#21
|
|||
|
|||
Rockets
In article ,
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote: "Matthew F Funke" wrote in message ... Penguinista wrote: George Kinley wrote: Hi, if there is no Atmosphere, where do rockets that go in Space get thrust from Goddard was pestered with the same question. The answer is simple, by pushing against the propellent being thrown out through the engine. This is misleading. Let's say you had a very tiny rocket in a perfect vacuum, and hurled *one atomic nucleus* out of the back end at extremely high velocity. The rocket would still be propelled in the other direction, even though the atomic nucleus didn't push against anything, since the momentum of the system would have to be conserved. How do you hurl the atomic nucleus out of the back of the rocket w/o somehow pushing on it? Consider a kid on a very low drag sled and a pile on beanbags. By throwing the beanbags in one direction, he can build up speed in the other direction. Note that this beanbag system would also propel the kid in a perfect vacuum, even if the beanbags he threw never collided with (or "pushed against") each other. But again, the kid is pushing on the beanbags. That's the key. For every reaction there's an equal and opposite reaction. There's no way to make the beanbag go in one direction w/o pushing on it somehow. F=dp/dt, so p=\int F*dt. Push hard for a short time, push softly for a long time. Either way the problem can be turned to one of conservation of momentum and you don't have to worry about the details of the push. Universality is one of the great things about conservation laws. -- "When fighting with sharpened Bronze, or harder Metals from the Heavens, it is Wise to kick thy Opponent, be he a Chaldean or a man of Uruk, in his Man Sack, that thou mayst defeat him more handily than by Arms. So sayeth INNAMURUTUSHIMMILODEK, who hath slain threescore Ammelekites." |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Rockets
"Matthew F Funke" wrote in message ... No disagreement here. I just wanted to avoid the notion that a rocket needs to "push against" the ground, air, previously expelled propellant, or any other thing that is sitting out the back end when the rocket fires in order to work. (Rockets work better in vacuum than in air, in fact.) Right. I think ultimately we're in agreement here. -- -- With Best Regards, Matthew Funke ) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Rockets
In article ,
John Schoenfeld wrote: ... ... ellastic. ... ... ... ellastic ... ... I have often wondered why idiosyncratic misspelling so often coincides with crackpotism. Anyone know? (It is certainly a helpful shibboleth.) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Rockets
"Bruce Janson" wrote in message ... In article , John Schoenfeld wrote: .. ... ellastic. ... .. ... ellastic ... .. I have often wondered why idiosyncratic misspelling so often coincides with crackpotism. Anyone know? (It is certainly a helpful shibboleth.) Speaking for myself, the poor spelling and crackpotism are both caused by a self inflicted education. I've been thinking about suing myself for the defficiencies in learning. John Hare |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Rockets
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Rockets
Joe Strout wrote:
[snip] All that needs to be done is to make the upwards push a greater impulse than the downwards push - the rocket would essential jerk its way upwards - after all there is no "conservation of displacement" with such an inertial system. There is conservation of momentum, and you just proposed to violate it. This is a stiction (static friction) drive, and works only when in contact with some other body. The movement comes from the difference between static and sliding friction. And, BTW, if you want a drive that only works when in contact wiith a larger body, there are much better ones (the wheel comes to mind). Such a drive is utterly useless in space, however. Jerk your rocket around all you want, it'll never make any net progress at all. Cheers, - Joe One more reason for cheap access at least to LEO: Everyone who thinks they've got a reactionless drive can take a prototype up there, put it outside the ship, and then they can put up, or shut up. (I know, there are cheaper ways of doing this [suspend it, and see if you get a unidirectional deflection, instead of gyrating or oscillating around the perpindicular], but my approach is instinctively unambiguous. This, after all, is where the thing is supposed to work.) It would be even more interesting, if the losers have to find their own way back to the ground..... |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Rockets
John Schoenfeld wrote:
[snip] Um, yes, it is. No it is not. Imagine a stationary black-box floating in space. One wall of the box is hard iron and the opposite side is ellastic. If a ball is thrown from the middle at the hard iron wall there will be a high-impulse transfer of momentum from the ball to the box. Relative from the center of the box (which at this point is moving), the ball now approaches the opposite ellastic wall in which it inevitably collides with and transfers the same momentum but in the opposite direction bringing the box to rest again. However, the elastic wall collision was low-impulse and took longer for the momentum to be conservered. Irrespective of momentum conservation, there is an overall displacement. At this point we have the box at rest yet it is displaced from its original position, however in future time this same effect will occur but in the opposite direction and thus the overal motion of this contraption would be to OSCILLATE about the original position. So technically speaking, its not inertial propulsion yet as the center of mass is constant. So the third and final requirement would to have a constant stream of balls colliding just as the first one thus always staying one step ahead of the "backwards oscillation phase". I think some past claims of reactionless drives that allegedly reduced their weight (though never to zero, it seems) on scales, had more to do with a similar phenomenon in the springs of the scale, then actually providing a net upward force. Time your oscillations right, and you can fool the scale, but not Mother Nature.... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Rockets
They don't - rockets need air to push against, which is why they do not work
in a vaccum. Ergo, we have never successfully launched anything into a very high orbit yet - we just can't get the rockets fast enough before they run out of air to push against. Uhm, I'm sorry, I *must* ask - are you a "Flat Earth"-er? Or something similar? You see, we didn't have Kozmo the Mysterious levitate the Lunar Lnaders off the moon in 69, 70, 71, & 72. They used - GASP!- rocket motors. And there is no air on the moon, in it's orbit, etc. Rockets were used, again, to break the moon's gravity and return the astronauts from it. Newton's Third Law (I think it's the third) - every action will have an equal and opposite reaction. That is how rockets work. Air needs not apply. Play more with Claymore! V-Man Living Vicariously through my Characters... |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Rockets
V-Man can see Paradise by sci.space.science's light:
}They don't - rockets need air to push against, which is why they do not work }in a vaccum. }Ergo, we have never successfully launched anything into a very high orbit }yet - we just can't get the rockets fast enough before they run out of air }to push against. } } Uhm, I'm sorry, I *must* ask - are you a "Flat Earth"-er? Of course he is- have you ever been anywhere that wasn't flat? Seriouslu, do you really need a smiley to indicate a humourous post these days? -- Regards Brett "In the Doraverse, there are very few female opinions that matter" |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Rockets
Seriouslu, do you really need a smiley to indicate a humourous post these
days? Yes, when it's delivered is such a deadpan manner. You & Gordon both know there are people that seriously believe that we never landed on the moon. Play more with Claymore! V-Man Living Vicariously through my Characters... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Titan 4s costly | AllanStern | Space Shuttle | 9 | February 17th 04 05:02 AM |
Von Braun rockets on Encyclopedia Astronautica | Pat Flannery | Space Science Misc | 41 | November 11th 03 08:10 AM |
The Non-Innovator's Dilemma | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 76 | September 27th 03 03:09 AM |
The Life and Death of Russia's Space Shuttle Program , from Pravda | Locz | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 4th 03 02:49 PM |
"Why I won't invest in rockets for space tourism ... yet" | RAILROAD SPIKE | Space Station | 0 | July 30th 03 12:06 AM |