In addition to my answer there, I've just added the comment
-1"If von Kármán is right with his description of the Kármán line..." That sentence misrepresents the reality of the situation. Karman did not describe the Karman line, he defined it. Definitions can be whatever you want them to be. They aren't "right' or "wrong", but only "useful" or "not-useful/obscure". This one ended up in the useful category for a half-century. Because the OP has been at this "was Karman wrong" question writing for so long now, I think this question should be closed as "math-trolling not good faith question-asking".
A reading of the question (currently at 5 down votes, zero up votes) shows it to be either misleading, or trivial ('please calculate the following cases for me').
There's a history:
- +4/-0 Are there calculations regarding the Kármán line in the Theodore von Kármán collection?
- +4/-2 Is the equation below the right one for an airplane flying at the Kármán line altitude?
- +2/-1 At what conference the “von Kármán line” arose and was discussed for the first time?
- +1/-1 Is it correct to use the vis-viva equation when there are two forces acting on the orbiting body? [CLOSED]
- -2/+0 Can the question below ignore the acceleration downwards to the centre of the Earth?
- -4/+1 Can the centrifugal force still be ignored as it appears that the lift force is a small fraction of it at the Kármán line altitude?[DUPLICATE]
- -3/+1 Is it correct to apply the vis-viva equation to an airplane that flies in a straight line at the Kármán line?
- -3/+1 Where does the definition of the Kármán line on Wikipedia come from?
- -4/+1 Does an airplane in orbit near the Kármán line altitude, with the air providing lift, ever reach orbital velocity? [DUPLICATE]
- -5/+2 Can it be calculated that near the Kármán line the lifting force equals the centrifugal force?
- -7/+1 Does a credible Kármán plane reach escape velocity within a minute or does it follow the curvature of the Earth? [DUPLICATE]
- -8/+2 Is the definition of the Kármán line from Wikipedia right? [CLOSED]
as well as my previous meta question
I feel that this focus by one user on asking one variant after another of "Was Karman wrong? in question after question, with little or no progress, insightful disussions about previous answers received or attempts to build upon previous answers is no longer an effort to use Stack Exchange question posts properly and in good faith. I feel these question are being used by the OP instead to push a point.
There isn't any hard limit to follow-up questions in SE as long as they are good questions, but after a series of posts that do not seem to be good questions, and certainly show no growth or evolution by making use of the previous answers received, I wonder if this specific line of questioning might benefit from a short pause for review? The users other questions are usually really interesting and thought provoking, I'm only asking about the Karman-math series.
Are any other users finding this ever-expanding series of questions continuing to be productive and reasonable?