What would it take to fake the ISS?

Yeah except the U2 is tiny compared to the ISS:

Quote

Specifications (U-2S)

Data from International Directory,[175] USAF Fact Sheet[176][177]

General characteristics

Crew: One
Length: 63 ft (19.2 m)
Wingspan: 103 ft (31.4 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)
Wing area: 1,000 ft² (92.9 m²)
Aspect ratio: 10.6
Empty weight: 14,300 lb (6,486 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 40,000 lb (18,144 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F118-101 turbofan, 17,000 lbf (84.5 kN)

[ISS 109m wide]

Using an angular size of 60 arc seconds, I calculate that a 109m wide ISS is 375km high, which is... actually not too far off the 408km figure, so not bad for using values where the degree of error is going to be kinda absurd. (I lose 5km by adding 0.0001 to the angle alone).

If the ISS has the width of a U2, using the figure you gave, I find that it's approximately 108km high. 117km if I go direct and don't use angular size. It is however also a decent bit lower than the Falcon; it is higher than the Karman line, but there is still resistance that'd be significant at these velocities. Let's use 117km.

The more pressing concern is the 802km/h top speed, significantly slower than the ~20,000km/h required. Modification and the fact that it's operating in near-vacuum might help with that, though I'd need to do a bit more research on drag at those altitudes.

Yeah except the U2 is tiny compared to the ISS:

Minor problem^[1] ! The U2 could not fly at 400,000 m altitude either so would be far closer to the observers.

[1] A minor problem to a flat earther who can believe that
      the sun and moon are leviated and follow sort of spiral paths because of "reasons" or "whirlpools" or "space expanding".

Quote from: Jane on November 23, 2018, 01:42:24 PM

Always better to go lower, if you don't give something every chance then you've not made a persuasive argument against, and equally you wouldn't end up with the parameters of possibility if it does end up working.

I think this is an entirely worthy thought experiment. And it's fine to use the lower bound as a starting point. And maybe it doesn't have to be too complicated. Here's how I would fake it.

- A modified U2 spy plane or similar.
- With solar arrays attached powering ram jets for continuous uninterrupted speedy flight.
- As Jane mentioned, repairs done in flight over the seas. If the solar panels are just for show, then in flight refueling.

Here's the ISS compared to a U2:

There is no compatibility between ISS and the U2, size for one thing, the aerodynamics of the ISS  is absurd, the ISS would collapse under its own weight, let alone get off the ground.

Using an angular size of 60 arc seconds, I calculate that a 109m wide ISS is 375km high, which is... actually not too far off the 408km figure, so not bad for using values where the degree of error is going to be kinda absurd. (I lose 5km by adding 0.0001 to the angle alone).

If the ISS has the width of a U2, using the figure you gave, I find that it's approximately 108km high. 117km if I go direct and don't use angular size. It is however also a decent bit lower than the Falcon; it is higher than the Karman line, but there is still resistance that'd be significant at these velocities. Let's use 117km.

The more pressing concern is the 802km/h top speed, significantly slower than the ~20,000km/h required. Modification and the fact that it's operating in near-vacuum might help with that, though I'd need to do a bit more research on drag at those altitudes.

So, to your point, maybe it's not as high up as we are told.

And there are all kinds of strange looking planes. Maybe it's a wildly modified type of U2-ish machine made to look like the ISS. I mean this is a rather unique looking flying machine:



And this:



I think the big sticking point is propulsion/speed.

Yeah except the U2 is tiny compared to the ISS:

But we aren't standing beside it, we are looking at it up in the sky.

The ISS being 400 km away and 100 m long would appear the same as an object 40km away being 10 m long.
If it is only 20 km away (it's ceiling) then it is only 5 m long.
If anything I would say the U2 is far too large.

Due to how non-aerodynamic it is, it would be more likely to have a transparent outer casing. if it was going to be in any atmosphere.

To fake the ISS, viewing the ISS's orbit through a telescope would need to be faked, except you can view each part of the ISS in good detail with a decent telescope.
Can't really be faked.

A quick search and yeah these two would be a problem on the fakery front:

International Space Station video from amateur telescope (Celestron C8 / 200mm diameter) and Nikon D5100 DSLR



ISS over Munich through the 80cm telescope of the Public Observatory in Munich, 9. July 2010.

Can you back that up? If it is indeed a "proven fact"?

All evidence is on YouTube. Where people did a detailed analysis. Including in Russian. He who seeks will always find - as we say.

Quote

Can you back that up? If it is indeed a "proven fact"?

All evidence is on YouTube. Where people did a detailed analysis. Including in Russian. He who seeks will always find - as we say.

And you can't link to them because?  and you know this analysis is correct because?

Earlier in the thread there were videos showing the height and speed determined from the ground and they showed it to be correct and as expected.

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on November 24, 2018, 08:04:10 AM

Quote

Can you back that up? If it is indeed a "proven fact"?

All evidence is on YouTube. Where people did a detailed analysis. Including in Russian. He who seeks will always find - as we say.

And you can't link to them because?  and you know this analysis is correct because?

Earlier in the thread there were videos showing the height and speed determined from the ground and they showed it to be correct and as expected.

I am assuming this topic came up because of the new video ? I cannot believe people are saying " what does it take to fake the ISS" Can it not be accepted that the 100s of missions going to and from where and footage of all of it are not enough ? Im sure everyone has seen this but I will post the link anyway. Come on guys.

http://digg.com/video/iss-20th-anniversary-timelapse

I cannot believe people are saying " what does it take to fake the ISS" Can it not be accepted that the 100s of missions going to and from where and footage of all of it are not enough ? Im sure everyone has seen this but I will post the link anyway. Come on guys.

Reading the first post should not be too much to ask. Seriously.

Anyway. Onto drag, using the U2 because it's a model that at least gives a few figures to work with, and calculating the Reynolds number from:

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24641/what-is-the-relation-between-an-airplanes-altitude-and-the-drag-it-is-experienc/24644

Not necessarily the best source, but it does give a clear walk-through that can be repeated.
Velocity=19,500km/h=5416m/s
Reference length=19.2m
Density of air at 117km=0.000000577kg/m³
Dynamic viscosity=~0.000008Ns/m²

Latter two values open to correction, but should be at least ballpark figures.
Thus the Reynolds number of our U2 space station is 7500.
For comparison, the Reynolds number of a U2 in its usual routine is about 251 million. The smaller the Reynolds' number, the greater the drag, so the force on the modified U2 is significant.

Will check out the Reynolds number of the Falcon in a bit, assuming this isn't the wrong direction entirely, to get some idea of what drag it was under.

Given that altitude defines the reference length, density and dynamic viscosity, may be able to come up with a formula that ties everything together in terms of that variable. could get ugly, but would also help immensely. Next step might be getting it all in terms of the length of the journey, so there are concrete figures on what's needed. This is getting fun.

This is a thread dedicated to actually analysing an FE belief some people hold. If all you're interested in doing is insulting FET or claiming victory in one post or just generally not contributing, please hit back. If you're confident this won't work then contribute, add facts that hold from an FE perspective to help calculate, and don't clutter the thread so there's a simple, easy read-through disproof. If on the other hand you think it could work, let's see if that can be proved and, in the same vein, it's an easy read-through of a counter to an RE argument.

As I imagine everyone here knows, the International Space Station, or at least a light claimed to be it, can be seen on Earth
https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/
http://www.isstracker.com/

The ISS completes a journey in 92 minutes.

Goals of this thread
To determine the basic specs of the ISS. Things like how fast it needs to be going, whether there are any opportunities for it to be refueled, and potentially even height/size. Does it need to be in space? How feasible is it to function in atmosphere?

Things to do
If we can work out the distance along the ground the ISS appears to take, then on a flat Earth that easily tells us how much distance it covers itself and so its speed. Ideally we'll get a lower bound, so that we have the best chance of making the ISS work.
With that, we can calculate what could happen when it's out of view of land over the ocean (for however long that is), what acceleration would be needed for it to be replaced with a fuelled up version etc, or consider in-air refuelling. We can also determine how much force from air resistance and such it's under, and how that compares with objects like planes.
Calculate a minimum altitude, and from that an estimate as to mass to work out what forces (at a basic level) would be needed.

Caveats
Initially we'll work with basic principles as those will be most persuasive. If necessary, concepts like aetheric whirlpools and laevorotatory subquarks can be included if the conclusion is otherwise too unwieldy.

Why don't you just go to the source ? Plenty of info here to keep you occupied and you seem to have nothing else to do but come up with silly calculations that lead to nothing.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/np-2015-05-022-jsc-iss-guide-2015-update-111015-508c.pdf

Why don't you just go to the source ? Plenty of info here to keep you occupied and you seem to have nothing else to do but come up with silly calculations that lead to nothing.

You realise I'm a round earther, right? This is what's called 'making a good argument.' If you want to argue that FEers should accept official sources etc etc go do that somewhere else, and try to provide more than a random link to justify it else you're not going to come across particularly well.
Personally I'm of the opinion that the reason RET is a better model than FET is because of reasons that can actually be determined, and equally I'm honest enough to admit that random bits of garbage thrown out don't inherently make a good argument. So if this ends with solid, numbers-based proof that the ISS can't exist on a flat Earth without some major changes, I wouldn't call that 'nothing,' I'd call that a good case. And if, on the flipside, this ends with the revelation that the ISS can be feasibly faked, then I'd call that worth knowing and a reason to retire that particular argument and move onto examining others (neutrino experiments, aligned telescopes, necessary properties of light...). Either way, worth it, there's no loss.

If this bugs you so much, butt out, there's a whole forum for you to get mad in.

Quote from: jncastillo87 on November 24, 2018, 11:29:31 AM

Why don't you just go to the source ? Plenty of info here to keep you occupied and you seem to have nothing else to do but come up with silly calculations that lead to nothing.

You realise I'm a round earther, right? This is what's called 'making a good argument.' If you want to argue that FEers should accept official sources etc etc go do that somewhere else, and try to provide more than a random link to justify it else you're not going to come across particularly well.
Personally I'm of the opinion that the reason RET is a better model than FET is because of reasons that can actually be determined, and equally I'm honest enough to admit that random bits of garbage thrown out don't inherently make a good argument. So if this ends with solid, numbers-based proof that the ISS can't exist on a flat Earth without some major changes, I wouldn't call that 'nothing,' I'd call that a good case. And if, on the flipside, this ends with the revelation that the ISS can be feasibly faked, then I'd call that worth knowing and a reason to retire that particular argument and move onto examining others (neutrino experiments, aligned telescopes, necessary properties of light...). Either way, worth it, there's no loss.

If this bugs you so much, butt out, there's a whole forum for you to get mad in.

Do you have any suggestions as to how the ISS could be faked considering these four points:

. . . . . . . .
Hence "to fake the ISS" would require objects that:

• looked like the ISS in profile, maybe modified U2s,
• could appear at any predicted location on time,
• travelling in the right direction and
• at what appeared from the ground to be the correct speed.

   
But the elephant in the room would be the hoaxing organisation's complete ignorance of where these observers might be.
They could easily be at sea so to me it seems well nigh impossible but I'm sure there are plenty here more devious than I.

Given that altitude defines the reference length, density and dynamic viscosity, may be able to come up with a formula that ties everything together in terms of that variable. could get ugly, but would also help immensely.

Update: ugly was an understatement. I've got a set of 14 simultaneous equations, with something of order 10³⁰ on one side, and 10^-11 on the other. Thanks to the magic of online calculators I can solve that, but one of those coefficients is still of order 10^^-24 so it's a party.
Next up, going through all that again for dynamic viscosity. Which is going to be much more of approximation unless anyone can find decent figures for it at altitudes higher than 80km.

I'm not sure it's a formula anyone would ever want to use for anything, but hey, it's coming.

Do you have any suggestions as to how the ISS could be faked considering these four points:

Did you miss the fact that that's what this entire thread is working towards seeing if it's possible? This isn't magic, you don't wave your hands and get a justified answer in a flash of light, it takes work and work takes time.

• looked like the ISS in profile, maybe modified U2s,
• could appear at any predicted location on time,
• travelling in the right direction and
• at what appeared from the ground to be the correct speed.

   

Location, direction and speed basically come down to the same thing, assuming a path exists (which I'm just going to concede, map questions are a separate topic entirely and really no point in dredging that up on top of everything else). Appearance in of itself is easy, especially given the earlier discussion with Jimmy positing that it would need to essentially switch on illumination, so what we see is less significant than whether there is any vehicle of sufficient size and shape to keep at those velocities.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 23, 2018, 06:10:35 PM

• looked like the ISS in profile, maybe modified U2s,
• could appear at any predicted location on time,
• travelling in the right direction and
• at what appeared from the ground to be the correct speed.

   

Location, direction and speed basically come down to the same thing, assuming a path exists (which I'm just going to concede, map questions are a separate topic entirely and really no point in dredging that up on top of everything else). Appearance in of itself is easy, especially given the earlier discussion with Jimmy positing that it would need to essentially switch on illumination, so what we see is less significant than whether there is any vehicle of sufficient size and shape to keep at those velocities.

But my point is that observers can expect to see (and do see) the ISS anywhere along the predicted flight path.
Since the ISS is claimed to orbits the earth in just over 90 minutes there seems no way that there could be a "fake ISS" show up all these locations at the predicted times.

Whether the earth is flat or a Globe the distance covered on each orbit has to be tens of thousands of kilometres - somewhere around 40,000 km.
So these fake ISSs have to be able to appear at almost random locations unknown to the hoaxers exactly on the predicted path and at the predicted time.
Otherwise, videos like this would be quite impossible:

This video shows a way to measure the ISS height using two cameras:

Using Cameras To Measure The Real Altitude Of The Space Station, Scott Manley

For a fake ISS to be in the right location at the right time for videos like that would be quite impossible because the hoaxer had no knowledge of where Scott Manley and his daughter might be located.

Since the ISS is claimed to orbits the earth in just over 90 minutes there seems no way that there could be a "fake ISS" show up all these locations at the predicted times.

Again, the whole point of this thread is to prove or disprove that claim. If you aren't going to add anything, butt out.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 24, 2018, 03:00:49 PM

Since the ISS is claimed to orbits the earth in just over 90 minutes there seems no way that there could be a "fake ISS" show up all these locations at the predicted times.

Again, the whole point of this thread is to prove or disprove that claim. If you aren't going to add anything, butt out.

No the whole point of the thread is how would you fake the ISS.  Rab's point is inline with the question.

Quote from: Jane on November 24, 2018, 03:19:18 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 24, 2018, 03:00:49 PM

Since the ISS is claimed to orbits the earth in just over 90 minutes there seems no way that there could be a "fake ISS" show up all these locations at the predicted times.

Again, the whole point of this thread is to prove or disprove that claim. If you aren't going to add anything, butt out.

No the whole point of the thread is how would you fake the ISS.  Rab's point is inline with the question.

I agree, it may all come down to speed.

If it's agreed that it is some sort of human made device and it follows a predictable path as anyone can see it, the conundrum is how does it make it's way in 92 minutes per cycle. If you solve for that fact alone, job done.

My only guess is that there's more than one. Maybe 50+ of them, that cloak and decloak as needed to somewhere make the appearance of going that fast.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 24, 2018, 03:00:49 PM

Since the ISS is claimed to orbits the earth in just over 90 minutes there seems no way that there could be a "fake ISS" show up all these locations at the predicted times.

Again, the whole point of this thread is to prove or disprove that claim.

I believe that I disproved that possibility of faking the ISS. If you claim otherwise please present your case instead of your continual bitching.
If you haven't a case just admit it.

Quote from: Jane on November 24, 2018, 03:19:18 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 24, 2018, 03:00:49 PM

Since the ISS is claimed to orbits the earth in just over 90 minutes there seems no way that there could be a "fake ISS" show up all these locations at the predicted times.

Again, the whole point of this thread is to prove or disprove that claim. If you aren't going to add anything, butt out.

No the whole point of the thread is how would you fake the ISS.  Rab's point is inline with the question.

All he did was list exactly the question I examined a while back in significantly less detail as it just concluced "Seems odd, let's not bother." He doesn't have a point, I'm not going to waste time on him.

I agree, it may all come down to speed.

If it's agreed that it is some sort of human made device and it follows a predictable path as anyone can see it, the conundrum is how does it make it's way in 92 minutes per cycle. If you solve for that fact alone, job done.

My only guess is that there's more than one. Maybe 50+ of them, that cloak and decloak as needed to somewhere make the appearance of going that fast.

In of itself, the biggest issue would seem to be drag. Speed itself is only a partial factor; it's easier to go faster at higher altitudes after all. Then there's size; the HTV-2 Falcon was just four metres across, translating its speed to something comparable to a U2 is tricky.

I've derived a formula to approximate the Reynolds number for anything in terms of its altitude and distance travelled alone, just writing it up now. A bit of a nightmare to look at, but ultimately just needs substitution, and possibly a notepad as it'd likely have to be typed into a calculator piece by piece. Accurate up to the thermosphere, maybe a little beyond but it's hard to find data on the air's dynamic viscosity beyond that (short of Sutherland's formula, which would make it even worse). That is, anything below 85km high, which gives a length from front-to-back of about 22m, a little longer than the U2.
Probably end up repeating all this later when I post it, but hey.

The issue I see with the multiple ISS fill-ins is that going by all the data we have, only one is ever visible at a time. There could still be multiple carefully coordinated, skipping out over oceans etc, but we still need to reckon with what can essentially be modelled as one thing going on a journey with oceans and such cut out; that distance though may well be much smaller.

Quote from: Jane on November 24, 2018, 03:19:18 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 24, 2018, 03:00:49 PM

Since the ISS is claimed to orbits the earth in just over 90 minutes there seems no way that there could be a "fake ISS" show up all these locations at the predicted times.

Again, the whole point of this thread is to prove or disprove that claim.

I believe that I disproved that possibility of faking the ISS. If you claim otherwise please present your case instead of your continual bitching.
If you haven't a case just admit it.

If you make another post like this, I'm going to ban you.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 24, 2018, 04:28:58 PM

Quote from: Jane on November 24, 2018, 03:19:18 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 24, 2018, 03:00:49 PM

Since the ISS is claimed to orbits the earth in just over 90 minutes there seems no way that there could be a "fake ISS" show up all these locations at the predicted times.

Again, the whole point of this thread is to prove or disprove that claim.

I believe that I disproved that possibility of faking the ISS. If you claim otherwise please present your case instead of your continual bitching.
If you haven't a case just admit it.

If you make another post like this, I'm going to ban you.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I find nothing wrong with what he said.  Jane spends more time arguing the semantics of one's point then actually making a relevant point to the topic.

If you have a question about moderation start a thread in S&C.

If you're not interested in discussing what it would take to fake the ISS, then find another thread to post in.

Ok, here we go! For context, the Reynolds' number of a U2 is roughly 27 million, by my calculations, and if my understanding is correct a smaller Reynolds number indicates more drag.
To calculate the Reynolds number of an ISS-substitute we need estimates of the altitude we want it to be (h), and the length of its journey (d). Technically we should work in metres, but it's a pain enough to use this so I kept h in km as that never actually enters into it; it cancels in finding L, and is only used in the main equation to approximate its corresponding density or viscosity.

If you want to derive this yourself:
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24641/what-is-the-relation-between-an-airplanes-altitude-and-the-drag-it-is-experienc/24644
I used that, plus polynomial interpolation on what data I could gather. It should be more accurate from 0-85km, up to the thermosphere, but data on viscosity is lacking there beyond a paper that states in the abstract kinematic viscosity tends to zero, and so Reynolds' number would become infinite and drag as such minimal. L comes from proportions, something to simulate what the ISS is meant to be, V is just a basic calculation of velocity.
Looks awful, but is generally pretty simple if tedious to apply. Can be extended above 85km, but is likely to become unreliable the further you get.



The denominator is the most unreliable part. The numerator used more points to be accurate up to 200km. If I find more data, I'll update this.

This is probably most useful for those that have the software to program something that does all the work for you if you input the values. I used to, but not on this computer. Calculating directly is possible too, and definitely easier, if you have the data.

For example, the ISS mentioned as a lower bound, travelling at 5833m/s, at an altitude of 80km, has Reynolds number of almost two hundred thousand.
For comparison, the NASA X-43 rocket plane, which flew at a more defined altitude than the Falcon and is otherwise the fastest aerial vehicle I could find record of, had one of 17 million, meaning significantly less drag. If you want to run the numbers on other planes, please do and add them so we can get an idea of what kind of number makes for a feasible flight. Direct is probably fastest without some snappy way to get this approximation more wieldy, to be honest, making that a waste of time but hey, it was fun.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I find nothing wrong with what he said.  Jane spends more time arguing the semantics of one's point then actually making a relevant point to the topic.

Um. I'm trying to run calculations to confirm or deny what Rab just threw out with zero justification. What about that is semantics?

I knew I've missed some posts as I read this over, but I was thinking about the angular size part of the discussion and wanted to add that we should consider the angular size of the ISS not only when it is directly overhead, but also when it is as close to the horizon as it can be viewed. The difference in those figures might help narrow down possible length/height values

Ok, here we go! For context, the Reynolds' number of a U2 is roughly 27 million, by my calculations, and if my understanding is correct a smaller Reynolds number indicates more drag.
To calculate the Reynolds number of an ISS-substitute we need estimates of the altitude we want it to be (h), and the length of its journey (d). Technically we should work in metres, but it's a pain enough to use this so I kept h in km as that never actually enters into it; it cancels in finding L, and is only used in the main equation to approximate its corresponding density or viscosity.

If you want to derive this yourself:
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24641/what-is-the-relation-between-an-airplanes-altitude-and-the-drag-it-is-experienc/24644
I used that, plus polynomial interpolation on what data I could gather. It should be more accurate from 0-85km, up to the thermosphere, but data on viscosity is lacking there beyond a paper that states in the abstract kinematic viscosity tends to zero, and so Reynolds' number would become infinite and drag as such minimal. L comes from proportions, something to simulate what the ISS is meant to be, V is just a basic calculation of velocity.
Looks awful, but is generally pretty simple if tedious to apply. Can be extended above 85km, but is likely to become unreliable the further you get.



The denominator is the most unreliable part. The numerator used more points to be accurate up to 200km. If I find more data, I'll update this.

This is probably most useful for those that have the software to program something that does all the work for you if you input the values. I used to, but not on this computer. Calculating directly is possible too, and definitely easier, if you have the data.

For example, the ISS mentioned as a lower bound, travelling at 5833m/s, at an altitude of 80km, has Reynolds number of almost two hundred thousand.
For comparison, the NASA X-43 rocket plane, which flew at a more defined altitude than the Falcon and is otherwise the fastest aerial vehicle I could find record of, had one of 17 million, meaning significantly less drag. If you want to run the numbers on other planes, please do and add them so we can get an idea of what kind of number makes for a feasible flight. Direct is probably fastest without some snappy way to get this approximation more wieldy, to be honest, making that a waste of time but hey, it was fun.

Why don't you use the Reynolds Calculator here:  https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/reynolds.html

And how is this relevant to faking ISS?  Aircraft designs take into account physical limitations, such as when drag will exceed the ability of the aircraft to hold together.  No aircraft could reach the speeds to fake the ISS within their maximum flight ceiling without their wings being torn from the fuselage.

Why don't you use the Reynolds Calculator here:  https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/reynolds.html

The phrase 'euqal to the dynamic viscosity' for one, the whole page feels a bit low-grade. I did come across that, but when I tried to confirm values via direct calculation the numbers came out off; I think that basically does just what my formula does, but with less data points as they clearly didn't spend too much effort on the rest of the page. I'm instinctively wary of any page that starts off with obvious MS paint. As an easier approximation though, sure, probably should've mentioned it.

My biggest concern though is lack of knowledge; it doesn't mention the points to which it's accurate, which does limit its usefulness. I can easily tell something goes wrong because if I plug in a high altitude and low speed it gives a low number, indicating higher drag from what I've seen, so...

And how is this relevant to faking ISS?  Aircraft designs take into account physical limitations, such as when drag will exceed the ability of the aircraft to hold together.  No aircraft could reach the speeds to fake the ISS within their maximum flight ceiling without their wings being torn from the fuselage.

Which this gives a rough way to actually measure; the drag an aircraft can stand up to should at least compare with a potential ISS. When we're orders of magnitude away, it's not worth going into the nitty-gritty.

You're saying that, I'm proving it. That's why it's relevant.