tbf the calculated speed is actually roughly the minnimum based on its starting position and the frame it appeared in. it could have actually been going even faster.
I don’t count having no visual indication of the object as “tracking” it, if we’re talking semantics. One frame could equal an even faster speed than what it would minimally take to cross the entire width of the image at some trajectory vector. For other vectors, it could be (much) less (like not passing straight through the image from on side to the opposite side, e.g.).
It’s important to not hang too hard on this as the escape speed is dependent on air resistance, or rather lack thereof. Those escape speed numbers are defined along with the assumption of zero air resistance or other forces acting on the object.
No, not really. The object was placed directly above the payload beneath a 150M straight borehole. If there was some sort of angle to the hole them I’m sure the researchers would have accounted for it.
Nope, just one frame. Adds to the myth, when people don’t know the exact speed.
tbf the calculated speed is actually roughly the minnimum based on its starting position and the frame it appeared in. it could have actually been going even faster.
Pretty sure that’s not really true though.
One frame before the blast and one frame after, but semantics.
I don’t count having no visual indication of the object as “tracking” it, if we’re talking semantics. One frame could equal an even faster speed than what it would minimally take to cross the entire width of the image at some trajectory vector. For other vectors, it could be (much) less (like not passing straight through the image from on side to the opposite side, e.g.).
It’s important to not hang too hard on this as the escape speed is dependent on air resistance, or rather lack thereof. Those escape speed numbers are defined along with the assumption of zero air resistance or other forces acting on the object.
You can use the frame from before to calculate the MINIMUM speed. It could have been going even faster.
Or slower, depending on trajectory across the image.
No, not really. The object was placed directly above the payload beneath a 150M straight borehole. If there was some sort of angle to the hole them I’m sure the researchers would have accounted for it.
Right. Then the angle is such that you could calculate it. But it still depends on the trajectory, so that’s not wrong, for whoever down voted…
Lmao you’re so confused
About what am I confused? How about you present an argument instead of just down voting? Please elaborate, thank you.