Calculate the work required to launch a satellite into a low earth orbit at 160 km above the earth’s surface. the answer will depend on the launch location (there’s a reason nasa likes to use cape canaveral, and european space agency uses french guiana … and it ain’t the nice weather), so be sure to specify where that is (or, if you’re up to it, give the answer in terms of the launch location.) which takes more work: getting to an orbital height of 160 km above surface of the earth, or getting to the speed needed to maintain that orbit

Explanation:

The work done by the weight force is given by

W=mgh where h is the height difference between both points, since the work depends on the height of the place from which we send the rocket, we can generalize the work done to reach 160 km

W=mg(160000-h)  with 160 km expressed in meters, let's take cape canaveral for example with a height of 3 m above sea level, let's take an average rocket mass as 70000 Kg

W=70000*9.8*(160000-3)=1.097*10^11 Joules

“The west-to-east rotation of the Earth causes all points on Earth (except the poles themselves) to move eastward with some velocity,” NASA

This eastward velocity is greatest at the equator with the Earth rotating at a speed of roughly 1,040 mph. This rotational speed decreases as objects move closer to the poles, up to 0 in the poles

 That's the reason NASA uses Cape canaveral, since it is closer to the poles ergo giving an extra rotational velocity to the rocket to reach its destination

If we assume conservation of energy both activities take the same amount of work, reach to that height and getting to the speed needed

im not to sure what it is

relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. more precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. debates about relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. from ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called “analytic and continental” camps in philosophy. and yet, despite a long history of debate going back to plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. this entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which “relativism” has been defined, explained, defended and criticized.

explanation: