Eclipse
Funny that you can make such a shot with AI without having to go to friking Moon.
Artemis II snaps eclipse, Earthset shots on first crewed lunar flyby since Apollo
The Artemis II mission has produced some stunning imagery as the spacecraft loops around the Moon on its journey from Earth and back. The cameras on the Artemis II mission have been getting a workout as the crew and imaging sensors attached to the spacecraft are snapping pictures throughout the flight. The images do not fully …
-
-
Tuesday 7th April 2026 16:59 GMT that one in the corner
Re: What counts as an eclipse?
No.
There have to be at least three bodies is involved - one of which the observer is on, watching the other two move into line.
Just to be weird, a solar eclipse is "just" a transit of the Moon across the Sun (from our p.o.v.) but the other one is a transit of the Earth across the Sun from the p.o.v. of the Moon - and we happen to be looking *away* from it! And as everything is from the Human perspective, we decided to call that a Lunar eclipse, when to the Selenites it is just that big bugger getting in the way again.
-
-
-
Tuesday 7th April 2026 17:53 GMT The Oncoming Scorn
Re: 54 minutes of Totality
I was looking for the cartoon for the 1999 UK Eclipse featuring two people in two cars, stuck in a traffic jam in the rain, heading towards Cornwall lamenting that they hoped the clouds would part long enough to see the sun & watch it disappear...
However, this will have to do. https://www.facebook.com/schulzmuseum/posts/this-strip-was-published-on-july-20-1963-can-you-see-the-solar-eclipse-where-you/10155710676743054/
-
Wednesday 8th April 2026 12:47 GMT David Hicklin
Re: 54 minutes of Totality
> 1999 UK Eclipse
We were in Devon that week as everywhere in Cornwall wanted a 2 week booking to stay. Going south on the Saturday before the M5 south was....empty whilst the northbound a car park as usual. It reversed the following week and visiting Newquay the next day after the eclipse it was so quiet and all the holiday lets had "vacancies" notices up. Talk about greet shooting themselves in the foot....
We did at least manage to briefly see a partial one through a gap in the clouds and it did get a little darker and quieter for a few minutes.
-
-
Wednesday 8th April 2026 20:39 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: 54 minutes of Totality
It's surprising how much of the sun can disappear during a partial solar eclipse with so little obvious effect.
I double-checked, and the 2015 eclipse reached 95% where I am in Scotland. And yes, it was noticeably dimmer and the light somewhat different, but nowhere *near* as much as one might otherwise have expected from that much of the sun being covered up.
-
-
-
Tuesday 7th April 2026 20:10 GMT Fruit and Nutcase
74 minutes of Totality - without leaving Earth
30 June 1973, Concorde 001
The Concorde experienced 74 minutes of totality with an extended second contact of 7 minutes and extended third contact of 12 minutes
-
-
Tuesday 7th April 2026 21:46 GMT GBE
The sphere of lunar influence?
Artemis II is due to exit the sphere of lunar influence on Tuesday.
<rant>
Interesting. Newton was wrong then?
F ≠ G m₁m₂/r²
At some value of r, F suddenly drops to zero at the boundary of the "sphere of lunar influence"?
What exactly is the radius of the sphere of lunar influence?
As anybody who lives near an ocean can witness first-hand, the "sphere of lunar influence" definitely includes the Earth.
So how exactly is Artemis going to "exit" that sphere?
At one point, some half-witted commentator on the Nasa Youtube broadcast was yakking inanely about how the spacecraft had left Earth's gravity and was now under Lunar gravity (or something very close to that). Nobody who works for NASA should be saying stupid things like that in public.
If you mean that the gravitational field of the Moon is now stronger than the gravitational field of Earth (or vice versa), THEN SAY THAT!
</rant>
-
-
Tuesday 7th April 2026 22:20 GMT GBE
Re: The sphere of lunar influence?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence_(astrodynamics)
Mia Culpa, I stand corrected. "Sphere of lunar influence" is the proper phrase in that context. My apologies to Mr. Speed.
[That's still no excuse for saying things like "they've left the Earth's gravity behind" on a NASA broadcast. If that were the case, then it wouldn't be a free-return trajectory.]
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 8th April 2026 10:39 GMT cpage
Why is Artemis II orbiting the Moon at such a great distance?
NASA, and the media reports slavishly following them, keep on saying that it takes astronauts further from the Earth then has ever been done before.
But that's only because they are orbiting the moon at around 4000 miles, whereas the Apollo-era astronauts orginted the moon at a much lower altitude, just a few hundred miles, as far as I remember. That gave them a *much* better view of the surface of the Moon. So why is Artemis II going so far - is if just to create a pretty meaningless record, or is it because the spacecraft and rockets are pretty new and untested and they didn't think it was safe to aim at a Lunar altitude that was any lower?
-
Wednesday 8th April 2026 12:09 GMT ChrisC
Re: Why is Artemis II orbiting the Moon at such a great distance?
Because they're not orbiting the moon, they're slingshotting around it to return straight back to Earth.
The distance record being mentioned so often is therefore in comparison with the prior record set by Apollo 13, which ended up following much the same flight path whilst on its "free return" trajectory, as opposed to the "direct abort" path expected to have been followed if a lunar mission needed to be cut short prior to reaching the moon, but which would have required using the service module engine, the integrity of which was unknown following the O2 tank explosion.
-
Wednesday 8th April 2026 12:54 GMT David Hicklin
Re: Why is Artemis II orbiting the Moon at such a great distance?
Also Apollo 13 set its course and velocity with the intention of a short SME burn to go into lunar orbit whilst Artemis never had any plan to go into orbit, hence it got there a bit quicker and went around on a slightly bigger orbit.
Of course the moon could also just be a bit further away this time that it was with Apollo 13 !
-
-
Wednesday 8th April 2026 15:43 GMT I ain't Spartacus
Re: Why is Artemis II orbiting the Moon at such a great distance?
They are doing far less than Apollo missions did and need a way of spinning this into 'a win' for the new advanced technology
They're also doing far less testing. Although, admittedly the engines and a version of the boosters have many flights on Shuttle.
There were 13 launches of 3 Saturn I versions, before Saturn V first flew. And the Apollo capsule had flown on 2 of those (Saturn 1B) flights.
Only then did you get Apollo 4, 5 and 6 (Saturns V, I and V respectively) - all flown unmanned.
Apollo 7 was the first manned launch, and thus the 17th launch of a Saturn family rocket and the 5th Apollo capsule.
Only the second manned launch (Apollo 8) went to the Moon. Which was by then the 3rd use of Saturn V.
SLS and Orion have only flown once before. So the first manned test also went round the Moon. One reason they decided on a free-return trajectory. Although I'm not sure if they've got the fuel to get into and out of lunar orbit without the upgraded upper stage anyway.
-
Wednesday 8th April 2026 17:03 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
Re: Why is Artemis II orbiting the Moon at such a great distance?
>Although I'm not sure if they've got the fuel to get into and out of lunar orbit without the upgraded upper stage anyway.
AFAIK they barely have the performance to do the orbit they are doing, it was also the reason for the tight launch window and moon position.
Not NASA's fault given the whole project history but it has an air of desperately looking for a win l.
-
-
-
-
-
