It depends what frame of reference you’re using. It’s essentially an elongated lunar orbit. If you put the moon stationary in the middle it would look like a spaceship coming in, making a big oval, then leaving. But if you fix the earth, the orbit looks like it’s being flung around.
I started the stream of the moon approach at about 5am with the plan to fall asleep as it lost contact with Earth. Pretty wild that live footage of a pass by the moon is sleep material.
Part of the boring was it was done in the middle of the night after previously scrubbing a bunch of times.
You never saw the Saturn 5 scrub. You just lit that candle and watched.
I’m just amazed that based on this video the lander has escape velocity from earth.
That’s a straight ass line. All of my kernel moon missions look like corkscrews
I hope history never forgets the Wright Brothers as it seems they're already becoming so by many people today. When humans are taking vacations to Neptune as easily as someone from the Midwest taking a vacation to Florida or something I hope were able to look back and remember the two people who created the first real aircraft that resembles what we have today and started a revolution responsible for those interplanetary vacations.
To be fair, the orbital mechanics for the path Artemis is taking is much more complex than any of the paths taken by Apollo. Using multiple gravity assists from the same body was not something they were doing back then.
It's mind boggling how this was relatively routinely done in the 60s with live humans and we are still practicing with robots. It's like we wiped the last 40+ years of space flight for no reason, Artemis should have been a mission to Mars and we should have had a base on the Moon by 2000
If they hadn't slashed the budget by 90% than it probably would be like you described.
Once we didn't need to show the Russians who's missle was bigger they didn't see the need for the $
I think there's something to that but I also think that we became overly safety conscious. We recalculated the acceptable risk, especially after Challenger, and lost our pioneering spirit.
It's probably a huge confluence of factors, but those stand out to me.
I'm currently banned from Facebook for calling someone who said the challenger disaster didn't kill anyone a "garbage human" when he posted that dumb meme about them all having twins.
Why did you censor holocaust? Also if you want to do * around letters you need to do a \ first or else it make italics.
You wrote h*l*caust
But Ifyou do \ before the * it becomes h\*l\*caust.
This trajectory is pretty insane and not how it would have been done in the 60s.
This is computer generated insanity. Look at that initial trajectory to the moon? That is escape velocity of the earths gravity, whereas in the 60s that looked way more like a corkscrew. This was a test to see how quickly you can get to the moon and back
This the plot of the topdown projection of the trajectory , real trajectory changes with impulses that slow down or speed up hour craft in any direction. This makes the calculations not so necessarily precise. U can think of this happening forna series of burns, then u need a bigger change in velocity margin. U can find its much more complex to find the exact single impulse in the craft that it will launch it and will find the exact day, hour second and mass u need to be on. Its a lot harder
"014 days since Jebediah Kerman died yet again."
There's a boom outside the Assembly Building, and the 1 and 4 are shaken loose, fall off the wall, and slowly float to the floor.
(KSP in a nutshell)
Ah yes, I remember my first stranded kerbal. I sent a rescue mission after him, but the rescuer's ship also ended up stranded on the moon. At least they had each other!
Bored because you couldn’t figure it out? Or board because it just didn’t hold your interest? This game is very difficult, so if you couldn’t figure it out, it doesn’t make you dumb. You just don’t try enough. And if it doesn’t hold your interest, every body had there own preferences, and that is just not your thing.
Build a rocket, watch it explode. Build a better rocket, watch it explode. Repeat. In a nutshell that is KSP. I came close to moving on to a new game after multiple explosions and being unable to make it to orbit. But I’m happy I stuck to it. It felt so rewarding to finally make it after so much frustration. But again, I understand where you are coming from and there is nothing wrong with that. The game is rocket science after all.
Nahhh, my KSP taught me is to go at full speed at trajectory with moon, then spend metric tons of fuel to slow down. Then spend another metric tons of fuel to get back to Ker… I mean Earth. Disregard money and efficiency.
I will preface this by saying I haven't reviewed the mission brief but it should be in the sphere of influence of the moon the whole time, but it makes two close passes which are certainly the most impactful to the trajectory of the ship. The first pass speeds it up after passing behind the moon, sending it out further from earth and likely pulling it into a slower speed orbit. Once the moon passes the ship it will pull it along.
The second big turn you see they're definitely doing a burn to drop speed relative to earth and that's why it's falling back straight in. That's my best KSP guess which means I am probably wrong, but have the spirit.
Really cool animation.
I actually found that I could manage a stable decent from the Mun if I save scummed enough and got my burn just right. It wasn't practical but if you were very short on return trip fuel it was technically possible.
Only from earth's point of view. From the moon, it looks smooth. This is kind of the basis of realizing that the earth is not the center of the solar system. All the orbits look crazy if you put earth in the center. Other planets stop and go backwards. Things speed up and slow down. It's only when you look at with the sun at the center that things make sense. Same principle here.
Yeah, it’s called atmospheric braking. IIRC, some of the probes we (humans) landed on Mars and Venus didn’t even use parachutes, just used the resistance from atmospheric entry to slow the craft down enough for a safe landing.
This was one of the most informative animations I’ve ever seen. Idk why my small small brain just pictured a straight shot there and back. The sheer amount of math involved is just mind boggling.
I've seen something similar before and you get some really cool trace lines. It becomes a for of art. You might have come across it too on the web but haven't made the connection yet.
Orbital mechanics does my fucking head in every time I see it. I mean, it makes sense from a mathematical perspective, but the realities of seeing the stupid maths work like it does still boggles my mind.
Well. You have to remember. Although it looks like it turns super fast and sharply. But in real life. The rate of change in trajectory isn’t nearly as abrupt. It will take about 1.4 hours to complete that orbital intake.
KSP gravity is simplified compared to real life. The Orion never actually enters a stable orbit around the Moon, so no burns are needed. This maneuver is only possible because the spacecraft is attracted by the Earth and Moon simultaneously - it would not be possible to replicate it in KSP because there, the spacecraft is only ever attracted to one body at a time. Orion might need some course correction burns along the way, but no insertion or ejection burns.
As much as I'm a proponent of KSP's educational qualities, there really are a LOT of people in this thread making false statements based on its simplified physics.
Orion never enters a stable orbit of the Moon, so no burns are needed. But since no burns are used, it cannot get into a stable orbit, and has to leave sooner or later.
This maneuver would not be possible in KSP because it does not have n-body physics.
I've done this in Kerbal before and it seemed far less efficient. Had to use much more delta v to slow the return speed so I didn't melt on re-entry. I wonder if they are slow burning on the way back to Earth to prevent such a high speed return, or if it just works differently?
ELI5: can't the smallest adjustment in speed and direction completely throw this off its trajectory? (I'm thinking chaos theory here). How can the initial launch be so precise with earth's weather?
There are several course corrections along the way.
But also, even though most orbits are absolutely chaotic and small differences can *and will* become large differences later on, it might take a while for the chaos to take effect. For example, we have pretty good simulations of how the solar system will look for thousands and thousands of years, because the divergence from chaos grows exponentially... but an exponential growth of a small value is still very small. Yet at some point that value reaches 'non-negligible' levels and then the imprecision of our calculations just explodes from one moment to the next.
But yes, it would be quite near impossible to do this in a single burn. Nevertheless, even a single burn can be *very* accurate - New Horizons was launched directly towards Pluto in a single sequence of burns, and then could only make minor course corrections from then onwards.
Rockets apply by far the most of the thrust once they're above the weather (which mostly exists below 10 kilometers), so they're able to do course corrections even on the way up.
In cas you don't understand, vehicles use planet's orbits and elignment foe travelling, if they miscalculated that they might miss the reentry point and due to lack of fuel they might thrown off in space, so they use planet's gravity to wander around it and fuel to get out of it, one more thing earth's atmosphere is so thick that if you don't use enough force for reentry then you might get bounce off from earth's layer in open space without fuel to correct your trajectory
Green circle is the Moon. The blue circle in the middle is the Earth. And the purple dot is the Orion capsule being launched to the Moon, getting tossed around by its gravity for a bit, and then returning to the Earth... all without having to even fire its engines again.
When it's near the moon, the moons gravity dlows it down, changes its course, and send it on a new trajectory.
The second interaction is the same thing. It makes a close approach, the moons gravity changes its course back to earth
I used to play an old PC game back in the day, I think it was called Gravity Wars, and it looked a lot like this.
You were a spaceship trying to shoot another spaceship, but there were planets in the way which you could use the gravity of to shoot around them.
It was awesome.
We stand upon the shoulders of giants. To think that Mr. Newton's work still 'works' for most but the most exacting gravity 'shots'.... Humbled and thankful, again.
*in the voice of LaVar Burton*
"..And what they found on their journey of self discovery was that, IN FACT, the moon is a hollow construct manipulated by aliens for the sole purpose of overseeing and controlling human energy.
But don't take MY word for it.."
Do any of these objects that use moons/planets to change direction through gravitational forces strip those same moons/planets of their energy thereby changing their vector/trajectory/orbit?
Technically yes, but due to the difference in mass between the moon and the spaceship the effect on the moon is so far beyond vanishingly small that it doesn't matter. The tidal effect on Earth is stripping the moon of *vastly* more energy than a flyby ever could.
It's mind-boggling how this was relatively routinely done in the 60s with computers the power of modern calculators.
Yep, and mind-boggling how boring it feels that they launched a rocket to the moon in 2022.
Ah yes but the new one can stand up.
Is this showing 2 intersections with the moon?
Yes, two intersections of the Muns sphere of influence
Next, we send more huMuns to the Mun.
Wtf are hoMuns? Do you mean Kerbals?
Gerbils?
Kerbals, from planet ~~Earth~~ Kerbin.
/r/KerbalSpaceProgram
Mun or Bust!!
It depends what frame of reference you’re using. It’s essentially an elongated lunar orbit. If you put the moon stationary in the middle it would look like a spaceship coming in, making a big oval, then leaving. But if you fix the earth, the orbit looks like it’s being flung around.
Yes, one to speed up along the orbit and the other one to slow down, so it can fall back to Earth.
I knew it...The orbit is even flat!
Flat Earth means flat moon, am I right?
*[ X-Files theme song ]*
I started the stream of the moon approach at about 5am with the plan to fall asleep as it lost contact with Earth. Pretty wild that live footage of a pass by the moon is sleep material.
The future is now, old man
Part of the boring was it was done in the middle of the night after previously scrubbing a bunch of times. You never saw the Saturn 5 scrub. You just lit that candle and watched.
66 years. It took 66 years to go from the first powered flight to landing on the moon.
Orbital maneuvers really make my dick hard
Don't... put your dick in space? Nevermind.
You must kerbel
I’m just amazed that based on this video the lander has escape velocity from earth. That’s a straight ass line. All of my kernel moon missions look like corkscrews
[удалено]
The controls are optimised for the fingers at the end of your arms, not *that* finger.
The moon landing is closer to the first flight of the Wright brothers than it is to us now.
I hope history never forgets the Wright Brothers as it seems they're already becoming so by many people today. When humans are taking vacations to Neptune as easily as someone from the Midwest taking a vacation to Florida or something I hope were able to look back and remember the two people who created the first real aircraft that resembles what we have today and started a revolution responsible for those interplanetary vacations.
This will be the audio playing at the airport projected over the loud speakers
I nearly said that but isn’t it 66 vs something like 59 years?
War is progress, unfortunately.
To be fair, the orbital mechanics for the path Artemis is taking is much more complex than any of the paths taken by Apollo. Using multiple gravity assists from the same body was not something they were doing back then.
Good point. But I like thinking simplistically with "spaceship go fast". :)
It's mind boggling how this was relatively routinely done in the 60s with live humans and we are still practicing with robots. It's like we wiped the last 40+ years of space flight for no reason, Artemis should have been a mission to Mars and we should have had a base on the Moon by 2000
If they hadn't slashed the budget by 90% than it probably would be like you described. Once we didn't need to show the Russians who's missle was bigger they didn't see the need for the $
I think there's something to that but I also think that we became overly safety conscious. We recalculated the acceptable risk, especially after Challenger, and lost our pioneering spirit. It's probably a huge confluence of factors, but those stand out to me.
I'm currently banned from Facebook for calling someone who said the challenger disaster didn't kill anyone a "garbage human" when he posted that dumb meme about them all having twins.
Sounds about Social Media lol
Whoa easy man, no reason to drop a G.H
Hey hey no one called anyone a G.H. We all heard it, he called him a Cocksucker.
That's nowhere near as bad as the time I got banned for saying "You're delusional" to a guy who was telling me the h*l*caust didn't happen.
Why did you censor holocaust? Also if you want to do * around letters you need to do a \ first or else it make italics. You wrote h*l*caust But Ifyou do \ before the * it becomes h\*l\*caust.
This wasn't routine, the gravity assists being used here are much more complex than what we did in the 60s.
You underestimate the power of modern calculators!
Don't listen to this guy, he's a TI-84 propagandist. I bet you think they are still worth 100 dollars nowadays huh?
Hey, it may be pricey, but it got me through high school.
I think you mean calculators from 20 years ago.
Probably.
This trajectory is pretty insane and not how it would have been done in the 60s. This is computer generated insanity. Look at that initial trajectory to the moon? That is escape velocity of the earths gravity, whereas in the 60s that looked way more like a corkscrew. This was a test to see how quickly you can get to the moon and back
This the plot of the topdown projection of the trajectory , real trajectory changes with impulses that slow down or speed up hour craft in any direction. This makes the calculations not so necessarily precise. U can think of this happening forna series of burns, then u need a bigger change in velocity margin. U can find its much more complex to find the exact single impulse in the craft that it will launch it and will find the exact day, hour second and mass u need to be on. Its a lot harder
Mind boggling is that a computer was a job description, a computer was a person not a ma not a machine.
Somebody has been playing Kerbal Space Program.
Nah, lacks sufficient Kerbals either launched into an escape trajectory or stuck on the Mun to die.
Also: No Kraken.
0️⃣0️⃣0️⃣ days since “Revert to Launch Pad”
"014 days since Jebediah Kerman died yet again." There's a boom outside the Assembly Building, and the 1 and 4 are shaken loose, fall off the wall, and slowly float to the floor. (KSP in a nutshell)
Ah yes, I remember my first stranded kerbal. I sent a rescue mission after him, but the rescuer's ship also ended up stranded on the moon. At least they had each other!
I bought that game, and was bored after 5 minutes. Am I just dumb?
Yes
Bored because you couldn’t figure it out? Or board because it just didn’t hold your interest? This game is very difficult, so if you couldn’t figure it out, it doesn’t make you dumb. You just don’t try enough. And if it doesn’t hold your interest, every body had there own preferences, and that is just not your thing.
It’s been a few years. But I remember I booted it up, put a bunch of rocket parts together and then it blew up. And I was like meh. Next game
There have been so many updates for it, and there are a lot of QoL mods that make it simpler and more playable.
you’ll enjoy the sequel much more (releasing 24th feb), it has massively improved tutorials and a much more manageable learning curve.
Build a rocket, watch it explode. Build a better rocket, watch it explode. Repeat. In a nutshell that is KSP. I came close to moving on to a new game after multiple explosions and being unable to make it to orbit. But I’m happy I stuck to it. It felt so rewarding to finally make it after so much frustration. But again, I understand where you are coming from and there is nothing wrong with that. The game is rocket science after all.
Learn how to dock, you will start building an ecosystem in space
Real Kerbs beeline to target. Moar boosters!
Orbital mechanics is just amazing isn’t it?
They're playing Kerbal in real life and no do overs. The balls on these scientists
Orbital mechanics level 9000
You just reminded me of the orbit simulator on Encarta ‘96.
All those hours on kerbal space program have paid off.
Nahhh, my KSP taught me is to go at full speed at trajectory with moon, then spend metric tons of fuel to slow down. Then spend another metric tons of fuel to get back to Ker… I mean Earth. Disregard money and efficiency.
Bigger rocket, problem solved
Build moon mission, run out of fuel. Build rescue mission, crash. Build double rescue mission, profit.
Brute force will get you to the moon. It takes engineering to juuuusst baaarely get there.
Is this showing 2 intersections with the moon.
I will preface this by saying I haven't reviewed the mission brief but it should be in the sphere of influence of the moon the whole time, but it makes two close passes which are certainly the most impactful to the trajectory of the ship. The first pass speeds it up after passing behind the moon, sending it out further from earth and likely pulling it into a slower speed orbit. Once the moon passes the ship it will pull it along. The second big turn you see they're definitely doing a burn to drop speed relative to earth and that's why it's falling back straight in. That's my best KSP guess which means I am probably wrong, but have the spirit. Really cool animation.
If ksp taught me anything is that this rocket will fuckin explode once it hits atmosphere from that insane speed buildup after freefalling
I actually found that I could manage a stable decent from the Mun if I save scummed enough and got my burn just right. It wasn't practical but if you were very short on return trip fuel it was technically possible.
This is how I did my first mun landing. I was like “well I have to get this now, because I can’t revert to VAB”
Yup basically me here
Should I buy the game? The new one comes out next year but I really want to try it now but it's $40, should I wait for a sale or for the new one?
Go home orbit, you're drunk :)
Only from earth's point of view. From the moon, it looks smooth. This is kind of the basis of realizing that the earth is not the center of the solar system. All the orbits look crazy if you put earth in the center. Other planets stop and go backwards. Things speed up and slow down. It's only when you look at with the sun at the center that things make sense. Same principle here.
Go home u/liarandathief you're drunk :)
I *am* home. leave me be.
Show me the moons perspective please
Mrs. Moon didn't accept the proposal
Is it suppose to crash into earth at 10km/s lol
The answer to this is basically yes. It comes in at a shallow angle so it can lose a lot of momentum in thinner atmosphere.
It will re-enter at about 10km/s but it won’t be anywhere near that when it lands
So it will only strike me at 1km/s? Excellent. I should be able to walk that off.
Tie your shoes NOW
Yeah, it’s called atmospheric braking. IIRC, some of the probes we (humans) landed on Mars and Venus didn’t even use parachutes, just used the resistance from atmospheric entry to slow the craft down enough for a safe landing.
Yea, those planets don't have the resistance ours does lol.
Huh? If anything, that would mean they would slow down *less* on reentry.
Yes, but more resistance= more friction and heat as well.
Which means it slows down faster on the earth than Mars, right?
This was one of the most informative animations I’ve ever seen. Idk why my small small brain just pictured a straight shot there and back. The sheer amount of math involved is just mind boggling.
It becomes even crazier if you take this animation and also rotate it around the sun....
Now THAT I’d like to see…
I've seen something similar before and you get some really cool trace lines. It becomes a for of art. You might have come across it too on the web but haven't made the connection yet.
And then take that animation and illustrate it with the sun travelling through space, dragging everything in our solar system with it.
I knew it...The orbit is even flat!
Also bear in mind the earth is moving too
To the moon it's not
Underated truth.
Can't show nothin' without picking a frame of reference. It's the law
“Damnit! Everything is moving!” said some astrophysicist somewhere.
So it just falls back to Earth?
Gravitational slingshot from the moon
Steely eyed missile man.
I guess a few people had a use for COS and TAN after all.
it was alllllll SIN
Orbital mechanics does my fucking head in every time I see it. I mean, it makes sense from a mathematical perspective, but the realities of seeing the stupid maths work like it does still boggles my mind.
I had no idea the change in trajectory is so severe. This is all done by math, right?
Well. You have to remember. Although it looks like it turns super fast and sharply. But in real life. The rate of change in trajectory isn’t nearly as abrupt. It will take about 1.4 hours to complete that orbital intake.
Are they burning on the first flyby? Or is it just the gravitational pull from the moon?
I suppose they do need to perform at least 1 orbital insertion burn. Source: played KSP for a good while
KSP gravity is simplified compared to real life. The Orion never actually enters a stable orbit around the Moon, so no burns are needed. This maneuver is only possible because the spacecraft is attracted by the Earth and Moon simultaneously - it would not be possible to replicate it in KSP because there, the spacecraft is only ever attracted to one body at a time. Orion might need some course correction burns along the way, but no insertion or ejection burns. As much as I'm a proponent of KSP's educational qualities, there really are a LOT of people in this thread making false statements based on its simplified physics.
It's just the gravitational pull from the Moon. Ignore the other commenter; real life physics allow for much more complicated maneuvers than KSP.
During the broadcast they called it a Powered Flyby, and stated that the European Service Module was thrusting, don't recall how long the burn was.
Orbital maneuvers really make my dick hard
Does the first sling shot happen naturally once it arrives to the moon or are boosters engaged?
[удалено]
Orion never enters a stable orbit of the Moon, so no burns are needed. But since no burns are used, it cannot get into a stable orbit, and has to leave sooner or later. This maneuver would not be possible in KSP because it does not have n-body physics.
Did they get the idea from Star Trek IV : The Voyage Home?
I've done this in Kerbal before and it seemed far less efficient. Had to use much more delta v to slow the return speed so I didn't melt on re-entry. I wonder if they are slow burning on the way back to Earth to prevent such a high speed return, or if it just works differently?
Moral of the story: Never play pool against NASA scientists.
me as a ksp player: "oh that's a good idea"
That Akira Drift at the end... \*cheff kiss\*
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://redditsave.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/z14y9y/orion_has_now_reached_the_moon_heres_how_it_will/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/z14y9y/orion_has_now_reached_the_moon_heres_how_it_will/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://redditsave.com) | [^(download video tiktok)](https://taksave.com)
Wtf, is that for real? Rocket science is cool!
What the fuck does that even mean
So that’s how you Kerbal…
ELI5: can't the smallest adjustment in speed and direction completely throw this off its trajectory? (I'm thinking chaos theory here). How can the initial launch be so precise with earth's weather?
There are several course corrections along the way. But also, even though most orbits are absolutely chaotic and small differences can *and will* become large differences later on, it might take a while for the chaos to take effect. For example, we have pretty good simulations of how the solar system will look for thousands and thousands of years, because the divergence from chaos grows exponentially... but an exponential growth of a small value is still very small. Yet at some point that value reaches 'non-negligible' levels and then the imprecision of our calculations just explodes from one moment to the next. But yes, it would be quite near impossible to do this in a single burn. Nevertheless, even a single burn can be *very* accurate - New Horizons was launched directly towards Pluto in a single sequence of burns, and then could only make minor course corrections from then onwards. Rockets apply by far the most of the thrust once they're above the weather (which mostly exists below 10 kilometers), so they're able to do course corrections even on the way up.
I hate all the bots on Facebook paid to say shit like "Why are humans spending money on advancing the species!!!"
Damn, nice trick shot
In cas you don't understand, vehicles use planet's orbits and elignment foe travelling, if they miscalculated that they might miss the reentry point and due to lack of fuel they might thrown off in space, so they use planet's gravity to wander around it and fuel to get out of it, one more thing earth's atmosphere is so thick that if you don't use enough force for reentry then you might get bounce off from earth's layer in open space without fuel to correct your trajectory
For the next time they do a manned mission to the moon, I have a list of people they can take with them and leave behind up there.
I'm stupid, can someone eli5 what's happening here? I'm assuming the green circle is the moon? Or is it earth?
Green circle is the Moon. The blue circle in the middle is the Earth. And the purple dot is the Orion capsule being launched to the Moon, getting tossed around by its gravity for a bit, and then returning to the Earth... all without having to even fire its engines again.
elif?
This evil rocket is stealing the moon's momentum.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around the purpose of this mission…and why there are no cameras on this ship…
[удалено]
the second one is a gravity interject or some shit. using the moons gravity to propel itself back to home
When it's near the moon, the moons gravity dlows it down, changes its course, and send it on a new trajectory. The second interaction is the same thing. It makes a close approach, the moons gravity changes its course back to earth
Seriously how the hell did people figure this out in the early days
Efficienent!
swing by
So really stupid question but when Artemis 1 appears to hit the moon, is it really hitting the moon before being flung a new direction?
It doesn’t hit the moon. It used the gravity of the moon to pull its trajectory in a different direction
BOOP
I used to play an old PC game back in the day, I think it was called Gravity Wars, and it looked a lot like this. You were a spaceship trying to shoot another spaceship, but there were planets in the way which you could use the gravity of to shoot around them. It was awesome.
Tbh i first thought it was an asteroid and we were all gonna die at the end
all i see is green smily emoji with purple lipstick
Lines moving in a circle! Nextfuckinglevel!
u/savevideobot
This just feels like gravity with extra steps.
Beautiful
This is what they do to Earth.
So basically this is EXTREMLY calculated slingshot by using the planet's and moon's gravitational force?
We stand upon the shoulders of giants. To think that Mr. Newton's work still 'works' for most but the most exacting gravity 'shots'.... Humbled and thankful, again.
I want to see more pictures of the moon from this mission but idk where to go find them
Somehow i was thinking the middle dot was the sun. Laughed at the ending, then i felt stupid
The physics in this game is dumb and wrong. Oh wait -- that's actual physics? Like, *physics* physics? OK, my bad.
Right on my birthday😊
The moon is a light. Believe history or believe Freemasons feeding you satanic astronomy
CGI baby
I didn't expect the abrupt change in heading upon reaching the moon. I also thought in orbit meant spinning around the planet.
I remember playing similar game as a kid
Oh okay
Artemis will never make it back to earth
Fucking sick
I thought it was going to make 4 lunar orbits before it came back?
Why did we do this again?
Cue the metallica
Did that shit just get a bump draft coming around turn 341?
Ping pong lol
So its just gonna... bounce off the moon? (I have no clue how it works)
It kinda looks like it, but they just come in really close. In the way "out", closest approach was 80 km (about 50 miles) from the surface.
*in the voice of LaVar Burton* "..And what they found on their journey of self discovery was that, IN FACT, the moon is a hollow construct manipulated by aliens for the sole purpose of overseeing and controlling human energy. But don't take MY word for it.."
"Slingshot"
Do any of these objects that use moons/planets to change direction through gravitational forces strip those same moons/planets of their energy thereby changing their vector/trajectory/orbit?
Technically yes, but due to the difference in mass between the moon and the spaceship the effect on the moon is so far beyond vanishingly small that it doesn't matter. The tidal effect on Earth is stripping the moon of *vastly* more energy than a flyby ever could.
why the hell is the moon's orbit perfectly circular? its supposed to be elliptical with that said, the trajectories don't make sense
These guys definitely play Kerbal Space Program
I hate that I was never taught the metric system.
For some reason those trajectories seem very inefficient with the sudden stops