DescentBB

Very cool.

That looks like so much fun

Vomet comet eh?

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

three grand.

You can skydive for a couple hundred

But god it looks worth it

Not quite true 0 gravity, but the closest you'll ever get to it on earth

Skydiving doesn't simulate zero gravity Obviously. You're freefalling, duh!

It's funny. Another name for zero gravity is... "free fall"

I'll leave that to you to figure out the rest, genius

That looks like way too much fun.

WarAdvocat wrote:It's funny. Another name for zero gravity is... "free fall"

I'll leave that to you to figure out the rest, genius

Skydiving is not zeroG, gravity is all that wind rushing into your face. Put the skydivers in a big metal ball, that's closer. That's pretty much what the jet is except you would die at the bottom.

hey,
i'm trying to set up a skydiving party this summer. if anybody is interested let me know. i went 1 time tandem at 10,000 ft. changed my whole outlook on narcissism.

;-0

free fall is free fall. Skydiving free fall is equal to being in orbit. At least until you hit the planet.

Ok. There is a bunch of atmosphere in the way.

But other than that...it's about 10x cheaper of a thrill than that plane ride.

How long is the "free fall" before they go up again. A minute?

edit: nope 25 seconds. heh, I'll keep my 3 grand.

but you do up and downs for like 3 hours Goob.

i'm all over the zero-g... but skydiving is much cheaper... and I is a poor.

;p

WarAdvocat wrote:It's funny. Another name for zero gravity is... "free fall"

I'll leave that to you to figure out the rest, genius

Zero gravity means there is NO gravity. In space, nothing is really forcing you to go one way or the other unless you jump start motion to propel yourself. You're weight has no bearing on anything. You're certainly not "falling". In sky diving, you're forced one direction. Down. Why? because there IS gravity. Sure, you can get yourself to go side to side but you most certainly can't go up. In this regard you're most definitely falling

Zero Gravity is more commonly used as a catch phrase to most people. Obviously this is the case for you. I'm being literal when I mean "zero gravity". Which is why I made the statement...

Tyranny wrote:closest you'll ever get to it on earth

...because its the truth. As far as zero gravity here also being called a "free fall". Whoever coined that one was just trying to describe something while being trendy and failed. I can't help it if it stuck

Tyranny wrote:As far as zero gravity here also being called a "free fall". Whoever coined that one was just trying to describe something while being trendy and failed.

No, Free fall is the more correct description of what you use the catch phrase "zero gravity" to describe.

Zero Gravity is more commonly used as a catch phrase to most people. It's obvious that you use it in this sense, which is incorrect, as 'zero gravity' is an extremely RARE phenomenon. You meant to say "free fall", but you are not educated enough to use the correct term, which is why I made the statement...

WarAdvocat wrote:free fall is free fall. Skydiving free fall is equal to being in orbit. At least until you hit the planet.

Because it's the truth. You're confusing context with physics.

OK, fine...for starters, I was trying to be cute and poke fun at the context because that was the company name to begin with. You obviously didn't find it funny.

Secondly, while skydiving you're still falling to earth. If you were orbiting around the planet in some sort of craft you'd be weightless inside, which means you wouldn't be falling one direction or the other. Which is basically what I was trying to explain.

You do know the difference between flying, falling and floating don't you?

If you can't tell, yeah, I'm a bit ticked now. I was just goofing around to begin with. genius.

Tyr, what you meant to say in your post was that the plane is a better simulation of free fall conditions aboard a space station or ship in orbit than skydiving is. And you were trying to say it in a cute way. I understood that. But it came off as an attack anyhow, and I was in the mood baby...Thanks. You were teriffic.

I'll unhijack the thread now...Sorry Dedman

Tyranny,

I'm not so sure about that. I have a friend who is a physics major, and from what he said, you're free falling in space. He said every object in space has gravity. Some more then others, and the lesser would be affected by the greater. So no matter where you are in space you're supposedly pulled in a direction by something.

I was like yeah right so explain why I can stay floating above earth in an orbit, and he said you're not floating you're falling around it. The gravity is what keeps you in place.

One of these day's I'll actually go look this information up for myself, or talk to a professor about it. Anyway unless you've studied phyics I wouldn't be so sure about what you're saying.

Orbiting is the perfect balance between falling back to earth and inertia throwing you out into space. That means you are still falling even when you are in orbit.

SkyNet, your friend is correct. Any object in orbit is in orbit because it is experiencing a force pulling it towards the center of the circular path in which it's traveling, but has a velocity tangential to the path. The force will keep changing the direction of the velocity, causing the object to travel in a circular path.



And because the Earth is not a perfectly uniform sphere, the gravitational force felt by the spaceship is not uniform throughout the entire orbital path, thus requiring the orbiting thing to constantly correct its orbit in order to avoid crashing into the earth or escaping its orbit.

ugh...it's all relative. I understand all that. It's like when you're on the moon and you jump you don't continue upwards infinitely, you still come down, but you don't plummet at an accelerated rate like you do if you jumped out of a plane on earth.

I was nitpicking to be funny and I got countered with a nitpick. C0ngr4tul4t10ns, y0u 4r3 th3 r0x0rz!

LOL. I love it when EVERYBODY gets it wrong. Good Lord, the US science curriculum needs expanding.

Freefall is the same on earth, falling towards it as it is falling *around* it in orbit. The only differences are that the non-orbital fall encounters wind resistance and an eventual impact.

Skydiving doesn't simulate "zero gravity" at all - and if you've ever jumped out of a plane - you'd know that. Even spreadeagled, the speed you drop is around 130 mph, and diving its possible to get well over 200 mph quite easily.

At those speeds, the wind is absolutely ferocious, and the feeling is NOT like being in zero gravity at all. If you are spreadeagled and twist your hands sideways, you start spinning. This doesn't happen in zero G. Skydivers who say its "zero g" are simply deluding themselves. Try and squeeze some water out of a bottle and then grab the glob in your mouth, after you jumped out of a plane. LOL. Better yet - try to have a conversation with someone, while your face is distorted by the wind, and then scream it because that's the only way anyone's gonna hear you (even when strapped to you in a tandem).

DCrazy, check your facts before posting!

Objects in orbit tend to "degrade" (Drop altitude) that's true, but it has nothing to do with gravity or gravity changes across the globe (Yes they exist too).

Orbiting objects drop because they are being dragged by the earth's atmosphere. There's not a LOT of atmosphere up there, but even at 250 km, there is still a non-trivial amount of gas molecules colliding with any LEO satelite. (Low Earth Orbit). The molecules are stationary (or nearly so) compared to the earth's rotation, but the satelite is travelling at 18,000 mph or so (depending on altidyude) and this speed differential is all that's required to explain the gradual orbital decay of LEO craft.

In fact, when the sun's activity heats up (Like last month) the extra energy entering the atmosphere heats it up and the Earth atmosphere expands substantially. If the normal rate of orbital decay is half a kilometre per week (which it roughly is for the ISS) then during the peak sun activity, the station might drop 2-5 kilometres per week - requiring more frequent reboost maneuvers.

Reboosting simply increases the velocity (They thrust directly along the path or travel) and therefore altitude.

Orbital mechanics mean thrusting "naturally" doesn't work in space. That's why computers control how you approach an orbiting craft.

I have my B.S. in physics, so I guess thats close to an "authority figure" on this issue. So let me say, STFU Mobius

I'm so there....sign me up!!!! Looks like a lot of fun

Uh... Mobius... if you want to talk wind resistance, don't do it in a situation where we're talking about ideal physics.

If you want to nitpick, Mobius, you never mentioned the gravitational pull of the sun or the moon on an orbiting craft... but since that's not relevant to the simple example of centripetal motion that I described, STFU.

Heh. The preceding few posts are why I didn't want to get into it, and let it slide instead.


Mobius, your USA bashing is cute. Even cuter: The glaring errors and mistaken assumptions in your post.

Mobius? cute? maybe to Ace.....

I can't wait for the first zero-g Porno.

by request

Gooberman wrote:I can't wait for the first zero-g Porno.

lol! Wouldn't need slow motion effects for a dramatic money shot anymore

I wouldn't want to go on it because

Screw the physics ... it just looks like fun.

For a tenth of the price I'd sign up.

And you know guys..occasionally Mobius is right.

OMG!! i wonna do that. it looks like so much fun. i wonder how much it costs......hmmmm

Gooberman wrote:I can't wait for the first zero-g Porno.

Thats already been done.

Your joking?

no actually i heard that too, it's been done. their amazing discovery was that you need some kindof leverage to help, something to push off of, otherwise it's quite difficult.