 | | Falling thru earth revisited —David Koudys
|
| | | 'cause I've been ruminating about it.... So let's take this from the base model-- Base model ignores the following-- Rotation AIr Resistance you have the earth and a hole from where you are, going straight thru the center and right out to the other (...) (19 years ago, 8-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Falling thru earth revisited —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) One other thing to think about is the amount of time something's been exposed to something that increases its speed. For example: Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima have a race from point A to point B, and back to point A. Aunt Jemima stays at a (...) (19 years ago, 8-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Falling thru earth revisited —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | | (...) Yeah, like do you have to fly at an angle to avoid hitting the sides due to the earth's rotation? (...) Isn't this the whole idea behind the gravity slingshot they use to accelerate spacecraft? It worked in "2010" and I think NASA uses it all (...) (19 years ago, 22-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Falling thru earth revisited —Bram Lambrecht
|
| | | | (...) Sounds right to me. Acceleration adds linearly, so when you integrate to get the velocity, you have the integral of the thrust plus the integral of the gravitational acceleration. Assuming that the change in mass of the rocket due to depleted (...) (19 years ago, 8-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
