How is this the furthest we have been ever?
Posted by jshcfc@reddit | AskUK | View on Reddit | 172 comments
[removed]
Posted by jshcfc@reddit | AskUK | View on Reddit | 172 comments
[removed]
epicmindwarp@reddit
If you don't land on it and you go on the other side of the moon, then you automatically have gone further than someone who landed on the moon.
The moon is also not a fixed distance from the earth.
tizz66@reddit
Yeah but to OPs point, they broke the record when they were still about 3 hours away from the moon. They’ve now gone further of course, but they had already broken the record before reaching it.
I don’t actually know the answer but I assume it must relate to the wide orbit they are doing.
HomeworkInevitable99@reddit
The moon's orbit is elliptical. It's distance from earth is anything from 230000 to 250000. In previous orbits, Apollo went around when it was at a 'short' distance. Artemis is found when the moon is far l further away.
Swotboy2000@reddit
To clarify: Artemis is not orbiting the moon. It’s a flyby.
martwana@reddit
Isn’t the moon actually flying past Artemis? It’s a free return trajectory so even if the moon never showed up, it would still make it back to earth.
AlexF2810@reddit
No, if the moon never showed up Orion wouldn't enter the moons gravity well which is what allows for the return trajectory. It's using the moons sphere of influence to return.
TheRobson61@reddit
I don’t think this is right. The moon is simply helping Orion return to earth earlier by essentially ‘tugging’ on it. If the moon wasn’t there, Orion would take a much wider orbit but still return to earth.
Orion isn’t orbiting the moon, it’s using its gravity to bring Orion back, but it’s still orbiting earth as it doesn’t have the escape velocity to leave it.
I’m not sure if I can post links here but there’s a great account on Insta called ffppod that go over this.
Unfrid@reddit
Orion orbited the earth twice before starting its lunar flyby burn with a periapsis (lowest point of orbit) of 115 miles.
If you’re orbiting a body with an atmosphere and your periapsis is above the Kármán line, it is not usually possible to lower your periapsis whilst burning prograde (towards direction of travel) as it will always result in a higher orbit. The lunar flyby burn naturally increased the orbit, if the moon wasn’t there at some point Orion would have to burn retrograde (away from direction of travel) to lower the periapsis below the Kármán line.
By flying “in front” of the moon within its sphere of influence your orbit is transformed, lowering the periapsis and increasing the apoapsis, Naturally, the apoapsis bit doesn’t matter because you’re going to be dipping into the atmosphere and landing shortly after that but the key takeaway is the moon doesn’t give or take energy (usually referred to as delta V) from the orbit, it just changes where the energy is allocated, in this case moving energy from the periapsis to the apoapsis. Without the moon Orion would have remained in a stable albeit very bit orbit until it lowered its orbit through a retrograde burn.
TheRobson61@reddit
What a longwinded way to make the same point I was making that without the moon Orion would still be orbiting the earth but with a much larger orbit.
Okay maybe the ‘tugging’ comment is the wrong terminology. I understand that if your periapsis is above the Karman line then you’d need to burn retrograde to lower it, but I don’t think I said anything contrary to that in the first place?
Unfrid@reddit
Your comment said orion would return to earth, I took that as you meaning it would.. return to the earth. I assume you meant it would remain in orbit of the earth, based on your follow up.
My sincere apologies for being so long winded, I mean it’s only orbital mechanics I’ll try and keep it short and sweet next time boss
TheRobson61@reddit
Yes, I meant remain in Earth’s orbit. I feel like you could infer that from my comment and its context even though I said ‘return to earth’.
grand_total@reddit
If Orion didn't reach Earth's escape velocity, it did, but if it didn't it would still be orbiting Earth!
brown-and-sticky@reddit
I have nipples, can you tug on me?
blahehblah@reddit
Only if you first enter their gravity well
BikerScowt@reddit
Is op your mum?
SelfSufficientHub@reddit
You can tug anything with nipples
LogSubstantial9098@reddit
No. Their engines are not strong enough to “stop and turn around” without the help of lunar gravity.
LocationNo2127@reddit
As I understand it Artemis is still orbiting earth, if the moon disappeared it would still come back, it would just take a different trajectory.
Fatbloke-66@reddit
And possibly not a safe one. The fuel they carry will be based on the calculations that the Moon will give them some momentum and turn them more towards Earth. With that not there, it's possible they wouldn't have the fuel to perform the turn themselves and would miss us on the return leg.
At point 10 - without the Moon being they probably wouldn't turn around at all.
Mind you, if the Moon disappeared, we'd have bigger things to worry about.
mcboobie@reddit
Water tide-y reply
bourton-north@reddit
They don’t have escape velocity they are coming back to earth one way or another with or without the moons assist, but the exact trajectory and whether they will re enter earths atmosphere is presumably radically less likely.
Simsimius@reddit
I assumed that they wouldn’t fall back to earth as they are in a highly elliptical orbit (they were in Earths orbit already before the TLI burn). The moon is slowing them down for a free return, otherwise they would need a retrograde burn to leave Earth’s orbit and return to Earth.
bourton-north@reddit
Apparently they have not left earths orbit, the moon will pull them back quicker but either way they are coming back
theabominablewonder@reddit
It hasn’t escaped the earths pull and is essentially in a very elliptical earth orbit, it doesn’t need fuel to turn around to get back to earth. It will reach its periapsis and then will be heading back to earth, then when it is in orbit close to earth, it uses the fuel to slow itself down so it de-orbits and re-enters the atmosphere.
thesaharadesert@reddit
My money’d be on it being down the back of the sofa
antimatterchopstix@reddit
Noticeable by causing a tide in your cup of tea
LocationNo2127@reddit
They are in orbit around earth, the fuel and burn calculations are based on the presence of the moon, but they would not continue into space if the moon disappeared. The moon nudges their trajectory a little, but the gravity of the earth slows them down as they speed away from it, then they fall back towards the earth. Think about it like throwing a ball into the air so high that by the time it comes back down the earth is in a different place so the ball misses the earth. You just threw that ball into orbit. Artemis is in a very eccentric orbit, it's very stretched out, it's very close to earth on one side and stretches very far on the other where it happens to fly very close to where the moon will be.
jcol26@reddit
Correct. It would take a bit longer as the moon is slingshotting it but that’s why it started slowing down long before it got close to the moon. It would return if they took no action and the moon never turned up (not sure why the moon wouldn’t but I guess someone had to plan for all outcomes!)
Blucksy-20-04@reddit
That's just how orbits work. The further you are from your largest gravity well you are the slower you go before you start falling back towards the source of gravity and speed up again. This capsule would never return to earths surface if it did not enter the moons sphere of influence. It's lowest part of it's earth orbit doesn't touch the atmosphere until the moons gravity changes it.
jcol26@reddit
yeah I covered that in a follow up reply as it wasn’t clear that it wouldn’t be a “simple” case of do nothing.
But the whole thing is insane anyway imagining that the moon wouldn’t be there 😂
ArmadilloFront1087@reddit
How long would it take them to return without the slingshot effect though?
I’d assume that it’d be far longer than they’d got provisions for?
jcol26@reddit
Apparently it would take the same amount of time pretty much. They would have to correct the angle of entry a lot. They’re equipped for 21 days supplies wise so against a 10 day mission if the moon did disappear they’d need some time to correct for insertion but they’d be fine.
The moons gravity believe it or not doesn’t significantly impact the mission time if the moon disappeared or wasn’t in the right place.
Blucksy-20-04@reddit
It actually isn't a massive amount of fuel required. It's fuel they don't have but burns at the top of a really high elliptical orbit require very small changes in momentum to create large changes in orbit
Blucksy-20-04@reddit
Exactly the same time. The slingshot of the moon actually takes away speed relative to the earth orbit however when you lose speed in space your orbit becomes tighter so your travelling less distance. Although you would never return to the surface without the moon as the orbit prior doesn't touch earths atmosphere
Y_ddraig_gwyn@reddit
no - the last engine burn took it effectively out of the local gravity well. They use the moon in lieu of tons of fuel to change direction otherwise Newton’s laws apply and they carry on in a relatively straight line. The moon stays in orbit at the same distance because it’s much heavier.
ManofScience123@reddit
This is incorrect. The moon is only marginally effecting the return trajectory. Artemis would 'fall back" to earth regardless of the moon.
Swotboy2000@reddit
Tomayto, tomahto.
TheTabar@reddit
But then, the next question is, why use a longer trajectory?
Northwindlowlander@reddit
It's the safest option, because it uses the moon to slingshot back to earth rather than depending on engine power. The downside is that it's not a full "dress rehearsal", since it never enters moon orbit.
UpsetKoalaBear@reddit
The moon put its clock forward, so they missed the window.
LocationNo2127@reddit
It was because of the launch window, if they missed this one they wouldn't be breaking the record
koloqial@reddit
Might have been due to the delayed launch.
Maetivet@reddit
The moon’s distance to Earth varies between 225,700 to 252,000 miles. Apollo 13 previously went the furthest, reaching 248,655 miles. The moon today is near apogee, hence Artemis II passed Apollo 13’s distance before it even got to the moon, as the moon was further away today than it was for Apollo 13.
Alarming_Doughnut365@reddit
Your first paragraph is incorrect. Even when landing on the moon, Collins remained in the commander module in lunar orbit.
The key is that this time with Artemis the moon just so happens to be further from earth than when Apollo launched.
Kinda worried by how many upvotes you have TBF. Can you please correct your comment?
epicmindwarp@reddit
The first sentence is intrinsically correct, regardless of the situation. It applies to both Artemis and Apollo. I made no assertion that it was true for Artemis only.
The latter is the key point.
Natural_Bet6685@reddit
Yes, it moves away as fast as a human fingernail grows.
armb2@reddit
You're further away than they were at the point when they landed on the Moon, but the Apollo missions had also orbited the Moon, so the previous record was further away then the far side of the Moon.
Level_Engineer@reddit
I'm surprised Apollo didn't do a single orbit run in the whole programme...
epicmindwarp@reddit
Space Race.
Gotta beat them damn commies.
Substantial-Honey56@reddit
We 'orbited' the moon previously, each time we went there in fact. But this time we're using a much 'higher' trajectory to slingshot straight back rather than staying there for a bit (in orbit while a couple of folk visit the surface etc ).
welshiehm@reddit
I've been wondering this as well, it feels like gaslighting 😆
BeatificBanana@reddit
Bill and Bob are from Manchester.
Bill goes on a trip to Birmingham city centre then drives back to Manchester.
Bob goes on a trip past Birmingham, drives all the way around the southern outskirts, doing a complete loop of the city, then drives back to Manchester.
So who has travelled the furthest away from Manchester?
Bob has gone further than Bill despite the fact that Bob hasn't actually stopped off in Birmingham.
That's the "explain like I'm 5" version.
Now also add in the fact that the moon and earth aren't stationary, and the moons orbit isn't a circle, so sometimes the moon is further away from earth than at other times. This is one of the times when it's further away from earth, so the astronauts need to travel further to reach it.
rikkiprince@reddit
Apollo 13 already went around the far side of the moon, to slingshot itself back to Earth.
So, to abuse your analogy, why is Birmingham further away this time???
BeatificBanana@reddit
I did explain this in the last paragraph of my comment already :) I just didn't use an analogy because there isn't really one.
Although maybe we could imagine it a bit like this time Bill and Bob are each visiting a travelling circus. When Bill goes to the circus it's on the northern side of Birmingham, and when Bob goes a year later it's on the southern side. They've both been to the circus but Bob has travelled further.
warlord2000ad@reddit
Would have to go with a Tectonic plate movement, the land that Birmingham is on has moved further away from Manchester.
rikkiprince@reddit
That's what I was thinking. Just a crack in the earth where magma rises up, like in Iceland.
We could it "Stoke-on-Trent".
jaymatthewbee@reddit
This time this used the M42 instead of the inner ring road.
ouzo84@reddit
The moons orbit is elliptical. Sometimes it's close to Earth, and we get "super moons", and sometimes it's further away.
This is where their analogy breaks down as Manchester and Birmingham are a fixed distance apart.
But this time the moon is further from earth than it was during the Apollo missions, which is how they became the most distant humans from Earth even before they reached the moon.
LevDavidovicLandau@reddit
In physics and astronomy (and I think also in cryptography) the standard names are Alice and Bob :)
Justboy__@reddit
Yep Alice and Bob in Cryptography, I can confirm
jtr99@reddit
Sounds like something an eavesdropper would say!
BeatificBanana@reddit
I didn't know this, how cool! I just used Bill and Bob because they were the first two names that popped into my head. Funny coincidence
andy1633@reddit
In rocket science, the standard names are Jebediah, Bill and Bob :P
daddywookie@reddit
That is Val slander!
LevDavidovicLandau@reddit
I didn’t know that, thanks!
andy1633@reddit
Maybe less rocket science, more rocket science adjacent video games :)
https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Jebediah_Kerman
LohaYT@reddit
At the time OP asked the question they hadn’t actually passed the moon. So they were asking how the record can be broken if they hadn’t gone past the moon yet. So the elliptical orbit of the moon is the most relevant part, not the path behind the moon.
BeatificBanana@reddit
I did address that in my comment, in the last paragraph :)
LohaYT@reddit
I know - I’m just saying I think it’s more relevant to OP’s question than the Birmingham/manchester analogy
BeatificBanana@reddit
OK then! thanks for your contribution
ouzo84@reddit
I'd go more with a tidal description as the moon is further away at the moment than it was when it was walked upon.
Andy and Bob go to the seaside at high tide. They pitch their towels and umbrellas 10m from the waters edge.
Andy decides to go paddling in the water as soon as they get there. He walks 10m to the waters edge and another 2m until the water is up to his ankles.
After being at the beach for 6 hours, the tide is all the way out and the waters edge is now 15m from the towels and umbrellas.
This is when bob decides to stand next to the water. He walks 14m and stands 1 m from the water.
So despite that Andy went into the sea and Bob didn't, Andy was only ever 12m from the towels, whilst Bob got 14m from the towels.
The towels are Earth. The moons orbit is elliptical, so it's sometimes closer and sometimes further away, much like how the waters edge moves with the tide.
BeatificBanana@reddit
I was more going for the explain like I'm 5 version before I mentioned the elliptical orbit thing, but that works!
jizzyjugsjohnson@reddit
This was just noise
Tough-Gazelle2095@reddit
so birmingham is drifting further south you say...good, i want them as far away as possible
Jabberminor@reddit
Like you say with the elliptical orbit, maybe a better analogy would be something like Bill sailed around a boat 10km offshore. Bob then floated around the same boat, but the boat was now 11km offshore. They both sailed around the boat, but Bob travelled further.
Poonpatch@reddit
I think a lot of news outlets have been jizzing their pants trying to get the first "scoop" on any kind of Artemis II news.
I read yesterday that they had seen things that no human ha ever seen before. It's just sensationalist bullshit because they hadn't even reached the moon yet.
Most people don't understand what is actually happening. A lot of people don't even believe what is actually happening. It's really quite worrying.
mrinkystinky@reddit
Nah, never heard how far my mum & dad walked to school
Dry_Assumption7092@reddit
& on that note I’ll just wait for Prof. Brian Cox to release a documentary
Sleepy0wl9969@reddit
While the achievement in itself is great, achieving a further 4000 miles since 1970 seems like not great progress. I suppose focus has been on the space station.
trentsc@reddit
Understeer
Prudent_Pack2738@reddit
I hope they're not reading the news, I'd be tempted to just keep going
RevolverForever@reddit
The Manchester to Birmingham analogy actually helps. It's not about landing, it's about the arc of the flight path. Apollo 13 swung wider because of the emergency, so they technically went farther from Earth than anyone else even though they didn't land. This mission is doing something similar on purpose. It's a distance record, not a landing record. Different goal. Makes sense when you think about the trajectory instead of the destination. The moon's orbit being elliptical also means sometimes you just have to go further to get there. Timing matters.
Spdoink@reddit
Moon is further away this time, but I have noticed a few articles in the past where authors have made erroneous claims similar to this one regarding Moon missions.
dospc@reddit
The moon is very slightly further away this time than on previous missions due to its orbit. So they went further than ever (in absolute number of miles from Earth) before they even reached it.
It's a bit of a technicality.
caniuserealname@reddit
I don't see how that's a technicality and not just the most straightforward definition.
N4t3ski@reddit
You are technically correct (the best kind of correct) but I think the confusion stems from most people thinking the moon is a fixed distance away, and we already had apollo 13 slingshot around the moon.
Most would assume, incorrectly, that the current mission wouldn't go further than that, given its nominally doing a similar thing, but as you say, the orbit is such that the total distance on this mission is greater than that of appolo 13.
Mortiis07@reddit
So it's not a technicality just that people are wrong
XihuanNi-6784@reddit
A technicality is literally this. So both are true. A technicality is usually a higher level of detail than the average person is aware of or would expect. They can be both large or small really.
Xerothor@reddit
How does this make both true? Either one is further away or they reached the exact same distance away from Earth.
N4t3ski@reddit
It is a technicality.
Both apollo 13 and Artemis 2 nominally have done the same journey 'to slingshot the moon, just the moon was closer when apollo 13 did it and the distance is further now.
Its like saying im going to london, but london is further away than usual, most people are used to distances being fixed and are less familiar with the movement of celestial bodies.
IrrelevantPiglet@reddit
That'll be the train delays again. Artemis II is a rail replacement bus service.
sojufox@reddit
I think you misunderstand what a technicality is when used this way. Typically, a technicality is a false statement made true only due to some odd definition or ruleset. You're trying to use it the other way around: a true statement thought to be false due to an incorrect 'definition' (a misunderstanding that the moon is a set distance away).
tjd2009@reddit
No technicality at all. People are ill-informed about the moon's elliptical orbit and don't understand that previous missions went when the moon was closer and this one went further.
Silly responses trying to justify people's lack of knowledge about the topic
Away-Activity-469@reddit
So if they were doing the same thing, but the moon happened to be in a nearer part of its orbit, no record broken?
People probably think, as i did, that there was something about the way they are orbiting the moon that takes them further. Maybe this is the case, but that extra distance is trifling.
budgiebirdman@reddit
Effectively they've just gone to the same place but taken a different route and although they've travelled an extra few thousand miles it's just a few hours more on a trip that takes days anyway.
caniuserealname@reddit
Well no, because it's not that we've taken a longer route, it's physically further away from us.
It's more like we're visiting the same travelling attraction, except instead of it being in France, it's in Italy.
budgiebirdman@reddit
You asked why it's a technicality. Mankind has flown around the moon again. In astronomical terms it might as well be the same distance and for the vast majority of the 7 billion population of this planet it makes no difference where the moon is because we have no frame of reference to know. So yes, for all intents and purposes we've visited the same place but just taken a longer route. For the average American France and Italy are the same place anyway - the grand old country of Europe so you're kind of arguing against yourself. The fact they've travelled around the moon is what's impressive, not the amount of miles it took to get there. That is why the distance thing is a technicality.
MakeGBGreatAgain55@reddit
“Previous missions”
TujiTV@reddit
Pretty sure my parents walked that distance to school, and the same again back.
Old_Shake3789@reddit
Technically the moon is drifting away slowly so it's around 2 metres further away than when we last landed on it, so this is always going to be the case anyway for any missions lol
BattleReadyPainting@reddit
What about the alleged Russian cosmonauts who just drifted off into space
hamfisted_postman@reddit
It's awfully far though isn't it? Considering all the planets in the solar system can fit between Earth and the moon it's no small feat to fly past the moon and come back.
Keep this fact in mind when people talk to you about going to Mars. We've barely made it past the moon. Mars is much much farther away. This is like someone saying they went for the longest walk in their life and barely made it to the end of the street. Going to Mars is like walking to the next town over.
jtr99@reddit
You might think it's a long way down the street to the chemist...
tl9380@reddit
PutAutomatic2581@reddit
Play Kerbal space program to really get it.
celem83@reddit
They are on a flyby so they are passing behind the moon and will be further from Earth than any point on the surface. Their flyby altitude is also higher than any previous flyby, so they are slightly further from earth than all of those too
Rabangus@reddit
I'm sure Royal Mail have managed to take some of my parcels further away than this...
MoistPossibility3446@reddit
What’s the point of going further it’s just expensive and no goal
_real_ooliver_@reddit
It wasn't until Apollo 11 when they landed on the moon. The goal this time for Artemis is a long term presence on the moon, I.e. a space station, moon base.
For it to only be Artemis 2 right now and a moon landing planned on 4 is much better (thankfully) than Apollo, and gives high hopes that we don't have disasters like before.
MoistPossibility3446@reddit
Wasn’t a moon landing planned on Artemis 3 or am I confused
_real_ooliver_@reddit
Yeah, got pushed back
grafeisen203@reddit
Incorrect, they have a pretty full mission plan. One of the major missions is to study the outer reaches of the earths magnetosphere.
MoistPossibility3446@reddit
Fair
BeatificBanana@reddit
How can you possibly say they have no goal? I'm guessing you haven't actually researched any of the goals of the mission and are just talking out your bumflaps
Infinite-Candidate81@reddit
You're not being stupid, you're just being ignorant of the behaviours of the moon and its elliptical orbit.
ukbot-nicolabot@reddit
A top level comment (one that is not a reply) should be a good faith and genuine attempt to answer the question
Fellowes321@reddit
Drive Leeds to London, go around inner ring road and come home.
Do again but go round M25. The other side of M25 is further from Leeds.
Nythern@reddit
The record has been broken because the distance that we travelled from Earth to the other side of the moon, is higher than the distance that was previously travelled when we last actually stepped foot on the moon many decades ago. There are two ways for this to happen:
In January they started at the very northside of the estate, and slowly reach the opposite side by June, before returning to the same place in December. If you walk to their caravan, the distance will depend on where they've parked - which itself depends on which month you go and visit them.
It's the same with travelling to the moon - sometimes it's closer to us, other times it's further away. Don't make the mistake of seeing it as always being a fixed distance away!
This ongoing Artemis II mission isn't landing on the far side of the moon - it's flying around and travelling past it (taking photographs), so it is therefore going even beyond the far side of the moon. That's why this is the furthest that mankind has ever been!
But note that this just concerns actual human bodies. We have space probes like Voyager, that have actually left our solar system.
UnderpantsInfluencer@reddit
The moons orbit is elliptical, not a circle. They are on the furthest side, and the moon is the furthest away it's been whilst we've visited it.
wimpires@reddit
The moon orbits' eccentricity is extremely low. It's almost a perfect circle but it is offset. Slight difference there. Also there's orbital procession with regards to the sun so it's on a slight different cycle compared to when Apollo 8 launched and there's also the inclination difference
Key-Original-225@reddit
This! Combined with the fact the orbit around the moon they are taking is different to the apollo13 mission, taking them further around the moon
DareDemon666@reddit
In terms of distance from Earth - there are two elements at play here. Firstly, the Moon's orbit of the Earth is slightly elliptical, meaning an oval rather than a circle. So the distance between us varies from near to far to near to far over the course of a single orbit. Secondly, the Artemis II mission is a fly-by that goes past the 'dark side of the moon'. The Apollo missions established a stable low-lunar orbit, whereas Artemis II is flying past the moon at a much higher altitude and will not complete even a single orbit before coming back.
Think of it this way. Apollo missions went up the ring road, got on the gyratory, did a few dozen laps in the inside lane, then came back. Artemis II is going up, using the outside lane to do a U-turn, and coming back. It's not a big difference, but Artemis will at one stage go further beyond the other side than apollo missions did.
In terms of actual distance travelled, everything's a case of perspective and reference. With reference to the Earth, the Artemis II flight path is roughly a figure eight shape. With reference to the sun, the path is much closer to the perimeter of a sector in circular geometry, albeit with some odd squiggles here and there. And with reference to the milky way, it's more spiral shaped. I think NASA have put out some computer animations showing this
Unbaguettable@reddit
A lot of answers here seem to be making it more complex than it is. It's just that its gone past the moon's orbit.
The previous record was set during Apollo 13, where a failure meant they didn't end up in Lunar orbit and "swung" behind the moon. Artemis 2 is doing a very similar trajectory (called a free return trajectory), however it's orbit is slightly larger and so it swings behind the moon further away, hence being further from the Earth
shadow-season@reddit
That's not correct per the OP, who was confused how it was the furthest we've ever been when they hadn't even reached the moon yet. Which is because of the moon's elliptical orbit.
ukbot-nicolabot@reddit
Reminder - Posts with a Serious tag, top-level comments which do not answer the question in good-faith may be removed. This may also result in a short ban.
TheSaladDodger420@reddit
Whats the WiFi like on the moon?
ukbot-nicolabot@reddit
A top level comment (one that is not a reply) should be a good faith and genuine attempt to answer the question
mlopes@reddit
More importantly, what's the point? Is this just to establish some kind of record?
ukbot-nicolabot@reddit
A top level comment (one that is not a reply) should be a good faith and genuine attempt to answer the question
safefart@reddit
The tradegy has already happened !!!! watch the news
ukbot-nicolabot@reddit
A top level comment (one that is not a reply) should be a good faith and genuine attempt to answer the question
MakeGBGreatAgain55@reddit
Because the moon landings weren’t real?
ukbot-nicolabot@reddit
A top level comment (one that is not a reply) should be a good faith and genuine attempt to answer the question
buttersnapsghee@reddit
Genuinely not as far as my commute feels
ukbot-nicolabot@reddit
A top level comment (one that is not a reply) should be a good faith and genuine attempt to answer the question
Wodan1@reddit
Interestingly, it's not the furthest landing in space though. We landed a probe on Titan, one of Jupiters moons a while back. That remains (technically) the furthest we have ever been.
mlopes@reddit
Voyager both 1 and 2 are way further than that, they're both at the edges of the solar system.
Wodan1@reddit
I meant landing. I know about the Voyager missions as well
Trash_Panda_Leaves@reddit
Perhaps this is because the machines we've sent to other planets normalise this but yes, we don't tend to send humans far into space. Other planets are inhospitable, from Venus to Pluto (Yes, I'm including our celestial baby who's like the size of a country) and many would kill humans. Mars is the best bet we got and even then it is extremely cold with heights of 20 degrees / 68F maximum. With nowhere to land, its more effective to send out technology to record images and transmit them back, or a cute Rover.
DanFarrell98@reddit
The moon moves
Kwayzar9111@reddit
TRAVELLED FURTHEST - we did a slingshot around earth and will go around moon too - so distance wise,
GiggityGoblinGobbler@reddit
Wdym “we”? No British person has gone to the moon
Colleen987@reddit
The moons orbit is elliptical like a oval not a circle. The moon isn’t orbiting at a fixed distance
Limitedheadroom@reddit
The moons orbit isn’t circular
Spare_Scar_2935@reddit
When they say 'furthest the astronauts have ever travelled' doesn't that just mean it was filmed in a studio further away than the previous one ??
igniteED@reddit
It's 1.65% further than before because they took the corner a bit wider (and the corner moved away slightly).
Ok-Middle8656@reddit
The NASA app has a 3D visualisation of the trajectory that might help understanding. Don’t forget, the moon is also moving, so the spacecraft actually aims for where the moon will be, not where it is. So you can simultaneously be the furthest from the earth and not actually reach the moon yet!
Gauntlets28@reddit
It's a wider arc than they usually do, which has the benefit of giving Artemis II a wider view of the dark side of the moon than the Apollo missions got.
Top-Childhood5030@reddit
The moons position isn't fixed. Much like our orbit around the sun isnt a perfect circle, the orbit of the moon around earth isnt a perfect circle. It is sometimes closer to earth and further.
rikkiprince@reddit
The Moon has an elliptical orbit around earth (i.e. oval-shaped). It varies by about 42,000km. So presumably it was on a closer but of it's orbit last time and it's on a further away bit of its orbit this time.
Departure2808@reddit
The journey they are on has swung them further out before going around, so essentially they've gone wide around the corner as opposed to going around on the inside, if that makes sense. A different orbit trajectory.
ChangingMonkfish@reddit
The moon doesn’t remain the same distance from Earth all the time, it has an elliptical orbit which means its distance varies.
I assume that the Moon itself is currently further away from Earth than it was during the Apollo 13 mission.
Also if I understand correctly, they hit their apoapsis in comparison to Earth before swinging back around the Moon (so they go out and sort of sit at the apoapsis briefly before the Moon comes in and intercepts them, I’m probably not describing that well, a diagram would show it better. Also happy to be corrected if that’s wrong).
SheepishSwan@reddit
the moon isn't a fixed distance from earth
PassiveTheme@reddit
They are doing a wider orbit (not actually orbiting because it's just a flyby, but you get the point) than any of the Apollo missions did. By going to the far side of the moon at a wider orbit, you are, by definition, further away from Earth than anyone that landed on the moon.
LichenTheMood@reddit
They are on a wide orbit
ASlyChickenCorma@reddit
Read, for the love of God, just read something
Ryy86@reddit
The moons orbit has a furthest and closest point
Effective_Guitar_206@reddit
Half a year ago, I was about 190 million miles away from where I am now (relative to the Sun). NASA has wasted its money!
basementreality@reddit
Apparently a lot of people don't seem to know that the furthest we have been from the moon was Apollo 13 as in that movie with Tom Hanks - Same mission!
Apollo 13 holds the record for the farthest distance from Earth ever reached by humans (about 400,171 km) because of its emergency trajectory.
After the oxygen tank explosion crippled the spacecraft, a direct abort back to Earth wasn't feasible, they didn't have enough fuel to turn around. Instead, NASA used a free-return trajectory, swinging around the far side of the Moon and using lunar gravity to slingshot back toward Earth.
The key reason it went farther than other Apollo missions is that the normal lunar missions adjusted their trajectory to enter lunar orbit at a closer distance. Apollo 13 couldn't make that correction after the explosion, so it followed a wider, more distant path around the Moon. Its closest approach to the lunar surface was about 254 km farther out than the orbital altitude used by missions that actually landed, which put the crew at a greater distance from Earth on the far side than any other crewed flight.
GL510EX@reddit
*Held the record
basementreality@reddit
*Corrected
rich_b1982@reddit
I blame the rise of veganism. A lot of people won't watch films with Kevin Bacon in.
EvilTaffyapple@reddit
One of the goals of this specific mission is to go to the far side of the moon - the moon is locked in position so one part always faces us at Earth (ie it doesn’t spin) - we’ve not been to the far side of the moon, which means these folks have by definition been further away than anyone else from Earth.
kittysparkled@reddit
The Moon does spin. It rotates on its axis at the same rate it orbits the Earth, so the same side always faces us.
Gadget100@reddit
That’s not true. Apollo 8 followed a similar trajectory, and for all of the missions that landed on the moon, the command module and its pilot also orbited the moon.
hatthewmartley@reddit
The moon must spin if one side always faces Earth?
DameKumquat@reddit
They haven't got to the far side yet. They're still approaching the moon, but further away from earth than anyone who landed on the moon because the moon's distance varies and it's further away at the moment.
ChrisInTyneside@reddit
Because the orbit round the moon they're doing is different to the Apollo mission which tended yo stay pretty close to the moon. This orbit goes a way beyond the moon before looping back and swinging past again to get back home.
Chimpville@reddit
It's nonsense to anybody whose found a Wetherspoons toilet.
grepusman@reddit
They're not going to enter the moon's orbit. They're going further past it - to circle it, then return. So it's further.
SouthAyrshireCouncil@reddit
When they landed on the moon, they had to get closer too it. Now they’re “missing the moon” they don’t need to get so close. The trajectory they’re on to bring them home needs to be higher altitude. Also, the moon is a little bit further away at this time of the month.
AutoModerator@reddit
Please help keep AskUK welcoming!
When replying to submission/post please make genuine efforts to answer the question given. Please no jokes, judgements, etc. If a post is marked 'Serious Answers Only' you may receive a ban for violating this rule.
Don't be a dick to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
This is a strictly no-politics subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.