It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

air in space i just seen a bbc newsround report

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   
If there was air in space, the artificial satellites could not keep their orbits because of the drag, they would need to keep the motors constantly (or at least frequently) working to keep the velocity.

Also, in that case they would not need to transport in the outer space vehicles (space shuttle, artificial satellites, space stations, etc.) any oxidizing agent, they would only need the combustible part of the fuel.

They could then use other type of engine, like a turbine, or they could even use a normal four-stroke engine with a propeller




posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
If logic didn't include our knowledge of gravity then, yes, you would be correct. I myself am waiting for logic to appear in some of these posts.


So you're saying that our knowledge of gravity is wrong now?




Of course I don't know where the inlet is. If I did, someone would be at my door to kill me. I didn't claim to know where it was or even it's actual dimensions, I simply used that as an example.


What kind of information is this! So right, it's totally okay to make something up from scratch that there is no physical, tangible shread of evidence for? Oh, okay... Way to rely on science like you claim. Keep up the good work!




Now, if you would like my hypothesis, I would say that it is built into the existing pumps on airplanes. That way when there is a problem with the inlet, they can just replace the "pump". Nice and neat. No one's the wiser.


Right, right... No one's the wiser... Okay, well what about the inventors? The mechanics that install the parts? The mechanics who service the parts?

Also, why is explosive decompression such a thread? Another question for you: Planes can much easier fly at supersonic speeds at high altitude because the air is less dense, allowing for less resistence. If the air is denser, why is that?



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enkidu
In know what the OP is talking about. I've seen old film of Skylab when it was still up, and that makeshift umbrella tarp they made to keep the thing from overheating used to flap all over the place, and it really looked like there was quite a breeze blowing up there. Of course, there wasn't but it sure looked like it.


Here is what they have to say about that.


The "flapping" of the sun shade was caused from the exhaust of the reaction control subsystem (RCS) thrusters of the Skyulab 3 CSM



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
If there was air in space, the artificial satellites could not keep their orbits because of the drag, they would need to keep the motors constantly (or at least frequently) working to keep the velocity.

There is. They do. The ISS is pushed back up into a higher orbit every couple of months because of the effect "air" has on it--this is called drag.




Also, in that case they would not need to transport in the outer space vehicles (space shuttle, artificial satellites, space stations, etc.) any oxidizing agent, they would only need the combustible part of the fuel.

Scramjets anyone??



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
So you're saying that our knowledge of gravity is wrong now?


Quite the opposite. Gravity is directly responsible for that effect.




What kind of information is this! So right, it's totally okay to make something up from scratch that there is no physical, tangible shread of evidence for? Oh, okay... Way to rely on science like you claim. Keep up the good work!


I have provided exactly the same amount of proof that you have.





Right, right... No one's the wiser... Okay, well what about the inventors? The mechanics that install the parts? The mechanics who service the parts?

Are you kidding??? Mechanics?? All they do is remove this piece and put the new one on.




Also, why is explosive decompression such a thread? Another question for you: Planes can much easier fly at supersonic speeds at high altitude because the air is less dense, allowing for less resistence. If the air is denser, why is that?

I am not here to be an encyclopedia--especially to someone with so many honors. Planes can NOT fly easier at supersonic speeds. It requires LOTS more fuel and the engines cannot resist the heat buildup but for a few tens of seconds (i.e. military fighters--no, not the F-22, etc, i know--and commercial airliners--no, not the concorde, special exception).

What I don't understand is if you know the answer--why else would you ask?--and you know that it does not support your argument, then why ask?



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
Are you kidding??? Mechanics?? All they do is remove this piece and put the new one on.


Go to an airport in Calif... Tokyo and tell that to a mechanic. Watch out for flying wreches.



I am not here to be an encyclopedia


Thank God.


Planes can NOT fly easier at supersonic speeds. It requires LOTS more fuel and the engines cannot resist the heat buildup but for a few tens of seconds...


Right, but, as I stated, it's easier at higher altitudes because the thinner (less dense) air provides less resistance, allowing a supersonic aircraft to achieve supersonic flight with greater ease.

On top of that, the speed of sound is significantly lower at higher altitudes than it is at sea level. Why? Because the air is less dense.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
There is. They do. The ISS is pushed back up into a higher orbit every couple of months because of the effect "air" has on it--this is called drag.

The ISS travels at a speed of 7.7 km per second.

To travel at that speed, with that shape and size, and if it only needs to be "pushed back" in its proper orbit every couple of months, then it is a very, very, very, small drag, and in that the air that creates that drag is much rarefied.





Scramjets anyone??


Scramjets are a good example, they are thought as a way to reach lower orbits because of their hight velocity, but they are incapable of higher orbits because of the lack of oxygen in space.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bokinsmowl
if there is more air the higher the altitude then why can a helicopter only fly to AT MOST 40,820 ft (this being the world record set by Jean Boulet in 1972, in a HEAVILY modified copter)? Trust me, if you've ever smoked a doobie driving over Loveland Pass @ 12,000ft in colorado, you'll know the air gets thinner.

:gasp gasp:


It's obvious...if you get too high, the blade downwash can't push against the ground to lift the helicopter!



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Go to an airport in Calif... Tokyo and tell that to a mechanic. Watch out for flying wreches.

People here in Tokyo don't treat their women that way.




On top of that, the speed of sound is significantly lower at higher altitudes than it is at sea level. Why? Because the air is less dense.


LOL.

Oh man, I don't know what is more amusing: the "duh" mark, your "certified expert" title, or the fact that you answered your own question incorrectly.

"Why?"
Because air at higher altitudes is colder than at sea level.

"
"



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
The ISS travels at a speed of 7.7 km per second.

To travel at that speed, with that shape and size, and if it only needs to be "pushed back" in its proper orbit every couple of months, then it is a very, very, very, small drag, and in that the air that creates that drag is much rarefied.


I'm not sure what "rarefied" means, but you used artificial satellites as your one and only example to show that there is zero drag in space.

If indeed the drag is "rarefied", then why are satellites given a life expectancy? It's not because of bad healthcare in space; it's because they can only fit a certain amount of propellant on board to give them their scheduled boosts back into their original orbit.

I hate to post links, but check out this one on the ISS average orbit: directly attributed to drag. It doesn't look "rarefied" to me.

www.heavens-above.com...



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
I'm not sure what "rarefied" means, but you used artificial satellites as your one and only example to show that there is zero drag in space.



source

rarefied
adjective
Marked by great diffusion of component particles: rare, thin


I never said that there is zero drag in space, the drag is not zero because space is not a complete vacuum.

What examples do you want me to use?

This thread started because leejones saw a report about the space station where he/she could see something with a movement that looked like there was wind, that is why I am using artificial satellites as an example, because this thread started about something that was seen on an artificial satellite.





If indeed the drag is "rarefied", then why are satellites given a life expectancy? It's not because of bad healthcare in space; it's because they can only fit a certain amount of propellant on board to give them their scheduled boosts back into their original orbit.

I hate to post links, but check out this one on the ISS average orbit: directly attributed to drag. It doesn't look "rarefied" to me.

www.heavens-above.com...


What is rarefied is the air, not the drag.

And only because the air is rarefied do the artificial satellites stay on orbit for years instead of days.

In fact, when they start to loose altitude and enter the area where the air less rarefied, they burn because of the high temperatures created by the friction of the air against them.


PS: why do you hate to post links?



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   
As long as we agree that there is in fact "air" in space; enough so that it has a major (meaning, it is constantly considered when dealing with artificial satellites) impact on orbiting debris.




I don't like to post links because it is weak. It shows that you are proficient with Google, not that you actually know what you are talking about. An occasional one here and there is Ok, but there are too many people who post links on every reply with a 2 sentence summary--so what? Search engines are for that, not message boards. Thus, I dislike 'em!


p.s. thanks for the lesson in vocabulary. i had no idea!



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
As long as we agree that there is in fact "air" in space; enough so that it has a major (meaning, it is constantly considered when dealing with artificial satellites) impact on orbiting debris.


There are differences between the amount of air in space that ArMaP is talking about and the amount you're talking about.

What ArMaP is talking about is the miniscule amount of air that does effect the orbits. Is it enough to breath? No, because the air is so thin. Also, the amount of drag is likewise miniscule, and therefore why they only need to bump the orbits out again every few months.

The amount of air you're talking about is dense and breathable. Now, if the air is so dense, how can these very unaerodynamic space craft stay aloft?



I don't like to post links because it is weak.


Ah, so having evidence or support for your claims is weak? Odd, at that... Better go back an inform every true scientist that thier procedures for the scientific method were very wrong.

I truely hope that you don't have a job in the sciences...

[edit on 8/9/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   
3 pages on "is there enough air in space to breathe'. CLASSIC!!!!!!

You are a master backtoreality.


Breathable air in space and extremely high altitudes. HAHAHAHAHA



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Also, the amount of drag is likewise miniscule, and therefore why they only need to bump the orbits out again every few months.

We continue to disagree on this point.



The amount of air you're talking about is dense and breathable. Now, if the air is so dense, how can these very unaerodynamic space craft stay aloft?

Again, they don't stay aloft. This is why the need orbital corrections. Without the corrections they come crashing back to Earth. That doesn't sound like something staying aloft to me.






I don't like to post links because it is weak.


Ah, so having evidence or support for your claims is weak? Odd, at that... Better go back an inform every true scientist that thier procedures for the scientific method were very wrong.

I truely hope that you don't have a job in the sciences...

[edit on 8/9/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]


If you are going to quote me, please include all relevent aspects. I went on to say that people who only post links and add 1-2 sentences annoy me to death. It shows they have nothing to add that a quick search couldn't produce. In other words, they aren't using their brains, just their computers.

As for my job, that's highly classified.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I hoped that I would not have to mention this, but I see that the resistance is getting strong.

When NASA was given orders to begin planning for manned missions to Mars, they struggled with the idea of how to break the news to the public. You see, it is impossible for them to take along enough Oxygen in order to complete the 3 year + journey. Of course, they do not did it in the first place, but if they tell the public this, the public will want accountability for the billions upon billions spend for spacesuits and other designs made thoughout the years for the astronauts. Upon meeting with the spacesuit manufacturer, they decided the best course of action would be to "make" a device that can recycle the astronauts air and make it breathable once again. This is the news that officially came out of NASA as how to avoid that potential problem. The actual design, however, consists of a latch on one of the smaller windows, allowing it to be opened. The is one of these windows on opposite sides of the spacecraft, inabling a nice cross breeze for when they go to bed. Yet another coverup of the truth.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
Again, they don't stay aloft. This is why the need orbital corrections. Without the corrections they come crashing back to Earth. That doesn't sound like something staying aloft to me.


With the amount of air you are claiming to be at spacebound altitudes the sats up there would be bound by the same laws of aerodynamics that are here at the lower altitudes.

So, please, explain to me the aerodynamic properties of these satellites that allow them to stay aloft.

One, you should recognize, being from Japan and certainly not lying about your location...


Mir


A tethered sat


So, please, elighten me on how these fly, as that is what they would need to be doing.



If you are going to quote me, please include all relevent aspects. I went on to say that people who only post links and add 1-2 sentences annoy me to death. It shows they have nothing to add that a quick search couldn't produce. In other words, they aren't using their brains, just their computers.


But not everybody knows what to search for. Excuse the rest of us that in our quest to help each other Deny Ignorance we dare annoy you!




As for my job, that's highly classified.


Really? What sort of plastics do you manufacture? Or is the only thing you manufacture ill concieved lies and disinformation?



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
The actual design, however, consists of a latch on one of the smaller windows, allowing it to be opened. The is one of these windows on opposite sides of the spacecraft, inabling a nice cross breeze for when they go to bed. Yet another coverup of the truth.


And you came across this information how, exactly? Also, traveling at several thousand kilometers per hour would create a pretty strong "cross breeze." Or is there more fancy duct work at play again?



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Dear back:

If you ever take this show into the paranormal threads, PLEASE let me know so I can watch. You are killing me.

I would have thought the vent window was over the top but apparently once you get it rolling you can say anything.

Thanks,
Tom



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
With the amount of air you are claiming to be at spacebound altitudes the sats up there would be bound by the same laws of aerodynamics that are here at the lower altitudes.

No, they are in zero-g: the laws of aerodynamics are completely different.




So, please, explain to me the aerodynamic properties of these satellites that allow them to stay aloft.

I could try, but I don't think you would understand.



One, you should recognize, being from Japan and certainly not lying about your location...

No, I don'trecoginize those designs. They are Chinese and Russian.



So, please, elighten me on how these fly, as that is what they would need to be doing.

Please defer all comments to the Chinese and Russians, please.



But not everybody knows what to search for. Excuse the rest of us that in our quest to help each other Deny Ignorance we dare annoy you!


You are forgiven. Only 27 bows are necessary, for future reference.


I hope I have answered all your questions.
Do you believe now?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join