Rocket Lab's Tiny Rocket Sent A Satellite to The Moon: What does 'Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit' Mean? 

He literally lectures rocket science in laymen terms

As an aerospace engineer this is without doubt one of the best explanations I have ever seen anyone do on any space subject. This might also be one of the smartest and most practical missions I have seen NASA do in a long time. I'm actually a critic of the Gateway. At time I think people get so wrapped up in trying to do more they forget the basic tasks. I see this in every industry not just aerospace. I think the Gateway is way too complex for what's actually needed for Lunar Mission Support. All it needs to be is a place to dock vehicles and transfer fuel, cargo & crew. One of the main reasons Apollo worked was they broke the process down into viable segments allowing them to specialise on the vehicle tasks. The CSM had a primary task, get them there and get them back. The LM had the task of getting down and getting up. The CSM didnt need to worry about landing legs and the LM didn't need a heat shield or parachutes. Yeah they got cross purposed on CO2 filters, but they solved that. What it allowed was the CSM and LM teams to focus on there actual task AND IT WORKED. I think they are overcomplicating the Gateway and Artemis and the vehicles they need. That complexity is only going to make things a lot harder, a lot more expensive and the only winners will be the contractors.

@@tonywilson4713 Not to be too cynical, but I do have to wonder just how much input from said contractors they started with.

It was clear as mud to me. That's not Scott's fault though.

Try orbits 302.

jesus christ this guy has 1 mil subs only 5 likes on comment

Title did not do it justice.

so jesus is interested in space lol

Hi Jesus, Great to see you are still following all the new space stuff!

You correct, it wasn't a requirement to have the unmanned cargo test landing, SpaceX threw that in. Imagine a hundred ton's of stuff waiting for the 1st human landing

Sigh 😂

Lame old joke. Show some respect.

I think Blue Origin would be most suited to the task, ut can you imagine the erection they would require for a full insertion?

And the probe should be powered by Fast Argon Tunneling engine :D

Damn it, Jim! I’m a doctor, not a celestial navigator!

The only person so well informed and informer is Scott. Fly safe in the Cirrus!

India used a similar method of "plenty of passes" before sending their first probe to orbit Mars.

The Little Engine That Could. At every relight it's thinking "I think I can, I think I can..."

they're probably going to use a bunch of small burns since unlike apollo you can take your time

@pyropulse I'm sure you know exactly what I meant! No idea where you're from, but if it's this side of the Atlantic - I was channeling Thomas the Tank Engine...

That's what makes it fun to watch!! Spacex launches are almost getting boring now with how routine everything is. At least they have good video production to keep me watching.

@@Titter2 You can always watch some Astra launches to break up the monotony. Never quite know what you are going to get. Lol

@@zacrintoul I don't know if you saw that one drifting sideways a while back, but that was the craziest launch I've ever seen.

/)

@@Titter2 Yeah, that's what happens when your thrust to weight ratio equals one! However, we should see a lot more of these when the Starships come in for "landings"!

Look at 9:00

@@ImieNazwiskoOK I missed the deltaV requirment to LLO at first

Sadly, halo orbits of all types do not function in KSP - KSP uses one-body patched conics for gravity (only the most important / nearest planetary body affects you at a time), and halo orbits depend on two-body phenomena. (Unless KSP had a major physics overhaul since I last played!)

@@kvt-dev Not in stock mode, no, but there's the "Principia" mod for KSP, which changes from patched conic to n-body physics. I believe KSP2 is also going to have an overhauled physics engine, but IDK if n-body will be an option out of the box.

@@eddievhfan1984 the way I understand it, it will be mostly simple dynamics, with some n-body approximation for the binary planets.

The same number of times it took for me to figure out the movie "Interstellar".

play KSP

Shackleton has permanent, Direct line of site to earth, via gateway isn't permanent, is further & involves a relay.

Well if things don't go well now is the time since this is just a satellite and not a rocket carrying people

Almost makes one think that the companies that suggested the Gateway were looking for something that could make them a pile of money without them having to deal with the more challenging tech required to actually land on the surface.

My intuition says no but I’m interested in hearing the scientific explanation

No, they will feel no 'gravity' or sense of acceleration even when buzzing the north pole. The astronauts and their space station would, given the same starting position and velocity, independently follow the exact same path through space. Gravity Independently acts on the astronauts and the space station to make them follow an orbit, so there is no 'cornering force' like one would feel going around a corner in a car. Conversely in a car the force that the car exerts on you is the only reason you Follow it around the corner instead of continuing in a straight line.

both astronauts and surranding them station will be in "free-fall" - situation where external gravitational forces are not countered by any reaction (exactly as in the case of people in ISS). In fact, what we commonly desribe as expirience of "eart gravtiation" is in fact expiriencig reaction force (puted on our feets).

your understanding is the opposite of the actual facts, longer duration, exposure, hazard, greater expense etc via gateway

He should be a professor in astrophysics.

I wonder why they didn't go for that option? From an entirely lay perspective, it seems like the obvious way to do it.

They didn't put any on board rocket cameras for the capstone launch They traded that for more telemetry data on a critical launch

Doubtful, since halo orbits aren't possible in KSP due to the simplified physics model (no lagrange points). What you're using is probably just a simple eccentric orbit...

I mean, they figured out a stable orbit around the moon. With all the data you need for that I'd think they know how to account for time dilation in LPS's systems

the difference should be negligable. But maybe measurable.

The relativistic effects of the lunar MASSCONs are absolutely negligible...

Even with Earth's gravity on the ground vs. at the height of GPS satellites, the effect is only about 45 microseconds per day. The moon's gravity is much lower than Earth's so the effect caused by the lunar gravities variations would be miniscule by comparison.

The Earth is lumpy too, so time corrections have to be sent to the satellites every now and then. There's no reason why the same couldn't be done from Earth to an LPS satellite.

Ok, but can you make that as an acronym

Ah, in 0g you can build from the top down if you want to!

@Scott Manley If you try hard enough there should be something

@@scottmanley I guess there is no "Up" in space so... I suppose you can start with the Capstone.

HALO orbits are impossible in KSP, surely? There's no 3-body interaction.

@@evdweide Looser than that for sure in my case, but Principia does do n-body physics. More so the orbit point so the satellite is in constant line of sight was my gameplay loop, which looked like the animation with the green signal line.

@@evdweide Not with mods like Principia

@@evdweide presumably he means a molniya orbit which from the animation in the video seems to be fairly similar looking to regular people

Starship is a liability to the Artemis program Depending everything on it would spell almost certain doom for any near term accomplishments Orion, SLS and Gateway are really the only near term systems we'll have available this decade

@@brokensoap1717 But why even want to go to the moon in this decade if it is only possible with those three systems that are expensive and which will soon be superseded by Starship based solutions anyway? Why spend a lot of further money on SLS+Gateway (only Orion development is already finished) when we know with high certainty that these systems will be outdated in 10 years? And note that Starship could be used much earlier as a replacement for SLS/Orion/Gateway if we initially don't use Starship for launching and returning humans from/to Earth. I think we could launch and return them using the Crew Dragon or Starliner spacecrafts where they switch to/from Starship in LEO. At least I know no argument why this would not work. I think this solution would only take marginally more time than the current Artemis which uses both SLS/Orion/Gateway and Starship. And it would be much cheaper.