EVERYTHING THAT HAS MASS HAS GRAVITY. Everything!!

As an aerospace engineer, I will simplify why ROCKETS produces thrust in space for those who don't know. The rocket engine exhaust gas propellant at a very high velocity and in return accelerates the rocket in the opposite direction with an equal force. Same effect on a gun's recoil...bullet has a small mass but exits the gun at a very high velocity, in return the gun gets pushed back. Using intuition, do you think firing a rifle in a vacuum will have no recoil?

Originally posted by Silver Shadow
I am absolutely stunned that none of you guys understand jet or rocket propulsion, it is junior grade physics.

Say what? None of us? I think I understand it quite well thank you. I'm just trying to help someone get a grasp on some basics in thinking about it to show it's not an absurdity at all.

F=Q*dV

F=Net force Vector (pounds or Newtons)

Q=Mass-Flow (in slugs/s or kg/s)=Total amount of mass acted upon per unit time

dV=Net Change in velocity vector of said Mass-Flow (feet/s or meters/s)

Applies to rockets, airplane lift, jet planes, propeller planes, jet boats, propeller boats, swimmers, fish, etc.

Not so fast, egghead. The ATS community has clearly formed a consensus that Newton's 3rd law is baloney and a conspiracy foisted upon god's children by the Illuminatti!

Originally posted by Silver Shadow
I am absolutely stunned that none of you guys understand jet or rocket propulsion, it is junior grade physics.

(snip)

This is all pretty basic stuff. Surprised you guys have never heard it all before.

I am going to assume your post was not an attempt to be condescending and arrogant, and that you just haven't read through the posts in this thread to see your answer already mentioned numerous times.

The OP's question as been answered multiple times already. His/Her examples and comparisons are like those between apples and oranges. We are here at page six and the same answer is given yet again. We are at page six because the OP has rejected the answer and wishes to continue repeating his own question instead.

You just added the same answer to an already overdrawn thread.

- Lee

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.

I agree with you but I also disagree in part. Why believe in something that no one knows anything about? We can create a vacuum and test theories in it to proof. No one has yet provided any tangible proof of god or that he ever did or does exist. So there is the paradox of the faith. How does one trust someone who he has never met, or someone that no one has ever met? That is blind trust, and leads to folly if it mal-placed, although there is yet another question that will forever be unanswered until one dies, and maybe not even then.

okay, now i've actually studied up on how we postion objects in space, satelites/ shuttle/ deep space probes. The problem is you are not very specific on your question.
If your talking about as soon as the shuttle leaves the atmosphere, then it would continue in a Low Earth Orbit until reaching its objective logitude This would require little thrust in the early stages of LEO as the object would coast on its orbit at the necesarry speed until it reaches said target.
Once it comes within range, it with fire a series of precisely timed thrusts from the shuttles reaction thrusters. On most spacecraft, a catylitic bedding is lined just inside the thruster [i'll just say cone for now], theres more to it so here goes, the catalytic-beds have an active heater that will heat up to the flash point of the fuel of choice [typically hydrazine used in a blowdown setup [letting air out of a ballon]] when the fuel hits the beds, it will ignite and the resulting expansion of gas being shoved out of the thruster will create the thrust.

The physics of this are easy to simulate, you could try this using an office chair rolling on a hard surface. Simply sit in the chair and throw something away from you that has some decent weight. There you go.
On the shuttle however, only a thrust with the equivelent force of a mouse fart is needed when docking with the space station.
I could go on and on but i'm tired and i got to work tomorrow.
Don't worry about how they dock the shuttle. Think about how they keep the space station in its proper orbit and how the scientists back at NASA pull the numbers to make something go off the ground from Cape Canaveral headed west to a dot some several thousand miles off of earth. Also the space station has to constantly correct it's orbit because of it's close proximity to the earth, the atmospheric drag, if left unchecked will slow the thing down enough to fall back down to earth.
that's something you should ponder, google it sometime, it's all public domain information.
Also, if you still don't get it, just tell me what you didn't get, i know i can find the answers




-edit- damnit weedwhacker, just a few minutes too late, at least i'm not the only space nerd here.

[edit on 2008/8/14 by joe_dirt976]

I think we should use this thread as a method of preventing nowhere logic. Maybe we should exploit the idea so that people understand better. I understand that the vacuum of space is vast and that all objects in space have gravity. Releasing energy for the purpose of propulsion is simple and only gets more simple when you get inside the open vacuum of space. Air only creates resistance.
The question is simply unreasonable. I think it's more a matter of philosophy and doesn't even justify a scientific explanation. But it would be necessary for understanding I guess. What you would want to do is give the subject some direction for reasoning. I think he just made himself a subject for ridicule, and I think that should be accepted in this thread because it's part of understanding as well. So when your moderating, why strike anyone ridiculing this individual. Just let em, cause he may need it or others may need it for some understanding. Just make sure they do it in an organized or logical fashion.
I'm sure lots of scientists had trouble until they found that being subject to ridicule gave them a little motivation. Or you could just google it. Village idiot.

This question has probably already been answered given the number of replies, but I will also answer it again anyway.
The fact is rockets "push" particles out, and the particles in turn push the rocket back (hence there is no need for an atmosphere to push against in order for a rocket to work). Just like the pressure of a garden hose pushing back at you. The hose is pushing the water out, and the water is pushing the hose back.

Hope this makes it easier to understand.

[edit on 14/8/08 by NuclearPaul]

Originally posted by freakngeckos
Village idiot.

Would that be Global Village idiot?

Sorry, one liner, but this thread can't really get much worse.

Hey, quick question....Does anybody recall ever seeing a photo of the original moon landings ?? If I recall, there was actually "thrusters" burning from the capsule as it left the moon's surface !! I'll have to see if I can find a site with that original pic, because it was definitely a big "GOOF" on nasa's part......LOL. I'll get back to you in a bit when I find the pic unless someone posts it first.
You definitely won't get fire or "thrust" on the surface of the moon becuase it doesn't have any atmosphere of oxygen like here on earth........doh !!