Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

kldload t1_ixquwdh wrote

https://imgur.com/a/u7PsyR7/

Here are the actual pictures.

471

lezzet t1_ixqwctg wrote

What are the lines along some of the white areas?

89

lucius10203 t1_ixr1lub wrote

Since they're aligned with the camera and not the object, I would assume artefacting. Something like stitched together photo lines or effects from fast travel in a static image.

127

Kichigai t1_ixrzdr8 wrote

Have we fully radiation hardened digital imaging sensors? It's getting a good blast of all sorts of fun particles from Mr. Sun right then, wouldn't shock me one iota if they were being picked up by, or interfering with, the imaging sensor.

If it were a CMOS sensor it would make sense that you'd see per-line artifacting like this, though I might guess that NASA might use a CCD for this application.

29

FlyingSpacefrog t1_ixsmb6r wrote

On the launch day live stream with Everyday Astronaut he said that the cameras on Orion’s solar panels are essentially just GoPros

12

Kichigai t1_ixsolqf wrote

Information linked to in this tweet would seem to corroborate this.

>“Each of Orion’s four solar array wings has a commercial off-the-shelf camera mounted at the tip that has been highly modified for use in space, providing a view of the spacecraft exterior,” said David Melendrez, imagery integration lead for the Orion Program at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston.

15

Daillestemcee t1_ixr0g7h wrote

Pretty sure those are Sasquatch tracks

28

winterfresh0 t1_ixr4uh8 wrote

Something something hollow moon.

Alternatively, gurren lagann was a documentary and the moon is a giant spaceship/robot.

13

Kichigai t1_ixsnpbz wrote

They printed it with Vase Mode. Those layer lines blow!

0

Sav-vie t1_ixrpn36 wrote

Its from the moon projectors making the moon hologram 🌚

8

5yleop1m t1_ixsbl5a wrote

From what I understand, the pictures with the lines are taken with the OpNav cameras which keep the space craft oriented by studying the surface of the moon.

Some info here - https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210000793/downloads/Orion%20Optical%20Navigation.pptx.pdf

And more details here - https://mashable.com/article/nasa-artemis-1-moon-images-pictures-orion

The cameras have to be able to see tiny feature differences, so their contrast is higher than usual. The lines could be part of the sensor or some other part of the image processing pipeline. Sometimes markers like that are used to help differentiate between different flat aspects of an image, since the lines are a known constant.

7

katosen27 t1_ixrf3rv wrote

That second pic is peak "Felt cute, might delete later, idk." energy.

Love it though

8

Mival93 t1_ixss6sl wrote

Here is a really great video of the spacecraft in lunar orbit

https://twitter.com/lmspace/status/1596114847200120840?s=46&t=NaIoW-VH9LOkG4aW8JbUZQ

5

MadotsukiInTheNexus t1_ixumzcm wrote

There's something about photos (and especially video) where you can see part of the spacecraft that feels almost surreal to me.

I think it has something to do with the sense of scale and perspective. Images that just show a celestial body are photos of an object. Add something so clearly made by human beings, though, and whatever I'd being shown becomes a place instead (especially with a video like this, where you can see motion in roughly the way a human would from the same vantage). You get a sense for how large things are, and for their distance from the camera. It all feels so much larger and more dynamic, reminding us of where we are in the Universe.

2

Your_Gonna_Hate_This t1_ixsbnwm wrote

Why do they look like they're the same quality as what we could get in the 70s? I was hoping for some 4k HD eye candy!

−2

kldload t1_ixsigqa wrote

Check NASA website. Plenty of good porn there but you have to branch out past Reddit.

8

rocketsocks t1_ixt9mi1 wrote

Orion is a crewed spacecraft designed for human missions to the Moon, it's not a space science vehicle designed with instruments for observation, all of its cameras are basically engineering cameras.

3

The_camperdave t1_ixsqh3t wrote

> Why do they look like they're the same quality as what we could get in the 70s?

Because NASA is using the technology of the 1970s. An Apollo style capsule splashing down into an ocean followed by a naval search and rescue op? I mean, really! What has NASA got against landing on land? I mean, they even forced the Crew Dragon to splash down instead of doing a civilized landing.

−4

OpinionBearSF t1_ixsvnln wrote

> What has NASA got against landing on land? I mean, they even forced the Crew Dragon to splash down instead of doing a civilized landing.

Water covers around 2/3 of the earth's surface to land covering around 1/3. That immediately gives a vessel looking for a water landing an advantage in having more suitable landing spots.

Water is also a softer and less complex landing than a land landing, which is important when squishy fragile humans are onboard, especially if the return is hampered by crew health or vehicle health issues.

7

The_camperdave t1_ixt08za wrote

> ...a vessel looking for a water landing...

Why is the vessel looking for a water landing? Why can't it land on the ground? The Russians have been doing it for over 50 years, with hundreds upon hundreds of successful missions.

−2

WarNewsNetwork t1_ixt253i wrote

He just answered: water is softer and less complex for squishy humans. And USA has a navy that is well prepped to catch space faring sailors as they descend back to their fertile marble.

4

The_camperdave t1_ixt9sm4 wrote

> He just answered: water is softer and less complex for squishy humans.

So NASA astronauts are soft,and NASA can't handle "complex"? I don't buy it. There must be a better reason.

−3

wow360dogescope t1_ixtbeie wrote

Did the other reason completely go over your head? The US Navy.

I have another for you. Weight reduction.

SpaceX opting for splashdown wasn't forced on them by NASA.

3

OpinionBearSF t1_ixtzd2q wrote

> Why is the vessel looking for a water landing? Why can't it land on the ground? The Russians have been doing it for over 50 years, with hundreds upon hundreds of successful missions.

Water is softer and easier/safer for squishy humans to land on (especially if sick or injured) than land, and there is much more water than land.

Russia opted not to do water landings because they did not and do not have an extensive Navy to provide recovery services.

1

The_camperdave t1_ixvn454 wrote

> Water is softer and easier/safer for squishy humans to land on (especially if sick or injured) than land, and there is much more water than land.

I understand a splashdown as an emergency contingency, but Orion was being designed to land on the ground. I've seen pictures.

1

OpinionBearSF t1_ixvql5y wrote

> I understand a splashdown as an emergency contingency, but Orion was being designed to land on the ground. I've seen pictures.

Previous spacecraft (such as Apollo) could also land on land as an emergency contingency, but there were serious risks to both the spacecraft and its occupants if that were done.

Overall, a water landing is gentler to people and machinery.

1

dpdxguy t1_ixqff19 wrote

>engineers have six days to see how spacecraft fares in deep space

It's been away from earth for almost ten days now. Why do they think the next six will be the ones that show how it fares in deep space?

156

HeyImGilly t1_ixqtsyv wrote

My guess is that they have sensors on board that will tell NASA how well a human would have done in the capsule. For example, radiation exposure.

150

kldload t1_ixqv3fd wrote

They do. There are stunt dummies loaded with hundreds of sensors of all varieties

116

alexfilmwriting t1_ixrdb1r wrote

First I'd heard specifically what's inside the crew compartment. Seems like the most sensible way to do it.

36

[deleted] t1_ixre9ce wrote

[removed]

45

drunkandpassedout t1_ixrkwkh wrote

And a Shaun the Sheep strapped in. Snoopy is just floating around the cabin.

24

PolymerSledge t1_ixrdv81 wrote

Folks don't appreciate how cosmic radiation is the biggest no go for humans in space.

35

kldload t1_ixqv12h wrote

Passing the van Allen belt, cabin temperature homeostasis, electrical fault tolerance. There are myriad issues that may not surface until a long time in space

45

Accomplished-Crab932 t1_ixr14di wrote

Nah, they passed both layers of the Van Allen Belts on their way over, they are likely continuing testing of communications and navigation systems in flight.

26

Wooden_Ad_3096 t1_ixqim1z wrote

They got to watch out for the space spaghetti

15

Downvotes_dumbasses t1_ixqnr5p wrote

Don't they know that the flying spaghetti monster lives on the far side of the moon?

3

BizzyM t1_ixr6od0 wrote

That deep on the "wrong" side of the Moon, they are afraid the hubcaps will be stolen.

15

Kichigai t1_ixrzyhi wrote

Among everything else folks have said for reasons, doesn't hurt to do some endurance testing. If we're gonna put a few people inside this tin can for 2+ weeks we may as well know for sure how well the craft will hold up for that long.

Maybe we'll discover that some heat sink is inadequately dispersing heat, and it's only through long term operation that we can see this happening. Maybe whatever newfangled material we're making the windows out of start to delaminate, but only after prolonged bombardment by cosmic rays.

12

dpdxguy t1_ixs9dwg wrote

>doesn't hurt to do some endurance testing.

Sure. But op said the next six days would be telling. The question I had was, "Why will the next six days tell us stuff that the previous and however remain following the six won't tell?" I suspect the answer is, "They won't. It's the entire mission outside of LEO and Van Allen Belt transit that will tell us how it handles 'deep space.'"

5

Xengard t1_ixqo4ju wrote

i think its because the space between the earth and moon is called "cislunar space", probably because its different in terms of orbital mechanics? idk

2

Sleepiboisleep t1_ixr4z6g wrote

We know the area around earth and the moon we’ll enough to be successful in a launch outside our atmosphere. Once the rocket orbits and propels itself into space we know less about asteroid orbit and the debris of space so depending on those next six days they have to make a decision about the progress and stability of the craft before letting it continue

−2

dpdxguy t1_ixredpd wrote

You know we've been sending spacecraft far past the moon since the 70s, right? The Webb telescope is parked on the far side of the Moon, far further more distant from the Earth than Artimis I is going.

EDIT: learned that Webb is not on the far side of the Moon as I had erroneously thought. It is, however, far further from the Earth than any planned Artimis mission.

5

RE5TE t1_ixrj7m6 wrote

> The Webb telescope is parked on the far side of the Moon, far further than Artimis I is going.

It's farther away from Earth, but is not on the far side of the moon:

>Lagrange point 2 — a gravitationally stable location in space. The telescope arrived at L2, the second sun-Earth Lagrange point on Jan. 24, 2022. > >L2 is a spot in space near Earth that lies opposite the sun; this orbit will allow the telescope to stay in line with Earth as it orbits the sun.

https://www.space.com/21925-james-webb-space-telescope-jwst.html

3

wgp3 t1_ixrortx wrote

You...you do know the moon orbits the earth? So something beyond the distance of the moon from the earth will by definition be on the far side of the moon when the moon passes between the spacecraft and the earth. The sun. Mars. Jwst. All of them are past "the far side of the moon" even though technically the near side is sometimes looking at them face on.

4

Iz-kan-reddit t1_ixseju9 wrote

>So something beyond the distance of the moon from the earth will by definition be on the far side of the moon when the moon passes between the spacecraft and the earth.

That only means it's occasionally correct but usually incorrect.

1

dpdxguy t1_ixsasxo wrote

Thanks. For some reason I had thought Webb is at the Earth Moon L2 point, instead of the Sun Earth L2 point. Not sure how I got that wrong, but I appreciate knowing the truth.

2

Dirty-Electro t1_ixr9qh5 wrote

So exciting to keep track of the mission’s progress. The data and subsequent research obtained from this first mission will undoubtedly pave the way for decades to come.

89

alexfilmwriting t1_ixrdjns wrote

I'm just really happy they've finally started pointing cameras back at the craft. Last few missions were hard to visualize without it. I know it costs weight but really ups the cool factor, which I think is really important these days.

44

Entmoot6262 t1_ixroh5k wrote

Article says the craft is supposed to be reusable. I hope they aren’t using the Shuttle definition of reusable.

21

as_a_fake t1_ixrsq8m wrote

I'm pretty sure the only part of it that's at all reusable is the Orion pod. Nothing to do with maneuvering, just the life support for future astronauts.

22

Nibb31 t1_ixry91h wrote

Not even that. The Orion capsule is gutted and some of the stuff inside can be reused. The capsule itself is disposable.

19

FutureMartian97 t1_ixs4g8k wrote

> I hope they aren’t using the Shuttle definition of reusable.

Not even. I think only the Avionics and life support system will be reused.

9

Electronic-1911 t1_ixs2fro wrote

I love the colours of the nose cone. Not a boring white.

9

Seeker-Life t1_ixtlpl4 wrote

I wonder how long it will be before there is a televised sport that is played in space

2

Decronym t1_ixsapue wrote

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |L2|Lagrange Point 2 (Sixty Symbols video explanation)| | |Paywalled section of the NasaSpaceFlight forum| |LEO|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|

|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |cislunar|Between the Earth and Moon; within the Moon's orbit|

^(3 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 19 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8350 for this sub, first seen 25th Nov 2022, 23:03]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

1

[deleted] t1_ixqp0b8 wrote

[removed]

−22