Live data from Hacker News

Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth

bbc.com

391–400 of 419 posts

Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth

#391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you are out of the atmosphere and turn off your thrusters, you are on "fee fall" and the gravity on the camera, you and the spaceship produce the same acceleration and they cancel and it looks exactly like "zero gravity". It doesn't matter if you are in orbit around the Earth, going to the Moon.

Actually not quite correct. The camera and spaceship will generally have different starting positions of their center of gravity but the same starting velocity, leading them to drift apart. The only real relevant thing for the photograph is rotation though as long as the camera doesn’t float in front of the window frame, and airflow is probably much more relevant for both points than gravity.

> will generally have different starting positions of their center of gravity but the same starting velocity

That are the tidal forces, they are quite small for a system of the size of Orion.

Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth

#392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually not quite correct. The camera and spaceship will generally have different starting positions of their center of gravity but the same starting velocity, leading them to drift apart. The only real relevant thing for the photograph is rotation though as long as the camera doesn’t float in front of the window frame, and airflow is probably much more relevant for both points than gravity.

> will generally have different starting positions of their center of gravity but the same starting velocity That are the tidal forces, they are quite small for a system of the size of Orion.

Right, I was talking technically. That’s what I tried to say in the second paragraph.

Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth

#394
post #19

Come on flat-earthers. I know you are out there. Lets hear your crazy rant about how this is a fisheye lens on a weather balloon or a webcam atop the eiffel tower. Why can't we see the poles? And is that an ice wall on poking up in the lower-right quadrant of the disk?

"How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Defy Reason" https://www.amazon.ca/How-Talk-Science-Denier-Conversations/...

How to talk to a science cultist: you can't, as your post will be immediately flagged and censored.

Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth

#395

Come on flat-earthers. I know you are out there. Lets hear your crazy rant about how this is a fisheye lens on a weather balloon or a webcam atop the eiffel tower. Why can't we see the poles? And is that an ice wall on poking up in the lower-right quadrant of the disk?

My guess is the answer is: We didn’t really launch Artemis. This is all CG.

Now you're catching on.

Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth

#396

Come on flat-earthers. I know you are out there. Lets hear your crazy rant about how this is a fisheye lens on a weather balloon or a webcam atop the eiffel tower. Why can't we see the poles? And is that an ice wall on poking up in the lower-right quadrant of the disk?

Flat Earth is a distraction or a way to ridicule any counter-narrative to anything scientific. When a cosmologist says that a planet nobody can see exists and is made of x% helium and is y light years away etc etc with absolute certainty despite nobody being able to go there and witness any of it (look how wrong they were about Pluto’s appearance), then you can always just say “what are you a Flat Earther” and easily…

Correct. This guy gets it. All other replies can be disregarded.

Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth

#397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would they prove that no launch happened? There isn't conclusive evidence of an absence of launch, and if there were it would be accused as being fake and a ploy from American enemies to discredit them.

> There isn't conclusive evidence of an absence of launch, ... A launch is detectable seismically, visually, on radar, etc. There's a lot of investment in being able to detect launches (to detect the launch of nuclear weapons). It would be screamingly obvious if the launch was fake. It would absolutely be conclusive if there were no seismic activity, no radar return, they couldn't detect the spacecraft presently, etc…

[flagged]

Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth

#398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a planet nobody can see exists and is made of x% helium and is y light years away etc etc Yeah, because this is high-school curriculum. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/resources/lesson-plan/using-lig... > with absolute certainty It is taught that the scientific method provides evidence, not certainty, in middle school science curriculum.

> It is taught that the scientific method provides evidence, not certainty, in middle school science curriculum. FWIW, this fact isn't taught properly or normies are somehow unable to process it. There's this popular dismissal of tech people, saying that "they think in 0s and 1s, but world is shades of gray", but in reality, it's almost everyone else that thinks in 0s and 1s - STEM people and people in/into similar f…

What is a "normie"?

Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth

#399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is the answer is: We didn’t really launch Artemis. This is all CG.

> This is all CG. Reminds me of the classic - It is true that Spielberg filmed the moon landings, but he was such a perfectionist that he wanted to shoot on location.

"Space may be the final frontier, but it's made in a Hollywood basement."
Post reply on HN