I said Artemis is capable of launching and returning humans.

> You were talking about Starship when you spoke of NASA’s human safety analysis, remember?

Yes, what are you confused about? If Starship were to be NASA's launch vehicle, they will have to meet NASA's safety standards. SpaceX recently did this with Crew Dragon.

The rest of your comment is frankly just nuts.

> to show the safety is the same as air travel.

Which I never said was the case. Try again.

> will be

Do you know what those words mean?

“Will be” ≠ “is.”

Claiming a system designed to carry humans to the the lunar surface is mission capable when it’s lunar space station isn’t built, it’s lander isn’t ready…. systems haven’t been approved for humans space flight. Calling it mission capable seems a bit of a stretch, when it isn’t actually capable of getting human or even a bot to the the lunar surface.

> NASA is absolutely the sole arbiter of human safety for the Artemis program.

Lol. Nice try. Flip flopping from Starship to Artemis.

You were talking about Starship when you spoke of NASA’s human safety analysis, remember? But who cares? Artemis is another monument to the failures of NASA. It is grossly over budget. Grossly behind schedule. It is a national shame and should be canned.

So, the question is if Artemis will, in NASA tradition, kill its crew on launch AND by burning up in the atmosphere upon reentry, NASA being the only entity to do both. NASA having been so incompetent that they caused both the Challenger and Columbia catastrophes.

Let me put this another way, according to Wikipedia, the entire history of human space travel is 367 flights. From 2011-2020, there were just 47.

On average, there are almost 10,000 planes in the air carrying over 1.25 million people at any given moment.

A single Boeing 787 is designed to be able to fly 44,000 times in its life.

Even if there were no deaths in the 367 flights, which obviously isn't true, you are still many orders of magnitude away from having enough data to show the safety is the same as air travel.

Then start one. Complaining about what other people are saying isn't productive either.

Need to know what time it was or which direction you were facing.

[removed]

Nice pic OP ! You might wanna try the Andromeda galaxy if you want to top your own Sharpest galaxy record !

OP took 3600 pictures of 1 second exposure each ( the sensor capture light particles for 1sec for each picture )

Then OP takes all 3600 pictures to a stacking software ( we don't know which one OP chose, but there are many like SiriL, DSS, etc )

The software will align all the pictures using the stars. Then it'll average out every single pixel ( ie. pixel in the same location in the sky, hence why it needs to align the pictures )

The stacking process will reduce the noise created by the camera sensor ( and there is a looooot of it ), and keep what we call signal ( so the actual light from stars and galaxies and stuff ) at roughtly the same level.

When seeing a 1sec exposure, you will think there is litterally no light from the galaxy that reached your camera, but it did ! It's so low that it's almost black ! Keyword here being ALMOST black, so it's there !

Once the noise has been removed by stacking, you take your stacked image ( only 1 file usually in .tif/.fit format ) and process it in a software like Photoshop, gimp and so on.

Now you just need to carefully use "level adjustments" and "curve adjustments" ( not sure about my grammar of adjustments ) to bring all the data in the near-black to the grey/dark-grey zone, and you're basically done !

Hope it helped ! I didn't go too much into the explanation because I tried to keep it as simple as possible ! Astrophotography is a really nice ( but becomes expensive ) hobby, I suggest you to take a quick look into it !

[removed]

As a nerd myself, I know my people, and respect them.

[removed]

Why did you do this to me? Now I'll never get that out of my mind haha.

Whenever you take a photo, the image sensor is exposed to light for some amount of time. The duration of this time period where the sensor is capturing light is called "exposure time" or "shutter speed." By increasing this duration, the sensor receives more light, which is useful for taking photos of dim objects (for example, a 2 second exposure gets twice the light as a 1 second exposure). However, this has a tradeoff - if the camera or object moves before the exposure finishes, then there will be blur in the image. This is why photos taken under low light tend to be blurrier, since there is more of a chance that camera will shake in your hands or the subject will move.

When you take photos in daytime, you usually use a shutter speed of from 1/8000th of a second to 1/30th of a second. However, at night photographing dim objects, these kinds of shutter speeds will not give you any reasonable signal - more or less just a black frame. As such, you take exposures of 1 second or more to gather as much light as possible without incurring blur from the sky rotating (tracking mounts help with this).

However, for dim objects like galaxies, even 1 second exposures don't capture enough signal compared to the overall noise level of the camera. As such, we can take many 1 second exposures and stack them together by aligning the frames (done by aligning the stars in the image together) and then adding the pixel values. This results in an increased signal to noise ratio, allowing us to make a more detailed image once properly edited.

Artemis 2 will be launching and returning humans. The vehicle is already mission capable. Starship cannot do that.

NASA is absolutely the sole arbiter of human safety for the Artemis program. If Starship were to be the launch vehicle for Artemis, it would have to meet their standards. Starship HLS will have to meet NASA's human safety standards to be part of Artemis 3.

Others have already responded that it's in Boca Chica; so I'll add that you can have a fantastic view of any Starship launch from South Padre Island.

Even with different population sizes, you can still draw conclusions. We can still conclude that they are developing along similar paths. The two development timelines parallel each other.

Both suffered from bureaucracy and hubris and bad engineering. They both have seen significant drops in the death rates as the tech progressed and the admin debacles were cut down. We can see that airlines suffered from death rates linked to untrained passengers and spacecraft have not. Comparisons and contrasts can be seen.

We can still see that 0 deaths in decades are 0 deaths.

[removed]

thank you for the advise

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Biosuit for the soul/consciousness inside them?

Its good, keep working at it. If you can change your iso to a lower setting by maybe 500.