Starship Asterisk*

What the picture and the text don't tell us is that the Crew Dragon was a couple of minutes behind the ISS. At the time, they weren't traveling alongside each other as one might gather from the picture alone . Thanks for explaining that [Joe Stieber], I was wondering, "If it is only 6 hours in...

This image is very similar to what astronaut Dave Bowman in 2001: A Space Odyssey sees when he is pulled into new dimensions.
-> Stanley Kubrick was a genius.

To "fly" manned to the ISS is one thing, to the moon another - to Mars something completely different.

But I hope it will happen soon.

The rotation is interesting.

A question in principle: Does the ISS rotate once around itself while orbiting the earth, so always the same side - e.g. that of the Cupola - points downwards towards the earth?

I'm curious about more pictures. Does anyone know a page - maybe a Chinese one - where you can see more current pictures?

So far I've only seen another picture where the rover took a slight right turn towards the crater.

On the reporting of this historic mission I've been appalled by how often this landing has been said to have been made on the so called " Dark side of the Moon"! I mean, can't they SEE that it's sitting in full sunlight? How doorknob dumb can you get? And, this hasn't been just local yoke...

Since that time the number of people on earth has doubled.

I am also convinced that without any atmospheric influence in space, stars are also visible to the eye next to a bright object.

Klaus Doerbecker wrote: ↑Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:50 am Every child knows that the moon always shows the same side to earth. So, april, april, there will be no earthrise or movement to be seen from the moon.

But they weren't on the moon when they saw the earth rise - they flew around it.

The most interesting thing for me is the fact that the spaceport is located in the middle of a valley. It looks like a set for a James Bond movie.

In the case of a rover defect in a distant position, would the astronauts have been able to walk back to the lander ?

I don't think the quality of the photo is so bad. If you turn the picture 90 degrees to the left and cut out only the middle half, you get a good impression of the surface.

The blur nicely reflects the dynamics of the robot jumping around.

Which time span is displayed or extrapolated in this picture?

Rendezvous with Rama?

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendezvous_with_Rama)

This (artistic impressioned) sun looks scary. Probably the lifeforms are very religious - or - very good informed about astromomical laws by watching their nearby sister planets so close.

This is really awesome. In parts quite claustrophobic. I guess the cupola is the most loved place. The real sound on board would be interesting to. I heard the air-condition is loud everywhere and all times. We do not see where the astronauts sleep, eat, socialise.. Do they have some private places ...

rj rl wrote:But the comet is 4km long, that's the thing.

You are right, 4 km long and 40 km high is impossible ...

Why is it so familiar looking, as if it were a photo of a scene in the desert? If it has so little gravity then how can it be stratified and how can it have talus slopes? I guess I expected an amalgum of space rock held together by what - ice of some kind? Of all the photos I've seen of other plane...

My brain just can't help but interpret this as a picture taken from the surface. Features on the ground appear progressively bigger in angular size towards the picture bottom, as one would expect in such case. Rosetta’s OSIRIS narrow-angle camera captured this image of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimen...

It would be also interesting to visualize the earth crust as a sphere in comparison to the fluid inner part an the hard earth's core.

Great scenery, fantastic pictures and great mission success. I follow weekly the raw images of curiosity with the Mars Images-App. Hopefully Curiosity's wheels keep healty. But I still have doubts about the colors. The raw images look more red: http://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?s=1438&cam...

During Apollo 17 they drove away 5 km "air"-line from the lander. A lot of walking in case of emergency. On Earth, that would be only an hour's walk. Yes. But how would the astronauts navigate back directly? I guess their emergency plan was to walk back on the rovers track in moons dusty ...

From an article at Space.com... As a safety precaution, the vehicles were also constrained to a distance that, if the rover broke down, the astronauts would have enough resources in their life support systems to walk back to the Lunar Module. Thanks The rovers didn't go straight out away from the l...

Is it true that the astronauts were able to walk back to the lander in case of a loss of the rover? (Enough oxygen and time?)

This business of "extending" missions is absurd. The policy should be that a mission lasts as long as the spacecraft is functional. That's simply not possible. Projects operate under budgets, and there's no way the system will work with open-ended budgets. Projects have goals and timeline...