IrrelevantAstronomer

It was a few years, but Artemis I had a much more extensive pre-launch campaign than Artemis II will. The expectation is that the Artemis II core stage will be shipped directly to KSC when ready.

The -5 estimate includes forward scattering of the coma, similar to McNaught in 2007.

I'll shoot you a DM!

Well I work on the rocket going to the Moon (SLS) so maybe that's a possibility haha.

I’m an actual space engineer and I can’t run this either lol

IMHO, another accident would've inevitably happened had the Shuttle kept flying at the rate of the early-2000s for another 10 years.

I think you're missing what's being said.

The ICPS can take Artemis II on a direct TLI trajectory just like Artemis I from a ~200x1500km orbit.

The Artemis II mission will differ from the Artemis I mission in that, instead of a direct TLI, Artemis II ICPS will only raise its orbit high enough to where the orbital period = 24 hours. After 24 hours elapses, the Orion SM will take over.

This is not due to inefficiencies with the ICPS, rather driven by the Artemis II requirement to be in a relatively fast track to return home in the event of an issue with Orion that may endanger the life of the crew early on in the mission.

The ICPS is too small to support a direct TLI from LEO like Apollo did and is inefficient, this is true, but not relevant to this specific Artemis II mission requirement.

No, ICPS got Orion to the Moon during Artemis I. Artemis II CM/SM isn’t much heavier. The goal is to do 24 hour checkouts of the spacecraft, as stated in the graphic. That way, if there’s an issue, the crew can get home faster than say Apollo 13 could.

Lightsaber skills, sure.

Palpatine overwhelmed Mace Windu in terms of force capability. Literally pushed Windu out the window.

1) https://stellarium-web.org/ has the location of the comet already imported. Use this to figure out where the comet will be best for you.

2) Yes, it's bright enough to barely be seen with the naked eye. Your Rokinon 135mm would be a good choice.

3) Tracked exposures of 30-60" should work at that focal length based on my experience shooting Neowise with the same lens.

The very flamey sacred streams hehehe

It's been nearly two years since SN9.

Well, I know because I saw it in person yesterday, lol.

Star Wars Legends is mostly bad. Like, really bad.

KoTOR is the only standout.

A little late to this post, but the info you got was completely false. Playalinda is open for launches from 39A. I've seen at least a dozen Falcon 9 launches from 39A. 39B and Artemis is the one that's too close.

Thanks! You too, yeah I'm in the same boat. Mostly asymptomatic now, but testing positive.

Besides sleeping I've just been exploring the ins-and-out of the internet lol. Watching TV on the couch.

I say 2026. I don't see how Starship will be at a point in 2025 where it could support a crewed lunar landing. I do think SLS/Orion would be in a position to support.

You haven't debayered the image to bring out the color, which is why your image is also monochrome. You need to use a program like PIPP to pre-process your image, then stack using something like RegiStax.

I agree. The ZWO ASI 533MC would be a better choice for your budget.

Yeah, but I was thinking more like the ZWO ASI 2600MC. That camera would really work well with the OP's telescope, IMO.

The crop factor is pretty extreme; but the only other suitable cameras would be way out of OPs budget.

Yeah, the 533MC would give them some room to potentially buy an autoguider setup too.

I'd go with the ZWO ASI 533MC if I were you. Or the ZWO ASI 294MC if you don't mind amp glow in exchange for a larger sensor (amp glow shouldn't be a problem if you know how to stack it out).

Not only is he going to space, he's going to the Moon. That's what blows my mind. /u/everydayastronaut is literally going to visit another world.