the crew of the helicopter USS John P. Murtha.Therefore, the first trip to the moon in the 21st century took 9 days.It ends up being 1 hour and 32 minutes (but within ten days of the mission).Gravity by Apollo 17 in December 1972 and the first unmanned lunar mission by Apollo 13.
Previously, the reentry sequence passed without any major issues.At 18:53 UTC, the European Service Module (ESM-2) conducted its third return burn, or RTC-3 (Return Orbit Correction 3).The duration was 8 seconds and the delta V was only 1.3 m/s, which was sufficient to ensure the landing of the capsule in the planned area (this area may change depending on weather conditions).Only one of the three corrective burns was performed on exit, and the Orion spacecraft performed three programmed maneuvers (requiring only RTC-3) on the return trip.For this power-up, the crew re-energized the Orion spacecraft's control panel, and once the task was completed, the four astronauts assembled the interior of the cabin and set it up for entry and landing.The Orion computer was then updated with Target Landing Trajectory (TLC) data.
The spacecraft was still 44,000 kilometers from Earth three hours before dispersal, but the distance decreased rapidly as the speed increased.With an hour and a half before the start of the reentry, the crew finished wearing their OCSS intravehicular pressure suits (for curiosity, in Apollo 8 and 13, missions compared to Artemis II, the astronauts wore their re-entry without diving suits).shortly after re-entering the South Pacific (25º North, 135º West).Thus, the mission of the ESM-2 Service Module ended, although it was successful, due to the incident helium pressure.Damaged by leaks from system valves.A problem that is not important in a free return mission around the Moon, but one that ESA needs to fix for Artemis IV, which requires an ESM for the critical burn needed to leave lunar orbit.The separation revealed for the first time the heat shield of Integrity (at 5.03 meters in diameter, the Orion spacecraft has the largest heat shield with a capsule).
Upon separation from ESM-2, all life support systems and electrical power were dependent on those provided by the capsule or command module CM (Command Module).At precisely 23:37 UTC, the capsule used its thrusters for 19 seconds to adjust the angle of attack to re-enter, raising the back of the spacecraft and increasing its velocity by an additional 3 m/s.The Orion CM has twelve MR-104G hydrazine-based thrusters, each with 712 newtons of thrust (ESM thrusters are bi-propellant, while CM thrusters are monopropellant).These thrusters are used to orient the capsule during re-entry and adjust the position of the center of mass on the trajectory, creating a small thrust that reduces deceleration and improves landing accuracy.
The complete re-entry profile is "steeper" than that of Artemis I to avoid the excessive wear seen in the first re-entry of the Orion spacecraft (actually the third re-entry if we add the 2014 EFT-1 mission, although on that occasion it re-entry at a lower speed and with a different design for heat).has been reduced (although the energy dissipated will be more or less the same, of course).Similarly, even if the technical double entry (skipping the re-entry) is still counted, the two peaks of deceleration are not as marked as Artemis I. For this mission, about 3.9 g in each peak. Remember that during the two times, the craft first impacts the atmosphere at almost escape speed, then accelerates again a little and finally, falls at a lower speed.This type of reentry, along with sound, has been used by the Apollo missions, the Soviet 7K-L1 Zond spacecraft, the Chinese lunar missions Chang'e 5-T1, Chang'e 5 and Chang'e 6 and now, Artemis I and II carried out by the Orion spacecraft.
At 23:53 UTC, Integrity officially began re-entry at 122 km altitude (low speed re-entry from low orbit, interface is 100 km or less).Artemis II re-entered at 39,688 km/h, so it fell short of Apollo 10's 1969 speed record (39,897 km/h), although Artemis I (39,590 km/h) was.Integrity is the 10th manned spacecraft in history to fly again at escape velocity (maximum airspeed was Mach 39).Astronauts above can see the ground and how plasma is forming around the capsule.This plasma will disrupt communications for approximately five minutes.The main axis was rotated left and right to improve the accuracy of the drop.The maximum temperature was reached at 23:54 UTC.
Orion's heat shield consists of a lower and an upper heat shield.The 2760 ºC lower part is made of 186 blocks of Avcoat ablation material (based on the material used on the Apollo spacecraft) bonded to a titanium structure (each block has its own shape).The front rack consists of 1,300 silicon wafers derived from those used in spacecraft heat shields.happens, that's why it gets a dark color in the water.Starting with Artemis III, a different heat shield with a more porous material will be used.
The capsule ejected the forward deck with three small parachutes, exposing the top of the ship to begin deployment of the larger parachutes.At an altitude of 6.7 kilometers, at 00:03 UTC, two guidance parachutes were deployed, stabilizing the capsule and reducing its speed to less than 220 km/h.Three other pilot parachutes were then deployed, responsible for the three retracting main parachutes, which opened at 00:04 UTC at an altitude of only 1.8 kilometers (achieving landing precision, but at the expense of spectator nerves).The landing took place at a speed of less than 30 km/h.Each main parachute is made of nylon and Kevlar and is 67 meters long, 35 meters in diameter and weighs 120 kg.During the descent, the hydrazine was removed from the propulsion system so that it would not become a problem for the astronauts and rescue teams.
Once at sea, the capsule installed a CMUS (Crow Module Uprighting System) with five helium balloons to prevent the capsule from floating on its side or upside down.Fortunately, its use was not necessary, as the capsule remained in a common place, called Stable 1, as was Apollo (and Artemis I).Speedboats carrying NASA soldiers and crews arrived early, even though they were far away.That was until the crew shut down the entire integrity system, a process that took fifteen minutes (to avoid any explosive hazards).
After 50 minutes, a boat approached the capsule and, after opening a side hatch, four assistants entered to help the crew out.The currents delayed the deployment of US Navy divers of a flotation ring around the capsule, which was not ready until one hour and ten minutes after the spill.Christina Koch and Victor Glover—the astronauts closest to the hatch—and then Jeremy Hanson and, finally, Commander Reed Wiseman).A raft containing four astronauts and US Navy equipment moved away from the capsule so that the astronauts could be picked up in pairs by a Sikorsky MH-60 Seahawk and helicopters first and the Glokotters Wisehawk and the Glokotters (2Kohtersechman).(Helicopter Sea Combat squadron) helicopters from the USS John P. They landed on the deck of Murtha while the crew prepared the departure capsule. The astronauts then flew to San Diego Naval Air Base and from there to Houston.
With the successful return of the Artemis II, doubts about the viability of the Orion space shield were dispelled, although, as we said from Artemis III onwards, new designs would be used (and in any case the condition of the shield would be studied in detail).The Orion spacecraft can take people to the moon.Now it remains to develop, launch and edit the most difficult parts of the program: the SpaceX Moon module and the immature Blue Origin HLS. If NASA wants Artemis IV to land on the moon in 2028, there will be a lot of work ahead.
Thanks Daniel, as always.
The world's most expensive photography tour has ended.Let's see if there is a lander for the next mission...
The point is that if there is no lunar lander, there will be no next mission.Unless they come up with another test.
And I'm afraid it will take a while.I don't know what Blue Origin looks like, but SpaceX's is green, green. It looks like next month there will be an attempt to launch Starship into orbit.
You are right and this is what I fear, if they will launch another mission and go around the moon without landing, because it will take time for Blueorigin to be ready for the owner, the Xspace thing is very far, measured in years.
How it ended up going to the moon is a matter of curiosity.
They came to this situation with the cancellation of the gateway.
if there is no cancellation of entry, there is not enough money for the artemis program
gateway is another senator program to provide more offers for legal entrepreneurs and verify sls bock 2
where did you get it?Gateway is in a very advanced state of production and the Artemis program has a lot of money.Additionally, Gateway is largely a contribution from ESA and Japan and allows other countries to participate in the program, which will increase the money available for Artemis, not reduce it.
I see that despite the amazing performance of the SLS and Orion in this second flight, we continue to insult and attack the traditional agreements against the wonderful commercial agreements.The truth is hard, though.original image (psychedelic), five years later.
As for the SLS, it remains to be seen what advantages it will have with the Centaur, a fact that the Employee of the Month does not know or, more likely, preferred to keep under wraps to avoid comparisons with the EUS.I'm very sorry for the SLS haters, but the hard reality is that without SLS, the US will not be able to have a lunar program, much less a surface program.And more precisely, without full-power SLS, that is, with EUS.There is no possibility of replacing the role of SLS for the lunar program, with the current proposals (Starship, NG).Fortunately, last year, NASA was saved from collective suicide that would have involved decommissioning SLS and Orion after Artemis III (an idea defended by Employee of the Month).Now they are back on track looking for a replacement after Artemis V, something obviously impractical.And on top of that, they persistently use private management contracts for the lunar program, while for developments as complex as lunar programs, what we know is that work is plus cost and there is no other option.
Gateway has many millions left to burn, nothing is ready to launch and seems to have problems with the modules.To make it live, regular use of FH Launch with Orion, SLS, Block 2 and Dragon Vitamins is required.For all these benefits that are not so obvious.And be careful, if you present it to me with the asteroid mission, there is a purpose to the gateway.
The least powered is Orion, which has weak DV capabilities for a starship.
It's not HLS's fault that the Gate makes ground missions difficult by requiring more DV, that surface ascents happen every few days, and that overall they have no clear purpose.You could launch a light hydrazine lander with FH and the station would still have problems.
The money that will continue to be spent (NASA) at the gate is a chocolate parrot compared to everything that is needed for the surface.And Dragon XL is a deep space transport vehicle, the development of which will be a big step forward for the US space program.Currently, all equipment for future cislunar operations is paralyzed, and it will be opened later, as needed.
As for the NRHO orbit, both SpX and BO knew it was necessary to go there when they bid for the lunar program.After the proposals were a complete waste, now 5 years later the NRHOs are putting out the crap that costs them more delta v.come nowThey didn't introduce you then.I'm sorry, but the problem is not the technology NRHO chose: orbital and cryogenic fuel.
Unfortunately, we still don't know what the new moon orbit will look like for the port.The employee of the month is silent on what the new plan is, if indeed there is a new plan.
It is paradoxical that they continue to blame the Orion's low delta-V, but they do not take into account that to improve it requires a much heavier ESM and then the EUS needs to be developed so that the SLS can carry the same Orion+.
But to go back to the original point of my comment, the US does not look like it will be able to land on the moon this decade.So the only way for them not to fool China and save an image is to restart Gateway immediately and at least carry out lunar rover missions when their problem with the moon landing is solved.
The fact that Halo was a requirement set by NASA for Orion when HLS didn't mean it could be a bad option.When asked how to speed up the landing, the companies said, avoiding Halo.
It's a lot of money to run a port, in addition to how expensive it is to surface and operate the ISS.No muscles there.
Everything you do is what you don't do.You can do anything, but you can't do everything.Gateway and Dragon XL are certainly interesting, but it is more interesting to build landers, rovers, power stations, habitats to set up a lunar program where you (robots or people) can drill in lava tunnels, craters, analyze soil, establish hybrid habitats with regolith.Gateway The money will bring greater scientific and media return if it is invested in support of surface operations.
Obviously, if you believe that MK1, 2, Starship, Firefly, Intuitive Machine, Astrobotic, Astrolab and others related are also impossible, then Gateway will have better potential.But I'd rather fail on Earth than have the boring consolation prize of orbiting the moon.
Question In your opinion, what do you think the gate contributed?
I could be wrong;But Gateway has a small ISS 400,000 km from Earth.You have to pay for the fuel.And always exposed to sunlight and light.If you need to leave quickly, you will need one or two extra ships permanently docked.
The Gate is a reusable orbital module for use by Orion.
Add extra space, extra amenities, extra or redundant communications, extra or redundant power, extra or redundant life support, extra toilet, extra gym, extra docking stations, airlock EVA, robotic arm….
It gives you an extra margin of safety when you have to keep a manned Orion in orbit while the people below do their work on the surface.Especially as missions get underway, they get longer because there are more ground instruments and the time Orion spends in lunar orbit increases correspondingly.
Finally, it allows experiments on long-term deep space missions, similar to traveling to Mars. The extra supplies you mentioned are necessary for this, but not for short missions. Yes, it requires the development of xenon refueling, but it is also critical to consider a trip to Mars.
The Gateway will be largely uninhabited.Not like the ISS.If there's no Moon mission, there's no Gateway mission and you don't need supplies.
Delivery will be by Dragon XL launched with Falcon Heavy.At distant times, the ship is also needed to supply the Martian fleet, which can be reused between trips.
Plus, if there's a problem, you can always leave the Dragon XL so the scientist can survive there when help arrives.
In addition, it was possible to build cargo and deep spaceships that would "swim" to the regions around the Moon, and with low energy costs.
And most importantly, a global ecosystem with all your international partners Cygnus XL, HTV-X and more.has allowed us to have an affordable and highly sustainable lunar program for everyone when slimming time reaches a global level….
In short, much more was done with much less…
The only sure thing on the list is improved ship life for both of them waiting.Are there still 2 left in orbit on Artemis VI?In the medium term I think the landers will be in and out of Earth orbit.
But for that a small habitable module, a DragonXL or a VAST module with a double airlock would suffice. An international project, a monolithic minimalist solution, will be done by NASA or a single international partner.
The rest of the thing is cool, but from my point of view it is better to focus on doing one thing well: surface operation and then work on Mars all at once with programs that are well focused.
Investing Gateway in Surface Ops improves scientific and political returns.
If we compare it to the Apollo mission, Artemisa has a very low cost.Apart from the development of the SLS disaster, the mission was completed for a fraction of the cost of Apollo.
However, I will continue with the current epic:
- Apollo XI: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" - Neil Armstrong
-Artemis II: "I have two Microsoft Outlooks and neither of them work" - Reed Wiseman
Man, you don't care
Everything is reused
The only new thing is the Orion, but even the service module is reused with the shuttle's oms engine and the ship itself is a low-rev catguero
The joke is funny, but a bit tiresome.A thousand thousand things also failed with Apollo
XXI asks and shows that the system worked like a charm, meeting the quality standards of Outlook, the newly designed toilet (although all were usable), and Bluetooth on one device.
A little respect for the astronauts and all those responsible for development.
Artemis 3 (2027) will be a low Earth orbit launch between the Orion spacecraft (launched with SLS) and one (or both) HLS systems, either SpaceX or Blue Origin.
Artemis 4 (after 2028, possibly 2030-2031) will be the first manned spacecraft to land on the Moon.The Orion capsule will use the SLS and Centaur V spacecraft, and the lunar landing craft will be the MoonShip or Blue Moon.
China will probably be the first to land on the moon, but I'm not so sure about that, in the 21st century, NASA is the first to orbit the moon, and that's a good incentive.
The previous HLS lunar landing test mission took place between Artemis 3 and Artemis 4.
No one believes it
The SLS for Artemis III will be ready for the days they expect to launch Artemis III, but until it has what it needs to do, there will be no more Artemis III and the truth is I don't see anywhere near or in the blue zone that the HSL will be ready for next year's namesake mission and the truth is we don't have an updated MK2 test at all.
It's been a great month 🌙, I'm glad everything is going well 👍
Daniel, do you have a letter similar to Nixon's secret story on Apollo 11 for this mission?
He could have orange hair and said Biden's woke NASA was to blame.Since this man doesn't spend much on pictures, I imagine he'll post a speech about Truth or X and that's it.
A good story about a good trip.That said, the failure to force an oxidiser in the ESM will draw a lot of attention from Europe.It seemed to me at the time that this mission was a free return, right here in the 21st century;Now I see that NASA may not have enough faith in a module they didn't build.ESA needs to work hard to provide a good ESM in the next missions.
The entire mission was a test flight.The first manned mission.You have to experiment with many things and see if they work well.I didn't find the mission boring at all because a lot of things could go wrong.
I think there was a general relief after the CM and ESM separated, to be honest.More than with the heat shield mess.
April 11, 2026 at 10:24 pm
"It's all a mission..."
It is strange that it is rarely talked about.I just found out.
However, all the burners made of ESM engines worked perfectly and correctly.
Thanks for the info, Pochi
- Fifty minutes later, the ship approached the capsule.Ahem... They were actually there right after the splash but didn't get close until much later... It took about two hours to pull the switch and get out of the hydralazine-depleted capsule. Funny waiting, guys, getting the capsule ready for launch. I understand it's going to take a while, but when does it close? Open the door and get some fresh air :D... For the divers and helicopters theme and for the show. Really, that's when they crashOr they would use a helicopter if they went off the road.But it was funny how the helicopter landed at zero minutes after landing on the ship it was supposed to be near.Wait until the rotor shuts down...they love movies to the max.
Another thing I'm glad the shield is up, what I don't understand is why it had to be changed. Now another unmanned flight will be needed to test the new version.
Thermal insulation is the same.Which changes the "recipe" depending on the level of porosity produced.
As far as I know, the problem with heat shields is that heat gets in, gas builds up and gets trapped inside, creating pressure until these chips grow.
The solution they made now is to choose a shorter re-entry.That way, it gives less time for the heat to enter.As a solution, it's not perfect, but the real solution would be to change the shield to a more porous one (which would make it easier for the gas that collects inside to escape)
It makes me wonder (more than two years now) if the shield porosity is only compatible with some re-entry profiles and not others.This is a topic that intrigues/concerns me.
Or not like that.I want to know more about the project.
Why double login profile
Aledmo is fun.I've imagined it.Thanks.
then spacex came and immediately took the dragon out of the water and pulled the crew out more comfortably in a few minutes, but they need a helicopter to take us to the coast with the fleet.
unique spacex utility
I agree with you on that.Even if you don't have an epic body (Apollo type).
But for a long term lunar mission I think they will implement a system similar to SpX fishing.The method we saw yesterday seems impossible for astronauts who have been in reduced gravity for 6 months or more.
There is still plenty of time for that though.
...not to mention that SpaceX was originally intended to land (unsprayable) rockets.I always wondered what would have happened if NASA had given the permission.
Well, you get a big trip on your back, a bit of a TBI, like what happens in the Soyuz.
Also, I was referring to the idea of only landing with retro-missiles.Anyway, as far as I know, SpaceX's original idea was to land without using a parachute.
According to TBI, Soyuz and Shenzhou use oil engines that are unbalanced and have no legs.SpaceX intends to use legs (I think with some damping system) and liquid oil engines, which will allow smooth movement.
Provided, of course, that the engines work well.
A moonship might weigh a bit more haha genius
In addition to the fact that the helicopter has the first medical services on board.
Dragon is a much lighter spacecraft with fewer docking systems than Orion (by order of magnitude).This is why SpaceX can quickly lift the kite and get the passengers off the ship in one go.
There is no mechanism that could do that with a spacecraft of Orion's size and weight without taking hours to do. Additionally, NASA's standards for lunar missions involve having medical equipment ready on site and quickly getting astronauts picked up later.
With NASA's current system, a quick emergency extraction can be done by having all resources available just in case.Port Dragon does not have this capability, unless it is scheduled for re-entry in advance.
you have poor reading comprehension
Justo estaba por comentar que, al ver toda la parafernalia que se montó para recoger a los astronautas, me daba la sensación de que los vuelos regulares al espacio están cada vez más lejos.
Well... you mean space beyond LEO.SpX is making big manned trips to LEO and the Russians and Chinese are landing them on Earth.
Yeah, regular lunar planes... they're not even close.They require considerable effort.
Q: Is it less dangerous to inhale hydrazine in the middle of the troposphere with the main umbrellas open?Is there no risk of wire burns or fabric damage?
The Russians did it, no one knows…
Artemis 3 está programado para 2027,
There will be some lunarizer ready
Join Orion in Earth Orbit?
It won't be ready for a moon landing before 2027.
To be a lunar lander, a lunar lander must be able to land on the moon.
If it doesn't land on the moon, it's different.You can call it a "fake moon landing" or, if you're not as bad as I am and think the next mission has a purpose, consider it a prototype moon landing.
Moon landing prototype ready by 2027?I think not.Although they still have a year and 8 months until 12/31/27, that is not enough time.
So Apollo IX and the Apollo LEM
Got to the moon.One from Apollo X could land on the moon.The moon did not land because that mission was a simulation of all the activities before and after the moon landing.
If we're going to make a choice, Pochi said: "To land on the moon, you have to be able to land on the moon, but to be able to land on the moon, you have to be able to land on the moon."
Therefore, Apollo IX's LEM and
Or the Apollo IX LEM, moving into Earth orbit, like the Artemis 3 lunar lander.
So the accuracy is absolute, right?
The Apollo 10 (Snoopy) LEMs were not as well prepared as Apollo 11, in particular they were not loaded with fuel for re-ascent and were too heavy to return with a margin of safety (this was an early version).
The LEMs that flew those missions had their designs frozen for a long time.Let's say that they would be at a higher level than the category of functional prototypes.On the other hand, to date neither of the two private lunar landers has passed CDR (Critical Design Review) and my prediction is that we will continue to do so in 2027.
But the dominant difference about that mission and the LEM is that the LEM is that and only that and relies only on manned spacecraft and the Saturn V, to be able to carry out its mission.And when Apollo 9 and 10 were created, everything was in an advanced state of development.Glenn), refueling in orbit to work, the cryogenic management works reliably and safely and, finally, to demonstrate that they have the ability to land something on the moon, something that is currently not attempted by SpX and BO.
So it's not the same.No way.
Yes, but we are not talking about the present.
When they fly, the lunar landings will be complete and ready for orbital refueling, so the Earth orbital flight will be a repeat of Apollo IX.
You give the feeling that by the day of Artemis 3 nothing will end and with this ship you can go to the moon if you want instead of it being a repetition.It seems that Artemis 2 will not be able to orbit the moon instead of being an experiment with a safe return.
sea
So.My opinion is that there is nothing good in the new Artemis 3. But even if there was, my opinion is that there are still very big problems to be solved, in the construction of the private moon landing, without all the work could not be done and that is why I think we are more than a fake moon landing rather than a good step forward.
soon, next month Starship 12,
Great report.Thank you Daniel.This collection of articles is the ultimate mission of what, as Alxo says, was the most expensive trip in the world.
Of course, PLUMBERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!We already have a new hero of the union, engineer Koch, an expert in toilet unclogging.
Anyway, and while we're at it, I reveal that you already have a cannibal review of the third episode of season five for all of humanity.Spoiler: Ed Baldwin's The Fake Up.
Bastards, I eat spoilers with potatoes. I haven't started the season yet.
Encima que os evito el suplicio de ver esa mierda os quejáis… si es que… 😅😂🤣
Besides, it was something that had to happen sooner or later.The character is already eighty years old.
You don't have a heart.
With my daughter, they are either too violent, too scary, too sci-fi, or too dark... For me and with soap operas, we can both watch them together.Then I see this months later and now I can't wait to see your comment.I will try this time 😉
It has bad stuff and loopholes all over the place, but it's still original, bold and hard to find in other shows that are decades old in spaceships.It's always with supertechnologies from the past, present or distant future.The combination of these technologies, made possible by an ongoing and well-managed Apollo budget, is not seen much.Characters.There are other bad and incredible actors.Moreover, she always has a funny point, she doesn't take herself too seriously.It comes in handy in these dark days.
Oh, how can I drop this bomb in the comments?I've seen this episode before, but friends, you better watch out because season 5 is almost over for some people.
You passed our village xDD
Daniel Marín's mission and series of articles were excellent, appearing briefly last night on Radio 5 interviewed about the end of Artemis II.
Let's see if there's anyone left alive from Apollo to see another moon landing, even if it doesn't look good.
Your cannibal review of this episode was great! You've never missed it.
But get to the end and see a person's name at the end (I won't give spoilers, others will see for themselves)
I laughed!😆🤣😆🤣😆🤣😆
Pure up-to-date content!😆🤣😆🤣
I owe it to my audience 🤣😅🤣😅😂
Well????????????????Looking at other manned missions, I think the arrival of China and Russia is a cheap mission: the pictures show few personnel and few vehicles for this task (only the USS John P. Murtha, it has more than 300 people).
What are the missions of China and Russia returning from the moon?
Not China until 2029, Russia of the 22nd century.
Daniel may have already explained, but if this login is secure, why was another one used?
If the crew weren't subjected to so much grass...they'd be more comfortable, especially considering they weren't strengthening muscles and bones for days.
I hope the following missions are directed by women... to honor the name of the program
Great achievement for NASA, but I still don't think 18 billion dollars can be used to create a permanent base on the moon without completing the science program. I find it ridiculous that China's leadership in space probes will become another shame that they are not very visible.
Kudos to NASA and the contractors for a job well done.
Regarding the service module, if anyone has a link where this is discussed in detail I would appreciate it.Hypergolics are an easy solution in theory, but between the Starliner that was left floating around with the crew on board, the Test Dragon that was destroyed and this incident, in the end they were no easy task either.
NASA can move to the next box, the pressure is on the landings, and especially SpaceX, one of the other chalk and sand, the next flight in May as expected by those doing the math, although everything is progressing.On a positive note, the initial authorization for the next flight with orbit parameters, if they hold, it looks like we will finally see the first orbit flight in the summer.On the other hand, they destroyed the Raptor test platform in McGregor.
Blue also has a hard time, but both earthlings are very interesting.Let's see how the rest of the year develops.
Let us not forget that almost all satellites carry hypergolic fuel.Come on, there's a lot to experience.
The problem seemed odd to me, but I'm sure it won't cost you much to fix
Even if it is burned in the valve in the helium tank that pressurizes the fuel tank, it is nothing new anyway.
RCS problems based on outgassing or fuel burning are common: valves sticking, freezing or leaking, tanks bursting or depressurizing, etc. I think all manned ships outside of LEO should always carry an alternative system based on electric gyroscopes or reaction wheels. They are slower, yes, but at least they can connect the ship with engines or main engine, get optimal light on the panels, etc.
Great entry as always.Thanks Daniel.
I'm sure this has been mentioned...but does anyone know why astronauts flip?
Perhaps in this configuration, the window is facing ground level and with the re-entry angle, the window is less damaged than facing.But I have no idea.
Will it be hard to quit?
A milestone indeed.
Amazing!Not because the trip was popular, but because it was a new beginning, a fresh start, a reset, with new goals and new technologies that are constantly evolving and developing, 50 years later.
In the future and not many years from now, travel and travel around the moon will be very common.
There is great change that is always there.
It is no longer an easy and small step for humanity, it is a great motivation for a new generation and for the truth of the planet.
Surely some couple in the near future will say, "I'm going on a honeymoon."
