Artemis 2

exchemist said:
Excellent point. But presumably that would mean they would be on a hyperbolic orbit w.r.t. the moon, were it not for the Earth’s gravity on top.
Click to expand...
Pinball1970 said:
ATLAS 3i had a hyperbolic trajectory and blazed past us.
Click to expand...
We all agree these things are context-dependent, right?

Orion had sufficient velocity to be in a hyperbolic trajectory around the Moon, but not the Earth-Moon system.
Atlas 3I had sufficient velocity to be in a hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun.
 
TheVat said:
Are you sure about that? :)

If you're going to have a cheekbone eclipse, Christina is the one to go with.
Click to expand...
I like the way her hair is hanging down as she is looking back at the earth.
This is a nice one too, below.
Splash down is tomorrow, the test flight showed a lot of damage during re-entry so fingers crossed for them.

1775745510182.jpeg
 
DaveC426913 said:
That is one zany re-entry trajectory...
View attachment 7467
Click to expand...
I think we would need to see it in elevation as well as in plan view. I note it takes 8hrs to complete the first, lower leg and only 1hr to complete the second diagonal leg, with actual "re-entry" being shown at the end of that leg. So I presume the first part is showing a descent almost into the paper, with slight lateral movement w.r.t. the Earth's surface, (due to the Earth's rotation, perhaps?)
 
exchemist said:
I think we would need to see it in elevation as well as in plan view. I note it takes 8hrs to complete the first, lower leg and only 1hr to complete the second diagonal leg, with actual "re-entry" being shown at the end of that leg. So I presume the first part is showing a descent almost into the paper, with slight lateral movement w.r.t. the Earth's surface, (due to the Earth's rotation, perhaps?)
Click to expand...
It has to do with the Earth's rotation. Artemis is moving in retro-grade way faster than Earth rotates. But it slows down rapidly to match, and in doing so, actually reverses direction to catch up with Earth.
But in the correct frame of reference, it's a smooth, straight trajectory the whole way.


Think of it like a commercial jet gaining altitude and entering the jet stream. Objectively, it's position will change dramatically, but at no time does the jet experience anything other than steady forward motion.


Another example: swimming across the English Channel:
1775751509906.png
 
I pinched this of PF.

It's lots of different camera angles of the take off. It's 39 minutes so some good moments.

2.39 SRBs fall away CAM1
9.58 Water released, protects the rocket from sound waves. CAM1
14.48 Top view CAM 7
20.00 Blast scale, much of it vaporised water. CAM 11
27.37 Young lady goes nuts on take off, left of the clock board. CAM13


 
Yes, spotted her right away.

Nowadays in my life watching energetic young people has become sort of like watching an exotic species of antelope - something magnificent and wild I can never catch up with.

A bit OT, but I'm having a spell of "meh" about technology lately, in spite of big chunks of my career tied up with it. Partly it's seeing how efficient tech is at killing people and flattening cities. And AI is helping. And generally usurping in many other ways. It's all kind of tarnishing the glory of big tech exhibitions like the Artemis 2 mission.

Sincerely, "Eeyore" Vat.
 
This may have been too subtle:
1775835904652.png




TheVat said:
A bit OT, but I'm having a spell of "meh" about technology lately, in spite of big chunks of my career tied up with it. Partly it's seeing how efficient tech is at killing people and flattening cities. And AI is helping. And generally usurping in many other ways. It's all kind of tarnishing the glory of big tech exhibitions like the Artemis 2 mission.
Click to expand...
Some wise man somewhere said "I thought I had gotten oversaturated with space stuff, but it turns out I was only oversaturated with Space X. Go NASA!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top