161
u/timmbuck22 Feb 05 '21
Yup. Obviously flat.
79
u/Hauden_Lukas Feb 05 '21
Its just the camera lense... /s
34
u/Uejji Feb 05 '21 edited Feb 06 '21
Well, yes and no. While you can see a bit of curvature at 70k feet, you would have to be at more like 7 million feet to see this much of the Earth's curvature. This photo is definitely using a fisheye lens.
EDIT: Reddit. Come on.
Firstly, 7 million feet is about 2000 km. That's a very reasonable orbit altitude. I was just pointing out that to see this much curvature, you would have to be around 100 times higher than 70k feet. 70k * 100 = 7 million. The ISS is at 400km and doesn't see nearly as much of the curvature.
Secondly, flat earthers often point out how high altitude photography is done using fish eye lens, and they are completely right. So we need to be careful about seeing a photo like this and saying "how can anyone believe this Earth is flat after seeing this?" because it just proves their own point to them that people are fooled by fish eye lens photography. Obviously, the Earth is round, but it's not this round. You have to go very, very, very high, dozens or hundreds times this high, to be able to see this much of it.
3
u/Yuca4 Feb 05 '21 edited Feb 05 '21
Elaborate troll or a special case lol
100km above earth is considered space. Which is barely over 300k feet. (62 miles above earth).
Now imagine 7 million feet above earth...
Edit: forgot the second 0 in '300k'
12
u/cuisinart8 Feb 05 '21
100km is actually over 300k feet. 30k is more like airliner cruising height. This pic probably was taken with a fisheye lens, as you'd basically have to be in orbit for the curvature to look like this.
2
u/sevaiper Feb 05 '21
High orbit too, even the ISS doesn't see nearly this much curvature. Without fisheye you should be seeing full continents with this much curvature.
1
u/Yuca4 Feb 05 '21
Missed a 0 thanks. And I agree with the curvature but I'm saying this dudes math is so off. 7 million feet lol
1
2
u/Uejji Feb 05 '21
7 million feet is about 2000 km. It's the boundary of LEO and MEO. You'd see about this much curvature from there.
Obviously the U-2 is not in a 2000 km orbit, which is why I said that the photo was taken with a fisheye lens, since I was replying to comments suggesting that the curvature of the Earth is extremely obvious in the photo.
0
u/Yuca4 Feb 06 '21
Sorry man your math isn't off that much I just thought it was absurd initially. Good observation on the lens, after Googling for a bit I understand your point. 7m feet just seemed off to me at first.
0
-10
u/DaphniaDuck Feb 05 '21 edited Feb 07 '21
You need to be much more specific in your metrics and actually present valid data to make that claim. You’re definitely shooting from the hip here.
6
u/OstravaBro Feb 05 '21
I think he's right. I'd be surprised if the curve is so apparent at 70k feet, even 100k feet I would reckon it would be minimal.
I'm not good enough at math though to work this out...
8
u/OstravaBro Feb 05 '21
I mean look up footage from iss, the curve is less pronounced than in this photo. So yeah, I'm saying it's mostly lense.
1
u/DaphniaDuck Feb 07 '21 edited Feb 07 '21
OK, here’s what we need to know to not be shooting from the hip:
- Lens focal length (the distance from the center of the lens elements to the camera film/sensor plane with the lens focused at infinity)
- Camera format (the diagonal measurement of the film frame/sensor.)
If the lens focal length is shorter than the diagonal measurement of the film frame/sensor, then it is a wide angle lens. Next we need to know the exact focal length of the lens in order to determine exactly how much barrel distortion may be introduced by the lens.
We also need to know the curvature and composition of the cockpit window that the picture was taken through. We need to know the index of reflection of the glass or plexi as well as the curvature of the area that the picture was taken through in order to determine how much distortion it may or may not have been introduced into the final image.
We also need to know the altitude of the aircraft.
There are lots of factors that figure into the perceived curvature in the final photograph.
21
u/Thebudweiserstuntman Feb 05 '21
It is flat, there’s just been a lot of snowfall at both poles and it’s bending a bit
0
18
u/corvus66a Feb 05 '21
I guess the view is a little more curved then n reality due som kind of fish eye lens , otherwise earth would be a little small from 70k feet . Even from ISS it looks less curved
5
19
u/brumbarosso Feb 05 '21
That rust or paint peeling?
25
u/Lirdon Feb 05 '21
I guess you mean the material on the bolt and part of the windshield on the bottom. if so its PRC. its basically an water isolation material, applied to prevent corrosion a layer of gray colored PRC is also applied on the middle frame of the windshield.
7
3
u/FlyingPig2955 Feb 05 '21
In my uneducated opinion, I'm guessing they just didn't bother to paint it?
0
u/bloviator Feb 05 '21
either way, you would think, given their $705 Billion dollar budget, they could take better care of their stuff.
7
u/legoracer18 Feb 05 '21
I'm sure they prioritize other more flight critical aspects on the plane over some paint that looks like it's in a very hard to reach spot. Also that whole amount isn't just for the U2 program.
8
u/McBlemmen Feb 05 '21
Is that a mountain in the distance or just something on the windshield? in the middle.
Gorgeous pic though.
2
1
13
u/Kitescreech Feb 05 '21
I can see The Edge
6
u/CentralSchrutenizer Feb 05 '21
U2 should've been shot for that force on iphone shit music move
1
u/Kitescreech Feb 05 '21
Still bitter after all these years
1
u/CentralSchrutenizer Feb 05 '21
I didn't have an iPhone, I'm a musician that respects my fans, and that was objectively a shitty move.
Besides, their early material was way better than their later stuff
5
5
u/CactusPete Feb 05 '21
Is that a yaw string on the nose that's . . . hanging forward?
And what's the car radio antenna, with a ball on the end, sticking out of the nose?
15
u/AceArchangel Feb 05 '21
Phillips Head... All that is that keeping you from outer space is a damn Phillips Head screw.
13
u/urionje Feb 05 '21
There was an episode of the fighter pilot podcast with a former U-2 pilot taking about the crazy ad hoc nature of these planes, in one instance finding a broom handle in the cockpit and realizing mid flight that it was left there to be used to scrape ice off the window.
4
u/shipoftheseuss Feb 05 '21
Is that the same one where they had a pencil or a paint stick to hit switches behind their head? Crazy stuff.
7
u/urionje Feb 05 '21
Lol right, a cup of pencils in the cockpit so while you’re wearing your space gloves you can actually press the over-engineered buttons that are flush with the surface they’re on.
19
u/Lirdon Feb 05 '21 edited Feb 05 '21
and a space suit. and no, the Philips head is not enclosing the pressurized compartment.
3
4
u/WhiteRobotRedCircle Feb 05 '21
My favorite episode of Mythbusters is the one where Adam goes up in the U2. The clip is on YouTube.
3
3
0
u/cammy-returns Feb 05 '21
Has one of these ever just floated into space, having got too near the event horizon of gravity?
33
u/Shasarr Feb 05 '21
I recommend to play kerbal. There you realise how difficult it really is to get something into orbit and how much much more to get out of it into space
6
Feb 05 '21
It's easy if you just get a massive fuel tank and a shit ton of the aerospike engines. Screw making proper vehicles.
7
u/SenorPuff Feb 05 '21
or if you place two docking ports facing each other but turn the docking force off of one of them, and then use heat shields as wings.
3
18
u/webtwopointno Feb 05 '21
that's not how any of that works at all
8
Feb 05 '21
[deleted]
15
u/McBlemmen Feb 05 '21
good message but i dont think he was really shaming the guy
9
Feb 05 '21
OK perhaps I read too much into it, and I didn't want to come off as condescending. I just want everyone to be excited to learn new things and not be scared to ask questions
3
7
u/Flaming-taco Feb 05 '21
Rather then downvote you, I’ll explain why your wrong: earths gravity pulls everything down. Being in orbit works because your going fast enough to not fall down, but slow enough to not completely escape gravity. If this plane were to somehow float out of the atmosphere, it would need to be doing a couple things to stay in space for even a couple seconds: 1, it’s engines would have to function to the edge of the atmosphere. Not possible with jet engines. 2: it would need to be going at hypersonic speeds. That is possible with jets, but not the ones on the U2, especially not at those heights. If it does all this somehow, it will simply float out of the atmosphere and enjoy a minute of weightlessness, when in reality it’s falling back to earth and about to meet a possible fiery end, depending on how high it hopped, which depends on its speed when it’s engines cut out.
13
u/PineCone227 YF-23 / XB-70 / Su-30SM2 Feb 05 '21
The engine would flame out due to lack of oxygen long before you would be in space.
0
-2
1
1
1
1
52
u/brad24_53 Feb 05 '21
For anyone interested, it looks like this photo was taken from around here.
If you look under "Stonyford" in the lower left center you can see the "A" shaped lake.
U2s fly out of Beale AFB so I just started there and looked for prominent features.