Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor
  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. Plane geek stuff

Plane geek stuff

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
comperformance
44 Posts 13 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • D Daniel Pfeffer

    I agree that the actual delta-v produced by any practical rocket that reaches escape velocity must be higher than 11.2 km/sec. This is because (a) the acceleration profile is not a step function, and (b) using the highest acceleration that the astronauts were capable of enduring would result in the spacecraft overheating because of air resistance (those pesky Engineering considerations... :) ). This, however, that does not change the fact that the escape velocity at the Earth's surface is approximately 11.2 km/sec. This gives the absolute lower bound on the delta-v that must be given to an object that is to escape the Earth's gravity.

    If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill

    R Offline
    R Offline
    R Giskard Reventlov
    wrote on last edited by
    #41

    And plenty of cogent reasons why it would be better to build and launch ships from orbit or a body with a lower escape velocity requirement (putting to one side the practicalities of setting that all up in the first place - nice to dream).

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • F F ES Sitecore

      Munchies_Matt wrote:

      I studied physics in depth, since my principal formation was in mech/aero engineering.

      I find that hard to believe when you cite a dictionary as proof.

      M Offline
      M Offline
      Munchies_Matt
      wrote on last edited by
      #42

      I find your inability to accept that a dictionary and physics have the same deffinition hard to believe. How about engineering? Here are some pics of wind resistance:wind resistance - Google Search[^]

      F 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • M Munchies_Matt

        air doesnt have any resistance until it has velocity relative to the object whereupon it is wind. ;P

        J Offline
        J Offline
        Joan M
        wrote on last edited by
        #43

        Tell that to some underpants out in the wild... :laugh:

        https://www.robotecnik.com freelance robots, PLC and CNC programmer.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • M Munchies_Matt

          I find your inability to accept that a dictionary and physics have the same deffinition hard to believe. How about engineering? Here are some pics of wind resistance:wind resistance - Google Search[^]

          F Offline
          F Offline
          F ES Sitecore
          wrote on last edited by
          #44

          Most of those pictures do relate to actual wind though.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          Reply
          • Reply as topic
          Log in to reply
          • Oldest to Newest
          • Newest to Oldest
          • Most Votes

          • Login
          • Don't have an account? Register
          • Login or register to search.
          • First post
            Last post
          0
          • Categories
          • Recent
          • Tags
          • Popular
          • World
          • Users
          • Groups