Could someone skydive from the ISS like that Redbull dude?
>>7968422
I wish you'd skydive into ur grave, faggot.
>>7968425
If you donate enough money for me to buy a weather balloon I'll jump from it without a parachute.
>you will never splatter into a city at mach 1
redbull dude wasn't orbiting; he had negligible velocity relative to the ground
ISS is going crazy-fuck fast relative to the ground
>>7968453
wouldn't that make better tv though?
>>7968459
oh you'd burn
but maybe if you had like, a big shield like captain america
>>7968461
what if you had a metal suit like iron man
Yes, but he would need a sligshot or a rocket pack to get out of orbit and protective clothing to survive the reentry.
>>7968462
then you'd cook
>>7968466
what if it had really good air conditioning
>>7968466
If you held some sort of insulated cone in front of you wouldnt that deal with all the heat?
Just how hot is reentry?
>>7968471
>If you held some sort of insulated cone in front of you
You would need to surround yourself. In other words, you would need to be in a reentry capsule.
The ISS is in orbit. If you were close to being at rest relative to the ISS you would be in orbit. You would have decelerate by at least several hundred meters per second to even fall to earth at all.
Learn some orbital mechanics or at least play some Kerbal Space Program or some shit mang
>>7968471
Google says 1260 C
Just under the temperature of magma (molten rock)
>>7968422
Fund it
A human hitting atmosphere at 8 km/s would make some good TV.
>>7968497
tasty
Even if you werent in orbit. Free-fall from Iss altitude would be bad news.
"450km to 100km takes about 270 seconds and the speed at 100km is about 2.6km/s. At 100km you can switch to the free fall with air drag equation, speed increases a little then a rapid deceleration with a max of about 20 times g at a height of 31km"
>>7968432
>implying you wont be going at terminal velocity by the time you hit the ground
>>7968574
They would crush the poor motherfucker , not turn him to soup but that would definitely fuck him up,
20 G's isint bad if its experienced for like a few milliseconds but not for 2 minutes or so
>>7968576
he won't hit the ground, he'll die before he hits the ground because he reaches the terminal velocity, the velocity at which a human dies
>>7968613
>terminal velocity, the velocity at which a human dies
I failed uni and even I know you're wrong lol.
>>7968617
What are you talking about you pleb?
Terminal
> predicted to lead to death, especially slowly; incurable.
>>7968630
>>7968471
ask the crew of columbia. theyd be able to tell yyy..... nm.
Not without a heat sheild. The ISS is traveling just under 7.6 Km/s. Skydiving would prove quite fatal at that speed.
>>7968583
Astronauts returning in a Soyuz command module can momentarily reach 20gs in an emergency re entry. Normal re entry pulls between 9 and 12 gs for reference
>>7968462
Even then I cannot say you would slow fast enough before impacting the ground. Re entry modules are designed to be blunt so that they are slowed down by the atmosphere quickly, minimizing the time exposed to shock heating.
>>7968502
Next on "the biggest loser"...
>>7968422
Absolutely.
>>7968654
How big a crater would you make?
>>7968453
What if you attach a heat shield to your feet?
>>7968659
I can't say. It really wouldn't be too big, however just by rough estimation I can fathom that you would not slow enough to open a parachute safely.
>>7968665
It has nothing to do with that. Once you're in orbit, it actually takes force to leave. A small amount of atmospheric drag might provide that, but the rate of orbital decay on an object with such a small cross section would be so minuscule you'd probably freeze to death first.
>>7968462
Could you parachute through the atmosphere?
>>7968665
I wonder if you put some sort of wings on a skateboard could you recreate pic related?
If someone came down from orbit at an angle would they be able to slowly descend by going around the Earth repeatedly?
ISS kinda looks like a TIE fighter
>>7968422
Yes, but only if you slow down to relative speed of the Earth's spin. After that, hope that you don't accelerate too fast before hitting the thicker part of the atmosphere. If you do, you'll cook (mid 200sF degrees, since you are not at orbital speeds), unless you took this into account and had a suit that cooled you (sublimation cooling from ice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Cooling_and_Ventilation_Garment#Space_applications ). Then your only worry is spinning, if you can control that, you're golden. If not you could pass out and die.
>now I read the thread
>>7968464
Yes this.
>>7968681
Might depend on the starting orbit. What you're basically doing there is performing an orbital transfer.
>>7968693
>Change velocity by 7km/s
One of these ought to do it..
>>7968688
Wow, does the ISS really have that big of an angular diameter compared to the moon?
>>7968471
There have been proposals for such systems in the past but none have ever progressed beyond initial design work so its hard to say if the concept would work in the real world.
>>7968678
can't you just kick away from the station? like a skydiver
>>7968702
That's no moon.
>>7968704
>can't you just kick away from the station? like a skydiver
No.
>>7968707
Why not?
>>7968709
You can't kick hard enough.
>>7968709
Because that not how orbit works.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/
>>7968702
Just calculated that if the ISS was directly overhead it would be about 0.014 deg in diameter.
The moon is roughly 0.5 deg, which makes the ISS Just under 1/50'th the side of the moon, or About the size of Jupiter at it's closest.
>>7968712
how hard would you have to kick?
>>7968718
Depends on how steep of a trajectory you want. Minimum would be around 300mph...
>>7968709
You could not humanly provide enough [math]\Delta v[/math] to successfully deorbit.
>>7968721
wow ok
i wonder if they ever throw stuff at earth for shits and giggles
you could probably do it with a catapult
>>7968732
No, they don't, because that's actually a great way to break something that's in a lower orbit than you, or possibly injure someone on earth. Tiny objects like that don't ablate very much, so you could probably puncture someone's skull with that dead AA battery you thought would be fun to eject.
>>7968743
oh interesting
so like, an orbital shrapnel weapon would work out pretty well for hostile aliens
>>7968732
Essentially, that's exactly what happens to returning resupply craft when they fill them with waste and have them burn up in the upper atmosphere.
>>7968746
actually i guess a geostationary one would work for humans, if they were fairly indiscriminate
don't tell north korea then
>>7968746
As long as you can get into an orbit that's sufficiently higher that gravity can do most of the work for you. Remember that there's still 90% of surface gravity in orbit.
>>7968749
The concept of "rods from God" has already been floated around for a long time. The idea is they would make great bunker-busters.
>>7968746
>destroy alien spaceship
>make human telecom and GPS impossible for millions of years
>>7968701
It doesn't really matter how it is done. You could give the guy a big bowl of boogers and have him flip them away to slow down. The fact is, slowing down is what is needed first. Otherwise, you just see barely a bright spark and it is over.
>>7968768
Nah, depends on which orbit it was in and how many pieces you break it into. Plus there are methods to deorbit space junk. They're just not used right now because there's no big need for them.
>>7968768
Humanity would develop some pretty wicked laser and tracking tech in order to burn shit out of orbit until things were clear again.
>>7968432
youd burn alive before you hit the earth, and you'd also only fall at a maximum velocity which i think is like one-hundred and eighty-something mph
>>7968422
>>7969069
Terminal velocity is the highest speed gravity can accelerate you to against air resistance, if you are falling out of orbit you start off going waaaaay faster than that, you burn because you are going fast enough to compress the air in front of you and generate heat from the compression. Impact forces would kill you before temperature did
>>7968422
I think the heat from re-entry coupled with the fast as fuck velocity relative to the ground would kill you.
I can't imagine how hard the deceleration once you hit atmosphere would it. If a human can die from a 30 foot fall into water I imagine the same can happen to a person diving into atmosphere at a fast enough speed.
>>7969193
There is no amount of money you could offer me to do that.
>>7969286
They never actually tried it, I think a prototype was built but obviously never used. Would be a hell of a thing to put on your resume
>>7968489
what if they shot you horizontally out of a space cannon to cancel that effect
>
>>7968718
Donkey hard
>>7969340
>space cannon
>>7969883
In fact, the Apollo 11 command module didn't deploy any parachutes until its velocity was well below Mach 1.
The Soyuz capsule that smashed into Earth in 1967 after the parachutes failed to deploy impacted at around 300mph.
>>7968422
Yes, the iss is slowly de orbiting due to atmospheric drag, it needs to be boosted back up every couple months. So if you jumped off you would slowly de orbit until you reentered for the last time with a final velocity of about mach 24. You would not experience death from g forces, so if you could survive the heat and pressure of hypersonic flight, and then land with a parachute you'd survive
>>7968766
>The idea is they would make great bunker-busters.
except they really don't
if you work out the energy it would deliver it's just not worth putting in orbit
>>7969911
>"as Komarov sped towards his death, U.S. listening posts in Turkey picked up transmissions of him crying in rage, cursing the people who had put him inside a botched spaceship."
Heavy stuff.
>>7970308
I really think that at that point I'd blow the hatch, jump out, fucking flap my arms, and try to fly. I mean, why not, what if it actually worked?
>>7968533
Gotdamn, 20g just from air resistance? Why doesn't this happen to landing vehicles
>>7970429
space is hard
>>7969340
Changing your velocity by 7km/s is no trivial thing.
Holy shit, you will still die ok. It's simply not gonna happen without some form of spacecraft.
The ISS is really hauling ass.
Webm related.
>>7970336
>I mean, why not, what if it actually worked?
just hold on. please wait there. you're suggesting that "what if" could apply to you flying because you flapped your arms. do you honestly, deep in your heart, think that could work? we need to talk. like, in weekly intervals.
>>7970308
>"as Komarov sped towards his death, U.S. listening posts in Turkey picked up transmissions of him crying in rage, cursing the people who had put him inside a botched spaceship."
From what I've read, that's probably just a legend.
>>7970911
>onmywaytofuckyourbitch.webm
>>7970693
...
how do you think it is done now?
>>7970937
Wouldn't you at least try?
>>7971060
Juliane Koepcke sure as hell would try.
>>7968432
A weather balloon can lift a few pounds at best.
>>7971064
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N-LGBdLaJ8
>>7971058
Without the use of "space cannons"
>>7971069
They arent so good up high where the air is thin though
>>7970693
>7km/s
You don't have to immediately deorbit and drop the whole 7 km/s in one go; you just need your periapsis to drop low enough that drag takes care of the rest before your life support runs out.
>>7971264
You will still burn up, if you go shallow enough not to burn you will skip off
>>7968422
Yeah just get some ceramic and put it in front of you or ride the atmosphere like a wave and surf your way down.
>>7971264
No shit. Look at what the post was in response to.
>>7971069
That would fucking scare me outdoors. You could float up to your death and that would be the end of it.
>>7971276
>LOL SPACE CANNON
>Don't be stupid, there's no way to survive decelerating 7 km/s with a cannon
>You know, the space cannon doesn't have to do all the work at once; a much smaller cannon and aerobraking would do
>>7968702
>>7971293
Holy fuck.
>>7971278
That's happened before. But, he didn't die.
>>7968422
have fun flying thru the atmosphere at 27000km/h
>>7969883
>You will slow to well below mach 1 before hitting the ground.
So strap four tons of ballast to his jumpsuit. He'll be like a spectacular meteoric stay-puft man made of depleted uranium.
>Of course you may have already died from other causes by then anyway.
Based on what I've read about low-altitude, high-speed (>450 kt) aircraft ejections, we'll get to see him torn limb-from-limb by aerodynamic forces before he even hits the ground.
>>7968422
Gagarin - the first guy in space, after decelerating, left the capsule and landed on a parachute. Does this count?
>>7971293
How many variables do you need to derive the size or distance from camera of the occluding objects based on a photograph?
>>7971650
Seven
>>7971274
>ride the atmosphere like a wave and surf your way down.
RADICAL!
>>7968422
Yes, you could sky die
>>7970987
No, it's really true:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/05/02/134597833/cosmonaut-crashed-into-earth-crying-in-rage
The funny thing in hindsight was that Yuri Gagarin was later able to use his celebrity status to slip a "You could have prevented this" into Pravda.
>>7972103
>No, it's really true:
>Update:
>Well, after my post, a bunch of space historians wrote in to say that, in their view, many of the details in this book were either questionable or simply not true.
Yeah.
The US "listening outpost reports" simply don't exist. And Soviet history is a incredibly hard subject to get the details right.
>>7972667
>historians say that many details from the past are questionable or simply not true
