*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7957
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #240 on: June 21, 2021, 11:48:23 AM »
Do you mean 3,000 km/h2?
5 minutes were spent from takeoff (0) to an altitude of 250 km.

So, no.

d=rt, requires no squaring of any values.

You are granted another chance and a clue:

we are still left with the average rate of acceleration at 3,000 km/h
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1056
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #241 on: June 21, 2021, 12:00:40 PM »
Action80 math : where the numbers are made up and the units dont matter.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #242 on: June 21, 2021, 12:27:20 PM »
Do you mean 3,000 km/h2?
5 minutes were spent from takeoff (0) to an altitude of 250 km.

So, no.

d=rt, requires no squaring of any values.

You are granted another chance and a clue:

we are still left with the average rate of acceleration at 3,000 km/h
Courtesy of
The Hwasong 15, for example, was estimated to have reached 7.17km/s at the end of its burn. At that velocity, it would take around 12 minutes to decelerate to 0 at 9.81ms-2

If you see, 7.17km/s2, anywhere mentioned by him in his posts, then feel free to keep giving me passes or if not, take one for yourself.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2021, 12:29:24 PM by Action80 »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7957
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #243 on: June 21, 2021, 12:36:17 PM »
Oh Jesus. 7.17km/s is a velocity. As he says in his quote. They have different units than acceleration. Slow down. Take a breath.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #244 on: June 21, 2021, 12:49:54 PM »
Oh Jesus. 7.17km/s is a velocity. As he says in his quote. They have different units than acceleration. Slow down. Take a breath.
If you understand enough to correct what it should be to your own mind, then run with it.


*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7957
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #245 on: June 21, 2021, 12:51:59 PM »
Oh Jesus. 7.17km/s is a velocity. As he says in his quote. They have different units than acceleration. Slow down. Take a breath.
If you understand enough to correct what it should be to your own mind, then run with it.

This is you objectively fucking up and then doubling down on it. What will it take for you to understand that you aren’t currently knowledgeable enough to analyze this issue?
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #246 on: June 21, 2021, 01:06:03 PM »
Oh Jesus. 7.17km/s is a velocity. As he says in his quote. They have different units than acceleration. Slow down. Take a breath.
If you understand enough to correct what it should be to your own mind, then run with it.

This is you objectively fucking up and then doubling down on it. What will it take for you to understand that you aren’t currently knowledgeable enough to analyze this issue?
The rate I put forth is fine. I mistakenly put the word acceleration instead of the word velocity.

Kindly pat yourself on the back, take two if you care, my apology for using the wrong word in this case, and have a great rest of your day.

Before you go, if you can explain how a 16,038 mile per hour velocity at t+5 could possibly translate into an average rate of 3,000 mph over 5 minutes, that would be terrific.

ETA: To totally satisfy what appears to be a certain need for perfection in others, 0 - 16,038 mph translates to an acceleration of 23.9 m/s2.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2021, 02:03:53 PM by Action80 »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7957
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #247 on: June 21, 2021, 02:29:36 PM »
Oh Jesus. 7.17km/s is a velocity. As he says in his quote. They have different units than acceleration. Slow down. Take a breath.
If you understand enough to correct what it should be to your own mind, then run with it.

This is you objectively fucking up and then doubling down on it. What will it take for you to understand that you aren’t currently knowledgeable enough to analyze this issue?
The rate I put forth is fine. I mistakenly put the word acceleration instead of the word velocity.

Kindly pat yourself on the back, take two if you care, my apology for using the wrong word in this case, and have a great rest of your day.

I will take that as an apology for trying to impugn Steely Bob while it was in fact your error as well.

Quote
Before you go, if you can explain how a 16,038 mile per hour velocity at t+5 could possibly translate into an average rate of 3,000 mph over 5 minutes, that would be terrific.

I can't perform the calculation because it has been 25 years since I have done calculus, but as a possibility, you would want to find a plot where the jerk creates an acceleration curve that derives an average velocity of 3,000 mph.  I am not sure why you would think it's impossible.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #248 on: June 21, 2021, 02:46:11 PM »
I completely understand what you wrote.

I also completely understand that a rocket will completely accelerate until the end of its burn, at which point it will cease to continue the process of acceleration.

However, we are still at t+5, and we are still left with 250km altitude. and we are still left with the average rate of acceleration at 3,000 km/h.

So, splitting down to minutes, t+1, t+2,etc, given, for instance, the missile could obtain 1,000 km/h at t+1, 2,000 km/h at t+2, etc., up to 5,000 km/h, in order to average 3,000 km/h. Other values are possible over the span of 5 minutes, but the sum of these values/t cannot exceed 3,000 km/h.

Let's be ultra-precise with our terminology here. 'average rate of acceleration at 3000km/h' is meaningless I'm afraid. I think what you mean is 'average vertical velocity of 3000km/h', because the displacement, s, is 250km and the time, t, is 1 hour. But whilst the average velocity is absolutely 3000km/h, as I said above, there is no requirement for velocity to build in a linear fashion as you describe. Thrust is constant, mass is reducing. Acceleration is slow initially, and rapid towards the end. The final velocity is more like 25,000km/h, but that doesn't mean the average velocity isn't 3000km/h, because it builds rapidly in the latter stages. It's not a straight line.



So, how does a missile without engine burn, as you stated, accelerate to gain 4250 km in altitude within 48 minutes, fighting against g?

As I showed above. If the final velocity is around the 7km/s region, then it would take around 12 minutes to decelerate to 0 at g=9.81ms-2. But g isn't constant either, which is why it takes a lot longer.

Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #249 on: June 21, 2021, 03:05:40 PM »
Oh Jesus. 7.17km/s is a velocity. As he says in his quote. They have different units than acceleration. Slow down. Take a breath.
If you understand enough to correct what it should be to your own mind, then run with it.

This is you objectively fucking up and then doubling down on it. What will it take for you to understand that you aren’t currently knowledgeable enough to analyze this issue?
The rate I put forth is fine. I mistakenly put the word acceleration instead of the word velocity.

Kindly pat yourself on the back, take two if you care, my apology for using the wrong word in this case, and have a great rest of your day.

Before you go, if you can explain how a 16,038 mile per hour velocity at t+5 could possibly translate into an average rate of 3,000 mph over 5 minutes, that would be terrific.

ETA: To totally satisfy what appears to be a certain need for perfection in others, 0 - 16,038 mph translates to an acceleration of 23.9 m/s2.


You need to understand the difference between an average and an absolute.  The average family has 2.4 children. So does an average family exist? 

In physics, averages might make for interesting comparison, but are no basis for calculation.  The only considerations in calculating the energy state at a particular instant are its instantaneous position and velocity. 

Consider this; Urbanville and Townsville and are 60 miles apart.  They are served by a train which does the journey in one hour.  How the f*** are you supposed to get off the train in Townsville if it is doing an average of 60 mph?

Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #250 on: June 21, 2021, 03:15:53 PM »
Consider this; Urbanville and Townsville and are 60 miles apart.  They are served by a train which does the journey in one hour.  How the f*** are you supposed to get off the train in Townsville if it is doing an average of 60 mph?
And what if the train does the first half of the journey at 30mph? How fast does it have to go for the second half in order to travel the whole distance at an average of 60mph?
Intuitively one would thing it's 90mph, when that actual answer is it's impossible. Some of this stuff is counter-intuitive.

Frankly, Lackey, this level of maths is beyond you. And that isn't a slight, it's beyond me too. It's beyond most people. As a rocket rises the thrust remains (fairly) constant but it's burning fuel which means the acceleration is constantly increasing (because F=ma, the F of the thrust remains the same but the m constantly changes as fuel is burnt). Then you have the drag which reduces with altitude as the air gets thinner. And there's a gravitational effect too although that's probably small enough to not have to worry about it. Look at any rocket - it doesn't suddenly zoom into the air, it starts off going pretty slowly, the higher it goes and the lighter it gets the more it accelerates. The rate of acceleration is not constant, that's what makes this so complex.

TL;DR - this stuff is complicated. And it's fine to not understand it, just try not to overestimate your ability to.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2021, 03:18:43 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #251 on: June 21, 2021, 03:28:24 PM »
Oh Jesus. 7.17km/s is a velocity. As he says in his quote. They have different units than acceleration. Slow down. Take a breath.
If you understand enough to correct what it should be to your own mind, then run with it.

This is you objectively fucking up and then doubling down on it. What will it take for you to understand that you aren’t currently knowledgeable enough to analyze this issue?
The rate I put forth is fine. I mistakenly put the word acceleration instead of the word velocity.

Kindly pat yourself on the back, take two if you care, my apology for using the wrong word in this case, and have a great rest of your day.

I will take that as an apology for trying to impugn Steely Bob while it was in fact your error as well.
I fail to see how utilizing SteelyBob's quote is "impugning" SteelyBob.

Quote
Before you go, if you can explain how a 16,038 mile per hour velocity at t+5 could possibly translate into an average rate of 3,000 mph over 5 minutes, that would be terrific.

I can't perform the calculation because it has been 25 years since I have done calculus, but as a possibility, you would want to find a plot where the jerk creates an acceleration curve that derives an average velocity of 3,000 mph.  I am not sure why you would think it's impossible.
Well, a curve in acceleration in this case would be the commencement of a deviation from the straight line trajectory to that of a parabola. Which it was already launched in order to form. So again, 16,058 mph at t+5 and starting at 0mph, cannot possibly translate to a traveled total distance of 250km, given d=rt.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #252 on: June 21, 2021, 03:40:59 PM »
I completely understand what you wrote.

I also completely understand that a rocket will completely accelerate until the end of its burn, at which point it will cease to continue the process of acceleration.

However, we are still at t+5, and we are still left with 250km altitude. and we are still left with the average rate of acceleration at 3,000 km/h.

So, splitting down to minutes, t+1, t+2,etc, given, for instance, the missile could obtain 1,000 km/h at t+1, 2,000 km/h at t+2, etc., up to 5,000 km/h, in order to average 3,000 km/h. Other values are possible over the span of 5 minutes, but the sum of these values/t cannot exceed 3,000 km/h.

Let's be ultra-precise with our terminology here. 'average rate of acceleration at 3000km/h' is meaningless I'm afraid. I think what you mean is 'average vertical velocity of 3000km/h', because the displacement, s, is 250km and the time, t, is 1 hour. But whilst the average velocity is absolutely 3000km/h, as I said above, there is no requirement for velocity to build in a linear fashion as you describe.
Nowhere did I state that velocity is linear in this case.

I simply posted the result of d=rt, which still applies in this case. It applies because we have a given distance (by you) and we have a given time of thrust applied (also by you).
Thrust is constant, mass is reducing.
Of course.
Acceleration is slow initially, and rapid towards the end. The final velocity is more like 25,000km/h, but that doesn't mean the average velocity isn't 3000km/h, because it builds rapidly in the latter stages. It's not a straight line.
Okay, if you read the post, I gave you the 25,000km/h at t+5.

Now, starting from 0 km/h and finishing at 16,038 mph, how does that = 250km total distance traveled in 5 minutes?
So, how does a missile without engine burn, as you stated, accelerate to gain 4250 km in altitude within 48 minutes, fighting against g?

As I showed above. If the final velocity is around the 7km/s region, then it would take around 12 minutes to decelerate to 0 at g=9.81ms-2. But g isn't constant either, which is why it takes a lot longer.
I do not think you understand the implications.

A missile will most certainly gain some additional altitude without power, but certainly not 4250km, even battling 9.08g/s2.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #253 on: June 21, 2021, 03:49:34 PM »
Oh Jesus. 7.17km/s is a velocity. As he says in his quote. They have different units than acceleration. Slow down. Take a breath.
If you understand enough to correct what it should be to your own mind, then run with it.

This is you objectively fucking up and then doubling down on it. What will it take for you to understand that you aren’t currently knowledgeable enough to analyze this issue?
The rate I put forth is fine. I mistakenly put the word acceleration instead of the word velocity.

Kindly pat yourself on the back, take two if you care, my apology for using the wrong word in this case, and have a great rest of your day.

Before you go, if you can explain how a 16,038 mile per hour velocity at t+5 could possibly translate into an average rate of 3,000 mph over 5 minutes, that would be terrific.

ETA: To totally satisfy what appears to be a certain need for perfection in others, 0 - 16,038 mph translates to an acceleration of 23.9 m/s2.


You need to understand the difference between an average and an absolute.  The average family has 2.4 children. So does an average family exist? 

In physics, averages might make for interesting comparison, but are no basis for calculation.  The only considerations in calculating the energy state at a particular instant are its instantaneous position and velocity. 

Consider this; Urbanville and Townsville and are 60 miles apart.  They are served by a train which does the journey in one hour.  How the f*** are you supposed to get off the train in Townsville if it is doing an average of 60 mph?
Consider this; Urbanville and Townsville and are 60 miles apart.  They are served by a train which does the journey in one hour.  How the f*** are you supposed to get off the train in Townsville if it is doing an average of 60 mph?
And what if the train does the first half of the journey at 30mph? How fast does it have to go for the second half in order to travel the whole distance at an average of 60mph?
Intuitively one would thing it's 90mph, when that actual answer is it's impossible. Some of this stuff is counter-intuitive.

Frankly, Lackey, this level of maths is beyond you. And that isn't a slight, it's beyond me too. It's beyond most people. As a rocket rises the thrust remains (fairly) constant but it's burning fuel which means the acceleration is constantly increasing (because F=ma, the F of the thrust remains the same but the m constantly changes as fuel is burnt). Then you have the drag which reduces with altitude as the air gets thinner. And there's a gravitational effect too although that's probably small enough to not have to worry about it. Look at any rocket - it doesn't suddenly zoom into the air, it starts off going pretty slowly, the higher it goes and the lighter it gets the more it accelerates. The rate of acceleration is not constant, that's what makes this so complex.

TL;DR - this stuff is complicated. And it's fine to not understand it, just try not to overestimate your ability to.
If I was actually making a claim for a calculation here in terms of the rocketry, you both might have a point.

However, I am simply analyzing a portion of the provided numbers.

d=rt is a given and no amount of physics or rocket surgery makes that disappear.

Neither does the misguided question of how you get off of a train at speed negate the given reality provided by SteelyBob.

The fact remains that it has been claimed that a 250km distance was traveled in 5 minutes.

That translates to an average rate of travel of 3000km/h, which is a fact.

Given a starting rate of travel of 0 mph and a final rate of travel of 16,038 mph, kindly make that fit.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2021, 11:25:36 AM by Action80 »

Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #254 on: June 21, 2021, 04:46:29 PM »
The fact remains that it has been claimed that a 250km distance was traveled in 5 minutes.

That translates to an average rate of travel of 3000 mph, which is a fact.

Given a starting rate of travel of 0 mph and a final rate of travel of 16,038 mph, kindly make that fit.
It would be a fact if you weren't mixing up your units. But OK, I've had a go.

Minute 1 - rocket accelerates from 0-600 - Average speed = 300km/h, distance travelled = 5km
Minute 2 - rocket accelerates from 600-1200 - Average speed = 900km/h, distance travelled = 15km
Minute 3 - rocket accelerates from 1200-2000- Average speed = 1600km/h, distance travelled = 26.66km
Minute 4 - rocket accelerates from 2000-4000- Average speed = 3000km/h, distance travelled = 50km

I'm going to split the last minute into two 30 second blocks as this is where the acceleration is highest

Minute 5 - first 30 seconds. Rocket accelerates from 4000-8000- Average speed = 6000km/h, distance travelled = 50km (because this is 30 seconds, not 60, so divide by 120)
Minute 5 - second 30 seconds. Rocket accelerates from 8000-16000- Average speed = 12000km/h, distance travelled = 100km

Distance travelled = 246.66km. I'd say that's close enough.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #255 on: June 21, 2021, 08:37:28 PM »

If I was actually making a claim for a calculation here in terms of the rocketry, you both might have a point.

However, I am simply analyzing a portion of the provided numbers.

d=rt is a given and no amount of physics or rocket surgery makes that disappear.

Neither does the misguided question of how you get off of a train at speed negate the given reality provided by SteelyBob.

The fact remains that it has been claimed that a 250km distance was traveled in 5 minutes.

That translates to an average rate of travel of 3000 mph, which is a fact.

Given a starting rate of travel of 0 mph and a final rate of travel of 16,038 mph, kindly make that fit.

AATW is spot on. If you imagine plotting the velocity (y-axis) against time (x-axis) on a graph, then to find the distance travelled you need to find the area under the graph. If acceleration is constant, meaning the line on the graph is linear, then it's a straightforward calculation: s=ut + 1/2 at2, where u = initial velocity, which is zero in this case, leaving just the second term. We normally use 's', meaning displacement, instead of distance 'd' in mechanics problems, but the meaning is similar here. The problem is that 'a' is not constant in the case of our rocket, as you yourself have agreed, so we have to define a function for velocity with respect to time, and then integrate that in order to find the area under the graph - it's not a straightforward calculation, and if the function is complex, then we might even need to use numerical methods to solve it.

There is no reason why an object travelling at 16,000mph (I think our units are drifting here, but never mind - we're talking about a principle) can't average 3000mph over the previous 5 minutes - if there's a substantial upslope to the velocity profile then most of the distance covered will be in the last stages of the time period.

I'm not sure how we can make this any clearer.

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #256 on: July 01, 2021, 05:07:16 PM »
Pardon me for not reading 13 pages of replies, but coming down to the end of this, it seems to me that none of this is necessary. The target of an ICBM will be in a very different place if the earth is flat or round. All that is necessary for the question of FE vs RE is to observe that if you get the shape of the earth wrong, the missile will miss by hundreds of miles. The US has multiple test ranges and tracks missiles with radar, gps, and hydrophone grid at landing site. Russia shoots them at Siberia and can see where they landed. They want to get the CEP (circular error probability) down as low as possible (certainly less than a mile) to hit hardened targets.

The equation for a multi-stage rocket would be very complex, and I believe they have in flight guidance control of some kind. There is a gap between stages firing, the stages have different power and weight. It is not physics 101 textbook parabola. They are MIRVed and different warheads land different places.

The North Korea missiles went almost straight up. To know how far they can go if aimed more horizontally, one must know the shape of the earth.

Why do REs here go down the rabbit hole of arguing exact equations etc when there is a simple principle that will determine the point being debated? Complexity obscures, and RE should be looking for clarity and simplicity. Sometimes I think this is not about RE or FE but who has the most detailed scientific knowledge and math ability.

My point was that missiles that go a thousand miles or more will land in very different places on FE or RE. The people who test them have spent huge amounts of money tracking and instrumenting to know exactly where they are landing. Multiple countries have done this. There are 3 possibilities.

1. They know earth is round.
2. They know earth is flat.
3. All such systems have failed and none of the countries that desperately want to have their missiles hit a target have succeeded.

I do not care what the equation is. I care whether there is a giant worldwide conspiracy, required for case 2 or 3. Case 1 is ICBMs work and RE is true. Case 2 is ICBMs work and everyone involved with knows the earth is flat. Case 3 is everyone is an idiot and desperately trying to look like a genius, in which case it puzzles me that they could be so incompetent at aiming and so brilliant at faking it.

Do you think that no one knows where ICBMs will land? Because if someone knows, they know the shape of the earth. Multiple ranges and organizations in the US and more in other countries. Tracked by radar and gps and landing area instrumented with hydrophones.

Online WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 562
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #257 on: July 01, 2021, 07:46:19 PM »
Pardon me for not reading 13 pages of replies, but coming down to the end of this, it seems to me that none of this is necessary. The target of an ICBM will be in a very different place if the earth is flat or round. All that is necessary for the question of FE vs RE is to observe that if you get the shape of the earth wrong, the missile will miss by hundreds of miles. The US has multiple test ranges and tracks missiles with radar, gps, and hydrophone grid at landing site. Russia shoots them at Siberia and can see where they landed. They want to get the CEP (circular error probability) down as low as possible (certainly less than a mile) to hit hardened targets.

The equation for a multi-stage rocket would be very complex, and I believe they have in flight guidance control of some kind. There is a gap between stages firing, the stages have different power and weight. It is not physics 101 textbook parabola. They are MIRVed and different warheads land different places.

The North Korea missiles went almost straight up. To know how far they can go if aimed more horizontally, one must know the shape of the earth.

Why do REs here go down the rabbit hole of arguing exact equations etc when there is a simple principle that will determine the point being debated? Complexity obscures, and RE should be looking for clarity and simplicity. Sometimes I think this is not about RE or FE but who has the most detailed scientific knowledge and math ability.

My point was that missiles that go a thousand miles or more will land in very different places on FE or RE. The people who test them have spent huge amounts of money tracking and instrumenting to know exactly where they are landing. Multiple countries have done this. There are 3 possibilities.

1. They know earth is round.
2. They know earth is flat.
3. All such systems have failed and none of the countries that desperately want to have their missiles hit a target have succeeded.

I do not care what the equation is. I care whether there is a giant worldwide conspiracy, required for case 2 or 3. Case 1 is ICBMs work and RE is true. Case 2 is ICBMs work and everyone involved with knows the earth is flat. Case 3 is everyone is an idiot and desperately trying to look like a genius, in which case it puzzles me that they could be so incompetent at aiming and so brilliant at faking it.

Do you think that no one knows where ICBMs will land? Because if someone knows, they know the shape of the earth. Multiple ranges and organizations in the US and more in other countries. Tracked by radar and gps and landing area instrumented with hydrophones.

The fact that people who are wrong about something can achieve great things does absolutely nothing to make them right on those other things.

You have to remember that correct science is not necessary, if fact it appears more and more that it is incorrect science that is necessary, for complicated things to simply just work.
Distance from Sydney to Perth - We don't know.
There's a mirror floating in the sky - Yup.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #258 on: July 02, 2021, 10:40:58 AM »
The issue is engine burn of five minutes.

The issue is distance traveled of 250km in five minutes.

Average rate of travel to achieve 250km is 3000/kmh.

AATW proposal appears to exceed that number.

Additionally, only one engine in the missile.

After burnout, how does it possibly continue to gain altitude in order to achieve an additional 4250km to apogee?

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7957
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #259 on: July 02, 2021, 10:58:09 AM »
After burnout, how does it possibly continue to gain altitude in order to achieve an additional 4250km to apogee?

Same way a baseball can fly upwards after only being hit once? It’s acceleration. Very strange that you don’t know this.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.