I think the problem with AI asking questions is that it will ask questions that are interesting to it but not necessarily us. AI, as a model, will never be a perfect copy of a human. It will always be a simulation, and thus to some extent, will ask questions that humans find irrelevant and solve problems that humans find irrelevant.
For anyone facing an existential crisis on AI, your ace in the hole is your humanity. Only you have it, and only you will be the best judge of what is good and interesting (to a human at least).
The more details this gives, the less likely it is that the story is true. Since the output is a highly detailed story, the statistical reality of this site is that's complete bullshit.
The website is quite clear that the stories are made up based on statistical likelihood, so that part didn't bother me at all. It's a cool way to explore the statistics.
What bothers me is that the statistics themselves are bad.
The craft has aerodynamics and speed. It might be figuratively true "unrecoverable" but if it takes e.g. 2 weeks to complete a return, their oxygen and food and batteries ran out. Alternatively if it enters too fast they return ... in pieces.
I think you're being a pedant, if your point is a grazing entry causing rebound skip ultimately returns to some orbital path downward.
You seem to intentionally be ignoring the original quote that any error may have caused them to be flung into space. This is patently false unless the one math error is pumping in hundreds of pounds more propellant and burning far longer than the scheduled burns. NASA would need to make a significant series of mistakes beyond orbital math for the "flung out into space" statement to be true.
They certainly could've gotten the return wrong but with a perigee of 119 miles they arent even in a stable orbit and likely could deorbit themselves using only rcs thrusters at apogee, or by just waiting a few orbits.
This is underselling the risks. On top of the many trajectories which push them into unrecoverable situations, leaving them stranded in orbit, there can be trajectories where the moon gives a gravity assist strong enough to fling the spacecraft into escape velocity, fulfilling the OP.
In fact, the trajectory they chose for this mission exploited the opposite effect to yield a free return without propellant expense.
In the modern day, the chance of a math error being the root cause behind this failure mode are vanishingly small, but minor burn execution mistakes that do not require hundreds of extra pounds of propellant are definitely plausible. They were extremely common in the early days of spaceflight and plagued most of the very first moon exploration attempts. Again, with modern RCS this is unlikely. But reentry is still incredibly tight and dangerous. Apollo famously had a +-1° safe entry corridor, and Orion is way heavier and coming in even faster. If their perigee was off they could’ve easily burned up or doubled their mission time, which they may not have been able to survive.
The amount of things that would have to go wrong for the craft to get an accidental gravity boost and be ejected would be significant.
I feel like the original claim paints the whole thing as on a knife edge and barely achieved by virtue of not making a single mistake. In today's age with so many moon landing deniers and worse I feel like we should be specific about where the actual dangers challenges and unknowns there were here. In reality, the orbital mechanics are one of the simplest parts of the entire problem, at least when we're talking about a moon flyby
Yes, this is a fair point. I agree that orbital mechanics is trivially easy compared to everything else. The chances of a math mistake in particular are null, these trajectories have all been calculated years in advance.
The moon's gravity turns out to be "lumpy" because its density is not constant. This was detected by the Apollo missions and caused them to make errors in orbit calculations. This source of error could have influenced the flyby.
I’ll agree, it seems crazy that it left earth, made it to the moon, and never really left earth orbit at all. That the furthest we’ve been away is still destined to return on its own.
Watch the NASA video carefully. It's clear that, even before the "loop" begins, Artemis is slowed down and is soon going to reverse direction relative to Earth. Which of course it would anyway, as you say--because, as the video you linked to points out, it doesn't have Earth escape velocity. The TLI burn gave it just enough velocity to reach the Moon's orbit with a little extra speed left over to get it about 4000 miles further.
But what would not happen without the Moon there is the "backwards" part of the loop--the part that took Artemis around the far side of the Moon. The Moon's gravity is what did that. In the Moon-centered frame in the video, yes, it looks like just a slight deflection--because that frame is moving with the Moon, whereas Artemis was moving backwards--in the opposite direction from the Moon in the Earth-centered frame.
Without the Moon there, Artemis would never have moved backwards, relative to the Moon's orbit, at all. Its trajectory in the Earth centered frame would have been a simple ellipse, with a maximum altitude from Earth a little higher than what it actually achieved (since the Moon's gravity did pull it back a little bit).
No, it's not. You aren't responding to what I actually said. See below.
> the “free return” would have happened if they launched entirely in the wrong direction.
But it would not have been a free return that let them see the far side of the moon, which is what I said. The Moon's gravity is what made that possible. And that was very significant.
I'm sorry that you disagree with the correct things I've said. Your "source" is a YouTube video--hardly a rigorous scientific or engineering treatment. And I posted upthread in another response about the limitations of the viewpoint the video takes. Have a nice day.
Hmm. Maximum speed attained by Artemis II when they left their initial orbit was about 11.1 km/s IIRC. While this is somewhat less than true escape velocity from Earth (11.2 km/s) and you are technically correct, it is also enough of a speed that if you fly away in any random direction (and not a carefully calculated one), perturbances from the Sun and other massive objects will probably prevent you from reaching any sort of stable orbit around the Earth, and you will start bouncing around the inner Solar System in an erratic way.
I certainly wouldn't like to model that trajectory for months or years.
The sun’s pull on the ship at the outside limit at the moon, is obviously negligible compared to the pull of the Earth. This should be obvious, because otherwise the moon would have left long ago.
Why is this so difficult to understand? Honestly I think that misleading NASA graphic did a lot of damage.
You throw in acceleration, which I never mentioned and doesn’t matter. The Artemis II never left Earth’s gravitional pull, the original issue was effectively what if it missed - and the answer is no big deal.
The FTC is the weak link here. The FTC and Department of Justice divvy up their prosecution of monopolies. Firms prosecuted by the FTC always get off scot free.
Yes! I have struggled with this concern for a while now.
I think that humans are the ultimate arbiters of quality for humans.
Nothing that is non-human can make that determination because anything that is not human (an LLM) is at best just a really good model. Since all models are necessarily wrong by definition, they can never get it right all the time. When determining what’s good for humans, it is only us that can figure that out.
I also came back to ZAMM when wrestling this question. There must be something there if we have all independently coming to similar conclusions.
This is not new. None of the Arab countries have ever fully aligned with the US. They routinely host Russia and China and buy their hardware. They will continue to host the US and buy its hardware as well.
A fundamental misunderstanding of the West is that these countries will, with time, align philosophically against the West's enemies. They are concerned with preservation of their regimes and their ways of life. They recognize that they have no foundational shared story with the West (religious or otherwise), and that without such shared origins and culture, Western people will not fight to save Arabs when resources get tight. So what do they do? Hedge their alliances so that they always have someone to turn to.
The big difference is that there's now alternative peers to the US (economically and militarily) that didn't exist before. The Soviet Union was economically stagnant by the late 1960s and China and India were in self-imposed isolation to varying degrees. There was no other unified entity anywhere near as big and powerful.
While Russia is a paper tiger and it's military kit (mostly) second rate, China and India both now have a very large market for energy as well as a developing defence sector making modern kit (especially China).
Now we have the United States essentially throwing a hissy fit against everybody for every (perceived or real) "unfair" trade relationship now that they may actually need to compete again (while turning its back on it's one major superpower, the fact that it is/was a magnet for immigrants).
I do agree that the west, and especially America, can suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of other country's origins, culture, and governments. This is especially true of right-leaning political leaders who think everybody wants to be like the United States (which made those in the Bush Administration think Iraq would welcome them and misreading Saddam's vague statements about WMDs being more about derring Iran). "The west" has had a 2-300 year run at the top and that's made us complacent, I think.
(On a side note, it still remains to be seen how well China will fare in the medium to long term - centralization of power usually ends up meaning little problems fester into larger ones far more than more open societies where criticism can mean earlier awareness to deal with them...)
> None of the Arab countries have ever fully aligned with the US
That's patently false. The Gulf States have been aligned with the US for almost 90 years now.
The US's intervention in Iraq to protect Kuwait in 1991, to overthrow Saddam Hussein in 2004 (the way Kim Jong Un is lampooned in American media is how Saddam is still lampooned in Saudi media [0]), our backing of Saudi-aligned Hariri in Lebanon, and various other foreign policy interventions and alignments in Western Asia were aligned with the Gulf States and vice versa.
The difference is,
1. Obama and later Biden decided to cut off American support for the Saudi war against the Houthis in Yemen
2. Trump was "convinced" by Rex Tillerson to stop Saudi and the UAE from invading Qatar and hoisting the Thani family with a construction crane.
This convinced all the Gulf States that US foreign policy can no longer be trusted, and they need to be like Qatar and build their own alliances with regional powers.
The US is increasingly turning in to a religious state. Most of the Middle East are people who are part of a religion fundamentally in conflict with the religiosity of America and vice versa.
Ridiculous to me as I don't subscribe to any of this, but oh well.
More fundamentally, the people in those places strongly oppose the U.S. regardless of the alliances of their government. They’re religious and hate the U.S. for supporting Israel. They hate the U.S. interventions in middle eastern affairs. They often have strong sympathies towards socialism and hate the U.S. opposition to socialism.
The Pakistan-U.S. alliance was always bizarre to me. The whole subcontinent was always in the Soviet sphere of influence. And across the Arab world and south Asia, Islam is tightly linked to socialism.
For anyone facing an existential crisis on AI, your ace in the hole is your humanity. Only you have it, and only you will be the best judge of what is good and interesting (to a human at least).
reply