Artemis II Launch Day Updates

Post by ballooney » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 2:05 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #293

amykhar wrote: post #32

Fingers crossed that this https://idlewords.com/2026/03/artemis_ii_is_not_safe_to_fly.... doesn't have any effect.

Of course it's not "safe"! We put a ton of explosives into a huge can, put a small can with humans on top of it, set it on fire and try to control what happens and get the humans into space, and then we try to drop the same can from the space, while it's traveling at miles per second, and land it on the ground. It's not "safe" and won't likely be "safe" in our lifetimes, there's always big risk, that's why astronauts…

Post by specialist » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 2:11 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #800

jojobas wrote: post #795

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judging by the fact it's 2026 you must be writing this from the Mars base.

> Judging by the fact it's 2026 you must be writing this from the Mars base SpaceX was started in 2001. It announced Falcon 9 and messaged its reusability ambitions in 2005. Falcon 1 wasn’t going anywhere because making rockets is too hard. Falcons 5 and 9 weren’t going anywhere because medium lift is a different ball game. Falcon Heavy wasn’t going anywhere because timing that many engines impossible. Reuse is impos…

Post by NetMageSCW » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 2:14 PM UTC

muskstinks wrote: post #876

bdamm wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going to the Moon or Mars is a trojan horse. Starship's true purpose is to compete with airlines in trans oceanic flights. Musk has said so many times but then he intentionally obfuscates it with all the Mars and Moon talk. But remember that you heard this before it was widely realized to be true; Starship isn't about going to Mars. Starship is about going to China.

None of that makes sense. Transportships even reduce speed to reduce costs. If the payload doesn't pay for all of this, it was a huge R&D investmen from the american people to Musks scifi ideas

Post by NetMageSCW » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 2:16 PM UTC

layer8 wrote: post #538

lionkor wrote: post #515

Earlier 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…

Post by NetMageSCW » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 2:19 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #845

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> According to general relativity, you (and the ground) are accelerating at 1g I don't believe this is correct. If I lock two rockets in opposition to each other, they aren't accelerating. They're pushing at each other. And their propellant is accelarating away. But their displacement and orientation are unchanging, which means their velocity is zero which means acceleration isn't happening. Similarly, the normal for…

As I understand it, in GR acceleration is indistinguishable* from gravity, so while you're on the ground feeling 1 gee, you're being accelerated up at 1 gee, and so is the ground. When you're in free-fall, that's when you're in a non-accelerating frame, even though a non-relativistic description** would say that you are, in fact, accelerating. Caveat: I only do physics as a hobby, neither academically nor professiona…