Watching on BBC. QUOTE. When we lose comms, will we also lose the video feed? Really!!!

It's now that everyone on the scene should be wearing Planet of the Apes masks and costumes. When the door opens one of the recovery team yells, "Who is the joker that put humans into clothing?" Then, "How did they get out of the restraints?"

Well... speaking as a retired marine rescue and auto extracation trainer, I would have done that capsule interaction somewhat differently. The first thing I would train is to assure stability before doing anything else, most certainly including not opening a hatch. And they bagged it open, so it could not even be closed again if the water got rough. Obviously, there was difficulty getting the flotation ring fitted to the capsule and inflated, but it's the opening the hatch, and then preventing it's being quickly closed if needed which caught my attention. It left the astronauts very vulnerable for much too long...

Liberty Bell 7 resounds in my mind, and Gus Grissom was alone, and got out with adequate safety - lucky!

Good grief that took an age. Did it take that long to recover Apollo?
Space X has the right idea. Reverse the boat up to the capsule. Lift and load. Job done

The reentry velocity returning from lunar orbit is much higher. That might not make a difference, but other factors do.

One is that this was a test flight. NASA (at the press conference) stated that "underwater divers" had photographed the heat shield. The confirmation of safety factors (no hydrazine leakage for example) also takes time.

Also SpaceX is not coextensive with the United States; its accountability is fundamentally located in its financial performance. NASA is the United States, in the sense that its accountability is located upon the country itself. Move fast and break things doesn't necessarily work so well for a country. Especially with regard to human spaceflight, and even more so with unproven hardware, such as the Orion spacecraft including its service module.

This all said, when I saw the hatch had been opened and covered, I had the same kind of thought - seas are relatively calm now, but.......

As a very non-scientific layman could someone explain why that would be?

I understand, I think, that the velocity would be higher because the capsule was being pulled in from outside low earth orbit, please correct me if I'm wrong. What I'm don't understand is why the craft isn't brought back into low earth orbit to slow it down to a similar speed to that which a Soyuz or Boeing capsule would re-enter the atmosphere on return from the ICC. If it were possible would there be any technical benefit in doing so?

To enter LEO would require an orbital insertion burn; Which would require quite a lot of fuel; Which you would have to have hauled all the way to the Moon; Which would have required a great deal more fuel.

It would be technically possible, but hugely expensive.

It's a LOT cheaper to just use a heatshield, track, and capsule shape that can handle the higher reentry velocity.

bilby_qld,

Thank you very much for your clear and concise explanation.

Now those I want to see to understand if they totally solved the problem or how touch and go I actually was.

What happens to the `service` module after it is cast adrift...? Still orbiting,or left to `burn-up`..?
Further,are the parachutes recovered,or left to sink..?

During the NASA livestream yesterday, I heard either the reporter on the USS John P. Murtha (Ms. Cruz - google says it's Megan C.), or the highly recognizable NASA Mission Control voice (the eminently authoritative and yet calm Rob Navias), state that recovery of the parachutes was in work by the divers. Whether that element of the recovery activity was completed successfully, I do not know.

As for the European Service Module (ESM) of the Artemis II Orion spacecraft, as widely known it was built pursuant to NASA agreement with the European Space Agency (ESA) and specifically by Airbus Defence and Space (Bremen, Germany). Wikipedia confirms what I thought was probably its technological heritage; the ESM was based on ESA's Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV), which conducted supply and trash disposal missions to and from the International Space Station (ISS). As a result, other things being equal, the ESM would have followed a re-entry trajectory resulting in burning up in the atmosphere, similar to the ATV spacecraft. But wait.....

Other things are not at all equal. Separation of the Orion Command Module from the ESM occurred 20 or 30 minutes prior to Orion starting its re-entry into Earth's atmosphere. We know this because Orion had to be reoriented so that the heat shield was facing forward (which I recall from the broadcast yesterday; which also makes sense based on fundamental mission and module architecture carried over from Apollo; and which specific number(s) of minutes as stated via google). At the time of ESM "sep", the spacecraft were traveling, as it were, the reverse trajectory of TLI, Translunar Injection, and though I claim no knowledge of either the maths or physics of orbital dynamics, the ESM - if I am understanding the particular factors correctly and properly - not only burned up as a result of its atmospheric re-entry . . . given its lack of heat shield, it really, really, got burned out. Or up.

Which perhaps leaves an opening for a wisecrack. The ESM was built by a multinational space agency in Europe, built by a European aerospace company, built in Bremen. Sehr gut! And at the same time, the recent information on a different thread about bomber missions during the conflict in Iran and the Middle East continues to evoke images from the 1949 Hollywood film, somewhat based on and true to the historical factual record, "Twelve O'Clock High" (Gregory Peck, in the starring role). About daylight bombing raids during the Second World War against Germany. There is such a huge, seemingly inexplicable gap between those missions, and the successful mission of the European ESM and Orion CM. I take this as an occasion to suggest there should be no gap between our - the United States' - partners and friends in space programs and technologies. And further to suggest that those who bash Europe's manifest connections both to the United States and to the world's interconnected systems being run on the basis of something like "rules" really are speaking in idiocies. Those interconnected systems have no "Separation" on their operational timeline. And if such separation were possible - which it is not - at least one of the separated "spacecraft" will really, really burn up.

[edited for correction of certain typos]

Just spotted this on the web :E

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a1053b474a.png

Artimus II crew speak on stage. 11:30

The non-scientific explanation is that the capsule fell nearly straight down from 250,000+ miles high.

As mentioned, to slow it down to the same orbital speed it had before it left would require retaining that much fuel, 1000 pounds, and would have required an addition amount to lift the orbit to circle the Moon, and required more fuel in the various booster stages. Worse, that engine is using fuel and oxygen from liquified gas tanks. Keeping the hydrogen and oxygen liquified for the duration of the trip would likely require a much larger amount that would be vented off during the trip and would have to be accounted for as the reaction force from the expelled gas would have some effect on the path.

Even so, a heat shield is required at the lower speed.

After watching the recording of the event in Houston welcoming the Crew of Artemis II home:

The author of The Right Stuff, Tom Wolfe, might have some trouble coining an apt phrase for these four Astronauts (3 NASA, 1 Canadian Space Agency (CSA)). Quite a distance from the archetype celebrated in that book (and represented tolerably well in the Hollywood portrayal). Were the "something of a dude" in New York - because of his famed sartorial style - writing today, I am inclined to believe that in order to produce similarly memorable writing about these Astronauts' "stuff", Wolfe would have turned back to his previous work. Not Right Stuff - no, he would have used The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test as inspirstuon and lodestone.

Too freaking much!! Space explorers with enough gratitude to be credible about it!! And throw politics out the urine-dump spacecraft vent and into space - there on the stage was the Maple Leaf flag next to the Stars and Stripes - that ought to blow some of the buttoned-down uptight minds! And for the inclusion (deliberate word choice) of French by the CSA Astronaut - "That's good thinking there, Cool [Astronaut]."*

*first line of The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test (1968)

Incredible that Isaacman, as the NASA Administrator, took the time and effort to respond so transparently to a reporter on X.

Service module burns up.

Not sure about the chutes...on some previous missions/projects they were recovered, not just for enviromental reasons but also to check for damage.

I’m not a ‘space guy’, but I am a ‘risk guy’, and the thing that worries me - and it worries me a lot - about NASA, is that it’s the exact same areas in which the issues are occurring this time around. Now, in some, that’s because they are really difficult, and in the absence of breakthrough technology or new materials it always will be, but I’m not sure if that’s the case across them all. The outcome of this is that there are both controlled and uncontrolled risks at what aviation would perceive to be wholly unacceptable levels, and the possibility of tragedy is, to my risk-averse mind, horrifically high.

Now, as long as those involved and those around them understand and accept that, perhaps it’s tolerable, but this brings to mind parallels with those who are, after death, described as having departed this world, ‘doing what they loved’. It’s always been my opinion that if you could, in those cases, freeze time half a second before impact, and ask them, ‘how do you feel about dying now, is it worth it?’, their answers would be resoundingly, ‘no’. Where the endgame of a successful outcome is fame and fortune, I’m even less sure decisions are balanced.

But more worryingly, the recurring nature of the problem areas could - and note, only could - indicate that structural weaknesses in the agency’s practices, people, software and hardware, previously identified or hinted at in the aftermath of Challenger or elsewhere, may not have been thoroughly addressed, and the worst possible outcome would be a loss, followed by an investigation which found those things true. I do worry that that is a possibility.

Space travel is inherently dangerous. One of the mistakes NASA made during the Shuttle era was to treat missions after the first four as ‘operational’ rather than test flights. This mindset, in my opinion, is where danger lies.

I believe it’s important, even essential to treat each space mission as a test mission and that danger lies within.

I would hope that most astronauts are keenly aware of the risk and in some respects accept that they may die. I recall that Christa McAuliffe was asked about the risks before she set off on 51L and she stated that spaceflight was pretty routine at that point. It always struck me that, if she truly believed that and that Scobee, for example, hadn’t had a frank discussion with her, that it was a great shame that she was not aware before she died.

Certainly many Orbiter commanders were very aware of the inherent danger, including John Young, Hoot Gibson and others.

Integrity was a great name for Artemis II, for me, because it’s one thing the Orbiter never appeared to have. I always had the feeling of fragility, post Challenger, whenever they launched. I do believe that going back to a capsule system is prudent.

On another subject, I do wonder how interest in Artemis will fare with such big gaps between missions. Especially as III will be an Earth orbital mission and somewhat lacking interest for Joe Public?