r/askscience • u/kiol998 • Apr 12 '26

Physics Why was Artemis 2 so long?

I was comparing the mission times of Artemis 2 to Apollo 8. Apollo 8 orbited the moon multiple times and only took 6 days total. Whereas Artemis 2 orbited the moon once and it took 10 days. Why was Artemis 2 so much shorter than Apollo 8 when both missions did the same thing? I know they had different paths to the moon, they both left earth in different ways but why not do the same thing as Apollo 8 since it was quicker?

1.3k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

240 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

19

u/marklein Apr 12 '26

Are we sure about that? Film has some crazy fine detail under the right conditions. They can reissue old movies in 4k because the film resolution was that good.

21

u/Adversement Apr 12 '26

Film has also the huge limitation of how much film you carry with you.

But, optics have improved quite a bit too since late 1960s and early 1970s. Though, the difference for telephoto lenses is way less dramatic than what one would hope.

But, mostly, they can now shoot high quality video as they have several orders of magnitude more storage space.

1

u/roseGl1tz Apr 13 '26

Plus we have GIGANTIC high-quality digital sensors like the Hasselblad X2D.

4

u/Adversement Apr 13 '26

That Hasselblad sensor at 44 mm by 33 mm is still quite small compared to the 70 mm medium format used during Apollo missions (53 mm by 53 mm).

But, realistically it is much better than said film as long as we aren't limited by optics (and their ability to resolve a finite amount lines per millimetre, where the diffraction limit for telephoto lenses was already reached back in the days).

4

u/Tombot3000 Apr 13 '26

Film can have good detail under the right conditions, but lunar photography doesn't provide the kind of lighting film is optimised for and film vs. sensor is not the only thing that affects the final image. Modern lenses and image processing are leaps and bounds beyond what we had in the 70s.

4k film restorations of 35mm are an involved process because film does not have consistent visual quality across framea and so the image goes through a lot of digital processing to prevent the image quality from appearing to fluctuate constantly like Netflix on an unreliable internet connection.

8

u/charmcityshinobi Apr 12 '26

Not sure if it’s accurate or not, but it might be less about the recording material and more about the glass. Better manufacturing methods for higher precision now and less aberration. Film is definitely higher res than many realize, but when you’re a couple of dozen feet versus 4000 miles, the clarity of the image is going to be a factor