Kinda fucked up tbh
-
Hmm, I think this logic kinda fails because if astronauts are "not on earth", then neither are air travelers.
Astronauts orbiting earth are just couple kilometers higher altitude
Spent a moment thinking about this and I think there's an implied definition for what "on earth" means that we intuitively accept but don't ever really need to state.
If your projected free-fall trajectory both forward and backward in time intersects with the surface of the earth then you are "on earth".
Standing on the ground? Intersects twice.
Thrown rock? Intersects twice.
Person in an airplane? Intersects twice.
ISS? No intersection.
Incoming impact meteor? One intersection. -
This post did not contain any content.
2012 is still pending just waiting for us all to be gathered up so as to not have any loose ends.
-
Well, technically speaking, we all are in space.
We are all passengers on a generational space vessel.
-
China has their own ISS.
Wouldn't that . . . not be an ISS?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Not true if you take into account all the kids jumping at any given moment.
-
This post did not contain any content.
How do they know there wasn't someone jumping at ever second of every day somewhere on earth up til then? Also people in airplanes.
-
Rockets are launched so infrequently that their effect is negligible compared to other sources of pollution. They're definitely still a problem (debris falling on populated areas is a concern), but the aviation industry burns a rocket launch worth of fuel a few times per minute.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]263 rockets in 2024 alone. A 747 carries 10 tonnes of fuel to burn, a rocket carries 1,500 tonnes of fuel to burn.
Seems like they're both bad, but rockets don't have as much of a point to them.
-
Holy shit.
I've never been alive in a time when every human has been on Earth. That's crazy to think about...
I have... and by way longer than I want to admit.
-
We are all passengers on a generational space vessel.
We need a better navigator, though. We keep going around in circles.
-
Wouldn't that . . . not be an ISS?
You see, you just take out the 'I', and... oh.
-
If you like pedantry, people have definitely flown in vehicles and even jumped.
I like pedantry but want to go the other way. The ISS orbits in the thermosphere, still inside Earth's atmosphere. I say that you haven't really left Earth until you exit the atmosphere.
-
I like pedantry but want to go the other way. The ISS orbits in the thermosphere, still inside Earth's atmosphere. I say that you haven't really left Earth until you exit the atmosphere.
What's wrong with the karman line?
-
Spent a moment thinking about this and I think there's an implied definition for what "on earth" means that we intuitively accept but don't ever really need to state.
If your projected free-fall trajectory both forward and backward in time intersects with the surface of the earth then you are "on earth".
Standing on the ground? Intersects twice.
Thrown rock? Intersects twice.
Person in an airplane? Intersects twice.
ISS? No intersection.
Incoming impact meteor? One intersection.The ISS was launched from Earth, in pieces but still it's of Earth origin, and will eventually fall back to Earth. It's inside the Earth's atmosphere and experiences drag. It's orbit has to be adjusted and maintained.
-
The ISS was launched from Earth, in pieces but still it's of Earth origin, and will eventually fall back to Earth. It's inside the Earth's atmosphere and experiences drag. It's orbit has to be adjusted and maintained.
Yes, that's all true, but none of that describes its free-fall trajectory. Drag causes it to deviate from free-fall very slightly, and it definitely wasn't in free-fall when the pieces were launched from Earth
-
This post did not contain any content.
This is kind of mind blowing.
-
They're clearly not "jumping" they're pushing the earth away
That’s relatively true
-
What's wrong with the karman line?
So basically, the Karman line is the theoretical highest point that an airplane can fly, or at least it was when it was calculated. If it were recalculated today it would be higher because of technological advancement. The definition used by the agencies that define it as the edge of space set an altitude near the originally calculated line. The functional difference between being above the line and below the line is that the keplar force will keep an object above the line from falling to Earth within 24 hours while drag will slow the object below the line enough for it to fall back to Earth within 24 hours. It's fine as a functional definition but I see no reason that it should be universally applied. In the scope of this discussion why should we consider something that will fall back to Earth in 25 hours not be on Earth but something that will fall back to Earth in 23 hours to be on Earth?
-
Space is a priority so we can ignore climate change. Rockets put our many many plane flights worth of pollution, elon musk has done over 30,000 of them (mostly for StarLink). Quite a few ended up just dumping raw pollution and parts into the ocean.
No price is paid but by the environment.
Space is a priority so we can ignore climate change.
I have a teacher that once said that even if we nuked the entire planet and gave 100 years to terraform Mars. Mars would still be less habitable than Earth. Colonization of space in the near future is a pipedream.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It’s Tim Curry in the only place safe from Capitalism.
-
We need a better navigator, though. We keep going around in circles.
The Sun isn't stationary
