/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13962795

15KiB, 750x798, takeoff.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 18:02:56 2021 No.13962795 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13962816 >>13962845 >>13962859 >>13962904 >>13963457 >>13963532 >>13963591 >>13963616 >>13963753 >>13963756 >>13963945 >>13964536 >>13965610 >>13965826 >>13968896 >>13968904

Considering no natural or manmade obstacles in the way, how much more or less effective would it be to fire a rocket into space forward, instead of upwards?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 18:06:52 No.13962816 Report

Quoted By: >>13962845

>>13962795
they already are launched "forward"
a rocket with a trajectory perpendicular to the surface will never reach orbit

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 18:13:17 No.13962845 Report

Quoted By: >>13962856 >>13963947

>>13962795
>>13962816
depends on where you're going and what you're doing - if your goal is to just get out of a planet's roche sphere as quickly as possible launching perpendicular out isn't a terrible idea

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 18:15:47 No.13962856 Report

Quoted By: >>13962876 >>13963506 >>13963519 >>13963665 >>13963756 >>13963947

>>13962845
yes it is, because as soon as the engines are shut off, it will immediately start accelerating back to earth, REGARDLESS of altitude

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 18:16:10 No.13962859 Report

Quoted By:

>>13962795

weren't they doing it forward with the moon missions? no atmosphere on moon made it possible

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 18:20:25 No.13962876 Report

Quoted By: >>13962929

>>13962856
No, because depending on where it is it may fall within a range where another body dominates the gravitational attraction. As soon as you get ~1.5 million km away from Earth you transition into a region where gravitational attraction is dominated by the Sun.

Depending on what your objective is you could absolutely take a straight shot out from Earth and not fall back down.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 18:26:32 No.13962904 Report

Quoted By:

>>13962795
Drag and fuel efficiency are shit near the ground. The launch profile is simulated for efficiency for every rocket.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 18:35:23 No.13962929 Report

Quoted By: >>13963473 >>13963665

>>13962876
im obviously refering to the 2-body problem

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 20:51:30 No.13963457 Report

Quoted By:

>>13962795
>r less effective would it be to fire a rocket into space forward
We already do that, it's called the airplane. The thing is, you have to constantly put energy in the system to maintain the "orbit".

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 21:01:50 No.13963473 Report

Quoted By:

>>13962929
>i'm willfully disconnecting myself from reality and referring to physics i know is inaccurate
cringe excuse.
so you were either caught being stupid or caught willfully lying?
you don't belong in the sciences either way

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 21:10:10 No.13963506 Report

Quoted By:

>>13962856
What prevents an object with sufficient speed from getting beyond the pull of the earth? What if you goal is to go orbit Pluto or something else far away?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 21:12:43 No.13963519 Report

Quoted By:

>>13962856
Not if you reach escape velocity, then it cant fall back

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 21:16:02 No.13963532 Report

Quoted By:

>>13962795
Based outside the box thinker.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 21:20:09 No.13963558 Report

Quoted By: >>13963656 >>13964510

I think it is ironic that so called scientists view legitimate questions as mere stupidity and lack of understanding. They especially do this for things like evolution.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 21:29:49 No.13963591 Report

Quoted By: >>13963614

>>13962795
What do you mean by
> Considering no natural or manmade obstacles in the way,

Like if there was no air resistance it would be more efficient, but on earth you have air and even on a body like the moon you would need to at least clear the terrain

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 21:34:45 No.13963614 Report

Quoted By: >>13963625 >>13963631

>>13963591
No buildings or mountains, clear path for you to go in a straight horizontal line from surface to space

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 21:35:09 No.13963616 Report

Quoted By:

>>13962795
Why don't you just download KSP and play around? It's not 100% realistic by any means but its close enough to answer unspecific questions like this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 21:37:44 No.13963625 Report

Quoted By:

>>13963614
Do you consider the air a natural obstacle or source of resistance?

What about your means of propulsion? How fast can you accelerate?

Maybe following off the curvature of the planet is more efficient it all depends.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 21:39:12 No.13963631 Report

Quoted By:

>>13963614
Also rockets do not go straight up unless you are watching looney toons or playing space engineers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 21:44:42 No.13963652 Report

Quoted By: >>13963723

So npbpdy in this thread has studied orbital mechanics except for me?
Going up, sideways or at some angles gives the rocket energy. The angle determines its angular momentum. For each combination of energy and angular momentum there will be an orbit. Most orbits are just eliptical, retard orbits intersect the volume taken by the earth so its a crash although technically thats still an orbit. Going straight up is also a orbit and at escape velocity the rocket wont ever fall down, it will slow down so slow it would take infinite time to stop and start falling back.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 21:46:01 No.13963656 Report

Quoted By: >>13963738

>>13963558
this isn't a very dumb question nor a legitimate one, this is something any undergrad and prolly highschooler can answer with few simple equations. it's not the "so called scientists" job to teach you highschool physics

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 21:48:33 No.13963665 Report

Quoted By:

>>13962856
>>13962929
Beyond a certain speed you can escape to infinity with energy left over

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 22:03:47 No.13963723 Report

Quoted By: >>13963728

>>13963652
How do you real scientists define orbit anyways? I would call both of these suborbital. I define an orbit as a periapsis high enough to complete to stay there for a reasonable amount of round trips.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 22:06:13 No.13963728 Report

Quoted By:

>>13963723
Clearly you never studied orbital mechanics, its ok, you are not stupid for it theres lots of subjects i never studied

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 22:07:53 No.13963738 Report

Quoted By: >>13963744 >>13963818

>>13963656
It's not high school physics. High school physics never questions itself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 22:10:41 No.13963744 Report

Quoted By: >>13963780

>>13963738
Start by studying Kepler's laws, he did work on orbits before Newton discovered gravity. He explained how the orbits worked without explaining the reason (gravity).
Theres no such thing as suborbital, any motion is an orbit, suborbital is a marketing term.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 22:13:05 No.13963753 Report

Quoted By:

>>13962795
going forward you can have a slow ascend like a plane has, but you will also have more air resistance due to longer path

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 22:13:21 No.13963756 Report

Quoted By:

>>13962856
this man has never thrown a ball before
>>13962795
is it easier to fight one axis or two? the short answer is that the optimal trajectory is a curve; a gradient between perpendicular and parallel, its a lot easier to burn circularly if you already have upwards momentum

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 22:19:22 No.13963780 Report

Quoted By: >>13963792

>>13963744
Meh I don't even believe in physics anyways. It is useful for technology though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 22:21:39 No.13963792 Report

Quoted By:

>>13963780
Its basic intuitive physics, not quantum stuff

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 22:26:52 No.13963818 Report

Quoted By: >>13963822

>>13963738
>you should question integrals
>you should question f=ma
>you should question derivatives
>you should question numbers
are you retarded? there is nothing to question here. in HS you are taught how the formulas are derived, you might do an experiment or two and that's all you need. at the most highest meta level everything is just axiomatic systems but this is irrelevant for 99.999% of physics

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 22:27:57 No.13963822 Report

Quoted By: >>13963832

>>13963818
Yes you should. Actually you are dishonest only math is axiomatic physics is built on assumptions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 22:29:58 No.13963832 Report

Quoted By: >>13963843

>>13963822
We are talking about practical orbital mechanics here, not a debate about if physics is wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 22:31:38 No.13963843 Report

Quoted By: >>13963854

>>13963832
Yeah but you guys get upset over basic questions because you are afraid of people saying physics is wrong.

In the case of evolution I think you know it wrests on faulty evidence and if people ask too many questions they will realize it is BS

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 22:34:08 No.13963854 Report

Quoted By: >>13963859 >>13963882

>>13963843
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Mechanics_(Goldstein)
Just read this

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 22:35:32 No.13963859 Report

Quoted By: >>13963870

>>13963854
Point is you people get mad over questions and instead of emgaging them just direct to a book. It's a non-relationship you certainly don't deserve to be called teachers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 22:39:52 No.13963870 Report

Quoted By: >>13963886

>>13963859
I cant teach you physics on 4chan. Besides your question makes little sense "most effective".
What do you even mean by most effective?
Going to space means a lot of different possible orbits. If you just want to touch space do like Bezos blue ball rockets does and just go straight up, be in space 5 seconds and fall down.
You need to define what you want. Efficient is a buzzword.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO no niggers.png, 82KiB, 900x617

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 22:42:37 No.13963882 Report

Quoted By:

>>13963854
>(Goldstein)
jews are not capable of participating in the sciences

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 22:43:24 No.13963886 Report

Quoted By: >>13966598

>>13963870
Okay whatever ugh

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 23:02:23 No.13963945 Report

Quoted By:

>>13962795
better idea just tape the rocket to the earth so its as fast as the earth is spinning
then let it go and woosh off to space you go

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 23:02:59 No.13963947 Report

Quoted By: >>13963973

>>13962856
>>13962845
going straight up is retarded because you're fighting gravity drag the whole way. by going sideways after you're high enough there's a component to your acceleration that isn't opposite to gravity. sure, if you've got a torchship you can just go straight up (an orion could perhaps do it, even), but such a trajectory is simply not feasible with chemical propulsion

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 23:09:37 No.13963973 Report

Quoted By: >>13963979

>>13963947
We can't actually go sideways because the Earth is fl- i mean haha gravity

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 23:10:47 No.13963979 Report

Quoted By: >>13963983

>>13963973
very valuable contribution to the discussion, my friend. hope your mom doesn't trip and break her hip, haha

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Dec 2021 23:11:11 No.13963983 Report

Quoted By:

>>13963979
How rude

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Dec 2021 01:41:49 No.13964510 Report

Quoted By:

>>13963558
flattard

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Dec 2021 01:50:58 No.13964536 Report

Quoted By:

>>13962795
with atmosphere: significantly less efficient
without atmosphere: marginally more efficient

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Dec 2021 09:35:06 No.13965610 Report

Quoted By:

>>13962795
if the rocket was accelerated to very high speeds on rails and then launched like that then maybe it'd be more efficient

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Dec 2021 11:13:20 No.13965826 Report

Quoted By:

>>13962795
If you're diving in the ocean, why don't you swim t the shore to take a breath instead of swimming up to the surface?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1562691970570.jpg, 87KiB, 768x836

Anonymous Wed 15 Dec 2021 11:41:14 No.13965875 Report

Quoted By:

New here, how the fuck is the average person on a board namd /sci/ so fucking dumb?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Dec 2021 16:56:10 No.13966598 Report

Quoted By:

>>13963886
If you actually want to go to orbit you have to launch at an angle. Thats the short answer. Straight up is dumb unless your goal is to go to outer space, like to Mars or something. The speed needed for orbiting earth is something like 7 km/s, much easier than the 11 km/s needed to escape.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Dec 2021 17:19:40 No.13966635 Report

Quoted By: >>13966661

The earth curves about 8 cm for every kilometer and the atmosphere is about 12 km high, so you'd be in the atmosphere for about 150 kilometers, more than 10 times as long. With the wasted energy even with 0 gravity acting against the rocket it would still be less efficient. Of course, gravity would still be acting on the rocket and I'm like 90% sure that in a vacuum it would still require the same escape velocity. For orbit and most practical uses launching at a right angle isn't necessarily the best though, so launching from the moon or some planet with a very low atmosphere the parallel launch style might actually be superior in some cases.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Dec 2021 17:29:58 No.13966661 Report

Quoted By:

>>13966635
>The earth curves about 8 cm for every kilometer and the atmosphere is about 12 km high, so you'd be in the atmosphere for about 150 kilometers, more than 10 times as long.
Fuck I'm too tired for this. I think this is wrong but cba to find the correct way of calculating it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Dec 2021 20:54:40 No.13967350 Report

Quoted By:

space is fake, rockets cant go much higher than 100 km, earth is concave. prove me wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 16 Dec 2021 06:38:28 No.13968896 Report

Quoted By:

>>13962795
Better yet, just use a giant railgun to shoot the rocket into space.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 16 Dec 2021 06:41:19 No.13968904 Report

Quoted By:

>>13962795
Never ceases to amaze me how stupid this board is

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches