If I understand what you're asking, full speed is relative. Anything in orbit is traveling at a fixed, known speed to keep it from falling back to earth or flying out into space.

Once drag is imposed on the object it will start to fall and it's course will change toward earth. It will start to fall faster and then burn up in the atmosphere upon reentry.

Interesting fact:

Let's say a gun is fixed to shoot a bullet parallel to the earth. At exactly the same time you shoot that gun, you drop a bullet from the same height as the gun, both bullets will hit the ground at the same time.

If that gun could shoot that bullet 7,500 MPH (+ -), it would never hit the ground if it wasn't slowed down by air resistance.

Hope this helps.

Along the lines of BSR, don't know why the rocket is accelerating that close to the moon. It's basically going to pancake. More appropriate physics is to point the vehicle in the opposite direction and do an orbital insertion burn. But hey, its a game based on physics, why get the space part right?

https://videosift.com/video/NUKE-IT-FROM-ORBIT-9s

Take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

I wish he had done the math to see what size(width) laser you would need for it to be 1km wide at the moon's orbital distance.

Golly sir, I sure am glad you’re here to explain it to me, but just for shits and giggles, let me take a stab at it.

Elon Musk wants to make humanity a multi-planet species, otherwise we are at risk of some kind of planet wide extinction level event. Having looked at the problem, he thinks the fundamental issue is one of economics. If he can get the price per person for a trip to Mars down to $500k, he figures he’ll get enough mad, bad and rich AF people to give forming a colony a go.

But that first step from earth to orbit is motherfucking expensive and aside from crazy unproven tech like a space elevator, thanks to the Tyranny of the Rocket Equation there really isn’t a cheap way to do this in terms of energy expenditure.

Ok, thinks Elon, what’s the other major cost in this whole shooting things into space gig? Hmm, the big fucking rocket costs a lot... be nice if we could reuse that instead of building a new one each time.

So he works on building a reusable rocket, and after many hilarious videos of “rapid unscheduled disassembly”, fuck me if the damn thing doesn’t start to stick the landing!

So now we need to do the same, but with a bigger rocket and a heavier payload. Can’t really risk an actual payload (see previous video of RUD) so what to do?

Well, the sensible, cost effective thing would be just a big heavy weight. But that’s got fuck all viral marketing appeal, so if you’re gonna shoot something into space as part of a multi billion dollar rocket program, what’s a measly couple of hundred k compared to the millions in free advertising for both Tesla and SpaceX this will generate!

Well, look at that. Turns out I do understand this!

But if think sending an expensive sports car into space WASN’T a frivolous waste of money, I invite you to spend time with someone sleeping rough or a family who doesn’t know where their next meal is coming from.

As I said, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it, but don’t pretend this was anything other than a billionaire doing something insanely cool and expensive because he thought it was cool.

wow that joke went over your head higher than the ISS orbit.

I'd be down with a Space 1999 reboot, but the fundamental premise of a nuclear explosion pushing the moon out of orbit and then somehow to another star system for a new episode each week is so ridiculous l it would have to be replaced, but by that point it's hardly a Space 1999 reboot. I guess you could have the same basic setup with a moon base but use wormholes or string magic or quantum whatever and that might be okay. A show taking place on a moon base that keeps jumping randomly through alternate dimensions could be kind of interesting for a while maybe. Like Sliders, except they take the moon base with them and have Eagles to fly around in.

I say we dust off and nuke the site from orbit. Then go to the concession for tacos.

Nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

Uh, what? Nobody said that at all. It is neither a "classic example" nor an assumption. The trajectory has been tracked since it was discovered, which is hyperbolic around the sun, and the speed of the object is such that there is no way it could have accelerated to its current velocity due to the gravity of our sun alone, hence it has to be interstellar, picking up kinetic energy from another system outside of our own. The orbit is not improbable, it is unusual compared to trajectories of asteroids that exist within our own solar system. Sharpen your crayon there bud, and stop trying to impress people with your new thesaurus for hipsters (come on, "undergird"?? Really?)

They said they believe it is interstellar because of its improbable orbit. This is a classic example of the assumptions that undergird much of modern cosmology

Going to need to forget this video to partake in this flight.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/How-Not-to-Land-an-Orbital-Rocket-Booster

How Not to Land an Orbital Rocket Booster has been added as a related post - related requested by Mordhaus.