NASA Sets Coverage of Orion’s Historic Moon Mission Return, Splashdown
Editor’s note: This advisory was updated Wednesday, Dec. 7, to reflect some changes to briefing participants, as well as RSVP information for media attending in person.
HOUSTON (NASA PR) — NASA will provide live coverage of the Artemis I uncrewed Orion spacecraft’s return flyby of the Moon on Monday, Dec. 5, as well as its return to Earth on Sunday, Dec. 11.
The agency also will host several briefings to discuss the upcoming activities from Johnson Space Center in Houston. NASA will provide live coverage on NASA Television, the agency’s website, and the NASA app.
Orion has begun its return trek toward Earth, completing a burn Dec. 1, to exit a lunar orbit thousands of miles beyond the Moon, where engineers have been testing systems to improve understanding of the spacecraft before future missions with astronauts.
Return lunar flyby coverage will begin at 9 a.m. EST Monday, Dec. 5. The return powered flyby burn, in which the spacecraft will harness the Moon’s gravity and accelerate back toward Earth, is expected at 11:43 a.m. The spacecraft is expected to fly about 79 miles above the lunar surface at 11:42 a.m., just before the burn.
U.S. media wishing to join in the post flyby and splashdown preview news conferences in person must request credentials from the Johnson newsroom no later than 1 p.m. on the day of each briefing at 281-483-5111 or [email protected]. U.S. media wishing to join in the post splashdown news conference in person Sunday, Dec. 11, must request credentials from the Johnson newsroom no later than 1 p.m. EST Friday, Dec. 9. Media interested in participating by phone must also contact the Johnson newsroom no later than one hour before the start of the briefings.
Live coverage as Mission Control, Houston, monitors the spacecraft’s entry, descent, and splashdown off the coast of San Diego will begin at 11 a.m. Sunday, Dec. 11. Splashdown is expected at 12:40 p.m., after which the exploration ground systems recovery team from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, working with the U.S. Navy, will recover the spacecraft.
NASA also is hosting a STEM event in collaboration with the San Diego Air and Space Museum at 9 a.m. PST Sunday, Dec. 11, for students and families to learn about Orion and the science, technology, engineering, and math that ensures the success of the agency’s missions. Participants will be able to watch a live stream of the splashdown, participate in STEM hands on activities, and hear from NASA experts and Department of Education Deputy Secretary Cindy Marten.
Following the lunar flyby Dec. 5, NASA will host a 5 p.m. news conference at Johnson.
Participants will include:
- Mike Sarafin, Artemis mission manager, NASA Headquarters
- Judd Frieling, flight director, NASA Johnson
- Debbie Korth, Orion Program deputy manager, NASA Johnson
- Melissa Jones, landing and recovery director, NASA Kennedy Space Center
The agency also will hold a 5 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 8, news conference to preview Orion’s entry through Earth’s atmosphere, descent, and splashdown in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of San Diego.
Participants will include:
- Mike Sarafin, Artemis mission manager, NASA Headquarters
- Judd Frieling, flight director, Johnson
- Jim Geffre, Orion vehicle integration manager, NASA Johnson
- Melissa Jones, landing and recovery director, NASA Kennedy
A news conference also will be held after splashdown, about 3:30 p.m. Dec. 11.
Participants will include:
- Bill Nelson, NASA administrator
- Jim Free, NASA associate administrator for the Exploration System Development Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters
- Vanessa Wyche, director, Johnson
- Janet Petro, director, Kennedy
- Mike Sarafin, mission manager, NASA Headquarters
- Howard Hu, Orion Program manager, Johnson
- Emily Nelson, chief flight director, Johnson
- Melissa Jones, recovery director, Kennedy
Following a successful launch on NASA’s Space Launch System rocket, Artemis I is testing the Orion spacecraft on a rigorous mission in the extreme environment of deep space around the Moon before flying astronauts on Artemis II in 2024. Artemis includes a series of increasingly complex missions that will enable human exploration at the Moon where the agency will prepare for future missions with crew to Mars.
Learn more about the Artemis I flight test at:
37 responses to “NASA Sets Coverage of Orion’s Historic Moon Mission Return, Splashdown”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
What’s the turnaround the on the boosters and core stage?
On the boosters? about 8 min or so to return to sea level. Core stage … after a controlled reentry. 🙂 Starship does not work yet, and I have a feeling Artemis 2 will launch again well before the Starship Lunar Lander is being tanked in LEO. All the points of SLS and Orion’s expense and delays are legit. However SLS and Orion’s lead is long and real. Not to mention the Orion system is performing very well. Ask yourself if the RnD for deep space cruising and operations on Starship is not being done now. If not, the wait will long. Remember how last year lots of us were sure SS/SH would be flying by March of this year? I think it’s going to be a mad dash to see a good flight by March of 2023. From what I saw this year, I’m putting first SS/SH flight around May.
I will be glad when Starship becomes a reliable launcher. Some think it’s going to be operational quickly and some think it’s a decade out. I think it should be that reliable launcher before Artemis 2. After becoming a reliable launcher, I expect the rest of the pieces can come together fairly rapidly, well before Artemis 3.
I dislike the SLS and Orion and it colors the rest of my opinions on the subject. When Starship prototypes were active early last year, I had no idea that test flights would just stop for over a year and a half. My uncertainty has increased over that time.
Consider this. When engineering systems reach operational status and start to work. I consider that a time to reassess my ‘like’ or ‘dislike’. SLS and Orion are having a great flight. For all their other faults, they are performing swimmingly … from what we can see so far. I’m going to propose this as a hold fast rule, however in the contest of what program model results in a usable deep space capable human spaceflight system that can operate in our time frame to meet Trump’s goal of returning Americans to the Moon by 2024, the SLS/Orion approach is doing far better than the Space X approach. Do I think the future lies with the Space X approach? Yes. But we now have a system that can do the heavy lifting and the transporting. SS/SH is years away from performing a flight trajectory along the lines of what SLS/Orion just did. Not only that we’ve had a policy survive transitioning a presidential change of administration across party lines. I think we have a good thing going. Let’s not let the idea of perfection cloud out systems are are working now. It’s not a character flaw to look at facts and flights in the sky and reassess our stances on things.
The possible launch cadence and cost of SLS/Orion is my objection. To me, there are several architectures that could do a better job* than SLS/Orion even without invoking Starship.
*Depends on ones definition of the job.Developing an in space economy is my preference.
No arguments there. SLS is unsustainable in so many ways. But from the point of view of cadence. Right now, and for a while, it’s the only thing that can throw payloads out that far. If you buy into the argument that many in the Congress and even in NASA want it that way … Then consider that. If true, it means that people in position to make policy won’t let anything else fly. I think it’s more due to misunderstanding and congressional posturing for local jurisdiction, but it may be all we’re going to get. From here on out I’m much more inclined to say let SLS/Orion open up the Moon and when everyone is suffering from the sticker shock, let SpaceX and others come in and lower the price. If we do it that way, we take the time pressure off SS/SH to evolve at whatever pace it needs.
Having Lunar Starships be one way cargo silos could help speed things along. Without crew, Musk can iterate faster.
Without crew, Starship won’t meet SpaceX’s goals. They can and should do both at once.
“When engineering systems reach operational status and start to work. I
consider that a time to reassess my ‘like’ or ‘dislike’.”
When the Tiger and King Tiger tanks became available to the Wehrmacht, they were operational. They were still dogs that required 4X the resources to get into the field compared to a Panther, caught fire easily, had suspensions and interior layouts not conducive to field repair, required easy to spot and destroy cranes to pull their turrets to do 60% of their maintenance, and their presence in the German armor mix contributed overall to the German’s defeat.
The SLS is our King Tiger.
Sticking with it we will be defeated.
All good points. But unlike the King Tiger there are no other operational systems to choose from. Your reasoning was backed by the fact that the Germans already had other operational systems to choose from. SLS/Orion in our case crossed the line to operational status first. Once in space, Artemis hardware passes a lot of critical tests. SS/SH has a LONG way to go cross the same lines.
I think it more accurate that SLS/Orion crossed the first test flight first, but only against Starship.. An F9/FH/Dragon, Starliner/Vulcan, Antares/Cygnus, New Glen, Dreamchaser architecture mix could be operational before Artemis 3. Assuming similar funds invested.
I looked at this. A medium mass tanking based infrastructure would have to have been adopted long ago. Even Space X turned its back on orbital tanking to allow deep space flights. Could it have been done? Yes. But everyone of any consequence
chose not to.
SLS/Orion’s crossing of the first test flight line means far more than just flying first. Or even flying very well first. It shows a level of systems maturity that SS/SH is nowhere near demonstrating yet. We have all kinds of indications that even when SS/SH fly, they won’t be flying with the subsystems that will be part of the lunar program. We have many indications that the first flights will be expended. So even on first flight we can’t use that as indication that SS/SH has reached the level of maturity that SLS/Orion has demonstrated. SLS/Orion is flying with lunar capable systems and testing them in the intended environment. SS/SH won’t be flying with equiv hardare at all. Likely SS/SH will need a similar time frame as SLS/Orion took to become Lunar ready.
Given the long history of the SLS/Orion, dating to 2006 for Orion and 2010 for SLS if you discount the Ares V from 2006 and that it is using surplus engines from the 1970’s you would expect it to be mature.
True enough, but tanks, SRBs and integration of the Delta IV upper stage were all new variables.
I believe a medium rocket docking and tanking based infrastructure could be done in less time than waiting on either Starship or SLS/Orion. Starting from right now and not previous work. You pointed out that none chose this and that is true, because this job was defined by NASA and congress. Starship is an outlier and possible wild card.
When companies and individuals find profitable reasons to go deep space, I think it will surprise many people how quickly the difficult becomes routine. Docking and tanking in orbit will become the equivalent of inflight refueling for extending the capabilities of existing assets. Given an incentive not tied to congressional appropriations, I think SLS/Orion will be eclipsed by new entrants and competitors may wish to avoid Starship.
I don’t disagree, but we’re nowhere near that point yet. Given what we’ve seen with Starlink Falcon can be a tanker. But tanking up Falcon’s upper stage based tug will require a propellant transfer of 100,000 odd kg of propellant to fill it up from empty. That’s a lot of tanking flights. It would be very helpful Falcon has a reusable upper stage.
I don’t think we are actually arguing so much as discussing different objectives and timelines. Plus emphasis on what the customer actually wants and is willing to pay for. Right now the customer is NASA/congress and they are getting what they want.
My base for this comment being a commercial customer that wants to land a large(ish) payload on the moon. As soon as reasonably possible and as economical as reasonably possible.
Granting your point that SpaceX has no interest in a refueling architecture for the Falcon series, unless a customer was willing to pay for it. How long would it take and how much would it cost to develop the ability to refuel an F9 upper stage in orbit? 8 launches to send a primary vehicle and 7 tanker F9 to top off based on your 100,000 odd kg estimate. That primary could land something over 10 tons of payload on the Lunar surface.
Given sufficient reason to do so, it seems to me that this could be done in the 2024 timeframe. Given sufficient reason, the several other companies I mentioned could possibly go starting in the 2025 timeframe. This all requires a strong financial incentive to go that does not route through congress/NASA. We are not there yet as you point out. We will not be there until there are sound business reasons to be there.
My preferred methods and objectives not matching those of other people mainly drives my ideas on the subject. Or perhaps it’s why I agree based on the existing incentives while disagreeing on the possible methods.
” Even Space X turned its back on orbital tanking to allow deep space flights.” <– Other than that they are 100% counting on it.
” We have many indications that the first flights will be expended. ” <– If you want to call their flat saying it is a mere indication . .
” So even on first flight we can’t use that as indication that SS/SH has
reached the level of maturity that SLS/Orion has demonstrated.” <– Getting it to orbital velocity and throwing it away? Starship on the first flight will likely do better than that, keeping the booster.
“Likely SS/SH will need a similar time frame as SLS/Orion took to become Lunar ready.” <– There is no evidentiary excuse to pretend it, the evidence all goes the other way. Starhopper liftoff was in 2018, and there is precious little excuse to think they will not recover the whole vehicle stack by the end of 2023. Lunar lander development is proceeding in parallel, and other than deletions is about 90% the same.
I’m sure you and everyone else reading this thread understood that SpaceX turned their back on using orbital tanking with a Falcon architecture. That was the subject of the thread. I know you got that.
If you think NASA just flew this system and threw it away, you’re missing an awful lot.
“I’m sure you and everyone else reading this thread understood that
SpaceX turned their back on using orbital tanking with a Falcon
architecture.” <– That is not what you said at the time, and, not notably the subject of the subthread either. As much has been said of the has guns and armor tanks as about any other sort of tank by me and earlier — you first mentioned Falcon about 6 hours ago.
The fact is SpaceX can not have ” turned their back on using orbital tanking with a Falcon architecture” because they apparently never planned on it, the MethaLOx follow on was always what they intended to go to Mars with for settlement purposes — and if with Red Dragon NASA didn’t want to pay for a more flags and footprints mission, they never were interested in that.
SpaceX seems dedicated to a “sooner with inadequate for the real purpose hardware” is not better.
Whatever Tom. Have a good night.
It’s like arguing with a parrot. No matter what you say, the just repeat the same tired line.
Yes, he ignores what he said and when he said it, apparently whenever that is convenient.
The fact remains, refueling in orbit is critical to SpaceX’s plans, they have never turned their back on it.
Umm… you’re the parrot in this situation. Not Andrew.
Uhuh. I’m saying what is real and relevant. He is not.
I point out a fact that refutes you and you say “whatever” ?
Whatever indeed.
Yes Tom you got me, you know what I said better than I do. What’s your malfunction? Didn’t your parents teach you how to get along with others in society? Didn’t you learn in school? Or were you home schooled?
I have no malfunction. I see what you wrote, and when you wrote it. What part of getting along with people requires letting BS or sloppy thinking slide without comment?
“Even Space X turned its back on orbital tanking to allow deep space flights.” <– Not only have they never, it remains contiguously critical to their plans. Why would they bother developing any intermediate hardware further only to discard it and have to redevelop it in the intended long service follow on system?
F9 hardware is not and cannot be economically made to be fully reusable. Why bother developing in orbit refueling with what you intend to ditch as soon as you can?
And about your idea the size and capacity of the Starship is inherently a problem, no it is not. The $$$ to fuel a Starship system vehicle is apparently barely more than the $$$ to fuel an FH which has far less capacity and is not fully reusable. Do you not understand that that means the larger capacity of the Starship can not be a downside for any launches the FH serves? Or for large constellation launches, or bulk material lifting? That just from it’s much smaller launch crew and the fact no hardware needs to be replaced it can serve close to the F9 payload before it becomes uneconomical, and that aggregating launches with a distribution bus means there are no payloads it can not launch more economically than the F9, let alone an FH ?
Dude, there is really something wrong with you. You can’t stop yourself can you?
Given how late Crew Dragon was and how late Starliner is to being operational, and how far behind Dreamchaser was in Commercial Crew, I find it difficult to imagine lunar versions (which would be far from trivial changes) of them being operational before Artemis III.
Artemis III being what, 4 to 5 years out? I’d suggest it would depend on the management approaches used. The management approaches in turn would depend on the funding source and available talent. Under the right conditions, things can get done in a hurry.
Hurry itself not being good criteria though. First footprints back to the moon may well be more of an artificial drive than a useful one. First to establish a sustainable presence would be better. Sustainable presence in turn requires good reasons to be there in the first place. Something better than the ability to get the taxpayers to foot the bill.
“SS/SH has a LONG way to go cross the same lines.” <– Most likely a year or less.
Okay noted. Ask Eagleson and Prof Matula how good my timelines are. They bet against me for the better part of 6 years on this subject.
“But unlike the King Tiger there are no other operational systems to choose from.” <– I just mentioned the Panther, a “lesser” tank. In the FH fully reusable, we have what could far better be used to return to the Moon permanently, than making use in any way of the SLS.
Also the number produced. Germany built only 489 King Tiger tanks, and only about 1300 Tiger 1, while the USA build over 49,000 Sherman tanks during the war.
There is no turn-around. Both were expended.
Precisely