It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Byrd
originally posted by: InachMarbank
I just started thinking about space program stuff pretty recently. Among other things, I can't seem to wrap my head around the gravitational intricacies of how satellites stay in orbit.
I have asked this kick off question before and run into a wall on a different site. Maybe the community here at ATS can help me see the light... Here goes...
What is the terminal velocity of an object falling in a vacuum?
Depends on the strength of the gravitational field. On the Moon, it's not going to be as fast as it would on something with the mass of Earth or of the sun.
originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Christosterone
#ing bravo! It is about time we focus on space again, because the Chinese certainly never stopped. We cannot allow them to edge over our capabilities. I say we need to focus on constructing bases on the moon that would also be research stations. ISS can be evolved into a go between. Then we should have satellite laser weapons for the aliens that will eventually step up against us.
originally posted by: InachMarbank
Hey thanks for reply.
Yea reading in various forums, seems the consensus is there's no terminal velocity in a vacuum.
If you're free falling in a near vacuum, like the ISS is said to be, at an acceleration of 9.8 meters per second squared (gravity of earth) would you keep accelerating to infinity, because of insignificant air resistance???
originally posted by: SignalMal
a reply to: raymundoko
What would you like me to look up?
Do you dispute the greenhouse effect? Or is it the range of climate sensitivity? Do you think we have less carbon to burn than is estimated?
I'm not understanding what exactly you want a source for.
originally posted by: SignalMal
originally posted by: InachMarbank
Hey thanks for reply.
Yea reading in various forums, seems the consensus is there's no terminal velocity in a vacuum.
If you're free falling in a near vacuum, like the ISS is said to be, at an acceleration of 9.8 meters per second squared (gravity of earth) would you keep accelerating to infinity, because of insignificant air resistance???
Is it accelerating at said speed, or is that it's orbital velocity?
I think what's being said is that since space is a (near-absolute) vacuum, you can approach the speed of light. Gravity is what drags us down. Gravity is also what creates an orbit, or rather a perfect balance between forward momentum and the pull down of gravity.
In order to accelerate in orbit, you'd have to continue to balance the rate of forward thrust to gravity. I think this means you'd have to pull closer into earth as your speed increases. It also means you'd reach a point where the orbit was no longer sustainable.
At least, this is what my mind reasons, though I could be pretty far off here.
originally posted by: dismanrc
a reply to: intrptr
Not so true. The AF has nuclear rockets already on the book, but the no nukes in space treaty killed them. Look up NERVA project. Nuke powered thrust engines that could go to Mars in weeks.
originally posted by: InachMarbank
originally posted by: SignalMal
originally posted by: InachMarbank
Hey thanks for reply.
Yea reading in various forums, seems the consensus is there's no terminal velocity in a vacuum.
If you're free falling in a near vacuum, like the ISS is said to be, at an acceleration of 9.8 meters per second squared (gravity of earth) would you keep accelerating to infinity, because of insignificant air resistance???
Is it accelerating at said speed, or is that it's orbital velocity?
I think what's being said is that since space is a (near-absolute) vacuum, you can approach the speed of light. Gravity is what drags us down. Gravity is also what creates an orbit, or rather a perfect balance between forward momentum and the pull down of gravity.
In order to accelerate in orbit, you'd have to continue to balance the rate of forward thrust to gravity. I think this means you'd have to pull closer into earth as your speed increases. It also means you'd reach a point where the orbit was no longer sustainable.
At least, this is what my mind reasons, though I could be pretty far off here.
I think intro physics says the acceleration rate of a falling object in Earth's atmosphere is 9.8 meters per second squared.
And I read air resistance is what eventually stops the acceleration of a falling object (or the ground 😁)
For an example, a typical sky diver jumping from maybe a 1 mile altitude gets to a top speed of 120 mph. But when I watched the clip of Felix Baumgartner jumping from an altitude of around 25 miles, the estimate of his top speed seemed to peak at 729 mph, before his speed began to slow.
But I can't seem to figure out what the terminal velocity would be, for an object falling from an altitude of around 210 miles. It can't keep accelerating forever can it?
originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Bluntone22
He certainly has quite a lot of influence over those things, wouldn't you agree?
Signing. VETO'ing. Having meetings with Congressional leadership. It's actually quite obvious he has enormous influence over such things.
originally posted by: face23785
originally posted by: InachMarbank
originally posted by: SignalMal
originally posted by: InachMarbank
Hey thanks for reply.
Yea reading in various forums, seems the consensus is there's no terminal velocity in a vacuum.
If you're free falling in a near vacuum, like the ISS is said to be, at an acceleration of 9.8 meters per second squared (gravity of earth) would you keep accelerating to infinity, because of insignificant air resistance???
Is it accelerating at said speed, or is that it's orbital velocity?
I think what's being said is that since space is a (near-absolute) vacuum, you can approach the speed of light. Gravity is what drags us down. Gravity is also what creates an orbit, or rather a perfect balance between forward momentum and the pull down of gravity.
In order to accelerate in orbit, you'd have to continue to balance the rate of forward thrust to gravity. I think this means you'd have to pull closer into earth as your speed increases. It also means you'd reach a point where the orbit was no longer sustainable.
At least, this is what my mind reasons, though I could be pretty far off here.
I think intro physics says the acceleration rate of a falling object in Earth's atmosphere is 9.8 meters per second squared.
And I read air resistance is what eventually stops the acceleration of a falling object (or the ground 😁)
For an example, a typical sky diver jumping from maybe a 1 mile altitude gets to a top speed of 120 mph. But when I watched the clip of Felix Baumgartner jumping from an altitude of around 25 miles, the estimate of his top speed seemed to peak at 729 mph, before his speed began to slow.
But I can't seem to figure out what the terminal velocity would be, for an object falling from an altitude of around 210 miles. It can't keep accelerating forever can it?
You're more or less correct, although it's a little more complicated than that. First of all the acceleration toward Earth is not uniform. As you get further away from the center of mass, the gravitational acceleration you experience from the body in question decreases. As I recall, the commonly quoted 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration of Earth's gravity is the acceleration it exerts at sea level. At 25 miles altitude above sea level, you would actually experience a little less acceleration, although I don't know the exact amount by which it decreases off the top of my head. At that altitude, he was not technically out of the atmosphere, but there is no appreciable air resistance, which is why he was able to accelerate to over 700 mph before he entered denser air, which slowed him down to our normal terminal velocity of around 120 mph.
In theory, if you were dealing with a body that had no atmosphere such as the moon or Mercury, there is no terminal velocity, however you won't continue to accelerate indefinitely because, obviously, at some point you will collide with the body. The maximum velocity you could attain would then be some function of what altitude you began to fall toward the body. Someone who knows a little more math than I do could probably figure it out in short order.