Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind

  • 39 Replies
  • 4239 Views
Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« on: June 16, 2020, 03:42:11 AM »
Hello. I got idea form this reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/LevelHeadedFE/comments/h9smt1/airplanes_cant_fly_in_1000mph_wind/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

So, imagine you are at pole of Earth. Now you enter airplane and fly to equator. So, at 0 km/h rotation of Earth to 1600 km/h. So, in first scenario Earth has atmosphere. So, why didn't you pick up 1600 km/h wind form rotation?

Second is thought experiment. So, imagine planet same as Earth, but no atmosphere. Now, you fly form pole with 0 km/h rotational velocity to equator with 1600 km/h. Does planet rotate at 1600 km/h below you? If so, what does atmosphere do to keep this form happening in real life?

Here is this reddit post with kinda same scenario: https://www.reddit.com/r/LevelHeadedFE/comments/h9zf0i/why_ground_isnt_moving_form_poleequator_flight/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Edit: how does coriolis effect affect whole thing?
« Last Edit: June 16, 2020, 03:44:25 AM by Code-Beta1234 »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2020, 04:53:44 AM »
Hello. I got idea form this reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/LevelHeadedFE/comments/h9smt1/airplanes_cant_fly_in_1000mph_wind/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

So, imagine you are at pole of Earth. Now you enter airplane and fly to equator. So, at 0 km/h rotation of Earth to 1600 km/h. So, in first scenario Earth has atmosphere. So, why didn't you pick up 1600 km/h wind form rotation?
The atmosphere rotates with the Earth so there is nowhere any "1600 km/h wind from rotation".
The fact that the surface speed increases gradually from the poles to Equator is one of the causes of some of the major winds systems.

But the distance from the poles to the Equator is 10,000 km and a passenger jet would take over 12 hours to cover the distance so that 1600 km/h is rather unimportant.

Quote from: Code-Beta1234
Second is thought experiment. So, imagine planet same as Earth, but no atmosphere. Now, you fly form pole with 0 km/h rotational velocity to equator with 1600 km/h. Does planet rotate at 1600 km/h below you? If so, what does atmosphere do to keep this form happening in real life?
If there's no atmosphere it depends entirely of the course flown by the flying machine.
The pilot could choose to fly due South from the North Pole in which case the planet would be moving underneath or
could choose to fly following the surface of the planet so it would not be moving underneath.

Quote from: Code-Beta1234
If so, what does atmosphere do to keep this from happening in real life?

The atmosphere moves with the Earth and the plane flies relative to the atmosphere but, of course, can be navigated any direction the pilot chooses.

Quote from: Code-Beta1234
Here is this reddit post with kinda same scenario: https://www.reddit.com/r/LevelHeadedFE/comments/h9zf0i/why_ground_isnt_moving_form_poleequator_flight/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Edit: how does coriolis effect affect whole thing?
The Coriolis effect has virtually no influence on an airplane because it is navigated anywhere the pilot chooses.

The Coriolis effect is only significant on things free to move such as long range artillery and even the wind.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2020, 05:36:11 AM »
Disagree. You can't on one hand say the wind speed has no affect and on the other admit that planes from high altitudes burn up in the atmosphere.

Oddly, you also claim they burn up in a region that is so thin we can't breathe

It's amazing the mental gymnastics people do to believe and support an obvious contradiction.

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2020, 06:21:44 AM »
Disagree. You can't on one hand say the wind speed has no affect and on the other admit that planes from high altitudes burn up in the atmosphere.
Who said "that planes from high altitudes burn up in the atmosphere"?

Quote from: Shifter
Oddly, you also claim they burn up in a region that is so thin we can't breathe
Where did I claim that planes "they burn up in a region that is so thin we can't breathe" not I?

Quote from: Shifter
It's amazing the mental gymnastics people do to believe and support an obvious contradiction.
Yes it's "amazing the mental gymnastics people do" to prove someone wrong. But posting what I didn't say seems to prove nothing!

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2020, 07:06:24 AM »
I think shifter can’t  understand why the old space shuttle heats up when it enters the atmosphere.

Don’t know what it has to do with this thread though.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2020, 07:12:39 AM by sokarul »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2020, 07:11:49 AM »
Hello. I got idea form this reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/LevelHeadedFE/comments/h9smt1/airplanes_cant_fly_in_1000mph_wind/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

So, imagine you are at pole of Earth. Now you enter airplane and fly to equator. So, at 0 km/h rotation of Earth to 1600 km/h. So, in first scenario Earth has atmosphere. So, why didn't you pick up 1600 km/h wind form rotation?

Second is thought experiment. So, imagine planet same as Earth, but no atmosphere. Now, you fly form pole with 0 km/h rotational velocity to equator with 1600 km/h. Does planet rotate at 1600 km/h below you? If so, what does atmosphere do to keep this form happening in real life?

Here is this reddit post with kinda same scenario: https://www.reddit.com/r/LevelHeadedFE/comments/h9zf0i/why_ground_isnt_moving_form_poleequator_flight/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Edit: how does coriolis effect affect whole thing?

The whole thing is the Coriolis effect.

I think the easiest way to visualize  it is from the difference in tangential velocities at different latitudes.  But the effect is quite small, and can be pretty much ignored for planes, boats, etc.  As they are are propelling themselves off a medium that gets slightly faster as you approach the equator.  Any change is insignificant compared to wind, currents, etc.

Ballistic trajectories are most affected as you give the projectile its speed and heading the moment you fire it.  It’s still affected by wind of course, but the Coriolis effect matters as well.  For a long range gun on a battleship for example, it makes enough difference to potentially miss the target if not accounted for.

 




Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2020, 07:15:21 AM »
I think shifter can’t  understand why the old space shuttle heats up when it enters the atmosphere.

Don’t know what it has to do with this thread though.

If it is that, than answer is beacuse they enter in high speeds

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2020, 07:49:52 AM »
Disagree. You can't on one hand say the wind speed has no affect and on the other admit that planes from high altitudes burn up in the atmosphere.

Oddly, you also claim they burn up in a region that is so thin we can't breathe

It's amazing the mental gymnastics people do to believe and support an obvious contradiction.

What contradiction?

Planes flying at 500 mph don't burn up.  Planes flying at 17,000 mph do burn up.  What part don't you understand there? 

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2020, 03:06:26 PM »
Disagree. You can't on one hand say the wind speed has no affect and on the other admit that planes from high altitudes burn up in the atmosphere.

Oddly, you also claim they burn up in a region that is so thin we can't breathe

It's amazing the mental gymnastics people do to believe and support an obvious contradiction.

What contradiction?

Planes flying at 500 mph don't burn up.  Planes flying at 17,000 mph do burn up.  What part don't you understand there?
If there is supposedly no atmosphere so high up then no high altitude plane/vehicle should burn up or heat up, at any high mph.


*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2020, 03:15:35 PM »
Disagree. You can't on one hand say the wind speed has no affect and on the other admit that planes from high altitudes burn up in the atmosphere.

Oddly, you also claim they burn up in a region that is so thin we can't breathe

It's amazing the mental gymnastics people do to believe and support an obvious contradiction.

What contradiction?

Planes flying at 500 mph don't burn up.  Planes flying at 17,000 mph do burn up.  What part don't you understand there?
If there is supposedly no atmosphere so high up then no high altitude plane/vehicle should burn up or heat up, at any high mph.

Right, and when the Shuttle was in orbit at 17,000 mph where there was no atmosphere it didn't heat up.

But when it came back down to Earth and re-entered the atmosphere, it heated up.

Here are all the possible combinations, to make it simpler to understand.

  Atmosphere:  Vaccuum:
500 mph:  Fine  Fine
17,000 mph:  Burns!  Fine

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2020, 03:23:50 PM »
Disagree. You can't on one hand say the wind speed has no affect and on the other admit that planes from high altitudes burn up in the atmosphere.

Oddly, you also claim they burn up in a region that is so thin we can't breathe

It's amazing the mental gymnastics people do to believe and support an obvious contradiction.

What contradiction?

Planes flying at 500 mph don't burn up.  Planes flying at 17,000 mph do burn up.  What part don't you understand there?
If there is supposedly no atmosphere so high up then no high altitude plane/vehicle should burn up or heat up, at any high mph.

Right, and when the Shuttle was in orbit at 17,000 mph where there was no atmosphere it didn't heat up.

But when it came back down to Earth and re-entered the atmosphere, it heated up.

Here are all the possible combinations, to make it simpler to understand.

  Atmosphere:  Vaccuum:
500 mph:  Fine  Fine
17,000 mph:  Burns!  Fine



Is your brain just decoration?

Think logically for once. If it were that easy you'd simply bring some extra fuel and use it to brake. Why gamble your life on a hope and prayer that you don't disintegrate on a landing otherwise?

There are too many holes for space flight to be logical with our current technology. Believe in fairy tales all you want. I won't judge if you wont

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2020, 03:30:53 PM »
Disagree. You can't on one hand say the wind speed has no affect and on the other admit that planes from high altitudes burn up in the atmosphere.

Oddly, you also claim they burn up in a region that is so thin we can't breathe

It's amazing the mental gymnastics people do to believe and support an obvious contradiction.

What contradiction?

Planes flying at 500 mph don't burn up.  Planes flying at 17,000 mph do burn up.  What part don't you understand there?
If there is supposedly no atmosphere so high up then no high altitude plane/vehicle should burn up or heat up, at any high mph.

Right, and when the Shuttle was in orbit at 17,000 mph where there was no atmosphere it didn't heat up.

But when it came back down to Earth and re-entered the atmosphere, it heated up.

Here are all the possible combinations, to make it simpler to understand.

  Atmosphere:  Vaccuum:
500 mph:  Fine  Fine
17,000 mph:  Burns!  Fine



Is your brain just decoration?

Think logically for once. If it were that easy you'd simply bring some extra fuel and use it to brake. Why gamble your life on a hope and prayer that you don't disintegrate on a landing otherwise?

There are too many holes for space flight to be logical with our current technology. Believe in fairy tales all you want. I won't judge if you wont

No need for insults.

Think logically. If it takes X amount of fuel to accelerate, it will take at least that much to slow down. Why bring all that fuel up there when you can use air-breaking, something we have done for decades and is about as safe or even safer as hauling another entire rocket up there and firing it off.

Space travel is risky. People die doing it. People gamble because they are adventurous, they want to explore, they enjoy pushing themselves, and out technology. I'm happy to sit in my chair and watch it all, but some people have the guts to actually go up there. Sometimes they don't come back.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2020, 03:38:10 PM »
Disagree. You can't on one hand say the wind speed has no affect and on the other admit that planes from high altitudes burn up in the atmosphere.

Oddly, you also claim they burn up in a region that is so thin we can't breathe

It's amazing the mental gymnastics people do to believe and support an obvious contradiction.

What contradiction?

Planes flying at 500 mph don't burn up.  Planes flying at 17,000 mph do burn up.  What part don't you understand there?
If there is supposedly no atmosphere so high up then no high altitude plane/vehicle should burn up or heat up, at any high mph.

Right, and when the Shuttle was in orbit at 17,000 mph where there was no atmosphere it didn't heat up.

But when it came back down to Earth and re-entered the atmosphere, it heated up.

Here are all the possible combinations, to make it simpler to understand.

  Atmosphere:  Vaccuum:
500 mph:  Fine  Fine
17,000 mph:  Burns!  Fine



Is your brain just decoration?

Think logically for once. If it were that easy you'd simply bring some extra fuel and use it to brake. Why gamble your life on a hope and prayer that you don't disintegrate on a landing otherwise?

There are too many holes for space flight to be logical with our current technology. Believe in fairy tales all you want. I won't judge if you wont

No need for insults.

Think logically. If it takes X amount of fuel to accelerate, it will take at least that much to slow down. Why bring all that fuel up there when you can use air-breaking, something we have done for decades and is about as safe or even safer as hauling another entire rocket up there and firing it off.

Space travel is risky. People die doing it. People gamble because they are adventurous, they want to explore, they enjoy pushing themselves, and out technology. I'm happy to sit in my chair and watch it all, but some people have the guts to actually go up there. Sometimes they don't come back.

It wasn't an insult. It was a question

In the RE logic, you need that fuel because you are fighting against an atmosphere and gravity. Therefore if that is true, it is true you'd only need a fraction of the fuel when there is next to no atmosphere and in microgravity.

RE world got to the Moon and back right? That's fuel for over half a million kilometres. Going to the IFS (as the crow flies) is only an ~800km round trip

Also, what price do you put on a human life? What REtard would gamble with their life like that? If re-entry disintegrates a hulking asteroid, then what chance does a small plane have?

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2020, 03:45:25 PM »
Disagree. You can't on one hand say the wind speed has no affect and on the other admit that planes from high altitudes burn up in the atmosphere.

Oddly, you also claim they burn up in a region that is so thin we can't breathe

It's amazing the mental gymnastics people do to believe and support an obvious contradiction.

What contradiction?

Planes flying at 500 mph don't burn up.  Planes flying at 17,000 mph do burn up.  What part don't you understand there?
If there is supposedly no atmosphere so high up then no high altitude plane/vehicle should burn up or heat up, at any high mph.

Right, and when the Shuttle was in orbit at 17,000 mph where there was no atmosphere it didn't heat up.

But when it came back down to Earth and re-entered the atmosphere, it heated up.

Here are all the possible combinations, to make it simpler to understand.

  Atmosphere:  Vaccuum:
500 mph:  Fine  Fine
17,000 mph:  Burns!  Fine



Is your brain just decoration?

Think logically for once. If it were that easy you'd simply bring some extra fuel and use it to brake. Why gamble your life on a hope and prayer that you don't disintegrate on a landing otherwise?

There are too many holes for space flight to be logical with our current technology. Believe in fairy tales all you want. I won't judge if you wont

No need for insults.

Think logically. If it takes X amount of fuel to accelerate, it will take at least that much to slow down. Why bring all that fuel up there when you can use air-breaking, something we have done for decades and is about as safe or even safer as hauling another entire rocket up there and firing it off.

Space travel is risky. People die doing it. People gamble because they are adventurous, they want to explore, they enjoy pushing themselves, and out technology. I'm happy to sit in my chair and watch it all, but some people have the guts to actually go up there. Sometimes they don't come back.

It wasn't an insult. It was a question

In the RE logic, you need that fuel because you are fighting against an atmosphere and gravity. Therefore if that is true, it is true you'd only need a fraction of the fuel when there is next to no atmosphere and in microgravity.

RE world got to the Moon and back right? That's fuel for over half a million kilometres. Going to the IFS (as the crow flies) is only an ~800km round trip

Also, what price do you put on a human life? What REtard would gamble with their life like that? If re-entry disintegrates a hulking asteroid, then what chance does a small plane have?

If you want answers to all these, start a new thread and don't hijack this one.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #14 on: June 16, 2020, 03:50:19 PM »
My questions fit perfectly with the question posed by the OP. The logic between reality and what we are told is a mis match

Your attempts at deflection is noted. Are you a shill?

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #15 on: June 16, 2020, 04:07:17 PM »
So, imagine you are at pole of Earth. Now you enter airplane and fly to equator. So, at 0 km/h rotation of Earth to 1600 km/h. So, in first scenario Earth has atmosphere. So, why didn't you pick up 1600 km/h wind form rotation?
You aren't just magically teleporting to the equator, instead you fly from the pole to the equator.
That means you have the wind be a very small constant which continues to accelerate the aircraft to keep it flying in the atmosphere.
That also address what in reality stops it from happening, but for a satellite, it does have that ~1600 km/hr ground speed at the equator.
That is why a polar orbit passes over different points on Earth each pass.
The Coriolis effect is the way of explaining it from the POV of someone on the rotating Earth.

If there is supposedly no atmosphere so high up then no high altitude plane/vehicle should burn up or heat up, at any high mph.
Who says there is no atmosphere there?

Also, what price do you put on a human life? What REtard would gamble with their life like that? If re-entry disintegrates a hulking asteroid, then what chance does a small plane have?
Apparently NASA. Look at Columbia, which disintegrated during reentry, because the technology designed to stop that failed.

Your line of reasoning is quite stupid. It is like asking why do planes use air brakes or otherwise use the air/drag to slow them down, rather than having engines which are mounted backwards to slow them down.
Why do cars use brakes instead of just sticking it into reverse.

Especially when your idea basically has them stop, still in space, which would require quite a significant acceleration, to then have them fall back down to Earth reaching quite a large speed yet again.
So it isn't a case of a small amount of fuel, it would be quite a lot (a lot of highly flammable fuel so if something went wrong with it it would likely be quite catastrophic) to ensure a safe, slow landing, likely comparable to the amount required to get them up there in the first place.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2020, 04:26:04 PM »
Have you ever tried slamming your car in reverse at high forward speed? It's not pretty. The mechanisms of action are very different to retrograde thrusters so your example is dumb

There would be no problem to use such thrusters in a vacuum

Falling to earth would at some point reach terminal velocity. You will not keep accelerating to infinitive and its much slower than the speeds currently mentioned

All moot anyway as the validity of returning space flights has been debunked

Not saying its impossible , but at our current technological development, it's not happening anytime soon

Here's a mind blowing fact for you

We supposedly sent a man to the moon and back on computing power not much bigger than a musical birthday greeting card

More than 50 years later and LEO (~400km to the IFS) is the best they claim these days despite advances in computing power, cheaper cost etc.

We are only ~28 years away from reaching the singularity era at our current course. And still we can't get a guy to the Moon. Stands to reason the notion that we pulled it off more than 50 years ago (and several times in succession) is debunked

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2020, 04:29:03 PM »
Have you ever tried slamming your car in reverse at high forward speed? It's not pretty. The mechanisms of action are very different to retrograde thrusters so your example is dumb
Clearly you would need to use the clutch.

And of course, you ignore the example of engines mounted on planes in reverse. What about them?

All moot anyway as the validity of returning space flights has been debunked
Where? I have seen it dismissed, but no debunking.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2020, 04:39:42 PM »
Have you ever tried slamming your car in reverse at high forward speed? It's not pretty. The mechanisms of action are very different to retrograde thrusters so your example is dumb
Clearly you would need to use the clutch.

And of course, you ignore the example of engines mounted on planes in reverse. What about them?

They don't destroy the vehicle when they are used at forward speed. Try it with a car with mechanical gears and you will destroy the gearbox


All moot anyway as the validity of returning space flights has been debunked
Where? I have seen it dismissed, but no debunking.
That's because you are a victim of your own confirmation bias.


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2020, 04:59:20 PM »
We are only ~28 years away from reaching the singularity era at our current course.

What course is that?

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #20 on: June 16, 2020, 05:04:19 PM »
We are only ~28 years away from reaching the singularity era at our current course.

What course is that?

Technological progression. Our exponential advances to that end. By the late 2040s we will reach the singularity era
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #21 on: June 16, 2020, 05:12:33 PM »
We are only ~28 years away from reaching the singularity era at our current course.

What course is that?

By the late 2040s we will reach the singularity era

Or not. From your link:

"The technological singularity—also, simply, the singularity[1]—is a hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization."

I don't necessarily disagree with it, but it is a hypothetical. The way you write it you make it seem that it will happen for sure...in a round 28 years.

And it has no relevance to this topic.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #22 on: June 16, 2020, 05:19:19 PM »
Have you ever tried slamming your car in reverse at high forward speed? It's not pretty. The mechanisms of action are very different to retrograde thrusters so your example is dumb

There would be no problem to use such thrusters in a vacuum
Except for the propellant that you don't have.

Quote from: Shifter
Falling to earth would at some point reach terminal velocity. You will not keep accelerating to infinitive and its much slower than the speeds currently mentioned
But you don't need to fall so fast that the capsule burns up!
A properly profiled heat shield and a low controlled entry entry angle can dissipate most of the kinetic in the upper atmosphere.

Quote from: Shifter
All moot anyway as the validity of returning space flights has been debunked
Except that controlled reentry with a heat shield has been in use since 1959 on ICBMS and since 1961 for people.

Ignoramuses like Heiwa claim to have debunked returning space flights just because he can't or refuses to understand it.

Quote from: Shifter
Not saying its impossible , but at our current technological development, it's not happening anytime soon
Except that both the Russians and Americans have been doing it for over 59 years.

Quote from: Shifter
Here's a mind blowing fact for you

We supposedly sent a man to the moon and back on computing power not much bigger than a musical birthday greeting card
Here's a mind blowing fact for you:
The Americans  did land 12 men on moon and back on computing power not much bigger than a musical birthday greeting card plus, of course, a lot of auxiliary "computing" devices and a lot of manual input.

Quote from: Shifter
More than 50 years later and LEO (~400km to the IFS) is the best they claim these days despite advances in computing power, cheaper cost etc.
Simply because to get to people to the Moon take money, lots of it. NASA was planning more lunar missions but the money was withdrawn.

Quote from: Shifter
We are only ~28 years away from reaching the singularity era at our current course. And still we can't get a guy to the Moon.
You and your silly "singularity era"! But the Americans could have continue with the lunar missions but the original purpose had been served and the money was "needed" for other purposes.

It was simply a case of "been there done that".

Quote from: Shifter
Stands to reason the notion that we pulled it off more than 50 years ago (and several times in succession) is debunked
Not in the slightest! You seem totally ignorant of the technology of the 1960s and 1970s but you also seem totally ignorant of the realities of rockets etc.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #23 on: June 16, 2020, 05:57:45 PM »
Easy

Bring the propellent.

And these 'heat shields' you speak of are nothing more than fanciful science fiction.

You can't just slap on some Styrofoam to a rocket and claim that prevents it from disintegrating

I can break styrofoam with my bare hands. I can't break a hulking wad of iron like an asteroid.

So if an asteroid had a 1 inch thick layer of Styrofoam it would not burn up? Yeah right.

You can't have it both ways

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #24 on: June 16, 2020, 06:34:35 PM »
Easy

Bring the propellent.

And these 'heat shields' you speak of are nothing more than fanciful science fiction.

You can't just slap on some Styrofoam to a rocket and claim that prevents it from disintegrating

I can break styrofoam with my bare hands. I can't break a hulking wad of iron like an asteroid.

So if an asteroid had a 1 inch thick layer of Styrofoam it would not burn up? Yeah right.

You can't have it both ways

You are referring to the misnomer of stryofoam versus the ceramic nature of the tiles and wildly over simplifying a complex engineering issue that was actually solved. Here's a little primer on the science behind the shuttle tiles (RT=2:40):


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #25 on: June 16, 2020, 07:21:20 PM »
Easy
Bring the propellent.
Not easy!
Enough propellant would be needed to slow the returning spacecraft from about 11 km/sec and perform a landing burn and that would need more propellant than launching that mass into LEO!

That propellant would need to be launched from Earth into a LEO, injected into a lunar transfer orbit, slowed down to orbit the Moon then put onto a transfer orbit back to Earth.

If you had a clue about the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation you might understand why powered reentry is not used unless essential.

Quote from: Shifter
And these 'heat shields' you speak of are nothing more than fanciful science fiction.
Rubbish! Just because you and your mate Heiwa can't understand atmospheric reentry doesn't mean a thing.
Go and learn about atmospheric reentry and stop continually displaying your ignorance.

Quote from: Shifter
You can't just slap on some Styrofoam to a rocket and claim that prevents it from disintegrating
Of course you can't!
  • Heat shields are never made of Styrofoam ;D ;D

  • A successful reentry vehicle is not made by simple strapping on a heat shield!
Quote from: Shifter
I can break styrofoam with my bare hands. I can't break a hulking wad of iron like an asteroid.
So what?

Quote from: Shifter
So if an asteroid had a 1 inch thick layer of Styrofoam it would not burn up? Yeah right.
Of course it would burn up! You're getting as expert as Heiwa with your ridiculous straw-man arguments.

Quote from: Shifter
You can't have it both ways
Nobody has it both way! They just do the great deal of theory, research and testing needed to design a successful reentry vehicle.

Here learn a bit about Reentry Vehicles: Spheres vs. Blunt Bodies from your favourite source ;D.

Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #26 on: June 17, 2020, 12:28:39 AM »
Disagree. You can't on one hand say the wind speed has no affect and on the other admit that planes from high altitudes burn up in the atmosphere.

Oddly, you also claim they burn up in a region that is so thin we can't breathe

It's amazing the mental gymnastics people do to believe and support an obvious contradiction.

What contradiction?

Planes flying at 500 mph don't burn up.  Planes flying at 17,000 mph do burn up.  What part don't you understand there?
If there is supposedly no atmosphere so high up then no high altitude plane/vehicle should burn up or heat up, at any high mph.

Right, and when the Shuttle was in orbit at 17,000 mph where there was no atmosphere it didn't heat up.

But when it came back down to Earth and re-entered the atmosphere, it heated up.

Here are all the possible combinations, to make it simpler to understand.

  Atmosphere:  Vaccuum:
500 mph:  Fine  Fine
17,000 mph:  Burns!  Fine



Is your brain just decoration?

Think logically for once. If it were that easy you'd simply bring some extra fuel and use it to brake. Why gamble your life on a hope and prayer that you don't disintegrate on a landing otherwise?

There are too many holes for space flight to be logical with our current technology. Believe in fairy tales all you want. I won't judge if you wont

No need for insults.

Think logically. If it takes X amount of fuel to accelerate, it will take at least that much to slow down. Why bring all that fuel up there when you can use air-breaking, something we have done for decades and is about as safe or even safer as hauling another entire rocket up there and firing it off.

Space travel is risky. People die doing it. People gamble because they are adventurous, they want to explore, they enjoy pushing themselves, and out technology. I'm happy to sit in my chair and watch it all, but some people have the guts to actually go up there. Sometimes they don't come back.

It wasn't an insult. It was a question

In the RE logic, you need that fuel because you are fighting against an atmosphere and gravity. Therefore if that is true, it is true you'd only need a fraction of the fuel when there is next to no atmosphere and in microgravity.

RE world got to the Moon and back right? That's fuel for over half a million kilometres. Going to the IFS (as the crow flies) is only an ~800km round trip

Also, what price do you put on a human life? What REtard would gamble with their life like that? If re-entry disintegrates a hulking asteroid, then what chance does a small plane have?

Nope.  You’ve not thought everything through.

Decelerating from orbital speed to a sensible air speed would take a lot of fuel.  Not as much as getting up, but a lot.  Remember it took two SRBs and a bloody great external tank to get the shuttle to orbit, which were discarded.

If the shuttle carried more fuel on board, it would then require much more fuel and more powerful engines to get in orbit in the first place.  Making everything bigger and more powerful is added design risk.

But OK, say you’ve done all that, let’s look at your proposed maneuver.  If you decelerate hard from orbital speed to a sensible atmospheric flight speed, then you are no longer in orbit.  You would be dropping like a stone and enter atmosphere very quickly. 

Now you have the problem of hitting the atmosphere whilst trying to reduce speed (horizontally and vertically) with your engines pointing into the atmosphere instead of just a heat shield.  Then, unless you’ve fitted some big engines on the front, you need to spin a massive vaguely plane shaped vehicle around in atmosphere so it’s pointing the right way round.

It all sounds very implausible to me, and certainly much more risky.


*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #27 on: June 17, 2020, 12:37:46 AM »
Which is why returning flights do not happen. They attempted it with Colombia and look what happened to the spiders on board. Where the hell are they now?

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #28 on: June 17, 2020, 01:39:22 AM »
FFS.  Please don’t derail this further with more shuttle  conspiracy bollocks.

You made a daft claim based on nothing but incredulity and your feels.  Just admit you hadn’t actually thought about it and leave it at that.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Airplanes and 1600 km/h wind
« Reply #29 on: June 17, 2020, 01:42:40 AM »
FFS.  Please don’t derail this further with more shuttle  conspiracy bollocks.

You made a daft claim based on nothing but incredulity and your feels.  Just admit you hadn’t actually thought about it and leave it at that.

There were supposed to be 8 orb weavers on board that shuttle. Where the F are they?

You answer that, and you answer what happens to anything that dares re enter the earth after leaving

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place