The riskiest phase of the Artemis II lunar mission will be the final stage.

6 099 44
The riskiest phase of the Artemis II lunar mission will be the final stage.

The Artemis II manned lunar mission, which set several records, is nearing completion. The descent capsule missiles Orion is expected to splash down off the California coast near San Diego on April 10 at around 20:07 p.m. ET (3:07 a.m. MT April 11), barring any incidents.

And it could happen that the riskiest stage for the four-astronaut crew will be the final stage, when the capsule literally plunges at high speed into the dense layers of Earth's atmosphere. The fiery journey is expected to last less than 15 minutes. An article published by the American outlet NBC News details what could happen, and hopefully won't.



Atmospheric reentry is one of the riskiest stages of spaceflight, as passing through the dense layers of the atmosphere can cause a spacecraft to heat up to approximately 2760°C. This is especially relevant for the Artemis II mission, as the Orion spacecraft's heat shield—the crucial lower layer of thermal protection that protects astronauts from extreme temperatures—has known design flaws.

Following the Artemis I uncrewed test mission in 2022, using the Space Launch System rocket and Orion capsule, NASA discovered unexpected damage to the spacecraft's heat shield. An investigation revealed that the heat shield's outer shell was not adequately ventilating gases, leading to increased pressure and damage to the heat shield. They weren't able to fix the problem before the Artemis II mission, or rather, they didn't want to, as the spacecraft had already been fully built by that time.



Instead of redesigning the heat shield, NASA developed a new reentry trajectory for the capsule to minimize risks to the astronauts. Typically, before its final descent, the spacecraft enters the atmosphere and then ascends again to reduce heat exposure and G-forces on the capsule. This time, NASA decided to bypass this phase and have the Orion astronauts descend faster and at a steeper angle to minimize exposure to extreme temperatures.

NASA Deputy Administrator Amit Kshatriya believes this will avoid damage to the heat shield and ensure the capsule's descent proceeds smoothly. However, the risks are high, and four lives are at stake.



Former astronaut Charlie Camarda publicly expressed concern about the heat shield and argued that NASA should not have launched the Artemis II mission without fixing the problem. He wrote an open letter to the space agency's leadership, stating:

History shows that accidents occur when organizations convince themselves they understand problems that don't actually exist. This problem exhibits the same patterns that preceded past disasters.

However, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman responded that he had "full confidence" in Orion's heat shield. The main thing is that the spacecraft stays on course during the final stage, something that flight controllers are closely monitoring.

The Orion capsule is expected to reach a maximum speed of nearly 38 km/h (600 mph) upon reentry. The astronauts will experience acceleration forces 3,9 times greater than Earth's gravity. As the capsule enters the dense layers of the atmosphere, communication with it is lost due to plasma accumulation around the spacecraft, which creates interference.

At an altitude of about 1800 meters, the capsule will deploy three main parachutes, which will help it slow to 32 km/h before splashing down in the ocean.

At a briefing on Thursday, Kshatriya praised the crew members and said it was now up to air traffic controllers, engineers and rescue teams to bring them home.
44 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    April 10 2026 17: 18
    There is danger in any flight - this is the norm.
    1. +2
      April 10 2026 17: 25
      Even at home, it's there. Even on a regular toilet. Even with a fever above 38 😱
      1. +2
        April 10 2026 18: 09
        Quote: Mini Mokik
        Even at home it's there. Even on a regular toilet.

        I don't know how Catherine the Great died in a similar situation, or if that's how it really happened, but that's exactly what happened to my school friend and his mother at work. A slight strain caused a blood clot to break loose and block a pulmonary artery.
        So, Alex, without any irony, you are absolutely right - even on your own toilet, mortal danger can lurk.

        And according to the article, the Americans "forgot how" to make engines for the Saturn launch vehicle. In all seriousness, they said that a cleaning lady at the design bureau mistakenly threw the blueprints in the trash.
        I told about this at our defense plant, where they make rocket engines, and they laughed out loud.
        Now, it seems, they have flown away.
        What, have they forgotten how to return a descent module from orbit, too? It's probably not the first time.
        I think it's not so much the danger itself, but rather NBC News' need to squeeze in a hot story. If it all goes well, they'll say, "Well, thank God, we got away with it..." If something goes wrong, they'll say, "But we warned you..."
        In any case, the editorial policy of attracting interest in safety in the space program is not connected in any way whatsoever.
        1. +2
          April 10 2026 18: 25
          My mother, in good health and leading a healthy lifestyle, died three years ago. She was 64. She just felt dizzy and sank. She got up and, when my husband asked, said everything was okay. And in the morning, she was already a living, mindless body in bed. In her sleep, and with my husband next to her. A stroke. Two years of being half-dead, and then goodbye. So, I'm not being ironic. One friend, right on the toilet in the morning, remained on the toilet. One was alive. They didn't find him right away.
    2. +4
      April 10 2026 17: 26
      Quote: Arkady007
      There is danger in any flight - this is the norm.

      Danger is one thing, design flaws are another...
      Let's hope for a successful splashdown...
    3. -8
      April 10 2026 18: 58
      There's no danger in their "flight." They weren't flying anywhere, just like they had to the Moon before. There have already been some glitches, read up on them if you're interested: https://dzen.ru/a/addJBr0POh6mOQnp. The first launch of this rocket was problematic, and the second one immediately involved people... yeah, yeah... and they made up some nonsense about the toilet so people would be fascinated by it and not think about anything serious. And everything is pretty standard here. Remember, almost all American films have toilet humor.
  2. +9
    April 10 2026 17: 23
    The capsule will reenter the atmosphere at nearly cosmic velocity. Good luck to the astronauts, but the danger is great.
    1. 0
      April 10 2026 17: 46
      The second cosmic velocity is 11,2 km/s, and 38,000 km/h is 10,555.56 m/s. KM is not M.
      1. +4
        April 10 2026 18: 08
        10555.56 m/s is 10.6 km/s, isn't it almost the second cosmic speed?
  3. +1
    April 10 2026 17: 23
    Is it possible to make several orbits around the Earth, reducing speed? belay
    1. +2
      April 10 2026 17: 26
      There is no fuel. And no time.
    2. +4
      April 10 2026 17: 35
      What are we supposed to use to slow down? The article says the original plan was to "dive" into the atmosphere to slow down, but now they've done the math and decided that's fine. Flying around is pointless; there's no atmosphere there, so there's nothing to slow down against.
      1. +1
        April 10 2026 18: 24
        - Brake! Brake!! Brake!!!
        — How can I brake when you drank all the brake fluid?! Drunkard! laughing

        Kin-Dza-Dza
    3. +8
      April 10 2026 17: 58
      To do this, you need to slow down, otherwise at such a speed you can fly into deep space.
      For example, it is possible to slow down using engines, but this requires fuel, and (judging by the fact that they are calculating entry into the atmosphere at 2 cosmic degrees) there is none.
      It would be possible to extinguish it by diving into the atmosphere, but something is still a bit of a bummer.
      And (correct me if I'm wrong) it would have been possible to perform a gravity assist maneuver to reduce the speed before approaching Earth. But then what 10 days would that be?
      ----
      P.S. This whole Artemis-2 thing smells a bit unpleasant. I sincerely wish the crew a smooth landing, and good weather for the search and rescue team.
      1. -3
        April 10 2026 18: 18
        it would be possible to perform a gravity assist maneuver
        Could you explain to the "poor skeptics" what this is? Is a flying saucer slowing down like this? And what does Orion have to do with it? Or are the Americans already making saucers?
        1. +2
          April 10 2026 18: 52
          Well, it's a change in the trajectory and/or speed of a spacecraft under the influence of the gravity of celestial bodies. It's widely used in spaceflight, not just by Martians and lunatics.
          1. 0
            April 10 2026 20: 10
            But you were discussing methods of braking from the Second Space War. So, explain how to use a "gravity assist maneuver" to avoid the hassle of braking in Earth's atmosphere.
            1. +2
              April 10 2026 21: 14
              Quote: Magog_
              How to avoid the troubles of braking in the Earth's atmosphere using a "gravity assist maneuver"
              No way. Atmospheric braking is inevitable, with all the ensuing troubles.
          2. -2
            April 10 2026 22: 18
            But seriously, in a real flight, like the one NASA is talking about today, you'd have to decelerate in the atmosphere. And the phrase "gravity assist maneuver" was coined by American populists to explain the supposedly incredibly difficult, from a practical standpoint, flights of their Voyager spacecraft through the Solar System to the edge of the Kuiper Belt. They claimed they accomplished this through a series of "gravity assist maneuvers," flying close to the largest planets, Jupiter and Saturn, without being caught in the gravity of these giants. That is, supposedly, accelerating when necessary and then safely retreating closer to the edge of the Solar System... Well, that's a miracle. When approaching a huge mass, an object in space accelerates (its speed increases), while as it moves away, the acquired speed, according to such theorists, remains unchanged...

            The same applies to our lunar flyby. On the return trip, the craft, under the influence of the Earth's gravity increasing compared to the Moon's, accelerates to the initial speed of entering the lunar trajectory with the opposite sign, and then performs a landing maneuver (braking due to atmospheric air resistance). Moreover, the spacecraft flies at hypersonic speeds (with Mach > 30)!!! The Americans hesitantly claim to have developed hypersonic weapons (which I highly doubt) with speeds around Mach = 5, which no one has ever seen. And here Mach = 32, and they "expect the screen to heat up to 2700 degrees."?! In emergency situations (pseudo-ballistic descent from Earth orbit), according to our specialists, the temperature of the boundary layer of gas plasma AROUND the descent vehicle reaches 6000 degrees and higher!!! AROUND! This means it's not just the screen that's heating up... but the entire surface of the spacecraft. The hypersonic boundary layer is very "viscous," and the object flies in a "cocoon" of plasma. NASA, apparently, still doesn't understand this, or is just playing dumb to avoid having to explain how the Apollo missions ever returned.

            This isn't even considering the G-forces generated by such a deceleration from the Second Space Shuttle. A "double dive" is mandatory, otherwise the crew would be screwed just by this factor.
  4. +5
    April 10 2026 17: 29
    Compared to Apollo, where everything was gradual, here, of course, due to haste and underfunding, they're going "Apollo 3" or so to speak. Ideally, the capsule should have been sent through the atmosphere, both with and without astronauts, several times, as had been done before. Hence the risk. We hope everything will work out. hi
    1. +2
      April 10 2026 23: 05
      We've already raced. There were some questions about the heat shield. That's why we decided against atmospheric braking. Entry on the first try, and may all the saints help us.
      1. -1
        April 10 2026 23: 54
        Login on the first try
        I practiced the Luna-16 spacecraft's return, a ballistic descent and a very precise landing at a predetermined point... (Well, almost like the Americans demonstrated with Apollo and will demonstrate with Orion, meaning there weren't and won't be any particular hassles with retrieving the capsule.) The G-force on the spacecraft was recorded at 315 units! Pretty silly, right?
        1. 0
          April 11 2026 13: 53
          It's really nothing. We landed and everyone's alive.
  5. +4
    April 10 2026 17: 34
    What will the envious and spiteful do if everything ends well? Will they be poisoned by their own venom?
    1. -6
      April 10 2026 19: 06
      If nothing happens to the transport plane that drops the descent module into the designated ocean area, and the parachutes open as planned, everything will end well... Even the heat shield will be slightly sooty, while the rest of the surface will be as good as new (remember the triumph of the Apollo missions!) But astronauts with acting skills will have to try to play up the heaviness and weakness, and this is not easy even for seasoned actors..., and this will be a novelty this time, the highlight of the show! Of course, the tragedy of death due to the oversight of irresponsible NASA functionaries would be more marketable in the global space show market (and all the producers' shortcomings would be written off, and the ends "in the water" - literally!), but we are not ill-wishers here and sincerely wish success to the astronauts and, through them, to all of humanity... In short, let's watch the "movie" further...
  6. -8
    April 10 2026 17: 39
    It's a problem, especially when the toilet doesn't work.
  7. +5
    April 10 2026 17: 43
    I'll grumble a little about how the staff of the specialized website Military Review presents information to us.
    "The Orion rocket's descent capsule is scheduled to splash down off the coast of California...".
    Orion is a spacecraft (module) designed for flights beyond low Earth orbit, in this case, to the Moon.
    The Space Launch System (SLS) is a launch vehicle whose purpose is to launch a spacecraft into orbit and accelerate it on a trajectory to the Moon.
    You should be more precise...
  8. 0
    April 10 2026 17: 45
    Quote: Wodan
    and decided that this would do

    Well, what did I... I just asked... If it's good enough, then it's good enough. High technology. Thank you. hi
  9. 0
    April 10 2026 21: 57
    Quote: Author
    Usually before the final descent, the spacecraft enters the atmosphere, and then rises above it againto reduce thermal impact and overload on the capsule

    Yeah? Who "usually" does/did this?
    "9 manned Apollo ships flew to the Moon and all of them, regardless of everything, immediately got bored.
    Skip entry, if it was there, because it appeared later in the memoirs, that's a completely different story. It doesn't help with fever.
    Luna-16, right there. Fully
  10. +1
    April 10 2026 23: 10
    The astronauts will be subjected to overloads 3,9 times greater than the force of gravity on Earth.

    Nothing special. The typical Soyuz descent rate is around 4G. Vostok descended at 8G. But there have been cases with much higher Gs. The Soyuz carrying Lazarev and Makarov, for example, landed with 20 to 26G. This didn't have any permanent consequences—Makarov flew into space many times after that, and Lazarev was his backup.
    1. 0
      April 10 2026 23: 45
      What kind of story is this? Am I going too far? Could you elaborate?
      Roscosmos on the Soyuz capsule's atmospheric deceleration overload. Cosmonauts are tested for possible extreme overloads in a centrifuge during preparation for this phase of the flight.
      Thus, during chest-to-back rotations, cosmonauts withstand 4g for one minute and 8g for 30 seconds. For head-to-pelvis rotations, tests are conducted with 3g and 5g for half a minute each.
      1. +1
        April 11 2026 00: 04
        What kind of story is this? Am I going too far? Could you elaborate?

        Are you talking about it?
        But there were also cases with much higher G-forces. The Soyuz with Lazarev and Makarov, for example, landed with G-forces ranging from 20 to 26G.

        Soyuz-18-1.
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Союз-18-1
        PS Didn't your mom and dad teach you that it's rude to point at strangers?
        1. 0
          April 11 2026 08: 59
          Forgive the familiarity. Later, after the time for correction had passed, I noticed something in my question... It just happened naturally; we've been exchanging opinions here for a while, so I phrased it as if it were a conversation between acquaintances.
        2. +1
          April 11 2026 09: 41
          From what I've read, it appears that during the launch vehicle's emergency acceleration, the Soyuz spacecraft's recovery system didn't work quite as expected, and the launch vehicle experienced short-term overloads of over 20 units. There are two points to this. First:
          For example, "a person can withstand overloads of 20-30 g or more without losing consciousness for no more than 1-2 seconds, depending on the magnitude of the overload." Second: here, in the comments, we're talking about astronauts who allegedly spent 10 days in the cramped, weightless conditions of the Orion spacecraft, which increases the risk of severe post-flight health consequences; these are almost beyond the limits of Soviet cosmonaut experience. And such overloads would be fatal... I can give you a link to a relevant article that describes how Soviet cosmonauts felt after such long (more than seven days) orbital flights in Soyuz spacecraft, which were designed with the idea of ​​orbiting the Moon in mind.
          1. +1
            April 11 2026 22: 32
            For example, a person can withstand overloads of 20–30 g or more without losing consciousness for no more than 1–2 seconds, depending on the magnitude of the overload.

            Only specially selected people are sent into space; just anyone won't fly.
            I can give you a link to a relevant article that describes how Soviet cosmonauts felt after such long (more than seven days) orbital flights in Soyuz spacecraft.

            Just like the Americans—badly, but they could walk and move. Like Leonov and Kubasov after the landing of Soyuz-19. There are photos of the cosmonauts walking and signing their names on the descent module immediately after landing. Cosmonauts aren't trained for survival for nothing; if the landing is abnormal, in an unknown location, they're not that helpless. And the fact that most of the photos are of them sitting or lying down is because of medical requirements; they need to take readings immediately after the flight, and the stresses on the ground distort them.
            in the Soyuz spacecraft, which were created with the idea of ​​flying around the Moon

            This is partially true. The 7K-LOK spacecraft was designed to fly around the Moon. When the lunar project failed, the remaining spacecraft was converted into the orbital Soyuz 7K-OK. But it also performed poorly, and Komarov died during descent from orbit. After that, it was redesigned again as the orbital Soyuz 7K-T spacecraft for transporting crews to orbital stations. So this isn't the spacecraft designed for lunar missions; they simply used its developments.
            1. -1
              April 12 2026 10: 58
              Soyuz spacecraft were developed for the Soviet lunar program. To understand the characteristics of the human body and the effects of long-duration interplanetary flights, experiments were conducted on long-duration orbital flights (seven days or more), simulating a lunar voyage in the cramped conditions of a lunar lander. After landing on these flights, the cosmonauts were "out of sorts": they were carried out of the lunar capsule by human hands, and some received resuscitation.

              How long was Soyuz-19 in orbit? We won't go into unnecessary details about that flight. There's a whole book on the subject. At that time, Americans had no idea about the post-flight problems cosmonauts endured... And even then, politicians agreed that our cosmonauts wouldn't show the public any difference in their post-flight condition...
              1. +1
                April 12 2026 11: 54
                The Soyuz spacecraft were created for the USSR's lunar program.

                The lunar 7K-LOK and the orbital Soyuz 7K-T are different spacecraft. However, the 7K-T utilized the 7K-LOK's developments.
                How long was Soyuz-19 in orbit?

                6 days.
                And even then, politicians agreed that our cosmonauts would not show the difference in their post-flight state to the general public...

                Yeah. Before that, they were lying there disabled, and then suddenly they were jumping around the spacecraft. Ask how cosmonaut Volk piloted an airplane and a helicopter immediately after landing.
                1. -1
                  April 12 2026 14: 56
                  Internet links verified as of 01/15/21.
                  "Cosmonauts - on stretchers,
                  "Astronauts" - to the rally!
                  http://www.manonmoon.ru/articles/st202.htm
                  2.http://www.npp-zvezda.ru/ru/node/105

                  It's too difficult to decipher the fake report from the Soyuz-19 landing site here, so for now, here's what I'll do.
                  1. +1
                    April 12 2026 22: 18
                    It's too difficult to decipher the fake report from the Soyuz-19 landing site here, so for now, here's what I'll do.

                    There's nothing to analyze there, just a bunch of fantasies. The Izvestia publication date is circled in red for a reason.
                    1. -1
                      April 12 2026 23: 13
                      Have you tried opening that link? It doesn't contain what I wanted to show... but there are other observations and oddities on the topic of EPAS, which you call "a collection of fantasies." Well, everyone sees what they want to see—that's the law of brain function. I don't expect you to read the book linked to.
                2. -1
                  April 12 2026 15: 05
                  Link to the book (full text) analysis of the EPAS program: https://coollib.cc/b/759577/read
                3. -1
                  April 12 2026 15: 42
                  Cosmonaut Volk piloted the plane and helicopter immediately after landing
                  Your example is out of the ordinary, which might be of interest in our case (the flight in the cramped conditions of the Soyuz lunar spacecraft). Volk spent almost the entire duration of that flight aboard the Salyut 7 station, arriving at the station in Soyuz TM-12, and returning with the station's crew replacement in Soyuz TM-11. Let's assume you didn't know this or forgot to note it. It happens. And there is a difference.
                  1. +1
                    April 12 2026 22: 15
                    the Soyuz lunar spacecraft's cramped flight

                    No Soyuz lunar spacecraft was ever built or used.
                    Volk spent almost the entire flight aboard the Salyut 7 station.

                    There is no weightlessness there?
                    But there is a difference.

                    The same weightlessness.
                    Let's assume that you didn't know this or forgot to note it.

                    What's there to celebrate? That the station experiences the same weightlessness as the spaceship? Don't you know the main reason for cosmonauts' problems upon reentry?
                    1. -1
                      April 12 2026 22: 53
                      Weightlessness is the same—no doubt about it. Are you kidding? At the station, its inhabitants spend a significant portion of their time there (if not the lion's share) on exercise machines and various devices for, let's say, physiotherapy, so that they can return to Earth's familiar gravity conditions with less consequences.

                      On Soyuz-9 (before the first Salyut orbital station was assembled in orbit), they risked experimenting with long-term cosmonaut stays in the conditions of a spacecraft's autonomous orbital flight. The flight lasted 17 days. After landing, both cosmonauts were pulled from the capsule with great difficulty. Sevastyanov somehow managed to communicate and assist rescuers, but Nikolaev was completely exhausted—once in the helicopter, he required resuscitation procedures to restart his heart. The cosmonauts' subsequent rehabilitation took two weeks.

                      With the introduction of special simulators and physical training systems at orbital stations, this problem of post-flight health risks for astronauts has been largely eliminated.

                      The Soyuz spacecraft was designed from the very beginning as a lunar spacecraft. Subsequent modifications operate in Earth orbit, and you don't need to correct me every time. That's a fact. Just like the well-known Zond series lunar bio-vehicles were also early versions of Soyuz spacecraft, but without orbital compartments. And, as far as I remember, the first series of Soyuz spacecraft participated in unmanned lunar flybys...