The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: SylvanCyborg on February 10, 2018, 02:30:20 PM
-
Do you believe a rocket that weighs several thousand kg can reach a speed of 17, 500 mph? For reference, this is over 80 football field lengths in one second. If so, can you please explain the details of how this is achieved?
When I see the rocket lift off and gain speed, it doesn't seem to zip away that fast. It may be going fast, but it's not going anywhere near 80 football fields per second. So when exactly is this speed achieved? At what burn stage? Does anyone have footage indicating this dramatic increase in speed? Is this about the speed it's going when we see the car in orbit?
-
It's picking up speed to get out of the earth into space, it doesn't reach that speed while it's accelerating though the atmosphere, it reaches that when it's in space. There's plenty of research out there that you could look up this answer yourself.
-
It's picking up speed to get out of the earth into space, it doesn't reach that speed while it's accelerating though the atmosphere, it reaches that when it's in space. There's plenty of research out there that you could look up this answer yourself.
So when it's in the atmosphere, it's much slower? When it gets to space, that's when it starts speeding up? In the total vacuum of space, that's where it really throttles up?
-
From the frame of reference of a person on the ground, it does indeed get that high. You don't notice it because they get far away pretty quickly. People notice things are fast because of their high angular speed, not actual speed. Imagine an airplane traveling 20 times faster but also 20 times farther away. Doesn't look so fast.
The rockets go full throttle in the atmosphere and certainly reach very high speeds; however, the main acceleration takes place in space to boost the orbit. The reason why rockets are launched straight up is to get out of the dense atmosphere quickly; then the rocket turns and accelerates "horizontally" (tangentially)
-
From the frame of reference of a person on the ground, it does indeed get that high. You don't notice it because they get far away pretty quickly. People notice things are fast because of their high angular speed, not actual speed. Imagine an airplane traveling 20 times faster but also 20 times farther away. Doesn't look so fast.
The rockets go full throttle in the atmosphere and certainly reach very high speeds; however, the main acceleration takes place in space to boost the orbit. The reason why rockets are launched straight up is to get out of the dense atmosphere quickly; then the rocket turns and accelerates "horizontally" (tangentially)
Do you know how fast it's going while in the atmosphere? When it gets into space, is it able to get enough thrust to reach 17, 500 mph? Do you know what top speed is Falcon Heavy expected to reach while in space? Do you know approx what speed the car was going during the live stream?
-
From the frame of reference of a person on the ground, it does indeed get that high. You don't notice it because they get far away pretty quickly. People notice things are fast because of their high angular speed, not actual speed. Imagine an airplane traveling 20 times faster but also 20 times farther away. Doesn't look so fast.
The rockets go full throttle in the atmosphere and certainly reach very high speeds; however, the main acceleration takes place in space to boost the orbit. The reason why rockets are launched straight up is to get out of the dense atmosphere quickly; then the rocket turns and accelerates "horizontally" (tangentially)
Do you know how fast it's going while in the atmosphere? When it gets into space, is it able to get enough thrust to reach 17, 500 mph? Do you know what top speed is Falcon Heavy expected to reach while in space? Do you know approx what speed the car was going during the live stream?
Why are you asking here and not in a physics forum?
-
Why are you asking here and not in a physics forum?
I'm asking here because one of the subjects of this forum is conspiracy. I believe we are being lied to about this launch. I believe that the claim that a rocket can travel 86 football field lengths within 1 second is ridiculous. The reason I'm asking for more stats is just out of genuine curiosity. I want to know what people who believe these lies really think is going on. Maybe I will ask in a physics forum. May I ask why you offered such a low content post? Nevermind, I don't care to know the answer to that.
-
Why are you asking here and not in a physics forum?
I'm asking here because one of the subjects of this forum is conspiracy. I believe we are being lied to about this launch. I believe that the claim that a rocket can travel 86 football field lengths within 1 second is ridiculous. The reason I'm asking for more stats is just out of genuine curiosity. I want to know what people who believe these lies really think is going on. Maybe I will ask in a physics forum. May I ask why you offered such a low content post? Nevermind, I don't care to know the answer to that.
Hence find out about the science of rockets that will tell you how they work somewhere without the rudeness that is common here.
-
Hence find out about the science of rockets that will tell you how they work somewhere without the rudeness that is common here.
Just to clarify, can I then assume you are in agreement with the claim that the rocket travels 86 football field lengths within one second?
-
Hence find out about the science of rockets that will tell you how they work somewhere without the rudeness that is common here.
Just to clarify, can I then assume you are in agreement with the claim that the rocket travels 86 football field lengths within one second?
Why a claim and not fact?
-
Why a claim and not fact?
Because I don't accept it as a fact. Clearly you do. As I said, I believe this claim is a lie. Thank you for sharing, and please feel free to off any additional claims you wish, or we can just leave it as agree to disagree.
-
Why a claim and not fact?
Because I don't accept it as a fact. Clearly you do. As I said, I believe this claim is a lie. Thank you for sharing, and please feel free to off any additional claims you wish, or we can just leave it as agree to disagree.
Where have you looked for further information?
-
Where have you looked for further information?
One thing I looked at was how fast the fastest jet plane can reach. It seems to be the SR71 at a approx 3540 km/h (2199.654 mph). According to what I read, at this speed the thermal expansion starts to pull the plane apart. That's extremely fast. For reference, a bullet averages at 1,700 mph.
So when I'm told that the Falcon Heavy can travel 17, 500 mph, or about 86 football field lengths in one second, I'm very skeptical about that claim. I'm not sure what information could make me believe this claim, but I'm certainly willing to look at any additional information.
Speaking of which, are you planning to offer any information anytime soon? If not, let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.
-
Why a claim and not fact?
Because I don't accept it as a fact.
That isn’t how the world works unfortunately. There are lots of places to go research rocket technology and it appears you should. You should probably also adopt an agnostic position until you have a really solid ground not to. So far it appears that you don’t accept this claim solely on the basis that it sounds outlandish and that is a terrible basis.
-
That isn’t how the world works unfortunately. There are lots of places to go research rocket technology and it appears you should. You should probably also adopt an agnostic position until you have a really solid ground not to. So far it appears that you don’t accept this claim solely on the basis that it sounds outlandish and that is a terrible basis.
Another one who agrees that the rocket travels 86 football field lengths in one second. Thank's for your input. Agree to disagree.
-
That isn’t how the world works unfortunately. There are lots of places to go research rocket technology and it appears you should. You should probably also adopt an agnostic position until you have a really solid ground not to. So far it appears that you don’t accept this claim solely on the basis that it sounds outlandish and that is a terrible basis.
Another one who agrees that the rocket travels 86 football field lengths in one second. Thank's for your input. Agree to disagree.
I said nothing of the sort, obviously. I said that you appear to be ignorant on the topic and operating from incredulity and that is no way to discern the truth.
-
I said nothing of the sort, obviously. I said that you appear to be ignorant on the topic and operating from incredulity and that is no way to discern the truth.
So just to clarify, do you or do you not agree with the claim that the rocket travels 86 football field length in a single second? As I clearly stated, I do not agree with this claim. Do you have some problem with me asking this question? If so, maybe you should post some other place. I'm posting here about what I believe to be a conspiracy, that's the topic of my post. Are you ok with that? Did I upset you somehow?
-
It starts slow, and speeds up. The acceleration is determined by a few things:
Engine power, mass, and drag. The engine power will become more powerful as the rocket nears space. This is because of the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation. As the rocket burns its fuel, its mass decreases, making it easier to accelerate as well. Lastly, as the rocket nears space, the drag caused by air resistance and pressure put on the rocket decrease.
So, the higher the rocket goes, and the longer it burns, the faster it will travel, and the faster it will accelerate.
Because I don't accept it as a fact.
Like Rama Set said, that's not how the world works. It doesn't matter if you accept it or not, facts are facts. You can choose to believe them or not, but that doesn't discredit them.
I believe this claim is a lie
Why?
-
I said nothing of the sort, obviously. I said that you appear to be ignorant on the topic and operating from incredulity and that is no way to discern the truth.
So just to clarify, do you or do you not agree with the claim that the rocket travels 86 football field length in a single second?
For the record, I do. But it is largely irrelevant to your problem.
As I clearly stated, I do not agree with this claim. Do you have some problem with me asking this question?
As I clearly stated, my problem with this is that you arrived at your decision from a place of ignorance and incredulity. You can’t even say what is wrong with something going that fast.
If so, maybe you should post some other place.
Im fine here, but thanks for your concern.
I'm posting here about what I believe to be a conspiracy, that's the topic of my post. Are you ok with that?
Of course I am.
Did I upset you somehow?
Why should your ignorance be upsetting to me?
-
With so many people calling me ignorant, I suppose I will have to admit defeat. It still seems impossible to reach these speeds in atmosphere, and I will stand by that assertion. However, once it gets to space, I really have no claim to make about what is possible.
In fact, I will go so far as to say, I don't know anything at all about space. As far as I'm concerned, this is a realm where literally anything can happen. I will never go there, I will never see it. I will only receive what NASA, SpaceX and other authorities tell me about it.
If I can please ask some people who have commented to indulge me with a final request on this topic?
I would just like to summarize some of the facts that people have put forth on this topic, and make sure I clearly understand. I know this may not be the best place to ask these questions, but I would greatly appreciate your input as a way to reach some level of closure for myself.
1. I've learned that air slows the rocket a lot. It can only reach 3,000 mph in atmosphere, but 18,000 mph at the edge of space. That increase is due to the lack of air resistance.
2. The atmosphere has essentially no effect on the amount of thrust. Whether in atmosphere, or in a total vacuum, the same level of thrust can be achieved.
Am I getting this correct? Any more information or corrections is greatly appreciated. Again, thank you for input, and allowing me to express my opinions on this matter.
-
There is no winners or losers and I can respect that you are willing to change your mind on things, that is very admirable. Continue to remain skeptical and agnostic and to learn as much as you can. This is a great website for expanding your mind.
Your two points of clarification are correct. Specifically on point 2, as the thrust produced by a rocket increases, the drag from the atmosphere will increase as well.
-
The SR71 has thermal expansion problems because it is in the atmosphere. In space, you no longer have such problems from friction in the atmosphere, but you have other problems to solve like dealing with solar radiation/darkness cycles (if you are in orbit).
If you watch the launch video (start at about 21:30), it has a little speed indicator in the upper right corner starting at T-4 seconds. The counter just steadily increases while the rockets are burning. When the rockets shut down, it stops accelerating or even slows down until the next rocket kicks in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbSwFU6tY1c
The rate at which the rocket accelerates is quite often about the rate at which a motorcycle or sportscar accelerates. On the speed indicator, 100km/h is about 60 mph, and often you will see between 2-4 seconds for the number to increase by 100. At one point it is accelerating much faster than that - when it is high, out of the atmosphere, but still being driven by the main booster, it's got a lot of power and no air to slow it down. Once it's in space, there's no hurry - the big hurry on launch is to get out of the atmosphere that steals energy through friction. This is why the second stage only has one engine - they can just burn it longer.
During the launch, you can see on the timeline (and hear announcements about) Max-Q - that's maximum dynamic pressure, right when it goes supersonic. The vehicle is going faster and faster, and higher and higher, and so at some point you get the maximum wind resistance. Higher than that, and the thinner air resists less. Lower than that, and you're going slow enough to have lower wind resistance.
Many rockets, including Falcon Heavy, do not operate at full throttle the entire time - it would be possible for you to exceed the structural strength of the rocket if you go too fast at too low an altitude. So, that's why you hear the announcers talking about throttling down and throttling up. They throttle down before Max-Q, then after it they throttle back up.
Does any of that help? If you have any questions about the launch I can try to answer them.
-
You do realize that the atmosphere does pose a problem for rockets right? They go at full throttle simply to escape Earth's gravity as quickly as possible (imagine if a rocket burned with just enough thrust to keep it hovering; it would be 0% efficient). The Space Shuttle goes at about 300 m / s halfway to max Q. However, because the atmosphere rapidly gets thinner, once a rocket clears the troposphere, it's pretty much okay.
The 17500 mi / h figure comes from the speed relative to the ground observer to stay in orbit. There is virtually no air/drag there (okay, for long periods of time, it isn't negligible and may require orbital stationkeeping, but for launches it's fine). It's perfectly reasonable that something can travel that quickly; this is basic conservation of momentum.
-
With so many people calling me ignorant, I suppose I will have to admit defeat.
It's not about winning and losing but your posts do show a lot of ignorance about how rockets work.
I really don't mean that as an insult, I don't know what you do in life but unless you work for SpaceX or NASA why would you know how rockets work?
I do at a very high level because I'm interested in science so watch the right documentaries or read the right books to get some high level understanding but there is absolutely nothing wrong with ignorance, there are loads of things I know next to nothing about.
Your only mistake is to argue from a position of ignorance "I don't understand how this works, therefore it can't".
As I and others have suggested, just do a bit of research about it. You seem willing to learn and engage honestly in debate which is a very good thing - very rare on here, most people are so set in their belief of a flat earth they won't even engage. You are asking the right questions and that is a good start.
-
Perhaps the Original Poster could outline the 'things' that he/she considers would actually PREVENT a rocket from achieving those speeds?
We can discount air resistance, maximum RPM for mechanicals, and such, so ... what?
-
That isn’t how the world works unfortunately. There are lots of places to go research rocket technology and it appears you should. You should probably also adopt an agnostic position until you have a really solid ground not to. So far it appears that you don’t accept this claim solely on the basis that it sounds outlandish and that is a terrible basis.
Another one who agrees that the rocket travels 86 football field lengths in one second. Thank's for your input. Agree to disagree.
So you will not talk about this with anyone who disagrees with you?
-
2. The atmosphere has essentially no effect on the amount of thrust. Whether in atmosphere, or in a total vacuum, the same level of thrust can be achieved.
Am I getting this correct?
No. It's incorrect due to the Specific Thrust equation: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/airplane/specth.html
Rocket thrust is given by the equation F=(m')(ve)-(m0)(v0)+(Ae)(P1−P2) where (m') is the mass flow rate, (ve) is the average exit flow velocity across the exit plane, (m0) is the free stream mass flow rate, (v0) is the free stream velocity, (Ae) is the cross-sectional area of the exhaust jet at the exit plane, (P1) is the static pressure inside the engine just before the exit plane, and (P2) is the ambient static pressure (i.e. atmospheric pressure). If the ambient static pressure is a vacuum, meaning it is 0 (well, pretty close to 0), you have more total pressure (p1-0 is greater than p1-p2 if p2 is >0).
-
I think OP needs to ask himself what the max speed of a rocket could be if it were allowed to burn in a vacuum for as long as he wanted. It's my understanding that you could eventually reach light speed if given enough time. 86 football fields a second does sound insanely fast, but what part of physics says it's impossible? What says you cant go much faster?
-
You can’t even imagine how happy I am to have read this today! This is truly amazing - this is the first time I am seeing a flat-earther display open-mindedness and willingness to learn!!! In fact, this is by far the best thing I’ve read on this site so far. Thank you so much! Ladies and gentlemen, please, let’s celebrate this wonderful moment. I am completely serious by the way.
1. I've learned that air slows the rocket a lot. It can only reach 3,000 mph in atmosphere, but 18,000 mph at the edge of space. That increase is due to the lack of air resistance.
2. The atmosphere has essentially no effect on the amount of thrust. Whether in atmosphere, or in a total vacuum, the same level of thrust can be achieved.
Am I getting this correct? Any more information or corrections is greatly appreciated. Again, thank you for input, and allowing me to express my opinions on this matter.
-
You can’t even imagine how happy I am to have read this today! This is truly amazing - this is the first time I am seeing a flat-earther display open-mindedness and willingness to learn!!! In fact, this is by far the best thing I’ve read on this site so far. Thank you so much! Ladies and gentlemen, please, let’s celebrate this wonderful moment. I am completely serious by the way.
1. I've learned that air slows the rocket a lot. It can only reach 3,000 mph in atmosphere, but 18,000 mph at the edge of space. That increase is due to the lack of air resistance.
2. The atmosphere has essentially no effect on the amount of thrust. Whether in atmosphere, or in a total vacuum, the same level of thrust can be achieved.
Am I getting this correct? Any more information or corrections is greatly appreciated. Again, thank you for input, and allowing me to express my opinions on this matter.
Duly noted and celebrated.
-
Where have you looked for further information?
One thing I looked at was how fast the fastest jet plane can reach. It seems to be the SR71 at a approx 3540 km/h (2199.654 mph). According to what I read, at this speed the thermal expansion starts to pull the plane apart. That's extremely fast. For reference, a bullet averages at 1,700 mph.
So when I'm told that the Falcon Heavy can travel 17, 500 mph, or about 86 football field lengths in one second, I'm very skeptical about that claim.
And for good reason too ! There has been (nor will there be) any verifiable documented footage of a man made object traveling at 17, 500 mph.
-
Where have you looked for further information?
One thing I looked at was how fast the fastest jet plane can reach. It seems to be the SR71 at a approx 3540 km/h (2199.654 mph). According to what I read, at this speed the thermal expansion starts to pull the plane apart. That's extremely fast. For reference, a bullet averages at 1,700 mph.
So when I'm told that the Falcon Heavy can travel 17, 500 mph, or about 86 football field lengths in one second, I'm very skeptical about that claim.
And for good reason too ! There has been (nor will there be) any verifiable documented footage of a man made object traveling at 17, 500 mph.
So we're going to casually ignore all video of the ISS then? Cool. Go take some images yourself. Make sure to use a decent camera so you can see it's clearly man made. Calculate it's speed based on time it takes to travel across the sky. Feel free to pick any altitude you want to pretend it's at. Report back to us how fast it's going. Genuinely curious, since I believe you've said it's being carried by a balloon? Or am I mixing you up with someone else?
-
And for good reason too ! There has been (nor will there be) any verifiable documented footage of a man made object traveling at 17, 500 mph.
What a preposterously ignorant claim. Go ahead and ignore all of the independent observations of satellites orbiting Earth I guess. Oh wait, you've stated before they're fake, claiming they're just planes, without providing a shred of evidence.
-
So we're going to casually ignore all video of the ISS then? Cool. Go take some images yourself. Make sure to use a decent camera so you can see it's clearly man made. Calculate it's speed based on time it takes to travel across the sky. Feel free to pick any altitude you want to pretend it's at. Report back to us how fast it's going. Genuinely curious, since I believe you've said it's being carried by a balloon? Or am I mixing you up with someone else?
And for good reason too ! There has been (nor will there be) any verifiable documented footage of a man made object traveling at 17, 500 mph.
What a preposterously ignorant claim. Go ahead and ignore all of the independent observations of satellites orbiting Earth I guess. Oh wait, you've stated before they're fake, claiming they're just planes, without providing a shred of evidence.
Go ahead and slap whatever video you have of anything traveling at 17,500 mph.
Look at it...Let all of us look at it and see if there is anyway possible of accurately verifying the speed of the object from the video...
LOL!!!
-
So we're going to casually ignore all video of the ISS then? Cool. Go take some images yourself. Make sure to use a decent camera so you can see it's clearly man made. Calculate it's speed based on time it takes to travel across the sky. Feel free to pick any altitude you want to pretend it's at. Report back to us how fast it's going. Genuinely curious, since I believe you've said it's being carried by a balloon? Or am I mixing you up with someone else?
And for good reason too ! There has been (nor will there be) any verifiable documented footage of a man made object traveling at 17, 500 mph.
What a preposterously ignorant claim. Go ahead and ignore all of the independent observations of satellites orbiting Earth I guess. Oh wait, you've stated before they're fake, claiming they're just planes, without providing a shred of evidence.
Go ahead and slap whatever video you have of anything traveling at 17,500 mph.
Look at it...Let all of us look at it and see if there is anyway possible of accurately verifying the spped of the object from the video...
LOL!!!
Not attempting to claim I'm positive it will come out to that speed. I'm telling you to go and perform an experiment for yourself. Find a time you can watch the ISS going over. Grab a camera. Run some data. See how high up it is/should be and how fast that means it's going based on that information. Since I'm almost positive even if I did all of this for you, you would find some reason to not believe it. The information here (https://www.wired.com/2017/05/physics-of-angular-velocity/) can be used equally well against an object in the sky. Let's see what you come up with. Will it be less? More? I have no idea! That's what makes it fun! After you do it, the rest of us can repeat the experiment and see what we come up with, so make sure to list all of your variables so we can recreate things correctly!
-
So we're going to casually ignore all video of the ISS then? Cool. Go take some images yourself. Make sure to use a decent camera so you can see it's clearly man made. Calculate it's speed based on time it takes to travel across the sky. Feel free to pick any altitude you want to pretend it's at. Report back to us how fast it's going. Genuinely curious, since I believe you've said it's being carried by a balloon? Or am I mixing you up with someone else?
And for good reason too ! There has been (nor will there be) any verifiable documented footage of a man made object traveling at 17, 500 mph.
What a preposterously ignorant claim. Go ahead and ignore all of the independent observations of satellites orbiting Earth I guess. Oh wait, you've stated before they're fake, claiming they're just planes, without providing a shred of evidence.
Go ahead and slap whatever video you have of anything traveling at 17,500 mph.
Look at it...Let all of us look at it and see if there is anyway possible of accurately verifying the spped of the object from the video...
LOL!!!
Why can't something travel 17500 mph? Your incredulity is not a reason.
Go to the site below, go to the tracker portion, find your location, go outside at the right time and look up. It is traveling at 7.7 KM per sec.
https://www.thehumanitystar.com/ (https://www.thehumanitystar.com/)
-
Go ahead and slap whatever video you have of anything traveling at 17,500 mph.
Look at it...Let all of us look at it and see if there is anyway possible of accurately verifying the spped of the object from the video...
Doesn't need to be video. I can go outside and watch the ISS for myself. I'm sure I could do the trig and arithmetic to calculate its speed for myself, but I really don't see any need to. I've seen primary school students do it, so why bother?
I suggest readers here take a look at planewavemedia. Their speciality is motorised tracking telescopes, as far as I can gather. Their YouTube site has a number of tracking videos, with their telescope switching from satellite to satellite. I'm sure they could do computations of, or already have, the data which will tell us how fast said satellites are moving.
On screen, you can see;
The telescope itself, moving back and forth
A star chart showing the area of sky it is looking at
The scrolling data that outlines what it's doing, and where it's pointing
The output from the telescope, showing the satellite it is tracking, along with the background starfields whizzing by
At least two independent telescope operators have tracked the SpaceX Tesla on its way to Mars or thereabouts. I haven't looked at their data in detail, but imagine that we could compute time taken against distance from Earth to derive its speed.
-
So is ffps (football fields per second) an official measurement of speed now?
-
So we're going to casually ignore all video of the ISS then?
By no means will we ignore it. I welcome it. It clearly demonstrates that wherever this footage originates from, it is not depicting speeds attained in the 17, 500 MPH range.
Cool. Go take some images yourself. Make sure to use a decent camera so you can see it's clearly man made.
Nobody is denying that whatever we see when we look at what is called the ISS originates at the hands of humanity.
Calculate it's speed based on time it takes to travel across the sky. Feel free to pick any altitude you want to pretend it's at. Report back to us how fast it's going.
One more nail in the coffin as it is not traveling 17,500 MPH.
Genuinely curious, since I believe you've said it's being carried by a balloon? Or am I mixing you up with someone else?
Must be. I have never claimed that.
-
By no means will we ignore it. I welcome it. It clearly demonstrates that wherever this footage originates from, it is not depicting speeds attained in the 17, 500 MPH range.
What is your basis for that claim?
Someone above explained how you can calculate its velocity from observations. Here is another way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF0HNF7yiVQ
-
By no means will we ignore it. I welcome it. It clearly demonstrates that wherever this footage originates from, it is not depicting speeds attained in the 17, 500 MPH range.
What is your basis for that claim?
Someone above explained how you can calculate its velocity from observations. Here is another way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF0HNF7yiVQ
Do you expect me to take the video seriously?
The very first statement informs viewers the ISS is at an altitude of 226 km?
WTF?
Sorry, the story is too all over the place...
LMMFAO!!!
-
So there is more than 21000 "lies" orbiting earth? https://www.universetoday.com/42198/how-many-satellites-in-space/
-
By no means will we ignore it. I welcome it. It clearly demonstrates that wherever this footage originates from, it is not depicting speeds attained in the 17, 500 MPH range.
What is your basis for that claim?
Someone above explained how you can calculate its velocity from observations. Here is another way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF0HNF7yiVQ
Do you expect me to take the video seriously?
The very first statement informs viewers the ISS is at an altitude of 226 km?
WTF?
Sorry, the story is too all over the place...
LMMFAO!!!
How high is the ISS?
-
Currently at 254 miles/409 km and moving at 4.763 miles/s or 17148 mph
-
By no means will we ignore it. I welcome it. It clearly demonstrates that wherever this footage originates from, it is not depicting speeds attained in the 17, 500 MPH range.
What is your basis for that claim?
Someone above explained how you can calculate its velocity from observations. Here is another way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF0HNF7yiVQ
Do you expect me to take the video seriously?
The very first statement informs viewers the ISS is at an altitude of 226 km?
WTF?
Sorry, the story is too all over the place...
LMMFAO!!!
How high is the ISS?
Is your google broken?
Verify if the RE-tard source is correct...
-
By no means will we ignore it. I welcome it. It clearly demonstrates that wherever this footage originates from, it is not depicting speeds attained in the 17, 500 MPH range.
What is your basis for that claim?
Someone above explained how you can calculate its velocity from observations. Here is another way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF0HNF7yiVQ
Do you expect me to take the video seriously?
The very first statement informs viewers the ISS is at an altitude of 226 km?
WTF?
Sorry, the story is too all over the place...
LMMFAO!!!
How high is the ISS?
Is your google broken?
Verify if the RE-tard source is correct...
Why do you think a childish use of language helps the discussion? Is there a problem discussing the ISS?
-
@totallackey, help me to understand your position better. RE's claim the ISS is over 200 miles above ground moving at 17,500 mph. You Say It's A lie. So then what would you say is the max altitude and speed an object could reach?
-
I think he's upset because the video says 226 km instead of 226 miles.
-
Here's the problem with the idea that the rocket isn't going so fast: what happened to conservation of momentum? We know that a bunch of rocket fuel got spewed out at a certain exhaust speed. Well, what happens to the rocket?
-
A Physics 122 class presentation states the ISS is @ 226 km.
The state of university edumacation...
Geez, I wonder what their free-body diagram of the ISS would look like....
Any rocket surgeons here willing to tackle that one?
-
A Physics 122 class presentation states the ISS is @ 226 km.
The state of university edumacation...
Geez, I wonder what their free-body diagram of the ISS would look like....
Any rocket surgeons here willing to tackle that one?
It is actually at 226 miles, not km....maybe that will make it easier for you to understand...or not...
-
A Physics 122 class presentation states the ISS is @ 226 km.
The state of university edumacation...
Geez, I wonder what their free-body diagram of the ISS would look like....
Any rocket surgeons here willing to tackle that one?
Beyond the typo in the presentation, would you mind telling us the maximum altitude an object can reach and the max speed an object can travel?
-
A Physics 122 class presentation states the ISS is @ 226 km.
The state of university edumacation...
Geez, I wonder what their free-body diagram of the ISS would look like....
Any rocket surgeons here willing to tackle that one?
Beyond the typo in the presentation, would you mind telling us the maximum altitude an object can reach and the max speed an object can travel?
It depends on how much fuel you can stuff in it. Technically there is no upper limit save the speed of light, though the law of diminishing returns will make your rocket have to be exponentially bigger after a few orders of magnitude.
-
A Physics 122 class presentation states the ISS is @ 226 km.
The state of university edumacation...
Geez, I wonder what their free-body diagram of the ISS would look like....
Any rocket surgeons here willing to tackle that one?
I have already asked you to present your understanding, but instead you wish to simply act like a child. How interesting.
-
A Physics 122 class presentation states the ISS is @ 226 km.
The state of university edumacation...
Geez, I wonder what their free-body diagram of the ISS would look like....
Any rocket surgeons here willing to tackle that one?
Yeah. Easy stuff. Why don't you do this yourself instead of just bashing university education? A lot of the stuff you say indicates quite the ignorance about physics.
https://imgur.com/a/bH7K4
You should really study some basic physics if you're actually wondering that.
If you're being sarcastic, then my conclusion still stands. Somehow you think that it's implausible? No reason given?
-
We know that a bunch of rocket fuel got spewed out at a certain exhaust speed.
Er, no. The rocket fuel combusted in a chemical reaction which generated bucketloads of rapidly-expanding, rapidly-moving exhaust product, and THAT got spewed out.
-
A Physics 122 class presentation states the ISS is @ 226 km.
The state of university edumacation...
Geez, I wonder what their free-body diagram of the ISS would look like....
Any rocket surgeons here willing to tackle that one?
Yeah. Easy stuff. Why don't you do this yourself instead of just bashing university education? A lot of the stuff you say indicates quite the ignorance about physics.
https://imgur.com/a/bH7K4
You should really study some basic physics if you're actually wondering that.
If you're being sarcastic, then my conclusion still stands. Somehow you think that it's implausible? No reason given?
(https://imgur.com/a/bH7K4)
Do you mind explaining what this image is supposed to represent?
-
A Physics 122 class presentation states the ISS is @ 226 km.
The state of university edumacation...
Geez, I wonder what their free-body diagram of the ISS would look like....
Any rocket surgeons here willing to tackle that one?
Yeah. Easy stuff. Why don't you do this yourself instead of just bashing university education? A lot of the stuff you say indicates quite the ignorance about physics.
https://imgur.com/a/bH7K4
You should really study some basic physics if you're actually wondering that.
If you're being sarcastic, then my conclusion still stands. Somehow you think that it's implausible? No reason given?
He''s not going to give you an answer. He's only on this board to troll. Look at his post history.
-
A Physics 122 class presentation states the ISS is @ 226 km.
The state of university edumacation...
Geez, I wonder what their free-body diagram of the ISS would look like....
Any rocket surgeons here willing to tackle that one?
Yeah. Easy stuff. Why don't you do this yourself instead of just bashing university education? A lot of the stuff you say indicates quite the ignorance about physics.
https://imgur.com/a/bH7K4
You should really study some basic physics if you're actually wondering that.
If you're being sarcastic, then my conclusion still stands. Somehow you think that it's implausible? No reason given?
He''s not going to give you an answer. He's only on this board to troll. Look at his post history.
I am not going to give an answer?
Did you see the mess provided in response to the request for a free-body diagram for the ISS?
Your obvious bias is duly noted.
-
A Physics 122 class presentation states the ISS is @ 226 km.
The state of university edumacation...
Geez, I wonder what their free-body diagram of the ISS would look like....
Any rocket surgeons here willing to tackle that one?
Yeah. Easy stuff. Why don't you do this yourself instead of just bashing university education? A lot of the stuff you say indicates quite the ignorance about physics.
https://imgur.com/a/bH7K4
You should really study some basic physics if you're actually wondering that.
If you're being sarcastic, then my conclusion still stands. Somehow you think that it's implausible? No reason given?
He''s not going to give you an answer. He's only on this board to troll. Look at his post history.
I am not going to give an answer?
Did you see the mess provided in response to the request for a free-body diagram for the ISS?
Your obvious bias is duly noted.
Your obvious distractions and diversions from any serious answer is noted as well.
And I would agree, your replies are a mess.
-
A Physics 122 class presentation states the ISS is @ 226 km.
The state of university edumacation...
Geez, I wonder what their free-body diagram of the ISS would look like....
Any rocket surgeons here willing to tackle that one?
Yeah. Easy stuff. Why don't you do this yourself instead of just bashing university education? A lot of the stuff you say indicates quite the ignorance about physics.
https://imgur.com/a/bH7K4
You should really study some basic physics if you're actually wondering that.
If you're being sarcastic, then my conclusion still stands. Somehow you think that it's implausible? No reason given?
He''s not going to give you an answer. He's only on this board to troll. Look at his post history.
I am not going to give an answer?
Did you see the mess provided in response to the request for a free-body diagram for the ISS?
Your obvious bias is duly noted.
Your obvious distractions and diversions from any serious answer is noted as well.
And I would agree, your replies are a mess.
LMMFAO!
Hey! Do not forget your toys you left in the corner over there!
I asked for a free body diagram of the ISS.
All of you expurtts here should surely be able to come up with that.
Yet, chirp and freaking chirp...
Go ahead, Buzz!
Pony up the free body diagram!
-
I asked for a free body diagram of the ISS.
All of you expurtts here should surely be able to come up with that.
Pony up the free body diagram!
I'm no expert, but I'll have a go, if you're looking for diagrams from all-comers.
-
I asked for a free body diagram of the ISS.
All of you expurtts here should surely be able to come up with that.
Pony up the free body diagram!
I'm no expert, but I'll have a go, if you're looking for diagrams from all-comers.
Sure. Go ahead.
-
A Physics 122 class presentation states the ISS is @ 226 km.
The state of university edumacation...
Geez, I wonder what their free-body diagram of the ISS would look like....
Any rocket surgeons here willing to tackle that one?
Yeah. Easy stuff. Why don't you do this yourself instead of just bashing university education? A lot of the stuff you say indicates quite the ignorance about physics.
https://imgur.com/a/bH7K4
You should really study some basic physics if you're actually wondering that.
If you're being sarcastic, then my conclusion still stands. Somehow you think that it's implausible? No reason given?
He''s not going to give you an answer. He's only on this board to troll. Look at his post history.
I am not going to give an answer?
Did you see the mess provided in response to the request for a free-body diagram for the ISS?
Your obvious bias is duly noted.
Your obvious distractions and diversions from any serious answer is noted as well.
And I would agree, your replies are a mess.
LMMFAO!
Hey! Do not forget your toys you left in the corner over there!
I asked for a free body diagram of the ISS.
All of you expurtts here should surely be able to come up with that.
Yet, chirp and freaking chirp...
Go ahead, Buzz!
Pony up the free body diagram!
You've ignored every question I have asked you and then demand that I give you something? Um, no. Do a Google search. Just ask your mommy first.
-
(https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/humbot-prod/how_fast_is_the_iss_moving_3--ar_0.9110512129.png)
-
(https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/humbot-prod/how_fast_is_the_iss_moving_3--ar_0.9110512129.png)
So, I'm going to guess that totaltroll is going to reply with " HA! You expect me to believe something moving in a straight line can travel in a circle? Come back after you've leaned some basic physics!"
You all need to stop feeding him. Have you noticed that none of the other actual flat earth's are commenting in this thread? That's because they know that orbit is possible in a round earth model. They aren't going to argue that in that model the ISS is too high or moving too fast. They are going to argue that earth is flat and therefore orbit is impossible.
Totaltroll doesn't believe what he says. He's laughing his butt off that you all are melting down to his replys.
-
Do these diagrams count?
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites