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.

 

airless vaccum on the moon? answer me this then.....

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
if it's airless vaccum on the moon, how did the rocket thrusters work? i'll bet you a dollar to a dime that a combustion engine does not work in a vaccum.....they wouldn't have had enough oxygen in a tank to make it back to the earth if they used a tank....there's no way......i know that a flame does not burn in a vaccum so please someone explain this to me......




posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Rocket fuel provides it's own oxygen for burning.

You know the stuff is expensive,
and doesn't come from the corner gas station right?


David Grouchy



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
THis is why rocket engines use OXIDIZER....

HELPFUL HINT: IT ADDS OXYGEN to create COMBUSTION!

Don't get me wrong I applaud your suspicion and willingness to ask questions but generally it's best to do a little bit of research before throwing things out there.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 


The Stabilizing thrusters are basically pressurized gas that when released moves the object so strategically placing and firing them can achieve mobility in a vaccum. But the rocket fuel and/or gas thrusters is not my line of work.

One Love.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by davidgrouchy
Rocket fuel provides it's own oxygen for burning.

You know the stuff is expensive,
and doesn't come from the corner gas station right?


David Grouchy



no it doesn't, they have to add some sort of liquid oxygen or something of that nature, how in the world did they have enough on that little ship that they ascended from the moon to get back to earth???? i just don't see it...



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 


probably helps if you read up on the mechanics of space flight first..........

Just sayin



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder
if it's airless vaccum on the moon, how did the rocket thrusters work? i'll bet you a dollar to a dime that a combustion engine does not work in a vaccum.....they wouldn't have had enough oxygen in a tank to make it back to the earth if they used a tank....there's no way......i know that a flame does not burn in a vaccum so please someone explain this to me......


They carry tanks of LOX (Liquid Oxygen).

They even use LOX in the rockets on Earth and the rocket engines work in space between the Earth and the Moon.

It's hardly rocket science...




... oh, wait a minute, it is!



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
I think what he needs to know is that

rockets only propel you to a certain speed

then they go around the moon (or earth)

a few times to build up speed and then sling off at high speed.

Then they drift all the way to the other (earth or moon, respectively)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by davidgrouchy
Rocket fuel provides it's own oxygen for burning.

You know the stuff is expensive,
and doesn't come from the corner gas station right?


David Grouchy



no it doesn't, they have to add some sort of liquid oxygen or something of that nature, how in the world did they have enough on that little ship that they ascended from the moon to get back to earth???? i just don't see it...


You know how they had to keep throwing away the used up stages of the rocket? Well that was because they were trying to get a lot of mileage in for a smallish payload.

All the used-up payload that supported the big tanks of fuel and oxygen had to be thrown away several times during the mission, just so they could stretch the fuel to do such an amazing job.

When they first landed on the moon, they only had less than a minute's fuel left to allocate to landing the module. If they'd have made a mistake in the calculations, they'd never have had enough fuel to return to Earth.

It was an amazing feat of engineering and a real risk for the astronauts but it paid off big time.

Sad thing is it's likely that we'll never do anything that grand and risky again. If the bean counters and PC crew continue to rule (as they are now) we'll never leave the Earth and we'll never become a space-faring species.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Yep, I don't expect to be able to light a match while I am traipsing about on the surface of our moon, and light a cigarette, but I suspect that if I introduced a bit of oxygen into the mix, I just might get the cigarette lit. Smoking, however, will take a bit more effort..



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
It is a good and fair question.Now somebody answer me this,who cut down all the tree's



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by 13th Zodiac
It is a good and fair question.Now somebody answer me this,who cut down all the tree's



that's the second thing i want to know!!!!! looks like the oncelors have been there from cat in a hat......



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by davidgrouchy
Rocket fuel provides it's own oxygen for burning.

You know the stuff is expensive,
and doesn't come from the corner gas station right?


David Grouchy



no it doesn't, they have to add some sort of liquid oxygen or something of that nature, how in the world did they have enough on that little ship that they ascended from the moon to get back to earth???? i just don't see it...


That's quite easy...
In the deep void of space (as soon as you are freed from earth gravitationnal attraction), there is nothing (such as air for exemple) to slow down your ship... So basically, you don't spend your fuel on a distance basis... You just need to accelerate, then when you reach a decent speed, you stop to accelerate... You won't slow down until you throttle to the opposite direction (because there is nothing to slow you down, so to stop, you'll have to give "reverse-propulsion").
So, basically, going to the moon or to another solar system would both require the same amount of fuel... Not the same amount of vital-support and time of course, but unless you have some obstacles to avoid or some direction changes to do, you won't need any additionnal fuel.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
You know; not too long ago you'd have to actually get up and go to a whole separate building called a "library" and go through a "card catalog" to find a call number of a "book" ;find the actual book then look up stuff like this in the "table of contents" or the "index"..


Nowadays:There's simply "No excuse..."

solid OR liquid fueled motors : ("O-X-I-D-I-Z-E-R-S")


science.howstuffworks.com/rocket5.htm



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
\When they first landed on the moon, they only had less than a minute's fuel left to allocate to landing the module. If they'd have made a mistake in the calculations, they'd never have had enough fuel to return to Earth.


Wrong actually, the fuel and engine used to land the module was a different engine and fuel used to take off from the moon

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut


Sad thing is it's likely that we'll never do anything that grand and risky again. If the bean counters and PC crew continue to rule (as they are now) we'll never leave the Earth and we'll never become a space-faring species.



Except Rusia, who are still (Or will be if they figure out why the last one went pop) sending up rockets and crew to the internation space station.
And China, who today launched the first part of their new space sation.
And the British company Virgin who will be taking passengers into space in the next year or two.
Or all the small independent US organisations who are planning to follow Virgin's example.
It's just NASA which is lagging behind.

ETA: And I forgot to mention the Eurpean Space Agencies most excellent rocket programme.
edit on 30-9-2011 by Shamatt because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Let us also not forget that what you are referring to as "space" is not a perfect vacuum

Just a little more info for the subject

Semper



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Okay, stuff leaves the rockets with speed x.

To achieve this speed it will exercise an opposing force on the rear wall of the boosters or (if released from a pressurized tank) the tank.

This force pushes the tank/booster opposed to the vector of the leaving stuff.



There you have it: actio et reactio.

You don't need a surrounding athmosphere for rockets or other "pushing" thrusters to work. One medium leaves, its tank moves in the opposite direction. A matter of forces, nothing else or more is needed.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghostfreak1
 


You'd have to make course corrections to counter gravitational pulls in space...but you can also use gravity to your advantage, to save fuel.

Gravitational boost, gravitational slingshot, gravity braking...all use the gravity of a planet or moon (or even the sun) to give a speed boost, or to slow down so saving fuel.

The math has to be spot on though, or the craft will be drawn into the planet, or be slung off in the wrong direction, not enough of a speed boost etc..

As for LOX on space flights OP...remember what happened to Apollo 13? They were 'stirring the oxygen tanks'...

The Luna lander carries enough fuel for the descent, with not too much to spare. It has enough to lift off and then dock with the orbiter above the moon.

The little lander doesn't come back to Earth on it's own.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Let us also not forget that what you are referring to as "space" is not a perfect vacuum

Just a little more info for the subject

Semper


Yes because a "perfect" vacuum merely exists "in theory", even created in a lab a vacuum will have a few atoms in it. As far as i know, space comes "pretty close" to a perfect vacuum.


Edit:

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 30-9-2011 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join