为什么中国的月球探测器嫦娥六号花了20天才从月球背面返回地球，而几十年前的阿波罗11号只用了5天？
正文翻译
Profile photo for Aya Shawn
Aya Shawn
Different orbits!
Apollo spacecraft:
There are astronauts on board, and the spacecraft must run a life support system.
The Apollo spacecraft has limited electricity, oxygen, food, and water, which cannot withstand long-term consumption, and must complete the mission in the shortest time.
They chose a radical flight route:
They used the most powerful and expensive super rocket in human history, Saturn V
The Apollo spacecraft hardly used the gravitational slingshot effect, and was even reluctant to circle the earth one more time. Instead, it accelerated at full speed. When returning to the earth, they set off from the lunar orbit and directly entered the Earth-Moon transfer orbit. When the spacecraft was captured by the earth, it directly slowed down and landed.
Advantages: simple and direct, saving time
Disadvantages: requires super rockets and large engines, a lot of fuel, high flight control risks, and low safety redundancy.
不同的轨道！
阿波罗飞船：
飞船上有宇航员，并且必须运行生命维持系统。
阿波罗飞船的电力、氧气、食物、水都有限，经不起长期消耗，而且必须在最短的时间内完成任务。
他们选择了一条激进的飞行路线：
他们使用了人类历史上最强大、最昂贵的超级火箭——土星五号
阿波罗飞船几乎没用引力弹弓效应，甚至不愿意再绕地球一圈，而是全速加速，返回地球时从月球轨道出发，直接进入地月转移轨道，当飞船被地球捕获时，直接减速降落。
优点：简单直接，节省时间
缺点：需要超级火箭和大型发动机，需要大量燃料，飞行控制风险高，安全冗余度低。
Aya Shawn
Different orbits!
Apollo spacecraft:
There are astronauts on board, and the spacecraft must run a life support system.
The Apollo spacecraft has limited electricity, oxygen, food, and water, which cannot withstand long-term consumption, and must complete the mission in the shortest time.
They chose a radical flight route:
They used the most powerful and expensive super rocket in human history, Saturn V
The Apollo spacecraft hardly used the gravitational slingshot effect, and was even reluctant to circle the earth one more time. Instead, it accelerated at full speed. When returning to the earth, they set off from the lunar orbit and directly entered the Earth-Moon transfer orbit. When the spacecraft was captured by the earth, it directly slowed down and landed.
Advantages: simple and direct, saving time
Disadvantages: requires super rockets and large engines, a lot of fuel, high flight control risks, and low safety redundancy.
不同的轨道！
阿波罗飞船：
飞船上有宇航员，并且必须运行生命维持系统。
阿波罗飞船的电力、氧气、食物、水都有限，经不起长期消耗，而且必须在最短的时间内完成任务。
他们选择了一条激进的飞行路线：
他们使用了人类历史上最强大、最昂贵的超级火箭——土星五号
阿波罗飞船几乎没用引力弹弓效应，甚至不愿意再绕地球一圈，而是全速加速，返回地球时从月球轨道出发，直接进入地月转移轨道，当飞船被地球捕获时，直接减速降落。
优点：简单直接，节省时间
缺点：需要超级火箭和大型发动机，需要大量燃料，飞行控制风险高，安全冗余度低。
Chang'e probe:
It is an unmanned spacecraft that does not require any life support system. Solar panels provide it with almost unlimited endurance. It has plenty of time to slowly complete the mission.
They chose an economical and conservative flight route:
They did not even use the full version of the CZ5 rocket, but only a small thrust version to make full use of the gravitational slingshot effect. Whether going to the moon or returning to the earth, they first fly around the planet, using the slingshot effect to accelerate, save fuel to the greatest extent, and adjust the orbit carefully and gradually.
When returning to the earth's orbit, they also slow down four times and gradually adjust the orbital height, repeatedly orbiting the earth, and finally cut into the earth's orbit at a very small angle and return.
Advantages: low cost, no need for particularly large rockets and engines, and no need to consume too much fuel. The orbit can be adjusted multiple times, with low control risk and high safety redundancy.
Disadvantages: slow speed
嫦娥探测器：
它是一艘无人航天器，不需要任何生命支持系统，太阳能电池板为它提供了几乎无限的续航能力，它有充足的时间慢慢完成任务。
他们选择了一条经济保守的飞行路线：
他们甚至没有使用全尺寸版的长征5火箭，只使用了小推力版本，充分利用引力弹弓效应。无论是前往月球还是返回地球，都先绕行星飞行，利用引力效应加速，最大程度节省燃料，并小心谨慎地逐步调整轨道。
在返回地球轨道时，它们也经过四次减速并逐步调整轨道高度，反复绕地球运行，最后以很小的角度切入地球轨道返回。
优点：成本低，不需要特别大的火箭和发动机，也不需要消耗太多燃料。可多次调整轨道，操控风险低，安全冗余度高。
缺点：速度慢
It is an unmanned spacecraft that does not require any life support system. Solar panels provide it with almost unlimited endurance. It has plenty of time to slowly complete the mission.
They chose an economical and conservative flight route:
They did not even use the full version of the CZ5 rocket, but only a small thrust version to make full use of the gravitational slingshot effect. Whether going to the moon or returning to the earth, they first fly around the planet, using the slingshot effect to accelerate, save fuel to the greatest extent, and adjust the orbit carefully and gradually.
When returning to the earth's orbit, they also slow down four times and gradually adjust the orbital height, repeatedly orbiting the earth, and finally cut into the earth's orbit at a very small angle and return.
Advantages: low cost, no need for particularly large rockets and engines, and no need to consume too much fuel. The orbit can be adjusted multiple times, with low control risk and high safety redundancy.
Disadvantages: slow speed
嫦娥探测器：
它是一艘无人航天器，不需要任何生命支持系统，太阳能电池板为它提供了几乎无限的续航能力，它有充足的时间慢慢完成任务。
他们选择了一条经济保守的飞行路线：
他们甚至没有使用全尺寸版的长征5火箭，只使用了小推力版本，充分利用引力弹弓效应。无论是前往月球还是返回地球，都先绕行星飞行，利用引力效应加速，最大程度节省燃料，并小心谨慎地逐步调整轨道。
在返回地球轨道时，它们也经过四次减速并逐步调整轨道高度，反复绕地球运行，最后以很小的角度切入地球轨道返回。
优点：成本低，不需要特别大的火箭和发动机，也不需要消耗太多燃料。可多次调整轨道，操控风险低，安全冗余度高。
缺点：速度慢
The rockets used in the two missions have huge differences in size and cost
The Apollo program took place in the 1970s, when the United States and the Soviet unx engaged in a fierce space race. Various plans spared no expense and cost more than $25 billion (equivalent to more than $180 billion today)
China's moon landing plan took place in recent years. Space plans of various countries are very concerned about reducing costs. China's lunar exploration plan has a budget of $200 million.
Different mission demands determine that they choose different plans.
两次任务使用的火箭在尺寸和成本上存在巨大差异
阿波罗计划发生在 20 世纪 70年代，当时美国和苏联展开了激烈的太空竞赛。各项计划不惜重金，耗资超过250亿美元（相当于今天的 1800 多亿美元）
中国的登月计划是近几年的事情，各国的航天计划都非常注重降低成本，中国的探月计划预算2亿美元。
不同的任务需求决定了他们选择不同的方案。
The Apollo program took place in the 1970s, when the United States and the Soviet unx engaged in a fierce space race. Various plans spared no expense and cost more than $25 billion (equivalent to more than $180 billion today)
China's moon landing plan took place in recent years. Space plans of various countries are very concerned about reducing costs. China's lunar exploration plan has a budget of $200 million.
Different mission demands determine that they choose different plans.
两次任务使用的火箭在尺寸和成本上存在巨大差异
阿波罗计划发生在 20 世纪 70年代，当时美国和苏联展开了激烈的太空竞赛。各项计划不惜重金，耗资超过250亿美元（相当于今天的 1800 多亿美元）
中国的登月计划是近几年的事情，各国的航天计划都非常注重降低成本，中国的探月计划预算2亿美元。
不同的任务需求决定了他们选择不同的方案。
评论翻译
@Gregory Scott
$25 billion in 1970 would be about $200 billion today.
1970年的250亿美元相当于今天的2000亿美元。
$25 billion in 1970 would be about $200 billion today.
1970年的250亿美元相当于今天的2000亿美元。
@Mcd
For comparison, the US military aid for Ukraine so far till date is 175 billion US dollars
作为对比，美国到目前为止对乌克兰的军事援助是1750亿美元。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
For comparison, the US military aid for Ukraine so far till date is 175 billion US dollars
作为对比，美国到目前为止对乌克兰的军事援助是1750亿美元。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@Peng Wang
You are very knowledgeable, but this does not apply to Chang'e 6, which also used a fast orbit, left lunar orbit on June 21 and landed on Earth on June 25.
你非常有知识，但这不适用于嫦娥六号，它也使用了快速轨道，于6月21日离开月球轨道，并于6月25日降落在地球上。
You are very knowledgeable, but this does not apply to Chang'e 6, which also used a fast orbit, left lunar orbit on June 21 and landed on Earth on June 25.
你非常有知识，但这不适用于嫦娥六号，它也使用了快速轨道，于6月21日离开月球轨道，并于6月25日降落在地球上。
@Richard Teo
Thank you for the clarification …
感谢你的澄清……
Thank you for the clarification …
感谢你的澄清……
@Enixray
Hollywood is located in the United States.
好莱坞位于美国境内。
Hollywood is located in the United States.
好莱坞位于美国境内。
@Tigar
One crucial matter must be answered before talking about the time or days of returning from Moon, which is whether anyone has been landed on Moon decades ago.
在讨论从月球返回的时间或天数之前，必须回答一个关键问题，那就是几十年前是否有人登上过月球。
One crucial matter must be answered before talking about the time or days of returning from Moon, which is whether anyone has been landed on Moon decades ago.
在讨论从月球返回的时间或天数之前，必须回答一个关键问题，那就是几十年前是否有人登上过月球。
@Walt Day
Sigh…
叹气……
Sigh…
叹气……
@Jack
No, the moon landings very clearly happened. On the other hand, some people struggle with research, literacy, or mental health.
Their learning or mental issues have nothing to do with 12 people visiting the moon between 1969–72.
不，月球着陆非常明确地发生了。另一方面，有些人在研究、读写能力或心理健康方面的问题。
他们的学习或心理问题与1969年至1972年间12人登上月球无关。
No, the moon landings very clearly happened. On the other hand, some people struggle with research, literacy, or mental health.
Their learning or mental issues have nothing to do with 12 people visiting the moon between 1969–72.
不，月球着陆非常明确地发生了。另一方面，有些人在研究、读写能力或心理健康方面的问题。
他们的学习或心理问题与1969年至1972年间12人登上月球无关。
@Tigar
As seen from the footage of the first landing on the Moon footage of the moon landing I cannot see any star on the sky of the Moon. Since there is no atmosphere nor cloud, the stars can be soon without difficulty. Besides, the angle of the shadow for certain obxts were never changed, thus, controversially speaking, the footage was likely made at movie studio. On top of the aforesaid, astronauts of the missions dared not to swear they have been landed on the Moon.
从第一次登月的视频来看，我在月球的天空中看不到任何星星。由于没有大气层和云层，星星应该很容易看到。此外，某些物体的阴影角度从未改变，因此，有争议地说，这段视频可能是在电影工作室制作的。除此之外，任务中的宇航员不敢发誓他们登上了月球。
As seen from the footage of the first landing on the Moon footage of the moon landing I cannot see any star on the sky of the Moon. Since there is no atmosphere nor cloud, the stars can be soon without difficulty. Besides, the angle of the shadow for certain obxts were never changed, thus, controversially speaking, the footage was likely made at movie studio. On top of the aforesaid, astronauts of the missions dared not to swear they have been landed on the Moon.
从第一次登月的视频来看，我在月球的天空中看不到任何星星。由于没有大气层和云层，星星应该很容易看到。此外，某些物体的阴影角度从未改变，因此，有争议地说，这段视频可能是在电影工作室制作的。除此之外，任务中的宇航员不敢发誓他们登上了月球。
@G. H.
If the KGB believed the USA landed men on the moon then the USA landed men on the moon.
The KGB did not have any files saying it did not happen.
如果克格勃相信美国登上了月球，那么美国确实登上了月球。
克格勃没有任何文件说这件事没有发生。
If the KGB believed the USA landed men on the moon then the USA landed men on the moon.
The KGB did not have any files saying it did not happen.
如果克格勃相信美国登上了月球，那么美国确实登上了月球。
克格勃没有任何文件说这件事没有发生。
@Jack
I worked on sets for 20 years. I shot specialty photography for years. I produced television shows for 14 years. Please believe me, you don’t have a single clue what you’re talking about. That’s not “controversial speaking,” just solid fact.
A starfield is 23 stops dimmer than the sunlit lunar surface. The film used on the Apollo program had a dynamic range of 6 stops. The video camera probably had less dynamic range. A modern cinema camera has a dynamic range of 15 stops.
When you photograph the moon, you have to choose if you want a proper exposure of the sunlit lunar surface without stars, or a photo with stars in it, and an overexposed sunlit lunar surface.
“the angle of the shadow for certain obxts were never changed”
Yeah, the Apollo 11 EVA lasted 2.5 hours. A single daylight period on the moon is 14 earth days long. I’m not sure why you’d expect the shadows to change over 0.5% of a day. The shadows certainly change over the course of the J missions photography, but they stayed up to 1/5th of a lunar day.
“astronauts of the missions dared not to swear they have been landed on the Moon”
Alan Bean, Eugene Cernan, and Edgar Mitchell all swore on a bible that they landed on the moon. Do you admit that the moon landings were real based on that?
Bart Sibrel is a liar. If you’d bothered to watch raw video of the Apollo missions, you’d be able to sort that out really quickly.
You should be smart enough to not be taken in by a dishonest liar.
我在片场工作了20年。我拍摄了多年的特种摄影。我制作了14年的电视节目。请相信我，你完全不知道自己在说什么。这不是“有争议的言论”，只是确凿的事实。
星空比阳光照射的月球表面暗23挡。阿波罗计划使用的胶片动态范围为6挡。视频摄像机的动态范围可能更小。现代电影摄像机的动态范围为15挡。
当你拍摄月球时，你必须选择是要正确曝光的阳光照射的月球表面没有星星，还是拍摄有星星的照片和曝光过度的阳光照射的月球表面。
“某些物体的阴影角度从未改变”
是的，阿波罗11号的舱外活动持续了2.5小时。月球上的单个白昼期为14个地球日。我不确定你为什么会期望阴影在一天的0.5％时间内发生变化。阴影在J任务的摄影过程中肯定会发生变化，但它们会持续到月球日的1/5。
“任务中的宇航员不敢发誓他们登上了月球”
艾伦·比恩、尤金·塞尔南和埃德加·米切尔都在圣经上发誓他们登上了月球。你会承认月球着陆是真实的吗？
巴特·西布雷尔是个骗子。如果你看过阿波罗任务的原始视频，你会很快弄清楚这一点。
你应该足够聪明，不要被不诚实的骗子骗了。
I worked on sets for 20 years. I shot specialty photography for years. I produced television shows for 14 years. Please believe me, you don’t have a single clue what you’re talking about. That’s not “controversial speaking,” just solid fact.
A starfield is 23 stops dimmer than the sunlit lunar surface. The film used on the Apollo program had a dynamic range of 6 stops. The video camera probably had less dynamic range. A modern cinema camera has a dynamic range of 15 stops.
When you photograph the moon, you have to choose if you want a proper exposure of the sunlit lunar surface without stars, or a photo with stars in it, and an overexposed sunlit lunar surface.
“the angle of the shadow for certain obxts were never changed”
Yeah, the Apollo 11 EVA lasted 2.5 hours. A single daylight period on the moon is 14 earth days long. I’m not sure why you’d expect the shadows to change over 0.5% of a day. The shadows certainly change over the course of the J missions photography, but they stayed up to 1/5th of a lunar day.
“astronauts of the missions dared not to swear they have been landed on the Moon”
Alan Bean, Eugene Cernan, and Edgar Mitchell all swore on a bible that they landed on the moon. Do you admit that the moon landings were real based on that?
Bart Sibrel is a liar. If you’d bothered to watch raw video of the Apollo missions, you’d be able to sort that out really quickly.
You should be smart enough to not be taken in by a dishonest liar.
我在片场工作了20年。我拍摄了多年的特种摄影。我制作了14年的电视节目。请相信我，你完全不知道自己在说什么。这不是“有争议的言论”，只是确凿的事实。
星空比阳光照射的月球表面暗23挡。阿波罗计划使用的胶片动态范围为6挡。视频摄像机的动态范围可能更小。现代电影摄像机的动态范围为15挡。
当你拍摄月球时，你必须选择是要正确曝光的阳光照射的月球表面没有星星，还是拍摄有星星的照片和曝光过度的阳光照射的月球表面。
“某些物体的阴影角度从未改变”
是的，阿波罗11号的舱外活动持续了2.5小时。月球上的单个白昼期为14个地球日。我不确定你为什么会期望阴影在一天的0.5％时间内发生变化。阴影在J任务的摄影过程中肯定会发生变化，但它们会持续到月球日的1/5。
“任务中的宇航员不敢发誓他们登上了月球”
艾伦·比恩、尤金·塞尔南和埃德加·米切尔都在圣经上发誓他们登上了月球。你会承认月球着陆是真实的吗？
巴特·西布雷尔是个骗子。如果你看过阿波罗任务的原始视频，你会很快弄清楚这一点。
你应该足够聪明，不要被不诚实的骗子骗了。
@Joe Huang
I applaud you for explaining precisely why Tigar’s “evidence” against the moon landing(s) are all faulty. Another such “evidence” that I’ve seen online is why the US flag planted by the astronauts seems to wave in the wind when the Moon has no atmosphere? Well, this was debunked by Mythbusters where they shook a flag in a vacuum chamber; the absence of air resistance caused the flag to flutter as if there were a breeze.
我为你精确解释了Tigar反对月球着陆的“证据”为什么都是错误的而喝彩。我在网上看到的另一个这样的“证据”是，为什么宇航员插在月球上的美国国旗在月球没有大气层的情况下似乎在风中飘扬？好吧，神话破除者通过在真空室中摇动国旗揭穿了这一点；空气阻力的缺失导致国旗像有微风一样飘动。
I applaud you for explaining precisely why Tigar’s “evidence” against the moon landing(s) are all faulty. Another such “evidence” that I’ve seen online is why the US flag planted by the astronauts seems to wave in the wind when the Moon has no atmosphere? Well, this was debunked by Mythbusters where they shook a flag in a vacuum chamber; the absence of air resistance caused the flag to flutter as if there were a breeze.
我为你精确解释了Tigar反对月球着陆的“证据”为什么都是错误的而喝彩。我在网上看到的另一个这样的“证据”是，为什么宇航员插在月球上的美国国旗在月球没有大气层的情况下似乎在风中飘扬？好吧，神话破除者通过在真空室中摇动国旗揭穿了这一点；空气阻力的缺失导致国旗像有微风一样飘动。
@Jon L
Americans want to Return to the Moon to prove that they did not lie to the World, that they are still the winner of the Space Race. Soon we shall know the Truth. Elon Musk would probably be the best person to work with. But Musk is quite honest about technology. He's open and straight talking
美国人想要重返月球，以证明他们没有欺骗世界，他们仍然是太空竞赛的赢家。我们很快就会知道真相。埃隆·马斯克可能是最适合合作的人。但马斯克对技术非常诚实。他是个直言不讳的人。
Americans want to Return to the Moon to prove that they did not lie to the World, that they are still the winner of the Space Race. Soon we shall know the Truth. Elon Musk would probably be the best person to work with. But Musk is quite honest about technology. He's open and straight talking
美国人想要重返月球，以证明他们没有欺骗世界，他们仍然是太空竞赛的赢家。我们很快就会知道真相。埃隆·马斯克可能是最适合合作的人。但马斯克对技术非常诚实。他是个直言不讳的人。
@Scott Hix
Small correction. The multiple laps around the earth are not gravitational Slingshots. These are multiple perigee burns to raise the apogee to the moon with a small engine burning only when it is most effective.
slingshot effect is only applicable with 2 gravitational bodies. if the moon was used as your second body then it would not be there on the next orbit.
小小的更正。围绕地球的多圈并不是重力弹弓。这是通过多次近地点燃烧以将远地点提升到月球上，使用小型发动机仅在最有效时燃烧。
弹弓效应仅适用于两个引力体。如果月球被用作你的第二个引力体，那么它在下一个轨道上就不会在那里。
Small correction. The multiple laps around the earth are not gravitational Slingshots. These are multiple perigee burns to raise the apogee to the moon with a small engine burning only when it is most effective.
slingshot effect is only applicable with 2 gravitational bodies. if the moon was used as your second body then it would not be there on the next orbit.
小小的更正。围绕地球的多圈并不是重力弹弓。这是通过多次近地点燃烧以将远地点提升到月球上，使用小型发动机仅在最有效时燃烧。
弹弓效应仅适用于两个引力体。如果月球被用作你的第二个引力体，那么它在下一个轨道上就不会在那里。
@Changyu
Any method that uses the gravity of a celestial body to accelerate or decelerate is called a gravitational slingshot. This does not require two gravitational bodies.
任何利用天体引力加速或减速的做法都叫做引力弹弓，这不需要2个引力体
Any method that uses the gravity of a celestial body to accelerate or decelerate is called a gravitational slingshot. This does not require two gravitational bodies.
任何利用天体引力加速或减速的做法都叫做引力弹弓，这不需要2个引力体
@Terry Wong
Great Lesson on Aeronautics and Space flight, thank you.
关于航空和太空飞行的伟大课程，谢谢你。
Great Lesson on Aeronautics and Space flight, thank you.
关于航空和太空飞行的伟大课程，谢谢你。
@Al Kohol
The Apollo landings are all faked, filmed in a Hollywood studio.
阿波罗登月都是假的，在好莱坞工作室拍摄的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The Apollo landings are all faked, filmed in a Hollywood studio.
阿波罗登月都是假的，在好莱坞工作室拍摄的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@Kim E Ellingsen
Any rocket to put stuff on the moon and back will be of the big ass type. But not as big, I grant that.
任何把东西送到月球并带回来的火箭都会是大型火箭。但不会那么大，我承认这一点。
Any rocket to put stuff on the moon and back will be of the big ass type. But not as big, I grant that.
任何把东西送到月球并带回来的火箭都会是大型火箭。但不会那么大，我承认这一点。
@Joshua Engel
Sheesh. It’s a baby compared to a Saturn V. It looks like you could power it off a couple of class E engines.
天呐。相比土星五号，它只是个小家伙。看起来你可以用几台E级发动机来驱动它。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Sheesh. It’s a baby compared to a Saturn V. It looks like you could power it off a couple of class E engines.
天呐。相比土星五号，它只是个小家伙。看起来你可以用几台E级发动机来驱动它。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@Kim E Ellingsen
Speaking of, the Lego Ideas set was a very fun build.
说到这个，乐高创意套装是一个非常有趣的拼装。
Speaking of, the Lego Ideas set was a very fun build.
说到这个，乐高创意套装是一个非常有趣的拼装。
@Krister Sundelin
I haven’t decided if I want the Lego Icons Artemis SLS.
我还没决定是否要买乐高Icons系列的阿耳忒弥斯SLS。
I haven’t decided if I want the Lego Icons Artemis SLS.
我还没决定是否要买乐高Icons系列的阿耳忒弥斯SLS。
@Kim E Ellingsen
I’ve got the Apollo. That’ll do for spacecraft.
我已经有了阿波罗。这就够了。
I’ve got the Apollo. That’ll do for spacecraft.
我已经有了阿波罗。这就够了。
@Sloborn Rider
Saturn V: 110m x 10m
Long March 5: 63m x 5
土星五号：110米x10米
长征五号：63米x5米
Saturn V: 110m x 10m
Long March 5: 63m x 5
土星五号：110米x10米
长征五号：63米x5米
@Stan Dalone
That’s why—as awesome as manned space travel is—unmanned probes are better for most of it.
这就是为什么尽管载人太空旅行很棒，但大部分任务还是无人探测器更好。
That’s why—as awesome as manned space travel is—unmanned probes are better for most of it.
这就是为什么尽管载人太空旅行很棒，但大部分任务还是无人探测器更好。
@Steven Harbron
I remember visiting Cape Canaveral many years ago, walking around a Saturn V rocket. Those thing were huge and nearly all of it was fuel.
我记得很多年前参观卡纳维拉尔角，绕着一枚土星五号火箭走。那些东西非常巨大，几乎全都是燃料。
I remember visiting Cape Canaveral many years ago, walking around a Saturn V rocket. Those thing were huge and nearly all of it was fuel.
我记得很多年前参观卡纳维拉尔角，绕着一枚土星五号火箭走。那些东西非常巨大，几乎全都是燃料。
@Jeff Gerckens
“medium honking rocket“ snicker.
“中型火箭”笑声。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
“medium honking rocket“ snicker.
“中型火箭”笑声。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@Geneva White
Lol luv it
哈哈 喜欢它
Lol luv it
哈哈 喜欢它
@Ira J Perlow
There were actually 9 Manned missions to the moon, even if they didn’t land. Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, all requiring pretty much the same requirements as landing on the moon.
实际上有9次载人登月任务，即使它们没有着陆。阿波罗8号、10号、11号、12号、13号、14号、15号、16号和17号，这些任务的要求几乎和登月一样。
There were actually 9 Manned missions to the moon, even if they didn’t land. Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, all requiring pretty much the same requirements as landing on the moon.
实际上有9次载人登月任务，即使它们没有着陆。阿波罗8号、10号、11号、12号、13号、14号、15号、16号和17号，这些任务的要求几乎和登月一样。
@Krister Sundelin
Simply put, Chang’e wasn’t in a hurry, while the Apollo missions (there were six of them) were. Oh, and it took Apollo 11 three days to get home, not five.
So what’s the difference? Well, the guys inside.
Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins very much wanted to come home alive, and since there was a limited supply of oxygen, CO2 scrubber canister, water and food, they wanted to get home before it ran out. That means that you need fuel for blasting people from the Moon to the Earth as quickly as possible.
So you have to bring all that fuel to the Moon, and that means that you need a big honking rocket to lift all that fuel – as well as the astronauts and all their food, oxygen, CO2 scrubber canisters etc. But that is okay, if you can pay for it – which they could since it was a national prestige project to get to the moon before that decade is out and to beat the Soviets.
So they built a big honking rocket with the fuel to send the entire mission to the Moon and back in a week, with a day on the surface for planting flags and picking up rocks and dirt and stuff.
Chang’e has no such restrictions. It can take its time and make the journey back home in a more economic and leisurely pace, since nobody will die of oxygen depravasion, malnourishment or boredom.
That also means that you don’t have to put as much fuel onboard the return craft, which means that you don’t have to lift as much fuel to the Moon. And since it doesn’t have any astronauts, you don’t need space for them plus food, oxygen, water, scrubbers etc. You can also make the journey to the Moon much slower too, so you need less fuel to go to the Moon.
In short, since you don’t stuff crew in Chang’e, you can go slow and light. So you don’t need an expensive big honking rocket, but can make do with a less expensive medium honking rocket.
简单来说，嫦娥并不着急，而阿波罗任务（一共有六次）却着急。哦，阿波罗11号花了三天时间才回到地球，而不是五天。
那么有什么区别呢？嗯，就是里面的人。
阿姆斯特朗、奥尔德林和柯林斯非常想活着回家，而且由于氧气、二氧化碳净化罐、水和食物供应有限，他们想在耗尽之前回家。这意味着你需要燃料，以便尽快将人们从月球送回地球。
所以你必须把所有燃料带到月球，这意味着你需要一枚巨大的火箭来运载所有燃料——以及宇航员和他们所有的食物、氧气、二氧化碳洗涤罐等。但如果你能支付得起，那就没问题——他们可以支付得起，因为这是一项国家声望项目，目的是在十年内登陆月球并击败苏联。
因此，他们建造了一枚装满燃料的巨型火箭，在一周内完成整个往返月球的任务，并在月球表面停留一天，插上旗帜，捡起岩石、泥土和其他东西。
嫦娥没有这些限制。它可以慢慢地、以更经济、更悠闲的步调踏上回家的旅程，因为没有人会因缺氧、营养不良或无聊而死亡。
这也意味着你不必在返回飞船上装那么多燃料，也就是说你不必将那么多燃料运送到月球。而且由于飞船上没有宇航员，你不需要为他们提供空间，也不需要食物、氧气、水、洗涤器等。你也可以让前往月球的旅程慢得多，这样你前往月球所需的燃料就更少了。
简而言之，既然你不用在嫦娥上塞满宇航员，你就可以缓慢而轻便地飞行。所以你不需要昂贵的大型火箭，而可以用较便宜的中型火箭来凑合。
Simply put, Chang’e wasn’t in a hurry, while the Apollo missions (there were six of them) were. Oh, and it took Apollo 11 three days to get home, not five.
So what’s the difference? Well, the guys inside.
Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins very much wanted to come home alive, and since there was a limited supply of oxygen, CO2 scrubber canister, water and food, they wanted to get home before it ran out. That means that you need fuel for blasting people from the Moon to the Earth as quickly as possible.
So you have to bring all that fuel to the Moon, and that means that you need a big honking rocket to lift all that fuel – as well as the astronauts and all their food, oxygen, CO2 scrubber canisters etc. But that is okay, if you can pay for it – which they could since it was a national prestige project to get to the moon before that decade is out and to beat the Soviets.
So they built a big honking rocket with the fuel to send the entire mission to the Moon and back in a week, with a day on the surface for planting flags and picking up rocks and dirt and stuff.
Chang’e has no such restrictions. It can take its time and make the journey back home in a more economic and leisurely pace, since nobody will die of oxygen depravasion, malnourishment or boredom.
That also means that you don’t have to put as much fuel onboard the return craft, which means that you don’t have to lift as much fuel to the Moon. And since it doesn’t have any astronauts, you don’t need space for them plus food, oxygen, water, scrubbers etc. You can also make the journey to the Moon much slower too, so you need less fuel to go to the Moon.
In short, since you don’t stuff crew in Chang’e, you can go slow and light. So you don’t need an expensive big honking rocket, but can make do with a less expensive medium honking rocket.
简单来说，嫦娥并不着急，而阿波罗任务（一共有六次）却着急。哦，阿波罗11号花了三天时间才回到地球，而不是五天。
那么有什么区别呢？嗯，就是里面的人。
阿姆斯特朗、奥尔德林和柯林斯非常想活着回家，而且由于氧气、二氧化碳净化罐、水和食物供应有限，他们想在耗尽之前回家。这意味着你需要燃料，以便尽快将人们从月球送回地球。
所以你必须把所有燃料带到月球，这意味着你需要一枚巨大的火箭来运载所有燃料——以及宇航员和他们所有的食物、氧气、二氧化碳洗涤罐等。但如果你能支付得起，那就没问题——他们可以支付得起，因为这是一项国家声望项目，目的是在十年内登陆月球并击败苏联。
因此，他们建造了一枚装满燃料的巨型火箭，在一周内完成整个往返月球的任务，并在月球表面停留一天，插上旗帜，捡起岩石、泥土和其他东西。
嫦娥没有这些限制。它可以慢慢地、以更经济、更悠闲的步调踏上回家的旅程，因为没有人会因缺氧、营养不良或无聊而死亡。
这也意味着你不必在返回飞船上装那么多燃料，也就是说你不必将那么多燃料运送到月球。而且由于飞船上没有宇航员，你不需要为他们提供空间，也不需要食物、氧气、水、洗涤器等。你也可以让前往月球的旅程慢得多，这样你前往月球所需的燃料就更少了。
简而言之，既然你不用在嫦娥上塞满宇航员，你就可以缓慢而轻便地飞行。所以你不需要昂贵的大型火箭，而可以用较便宜的中型火箭来凑合。
@Loring Chien
Astronomy and space enthusiast and experienced EEJun 27
An unmanned probe does not have to be in a hurry, there are no life support issues - food, breathable oxygen, etc. that need to be sustained compared to the 3 men in Apollos command capsule.
On the other hand, a quick return costs more money and equipment effort. The launch speed escaping from the moon has to be faster which takes more fuel which has to be carried from earth on the outbound journey. And more fuel is required for braking when re-entering earth. Recalling the space problem sending payloads from earth requires about 100 pounds of fuel and rocket to put 1 pound or two into earth escape journeys.
OTOH, Apollo had to make a choice of more speed or more life support supplies, which sort of cancel each other out in terms of fuel and weight requirements.
But for unmanned, time is not of the essence in reducing project efforts.
无人探测器不必着急，与阿波罗指挥舱中的三名宇航员相比，没有生命维持问题 - 食物、可呼吸的氧气等需要维持。
另一方面，快速返回需要花费更多的金钱和设备精力。逃离月球的发射速度必须更快，这需要更多的燃料，这些燃料必须在离开地球的旅程中携带。重返地球时需要更多的燃料进行制动。回想一下太空问题，从地球发送有效载荷需要大约 100 磅燃料，而火箭需要将 1 磅或 2 磅燃料投入地球逃逸旅程。
另一方面，阿波罗必须在更快的速度和更多的生命支持供给之间做出选择，而这在燃料和重量要求方面会相互抵消。
但对于无人驾驶而言，时间并不是减少项目工作量的关键。
Astronomy and space enthusiast and experienced EEJun 27
An unmanned probe does not have to be in a hurry, there are no life support issues - food, breathable oxygen, etc. that need to be sustained compared to the 3 men in Apollos command capsule.
On the other hand, a quick return costs more money and equipment effort. The launch speed escaping from the moon has to be faster which takes more fuel which has to be carried from earth on the outbound journey. And more fuel is required for braking when re-entering earth. Recalling the space problem sending payloads from earth requires about 100 pounds of fuel and rocket to put 1 pound or two into earth escape journeys.
OTOH, Apollo had to make a choice of more speed or more life support supplies, which sort of cancel each other out in terms of fuel and weight requirements.
But for unmanned, time is not of the essence in reducing project efforts.
无人探测器不必着急，与阿波罗指挥舱中的三名宇航员相比，没有生命维持问题 - 食物、可呼吸的氧气等需要维持。
另一方面，快速返回需要花费更多的金钱和设备精力。逃离月球的发射速度必须更快，这需要更多的燃料，这些燃料必须在离开地球的旅程中携带。重返地球时需要更多的燃料进行制动。回想一下太空问题，从地球发送有效载荷需要大约 100 磅燃料，而火箭需要将 1 磅或 2 磅燃料投入地球逃逸旅程。
另一方面，阿波罗必须在更快的速度和更多的生命支持供给之间做出选择，而这在燃料和重量要求方面会相互抵消。
但对于无人驾驶而言，时间并不是减少项目工作量的关键。
@Terence Clark
Returning faster takes fuel. It's worth it when humans are involved and life support is limited. But with robotic missions they can decrease fuel use and by extension increase science payload and decrease costs by taking a more leisurely path that takes it's time. Sometimes missions can take full advantage of things like atmospheric breaking, which basically allows spacecraft to let basic physics do the work propellant would have done. Faster is not always better, especially when human lives aren't on the line.
更快返回需要燃料。当涉及人类且生命支持有限时，这是值得的。但通过机器人任务，他们可以减少燃料使用，从而增加科学有效载荷，并通过采取更悠闲的路径来降低成本。有时任务可以充分利用诸如大气破坏之类的因素，这基本上允许航天器让基本物理学完成推进剂的工作。更快并不总是更好，尤其是当人类生命不受威胁时。
Returning faster takes fuel. It's worth it when humans are involved and life support is limited. But with robotic missions they can decrease fuel use and by extension increase science payload and decrease costs by taking a more leisurely path that takes it's time. Sometimes missions can take full advantage of things like atmospheric breaking, which basically allows spacecraft to let basic physics do the work propellant would have done. Faster is not always better, especially when human lives aren't on the line.
更快返回需要燃料。当涉及人类且生命支持有限时，这是值得的。但通过机器人任务，他们可以减少燃料使用，从而增加科学有效载荷，并通过采取更悠闲的路径来降低成本。有时任务可以充分利用诸如大气破坏之类的因素，这基本上允许航天器让基本物理学完成推进剂的工作。更快并不总是更好，尤其是当人类生命不受威胁时。
@Lucas Curtis
Chang-e 6’s ascender vehicle launched from the lunar surface on 3 June 2024, and docked with the orbiter/return vehicle 3 days later. Then the return vehicle continued to orbit the Moon until 21 June, when it fired its rockets to return to Earth, arriving on 25 June.
So, the return vehicle was only in transit for 4 days, which is similar to the return time for the Apollo missions.
嫦娥六号的上升器于2024年6月3日从月球表面发射，3天后与轨道器/返回器对接。随后，返回器继续绕月飞行，直至6月21日，然后发射火箭返回地球，于6月25日抵达。
因此，返回飞船仅需运输 4 天，与阿波罗任务返回时间相似。
Chang-e 6’s ascender vehicle launched from the lunar surface on 3 June 2024, and docked with the orbiter/return vehicle 3 days later. Then the return vehicle continued to orbit the Moon until 21 June, when it fired its rockets to return to Earth, arriving on 25 June.
So, the return vehicle was only in transit for 4 days, which is similar to the return time for the Apollo missions.
嫦娥六号的上升器于2024年6月3日从月球表面发射，3天后与轨道器/返回器对接。随后，返回器继续绕月飞行，直至6月21日，然后发射火箭返回地球，于6月25日抵达。
因此，返回飞船仅需运输 4 天，与阿波罗任务返回时间相似。
@Andrii Melnykov
It worth noting that the USSR sample return missions took even less time: it took Luna-24 just 3 days to return. So different flight times are possible.
However it took Chang’e just 4.5 days to return to the Earth, not 20. The missing 15.5 days were spent orbiting the moon after the ascent.
值得注意的是，苏联的采样返回任务花费的时间更短：月球-24 号仅用3天就返回。因此，不同的飞行时间是可能的。
然而，嫦娥一号返回地球只用了4.5天，而不是20天。缺失的15.5天是在升空后绕月飞行的时间。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
It worth noting that the USSR sample return missions took even less time: it took Luna-24 just 3 days to return. So different flight times are possible.
However it took Chang’e just 4.5 days to return to the Earth, not 20. The missing 15.5 days were spent orbiting the moon after the ascent.
值得注意的是，苏联的采样返回任务花费的时间更短：月球-24 号仅用3天就返回。因此，不同的飞行时间是可能的。
然而，嫦娥一号返回地球只用了4.5天，而不是20天。缺失的15.5天是在升空后绕月飞行的时间。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@LucyLon
The difference in travel time between Chang ' e 6 and Apollo 11 is primarily due to their different mission obxtives and technological constraints . Apollo 11 was a direct mission to the moon 's near side , with the primary goal of landing humans on the surface and returning them to Earth as quickly as possible . The mission was optimized for speed , employing a powerful Saturn V rocket for launch and a direct trajectory to the moon . Chang ' e 6 , on the other hand , has a much more complex mission profile . It 's tasked with collecting lunar samples from the far side of the moon , an area that 's never been explored by humans . This requires a more intricate flight path and a longer stay on the lunar surface for sample collection . Additionally , Chang ' e 6 utilizes a more fuel-efficient propulsion system , which means it takes longer to accelerate and decelerate . Furthermore , Apollo 11 was launched during a favorable alignment of Earth and the moon , allowing for a shorter travel time . Chang ' e 6 , on the other hand , may not have had this same optimal alignment , contributing to the longer travel time . In conclusion , the longer travel time of Chang ' e 6 is a result of its complex mission obxtives , more fuel-efficient propulsion system , and potentially less optimal launch window compared to Apollo 11 . This highlights the advancements in space exploration technology , allowing us to reach farther and explore more of the universe , even if it takes a bit longer .
嫦娥六号和阿波罗 11 号在飞行时间上的差异，主要源于它们不同的任务目标和技术限制。阿波罗 11 号是一次直接前往月球近侧的任务，其主要目标是让人类登陆月球表面并尽快返回地球。这次任务针对速度进行了优化，采用强大的土星五号火箭发射，并直接飞向月球。而嫦娥六号的任务概要则复杂得多。它的任务是从月球远端收集月球样本，而月球远端是人类从未探索过的区域。这就需要更复杂的飞行路径和在月球表面停留更长时间以收集样本。此外，嫦娥六号采用了燃料效率更高的推进系统，这意味着它需要更长的加速和减速时间。此外，阿波罗 11 号是在地球和月球呈有利排列时发射的，因此旅行时间更短。另一方面，嫦娥六号可能没有这种最佳排列，导致旅行时间更长。总之，嫦娥六号的旅行时间更长，这是由于其任务目标复杂、推进系统更省油，而且与阿波罗 11 号相比，发射窗口可能不太理想。这凸显了太空探索技术的进步，让我们能够走得更远，探索更多的宇宙，即使需要更长的时间。
The difference in travel time between Chang ' e 6 and Apollo 11 is primarily due to their different mission obxtives and technological constraints . Apollo 11 was a direct mission to the moon 's near side , with the primary goal of landing humans on the surface and returning them to Earth as quickly as possible . The mission was optimized for speed , employing a powerful Saturn V rocket for launch and a direct trajectory to the moon . Chang ' e 6 , on the other hand , has a much more complex mission profile . It 's tasked with collecting lunar samples from the far side of the moon , an area that 's never been explored by humans . This requires a more intricate flight path and a longer stay on the lunar surface for sample collection . Additionally , Chang ' e 6 utilizes a more fuel-efficient propulsion system , which means it takes longer to accelerate and decelerate . Furthermore , Apollo 11 was launched during a favorable alignment of Earth and the moon , allowing for a shorter travel time . Chang ' e 6 , on the other hand , may not have had this same optimal alignment , contributing to the longer travel time . In conclusion , the longer travel time of Chang ' e 6 is a result of its complex mission obxtives , more fuel-efficient propulsion system , and potentially less optimal launch window compared to Apollo 11 . This highlights the advancements in space exploration technology , allowing us to reach farther and explore more of the universe , even if it takes a bit longer .
嫦娥六号和阿波罗 11 号在飞行时间上的差异，主要源于它们不同的任务目标和技术限制。阿波罗 11 号是一次直接前往月球近侧的任务，其主要目标是让人类登陆月球表面并尽快返回地球。这次任务针对速度进行了优化，采用强大的土星五号火箭发射，并直接飞向月球。而嫦娥六号的任务概要则复杂得多。它的任务是从月球远端收集月球样本，而月球远端是人类从未探索过的区域。这就需要更复杂的飞行路径和在月球表面停留更长时间以收集样本。此外，嫦娥六号采用了燃料效率更高的推进系统，这意味着它需要更长的加速和减速时间。此外，阿波罗 11 号是在地球和月球呈有利排列时发射的，因此旅行时间更短。另一方面，嫦娥六号可能没有这种最佳排列，导致旅行时间更长。总之，嫦娥六号的旅行时间更长，这是由于其任务目标复杂、推进系统更省油，而且与阿波罗 11 号相比，发射窗口可能不太理想。这凸显了太空探索技术的进步，让我们能够走得更远，探索更多的宇宙，即使需要更长的时间。
@Jonathan Dough
With unmanned missions like the Chinese one, there is no need to rush back, abd you can afford to use a trajectory that is more fuel efficient. The less fuel you need, the aller and cheaper the rocket you need to launch the mission into.orbit. Apollo require the largest to rocket ever launched to be able get a spacecraft that could return from the moon in just a few days.
对于像中国这样的无人任务，没有必要急着返回，而且你可以使用更省油的轨道。您需要的燃料越少，将任务发射到轨道所需的火箭就越耐用、越便宜。阿波罗号需要有史以来发射的最大的火箭才能获得能够在短短几天内从月球返回的航天器。
With unmanned missions like the Chinese one, there is no need to rush back, abd you can afford to use a trajectory that is more fuel efficient. The less fuel you need, the aller and cheaper the rocket you need to launch the mission into.orbit. Apollo require the largest to rocket ever launched to be able get a spacecraft that could return from the moon in just a few days.
对于像中国这样的无人任务，没有必要急着返回，而且你可以使用更省油的轨道。您需要的燃料越少，将任务发射到轨道所需的火箭就越耐用、越便宜。阿波罗号需要有史以来发射的最大的火箭才能获得能够在短短几天内从月球返回的航天器。
@Max Tierney
Obviously there is only one answer, Chang’e 6 was only doing 25 percent of Apollo 11’s speed.
There are many reasons why this is desirable but I am not on the launch team so obviously I cannot know what the reason was!
显然只有一个答案，嫦娥六号的速度只有阿波罗 11 号的 25%。
这样做的原因有很多，但我不是发射团队的成员，所以显然我不知道原因是什么！
Obviously there is only one answer, Chang’e 6 was only doing 25 percent of Apollo 11’s speed.
There are many reasons why this is desirable but I am not on the launch team so obviously I cannot know what the reason was!
显然只有一个答案，嫦娥六号的速度只有阿波罗 11 号的 25%。
这样做的原因有很多，但我不是发射团队的成员，所以显然我不知道原因是什么！
@Super Power Lee
real answer：
The Americans actually only needed 1 day, and they deliberately delayed for 5 days to avoid public suspicion.
It really only took 1 day to move Armstrong from the Hollywood studio to the sea
真正的答案：
美国人其实只需要1天，他们故意拖延了5天，以避免公众怀疑。
阿姆斯特朗从好莱坞片场搬到海边真的只用了1天
real answer：
The Americans actually only needed 1 day, and they deliberately delayed for 5 days to avoid public suspicion.
It really only took 1 day to move Armstrong from the Hollywood studio to the sea
真正的答案：
美国人其实只需要1天，他们故意拖延了5天，以避免公众怀疑。
阿姆斯特朗从好莱坞片场搬到海边真的只用了1天
很赞 47
收藏