• CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

            • Victor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              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.

              • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                You can use the frame from before to calculate the MINIMUM speed. It could have been going even faster.

                  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    20 hours ago

                    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.