Falling Objects -- why the angle?

[EWyatt]

Perhaps it's simplistic, but....

Why do most objects falling from very high altitides always seem to fall towards Earth at a steep angle? Why not just plop right down from above? This is evident in meteors falling, the doomed space shuttle a decade ago, other objects. Is it the Earth's rotation?

[MigL]

There is only one direction where the fall can be perfectly perpendicular.

There are multiple directions where the fall is not perpendicular and is bent into an orbital arc by gravity.

 

What are the odds ?

[Robittybob1]

Perhaps it's simplistic, but....

Why do most objects falling from very high altitides always seem to fall towards Earth at a steep angle? Why not just plop right down from above? This is evident in meteors falling, the doomed space shuttle a decade ago, other objects. Is it the Earth's rotation?

The space shuttle has a very small window of re-entry. They deliberately brought it in on that angle.

Space rocks are generally falling toward the Sun and the Earth intercepts them, I think you will find that generally produces an angled passage.

Good diagram of re-entry angles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry#Notable_atmospheric_entry_accidents

Edited March 22, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Strange]

Also, these objects have high velocities. Unless that velocity is directed directly at the centre of the Earth (not likely for the meteors, impossible for the space shuttle) then they will fall at an angle.

 

If something, say a whale or a bowl of petunias, were to suddenly materialise at rest in the upper atmosphere, then it would fall straight down.

[swansont]

Is it the Earth's rotation?

 

Also the orbit. There's no way for something to be "directly above" us for any length of time and fall toward us, because we are not stationary, nor can we think of ourselves as stationary (we are not in an inertial frame)

[dimreepr]

If something, say a whale or a bowl of petunias, were to suddenly materialise at rest in the upper atmosphere, then it would fall straight down.

 

 

Yes, but what would be the probability of that happening?

[swansont]

 

 

Yes, but what would be the probability of that happening?

 

With or without a whale?

[dimreepr]

 

With or without a whale?

 

 

Only the whale would care, probably.

Edited March 22, 2015 by dimreepr

[Acme]

Shouldn't the topic of fallen angels be in religion?

[Robittybob1]

 

If something, say a whale or a bowl of petunias, were to suddenly materialise at rest in the upper atmosphere, then it would fall straight down.

That is quite a big IF, if I may say so.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Strange]

That is quite a big IF, if I may say so.

 

It is, obviously, infinitely improbable.

[studiot]

 

If something, say a whale or a bowl of petunias, were to suddenly materialise at rest in the upper atmosphere, then it would fall straight down.

 

 

Would that depend on the velocity it materialised with, relative the the surface point over which it materialised.

And what materialisation velocity would you prescribe?

[Strange]

 

Would that depend on the velocity it materialised with, relative the the surface point over which it materialised.

And what materialisation velocity would you prescribe?

 

That is why I said "at rest" (with the "with reference to the surface of the Earth" implied).

[imatfaal]

Also, these objects have high velocities. Unless that velocity is directed directly at the centre of the Earth (not likely for the meteors, impossible for the space shuttle) then they will fall at an angle.

 

If something, say a whale or a bowl of petunias, were to suddenly materialise at rest in the upper atmosphere, then it would fall straight down.

 

"oh no, not again"