Where are 'Space Ships' really headed?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

So there is no zero gravity, I get that.
We're told space ships aren't floating in zero gravity, but both falling towards the earth at tens of thousands of miles per hour vertically, and supposedly flying around earth at tens of thousands of miles per hour horizontally, simultaneously, perpetually, an explanation which, thou might be true, I find somewhat suspect.
Another issue I have is, is the space ship in this video really attaining sufficient altitude to fall around the curve of the earth?
Isn't the minimum altitude supposed to be like 200 miles up, so there's no drag?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't look anywhere near 200 miles up and it's already traveling horizontally.

I think I understand the theory behind falling around the curve of the earth well enough, and it, seems, internally consistent at least, if not externally, but I'd like some more empirical evidence, earthbound empirical evidence, that is.
I mean will a thing keep traveling horizontally in a vacuum, irrespective of gravity, so long it doesn't touch the ground, and there's virtually no drag?
I'm not entirely sure, but It'd be difficult if not impossible to conduct an earthbound demonstration.

When a thing is shot horizontally, is it merely being slowed down by drag, that is by friction in the atmosphere, or is it also being slowed down by gravity itself?
We have this idea in MS science that horizontal motion is not opposed to gravity, and therefore absence drag, is free to move horizontally forever, at least until it collides with the ground or something else.
But in some sense, theoretically at least, horizontal motion, while not as opposed to gravity as upward vertical motion, is still opposed to it, as it's subtlety taking you further away from the center of the earth, overall, and therefore, should gradually succumb to gravity as well.

I know they came up with this explanation for why the moon rotates around the earth, and the earth the sun, centuries ago with Newton, but still, it all seems rather convenient to me.
Oh well the reason we're not going straight up is cause we want to go around the curve of the earth, instead of just like admitting they can't get up into outer space for whatever reasons - a dome, lack of fuel, radiation, thin or different atmosphere, whatever the case might be, it just seems rather suspicious they can't get very high up at all, they could just be making a crash landing somewhere else on earth.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

So there is no zero gravity, I get that.
We're told space ships aren't floating in zero gravity, but both falling towards the earth at tens of thousands of miles per hour vertically, and supposedly flying around earth at tens of thousands of miles per hour horizontally, simultaneously, perpetually, an explanation which, thou might be true, I find somewhat suspect.

Perhaps because you're explaining it wrong.

Another issue I have is, is the space ship in this video really attaining sufficient altitude to fall around the curve of the earth?

It's more an issue of speed than altitude.

Isn't the minimum altitude supposed to be like 200 miles up, so there's no drag?

The higher the better, but the minimum altitude is about 100 km (what's known as the Karman Line]).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't look anywhere near 200 miles up and it's already traveling horizontally.

You're wrong.  Apparently you missed the part where the video says that it's a shuttle launch, not the shuttle in orbit.

Shpayze.

This thought experiment was developed by Isaac Newton.

Obviously you'll need a spherical earth and some kind of force acting at right angles to the direction of motion! Gravity maybe!

The image is from this excellent article on gravity, which includes a paragraph explaining orbits. http://www.aplusphysics.com/courses/regents/circmotion/regents-gravity.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't look anywhere near 200 miles up and it's already traveling horizontally.

It very much looks like it's still climbing to me. It has to start gaining horizontal movement well before it reaches its orbiting height in order to get to the necessary orbital velocity.

When a thing is shot horizontally, is it merely being slowed down by drag, that is by friction in the atmosphere, or is it also being slowed down by gravity itself?
We have this idea in MS science that horizontal motion is not opposed to gravity, and therefore absence drag, is free to move horizontally forever, at least until it collides with the ground or something else.
But in some sense, theoretically at least, horizontal motion, while not as opposed to gravity as upward vertical motion, is still opposed to it, as it's subtlety taking you further away from the center of the earth, overall, and therefore, should gradually succumb to gravity as well.

An object travelling perfectly horizontally relative to the gravitational pull won't be slowed down by gravity. This would be the case in a perfectly circular orbit.

An object travelling not perfectly horizontally but also to some degree away from the gravitational pull will be slowed down by the gravity. Similarly, an object moving to some degree towards the gravitational pull will be speeded up by gravity. Both these cases occur in elliptical orbits. The object slows down as its orbit takes it away from the planet, then speeds up as it goes back towards the planet. The slowing down and speeding up balance out so that over time, the object's average speed won't change.

Oh well the reason we're not going straight up is cause we want to go around the curve of the earth, instead of just like admitting they can't get up into outer space for whatever reasons - a dome, lack of fuel, radiation, thin or different atmosphere, whatever the case might be, it just seems rather suspicious they can't get very high up at all, they could just be making a crash landing somewhere else on earth.

Well, with human space flight they've been as far as the moon, which is quite high. And some spacecraft have left the solar system, which is very high!

If you are really interested in this stuff, i really recommend you download and play kerbal space program. It is an extremely entertaining game which teaches you orbital mechanics on-the-go (not the exact equations etc., but some general intuition). In the beginning it is quite frustrating (a lot of things crash and explode) but the first rocket sent to orbit is an awesome feeling.

I guarantee you that after 10-20 hours in this game you will have completely understood why rockets take off like they do.

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 01, 2017, 08:30:00 PM

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

So there is no zero gravity, I get that.
We're told space ships aren't floating in zero gravity, but both falling towards the earth at tens of thousands of miles per hour vertically, and supposedly flying around earth at tens of thousands of miles per hour horizontally, simultaneously, perpetually, an explanation which, thou might be true, I find somewhat suspect.

Perhaps because you're explaining it wrong.

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 01, 2017, 08:30:00 PM

Another issue I have is, is the space ship in this video really attaining sufficient altitude to fall around the curve of the earth?

It's more an issue of speed than altitude.

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 01, 2017, 08:30:00 PM

Isn't the minimum altitude supposed to be like 200 miles up, so there's no drag?

The higher the better, but the minimum altitude is about 100 km (what's known as the Karman Line]).

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 01, 2017, 08:30:00 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't look anywhere near 200 miles up and it's already traveling horizontally.

You're wrong.  Apparently you missed the part where the video says that it's a shuttle launch, not the shuttle in orbit.

I think I understand the theory behind orbits very well.

It's both speed and altitude, you have to reach at least 160 kilometers, or your orbit will rapidly decay.
I'm not at all sure, but to me that doesn't look anywhere near 160 kilometers, and it's already leveling out.

Shpayze.

sshipz

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 01, 2017, 08:30:00 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't look anywhere near 200 miles up and it's already traveling horizontally.

It very much looks like it's still climbing to me. It has to start gaining horizontal movement well before it reaches its orbiting height in order to get to the necessary orbital velocity.

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 01, 2017, 09:18:26 PM

When a thing is shot horizontally, is it merely being slowed down by drag, that is by friction in the atmosphere, or is it also being slowed down by gravity itself?
We have this idea in MS science that horizontal motion is not opposed to gravity, and therefore absence drag, is free to move horizontally forever, at least until it collides with the ground or something else.
But in some sense, theoretically at least, horizontal motion, while not as opposed to gravity as upward vertical motion, is still opposed to it, as it's subtlety taking you further away from the center of the earth, overall, and therefore, should gradually succumb to gravity as well.

An object travelling perfectly horizontally relative to the gravitational pull won't be slowed down by gravity. This would be the case in a perfectly circular orbit.

An object travelling not perfectly horizontally but also to some degree away from the gravitational pull will be slowed down by the gravity. Similarly, an object moving to some degree towards the gravitational pull will be speeded up by gravity. Both these cases occur in elliptical orbits. The object slows down as its orbit takes it away from the planet, then speeds up as it goes back towards the planet. The slowing down and speeding up balance out so that over time, the object's average speed won't change.

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 01, 2017, 09:33:41 PM

Oh well the reason we're not going straight up is cause we want to go around the curve of the earth, instead of just like admitting they can't get up into outer space for whatever reasons - a dome, lack of fuel, radiation, thin or different atmosphere, whatever the case might be, it just seems rather suspicious they can't get very high up at all, they could just be making a crash landing somewhere else on earth.

Well, with human space flight they've been as far as the moon, which is quite high. And some spacecraft have left the solar system, which is very high!

To bad the video ended so early, I should try to find one that carries on for longer.

How can we test this theory, that gravity only affects vertical motion, not horizontal?
When we throw a ball or fire a bullet horizontally, gradually it ceases its horizontal motion.
In MS science we say this is solely due to friction caused by particles in the air, not by gravity, because gravity is thought to only counteract vertical motion, for gravity pulls things down, not in the opposite direction horizontally, but, maybe it counteracts horizontal motion too, perhaps because any motion taking the object anywhere but straight down, which is always the shortest path to the center of the earth, the center of gravity, is in a sense opposed to gravity.
Any motion taking you anywhere other than straight down, is more/less opposing gravity, any motion taking you further away the earth is opposed to gravity, and horizontal motion is taking you further away from the earth, averagely, however subtly relative to vertical motion, for if an object kept traveling horizontally forever, it'd get further and further from the earth, more noticeably at high altitudes/speeds, like satellites.

How could we test such a hypothesis on earth?
Maybe we could use an analogous experiment.
Like if I were to roll two bowling balls down a long lane at the same speed, representing horizontal motion, and I were to kick the side of one of the bowling balls, representing gravity, would the kicked bowling ball lose any of its forward momentum, would the unkicked ball overtake it in their race towards the finishing line/the pins?

Another thing, in a sense there is no horizontal or vertical motion, these are abstractions, because as much as a thing is moving in a horizontal direction, it could always be moving infinitely more so in one, for there's no such thing as moving perfectly horizontal, everything is angled, it's a case of degrees, or a spectrum of angularity.
Dimensions are in a sense, artificial constructs we impose upon nature for convenience, but motion is fluid, in very important senses, there are no dimensions.

I'm not at all sure, but to me that doesn't look anywhere near 160 kilometers, and it's already leveling out.

Yes, it's starting to level out because it still needs to gain about 15,000 or so mph of horizontal speed and that's hard to do when you're going straight up.

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 02, 2017, 05:47:59 PM

I'm not at all sure, but to me that doesn't look anywhere near 160 kilometers, and it's already leveling out.

Yes, it's starting to level out because it still needs to gain about 15,000 or so mph of horizontal speed and that's hard to do when you're going straight up.

When you have no faith in your institutions, it's difficult to say, what it's doing.
Towards the end of the video, it looks as thou it's traveling more horizontal than vertical, yet it's still suppose to have a long way to go, like another 140-150 kilometers, it doesn't look right.
Unfortunately the video ends abruptly.
I'm going to look deeper into this.

Quote from: markjo on April 02, 2017, 06:56:09 PM

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 02, 2017, 05:47:59 PM

I'm not at all sure, but to me that doesn't look anywhere near 160 kilometers, and it's already leveling out.

Yes, it's starting to level out because it still needs to gain about 15,000 or so mph of horizontal speed and that's hard to do when you're going straight up.

When you have no faith in your institutions, it's difficult to say, what it's doing.
Towards the end of the video, it looks as thou it's traveling more horizontal than vertical, yet it's still suppose to have a long way to go, like another 140-150 kilometers, it doesn't look right.
Unfortunately the video ends abruptly.
I'm going to look deeper into this.

When you have several thousand of kilometers to go horizontally, it isn't too hard to gain a couple of hundred vertical kilometers with just a few degrees of elevation.

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 02, 2017, 07:08:42 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 02, 2017, 06:56:09 PM

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 02, 2017, 05:47:59 PM

I'm not at all sure, but to me that doesn't look anywhere near 160 kilometers, and it's already leveling out.

Yes, it's starting to level out because it still needs to gain about 15,000 or so mph of horizontal speed and that's hard to do when you're going straight up.

When you have no faith in your institutions, it's difficult to say, what it's doing.
Towards the end of the video, it looks as thou it's traveling more horizontal than vertical, yet it's still suppose to have a long way to go, like another 140-150 kilometers, it doesn't look right.
Unfortunately the video ends abruptly.
I'm going to look deeper into this.

When you have several thousand of kilometers to go horizontally, it isn't too hard to gain a couple of hundred vertical kilometers with just a few degrees of elevation.

Why waste gas pushing yourself horizontally, when once you reach a certain altitude, you can just push yourself horizontally once, and be carried horizontally without any further pushes?

Quote from: markjo on April 02, 2017, 08:04:47 PM

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 02, 2017, 07:08:42 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 02, 2017, 06:56:09 PM

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 02, 2017, 05:47:59 PM

I'm not at all sure, but to me that doesn't look anywhere near 160 kilometers, and it's already leveling out.

Yes, it's starting to level out because it still needs to gain about 15,000 or so mph of horizontal speed and that's hard to do when you're going straight up.

When you have no faith in your institutions, it's difficult to say, what it's doing.
Towards the end of the video, it looks as thou it's traveling more horizontal than vertical, yet it's still suppose to have a long way to go, like another 140-150 kilometers, it doesn't look right.
Unfortunately the video ends abruptly.
I'm going to look deeper into this.

When you have several thousand of kilometers to go horizontally, it isn't too hard to gain a couple of hundred vertical kilometers with just a few degrees of elevation.

Why waste gas pushing yourself horizontally, when once you reach a certain altitude, you can just push yourself horizontally once, and be carried horizontally without any further pushes?

I thought that you said that you understood the theory behind orbits.  Apparently you don't understand it as well as you think you do.

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 02, 2017, 08:22:54 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 02, 2017, 08:04:47 PM

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 02, 2017, 07:08:42 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 02, 2017, 06:56:09 PM

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 02, 2017, 05:47:59 PM

I'm not at all sure, but to me that doesn't look anywhere near 160 kilometers, and it's already leveling out.

Yes, it's starting to level out because it still needs to gain about 15,000 or so mph of horizontal speed and that's hard to do when you're going straight up.

When you have no faith in your institutions, it's difficult to say, what it's doing.
Towards the end of the video, it looks as thou it's traveling more horizontal than vertical, yet it's still suppose to have a long way to go, like another 140-150 kilometers, it doesn't look right.
Unfortunately the video ends abruptly.
I'm going to look deeper into this.

When you have several thousand of kilometers to go horizontally, it isn't too hard to gain a couple of hundred vertical kilometers with just a few degrees of elevation.

Why waste gas pushing yourself horizontally, when once you reach a certain altitude, you can just push yourself horizontally once, and be carried horizontally without any further pushes?

I thought that you said that you understood the theory behind orbits.  Apparently you don't understand it as well as you think you do.

Where do you think I've gone wrong?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't look anywhere near 200 miles up and it's already traveling horizontally.

Looks like around 45° to me, you would get on well with Rayzor.

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 01, 2017, 08:30:00 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't look anywhere near 200 miles up and it's already traveling horizontally.

Looks like around 45° to me, you would get on well with Rayzor.

Maybe I'll get to know him during my stay here.

Why waste gas pushing yourself horizontally, when once you reach a certain altitude, you can just push yourself horizontally once, and be carried horizontally without any further pushes?

Please explain how that would save fuel?

The fuel is mainly used accelerating the space vehicle, not in simply lifting the rocket to the required altitude.

Without going too much into the details,
by the time the rocket reaches its orbital altitude, it needs to be travelling at the required orbital velocity.
    At 200 km altitude, the orbital velocity is about 7.79 km/s or
    at 400 km altitude, the orbital velocity is about 7.68 km/s.
The most efficient way to achieve this is to gain height gradually.

The accurate calculation of the best trajectory is quite complicated
because the rockets mass if falling as fuel is burnt and gravity falls off, though quite slowly, with altitude.

Where do you think I've gone wrong?

Here:

Why waste gas pushing yourself horizontally, when once you reach a certain altitude, you can just push yourself horizontally once, and be carried horizontally without any further pushes?

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 02, 2017, 08:22:54 PM

Why waste gas pushing yourself horizontally, when once you reach a certain altitude, you can just push yourself horizontally once, and be carried horizontally without any further pushes?

Please explain how that would save fuel?

The fuel is mainly used accelerating the space vehicle, not in simply lifting the rocket to the required altitude.

Without going too much into the details,
by the time the rocket reaches its orbital altitude, it needs to be travelling at the required orbital velocity.
    At 200 km altitude, the orbital velocity is about 7.79 km/s or
    at 400 km altitude, the orbital velocity is about 7.68 km/s.
The most efficient way to achieve this is to gain height gradually.

The accurate calculation of the best trajectory is quite complicated
because the rockets mass if falling as fuel is burnt and gravity falls off, though quite slowly, with altitude.

Why is it more efficient to do it gradually?
I'm sure you will be able to answer my question, as Nasa is either telling the truth, or if it is lying about some things or everything, it's at least not stupid, almost all of its explanations will at least be internally consistent.
However, I find it all rather convenient that it has to do it gradually, maybe they just made up that explanation because they really can't get up that high, and they're going to make a crash landing offshore somewhere.

Quote from: rabinoz on April 03, 2017, 02:06:41 AM

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 02, 2017, 08:22:54 PM

Why waste gas pushing yourself horizontally, when once you reach a certain altitude, you can just push yourself horizontally once, and be carried horizontally without any further pushes?

Please explain how that would save fuel?

The fuel is mainly used accelerating the space vehicle, not in simply lifting the rocket to the required altitude.

Without going too much into the details,
by the time the rocket reaches its orbital altitude, it needs to be travelling at the required orbital velocity.
    At 200 km altitude, the orbital velocity is about 7.79 km/s or
    at 400 km altitude, the orbital velocity is about 7.68 km/s.
The most efficient way to achieve this is to gain height gradually.

The accurate calculation of the best trajectory is quite complicated
because the rockets mass if falling as fuel is burnt and gravity falls off, though quite slowly, with altitude.

Why is it more efficient to do it gradually?

Which is easier, lifting something straight up or pushing it up a ramp?

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 03, 2017, 05:57:58 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on April 03, 2017, 02:06:41 AM

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 02, 2017, 08:22:54 PM

Why waste gas pushing yourself horizontally, when once you reach a certain altitude, you can just push yourself horizontally once, and be carried horizontally without any further pushes?

Please explain how that would save fuel?

The fuel is mainly used accelerating the space vehicle, not in simply lifting the rocket to the required altitude.

Without going too much into the details,
by the time the rocket reaches its orbital altitude, it needs to be travelling at the required orbital velocity.
    At 200 km altitude, the orbital velocity is about 7.79 km/s or
    at 400 km altitude, the orbital velocity is about 7.68 km/s.
The most efficient way to achieve this is to gain height gradually.

The accurate calculation of the best trajectory is quite complicated
because the rockets mass if falling as fuel is burnt and gravity falls off, though quite slowly, with altitude.

Why is it more efficient to do it gradually?

Which is easier, lifting something straight up or pushing it up a ramp?

There is no ramp, or any equivalent in this scenario, nothing is assisting the vehicle in reaching its destination, it has to do all the work by itself, whether it's going straight up, or diagonally up, or straight forward.

It's a metaphor.

You seem to think it's easier to go straight up to your desired altitude, stop dead, turn the spaceship around 90 degrees and then fire the engines to push it on again. As opposed to plotting a course that puts you in the right altitude at the right velocity with the least amount of effort.

It's a metaphor.

You seem to think it's easier to go straight up to your desired altitude, stop dead, turn the spaceship around 90 degrees and then fire the engines to push it on again. As opposed to plotting a course that puts you in the right altitude at the right velocity with the least amount of effort.

It seems like a poor metaphor, there's nothing supporting the space shuttle from underneath, nor are wheels a factor, like it's easier to pull a cart up a ramp with a rope than pull it up in the air with a rope if the cart has wheels, but if it doesn't have wheels, it might be easier to pull it up in the air with a rope, especially if the ramp and wheeless cart are slippery, and it'll fall back down if you release the rope.
The shortest distance between any two points is a straight line.
Obviously the thing can't stop dead, but it should head straight up for the first 199 kilometers, then gradually level out during the last kilometer.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on April 03, 2017, 06:30:43 AM

It's a metaphor.

You seem to think it's easier to go straight up to your desired altitude, stop dead, turn the spaceship around 90 degrees and then fire the engines to push it on again. As opposed to plotting a course that puts you in the right altitude at the right velocity with the least amount of effort.

It seems like a poor metaphor, there's nothing supporting the space shuttle from underneath,

Apart from the massive amount of thrust

nor are wheels a factor, like it's easier to pull a cart up a ramp with a rope than pull it up in the air with a rope if the cart has wheels, but if it doesn't have wheels, it might be easier to pull it up in the air with a rope, especially if the ramp and wheeless cart are slippery, and it'll fall back down if you release the rope.
The shortest distance between any two points is a straight line.

But it is not necessarily the most efficient route.

Obviously the thing can't stop dead, but it should head straight up for the first 199 kilometers, then gradually level out during the last kilometer.

Any reason for that arbitrary value?

Why not start the gradual levelling out process a little earlier to make it easier, so it does exactly what it does already?

How could we test such a hypothesis on earth?
Maybe we could use an analogous experiment.
Like if I were to roll two bowling balls down a long lane at the same speed, representing horizontal motion, and I were to kick the side of one of the bowling balls, representing gravity, would the kicked bowling ball lose any of its forward momentum, would the unkicked ball overtake it in their race towards the finishing line/the pins?

If such an experiment were carried out properly, then the two balls should stay at the same pace in the 'horizontal' direction.

Another thing, in a sense there is no horizontal or vertical motion, these are abstractions, because as much as a thing is moving in a horizontal direction, it could always be moving infinitely more so in one, for there's no such thing as moving perfectly horizontal, everything is angled, it's a case of degrees, or a spectrum of angularity.
Dimensions are in a sense, artificial constructs we impose upon nature for convenience, but motion is fluid, in very important senses, there are no dimensions.

Well, the vertical direction is usually defined to be the direction of local gravitational pull. You are absolutely correct though, in saying that any co-ordinate system is valid. The important thing to recognise is that with vector quantities such as velocity or force, components that are perpendicular to each other (e.g. horizontal/vertical) can be considered independently.

Here's a video which shows a vertical acceleration (due to gravity) being independent of horizontal velocity:

Obviously the thing can't stop dead, but it should head straight up for the first 199 kilometers, then gradually level out during the last kilometer.

The spacecraft needs a huge amount of horizontal velocity for orbit. It needs to build up this horizontal velocity while ascending. Its vertical velocity won't be converted into horizontal velocity if it just turns sideways when it gets to orbital height.