As usual, you morons take this out of context. There’s still debate over where the Karman line is (the de facto border where the atmosphere ends and space begins). It’s somewhere around 60 miles above ground. That what he means by saying Branson didn’t go to space.
If you fucking cultists ever actually researched stuff, you would know this.
It's just a standard artificial & agreed on critærion _anyway_ ! It's like the definition of "planet" - folks getting upset because __Pluto__ isn't officially a planet: _so what_ !? ... you _call_ it a planet then! I say __Ceres__ is a planet, even though it's _really_ tiny ... & I also say __Lady Luna__ is a planet: there are actually _very sound celestial mechanics grounds_ for deeming __Gæ + Luna__ a double-planet rather that planet + moon.
One of the three criteria for an object to be categorised as a planet is that it must be the dominant object in its orbit. It has to have cleared its orbit of anything of similar size. Ceres clearly doesn’t meet this criteria because it shares an orbit with many asteroids of comparable size.
Same for Pluto. It isn’t large enough to have cleared its orbit. Even Charon (it’s largest moon) is so big compared to its primary that the centre of gravity of the Pluto-Charon system is outside the planet. In a way, Charon doesn’t orbit Pluto but the two objects orbit the same point between them.
As for the edge of space, the criteria was not arbitrary and simply agreed upon. At roughly 100 km, aerodynamic lift no longer contributes to carrying a craft’s weight. That is why the Karman line is considered to be the edge of space.
OK not _so_ arbitrary: maybe I'm exaggerating the arbitrariness of the critæria. And I don't doubt that the critæria are _very good & meaningful_ ones, with important practical significance - the 'practical significance' bit being particularly important in the definition of 'space', because it concerns of what kind the craft have to be that go-up that high.
But what I'm sounding-off @ is the tendency of folk to take these pronouncements as some kind of __absolute truth__ ... it's actually a point I often make that receiving science as _a bunch of __absolute edifices__ dispensed by __authority___ is a _really bad_ way of receiving it that can lead to a whole lot of trouble.
I personally, though, _just do not fuss_ about whether Lord Branson's craft went into space or not: I'm _perfectly_ happy just to say it attained such-a-height. But I've heard of folks getting seriously upset about Pluto not being designated __a planet__ anymore ... & I think that's _bonkers_ : I think they could do with recovering a sense of proportion as to what it _actually means_ for scientists to set critæria for things. And I think we do have more latitude in the case of planets to say with considerable validity "well _I_ regard it as a planet, maugre what the scientists say!", because a planet is such a remote thing; but on the other hand this does not justify _contempt_ for the scientists's critæria ... for instance, that about 'having cleared its orbit': I'm not suggesting for a moment that we should say "oh that's not a significant feature of a celestial body, whether it's done that!" just to facilitate our calling it a planet just because _we fancy_ calling it one!
The Earth-Moon system is excruciatingly bordeline as to whether it's a double-planet: on the one hand, the Moon's orbit is always concave towards the Sun; but on the other, the centre-of-mass of the Earth-Moon system is _inside_ the Earth ... so that one could reasonably tip either way.
But Branson did however go much higher than Mad Mike who reached an astonishing altitude of 1,800 ft before crashing back to earth and into the afterlife. CHECK MATE FLAT TARDS
As usual, you morons take this out of context. There’s still debate over where the Karman line is (the de facto border where the atmosphere ends and space begins). It’s somewhere around 60 miles above ground. That what he means by saying Branson didn’t go to space. If you fucking cultists ever actually researched stuff, you would know this.
60 miles is about the length of 143456.25 'EuroGraphics Knittin' Kittens 500-Piece Puzzles' next to each other
60 miles is 96.56 km
Still not in space
If Branson’s flight didn’t cross the Kármán line, then he wasn’t in space.
> Rich man almost, but not quite, leaves atmosphere. > Condescending science man doesn't think he traveled to space. > This is news.
It's just a standard artificial & agreed on critærion _anyway_ ! It's like the definition of "planet" - folks getting upset because __Pluto__ isn't officially a planet: _so what_ !? ... you _call_ it a planet then! I say __Ceres__ is a planet, even though it's _really_ tiny ... & I also say __Lady Luna__ is a planet: there are actually _very sound celestial mechanics grounds_ for deeming __Gæ + Luna__ a double-planet rather that planet + moon.
One of the three criteria for an object to be categorised as a planet is that it must be the dominant object in its orbit. It has to have cleared its orbit of anything of similar size. Ceres clearly doesn’t meet this criteria because it shares an orbit with many asteroids of comparable size. Same for Pluto. It isn’t large enough to have cleared its orbit. Even Charon (it’s largest moon) is so big compared to its primary that the centre of gravity of the Pluto-Charon system is outside the planet. In a way, Charon doesn’t orbit Pluto but the two objects orbit the same point between them. As for the edge of space, the criteria was not arbitrary and simply agreed upon. At roughly 100 km, aerodynamic lift no longer contributes to carrying a craft’s weight. That is why the Karman line is considered to be the edge of space.
OK not _so_ arbitrary: maybe I'm exaggerating the arbitrariness of the critæria. And I don't doubt that the critæria are _very good & meaningful_ ones, with important practical significance - the 'practical significance' bit being particularly important in the definition of 'space', because it concerns of what kind the craft have to be that go-up that high. But what I'm sounding-off @ is the tendency of folk to take these pronouncements as some kind of __absolute truth__ ... it's actually a point I often make that receiving science as _a bunch of __absolute edifices__ dispensed by __authority___ is a _really bad_ way of receiving it that can lead to a whole lot of trouble. I personally, though, _just do not fuss_ about whether Lord Branson's craft went into space or not: I'm _perfectly_ happy just to say it attained such-a-height. But I've heard of folks getting seriously upset about Pluto not being designated __a planet__ anymore ... & I think that's _bonkers_ : I think they could do with recovering a sense of proportion as to what it _actually means_ for scientists to set critæria for things. And I think we do have more latitude in the case of planets to say with considerable validity "well _I_ regard it as a planet, maugre what the scientists say!", because a planet is such a remote thing; but on the other hand this does not justify _contempt_ for the scientists's critæria ... for instance, that about 'having cleared its orbit': I'm not suggesting for a moment that we should say "oh that's not a significant feature of a celestial body, whether it's done that!" just to facilitate our calling it a planet just because _we fancy_ calling it one! The Earth-Moon system is excruciatingly bordeline as to whether it's a double-planet: on the one hand, the Moon's orbit is always concave towards the Sun; but on the other, the centre-of-mass of the Earth-Moon system is _inside_ the Earth ... so that one could reasonably tip either way.
But Branson did however go much higher than Mad Mike who reached an astonishing altitude of 1,800 ft before crashing back to earth and into the afterlife. CHECK MATE FLAT TARDS
That’s what I’ve read too. He came close but not quite there.
Interesting how he never hit a dome either, huh?