Apr 12, 2026
3 min read
The Artemis II mission successfully ended on April 11, 2026, at 00:07:27 UTC, with the Integrity capsule landing in the Pacific Ocean.Reed Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen landed about 70 kilometers off the coast of North America (32.3ºN, 117.8ºW) and were picked up by the personnel of the helicopter carrier USS John P. Murtha.This completes the first mission of the 21st century and a total of 9 days.32 minutes (though designed for a ten-day mission).Reed Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch and Jeremy Hansen traveled a total of 1,117,659 kilometers and were the first humans to fly a mission outside the gravitational influence of Earth since Apollo 17 in December 1972 and the first humans since Apollo 13 in April 1970 to fly on the Moon without landing.
In the past, the reverse sequence went by without any noticeable problems.At 18:53 UTC, the European Service Module (ESM-2) performed the third return ignition, or RTC-3 (reverse trajectory repair 3), with a duration of 8 seconds and a Delta-V speed of only 1.3 m/s, enough to land the capsule at its intended location (in reverse trajectory. This fraction may change due to weather conditions.) Unlike the outward trajectory of the Orion spacecraft, which completed only one-third of the burn repairperformed three planned maneuvers on the way back. (this applies only to RTC-3) when this power was turned on, the crew reopened the control panel of the Orion spacecraft, and after doing this, the four astronauts assembled the cabin, set it up for descent and landing.Orion's computers were then updated with Targeted Landing Trajectory (TLC) data.
The spacecraft was 27,000 miles (44,000 km) from Earth three hours before the splashdown, but the distance was rapidly shrinking as speed increased.An hour and a half into reentry, the crew finished donning their OCSS on-board pressure suits (strangely, the Apollo 8 and 13 missions, to which the Artemis II was compared, returned without diving suits).At 23:33 UTC, with the giant Earth already outside the window, the European Service Module ESM-2 separated, which will not be separated until it re-enters the South Pacific Ocean (25ºN, 135ºW).This ended the mission of the ESM-2 service module, although it was successful, the oxidizer leaked from the valve of the helium pressurization system.A problem that didn't matter much for a free return mission around the Moon, but ESA had to make adjustments for Artemis IV, a mission that would require an ESM for the complex ignition needed to leave lunar orbit.The department revealed the integrity heat shield for the first time (at 5.03 m in diameter, the Orion spacecraft has the largest heat shield of any capsule).
From the moment of separation from the ESM-2, all life support systems and electrical power depend on those provided by the capsule or command module, the CM (Command Module).Specifically, at 23:37 UTC the capsule used its thrusters for 19 seconds to adjust the angle of attack for reentry, raising the back of the spacecraft and, in addition, increasing speed by 3 m/s.The Orion CM has twelve hydrazine-based MR-104G thrusters with a thrust of 712 Newtons each (the ESM thrusters are bi-propellant and the CM thrusters are mono-propellant).These thrusters are used to orient the capsule during reentry and adjust the position of the center of mass relative to the trajectory, creating a small thrust that reduces deceleration and increases descent accuracy.
Integrity's reentry profile was "steeper" than Artemis I to avoid the excessive erosion seen on the Orion spacecraft's first entry to the Moon (this is actually the third reentry if you include the 2014 EFT-1 mission, though this time it entered again at a lower speed and with a different heat shield design).As a result, it is exposed to higher temperatures.The re-entry period has been reduced from 20 to 13 minutes (although the energy dissipated is approximately the same).Likewise, although technically still considered a double reentry (skipping reentry), the two deceleration peaks were not as noticeable as in Artemis I.For this mission, about 3.9 g was achieved at each peak. Remember that during double reentry, the spacecraft first enters the atmosphere at a speed close to the escape velocity, then ascends again slightly and finally descends at a lower speed.This type of reentry has been implemented, with nuances, on the Apollo missions, the Soviet 7K-L1 Zond spacecraft, the Chinese Chang'e 5-T1, Chang'e 5, and Chang'e 6 lunar missions, and now the Orion spacecraft on Artemis I and Artemis II.
At 23:53 UTC Integrity officially began reentry at an altitude of 122 kilometers (in a low speed reentry from a low orbit, the interface is 100 kilometers or less).Artemis II returned again at a speed of 39,688 km/h, so it did not surpass Apollo 10's speed record from 1969 (39,897 km/h), although it did surpass the speed of Artemis I (39,590 km/h).Integrity is the tenth fastest escape velocity re-entry in manned spacecraft history (maximum airspeed Mach 39).Astronauts, on return, can see Earth and see how plasma forms around the capsule.This plasma can stop communication for about five minutes.The reentry trajectory of the integrator is about 2,400 kilometers long, and the capsule rotates left and right around its major axis to improve splashdown accuracy.The maximum temperature was reached at 23:54 UTC.
Orion's heat shield consists of a lower and an upper heat shield.The bottom can withstand temperatures of 2760°C and is composed of 186-pound Avcoat repellent material (based on the material used on the Apollo spacecraft), bonded to a titanium structure (each part has a unique shape).The front shield is made up of 1300 silicon tiles, and a space heat shield is used in the space.The tiles are covered with a layer of aluminum to protect them, which gives the capsule a shiny appearance but disappears upon re-entry, hence its pale color once in the water.Starting with Artemis III, a different heat shield is used with a more shiny material.
The capsule ejected the front deck using three small parachutes, exposing the surface of the ship to begin deploying the larger parachutes.At an altitude of 6.7 km, at 00:03 UTC, two pilot parachutes were used that stabilized the capsule and reduced its speed to less than 220 km/h.Three more pilot parachutes were placed, which were responsible for canceling the three main parachutes, which were opened at 00:04 UTC at a height of only 1.8 km (to achieve landing accuracy, but at the expense of the nerves of the spectators).The stop occurred at a speed of less than 30 kilometers per hour.Each main parachute is made of nylon and Kevlar and is 67 meters long, 35 meters wide and weighs 120 kilograms.During landing, the hydrazine was removed from the propulsion system to prevent it from causing problems for the astronauts and rescue teams.
Once in the sea, the capsule used five helium balloons of the CMUS (Crew Module Uprighting System), which prevented the capsule from floating sideways or downward.Fortunately, the capsule was in a standard Apollo-era (and the same as Artemis I), called Stabilize 1, so it did not need to be used.and this process took fifteen minutes (to prevent accidental ignition of any thrusters).
After 50 minutes, a boat approached the capsule, and after opening a side hatch, four assistants entered to help the crew out.The current prevented US Navy divers from using a flotation ring around the capsule, which was not ready until one hour and ten minutes after the crash.After the capsule was secured, the teams approached an inflatable raft called the "Front Porch."And the evacuation of the crew from the capsule began (first Christina Koch and Victor Glover - the astronauts closest to the hatches - and then Jeremy Hansen and, finally, Commander Reid Wiseman appeared).(First Koch and Glover, later Wiseman and Hansen).The helicopters, from HSC-23 (Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron), landed on the deck of the USS John P. Murtha while the team prepared the capsule to collect the ship.The astronauts then traveled to Naval Air Station San Diego and from there by plane to Houston.
With the successful return of Artemis II, doubts about the viability of the Orion ship's heat shield were eliminated, although, as we said, starting with Artemis III a new design will be used (and in any case the condition of the shield will have to be studied in detail).Artemis II was a complete technical and media success for NASA and no doubt puts a program that has suffered all kinds of criticism and accumulated many delays back on track.Artemis II showed that the SLS rocket and the Orion spacecraft could take humans to the moon.Now it remains to develop, launch and refine the most difficult part of the program: the SpaceX and Blue Origin HLS lunar modules, which are still very immature.If NASA wants Artemis IV to land on the moon in 2028, it has a lot of work ahead of it.
Thanks Daniel, as always.
The world's most expensive photo tour is over.Let's see if it lands on the next project...
The problem is that if there is no lunar lander, there will be no next mission.Unless they invent another test flight.
And I'm afraid it will take a while.I don't know how Blue Origin is, but SpaceX is green, green. It looks like next month there will be an attempt to launch the Starship into orbit.
You're right, I'm afraid they'll start another mission and go around the moon without landing, because blueorigin's lander will take time to fix, the xspace thing is far away, measured in years.
It's interesting how going to the moon turned out
They got themselves into this situation by blocking the gateway.
There was not enough money for the eremis project without canceling the gate.
gate was just another senate program that gave more contracts to regular contractors and sls bock 2 was.
where did you get itGateway was in a very advanced state of production and the Artemis program has a lot of money.Also, the Gateway is primarily a contribution from ESA and Japan and allows more countries to join the program, which will increase, not decrease, the money available for Artemis.
I see that even though SLS and Orion did a wonderful job on this second flight, we continue to denigrate them and attack traditional contracts against miracle commercial contracts.But reality is stubborn.CLPS is not taking off and the moon landing contracts are at a critical juncture and the initial (psychological) architectures will probably have to be discarded after five years.
As for SLS, it remains to be seen what advantages it will have over Centaur that Employee of the Month doesn't know or probably prefers to keep secret to avoid comparison with EUS.I'm very sorry about the SLS haters, but the stubborn reality is that the US will not be able to have a lunar program, much less a lunar surface program, without SLS.Specifically, without SLS at full strength, i.e. with EUS.There is no chance of replacing the SLS role for the lunar program with current proposals (Starship, NG).Fortunately, NASA was saved last year from the collective suicide of canceling SLS and Orion after Artemis III (an idea championed by Employee of the Month).Now they are back on track to find a successor to Artemis V, which of course is not possible.Moreover, they continue to withdraw from private leadership contracts for the lunar program, when a development as complex as the lunar programs involves additional costs and there is no other option.
Gateway had millions left to burn, nothing ready to launch and the module seems to have run into problems.To keep it populated, FH needed to be launched with Orion, SLS, Block 2 and Dragon vitaminized for general use.All for very obscure benefits.Be careful, if you present it to me with the mission of the asteroid, the portal was intended.
Orion lacks the most power, which is an anemic DV for a deep spaceship.
It's not HLS's fault that Gateway complicates surface missions by requiring more DV, that surface launches happen every few days, and generally lack a clear purpose.You could have a light hydrazine lander to launch with an FH and still have a station problem.
The money left (by NASA) to spend on the Gateway is only a parrot's worth of chocolate compared to all that is needed for the warehouse on the surface.And Dragon XL was a space cargo ship that represented a major leap forward for the US space program.Now, all the hardware for future lunar operations is in poor condition and will have to be rebuilt later as needed.
As for the NRHO orbit, both SpX and BO knew it had to go there when they proposed the lunar landing program.Because the proposals were utter rubbish, now 5 years later they come up with the nonsense that the NRHO will pay them more delta v. Come on.Then I didn't introduce you.I'm sorry, but the problem is not with the NRHO, but with the chosen technology: orbit and cryogenic refueling.
The worst part is that we still don't know what the new lunar docking trajectory will be.The Moon worker remains tight-lipped about what the new plan is, if there is one at all.
It is strange that they keep blaming Orion's low delta v, but do not consider that to improve it, a heavier ESM is needed, and it will be necessary to develop the EUS so that SLS can carry Orion+.
But to go back to the point of my statement, the United States does not know that it will be possible to land on the moon in these years.Therefore, the only way they can not act foolishly in front of China and maintain an image is to immediately launch the Gateway and at least carry out lunar orbit missions when the problem of landing on the moon.
If we compare it to the Apollo mission, Artemis costs a lot less.Despite the disastrous process of developing the SLS, the mission was made at a fraction of the cost of Apollo.
But I stick to the epic of the moment:
-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 works" - Reid Wiseman
Hey, you don't care
The act of recycling
The only new thing is the Orion, but the service module is also reused with the Oms engine from the shuttle, and the craft itself is a low-orbit Catguero
Artemis 3 (2027) will be a crewed docking mission in low Earth orbit between the Orion spacecraft (launched with SLS) and one (or both) of the HLS landing systems, either by SpaceX or Blue Origin.
Artemis 4 (after 2028, estimated date 2030-2031) will be a manned lunar landing mission. The Orion capsule will use SLS with a Centaur V stage, and the lunar landing craft will be MoonShip or Blue Moon.
Maybe China was the first to land on the moon, but I'm not sure about that, in the 21st century, NASA started orbiting the moon, and that's good.
Entre Artemisa 3 y Artemisa 4 habrá misión previa de prueba de alunizaje de los HLS’s.
No one believes it
Great monthly post 🌙, glad everything went well 👍
Daniel, do you have a story similar to Nixon's Apollo 11 secret speech for this mission?
He would get orange hair and say it's Biden's awakening to NASA.Considering this man doesn't spend much on image, I guess he would post a truth or x-rant and that's it.
Great article about a beautiful trip.That said, from a European perspective, the failure to push the West towards the ESM gets a lot of attention.At the time it seemed a little boring that this mission was a free return mission at this point in the 21st century;now I see that NASA probably didn't believe enough in a module they didn't build.ESA will have to work hard to deliver a flawless MES on the next mission.
The entire mission was a test flight.One's first message.You had to try many things and check that they worked well.For me the mission was not very clear, because many things can go wrong.
To be honest, I think there was a general relief after the separation of CM and ESM.More of a heat shield mess.
Interestingly, not many people talk about this.I just buried it
However, all ignitions made with the ESM engines worked perfectly and with absolute precision.
Thanks for the info, Pochi
“50 minutes later, the boat approached the pod.”Hmm... they were actually there right after landing, but they didn't approach until a long time later... Almost two hours to lower the switches and get out of the capsule, which already had empty hydrazine.Absurd waiting.A man preparing the capsule for takeoff I understand it takes some time, but closing it takes some time, but closing it requires opening the hatch and getting some fresh air :D... The thing with the divers and helicopters is for tradition and for show, in reality it will only take the boat if they fall into place, or the helicopter if they go off course.By the way, it took zero minutes for the helicopters to land on the ship that was supposed to be next door.After landing, another absurd wait for them to turn off the rotors... This is maximum cinephiles.
On the other hand, I'm happy to extend the clip. I don't understand why it was changed and now I need another drone to test the new version.
The same goes for heat shields.The changes in the "recipe" are the level of porosity to which it is made.
As far as I know, problems with heat shields occur because heat penetrates inside, gases are generated and stored inside, creating pressure until these flakes rise.
The improvement made now is to choose a shorter re-entry path.Thus, it gives less time for the heat to penetrate inside.As a solution, it's not bad, but the real solution comes from changing the armor to another porous one (which will be easier for the gas that accumulates inside to escape)
So I've been wondering (for over 2 years now) if the porosity of the shield only fits some reentry profiles and not others.This is a topic that concerns me.
Or maybe not.I would like to know more about the topic.
What happened was that the double penetration profile caused the outer layer of the shield's opening material to cool too much, causing it to harden, while the interior remained warm and flexible, so it expanded, creating pressure bubbles that ruptured and destroyed critical pieces of the shield.
Nice Arredemo.I can imagine it.Thank you.
Then SpaceX came and lifted the Dragon out of the water and got the crew out in minutes, but for Orion they needed a helicopter and the US Navy.
m space space as appropriate
I agree with you on that.Though it doesn't have any related epics (Apollo type).
However, for the duration of the lunar missions, I assume they implement some type of fishing system like SpX.
Although there is still plenty of time for that.
Not to mention that SpaceX was originally meant to land (not crash) on retrorockets.I always wondered what would have happened if NASA had given the green light.
Well, you get a big trip on your back, a mild TBI, like what happened to them on the Soyuz.
Well, I was thinking of the idea of landing with only retrorockets.At least as far as I know, SpaceX's original idea was to land without a parachute.
As for the TBI, the Soyuz and Shenzhou use solid propellant engines, which are not adjustable and do not have legs.SpaceX intended to use legs (I think with some kind of damping system) and liquid fuel engines, which would have allowed for smoother maneuvering.
Of course, given that the engine runs well.
Maybe the moon ship is a little heavier, genius.
In addition, first-class medical care is provided on board the helicopter carrier.
Your reading comprehension skills are poor
I was just about to comment that when I look at all the equipment that has been installed to pick up astronauts, it seems to me that normal space flight is getting further and further away.
Yes,… you mean space beyond LEO.SpX is doing wonders for manned missions to LEO and the Russians and Chinese nation on Earth.
Well, lunar planes… not close.They have to work hard.
Question: Isn't it a little dangerous to snort hydrazine in the mid-troposphere with the main parachutes open?Is there no risk of burning the strings or destroying the material?
The Russians did it, no one knows…
Artemis 3 is scheduled for 2027.
there will be moonlight already
Join Orion in Earth Orbit?
No moon landing will be right until 2027.
Moon Landing For a moon landing to happen, it must be able to land on the moon.
If he can't land on the moon, that's different.You can call it a "fake moon landing" or, if you're not evil like me and think the next mission will actually serve a purpose, consider it a prototype moon landing.
Will the lunar landing prototype be ready by 2027?I think not.Even though they still have a year and 8 months until 12/31/27, that's not enough time.
So LEM for Apollo IX and Apollo
These people can go to the moon.Someone from Apollo X could land on the moon perfectly.The moon did not land because that mission was a simulation of all the activities before and after landing on the moon's surface.
If we're being picky, Pocsi said, "For a moon landing to be a moon landing, you have to be ABLE to land on the moon," not "For a moon landing to be a moon landing, you have to land on the moon."
Therefore Apollo IX LEM and
Not the Apollo X mission, it was in Earth orbit, as was the Artemis 3 lunar lander.
So accuracy is total, right?
Apollo 10 (Snoopy) was not prepared as much as LEM 11, in particular, they did not load it with fuel to fly again, and it was too heavy to return with a margin of safety (this was the previous version).
The design of LEMs to perform these tasks was frozen for a long time.It is assumed that they are at a higher level than the functional prototype category.On the other hand, as of today, two private lunar landers have yet to pass CDR (Critical Design Review), and my prediction is that we will continue to do so in 2027.
But the biggest difference between these missions and the LEM was that the LEM was all that, and depended only on the manned spacecraft and the Saturn V to perform its function.And when Apollo 9 and 10 were built, everything was already in a very advanced state of development.In contrast, the current US landing architecture requires the creation of an ecosystem of additional hardware and new technologies to operate the new manned landing craft.Specifically, lunar landing planes also need rockets to work (Starship and New Glenn), orbital refueling to operate reliably and safely, and finally to prove they can land something on the moon, which neither SpX nor BO have attempted at this point.
So it's not the same.No way.
Yes, but we're not talking at the moment.
When they fly, the moon landing will be complete and orbital refueling may be ready, so the Earth orbit flight will be a repeat of Apollo 9.
You confirm that nothing will be prepared for Artemis 3 days and this flight you can not go to the moon if you want, instead of being a test;It's like saying Artemis 2 can't orbit the moon instead of being a test and a safe return.
It will be seen.
Indeed.My guess is that maybe nothing is ready for the new Artemis 3 mission.But even if there were, my guess is that there would be serious problems that need to be solved, in the secret moon landing architectures, without which the whole mission could not be done and so I think that we are facing a possible fake moon landing than a good step forward.
Welcome, Starship 12 next month,
Great report, thanks Daniel.This collection of articles is the best of the assignment, which, as Alxo has said, has been the world's most expensive photography trip.
Of course, WANTAHICKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!We already have a new guild heroine, Engineer Koch, a specialist in cleaning unruly toilets.
By the way, and while we're at it, I'm announcing that you already have Cannibal Criticism for the third episode of season five FOR ALL MANKIND.Spoiler alert: Ed Baldwin is complicated.
Sorry, I ate the spoiler with potatoes.I haven't started the season yet.
To save the first punch, you complain... if so... 😅😂🤣
And it should happen soon.The character is already in the eighty.
This mission is great, as is the series by Daniel Marín, who was briefly interviewed on Radio 5 last night about the end of Artemis 2.
Let's see if any Apollos survive to see the next moon landing, even if it doesn't look good.
Your cannibal review for this episode was amazing!!!You never let us down.
But to the end and see the mention of one person at the end (I will not supply, others you will see for yourself).
I burst out laughing Hilario!😆🤣😆🤣😆🤣😆
Pure current content!😆🤣😆🤣
I owe it to my audience
OK????????????????????? Looking at other manned missions, I think the arrival of the Chinese and Russian missions was cheaper: you can see in the photos fewer personnel and fewer vehicles assigned to the job (the USS John P. Murtha alone includes more than 300 people).
Which Chinese and Russian missions return from the moon?
By 2029, China will not exist, Russia in the 22nd century.
Daniel may have explained it, but if this access route is safer, why use another route?
To avoid the crew being exposed to too much gravity...they are more comfortable.Especially considering they have muscles and bones that haven't been strengthened in days.
I hope the next missions will be led by women... to honor the program's name
Epic I get NASA but I still don't believe that with 18 billion dollars you can establish a permanent base on the moon without ending the scientific program, it seems silly to me that China's dominance in space probes will be horrible too bad they are not very transparent
Congratulations to NASA and the contractors for a job well done.
Regarding the service module, if anyone has a link where it is discussed in detail, I would appreciate it.Hypergolics in theory are the easy fix, but between the Starliner that was almost left with a crew on board, the test dragon that was destroyed and this incident, they are ultimately not an easy task.
NASA can continue to the next box, the pressure is on the landers, and especially SpaceX, one made of lime and one made of sand, the next flight is in May as expected by those who did the math, although everything is progressing well.On a positive note, the first permits for the next flight with orbital parameters, if they are caught, it seems that we will finally see the first orbital flight in the summer.On the other hand, they broke the Raptor test platform in McGregor.
Blue is also struggling, but both landers are very attractive.Let's see how the rest of this year goes.
Don't forget that almost all satellites carry hypergolic fuel on board.Um, there's a lot of experience.
The problem seems strange to me, but I'm sure the solution won't cost you too much.
Although the leak is in the helium tank valve that pressurizes the fuel tank.Nothing new though.
Great entry as always.Thanks Daniel.
I'm sure it's already been discussed... but does anyone know why the astronauts are upside down?
Perhaps in this configuration, with the windows facing the ground and the entrance angle, the windows suffer less than if they were facing upwards.But I have no idea.
Is it harder to pass out?
A turning point indeed.
Unbelievable!Not because of the journey that is widely known, but because it is a new beginning, a new beginning, a reset with new goals and new technologies in constant development and improvement after 50 years.
Because of what is coming and because there are not many years left, there will be a lot of traveling around the moon.
There are big changes that will remain.
This is no longer a simple and small step for one person, it is a big push for new generations and planetary reality.
Of course some couples will say, "I went on my honeymoon" long ago
