Orbit, as it is taught to us, is entirely fictional. To understand better why, and how we can know and demonstrate that - please join me on the community I created specifically to critically evaluate such claims/topics.
Just click my username, and on the right hand sidebar under "Moderator for..." will be the link. If you don't see it, please let me know and I'll pm it to you (it doesn't show on phones/small screens)
It's a matter of understanding orbital insertion -- why you can't just throw a baseball into orbit (with a slingshot thingy) -- you need a second push.
A "one-shot" push will create an elliptical orbit that returns through its origin position -- not good for a useful orbit.
A useful orbit needs a minimum of 2 pushes -- the second being the orbital insertion burn.
It's a matter of understanding orbital insertion -- why you can't just throw a baseball into orbit (with a slingshot thingy) -- you need a second push.
In this specific case, it's a matter of understanding their launcher is not capable (or designed) to throw something into orbit. They named it a suborbital launcher. It is to be used (supposedly) for stress testing satellites and such things.
You need a second push only because the first push wasn't big enough.
A "one-shot" push will create an elliptical orbit that returns through its origin position -- not good for a useful orbit.
That is an interesting and entertaining idea. I know why it doesn't comport with reality, but if I didn't - I would find it compelling!
I did, that's why I said it was entertaining! Thought experiment is in no way experiment, nor can it ever substitute for it! It is useful for hypothesis generation alone.
33 = building Op
slingshot = a weapon for Y (reconcile Q's 'Y head' aka Rothschild deer head)
Spin = media 'spin'
arm = a "push". The Media has an arm, as in, they "push" stories.
I take adderall too.
Another money pit for dimwitted investors.
This ... is ... hillarious.
A "sub-orbital" test, surely...
Orbit, as it is taught to us, is entirely fictional. To understand better why, and how we can know and demonstrate that - please join me on the community I created specifically to critically evaluate such claims/topics.
Just click my username, and on the right hand sidebar under "Moderator for..." will be the link. If you don't see it, please let me know and I'll pm it to you (it doesn't show on phones/small screens)
You could have "orbital" if you don't mind the "orbit" going through the earth.
To miss the Earth you will need an insertion burn.
Lol, we'd better start digging that hole to china now!
This whole thing is comically ridiculous.
It's a matter of understanding orbital insertion -- why you can't just throw a baseball into orbit (with a slingshot thingy) -- you need a second push.
A "one-shot" push will create an elliptical orbit that returns through its origin position -- not good for a useful orbit.
A useful orbit needs a minimum of 2 pushes -- the second being the orbital insertion burn.
In this specific case, it's a matter of understanding their launcher is not capable (or designed) to throw something into orbit. They named it a suborbital launcher. It is to be used (supposedly) for stress testing satellites and such things.
You need a second push only because the first push wasn't big enough.
That is an interesting and entertaining idea. I know why it doesn't comport with reality, but if I didn't - I would find it compelling!
Trust me it does. Do a thought experiment with point masses.
Many years ago I helped port Space War to a Z80 computer. We played it on an ocilliscope.
You need two burns.
It doesn't.
I did, that's why I said it was entertaining! Thought experiment is in no way experiment, nor can it ever substitute for it! It is useful for hypothesis generation alone.
I understand why you say that.
OK, If you were on the top of Mt Everest and launched horizontally
you could get a one burn Mt Everest high orbit --- which is not very useful.
In actuality climbing the mountain would be the first burn and the horizontal burn would be the orbital insertion.
No --- you need the second push because the angle is wrong.
The orbital insertion push is at a different angle.
You have to --- go up --- then go sideways.
I understand why you say that. There is no orbit at all :( Not the way your thought experiment imagines it.
I should have left the statement you quoted out. It isn't a productive area of discussion.
I am trying to say that you can't get a useful orbit with a one push slingshot.
It is a matter of geometry.