Birds do go faster at higher altitudes but must work harder with less fuel
(O-2) to do so, just as swimming is "easier" in salt water for critters
like us but I doubt if any records would be set at a swim meet on a cool
day at the Dead Sea, where there's plenty of oxygen for fuel but a lot more
resistance (and viscosity as well) in the water. Baseballs go much
farther at higher altitudes primarily due to thinner air (less
resistance). The scores of Colorado Rockies' games alone show this, to say
nothing of their pitchers' ERA's at home (very high). Ditto runners and
bike riders - remember the Mexico City Olympics? Less resistance is a
bigger factor than most realize but, as any bike rider who's dealt with a
headwind knows, that resistance ends up being the primary limiting factor.
In the early 1900's a bike rider went over 90 mph by riding closely behind
a speeding train on a long wooden platform set up between the rails.
Or, ask any pilot (something I've been doing for 41 years) what happens to
his indicated airspeed (drops) and ground speed (rises) with
altitude. Jets go faster with altitude until reaching the point where they
cannot go higher because of their weight. At the end of their climb jets
are just creeping up, but climb as they burn fuel because they can then, at
a lighter weight, take advantage of the higher ground speeds which come
with altitude. Lack of oxygen isn't that big a limiting factor because they
can go faster in thinner air, compressing just as much over a given length
of time, until, of course, one runs out of oxygen completely. But the X-15
(and later the SR 71) found enough oxygen at very high altitudes where
they're so high the sky is black. With Jets, the faster they go, the
faster they can go. At cruise, a jet's engines are essentially idling
since at 30,000 feet and above they have very little drag. At Hurricane
Ridge, where as a kid I used to go on family astronomy outings, at just
5,000 feet, one quarter of the atmosphere (by density) is already below
you. "Thin air" isn't, as it turns out, all that insubstantial. Given
enough speed it can burn the tiles right off a space shuttle in ambient
temperatures that would quickly freeze your ball park hot dog.

Ooops! Are we getting bored yet?

At 07:38 AM 8/7/02 -0700, you wrote:
>Edwin and Tweeters,
>
>A baseball on the moon would go much farther and higher than on Earth,
>but the main reason would be the vastly lower force of gravity, not
>the lack of an atmosphere. (Of course, the lack of an atmosphere is
>partly because of the low gravity-- there is a connection.)
>
>Wayne C. Weber
>Kamloops, BC
>contopus at shaw.ca
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Edwin Lamb <edsplace at worldnet.att.net>
>To: <contopus at shaw.ca>; CONNIE SIDLES <csidles at mail.isomedia.com>
>Cc: TWEETERS <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
>Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 5:01 PM
>Subject: Re: VAUX'S SWIFTS AND THIN AIR
>
>
> > How far would a baseball fly on the Moon, for example? It might go
> > into orbit. No birds there!
> >
> > Ed Lamb
> > Bellevue, WA
> > edsplace at worldnet.att.net
> >

Jack