If the ISS has some kind of retrothrusters and was able to slow

>>8333354
yes

>>8333359
It's in space you fucking retard, there's no gravity to make it fall

>>8333362
good thread

>>8333354
>slow it down
you mean speed it up. And no, if you sped it up it wouldn't fall straight down.

>>8333354
Yes.

What you want to describe (I think) is geostationary orbit. And geostationary orbit is 35.000 kilometres (22.000 mi) above earth. ISS orbits at 400 kilometres, much too little.

>>8333354
How did isis get a space ship?

>>8334010
Hillary paid for it.

>>8333354
But how do you make it fall straight down if the earth is rotating?

>>8334451
It will fall straight down relative to the earth.

>>8333354
It does have thruster and yes if it had 0 lateral velocity it would fall straight down

>>8333377
Speeding it up would raise its orbit higher

File: mon.jpg (233KB, 1280x735px)

233KB, 1280x735px

>>8333354

Yes
The fuck are you planning? Should I inform the authorities?

>>8333354
Go play Kerbal Space Program OP, it's a good way to learn all the space/speed/velocity/orbits shits desu.

If you don't have money, i'm sure there is a lot of gameplay video on youtube.

>>8333354
>would it fall straight down?
Not exactly.

If it's stationary relative to the instantaneous velocity of the surface of the ground directly beneath it, then it's going to be accelerated in a straight line toward Earth's center of gravity, while the point on the ground is going to be accelerated to keep it on its circular track around the Earth's axis.

So it's not going to fall onto the land you stop it over, nor is it going to move in a straight line toward the Earth's center of gravity, since it still started with some horizontal speed.

Rather (if we neglect aerodynamic forces, which would break it up and blow the pieces around unpredictably), it will fall on a curved path relative to the point it was stopped over, hitting to the south and east of that point.

>>8334496
> paying those assholes
The game developers don't get any money anymore, you're only helping venture capitalists do unrelated things. And steam, if you get it that way.

>>8333354

depends on the altitude

google geostationary orbit

File: Idi Amin thinks its funny.gif (2MB, 200x150px)

2MB, 200x150px

>>8333362
>It's in space you fucking retard, there's no gravity to make it fall
Uhm. Okay.
You are rude and should improve your vocabulary. And...

>>8333362
It's not the gravity that makes its fall, it's the standing still

>>8334507
>it will fall on a curved path relative to the point it was stopped over, hitting to the south and east of that point.
I should add that I was assuming that the point it stopped over was in the northern hemisphere. If it "stopped" instantaneously relatively stationary to a point on the ground south of the equator, it would fall to the north.

The elliptical orbit (approximately a parabolic trajectory since it's just the tip of an ellipse before it impacts the ground) would be in the plane defined by the position, the direction of movement, and the Earth's center of gravity. If it could pass through the Earth like a ghost, it would orbit and pass through the plane of the equator, so as soon as it starts falling from its initial position, it moves closer to the equator.

If you stopped it over a pole, it would fall directly on the pole, downwards, not upwards, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.

>>8335168
Gravity at LEO is barely lower than on the surface

>>8333354
>would it fall

The Accurate Answer: Yes

The Super Scientifically accurate Snarky answer: It's ALWAYS falling, anon.

>straight down?

Hahaha, no.

File: 111.png (63KB, 640x546px)

63KB, 640x546px

My fun attempt at showing what would happen to the trajectory of the satellite if it accelerated retrograde (I think thats the word) to its direction of orbit.
The sattites trajectory would first become more eliptical in shape then eventualy become parabolic as its "orbit lines" hit the earth. it would take a lot of change in velocity for the parabolic shape to become small enough that it could be considered a line, and even then it would not be a straight one.
Falling straight down does not seem like a thing that could happen

>>8333354
No, there's no gravity in space.

File: 1472135816030.jpg (25KB, 500x378px)

25KB, 500x378px

>>8333362

File: image.jpg (22KB, 236x324px)

22KB, 236x324px

>>8335579
>No, there's no gravity in space.
??
Who teaches you people this stuff?
F = G * ((m1 * m2)/ r^2)

Acceleration due to Gravity (in near Earth Orbit) toward to Earth would be not much less than at the Earth's surface (approx 9 m/s^2 instead of the 9.81 m/s^2 at sea level).

Golly people.

File: 10231231.png (41KB, 680x447px)

41KB, 680x447px

>>8333362

>retrothrusters
rockets do not work in space. try again.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8C0mStHdV0

>>8334010
TSA should screen astronauts before exiting and before entering the atmosphere

>>8334466
Does it have its own thrusters or does it use the ones on docked spacecraft?

File: 19_01_13_ENVIRO_EXT_03A.png (811KB, 1000x506px)

811KB, 1000x506px

>>8336500
>tfw it's the year 2176
>tfw EU colonizes Mars
>tfw the Mars colonies have a Revolutionary War against the EU and gain independence

>tfw 2301
>tfw Martians built a thriving empire
>tfw Mudslimes took over the entirety of Earth
>tfw Mudslimes hijack a spaceship on its way to Mars
>tfw Mudslimes crash the spaceship into the Martian Twin Towers
>tfw Martian George Bush declares a War on Earth

>tfw 2308
>tfw Martians elect the first Muslim president
>tfw Mars gets cucked

File: Humans.jpg (23KB, 320x279px)

23KB, 320x279px

>>8336442
>rockets do not work in space. try again.
[citation needed}
What?
>Your YouTube is not even close to a valid citation
Rockets don't work in space.
That would be funny if it wasn't so incredibly ignorant.
The Apollo missions left Earth orbit (and Lunar orbit) how?

>>8336442
If you shoot out something in a certain direction, it will exert an equal and opposite force on you, thus moving you.

>>8335839
>>8333362
>>8333365
>>8335168
>>8336220
to be fair, how do planets even form if the sun has the most mass of the system?
there's no scientific experiment proving that small bodies of mass are attracted to larger bodies.

>>8337495
>it will exert an equal and opposite force on you, thus moving you.
the only problem with that theory is that you are weightless in space. thus you have no mass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GIhsj8Fk6U

File: Fm6GGme.jpg.gif (1MB, 350x272px)

1MB, 350x272px

>>8333362

File: FitToStrideTheStars.webm (2MB, 384x288px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 384x288px

>>8336956

File: image.jpg (151KB, 900x1210px)

151KB, 900x1210px

>>8337590
>the only problem with that theory is that you are weightless in space. thus you have no mass.
You have no mass. (Wow!)
[citation needed]
Stop confusing weight and mass.

>there's no scientific experiment proving that small bodies of mass are attracted to larger bodies.
DROP AN APPLE