I’m not entirely sure, but I believe it wasn’t John Glenn
Moreover, I think John Glenn never went to the moon. He never was on any of the Apollo missions
1 Like
A Google search says John Glenn was first American to orbit the Earth ( in a Tesla that would make great photo opps ) Alan Shepard was the golf ball person and like most of us golfers he may have fudged on just how far it really went.
I just picked a name out of my hat. It was actually a fellow New Hampshireite - Allen Shepard. Grew up less then 10 miles from where I live.
1 Like
Barkydog: the 2.8 second 1/4 mile is incredible. Actually, according to what I’ve read, the Tesla Roadster’s on earth specs are not that far off: 1.9 sec. 0-60, 8.8 sec. 1/4 mile and top speed of “over 250 mph” (per Tesla; they didn’t give a precise figure). Those numbers would make it the quickest and fasted production car ever, not including race cars converted for street use. About 30 years ago I read an article in Road & Track about a doctor in Paris that converted a Porsche 917 long tail (Le Mans race car) for street use.
texases “And the Roadster isn’t the fastest car yet. Remember the moon rovers?”
What about the Mars rovers? Didn't the trip to Mars achieve a higher speed than the trip to the moon? Don't know, just asking.
Cavell “the Moon orbits Earth at a speed of 2,288 miles per hour (3,683 kilometers per hour).”
I'm no astrophysicist, but I thought that in order to maintain earth orbit any body needed to maintain a velocity of 17,500 mph; any slower it would fall back to earth, any faster it would leave earth orbit.The 17,500 mph is that of the ISS in low earth orbit (about 250 miles above the surface).
Objects in orbits that are further out travel at slower speeds.
A word to the wise . . .
What you just did pretty much ensures few people will read your post in its entirety
Few of us like to have to scroll right and left to read something
When someone posts something that requires scrolling I am not going to bother.
1 Like
It wasn’t totally a stunt. The system needed a payload to test its viability. The car met the criteria for the payload.
From my understanding the car won’t be brought back to earth… but can you imagine its value if it did?
what do you think of the z4
"On February 6th 2018, the largest part of SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket, intended to be a reusable rocket, crashed into the ocean at 300mph, sending shrapnel over 300 feet damaging its drone-ship (platform) engines. The core rocket was lost at sea.
″During the news conference, Musk said the booster hit the water at a speed of about 300 mph and was about 328 feet away from the floating platform, taking out two of the drone ship’s thrusters and showering the deck with shrapnel.″ - LA Times - FEB 06, 2018. In the livestream in front of millions of viewers, the crash of the main rocket was not mentioned, and the success of putting a car in space was emphasized"
Manufacturing bricks for use as payload ballast consumes less resources than the manufacture of electric vehicles.
Should this example of space debris be spotted by other life forms it might provide insight to this planets inhabitants obsession of consumption of its resources.
3 Likes
My lowly Toyota Yaris is currently traveling at about 515,000 mph or 143 miles per second as the solar system makes its once every 230 million year orbit around the Milky Way galaxy.
But wait, the Milky Way galaxy itself is traveling at around 1.3 million mph through interstellar space, that’s about 361 miles per second and is on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy. But don’t lose any sleep over it, the collision is about 4 billion years away and besides, the galaxies are so full of empty space that the stars will likely just pass through the other galaxy without hitting anything.
1 Like
And due to the expansion of the spacetime fabric of the universe, we are ‘moving’ faster than the speed of light (as shown by looking at some very distant galaxies)!
yep, its relative. car is in moving rocket. what is it relative speed? no point in trying to make odd other comparisons.
If it was possible for a distant galaxy to travel away from us at faster than the speed of light, then from that galaxy’s viewpoint, it would be us traveling at faster than the speed of light and as a result, we would never be able to see that galaxy because it’s light would never reach us. It might as well be inside a black hole.
Exactly. There are untold numbers of galaxies outside of the ‘observable universe’. When you hear someone say there are XXX billion galaxies in the universe, they actually mean the observable universe. We don’t know how many are beyond the limits of what we can see.
The reason this doesn’t violate the 'nothing goes faster than the speed of light" is that it’s caused by space itself expanding.
1 Like
The prediction is that we will reach that point. For now, the light that we see was emitted X billions (maybe less) of years ago when it was still close enough for the light to reach us.
(Then again, there are those who claim that the calculated distances to the farthest objects are all wrong and everything is under 500(?) light years away.)
How do Those People explain the Doppler shift of the light?
They might be ok with the Doppler effect (indicating that distant objects are moving away). My understanding is that they think the distance of those objects is much closer than 10^9, 10^6, or even about 10^4 light years away.
It’s more a ‘nothing else we say makes sense unless we claim this’ kind of thing. No basis whatsoever.
