I'd like to see views of the moon and the earth from the spaceship on every hour. Is there any link for that?
Artemis II Launch Day Updates
701–710 of 1001 posts
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#702Neil Armstrong 2: A New Moon?
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#703Earlier quoted context omitted.
Starship "making LEO" is not a significant challenge--the existing flights have explicitly targeted a (very slightly) suborbital trajectory. They could have done otherwise at any point, but for now it's more important to guarantee that the stage comes down immediately. None of their current objectives require more than ~1/2 of an orbit. Starship v3 flying will be a significant leap, though. It's the first with the Ra…
> Starship "making LEO" is not a significant challenge Of course it is. I say this as someone who sturdied astronautics. You’re broadly correct, though. My point is the action shifts to Hawthorne and West Texas for the next year or so. Then pivots back to NASA for Artemis IV.
Odd. As a side note, your comment was posted [dead]. I vouched it to restore it back to life.
This is the second time I’ve seen such insta-dead comments. (One was my own, and I thought I did something wrong. Now it looks like there’s some kind of bug in HN that’s killing on-topic comments when they’re posted.)
Your comment wasn’t deep or insightful, but not every comment should be. A simple rejection of a premise is certainly on-topic. So it’s hard to argue that your comment was “bad”. That narrows the possibilities down to a bug in the algorithm. Maybe the mods are experimenting with ML auto classifying whether new comments should be killed or not.
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#704Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Starship "making LEO" is not a significant challenge Of course it is. I say this as someone who sturdied astronautics. You’re broadly correct, though. My point is the action shifts to Hawthorne and West Texas for the next year or so. Then pivots back to NASA for Artemis IV.
Odd. As a side note, your comment was posted [dead]. I vouched it to restore it back to life. This is the second time I’ve seen such insta-dead comments. (One was my own, and I thought I did something wrong. Now it looks like there’s some kind of bug in HN that’s killing on-topic comments when they’re posted.) Your comment wasn’t deep or insightful, but not every comment should be. A simple rejection of a premise is…
Aww. Thanks. Wonder what I did to piss of YC.
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#705Earlier quoted context omitted.
Odd. As a side note, your comment was posted [dead]. I vouched it to restore it back to life. This is the second time I’ve seen such insta-dead comments. (One was my own, and I thought I did something wrong. Now it looks like there’s some kind of bug in HN that’s killing on-topic comments when they’re posted.) Your comment wasn’t deep or insightful, but not every comment should be. A simple rejection of a premise is…
Aww. Thanks. Wonder what I did to piss of YC.
Nothing. Now that I’ve seen it once for me and once for you, both on comments that seemed lightweight-but-harmless, I’m convinced there’s some sort of bug. So don’t take it personally.
Also HN != YC. They’re separate organizations, iirc. When Sam Altman was running YC one of the first things he did was “refactor” HN so that it has editorial independence.
Either way, it would be hard to imagine someone from YC telling Dan “you should boost so-and-so” and him going along with it unless it directly benefitted the HN community.
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#706Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Do you prefer that we not even try to spread beyond our one planet, when an entire galaxy, or maybe even the neighboring ones, might be in reach if we try? What if someday at the very end of the lifetime of our sun and similar stars, we look back, and regret not trying?
Exactly what I mean. People who obsess over space are so egotistical they can’t imagine someone not thinking it’s “the best”. It’s interesting, but no more important than any other science or field of study.
And no, I’d prefer we take care of our home planet and make it a sustainable place to live first. It’s ludicrous to think we have any chance of surviving elsewhere if we can’t stop ourselves from making our natural habitat unlivable.
Yes we can do both. I still think it’s stupid to place human spaceflight on a pedestal. It’s putting the cart before the horse.
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#707Minutes after launch they reached "ten thousand miles per hour". That's 2.78 miles per second. Nuts. No doubt the speeds go even higher later too. I'm sure people here are already familiar with the speeds these things go, but that's the first time I've confronted a fact like that and it blew me away.
I knew someone who knew someone, so I got to see STS-133 from the VIP area. Nine minutes after launch, it was in orbit. Nine minutes .
Yup, that's how long it takes. There are a bunch of competing requirements and 9 minutes to orbit is the sweet spot, you can't change it much in either direction. If you go slower you waste all of your fuel just holding yourself up against gravity ("gravity drag" which is a bit of a tongue in cheek engineering term) If you go much faster you're accelerating too hard for your passengers or your structure.
To understand gravity drag think about the rocket firing just hard enough to hover 1 meter above the pad, you burn out all your fuel in 10 or 15 minutes and go nowhere...
In the other direction if you want to accelerate harder you need to make your structure stronger so you need to burn more fuel per second and have to displace some fuel in exchange for more structure and you keep doing that until you're so heavy you can't produce any more acceleration and you're all engine and structure and no fuel.
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#708Earlier quoted context omitted.
Acceleration is change in speed, so it is, by its very nature, relative just like speed is. If I fall, I might accelerate at G meters per second, relative to the earth, but I don't absolutely accelerate. If the earth decelerates at the same time, I'm now both accelerating an decelerating. It's relative.
It’s absolute in the sense that you can determine your acceleration without any external reference. You feel a certain force (like what you feel in an elevator). That’s your acceleration. You don’t accelerate relative to Earth, or relative to anything else. You accelerate relative to when you wouldn’t be accelerating (your inertial rest frame, a state of free fall). If you are in space accelerating and the Earth woul…
I am in a gravitational field. I have no idea what my acceleration is, I just know that I feel 1G (I could be falling in a stronger gravity and only feel 1G, or I could be climbing in a weaker gravity and feel 1G). The only way of determining it is to see if I'm moving relative to the stuff around me. Even then, that's not definite - I could be in an elevator and everything around me is also accelerating.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that there are circumstances where "you can determine your acceleration without any external reference" isn't true. You might even say that this is relative to your circumstances ;)
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#709Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we have gone backwards so any advancement requires some repetition.
Strange that SpaceX doesn’t seem to be suffering from that limitation. Could it be that the real problem is pork barrel spending and government wastefulness?
Which mission went to the moon?