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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Because the standard response to a decompression is an immediate decent below 10,000 feet. There's usually a delay in the system to release the oxygen masks.

[edit on 8/21/2006 by Zaphod58]




posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   



Originally posted by backtoreality
Dear cmd,

I admit, I was not a math major, however I believe that 300F is much closer to 235F than is 6C (43F). And I did that off the top of my head.



Originally posted by backtoreality


: Originally posted by ArMaP


: Originally posted by backtoreality
Yes, this formula takes into account the breathable air in space and the effect it has on light from distance stars.



Could you show us that formula, please.



I could, but you might not understand it.
Have you ever studied differential equations, or linear algebra?



Isn't he/she funny?

Now he's bad at math, now he's good at math...Sorry, but why isn't this thread closed yet? What's the point to continue?



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   


This thread has really made me think about the subject.. If there's less air the higher you get, how come the oxygen masks only drop from the ceiling when the plane is going DOWN? And how come you need bottled air BELOW sea level, but don't need it to fly???


Are those serious questions ?


The oxygen masks drop down when the cabin pressure plummets. The plane goes down because the pilots are trying to get it to an altitude at which everyone can breathe without the aid of those masks !

You need bottled air below sea level because (and this may come as a great surprise to you) humans find it extremely difficult to breathe sea water. Yes, it's astonishing, but absolutely true



[edit on 21-8-2006 by Mogget]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mogget
Are those serious questions ?


The oxygen masks drop down when the cabin pressure plummets. The plane goes down because the pilots are trying to get it to an altitude at which everyone can breathe without the aid of those masks !

This is very correct. Cabin pressure can be effected by major blockage of the air inlet (please see previous post with picture of said inlet). Though rare, airplanes are required to have an emergency backup should the inlet encounter any problems.




You need bottled air below sea level because (and this may come as a great surprise to you) humans find it extremely difficult to breathe sea water. Yes, it's astonishing, but absolutely true

[edit on 21-8-2006 by Mogget]

Note to Mogget (and this may come as a great surprise to you), humans have also been know to go below sea level without being in the ocean.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Your inlet is for the heating and defrosting system. NOT the pressurization system. Pressurization comes through the engines. NOT from an inlet outside the plane to the cabin.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Your inlet is for the heating and defrosting system. NOT the pressurization system. Pressurization comes through the engines. NOT from an inlet outside the plane to the cabin.


Zaphod58:

Though I greatly appreciate your added, animated eyeroll, I would encourage you to read through the entire discussion of the thread before posting your comments. After doing so, you will find that this very subject, and the exact same reply as you gave above, has already been debated and discussed. I fear that by not adhering to this "unwritten policy" these actions will only lead to a cicular path of discussion; thus preventing the previous thoughts and contributions of members to be allowed to expand outwardly. Your compliance is much appreciated by all who have contributed to the success of this debate thus far.

Best regards,
backtoreality



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Personally, I don't care if you argue yourself into a square knot about this.
Those of who have flown and learned to fly know the truth of this and you'll never convince us of anything different. Although I have to give you credit for keeping me laughing with your replies. Anyway, I'm off ATS soon enough, so have a good time arguing this with whoever comes along.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I am glad you returned, backtoreality.

I have been expecting your return for the last 39 days, waiting to deny my ignorance about the way of measuring the Luminosity of the stars.

Can show me (us) now the formula used to calculate the Luminosity of the stars, if it isn't a too much of a problem for you?

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mouth
backtoreality...

How come older planes have a max altitude? How come they stall after they reach a certain height?

PV = nRT

as Temperature DECREASES, so does pressure, which means that at high altitudes, aircraft need to be pressurized. ETD


It's not just older planes that have a max altitude, Mr. Mouth. All aircraft that are not by definition spacecraft have a max altitude.

PV=nRT. Let's take a closer look.

You claim that as T decreases, so does P. It looks and sounds impressive--if you don't happen to see all the other little letters in there. Let me give it a try, yes?

As Temperature DECREASES, so does VOLUME, which means that at high altitudes, aircraft don't need to be pressurized.

Thanks for the info! Works great!



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 05:29 AM
link   
backtoreality: i must thankyou, you have made me spit my drink over my computer screen more times that i care to count in the course of this thread, so thankyou.
please please, either post up crediable information to back up your wild and absolutly stupid theories. Actually, heres a good idea, how about you get yourself onto a plane, fly over to the good ol' Australia and i'll take you up to 32,000 feet, open a door and see how long you survive without any form of breathing apperatus. If you believe in your theory that air gets denser the higher you go, you should be able to breath without a problem, right?


oh and by the way, make sure you organise a way to transport your body home, cause i won't do it after you die, which you will. hypoxia is not a nice way to go believe me. I've had the unpleasent oppertunity to experience a loss of cabin preasue at 20,000feet and believe me, its like having 300lbs on you chest after having the wind knocked out of you, you cannot breath, why? because the air is too thin to breath.


in closing, you sir, [mod edit: removed personal insult]


Balder Aiser

[edit on 20-9-2006 by sanctum]


TG

posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Air in space?
The only air in space is the air inside the spacecraft up there.


apc

posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   
soooo... still wondering. Is this what they use to collect rocket fuel from the astronauts?






posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Please post on topic which in this thread is,
air in space i just seen a bbc newsround report


and in the report thay showed the part off the space staion it was blowing around like a ballon ? not by the engines.how come we never see any stars in video reports and we onley see parts where the earth is and not a 360 turn ? i smell a news cover up is there air in space


Thank you.


apc

posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I was just pointing out that backtoreality's entire argument is a hoax. His initial statement in this thread contained many falsehoods, an obvious one being the notion of collecting natural gas from astronauts for use as rocket fuel.

By showing how laughable that idea is, I am descrediting his argument for air in space. Numorous times backtoreality has demonstrated an awareness to the humor of their statements, showing that each one has been an intentional lie.

Sorry for the confusion...



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   
apc, my post was directed at the mood of the discussion not you in particular.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Of course there's air in space

Otherwise why would they make the Air in Space Museum???


Okay, that's as much effort I'm willing to put in.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Balder Aesir
I've had the unpleasent oppertunity to experience a loss of cabin preasue at 20,000feet and believe me, its like having 300lbs on you chest after having the wind knocked out of you, you cannot breath, why? because the air is too thin to breath.


Balder,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
If I were going to fly to Australia to take you up on the offer, why not just jump out of the plane on my way there? It would save us both a lot of time, don't you think?

If you do have the capability to take us up to 32,000ft, I would much rather test your statement above by flying to an altitude of 20,000ft and opening the doors and windows (does your plane have hinges on the windows?). Just give me a heads-up the day before so I can buy some "super hold gel".

I would love the oppertunity to provide more crediable information, perhaps showing an actual apperatus in the hopes of changing your mind about my absolutly stupid theories.

Cheers!



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
I was just pointing out that backtoreality's entire argument is a hoax. His initial statement in this thread contained many falsehoods, an obvious one being the notion of collecting natural gas from astronauts for use as rocket fuel.

By showing how laughable that idea is, I am descrediting his argument for air in space. Numorous times backtoreality has demonstrated an awareness to the humor of their statements, showing that each one has been an intentional lie.

Sorry for the confusion...


Apc,

I'm sorry if you believe my entire argument is a hoax. I would strongly encourage you to go back and look into the proof provided.

The collection of natural gas from astronauts for use as rocket fuel abvously rubbed you the wrong way. It may not be common-sensical with our current space exploration, but for missions to Mars this is serious business. Since a human excretes methane/nitrogen naturally, so the NASA engineers pondered, why not collect it allowing for the initial take off weight of the vehicle to be reduced. (and if the mass seems negligable, consider the 400+lbs shaved off the space shuttles' take off weight by simply not painting the external fuel tank white as in the early years). I do appreciate the picture provided, though I'm afraid the actual aparatus is slightly more complicated.

Since this thread was created to discuss air in space, and a moderator has already cracked one skull for not staying on topic, I do not want to wander much further off the pre-set path. Though I will leave you with one last thought: on long term Mars missions it will not only be the natual gas of astronauts that is recycled, every sip of water will be sipped again and again and again...etc.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Maybe my post was unnoticed, after all it was on-topic.

So, I will repeat what I have said in that post, but with some corrections.

backtoreality
Can you show me (us) now (after 40 days of waiting) the formula used to calculate the Luminosity of the stars, if it isn't too much of a problem for you?

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Fact is, there is H2O in space. If there wasn't there would be no water or air on Earth. The reason the planet has air is because gravity draws it to the planet.

So, unless other parts of space lack H2O, H20 should be abundant on any old planet such as Earth?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join