The Jedi seem determined to burn thrusters the wrong way and make their situation worse, not that there's any reason a starship should begin to fall from orbit just because part of it gets blown up anyway.
The one time Star Wars got the science pretty right
Another one in Star Wars which is very wrong is the orbital mechanics during the crashing of the ship about 20 minutes in to Revenge of the Sith (III, in chronological order). The Jedi seem determined to burn thrusters the wrong way and make their situation worse, not that there's any reason a starship should begin to fall from orbit just because part of it gets blown up anyway.
...
To stop your rocket which was stationary relative to the ground from falling, it would have to go 35,786 kilometers above the equator where our geostationary satellites are located. That is the one magic altitude above our equator where you just magically stay stationary above the ground below.
...
Geostationary orbit is not a "magical" altitude. Orbital speed in geostationary orbit is a bit over 3 km/sec....
To stop your rocket which was stationary relative to the ground from falling, it would have to go 35,786 kilometers above the equator where our geostationary satellites are located. That is the one magic altitude above our equator where you just magically stay stationary above the ground below.
...
It is the same for use here. if we shoot a rocket straight up above the ground to the orbital altitude of our current international space station, once the rocket runs out of fuel, the rocket will decelerate, then begin to drop like a rock as it does not have the angular velocity around the earth to counteract the Earth's gravity.
To stop your rocket which was stationary relative to the ground from falling, it would have to go 35,786 kilometers above the equator where our geostationary satellites are located. That is the one magic altitude above our equator where you just magically stay stationary above the ground below. The altitude of our international space station at 408 kilometers is just way to close and if it were to stay above one point of the Earth relative to the ground, at 408km, it would drop
...
Star Wars is not science fiction. It is space opera.
That's probably what you meant, but not exactly what you said. You said that if you shoot a rocket "straight up" to the altitude of the ISS, it will eventually "drop like a rock", but by going farther up to 35,786 kilometers the rocket will "just magically stay stationary above the ground below". You left out the part about also needing to accelerate tangentially to 3.1 kilometers per second.It is the same for use here. if we shoot a rocket straight up above the ground to the orbital altitude of our current international space station, once the rocket runs out of fuel, the rocket will decelerate, then begin to drop like a rock as it does not have the angular velocity around the earth to counteract the Earth's gravity.
To stop your rocket which was stationary relative to the ground from falling, it would have to go 35,786 kilometers above the equator where our geostationary satellites are located. That is the one magic altitude above our equator where you just magically stay stationary above the ground below. The altitude of our international space station at 408 kilometers is just way to close and if it were to stay above one point of the Earth relative to the ground, at 408km, it would drop
...
Star Wars is not science fiction. It is space opera.
And, IMO, quite bad space opera.
I still recall in my teens going to watch the original "Star Wars" when it came out with great expectations.
I was coming from dozen of sci-fi books (possibly ~100), and 2001, and Solaris, so I just felt I disappointed that I had watched a bad western.
I have also seen the two following movies, more from social pressure than other reasons, and can't remember having enjoyed them.
You want good space opera? Read the Culture series from Iain M. Banks.
I did not think Star Wars was that bad, for space opera. I had no interest in seeing it but my parents forced me to go.
My meaning 'straight up' as in keeping a relative stationary position above the ground. This means if the ground is rotating, you do have some orbital speed, it's just at low orbits like 408km up, it is not enough to stop you from falling back down like a rock.
I did not think Star Wars was that bad, for space opera. I had no interest in seeing it but my parents forced me to go.
How old were you? I was 17 when it came out and my friends and I waited in line for four hours to see it on opening day.
My meaning 'straight up' as in keeping a relative stationary position above the ground. This means if the ground is rotating, you do have some orbital speed, it's just at low orbits like 408km up, it is not enough to stop you from falling back down like a rock.It's not enough at any orbit.
Since the the angular velocity of the Earth's rotation at the equator is 465.1m/s, if you launched a rocket straight up (And managed to maintain that angular velocity) you could reach an altitude where 465.1m/s of orbital speed was sufficient to prevent you from reentering Earth's atmosphere
....
If the elevator were tall enough, you could surpass the speed of light. Or could you?
Since the the angular velocity of the Earth's rotation at the equator is 465.1m/s, if you launched a rocket straight up (And managed to maintain that angular velocity) you could reach an altitude where 465.1m/s of orbital speed was sufficient to prevent you from reentering Earth's atmosphere
....I think your decimal point is in the wrong place.
After writing that I found a calculator and if I used it right, the height would be a bit over 4 billion kilometers. It would reach out past Pluto.
My meaning 'straight up' as in keeping a relative stationary position above the ground. This means if the ground is rotating, you do have some orbital speed, it's just at low orbits like 408km up, it is not enough to stop you from falling back down like a rock.It's not enough at any orbit.
If you had a 35,786 km tall space-elevator at Earth's equator, and rode it all the way to the top and stepped off, you'd stay where you were relative to the elevator and the ground. (More or less)
This is because the elevator is rotating at 1 RPD (1 revolution per day) with the Earth. ie: The top of the elevator would have an angular velocity of apx 3.07km/sec due to it being affixed to the ground.
Since the the angular velocity of the Earth's rotation at the equator is 465.1m/s, if you launched a rocket straight up (And managed to maintain that angular velocity) you could reach an altitude where 465.1m/s of orbital speed was sufficient to prevent you from reentering Earth's atmosphere. Around 1.84 million Km altitude.. Not sure if this would be a stable Earth orbit due to influences from the Sun and Moon. It would probably end up in solar orbit soon enough.
So if you just burn radial out, this doesn't work at all, and you fall back to earth, quite fast.
So if you just burn radial out, this doesn't work at all, and you fall back to earth, quite fast.You can, if you reach escape velocity, then you won't fall back to Earth. Less than escape velocity, then yes, you'll fall back.
I think your decimal point is in the wrong place.
Another one to stir the sci-fi pot.
Why do time machines always hold station? That is, they always arrive at exactly the same geodetic location in the past, present and future. Never the true motion of the earth's rotation, orbit, transit and the associated perturbations are taken into consideration. Not even tectonic and erosional elements either.
Marty McFly travelling back to 1955 from 1985 would have arrived ... in the middle of space due to the true motion of the sun around the galaxy. A mere 218 billion kilometres (1457AU) from Hill Valley.
Marty McFly travelling back to 1955 from 1985 would have arrived ... in the middle of space due to the true motion of the sun around the galaxy. A mere 218 billion kilometres (1457AU) from Hill Valley.