If there is no air in space, how do they use rockets to position the space shuttle?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Manasseh
 


Ok. There is no atmosphere on The Moon. The Lunar Lander would never have been able to get off The Moon without thrust.




posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manasseh
reply to post by Phage
 
OK smarty pants, then you tell me. What is the burning of the rocket fuel pushing against to move the space shuttle.


Either this is a joke, or "serious" discussion between a bunch of guys stoned, or you are infants or retards.

What are you talking about? A rocket burns fuel in space in a chamber, this produces pressure, the hot/pressurized gas shoots out the cone. The force is transmitted through the pressurized gas from the cone, so that is where the rocket gets its acceleration from.

It is a conservation of momentum thing...

Or God just makes it fly vroom vroom far out



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Manasseh
 


www.google.com...

But it's lies. All lies!


[edit on 13-8-2008 by Phage]

[edit on 13-8-2008 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I'm still waiting on a lie that they fed to us? Please, next time you post, for the sake of future readers, do have some base, or evidence to start with. Just a suggestion


Edit: to avoid a double post: The mathamatics of space flight are called astrodynamics. You can read about them here: en.wikipedia.org...

Problem Settled!

[edit on 13-8-2008 by truth_seeker3]



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Correct me if I am wrong all but there is absolutly no friction for a shuttle in space thus even the slightest force acting upon it would cause it to move opposite that force in accordance to newtons second law? Now if that is true it would mean the basic idea of the combustion happening from the fuel and air stores on the ship would only have one way to exit which is where ever the rocket points. It would then make perfect sence that the combustion pushing on the inner shuttle would push it along effortlessly? Anyone?



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Manasseh
 


Manasseh.....you asked about rocket thrust, in a vacuum, then cite a Wiki article about jet aircraft engines in the Earth's atmoshere??

Have you caught your mistake yet?

Let's simplify (assuming your are serious with your question, and not just playing everyone for a fool).

Find a ballon. Blow up balloon. Release balloon. Observe results.

Yes....you do this experiment, here on Earth, since you have to be able to breathe. The balloon, not being very aerodynamic, naturally travels a very erratic path, as the air exhausts.

NOW, try a thought experiment....a vacuum, a balloon, and a way to fill it with air. NOW, release it......it will travel straight and true (except for the obvious effect of gravity....which will cause it to describe an arced path) Or, because of the flexibility of the rubber, the opening may flop around, and that will affect it's direction of movement...so THEN gravity will be less effective of an influence.

Take ths balloon into a freefall (or 'microgravity) vacuum environment, and repeat. It will travel in one direction, with the proviso that the previously mentioned problem of the soft nozzle might result in vector changes....but once all air is exhausted, the last thrust vector will result in a course for the balloon that will not change, unless acted on by some other force....a wall, for instance.

Spacecraft can 'gimble' their engines, thus maintaining a desired thrust vector, while the fuel exhausts, and propels them in the opposite direction of the exhaust thrust.

Currently, the Space Shuttle uses a combination of fuels....during launch, the big orange tank (the one with the 'foam' problem) is filled with LOX and LH....(no, LOX is liquid oxygen, not smoked salmon)

The two elements, liguid O2 and liguid Hydrogen, when combined, produce a very strong reaction....that is pumped and directed to the three main engines. ALSO, there are two Solid Fuel Boosters (acronym 'SRB') that, well....simplest way to describe them is what you see in a 'bottle rocket' on the Fourth of July. Once lit, they burn, man...burn! Until they burn out, and are jettisoned, as is the main fuel tank.

On orbit, now you have the OMS....Orbital Maneuvering System...engines....they are 'hypergolic'. Wiki could help you learn more about that. In addition, for minor orientation changes, such as for docking, or orienting for re-entry....or just to stabilize spacecraft temperatures in the hot sun, are the RCS...reaction Control Thrusters....also hypergolic.

Does any of this help you understand better? Hope so.

WW



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Manasseh
 


I wonder the same things, but I can tell you some of the answers you will get.

1. Rocket fuel is premixed with air, though I'm not sure if that means the whole propellant mix or just the stage in orbit. Also, I don't understand how even mixing it with air would help in a vacuum.

I believe there is air in space, because space is just our atmosphere. I also don't believe that the picture of our planet, as a sphere, that no average person can view for themselves firsthand, is what our planet actually looks like. I don't believe in gravity as it is portrayed, as gravity simply means weight. I can do simple experiments to show myself that the world does not spin, but stands still and that things in a vacuum, atmospheres included, get sucked away not adhere. I can see the sun and the moon in the sky and not in..."Space" and the stars also knowing that there paths are right through the sky.


I believe that the Apollo Missions were actually as the name presents. "A mission to the SUN" and not to the moon. I believe the sun is not what we are told either and that we have been going there for a long time. I believe that this is what tesla was talking about...the sun...as the free energy source.

All the things stricken down, such as "aether" and "flat earth" etc., I believe we should re look at. I believe the upper atmosphere, is highly static charged and that this static energy actually acts with the same properties as liquid. You know how those old football games with the players and the magnets? You set the players on the board, turn it on which in turn runs a current through the floor of the football field and the players move. I believe this is how this sphere works also, in the way that it has our "Static image". I believe this can be tapped and is being tapped

All of these claims are crazy, unless you look for yourself and just use your senses. People study science and it's postulations and take it as the Golden Rule, but they confine themselves in those rules thus casting away their own confidence to look up and see for themselves? I am sure there are rules for how to speak Klingon too, but then that is just science fiction. Is not science fiction the same as "science theory"? I know that great minds work on these issues and I take nothing away from there dedication, but I realize only a small few get to experience "space" therefore, it is very easy to deceive people. I am not saying I know the answers, but I sure trust my senses more then I do CGI pictures and "artists Renditions". Peace



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScienceDada

Originally posted by Manasseh
reply to post by Phage
 
OK smarty pants, then you tell me. What is the burning of the rocket fuel pushing against to move the space shuttle.


Either this is a joke, or "serious" discussion between a bunch of guys stoned, or you are infants or retards.

What are you talking about? A rocket burns fuel in space in a chamber, this produces pressure, the hot/pressurized gas shoots out the cone. The force is transmitted through the pressurized gas from the cone, so that is where the rocket gets its acceleration from.


To create pressure, don't you need some sort of atmosphere.

Forgive me if I'm wrong. LOL



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Manasseh
 


You keep on mentioning corrupt goverments and lies, and not being able to produce thrust in space. I have answered. You have yet to provided me a single example. Yet another failure.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




From the viewpoint of this essay these two theories are fundamentally incompatible in the sense illustrated by the relation of Copernican to Ptolemaic astronomy: Einstein's theory can be accepted only with the recognition that Newton's was wrong. Today this remains a minority view.

www.physicsforums.com...

Some have all the answers.

And some have the right questions.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by truth_seeker3
 


How are you, that has all the answers.

I do not know you.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


letthereader.....that was hilarious. Sarcasm is so subtle though, many will likely not get your humor....



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Oh, alright. I'll bite.

Newton's Third Law of motion: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Nothing needs to "push against" anything to move. Rockets send gasses backward, moving the vehicle forward. The propeller of an airplane sends air backward, moving the aircraft forward. When you swim in water you move water backward, moving your body forward. Here's a real tough one (this ought to be good): when you walk, you move the earth backward, moving your body forward.


I like this, but what if your doing the moonwalk, then you would be pushing the earth forward again, but people would be like, "Dude, look over there, that guy is doing the moonwalk....Michael Jackson Style...Hee Hee, Common Girl"

I like that thought, but I instantly saw the glittery socks and black loafers...and almost rolled over laughing...Thanks for the smile. Peace



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manasseh
reply to post by truth_seeker3
 


How are you, that has all the answers.

I do not know you.


Yup, you do not know me because you refuse to look. God has put wonderful things to explore and enjoy for people, yet you refuse to accept His grace.

You refuse to see the Truth God has put before Man to find. You refuse to answer questions God has meant for Man to seek.

You are the One I do not know.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manasseh
Here's my theory.

No one knows diddly squat about what they think they know everything about.

Therefore, one should trust God, as he/she/it is the ultimate creator.

Coming from someone who works for his maker, I am glad to see
relative silence from those who "know it all" on this subject.

Oh, by the way, your government is lying through their teeth.


In a sense God is law. The material universe obeys His law. We are free to discover the law and use it. Newton's laws of motion aren't something Newton invented but something Newton discovered about His creation. Newton was no atheist by any stretch of the imagination.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Now, back to the subject.

How do you produce thrust without air to push against?

[edit on 14-8-2008 by alien]



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by windwaker
reply to post by Manasseh
 


Ok. There is no atmosphere on The Moon. The Lunar Lander would never have been able to get off The Moon without thrust.


Ok, now I am beginning to think that you are not old enough to be on this forum, have severe mental retardation, or perhaps are putting on a show but are really muslim terrorists planning to bomb the space shuttle or the International Space Station (that I can see in he mornings or evenings with a telescope... so it is really up there).

But is it is drugs, then just make sure to share.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Manasseh
 


Ah, there in lies for fault. Air. Air. Air. Air. If you studied Newton's third law, you would see this:

The thrust is not pushing against air, it is pushing against the gravitational pull of the nearest celestial body. Explain. Please do not bore me with more questions, research them. A quick dab on Wikipeida will even suffice. If you really want to know, call up Prof. Hawkins.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by truth_seeker3
 


Does wikipedia define the day that you die.

Wikipedia is not God, and you do not have all the answers, *snip*

Mod Edit: Please refrain from calling people names etc. Debate the issue, not the person.

Peace.


[edit on 13-8-2008 by alien]



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Space is NOT actually a TRUE vacuum as there is hydrogen gas and
energetic particles (i.e. Helium Nuclei) and electromagnetic forces at play
throughout our nearby "space".

Since rocket motors are enclosed systems and 2nd law of
thermodynamics MUST be respected, the amount of mass
expelled/expended by the runaway oxidization reaction
of a rocket motor must be converted to energy and mass
of SOME KIND be it heat (i.e. the flame you see at the business
end of said rocket motor) or kinetic energy (i.e. forward movement)
and/or large amounts of particles of waste material expelled.

The enclosure itself forms the thrust mechanism where the
particles/waste product MUST somehow find themselves
moving away from a central expansion point (i.e. central
point of explosion or burn) and any material that's blocked
from escape must re-route itself towards the nearest
escape point which will happen to be the nozzle of the rocket.

And following Newtonian laws, for every action there is an
equal and opposite reaction thus the craft is propelled forward
by the oxidized gases that were BLOCKED from an initial
escape and rerouted to a viable exit point at such a rate
that the rocket craft itself has an equal reaction of trying
to distance itself from the expanding gases and thus
the forward movement is created.

The expanding gases are NOT pushing themselves upon
any general medium but it is the spacecraft and expanding
gases that are trying to repel each other away from a
central expansion point which is in the fuel combustion chamber.

As fuel and oxidizer is added to the combustion chamber,
and since the combustion chamber is permanently attached
to the rest of the spacecraft, there MUST be an opposite
reaction that allows the gases to move away from the
central expansion point thus we get linear thrust
that allows the spacecraft and the expanding gases
to move apart.

Hope that explanation helps !!!

More info:

There is also conjecture as to whether space itself is a medium
of dark energy that in itself could be "Surfed" much like surfers
speeding across a powerful ocean current.

Since dark energy would ripple and flow much like the chaotic
ocean currents but at speeds that would exceed the speed
of light, it is likely that starships could ride the crests of dark energy
waves at warp speeds allowing us to achieve interstellar travel.

I suspect engineers at Lockheed Martin Skunkworks,
Northrup Special Projects and Boeing PhantomWorks
ALREADY understand the physics of what I am describing
and are in fact ACTIVELY USING those dark energy effects
to propel interstellar-capable spacecraft across our skies.






top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join