2
$\begingroup$

The question "Does a credible Kármán plane reach escape velocity within 1 minute or does it follow the curvature of the Earth ?" was closed because it would have an answer from the already closed question "Is the definition of the Kármán line from Wikipedia right ?".

But none of the two answers there answered the first question.

The answer from @uhoh explains why there is no centrifugal force in this case.
After that he accuses me of playing with semantics because I use a literal interpretation of a part of the Kármán line definition that states:

The Kármán line is therefore the highest altitude at which orbital speed provides sufficient aerodynamic lift to fly in a straight line that doesn't follow the curvature of the Earth's surface.

Why should I not take the above emphazised part of the definition literally when @uhoh himself uses this part literally in this question to form an equation ?

This is not an answer to my first question, it just tells me why my second question is not right.

So why should the first question be closed when there is no specific answer to it ?

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

When people vote to close there can be a mix of reasons, there could be some "unclear what you are asking" votes there as well. When the close happens, I believe that only the most frequent reason is given. So it's possible that the message is slightly misleading in that respect, and that not all users voted that way.

That said, while I am not sure, I do think my vote was "as duplicate as the message says.

Closed question:

So should not a Kármán plane just follow the curvature of the Earth ?

Duplicate question:

So would not the definition of the Kármán line be better explained by an airplane in orbit around the Earth, rather than by an airplane flying in a straight line ?

It looks like I voted to close because I felt this to be substantially the same as the other and did not show evidence of incorporating the points in the answers to the duplicate question, a behavior that I also explained here once before:

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.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The facts are that the last question (in time) was closed because it should have an answer in the former, "unclear" question, while there are no specific answers there to that last question. $\endgroup$ – Cornelisinspace Jan 4 at 10:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Conelisinspace As the OP of a question you are in charge of deciding what you want to accept as the answer. However the community is in charge of up voting, down voting and close voting, and if the community decides your question has been answered elsewhere, the way to move forward is to revise, or ask a new question. That question has received 6 down votes and was also quickly closed (17h 38m). The last count shows you've collected a total of 28 down votes on your series of Karman questions. These are objective facts of Stack Exchange. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Jan 4 at 10:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'll just reiterate that as (likely) one of the explicit "close as duplicate" voters, I am comfortable saying that your question is answered by the duplicate. That you asked the same question again shows me you did not incorporate the information from those answers, and I won't vary from that position. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Jan 4 at 11:15
3
$\begingroup$

your question has been answered multiple times, by multiple people, at length. Asking it again isn't going to get a different answer.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .