Close Menu
    For all the "they're not REALLY going to the moon since they aren't landing" people: a to-scale reminder of just how much further Artemis II travels than every mission of the past 53 years
    Space

    For all the “they’re not REALLY going to the moon since they aren’t landing” people: a to-scale reminder of just how much further Artemis II travels than every mission of the past 53 years


    For all the “they’re not REALLY going to the moon since they aren’t landing” people: a to-scale reminder of just how much further Artemis II travels than every mission of the past 53 years

    https://i.redd.it/29bepp7wsqgg1.png

    Share.
    View 19 Comments

    19 Comments

    3. writenroll on

      Apollo 11 circa 2026: “yeah they’re technically on the moon, whoop, but ther just walking around like idiots then back home. at least craft a moonbase. wth the point?”

    5. Underwater_Karma on

      It seems like a lot of people are interested in having pedantic grammatical arguments about the use of the word “to” that are simply not correct.

      “to” Is entirely correct in this usage. You can go to the Grand canyon without jumping in. You can go to the super bowl without getting on the field

    8. Gyn_Nag on

      Distance big yes, but the delta-v difference is not so big and there’s a good argument that matters more.

      In fact, I would say the ISS is a far greater achievement than the Apollo program and it gets underappreciated because it’s “only” in LEO.

    9. photon1701d on

      Why does this get zero TV coverage? This is a monumental scientific event, not seen in over 50 years. We are too busy talking about ICE, and Left and Right hating each other.

    11. dougdoberman on

      It’s absolutely (maybe) going “to” the moon. Just for a certain variable of “to,” a word which encompasses a wide range of meanings.

    12. LeNoseKnows on

      There’s an interesting juxtaposition of difficulty here. Every bit that you increase your orbit, it takes less energy to increase it that much more, so going to the moon is only slightly harder than going halfway, and only slightly easier than leaving earth orbit entirely. That makes it seem somewhat trivial to go from LEO to LTO, which is partially true compared to how difficult it is to get to LEO at all. On the flip side, every bit of fuel you have to carry to get from LEO to LTO also needs fuel to get it into space, so the rocket equation does make it exponentially more difficult to make the transfer. Getting to the moon at all is tough, and it’s an impressive mission that no one should discount, but we also should recognize that sending a capsule to lunar orbit is significantly different than sending a capsule AND a lander to orbit AND using that lander to get down and back from the surface. We’re about to do something incredible but we have to keep pushing because incredible is just the beginning

    13. Master_of_Rodentia on

      So they burn more fuel. Cool, but I don’t think this is a compelling rebuttal. The last *meter* is the hard part.

    14. A_HECKIN_DOGGO on

      Aside from actual deniers, i believe most people just know nothing about space in general. A little annoying but at least we’re still doing it.

    15. i_lie_except_on_31st on

      Maybe I’m tired but trying to understand the title and this shit graphic… Some are saying big deal about ship going brrr around moon? Have I got it?

    18. Bowman_van_Oort on

      “Hey kids, we’re going to Disneyworld!”

      “Hey, why are you crying? We got to drive past Disneyworld!”

    19. carbon_troll on

      This is r/space; if you’re not generating hype for commercial space no one cares. Definitely agree though, SLS is the real deal.