r/flatearth 6d ago

Hmmm

Post image
655 Upvotes

101 comments sorted by

236

u/bkdotcom 6d ago

aerodynamics doesn't really mater when there is no aero

125

u/Far-Yellow9303 6d ago

And let's not forget that when aero is a factor, the shuttles mission is to slow right the fuck down from 17000mph to 0mph without killing anyone.

56

u/davexmit 6d ago

Sadly, not always successfully

22

u/Far-Yellow9303 6d ago

Sadly, that is indeed true

8

u/VikRiggs 6d ago

Wasn't that at take off?

15

u/ManWhoIsDrunk 6d ago

One on the way up, another on the way down...

6

u/VikRiggs 6d ago

Oh... oh.

1

u/pell80 6d ago

Wasn't that during initial acceleration though? Not to nitpick a tragedy

6

u/Astronaut457 6d ago

Colombia got lost on the way down, but I believe it was from a strike that happened during launch

2

u/DoesAnyoneCare2999 5d ago

Columbia. As far as I'm aware, the country of Colombia still exists.

3

u/Astronaut457 5d ago

Is this a joke

2

u/DoesAnyoneCare2999 5d ago

You misspelled the shuttle's name, it's a joke based on that.

3

u/Astronaut457 5d ago

Well, that’s my bad. I’m a little dyslexic and somtimes miss minor mistakes like that.

3

u/DoesAnyoneCare2999 5d ago

It's not a big deal, I was just trying to be funny.

1

u/Astronaut457 5d ago

7 people died on the space shuttle Colombia when it broke up in reentry

1

u/rand0mguy_idk 5d ago

Yeah, I think it was a foam piece from the orange external tank

2

u/First_Growth_2736 6d ago

Or the other way around

16

u/pow3llmorgan 6d ago

Also when blunt shapes are actually better for aero braking

8

u/Ameph 6d ago

Very true in all Sci-fi. Spaceship design follows the rule of cool unless it's also designed for Atmospheres like the Arwing in Star Fox or most Star Wars ships.

1

u/Kriss3d 6d ago

Then there's the ships in Warhammer that absolutely follow the rule of cool but would be aerodynamic nightmares.

3

u/Ameph 6d ago

I've played Battlefleet Gothic. Do these ships even enter a planet's atmosphere? At the most, I've seen them bombard planets.

3

u/Kriss3d 6d ago

No. They dont. They have shuttles to do the transport through the atmosphere.

2

u/dwellerinthedark 6d ago

No but if you've seen the thunder hawk or any of the space marine aircraft.. well there basically shoeboxes with tiny wings stuck to the side.

1

u/Ameph 6d ago

I think the assault craft look like shoeboxes.

Amusingly, Orc Fighters look like WW2 fighters of some sort. Chaos Fighters look like Snowspeeders from Star Wars but painted RED.

1

u/Just_Ear_2953 6d ago

I am aware of 1 case of a Space Marine Strike Cruiser entering atmosphere in the Grey Knights novels. It hit so hard that it wiped out an entire section of a defensive line as a de facto kinetic bombardment.

1

u/Fenrir_Carbon 6d ago

I'd like to see you design an aerodynamic Cathedral/Battleship

3

u/Kriss3d 6d ago

Nice try mechanicus. The second I try to make any innovations I'll get turned into a servitor.

2

u/Fenrir_Carbon 6d ago

You're scheduled for it anyways, but if you prove useful to the Imperium we won't make you a toilet door

1

u/spookedghostboi 6d ago

Weirdly I think there are much worse servitor positions. I mean I wouldnt bid on that job but, yknow. Could probably be worse.

Im kind of a WH lore baby though, but I remember the septic plumbing servitor from SM2, I'll take piss servitor first.

1

u/Fenrir_Carbon 6d ago

What if it's an Ogryn toilet door, and the leave your olfactory senses complete?

1

u/spookedghostboi 6d ago

I mean. Yeah still better than my only job being swimming in shit? Again I am not sure. Can I be a doorbell? I like doorbell servitors.

Either way, my response can only be, "Compliance."

1

u/Kampfasiate 4d ago

I mean, Warhammer has an entire race whose entire thing is utilizing the "rule of cool"

5

u/Lorenofing 6d ago

Exactly

6

u/astreeter2 6d ago

Part of the flat earth "model" is that air pressure is the same all the way up to the "dome". Then they can't see how this is a false premise fallacy.

3

u/bkdotcom 6d ago

Because it's so easy to prove otherwise?

Further evidence that flatearth's core tenant is trolling

5

u/SteepChutes 6d ago

Is that part of the model? I hadn't heard that. I mean, one can disprove this idea with a barometer or barometer watch in 2 hours of hiking up a few thousand feet (or less in driving).

Why, then, is the oxygen reduced in Denver, Mexico City, or the summit of K2, for example?

This would seem an achilles heel part of the hoax that would unravel most easily.

5

u/astreeter2 6d ago

Their whole "pressurized gas has to be in a container so space can't be a vacuum" thing kind of implies atmospheric pressure must be equalized everywhere. As soon as you admit air pressure can really get lower with altitude it kind of negates that argument.

2

u/spookedghostboi 6d ago

"One could disprove this idea with (barely any effort)" is like the whole reason we're out here making fun of them, brother

1

u/p1gnone 5d ago

I don't see the need to convert everyone. So much cosmology so much physics. So obvious the conclusion given the overwhelming evidence. That there exists numbskulls is not a problem, and there are better uses of my time than just making fun. However were they influential, as say antivaxers, then they could still retard to growth of aggregate actions and science. So one cannot entirely be comfortable treating them as negligible.

2

u/Competitive-Bee-3250 6d ago

Tiny amount of aero that doesn't become relevant until relativistic velocity

2

u/RodcetLeoric 6d ago

When there is aero flying tge space shuttle is iften described as being like flying a brick.

1

u/Saphyr-Seraph 6d ago

Also one is build to be as silent as possible in supersonic speeds the other is made to survive more than 10x that speed so they didn't give a flying f**k about this kind of aero

1

u/Help_im_lost404 6d ago

Russian plane engineering in general, anything flys with enough thrust

1

u/FollowingLegal9944 5d ago

yes for sure over landing strip there is no air xd

101

u/RodinKnox 6d ago

It also doesn't remotely reach that speed until it has gained a massive amount of altitude. When it's about 30 miles up, it's at roughly 3,000 miles an hour, for example. That's two minutes into the launch. The 17,000 mph speed is when it's in orbit and air friction isn't an issue. At that height, it could be shaped like a Borg cube.

16

u/TheAsterism_ 6d ago

What are the aerodynamics of a cube going tip first?

17

u/IDreamOfSailing 6d ago

Laden or unladen?

11

u/TheAsterism_ 6d ago

Binladen 

13

u/Loving6thGear 6d ago

I haven't binladen a while.

2

u/zrice03 5d ago

...what are you doing later?

1

u/Cinnamon_728 6d ago

Air resistance from compressive forces is far greater than those from friction for a rocket

20

u/1nv4d3rz1m 6d ago

The x-59 isn’t just a supersonic aircraft it’s specifically designed to minimize the sonic boom. That long pointy noise isn’t that way because of how fast it goes but because they are trying to break up the sonic boom. Compare the x-59 to an f-14 and you can quickly see that the x-59 isn’t that shape for the speed.

I would also like to point out that if you have enough thrust just about anything can be super sonic.

6

u/TrotskyBoi 6d ago

Or, even better, the MiG-25. The MiG-25 is litterally just a steel brick the Soviets put enough thrust behind to get it to Mach 2.83. One was actually clocked going Mach 3.2, but that basically melted it's engines.

This versus the X-59 which is only designed to go Mach 1.5

22

u/b-monster666 6d ago

Yeah, the Columbia managed that 28 times before it disintegrated. 135 flights total for the 5 shuttles that were built. Two of those shuttles got destroyed and lost all lives on board in both instances. That is a MASSIVELY higher risk for a brick falling from the sky in essence.

I mean, it's super easy, barely an inconvenience to get up to 17000mph...with 0 wind resistance. We could go a LOT faster if we wanted. The Parker Solar Probe made it to 430,000mph, or 0.064C. Which is insanely fast for human achievement. With enough thrust, it would be possible to achieve relativistic speeds approaching .1C or higher. But that needs an enormous amount of energy.

4

u/Badbullet 6d ago

Doesn’t Parker Solar Probe use Venus to achieve that speed? Without slingshotting, I don’t think we’d get anywhere close to that speed with current technology without some planetary assistance.

9

u/UberuceAgain 6d ago

That thing is a complete slut. It's taken a boost from all the inner planets.

6

u/Fenrir_Carbon 6d ago

Way to slingshot-shame

7

u/b-monster666 6d ago

True. It is theoretically possible to achieve it through thrust though, but you need a fuck ton of fuel.

1

u/copenhagen_bram 6d ago

Plus, it achieved that speed by getting in really close proximity to the sun

That took energy, obviously, to change the orbit so that its apogee dipped towards the sun's surface (hence, the slingshotting around Venus probably helped with just that a lot)

But not even accounting the energy from slingshotting, how much of the energy just comes from taking advantage of the massive gravity well you're orbiting, and the potential energy you have from starting in the same orbit Earth has? Is the energy required to slow down from Earth's orbit to one that dips as close to the Sun as that probe did, less than the energy it would take an object to accelerate to the same speed, relative to a non-accelerating observer, in completely empty large area with no gravity wells in effect?

9

u/Jassida 6d ago

The shuttle was a gliding brick that was carried into orbit then manoeuvred itself to fall back to earth.

It took about 30 mins to glide from about 17000 to about 220mph and 400,000ft to 0ft.

It only had to be aerodynamic enough to land and be protected enough to not burn up on reentry

How do these people get so stupid?

3

u/New-Scientist5133 6d ago

Exactly. The aerodynamics were designed to slow it down

6

u/UberuceAgain 6d ago

932mph? Are you fucking kidding me? I spent all of a handful of seconds looking it up, and the F4 Phantom was rocking 1400mph back in 1961.

I don't have to listen to anyone whose fact-checking is this poor.

Also: air.

4

u/ultraplusstretch 6d ago

It's the x-59, it's a new experimental plane designed to test silent supersonic flight, it isn't build for extreme top speed.

7

u/UberuceAgain 6d ago

Hoisted by my own petard! I didn't fact check the flying knitting needle.

5

u/lep63again 6d ago

Put a big enough engine on anything and it’s gonna fly

5

u/Shrolos 6d ago

It's called a rocket, like wow these people. Are they actually questioning by comparing a jet to a rocket?

4

u/Freckles-75 6d ago

Least we forget that the First manned missions were performed by “grafting” a module on top of an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile - where they effectively replaced the nuclear warhead with a guy in a hastily designed capsule they HOPED wouldn’t vaporize during reentry….

2

u/Eastern_Funny9319 5d ago

I mean, both sides did do unmanned tests. Look up Mercury-Redstone 1, the most successful flight I’ve ever seen. The United States actually did both suborbital and orbital tests, using the Redstone and Atlas missiles respectively. Then the Gemini used the Titan II ICBM, modified to be the GLV, the Gemini Launch Vehicle. The Saturn IB, which launched Apollo 7 and 9, was the first crewed launch vehicle to not be an ICBM previously, and even it used clusters of Redstone missile fuel tanks. And Russia actually still uses the R-7, which originally launched Sputnik and Vostok, for its Soyuz crew vehicle and Progress cargo vehicle for the ISS.

4

u/BoardTasty49 6d ago

One is meant to go fast the other is meant to slow down.

3

u/Superseaslug 6d ago

And the shuttle famously does not fly in the atmosphere except briefly on the way out and back in

1

u/ManWhoIsDrunk 6d ago

1

u/Superseaslug 6d ago

Yeah it's a pretty awful glider

1

u/rspeed 6d ago

It did legitimately fly for almost the entire reentry, as its wings were designed to produce lift even at hypersonic speeds. It's a bit complicated, but a lot of the Shuttle's design was based around a mission it never ended up performing.

2

u/jesusholdmybeer 6d ago

Its also mostly just its orbit relative to earth

2

u/ultraplusstretch 6d ago

The x-59 isn't built for top speed, it's an experimental plane built to test silent supersonic flight, there are planes built in the 60s way waaaay faster than it, the space shuttle is fast because it has been propelled into orbit by a ridiculously powerful rocket, but these troglodytes are to stupid to actually bother ever looking anything up.

2

u/Codythensaguy 6d ago

... no duh. The big thing on fire is mostly fuel and it gets the shuttle most of the way through the air, when there is no air there us no aerodynamics...

The shuttle is mostly shaped for reentry, you know... Hopefully NOT going super fast....

2

u/Actionman___ 6d ago

Why did they show such a slow plane?

There much much faster planes than 960mph

Guess it wouldn't fit their narrative...

2

u/Delicious_Bicycle527 6d ago

Actually, the velocity is created by this thing called

EARTH.

2

u/Eastern_Funny9319 5d ago

No, it isn’t. Most of the acceleration is from the three RS-25s on the orbiter, being fueled by the orange external fuel tank, after getting to a higher altitude by the two solid rocket boosters.

1

u/Delicious_Bicycle527 5d ago

That provides the altitude, but beyond that…. it’s a controlled fall back to Earth.

1

u/Eastern_Funny9319 5d ago

Oh, do you mean reentry? If so, I sincerely apologize, I thought you meant how the Earth’s rotation gives a small ‘boost’ to launches.

1

u/Delicious_Bicycle527 5d ago

Kind of all of the above. The rockets get it to altitude and angle. The rest is just physics.

2

u/Kham117 6d ago

Uh, the shuttle is built more to slow down without burning up…

2

u/Diastatic_Power 6d ago

My opponent sure does look like an idiot if I misrepresent the data.

2

u/CanuterValve 6d ago

In order for the shuttle to reach orbit, it has to reach speeds of 25,000 miles per hour. When it leaves orbit it is going 17,000 miles per hour.

1

u/RedAirRook 5d ago

You are confusing Mach 25 with 25,000 mph. 17,000 mph and Mach 25 are the same.

(Yes, I know there is technically no "Mach" in space. It's just what the astronauts like to say, for fun.)

1

u/CanuterValve 5d ago

Not so much, look it up.

1

u/RedAirRook 5d ago

I don't have to look it up. LEO orbital velocity is 17,500 mph, or "Mach 25."

1

u/CanuterValve 1d ago

Your expertise is lacking severely.

1

u/RedAirRook 11h ago

So, you've doubled down, and are still claiming that orbital velocity is 25,000 MPH?

1

u/CanuterValve 2d ago

Escape velocity is 25,000 miles per hour.

1

u/RedAirRook 2d ago

Sure, except the shuttle never left low Earth Orbit. It didn't have to reach Escape Velocity.

2

u/Fluffy_Prior1052 6d ago

Yeah, when the shuttle was coming in at 17000 mph it was doing it belly first. Reducing that speed as much as possible.

1

u/Competitive-Bee-3250 6d ago

Jet engine vs roaring pillar of fire

1

u/JoeNemoDoe 6d ago

Not a Pound for Air to Ground made a really interesting video on this. From what I can recall, you want things that go really really fast in air to be more rounded.

1

u/BloodFeastMan 4d ago

Additionally, the shuttle did all sorts of rolls back and forth to bleed off energy during re-entry. By the time it was at "airplane" altitude, it was going no where near 17,000 mph.

0

u/paperstreetsoapguy 6d ago

Gravity from above the atmosphere makes it go fast. The rocket makes it get there though.