Jeff Foust has to explain this to The New Scientist.
12 thoughts on “Ballooning Is Not Spaceflight”
Still, high altitude balloons could be useful for testing components in a space-like environment.
Sure, but the view is spectacular.
And then there is JP Aerospace, the company that’s working on airship-to-orbit. I first heard about them here on Transterrestrial a few years ago; been following their work ever since.
jpaerospace.com
To quote my uncle. That’s not space. SPACE isn’t UP it’s forward at a very high rate of speed.
I would prefer my uncle’s definition.
That would mean SS1 never went to space either.
In theory, its possible to build a rocket that climbs straight up from equator to geostationary orbit, without ever attaining any forward speed, relative to ground.
Not true. A satellite in GEO has an orbital velocity of approximately 6900 MPH. It just so happens that is sufficient to keep it stationary with respect to the ground. If you launched a rocket straight up from the equator with no forward velocity, it will fall back to the surface unless it achieves escape velocity.
If you launch it from the ground, it will have forward velocity, except if you are launching from one of the poles. If you launch it from an equatorial launch site it will have exactly the forward velocity it needs.
You’ll have the right angular velocity, but you’ll have to increase your forward velocity as you rise to maintain the proper angular velocity (V = R * Omega).
No, not even close. You’re completely wrong on this. The Earth’s rotational velocity at the equator is approximately 1000 MPH. The orbital velocity at GEO is approximately 6900 MPH (10,088 feet per second, give or take a few tenths). Unless you don’t reach the required orbital velocity, you’ll simply fall back to the Earth.
Larry, what part of the “relative to the ground” did you fail to comprehend ?
All speeds are relative.
Like “planet” there is no good definition of “space”. Heck we ourselves – or at least, our constituent atoms – are 99.999999% empty space. Then again, even pure vacuum isn’t really empty, seething as it is with virtual particles.
Doh, thanks for pointing that out, I really should have known this!
Still, high altitude balloons could be useful for testing components in a space-like environment.
Sure, but the view is spectacular.
And then there is JP Aerospace, the company that’s working on airship-to-orbit. I first heard about them here on Transterrestrial a few years ago; been following their work ever since.
jpaerospace.com
To quote my uncle. That’s not space. SPACE isn’t UP it’s forward at a very high rate of speed.
I would prefer my uncle’s definition.
That would mean SS1 never went to space either.
In theory, its possible to build a rocket that climbs straight up from equator to geostationary orbit, without ever attaining any forward speed, relative to ground.
Not true. A satellite in GEO has an orbital velocity of approximately 6900 MPH. It just so happens that is sufficient to keep it stationary with respect to the ground. If you launched a rocket straight up from the equator with no forward velocity, it will fall back to the surface unless it achieves escape velocity.
If you launch it from the ground, it will have forward velocity, except if you are launching from one of the poles. If you launch it from an equatorial launch site it will have exactly the forward velocity it needs.
You’ll have the right angular velocity, but you’ll have to increase your forward velocity as you rise to maintain the proper angular velocity (V = R * Omega).
No, not even close. You’re completely wrong on this. The Earth’s rotational velocity at the equator is approximately 1000 MPH. The orbital velocity at GEO is approximately 6900 MPH (10,088 feet per second, give or take a few tenths). Unless you don’t reach the required orbital velocity, you’ll simply fall back to the Earth.
Larry, what part of the “relative to the ground” did you fail to comprehend ?
All speeds are relative.
Like “planet” there is no good definition of “space”. Heck we ourselves – or at least, our constituent atoms – are 99.999999% empty space. Then again, even pure vacuum isn’t really empty, seething as it is with virtual particles.
Doh, thanks for pointing that out, I really should have known this!