awesome-space VS celestiary

Reminds me that SpaceX has now landed rocket boosters successfully over 200 times. Landing just a single rocket was huge news a few years ago.

The US is launching things into space about 20 times as frequently compared to 10 years ago [1]. Now, most rocket launches don't make mainstream news—I only keep up with things by subscribing to a niche newsletter [2].

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/yearly-number-of-objects-...

[2] https://orbitalindex.com

NASA needs multiple lander options; putting all their cards on a lunar Starship landing was always a bit ridiculous, even if it seems reasonably likely to happen. So if you want the Artemis program to actually happen, this is likely a good thing. However, with congress in a deadlock around the debt ceiling, and SLS costing $4B per launch, this is only going to add to Artemis's serious funding challenges.

If you're interested in the space industry in general, I'll cover this more next week in the weekly Orbital Index newsletter (https://orbitalindex.com) which I co-author with blach.

This week on H+ Weekly - the first guest post! Ben and Andrew from The Orbital Index highlight an exciting development in the space industry - the rise of startups betting hard on SpaceX’s Starship to succeed.

You should definitely submit this to https://github.com/orbitalindex/awesome-space#earth!

A couple that I get:

- aeon and Psyche: https://aeon.co

- Benedict Evans: https://www.ben-evans.com

- The Orbital Index: https://orbitalindex.com

hmm.. right.. if the angle of deflection is low and the star is close enough that its light and deflected light show up very close together. My intuition is this is not the case... remember Eddington's test of relativity was for deflection of starlight around our Sun. We're really close, yet it was observable with the moon obscuring the main sunlight.

the article[1] says "For light grazing the surface of the sun, the approximate angular deflection is roughly 1.75 arcseconds." So, what, we take the arcsin of 1.75 arcseconds to get the apparent divergence ratio, and multiply that by distance to stars? As long as that value is larger than the aperture of your camera, then you don't get competing light? Or maybe you'd need something like the TESS satellite, where you have a screen specially created to only allow certain beam transits into your detector.

I've worked with a nearest 10k stars database (https://celestiary.github.io/#sun) and the edge of that is about 2k light years away. So very roughly, let's say there's 1/8th of those in a certain direction... so you get.. what? some 2k sample points towards some distant object? But really most of them wouldn't deflect that object's light towards Earth, but usually over or undershoot.

Don't really know how to put these together quickly, but is giving me some good food for thought!

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment

Thanks! Hmm.. not sure about that. I'm trying to jam it all around but can't get it to lock like that. If you can repro I'd appreciate a bug report! https://github.com/celestiary/web/issues

My own webgl port of Celestia, which allows zoom-out from Earth to the scale of nearest 10k stars:

https://celestiary.github.io/

Hmm, the demo has a little "live video" window of a rover's view from the Moon's surface. This seems like a good integration point for a web-based space simulator. I will be doing just this!

https://github.com/pablo-mayrgundter/celestiary/issues/19