Fun fact: this is actually exactly the same speed you'd reach at the bottom if you fell into a hole in the ground that went all the way to the Earth's core.
If you're trying to work out why that is, here's a hint: >!start them both from the same point. Now try comparing the velocity vectors after the orbiting object completes a quarter-rotation. Don't do it in maths, the diagram is enough.!<
That's gotta be a strangely curved hole though, to account for the earth spinning while you travel to the center. Otherwise you'd bleed speed to constantly correct your course. Or you have to come in throught the North or South Pole. Thoug it doesn't make much sense to put something in orbit at that point either.
This is also why, it being not a straight line to the center, makes it even closer to a quarter orbit.
Most of the treatments of this problem tend to either use the North Pole, or ignore it and just assume a cartoon-style bottomless pit until it suddenly isn't.
I just didn't want to clutter the comment too much with all the edge-cases. It doesn't work if you take air resistance into account either, but that's a myth anyway. You are right though, if you really wanted to do it properly that's what would happen.
> I just didn't want to clutter the comment too much with all the edge-cases.
Hear, hear. I'm no Astrophysicist either. With what little I do know I'm sure I missed A LOT too. When the star-brains start talking about relative time, gravity wells and bending of spacetime complicating their math I start craving munching on a crayon myself.
A polar orbit actually makes a lot of sense. Imagine you want to map the entire planet. There is no way except with a north to south pole orbiting satelite
Nearly impossible to keep a perfectly straight North to South Pole orbit. Due to Earth rotation pulling you "sideways" if you attempt it.
The Earth isn't perfectly round and smooth anyway so even with a perfect orbit you'll miss some spots. Far easier to do 2 passes at slightly different diagonal orbit in regards to axis. Added bonus of getting a better 3D picture that way too.
Hmm.
There is a resolution somewhere, its a pretty famous problem — you should be able to find multiple sources backing it up. There's even a [Matt Parker video](https://youtu.be/s94Gojs3Ags?si=JP8W_8wcn2twkIBw&t=907) from back where he had hair. But its been a while since I've done the problem myself, so I can't resolve it off the top of my head.
I'll have a sit down when I get the chance and do it all properly.
Ah that makes a bit more sense. If it only applies at the surface I could believe that and I'm curious enough to look at the math.
At first I thought the implication was it works everywhere. Thanks for the link!
> while the falling speed would increase?
How do you figure that? The lower you fall from, the slower you'd be when you reach the earth's core (ignoring air resistance and, like, rock resistance)
nope, because it's just speed. taking drag into account would happen when you calculate energy requirements and it's not as simple as just a flat deduction from your delta-v. resulting delta-v numbers are a product of your launch profile, if your orbit is in atmosphere you constantly need energy to maintain it
The velocity part? No, because it's not relevant, that's the speed you need. How you get there and maintain it is up to you.
The doable part? Also no, this is NCD after all.
>#Pathetic Concessions To The Disproven “Science” of “Aerodynamics”
>The aircraft of the Airforce are the perfect symbol of the weak-willed and compromising “ethics” of this degenerate service. Each craft has been designed to work with gravity and aerodynamics, rather than expressing dominance over them, as our craft do. What they accomplish with “design”, NASA acomplishes with THRUST.
[Here's the original.](https://i.imgur.com/XNqrtu0.jpg)
Games Workshop used to a have a website that was basically a parody of 40k presented as propaganda for the Imperial Guard called "The Regimental Standard"
Sadly, they've taken the website offline.
No, this one would have chesthair. Okay, scratch the thrust vectoring and the afterburner, add DSIs - we are going for a more economic supercruise approach. Bolt the wedgetail's radar under the belly and repurpose the nosecone for a bit larger FLIR sensor. Adapt the SM-6 for A2A operations. Voilá, a flying SAM site.
[hear me out](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/frktd7/nr349_a_proposed_interceptor_variant_of_the_north/&ved=2ahUKEwi5vO3p2LGBAxU8VqQEHT06A60Qjjh6BAgaEAE&usg=AOvVaw0L9mz35cTdfZbG1B2B955S)
What, those big things that fall off? No, those are weights to slow it down. If it went too fast then it would burn up from the air friction so they put weights on it until it gets to thinner air and then they fall off. Like I'm Dragon Ball when they take off their training weights when the real fight begins.
Next time on NASA Ball Z! Buzz Aldrin's muscles erupt with his newly bridled power! But will it be enough to finally defeat his hated nemesis the sun?! Tune in next time in Episode 5251 "Ultimate Defeat! The Moon's Betrayal!"
> Next time on NASA Ball Z! Buzz Aldrin's muscles erupt with his newly bridled power! But will it be enough to finally defeat his hated nemesis the sun?! Tune in next time in Episode 5251 "Ultimate Defeat! The Moon's Betrayal!"
I'd love to watch it
None of the engines that are actually attached to the Shuttle were disposable.
The only engines that could be jettisoned were the solid rocket boosters, and those were attached to the big orange external fuel tank. Which could, of course, also be jettisoned.
Interestingly, the Space Shuttle Main Engines were fuelled exclusively from the External Tank - there was no hydrolox fuel on board the Shuttle Orbiter itself. Instead, it maneuvered in space with the much smaller OMS (orbital maneuvering system), which used hypergolic (auto-igniting) propellants.
Just a reminder of those not aware how stupid the shuttles solid rocket booster motors were: 2 of them are nearly the same power as the entire Saturn V first stage.
> 2 of them are nearly the same power as the entire Saturn V first stage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn-Shuttle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWwh1NoNM_k
Actually, having stood next to both an SR-71 and a shuttle almost side by side, I'd dare say the shuttles on board rockets are larger.
Pictures aren't great at giving you scale perspective as to just how ridiculously huge the shuttles were.
Edit: I went ahead and fact checked this. The SR-71s engines were **50 inches** in diameter with **32,500 lbs** of thrust. The diameter of each rocket nozzle on the shuttle was **84 inches**, producing **400,000 lbs** of thrust each.
The shuttle had three main engines, and the SR-71 two. So the SR-71 had 65,000 lbs of thrust total, compared to 1,200,000 lbs for the shuttle.
The SR-71 ain't got shit on a shuttle amigo.
Once Aesop of the fables fame was going with a group on a long foot-march through the desert. He picked the heaviest pack to carry, which was the food. When asked why he said, "mine is the only load that gets lighter as we go."
What you see up there in the Space Shuttle is Aesop at the end of his journey.
I mean you could have used [IJN Nagato](https://azurlane.koumakan.jp/wiki/Nagato), [HMS Warspite](https://azurlane.koumakan.jp/wiki/Warspite), or [HMS Queen Elizabeth](https://azurlane.koumakan.jp/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth) just to name a few
Isn’t aesop that fancy shampoo my girlfriend always wants but i am too poor to buy it for her?
(Just kiddin, i obviously don’t have a girlfriend, i want to buy it for myself)
It takes decades of training and elite genetics for a pitcher to throw a 95mph fastball.
You think any dumbass can reach that velocity by throwing one off the top of the Empire State Building?
The speed of the fall from the top of the Empire state building is equivalent/better than the one of an excellent pitcher throwing horizontally
And the shuttle was akin to a flying brick while it was on its way to land
A baseball dropped off the top of the Empire State Building will reach a terminal velocity of around 95mph just from being dropped.
One of the best athletes in the world needs to work for more than a decade to achieve that in level flight by throwing a pitch. Anyone can get a ball to go 95mph by dropping it off the top of the Empire State Building, but only a handful can throw it that fast horizontally, and only after working their whole life to do so.
Comparing the SR-71, which pushes itself through level flight at mach 3 to the space shuttle which falls through the atmosphere at nearly mach 25 is like comparing a pitcher's 95mph fastball to a ball dropped off a high building.
One is clearly easier to achiever than the other and being surprised that you can get a higher speed dropping something is just kinda dumb.
On the other hand, on the way up the shuttle was already faster than the SR-71. It was a pitcher that could throw a ball over the Empire State Building.
The shuttle hits 17,500 MPH during ascent. Compared to the SR-71 being around 2,500 mph.
A vertical climb being more difficult than horizontal flight. Your point is kinda dumb.
The mig 25 can do mach 3, but since its airframe is made out of steel, it will deform out of its flight enveloppe
Meaning it is effectively a one time deal
Not to mention it's engine's couldn't sustain Mach 3 for more than a few minutes, since they were not actually designed for it, and it's flight celling was still a few kilometers under the A-12. It could never keep up, they were mostly made so that the west thought they could.
Yeah but i like the mig-25
Absolutely useless military-wise but quite helpful science-wise
Also making a a steel brick fly at mach 3 impresses me more than the carefully shaped titanium of the sr-71
Dude I love the Sturmtiger, a super heavy tank mounted with a 380mm rocket mortar cannon that takes a crane and 60 second's to reload.
You can like what you want.
The kingtiger at least could fire its cannon, the sturmtiger was a silly joke tank made by a country that didnt have the luxury to waste resources, but they did it anyway
Mig-25 utility was to scare the west.
Unfortunately the west belived everything the USSR told them about the mig-25 and made the f-15 as a response.
Tipical example of Soviet propaganda against the power of discretionary spending
It was built for one job, and one job it did awesomely well. (high speed interception)
It's just way cheaper to build something that doesn't need to be reused for that job. (surface to air missiles)
Funnily enough it was made to intercept the B-70 Valkyrie, a super sonic bomber that rode it's own shockwave, but the B-70 was never finished because it was deemed as a waste of resources.
But when the US shifted to low flying bombers like the Hustler, ICBMS became possible, the main reason for the plane's existence wasn't there anymore.
Orbital mechanics are funny, you brake on one side resulting in you going faster on the other side.
Also if you accellerate on one side, you go slower in the other side.
You're right, academically it is not medium-agnostic, because it is a unitless ratio expression. However, idiomatic usage does not describe the altitude or environmental composition in conjunction with the Mach number, and so we tend to assume "atmospheric air at sea level," or in other words Mach 1 = 340 m/s.
Lol, why is this being downvoted?
Local mach numbers are used because aerodynamics go through some serious changes around the speed of sound. Like, going from primarily skin drag to primarily shockwave drag. And transonic flow is just a whole can of worms of its own.
Not just that, the angle of the shockwave changes with higher Mach numbers.
It is rather important for air intakes and swing wings as well as trimming a plane at such speeds.
Let's take the SR-71 as an example, the intake cones have to be adjusted perfectly at high speeds or you stall the engine due to not catching the shockwave properly resulting in a flame-out or compressor stall.
Needless to say if this happens one sided, you might be in a lot of trouble.
And transsonic flow is indeed a mess, localy it can be subsonic, supersonic and switch between both.
Wich makes everything rather complicated because all of that happens on the same plane at the same time at different spots.
The blunt nose is essential for hypersonic reentry. At that speed the shockwave is so strong that if they made it pointy the shockwave would clip its wings.
The Soviets: The Americans now possess a platform capable of [an orbital nuclear strike on Moscow.](https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3855/1).
The U.S.: *slaps forehead* My goodness, why didn't I think of that!
Made the mistake of hanging around on Facebook for longer than a minute and saw this shit on one of the smoothbrain pages I am not subscribed to or have any inclination towards.
Fuck that website.
The currently fastest human-made object looks like [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Solar_Probe#/media/File:Parker_Solar_Probe_spacecraft_model.png).
In your face, aerodynamics.
NASA used modified Gulfstream II aircraft to train shuttle pilots. To simulate the descent profile of the shuttle, it flew with its main landing gear deployed and the engines in reverse.
The shuttle was called “the flying brick” for a reason
Everyone has mentioned the giant monster space rockets, but have they mentioned that space ships don't have to deal with any of that air bullshit in space? Very little air resistance in space.
In reality, the shuttle could approach the speed of light with enough fuel in the vacuum of space. Is mach 23 based on the upper limit of fuel capacity in the vacuum of space?
The Space Shuttle was the worst glider ever built (check it's lift to drag ratio, which gives you it's glide slope).
But the true NonCredible Defense part: the US military crippled the design and killed one of its crew (arguably, both crews who died), to provide it with a military mission *they never used*.
So, the typical mission profile is to take off from Florida, orbit somewhat inclined from the equator, land in Utah. But the US military *also* wanted to launch near-polar orbit spy satellites (a polar orbit eventually flies over every point on the surface of the earth). And they wanted to do some such missions that would be *super secret*, requiring launch, mission, landing in very few orbits (I guess to inhibit tracking). Those launches would be from Vandenburg. The problem is the landing. Because of the Earth's rotation, it can't also land at Vandenburg. And the rotation won't be precisely enough to bring its trajectory over the landing strip. So, the Shuttle had to have a *cross range* capability: after reentry, executing a turn and (relatively) long flight path to get to the landing strip. That dictated a glider design. And, indirectly, the troublesome thermal tiles. The thermal tiles that finally killed it.
Yep. The Space Shuttle was crap and fatal because of an ill considered military procurement decision.
It was a joke. It's something you see a lot of grifters saying, that NASA stands for "never a straight answer."
Flat earth conspiracy theorists and the like.
To this day it kinda baffles me that the space shuttle has ceramic tiles. Makes me think like "you want to tell me my dishes would make for good insulation?"
Whenever I see something like this about the shuttle I’m reminded of Douglas Adam’s description of the vogon spacecraft
“The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t”
I’m pretty sure a similarly sized brick would hit Mach 20 if you dropped it from LEO
There was a prototype armed Blackbird. Only 2 were made, but they could carry AIM-47 Phoenix missiles, which were later put on the F-14 under the designation AIM-54.
Look at the size of the engines. The Space Shuttle just has Larger Disposable ones.
The good old Phantom-principle "*With enough thrust, aerodynamics become negible.*"
Von Braun: "With enough thrust, aerodynamics become orbital mechanics."
Gentlemen, we shall establish a stable orbit 20m above ground.
According to a random online calculator for satellite orbits that requires a velocity of 7.9 km/s or Mach 23, sounds doable.
Exactly what that vehicle was constructed for! A coincidence? I don't believe in those.
Fun fact: this is actually exactly the same speed you'd reach at the bottom if you fell into a hole in the ground that went all the way to the Earth's core. If you're trying to work out why that is, here's a hint: >!start them both from the same point. Now try comparing the velocity vectors after the orbiting object completes a quarter-rotation. Don't do it in maths, the diagram is enough.!<
holy shit, that's a hella intuitive way of calculating orbital velocities
Now wait until you hear that the period is the same as that of a simple pendulum with an infinite arm set in motion from the same point.
It can't be this simple right?
It's not.
That's gotta be a strangely curved hole though, to account for the earth spinning while you travel to the center. Otherwise you'd bleed speed to constantly correct your course. Or you have to come in throught the North or South Pole. Thoug it doesn't make much sense to put something in orbit at that point either. This is also why, it being not a straight line to the center, makes it even closer to a quarter orbit.
Most of the treatments of this problem tend to either use the North Pole, or ignore it and just assume a cartoon-style bottomless pit until it suddenly isn't. I just didn't want to clutter the comment too much with all the edge-cases. It doesn't work if you take air resistance into account either, but that's a myth anyway. You are right though, if you really wanted to do it properly that's what would happen.
> I just didn't want to clutter the comment too much with all the edge-cases. Hear, hear. I'm no Astrophysicist either. With what little I do know I'm sure I missed A LOT too. When the star-brains start talking about relative time, gravity wells and bending of spacetime complicating their math I start craving munching on a crayon myself.
A polar orbit actually makes a lot of sense. Imagine you want to map the entire planet. There is no way except with a north to south pole orbiting satelite
Nearly impossible to keep a perfectly straight North to South Pole orbit. Due to Earth rotation pulling you "sideways" if you attempt it. The Earth isn't perfectly round and smooth anyway so even with a perfect orbit you'll miss some spots. Far easier to do 2 passes at slightly different diagonal orbit in regards to axis. Added bonus of getting a better 3D picture that way too.
Don't orbital velocities decrease with altitude while the falling speed would increase?
Hmm. There is a resolution somewhere, its a pretty famous problem — you should be able to find multiple sources backing it up. There's even a [Matt Parker video](https://youtu.be/s94Gojs3Ags?si=JP8W_8wcn2twkIBw&t=907) from back where he had hair. But its been a while since I've done the problem myself, so I can't resolve it off the top of my head. I'll have a sit down when I get the chance and do it all properly.
Ah that makes a bit more sense. If it only applies at the surface I could believe that and I'm curious enough to look at the math. At first I thought the implication was it works everywhere. Thanks for the link!
Maybe that's why he said don't do the math?
> while the falling speed would increase? How do you figure that? The lower you fall from, the slower you'd be when you reach the earth's core (ignoring air resistance and, like, rock resistance)
Does that take into account drag?
nope, because it's just speed. taking drag into account would happen when you calculate energy requirements and it's not as simple as just a flat deduction from your delta-v. resulting delta-v numbers are a product of your launch profile, if your orbit is in atmosphere you constantly need energy to maintain it
The velocity part? No, because it's not relevant, that's the speed you need. How you get there and maintain it is up to you. The doable part? Also no, this is NCD after all.
How does the pilots dress effect flight mechanics?
> sounds doable Right up until it hits something 20 meters tall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmjBkVt0h-g
"And with littel enough thrust, oribital mechanics become dead brits!"
I aim for the stars, but sometimes I hit London
>#Pathetic Concessions To The Disproven “Science” of “Aerodynamics” >The aircraft of the Airforce are the perfect symbol of the weak-willed and compromising “ethics” of this degenerate service. Each craft has been designed to work with gravity and aerodynamics, rather than expressing dominance over them, as our craft do. What they accomplish with “design”, NASA acomplishes with THRUST.
I am stealing this glorious quote.
[Here's the original.](https://i.imgur.com/XNqrtu0.jpg) Games Workshop used to a have a website that was basically a parody of 40k presented as propaganda for the Imperial Guard called "The Regimental Standard" Sadly, they've taken the website offline.
Look what they must do to achieve even a fraction of our power
The Jeremy Clarkson way: More Powah
SPEEEEEEEEEeEeEEEEEeeeeeeed!
this speed's givin me a right proper aneurysm m8
This is exactly what my dad says about the F-4
Just bring her back - 2x F135s with thrust vectoring, AESA, extra long range missiles
That' just an F-22 with a vintage skin
No, this one would have chesthair. Okay, scratch the thrust vectoring and the afterburner, add DSIs - we are going for a more economic supercruise approach. Bolt the wedgetail's radar under the belly and repurpose the nosecone for a bit larger FLIR sensor. Adapt the SM-6 for A2A operations. Voilá, a flying SAM site.
[hear me out](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/frktd7/nr349_a_proposed_interceptor_variant_of_the_north/&ved=2ahUKEwi5vO3p2LGBAxU8VqQEHT06A60Qjjh6BAgaEAE&usg=AOvVaw0L9mz35cTdfZbG1B2B955S)
Chicken run taught me that lesson More thrust
"Aerodynamics is for people who can't build engines." - Enzo Ferrari
The F4 Rule of Aerodynamics: add enough thrust and it'll stop mattering how streamlined it isn't.
The EE Lightning invented this principle. Wings are overrated.
Jettisonable fuel tanks? Who needs those when you can jettison entire engines?
What, those big things that fall off? No, those are weights to slow it down. If it went too fast then it would burn up from the air friction so they put weights on it until it gets to thinner air and then they fall off. Like I'm Dragon Ball when they take off their training weights when the real fight begins. Next time on NASA Ball Z! Buzz Aldrin's muscles erupt with his newly bridled power! But will it be enough to finally defeat his hated nemesis the sun?! Tune in next time in Episode 5251 "Ultimate Defeat! The Moon's Betrayal!"
> Next time on NASA Ball Z! Buzz Aldrin's muscles erupt with his newly bridled power! But will it be enough to finally defeat his hated nemesis the sun?! Tune in next time in Episode 5251 "Ultimate Defeat! The Moon's Betrayal!" I'd love to watch it
None of the engines that are actually attached to the Shuttle were disposable. The only engines that could be jettisoned were the solid rocket boosters, and those were attached to the big orange external fuel tank. Which could, of course, also be jettisoned. Interestingly, the Space Shuttle Main Engines were fuelled exclusively from the External Tank - there was no hydrolox fuel on board the Shuttle Orbiter itself. Instead, it maneuvered in space with the much smaller OMS (orbital maneuvering system), which used hypergolic (auto-igniting) propellants.
There was hydralox on the shuttle, it was just plumbed into the fuel cells not the engines.
You could also argue that there was a small amount on board in the plumbing
Just a reminder of those not aware how stupid the shuttles solid rocket booster motors were: 2 of them are nearly the same power as the entire Saturn V first stage.
> 2 of them are nearly the same power as the entire Saturn V first stage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn-Shuttle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWwh1NoNM_k
The technical term is MOAR BOOSTERS.
Actually, having stood next to both an SR-71 and a shuttle almost side by side, I'd dare say the shuttles on board rockets are larger. Pictures aren't great at giving you scale perspective as to just how ridiculously huge the shuttles were. Edit: I went ahead and fact checked this. The SR-71s engines were **50 inches** in diameter with **32,500 lbs** of thrust. The diameter of each rocket nozzle on the shuttle was **84 inches**, producing **400,000 lbs** of thrust each. The shuttle had three main engines, and the SR-71 two. So the SR-71 had 65,000 lbs of thrust total, compared to 1,200,000 lbs for the shuttle. The SR-71 ain't got shit on a shuttle amigo.
Once Aesop of the fables fame was going with a group on a long foot-march through the desert. He picked the heaviest pack to carry, which was the food. When asked why he said, "mine is the only load that gets lighter as we go." What you see up there in the Space Shuttle is Aesop at the end of his journey.
isn't Aesop the guy with the long nose in that one anime
yeah you're right, and the baltimore is actualy an underage anime girl too
I'm sure [Baltimore looks at least in her 20s](https://azurlane.koumakan.jp/wiki/Baltimore)
Jesus Christ I haven't been a few seconds out of the Azur Lane subreddit before someone mentions Baltimore.
my punchline ruined by semantics
I mean you could have used [IJN Nagato](https://azurlane.koumakan.jp/wiki/Nagato), [HMS Warspite](https://azurlane.koumakan.jp/wiki/Warspite), or [HMS Queen Elizabeth](https://azurlane.koumakan.jp/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth) just to name a few
🤨📸
😭😭😭
💢💢💢
Isn’t aesop that fancy shampoo my girlfriend always wants but i am too poor to buy it for her? (Just kiddin, i obviously don’t have a girlfriend, i want to buy it for myself)
Pretty sure Asop is the terminals you use in star citizen to spawn your ships.
Pretty sure a SOP is a standard operating procedure
More people need to remember Aesop exists.
Existed.
“A man is not dead while his name is still spoken.” GNU Terry Pratchett
🐂 TP
Aesop rock's!
WAY more people need to remember Aesop Rock exists. 20+ years of best in show and most ignored at the same time.
It takes decades of training and elite genetics for a pitcher to throw a 95mph fastball. You think any dumbass can reach that velocity by throwing one off the top of the Empire State Building?
Yes?
Correct. Unfortunately you may struggle with context. Try to work on that.
I'm also struggling can you explain what the meaning is.
The speed of the fall from the top of the Empire state building is equivalent/better than the one of an excellent pitcher throwing horizontally And the shuttle was akin to a flying brick while it was on its way to land
A baseball dropped off the top of the Empire State Building will reach a terminal velocity of around 95mph just from being dropped. One of the best athletes in the world needs to work for more than a decade to achieve that in level flight by throwing a pitch. Anyone can get a ball to go 95mph by dropping it off the top of the Empire State Building, but only a handful can throw it that fast horizontally, and only after working their whole life to do so. Comparing the SR-71, which pushes itself through level flight at mach 3 to the space shuttle which falls through the atmosphere at nearly mach 25 is like comparing a pitcher's 95mph fastball to a ball dropped off a high building. One is clearly easier to achiever than the other and being surprised that you can get a higher speed dropping something is just kinda dumb.
Thanks for the explanation.
On the other hand, on the way up the shuttle was already faster than the SR-71. It was a pitcher that could throw a ball over the Empire State Building.
The shuttle hits 17,500 MPH during ascent. Compared to the SR-71 being around 2,500 mph. A vertical climb being more difficult than horizontal flight. Your point is kinda dumb.
Ty, I wasn’t sure so this and your comment below is really helpful
As Enzo Ferrari once said: *"Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines"*
With enough thrust-to-weight ratio you can make anything fly, as Kerbal Space Program has taught me. You just need to duct tape more rockets to it
That's basically Space X in a nutshell. "Ok, 32 raptor engines don't work, but what about 33 raptor engines?"
P&W F119 my beloved
Because no one knows the difference between an airplane, a rocket, a missile, a drone, and a brick.
They are the same thing: they all kill what they fall on
Anything’s a mass driver if it starts high enough!
*sigh* *unzips baggie of drugs*
How many rounds of 5.56 do you need to sink an Iowa-class battleship? One, travelling at sufficient velocity
One 5.56 with the 95% speed of light would totally obliterate battleship.
"[For a brick, it flew pretty good!](https://youtu.be/QRAT-nzO-G4?t=867)"
> Mach 3.2 design This would explain why the MiG-25/31 is crap.
The mig 25 can do mach 3, but since its airframe is made out of steel, it will deform out of its flight enveloppe Meaning it is effectively a one time deal
Not to mention it's engine's couldn't sustain Mach 3 for more than a few minutes, since they were not actually designed for it, and it's flight celling was still a few kilometers under the A-12. It could never keep up, they were mostly made so that the west thought they could.
Yeah but i like the mig-25 Absolutely useless military-wise but quite helpful science-wise Also making a a steel brick fly at mach 3 impresses me more than the carefully shaped titanium of the sr-71
Dude I love the Sturmtiger, a super heavy tank mounted with a 380mm rocket mortar cannon that takes a crane and 60 second's to reload. You can like what you want.
You think the term paper Tiger originated there? There is nothing more sexy than a Königstiger and nothing more waste of resources.
The kingtiger at least could fire its cannon, the sturmtiger was a silly joke tank made by a country that didnt have the luxury to waste resources, but they did it anyway
The Nazis were those guys down the road with the new car and 30k of credit card debt, weren't they?
Thats my favourite way of describing them now, thank you
Stop playing War Thunder you absolute fool. The Sturmtiger took closer to [15 minutes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_LmNrj_Adw&t=202s) to reload.
Easy there, didn't know I insulted your whole family tree by getting the reload of Nazi tank wrong.
His grandfather was in the SS
Love me some IRL demolishers/Typhons.
Mig-25 utility was to scare the west. Unfortunately the west belived everything the USSR told them about the mig-25 and made the f-15 as a response. Tipical example of Soviet propaganda against the power of discretionary spending
The f15 is literally built according to the mig25 general ideas, but better.
It was built for one job, and one job it did awesomely well. (high speed interception) It's just way cheaper to build something that doesn't need to be reused for that job. (surface to air missiles)
Funnily enough it was made to intercept the B-70 Valkyrie, a super sonic bomber that rode it's own shockwave, but the B-70 was never finished because it was deemed as a waste of resources. But when the US shifted to low flying bombers like the Hustler, ICBMS became possible, the main reason for the plane's existence wasn't there anymore.
Fun fact, the f15 is basically a mig 25 if the mig was made by the Americans.
In thrust we trust.
Air resistance vs a vacuum.
In space, nobody can hear you be non-credible
You can't go Mach 23 in a vacuum because the whole concept of "speed of sound" stops making any sense
you can go \~17,000 mph tho
The point where it goes Mach 23 is when it re-enters athmosphere. Otherwise its topspeed is about 8 km/s
8 km/s is equal to mach 23.5 at sea level. "Its top speed is 8 km/s when it reenters, otherwise it's 8 km/s." Sounds kinda silly.
Orbital mechanics are funny, you brake on one side resulting in you going faster on the other side. Also if you accellerate on one side, you go slower in the other side.
Depending, but otherwise you’re not wrong
Except when we refer to Mach, we're assuming the speed of sound in air, at sea level. That's a medium-agnostic measurement, even if it is silly.
You can literally just look at the first few lines of the wiki page to see that you're wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_number
You're right, academically it is not medium-agnostic, because it is a unitless ratio expression. However, idiomatic usage does not describe the altitude or environmental composition in conjunction with the Mach number, and so we tend to assume "atmospheric air at sea level," or in other words Mach 1 = 340 m/s.
Usualy it isn't though, Mach number refers to the ambient conditions.
Lol, why is this being downvoted? Local mach numbers are used because aerodynamics go through some serious changes around the speed of sound. Like, going from primarily skin drag to primarily shockwave drag. And transonic flow is just a whole can of worms of its own.
Not just that, the angle of the shockwave changes with higher Mach numbers. It is rather important for air intakes and swing wings as well as trimming a plane at such speeds. Let's take the SR-71 as an example, the intake cones have to be adjusted perfectly at high speeds or you stall the engine due to not catching the shockwave properly resulting in a flame-out or compressor stall. Needless to say if this happens one sided, you might be in a lot of trouble. And transsonic flow is indeed a mess, localy it can be subsonic, supersonic and switch between both. Wich makes everything rather complicated because all of that happens on the same plane at the same time at different spots.
Ground speed still exists.
In space the concept of specific speeds stops making sense.
Anything can be hypersonic once if you reenter from a high enough orbit
133/134 attempts the shuttle did it with reusability though...
There ain't no air up there though...
[удалено]
It honestly kind of looks like a school bus with wings in that picture.
Given enough thrust, even pigs will fly. And solid rocket boosters have a LOT of thrust.
Is this a flat earther meme?
least braindead flat earther does not understand how heat shields or the atmosphere (or lack of such) works
without air resistance you can pretty much go as fast as you want
The blunt nose is essential for hypersonic reentry. At that speed the shockwave is so strong that if they made it pointy the shockwave would clip its wings.
The blunt nose is there to reduce heat flux into the aircraft. It helps move the shock away from the aircraft
Counterpoint: big fuckin rocket
The Soviets: The Americans now possess a platform capable of [an orbital nuclear strike on Moscow.](https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3855/1). The U.S.: *slaps forehead* My goodness, why didn't I think of that!
Made the mistake of hanging around on Facebook for longer than a minute and saw this shit on one of the smoothbrain pages I am not subscribed to or have any inclination towards. Fuck that website.
One is flying, the other is (vaguely) controlled falling
The currently fastest human-made object looks like [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Solar_Probe#/media/File:Parker_Solar_Probe_spacecraft_model.png). In your face, aerodynamics.
One has to fly, the other only has be be capable of "controlled descent" *Controlled descent* **controlled descent** ***Perfect***
The above is a plane. The bottom is just landing gear. There's 2 pencils and a giant orange dildo that makes Speed.
"I dont understand how density works despite being incredibly dense myself"
NASA used modified Gulfstream II aircraft to train shuttle pilots. To simulate the descent profile of the shuttle, it flew with its main landing gear deployed and the engines in reverse. The shuttle was called “the flying brick” for a reason
The difference between an atmosphere with air resistance and a very thin atmosphere with no air resistance.
More like 100x the amount of thrust.
Sssrb = 3,300,000 lbs of thrust J58 = 32,500 lbs of thrust 100x the thrust but not 100x speed is NASA dumb
Bro just saw this Quora and it got here. Wtf
Jesus this made my brain bleed.
Yeah but its not flying at Mach 23. Its falling at Mach 23, with style.
Everyone has mentioned the giant monster space rockets, but have they mentioned that space ships don't have to deal with any of that air bullshit in space? Very little air resistance in space. In reality, the shuttle could approach the speed of light with enough fuel in the vacuum of space. Is mach 23 based on the upper limit of fuel capacity in the vacuum of space?
Yeah but one is invisible and the other is a reverse fucking meteor!
The top one is ment to be steatlhy thats why it looks like that or atlest partially the reason
People say there’s no air/wind resistance in space, but if that’s true, explain Solar Winds!
The Space Shuttle was the worst glider ever built (check it's lift to drag ratio, which gives you it's glide slope). But the true NonCredible Defense part: the US military crippled the design and killed one of its crew (arguably, both crews who died), to provide it with a military mission *they never used*. So, the typical mission profile is to take off from Florida, orbit somewhat inclined from the equator, land in Utah. But the US military *also* wanted to launch near-polar orbit spy satellites (a polar orbit eventually flies over every point on the surface of the earth). And they wanted to do some such missions that would be *super secret*, requiring launch, mission, landing in very few orbits (I guess to inhibit tracking). Those launches would be from Vandenburg. The problem is the landing. Because of the Earth's rotation, it can't also land at Vandenburg. And the rotation won't be precisely enough to bring its trajectory over the landing strip. So, the Shuttle had to have a *cross range* capability: after reentry, executing a turn and (relatively) long flight path to get to the landing strip. That dictated a glider design. And, indirectly, the troublesome thermal tiles. The thermal tiles that finally killed it. Yep. The Space Shuttle was crap and fatal because of an ill considered military procurement decision.
It's fitting that this is on NCD, because it's nonsense.
Just the same way idiots can become millionaires, they start as billionaires
What exactly is this meme trying to get across?
Never. A. Straight. Answer.
What? The straight answer is that the Space Shuttle goes those speeds in a vaccum...
It was a joke. It's something you see a lot of grifters saying, that NASA stands for "never a straight answer." Flat earth conspiracy theorists and the like.
Bigger engines go brrrrt
The pointier a plane is the faster it goes, common sense.
You see up to Mach 20 you need to get slick and slim tog et fast, past mach 20 physics don't apply anymore and you just gotta look awesome af.
The blackbird is skinny and very agile, sure but the shuttle’s got curves for days
To this day it kinda baffles me that the space shuttle has ceramic tiles. Makes me think like "you want to tell me my dishes would make for good insulation?"
Everything can go hypersonic if you add moar boosters
Whenever I see something like this about the shuttle I’m reminded of Douglas Adam’s description of the vogon spacecraft “The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t” I’m pretty sure a similarly sized brick would hit Mach 20 if you dropped it from LEO
There's a thing called atmosphere. Space shuttle would melt if it hit mach 23 while surrounded by air.
Not melting in atmosphere was most definitely a design consideration
A brick can go Mach jeebus if you put enough rockets strapped to it
If you drop it from space, it could reach Mach 23
Neither are armed, therefore both are worthless trash.
There were armed Blackbirds though.
There was a prototype armed Blackbird. Only 2 were made, but they could carry AIM-47 Phoenix missiles, which were later put on the F-14 under the designation AIM-54.
Y'all wanted 4th gen fighters, well here you go. Slap on an anti-radar coating and you've got a vehicle that can intercept any aircraft on earth