Artemis II crew flew fast, earned new patch: Astronauts’ Mach 39 emblem

"It is actually challenging how you measure [Mach] from space."

See full article...

 

[Fatesrider]

Tom "Maverick" Cruise, eat your Mach 10 heart out.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

they sped up to about 24,664 miles per hour (39,693 k/ph)

Kilometers per per hour?

 

[ericloewe]

Kilometers per per hour?

No, kilo-one per picohour, which has units of hertz I guess.

 

[avenger337]

So how much younger are they than all the rest of us, due to time dilation effects?

 

[cosmotose]

I want to know more about how NASA sources the Patch Manufacturer(s)... These patches are clearly made to the highest quality aerospace standard(s?). What does that even mean for a prospective patch manufacturer..? Are they stress testing these things?

 

[zebm]

What about Galilean invariance?

 

[Tactical Finesse]

So how much younger are they than all the rest of us, due to time dilation effects?

About 12 parsecs per Kessel Run.

 

[Lovelac7]

Why not use a fraction of c? I'm guessing it would still be a pretty tiny number.

 

[BadSuperblock]

If it’s to commemorate “the fastest hunk of junk in the galaxy” then they can use parsecs as the unit…

 

[Jon_Nexus7]

I’m traveling around the galactic center at 828,000 km/h (515,000 mph), and at 2.1M km/h (1.3M mph) relative to the Cosmic Microwave Background.

Can I get a cool patch too?

 

[andrewb610]

I’m traveling around the galactic center at 828,000 km/h (515,000 mph), and at 2.1M km/h (1.3M mph) relative to the Cosmic Microwave Background.

Can I get a cool patch too?

Perhaps depending on the direction they might be the slowest humans ever then.

 

[Person_Man]

Their journey took them farther away from Earth than any humans have gone (52,756 miles [406,771 km])

Is this 52756 miles further than other humans? Considering the moon is about a quarter million miles away it can't be the furthest distance.

While I'm at it, measuring speed in Mach doesn't make much sense when there's barely a means of sound travel. A speed relative to the earth or moon makes more sense. Still though, nice patches!

 

[drinkingcoffee]

Is this 52756 miles further than other humans? Considering the moon is about a quarter million miles away it can't be the furthest distance.

While I'm at it, measuring speed in Mach doesn't make much sense when there's barely a means of sound travel. A speed relative to the earth or moon makes more sense. Still though, nice patches!

Per the link, it should be "252,760 miles (406,778 km)"

 

[lurknomore]

Not that the usual Ars crowd needs the math, but that would translate to orbiting the planet in an hour instead of the dog-slow ISS in 90 minutes...
They also likely hold the record (or share with the Apollo guys) for longest free-fall.
Sky-diving from behind the Moon is a bit of a flex.

 

[FelipeBG]

Kilometers per per hour?

are they going to fix it or...?

 

[Paul_in_Maine_USA]

...retained the English “MACH” rather than use the Russian “MAXA.”

Mach is not English. Most English speakers don't even say it right. It comes from Austrian-Czech physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach.

 

[Troper1138]

While I'm at it, measuring speed in Mach doesn't make much sense when there's barely a means of sound travel. A speed relative to the earth or moon makes more sense. Still though, nice patches!

From the article, these patches are explicitly in reference to reentry speeds (i.e., when they are coming back into the atmosphere and there is a means for sound to travel):

...on the way back on board their Orion spacecraft Integrity, they sped up to about 24,664 miles per hour (39,693 k/ph) reentering the atmosphere.

Brandenstein and Buchli thought about how the space shuttle reached Mach 25 on reentry, so they should get a patch for that.

In 2009, the STS-125 crew flying on space shuttle Atlantis realized that their reentry speed was going to be slightly higher than most other missions as they were entering a higher orbit to conduct the final servicing of the Hubble Space Telescope. As such, upon landing, they adopted Mach 26 patches.

 

[jaminb]

Why not use a fraction of c? I'm guessing it would still be a pretty tiny number.

I had the same thought. Is this it:
3.7E-5c
Or maybe to be more international it should be
37E-4c

 

[momurda]

Why not use a fraction of c? I'm guessing it would still be a pretty tiny number.

24664/700000000
3.5234285714285714285714285714286e-5

 

[Komarov]

It is actually challenging how you measure [Mach] from space.

Measuring Mach numbers in a vacuum must be a really neat trick...

Galileo would have something to say about relativity, too. "Mach" 39 relative to which what where whom?

 

[Pimm]

Kilometers per per hour?

Correct would be 39,693 km/h. Thanks for using SI base units

 

[BruceTheLoon]

Tom "Maverick" Cruise, eat your Mach 10 heart out.

They're making Top Gun 3. Maverick will get his, I'm sure.

 

[RAH]

A quick edit needed. “(52,756 miles [406,771 km])”. The “2” was dropped from 252,756 miles

 

[RAH]

“Mach, as a measurement, compares the speed of an object to the local speed of sound. So the number changes based on altitude, air temperature, and air density.”

As an aerodynamicist, I want to point out that Mach number changes with altitude only because of temperature changes, and is not dependent on air density.

M = f(temp)

 

[aussiedaz]

What's that in football fields per second?

 

[Thomnmi]

In freedom units it would be 1,470 F-150 pick up trucks per NFL quarter

 

[JaneDoe]

Measuring Mach numbers in a vacuum must be a really neat trick...

The fine article states that the peak velocity was when they just hit the upper atmosphere (on return), which is thin but not vacuum.

 

[MarkW98]

Galileo would have something to say about relativity, too. "Mach" 39 relative to which what where whom?

The fine article states that it is relative to Earth's surface.

 

[azazel1024]

Be a bigger flex to do it Felix Baumgartner style.

Not that I really want to put human lives at risk, but I do wonder if it would be possible to develop a suit that you could re-enter with. I suspect stability would be the biggest issue, as you start to spin and you are dead right away. Heat tolerance would be another, but you don't need all that much thickness of ablative material to deal with that.

Anyway, cool thought process if you could make a "suit" that you could re-enter in. Rather than a vehicle.

 

[Komarov]

Be a bigger flex to do it Felix Baumgartner style.

Not that I really want to put human lives at risk, but I do wonder if it would be possible to develop a suit that you could re-enter with. I suspect stability would be the biggest issue, as you start to spin and you are dead right away. Heat tolerance would be another, but you don't need all that much thickness of ablative material to deal with that.

Anyway, cool thought process if you could make a "suit" that you could re-enter in. Rather than a vehicle.

The Kerbals solved that one. They can reenter and land safely even without a parachute.