Sullivan908 said:

---

In actual news, Orion is set to make its closest approach (approx. 4,070 miles) at 7:02 p.m. EDT today with "Earthrise" occurring at 7:25 p.m. EDT.

---

Awesomeness. I really appreciate your post.

Just heading behind the moon where they will lose transmission for about 40 minutes. Had a great view of a crescent moon in the foreground and a crescent earth in the background. Pretty amazing!

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

Just heading behind the moon where they will lose transmission for about 40 minutes. Had a great view of a crescent moon in the foreground and a crescent earth in the background. Pretty amazing!

---

If we don't already have them, it'll be great to finally map the other side of the moon.

Oldsouljer said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

Just heading behind the moon where they will lose transmission for about 40 minutes. Had a great view of a crescent moon in the foreground and a crescent earth in the background. Pretty amazing!

---

If we don't already have them, it'll be great to finally map the other side of the moon.

---

Back in the Apollo days they were so close to the moon in their orbits that they could only get a small strip of photos. I think they have maps of the dark side now from the other Artemis mission and other lunar orbital craft. During the live broadcast they had a screen up that showed their progress around the back side and it had most of the craters and mountains named, so i would think they do have maps now.

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Earthset.

The Artemis II crew captured this view of an Earthset on April 6, 2026, as they flew around the Moon. The image is reminiscent of the iconic Earthrise image taken by astronaut Bill Anders 58 years earlier as the Apollo 8 crew flew around the Moon. pic.twitter.com/ag72r97wzb

— NASA Artemis (@NASAArtemis) April 7, 2026

---

Awesomeness

Great picture! Everyone relaxes now until reentry sometime around 8:00 PM EDT on Friday off the coast of California. It'll be the fastest (-25,000 mph) manned reentry ever. Recall that the Artemis 1 heat shield, though effective, experienced unexpected damage. IIRC, they determined this was due to the Artemis 1 reentry angle being too shallow. Gases would build up in subsurface layers before the surface layer could ablate, causing cracks. Not enough heat, as crazy as that sounds. So the reentry profile for Artemis 2 is steeper.

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Earthset.

The Artemis II crew captured this view of an Earthset on April 6, 2026, as they flew around the Moon. The image is reminiscent of the iconic Earthrise image taken by astronaut Bill Anders 58 years earlier as the Apollo 8 crew flew around the Moon. pic.twitter.com/ag72r97wzb

— NASA Artemis (@NASAArtemis) April 7, 2026

---

Amazing.

Sullivan908 said:

---

Great picture! Everyone relaxes now until reentry sometime around 8:00 PM EDT on Friday off the coast of California. It'll be the fastest (-25,000 mph) manned reentry ever. Recall that the Artemis 1 heat shield, though effective, experienced unexpected damage. IIRC, they determined this was due to the Artemis 1 reentry angle being too shallow. Gases would build up in subsurface layers before the surface layer could ablate, causing cracks. Not enough heat, as crazy as that sounds. So the reentry profile for Artemis 2 is steeper.

---

Any of you NC State materiels science gurus care to expound on the nature of this heat shield? I was wondering if it was like the one on the Parker Solar probe which was engineered to withstand 3000 degrees F and has so far been proven at 2500 degrees F.

I'm not a materials engineer and I don't play one on TV, but the Artemis heat shield is fundamentally like the ones from Apollo. Same basic material but installed differently than Apollo. It ablates, meaning that it melts away to dissipate the heat. Sort of like evaporative cooling, I guess.

The Parker probe shield is more like traditional insulation. It has layers of carbon material coated with a white ceramic on the outside face to reflect sunlight. It stays intact and doesn't wear off.

Unlike Apollo's shield which was applied as one single layer, the Artemis 2 shield was installed as tiles or bricks, like the space shuttle, but using ablative material with filler in between instead of the shuttle's reusable tiles. I believe the shuttle system would not work for Artemis because of the much higher reentry speed and higher heat load (25,000 mph vs 17,500 mph). Due to the issues found on the Artemis 1 heat shield, I think they may be going to a single-layer approach starting with Artemis 3.

Sullivan908 said:

---

I'm not a materials engineer and I don't play one on TV, but the Artemis heat shield is fundamentally like the ones from Apollo. Same basic material but installed differently than Apollo. It ablates, meaning that it melts away to dissipate the heat. Sort of like evaporative cooling, I guess.

The Parker probe shield is more like traditional insulation. It has layers of carbon material coated with a white ceramic on the outside face to reflect sunlight. It stays intact and doesn't wear off.

Unlike Apollo's shield which was applied as one single layer, the Artemis 2 shield was installed as tiles or bricks, like the space shuttle, but using ablative material with filler in between instead of the shuttle's reusable tiles. I believe the shuttle system would not work for Artemis because of the much higher reentry speed and higher heat load (25,000 mph vs 17,500 mph). Due to the issues found on the Artemis 1 heat shield, I think they may be going to a single-layer approach starting with Artemis 3.

---

I guess maybe, hard to believe that re-entry at 24,000 mph generates temps of 5000 F which is way beyond the PSP was designed to handle.

Perfect splashdown and back on earth. Recovery is taking a little extra time as the fast boats are not able to communicate with the capsule for some reason. They will work it out and in the scheme of things, just a small technicality to what they all have accomplished.

Well done NASA and all the contractors and everybody who had a part in this amazing event. It's been a long time and I am glad I got to see a trip to the moon again. Hopefully I will make it for another landing.

Welcome Home!!!

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

Perfect splashdown and back on earth. Recovery is taking a little extra time as the fast boats are not able to communicate with the capsule for some reason. They will work it out and in the scheme of things, just a small technicality to what they all have accomplished.

Well done NASA and all the contractors and everybody who had a part in this amazing event. It's been a long time and I am glad I got to see a trip to the moon again. Hopefully I will make it for another landing.

Welcome Home!!!

---

Looks like quite a crowd at the Doak tonight for this.

Please excuse my ignorance but what exactly do we gain as a nation by this mission? I can't imagine the cost and I just wander what the benefits are for the cost of the mission. I have researched my question but haven't found a good answer. I know my fellow Pack friends can enlighten me.

pack95 said:

---

Please excuse my ignorance but what exactly do we gain as a nation by this y be things mission? I can't imagine the cost and I just wander what the benefits are for the cost of the mission. I have researched my question but haven't found a good answer. I know my fellow Pack friends can enlighten me.

---

The mission itself is a technology test bed for establishing a lunar base. There are valuable resources waiting to be mined there including Helium-3, an isotope that is rare on earth and will be important on the day that we have finally achieved practical nuclear fusion. And strategically, we must beat the ChiComs in that endeavor. So, while the previous space race was as much about national pride as anything else, this time it's for long term strategic dominance.

pack95 said:

---

Please excuse my ignorance but what exactly do we gain as a nation by this mission? I can't imagine the cost and I just wander what the benefits are for the cost of the mission. I have researched my question but haven't found a good answer. I know my fellow Pack friends can enlighten me.

---

I put "what exactly do we gain as a nation by the Artemis II mission" into Google and here is its AI response

The Artemis II missionthe first crewed flight to the Moon in over 50 yearsoffers several key benefits to the United States, primarily focusing on maintaining global leadership in space exploration, developing critical technologies for future missions, and fostering national unity.
Here is what the nation gains from the Artemis II mission:

• Rebuilding Deep-Space Knowledge: Artemis II acts as a "proving flight" to test the Orion spacecraft's life-support systems, navigation, and communications with astronauts on board. This rebuilds American expertise in deep-space missions, which has waned since 1972.
• National Unity and Inspiration: As a major, largely apolitical story, the mission provides a unifying moment for a divided country, inspiring a new generation to pursue science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).
• Strategic Leadership and "New Space Race" Wins: The mission positions the U.S. at the helm of a new lunar era, establishing norms for space operations and counteracting the lunar ambitions of competitors like China.
• Preparation for Mars: By demonstrating capabilities in deep space, Artemis II lays the necessary foundation for a sustained lunar presence and eventual human missions to Mars.
• International Cooperation and Diplomacy: While led by NASA, Artemis II includes a Canadian Space Agency astronaut and involves partnerships with the European Space Agency and other international agencies, strengthening diplomatic ties and sharing the costs of exploration.
• Economic Impact and Innovation: The program invests in the US aerospace sector, strengthening the STEM workforce and driving the development of advanced materials and technologies that often have commercial applications on Earth.
  

The 10-day mission, which sends four astronauts around the far side of the Moon, is a critical step towards returning humans to the lunar surface with Artemis III and building a "moon base" in the coming years

The live streams were absolutely incredible to watch. It was like seeing a documentary in real time

I'm guessing we wouldn't have gone back to the moon at this time if China hadn't announced it was doing so first. So, it was almost certainly politically prompted. But that's fine with me! There are still some good reasons for a moon program as listed above. Not the least of which is putting science and technology on display, which will have beneficial downstream effects if we start to trust and emphasize science again as a nation.

Oldsouljer said:

---

Sullivan908 said:

---

I'm not a materials engineer and I don't play one on TV, but the Artemis heat shield is fundamentally like the ones from Apollo. Same basic material but installed differently than Apollo. It ablates, meaning that it melts away to dissipate the heat. Sort of like evaporative cooling, I guess.

The Parker probe shield is more like traditional insulation. It has layers of carbon material coated with a white ceramic on the outside face to reflect sunlight. It stays intact and doesn't wear off.

Unlike Apollo's shield which was applied as one single layer, the Artemis 2 shield was installed as tiles or bricks, like the space shuttle, but using ablative material with filler in between instead of the shuttle's reusable tiles. I believe the shuttle system would not work for Artemis because of the much higher reentry speed and higher heat load (25,000 mph vs 17,500 mph). Due to the issues found on the Artemis 1 heat shield, I think they may be going to a single-layer approach starting with Artemis 3.

---

I guess maybe, hard to believe that re-entry at 24,000 mph generates temps of 5000 F which is way beyond the PSP was designed to handle.

---

It's a lot of kinetic energy! Almost twice what the shuttle had to deal with. Also, the Artemis shield has to withstand more physical stresses than Parker.

pack95 said:

---

Please excuse my ignorance but what exactly do we gain as a nation by this mission? I can't imagine the cost and I just wander what the benefits are for the cost of the mission. I have researched my question but haven't found a good answer. I know my fellow Pack friends can enlighten me.

---

Not to be crass or condescending, but I must ask how old are you?

Some great posts to your response above but everyday things you use now were developed because of technology developed from the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions which led to other innovations from defense contractors and the like.

80 years ago we did not have jet engines. That is only 11 years before I was born. 20+ years later we could go to the moon. Now we are building more powerful rockets to go deeper into outer space. As I mentioned before, your smart phone has about 100,000 times more computing power then when Apollo 11 landed on the moon.

There are whole lists of things that were developed because of the space program that you use everyday. Microwave ovens, Aluminum foil, Velcro. The GPS on your phone was developed by technology from defense contractors and uses satellites put into space by NASA. Pocket calculators which was a precursor to your smart phone. And there are hundreds of things more to add to that list.

The American people have always had a pioneering spirit and with the freedoms we possess, they have had the opportunity to try(and fail many times) to develop ideas they had. You have electricity now, you have toilets and running water now. We can now fly across the country in 5-6 hours, but we first discovered the west on horseback and wagon trains. Man pushing his limits to explore and invent to make the human condition better.

This is definitely national pride on display. We can do amazing things if we try.

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Earthset.

The Artemis II crew captured this view of an Earthset on April 6, 2026, as they flew around the Moon. The image is reminiscent of the iconic Earthrise image taken by astronaut Bill Anders 58 years earlier as the Apollo 8 crew flew around the Moon. pic.twitter.com/ag72r97wzb

— NASA Artemis (@NASAArtemis) April 7, 2026

---

Where's the stars in the photos from space? I look up from my yard and see hundreds, every NASA photo never has ANY stars visible in the background. Shouldn't there be an insane amount visible given the complete lack of light pollution, atmosphere, etc.?

From Google AI.

Stars are absent in many space photos because cameras are exposed for bright, sunlit subjectslike astronauts, the Moon, or the Earthcausing faint, distant stars to be underexposed and invisible. Due to extreme contrast and brightness, capturing both bright foregrounds and faint stars simultaneously is difficult; it is akin to trying to photograph stars from a sunlit street at noon.

Try taking a picture of the moon with your phone and see how many stars you see. They get washed out by a bright object.

A video posted by Dan Scavino when the capsule door was opened after splashdown.

https://truthsocial.com/@DanScavino/posts/116401083809140012

Great video - thanks!

NASA really needs a system that doesn't require inflatable rafts and helicopter winches. Just sayin.

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

A video posted by Dan Scavino when the capsule door was opened after splashdown.

https://truthsocial.com/@DanScavino/posts/116401083809140012

---

Awesome

Only one chance in this lifetime…

Like watching sunset at the beach from the most foreign seat in the cosmos, I couldn’t resist a cell phone video of Earthset. You can hear the shutter on the Nikon as @Astro_Christina is hammering away on 3-shot brackets and capturing those… pic.twitter.com/8aWnaFJ69c

— Reid Wiseman (@astro_reid) April 19, 2026

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Only one chance in this lifetime…

Like watching sunset at the beach from the most foreign seat in the cosmos, I couldn’t resist a cell phone video of Earthset. You can hear the shutter on the Nikon as @Astro_Christina is hammering away on 3-shot brackets and capturing those… pic.twitter.com/8aWnaFJ69c

— Reid Wiseman (@astro_reid) April 19, 2026

---

So dang awesome.

wolf howl said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Earthset.

The Artemis II crew captured this view of an Earthset on April 6, 2026, as they flew around the Moon. The image is reminiscent of the iconic Earthrise image taken by astronaut Bill Anders 58 years earlier as the Apollo 8 crew flew around the Moon. pic.twitter.com/ag72r97wzb

— NASA Artemis (@NASAArtemis) April 7, 2026

---

Where's the stars in the photos from space? I look up from my yard and see hundreds, every NASA photo never has ANY stars visible in the background. Shouldn't there be an insane amount visible given the complete lack of light pollution, atmosphere, etc.?

---

More proof that these moon trips are staged!!

Sullivan908 said:

---

Try taking a picture of the moon with your phone and see how many stars you see. They get washed out by a bright object.

---

Like this one I just took with a two year old Samsung?

That's actually a good example. In order to capture the stars, the moon is completely overexposed in that shot. If you were able to get a good shot of the moon, all the stars in that picture would likely be gone. That's the point. To get the exposure right for the earth or moon in space, you lose the stars.

It's crazy to me that (some) people use the lack of stars in space photos as evidence that NASA fakes stuff. As if thousands of the brightest astronomical minds supposedly going to extraordinary lengths to try and fabricate the biggest lie in human history would somehow forget to put the freaking stars in their own space pictures. The stars! lol

Sullivan908 said:

---

That's actually a good example. In order to capture the stars, the moon is completely overexposed in that shot. If you were able to get a good shot of the moon, all the stars in that picture would likely be gone. That's the point. To get the exposure right for the earth or moon in space, you lose the stars.

It's crazy to me that (some) people use the lack of stars in space photos as evidence that NASA fakes stuff. As if thousands of the brightest astronomical minds supposedly going to extraordinary lengths to try and fabricate the biggest lie in human history would somehow forget to put the freaking stars in their own space pictures. The stars! lol

---

So when do we get to see Uranus? I'll show myself out….

Sullivan908 said:

---

That's actually a good example. In order to capture the stars, the moon is completely overexposed in that shot. If you were able to get a good shot of the moon, all the stars in that picture would likely be gone. That's the point. To get the exposure right for the earth or moon in space, you lose the stars.

It's crazy to me that (some) people use the lack of stars in space photos as evidence that NASA fakes stuff. As if thousands of the brightest astronomical minds supposedly going to extraordinary lengths to try and fabricate the biggest lie in human history would somehow forget to put the freaking stars in their own space pictures. The stars! lol

---

Definitely don't think they forget. It's just very easy to determine location based off star location in photos.

Now I'll have to go back out there with my DSLR camera and take a good picture of the moon and stars together. lol

I don't think it would be hard for an astronomer to figure out what the sky should look like from any given point on the moon. Should be the same basic process as on earth - as long as you know where on the sphere you are, you know what the sky looks like.

I'm not a photographer, so maybe modern cameras are able to compensate for the different exposure times - I'd be interested to see what you get. I'm certain cameras in the 1970s couldn't do this. Mythbusters even busted this exact thing in their moon landing episode IIRC.

Sullivan908 said:

---

I don't think it would be hard for an astronomer to figure out what the sky should look like from any given point on the moon. Should be the same basic process as on earth - as long as you know where on the sphere you are, you know what the sky looks like.

I'm not a photographer, so maybe modern cameras are able to compensate for the different exposure times - I'd be interested to see what you get. I'm certain cameras in the 1970s couldn't do this. Mythbusters even busted this exact thing in their moon landing episode IIRC.

---

Camera's from the 70's I understand a bit more, it's the cameras of two weeks ago that's got me scratching my head.