|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Q. Aerodynamics in 0 atmosphere ?
Pointy objects generally have less drag (resistance to moving) than barns
when propelled thru air. Drag is proportional to the size and shape of the object, proportional to the density of the air and proportional to the square of the velocity of the air stream. In outer space there is no air so the density is zero, hence, no drag so the shape doesn't matter. "Jim" wrote in message ... Hi. I want to know if a pointy projectile in outer space does or does NOT have an advantage over let's say a barn, as far as being propelled in outer space ( or anywhere above, where there is no atmosphere). I think I read recently that it makes no difference. But I have a hard time digesting that. Can someone shed some light on that ? Thanks again, for your all your most excellent answers, Jim |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Q. Aerodynamics in 0 atmosphere ?
Jim wrote:
I want to know if a pointy projectile in outer space does or does NOT have an advantage over let's say a barn, as far as being propelled in outer space ( or anywhere above, where there is no atmosphere). I think I read recently that it makes no difference. But I have a hard time digesting that. Can someone shed some light on that ? The subject of your message is something of a contradiction in terms: without "air" there's no "aero"dynamics. A "pointy" or streamlined projectile works better than others in the atmosphere because it pushes air aside in such a way as to minimize the drag caused by friction and turbulence. But with no atmosphere there's nothing to cause drag no matter what the shape of the projectile or spacecraft. The LEM used by the Apollo missions is a good example; its ungainly shape would be hopeless for an aircraft intended to fly in an atmosphere, but was not the slightest impediment to manoeuvres in the near-vacuum of space. Likewise a falling leaf or feather would drop just like a stone without air to make it 'float'. -- Odysseus |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Q. Aerodynamics in 0 atmosphere ?
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 08:45:18 +0100, Andrew McKay
wrote: On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 05:25:42 GMT, (Jim) wrote: Thanks again, for your all your most excellent answers, Are you having a problem with your school studies or something? Andrew Andrew, Good question. The fact is, I've only recently taken a keen interest in astronomy - something which I regret not having done much earlier. I have recently purchased some nice books with text/illustrations on the subject. These books, which I can't put down, simply help me generate more questions, which I bring here. No doubt that in my books or internet research, my fundamental questions are answered, but I find this newsgroup the best way to answer those questions of mine, the subjects of which I'm not sure how to ponder. My threads' responders like Starford, Impmon, Vancil, Ruskai, Weber and others are no doubt Scientists, PHDs, Mathematicians, Astronauts and others who kindly impart with the knowledge they've gained through training and experience. For that I'm grateful. They may have been in the middle of an experiment, and forgot a flask heating on their bunsen burner, to answer my question. Another may have answered a question and risked a brand new comet flying past their unattended telescope. So, to answer your question, yes, I am having some trouble with some concepts, but am most sincere in my questions, and hope I've despelled any suspicion of lack of integrity in my search for knowledge. Thanks, Jim .. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Q. Aerodynamics in 0 atmosphere ?
Hi oc and Odysseus Always best to keep in mind bouyancy is an up force
and gravity is a down force and here on earth gravity is the weakest force. Still it has to be reality that a dumb bell one end a hydrogen balloon,and the other end a lead object the same size as the hydrogen balloon when drooped from a great height will hit the moons surface lead first. Greater gravity creates faster acceleration. Density increases greater gravity. Bert Ps hydrogen was only use to make the dumb bell size,and had nothing to do with bouyancy. The force of bouyancy naturally does not exist on the moon. On the moon its mass density that can create greater acceleration on the moon. On the moon the same stuff taken there from the earth will fall 6 times slower(mass for mass) that stays the same. Bert |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Q. Aerodynamics in 0 atmosphere ?
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi oc and Odysseus Always best to keep in mind bouyancy is an up force and gravity is a down force and here on earth gravity is the weakest force. Buoyancy is in a sense just a side-effect of gravity. We tend to focus on the 'floating' object that seems to experience a lifting force, but the cause of this force is gravity pulling the displaced medium downwards. In this way it's a little like "centrifugal force", which can be regarded as a side-effect of inertia. -- Odysseus |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Q. Aerodynamics in 0 atmosphere ?
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 12:50:57 +0100, Jim Jones
wrote: So, to answer your question, yes, I am having some trouble with some concepts, but am most sincere in my questions, and hope I've despelled any suspicion of lack of integrity in my search for knowledge. Sorry, I was a bit unfair on you Andrew Do you need a handyman service? Check out our web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Q. Aerodynamics in 0 atmosphere ?
Hi Barry The same object dropped 3ft from the earth's surface has to
be dropped 18Ft up from the moon's surface to hit at the same speed. Reason moon has one six the gravity force. Bert |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Peter Hodges
writes On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 05:25:42 GMT, (Jim) wrote: I want to know if a pointy projectile in outer space does or does NOT have an advantage over let's say a barn, as far as being propelled in outer space ( or anywhere above, where there is no atmosphere). I think I read recently that it makes no difference. But I have a hard time digesting that. Can someone shed some light on that ? Thanks again, for your all your most excellent answers, Jim It's true; in zero atmosphere there's no point in having a "pointy" end - that's why such things are referred to as AEROdynamic. In fact, a sphere is possibly the best design for a spacecraft, as you get the maximum volume for minimumsurface area (and therefore won't lose heat the crew might want). In practice it wouldn't be a sphe you'd have things like antennae, navigation 'scopes & so forth pointing in all directions, & landers attached, and so forth. For some reason the original didn't appear, but I'll just add that the biggest constraint is how you return to Earth (as opposed to a true space craft like the Lunar Module, which can be almost any convenient shape) You _want_ something that is big and flat like a barn (or the underside of a space shuttle or capsule) to act as a brake. The Russians have gone for a more spherical design but it can't be a true sphere; the centre of gravity must be offset so it doesn't tumble. -- "Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with relativity" Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome. Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Hodges" wrote in message
... It's true; in zero atmosphere there's no point in having a "pointy" end - that's why such things are referred to as AEROdynamic. In fact, a sphere is possibly the best design for a spacecraft, as you get the maximum volume for minimumsurface area (and therefore won't lose heat the crew might want). AFAIK, keeping heat in space is not an issue at all, as a matter of fact engineers building probes tend to have trouble dealing with it! You basically want your own heat source which could easily be regulated and then you'd need a system to remove excessive heat (radiators). Remember that in space the only way to lose heat is by blackbody radiation, and that's not nearly as effective (I'm talking 'normal' temperatures here) as is heat conductance in contact with air and other stuff. Someone correct me if I'm mistaken? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is Titan's atmosphere biogenic in origin? | Hugh | Technology | 6 | July 22nd 04 06:57 AM |
Is Titan's atmosphere biogenic in origin? | Hugh | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 16th 04 06:27 PM |
Oxygen and Carbon Discovered in Exoplanet Atmosphere 'Blow Off' | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 3 | February 16th 04 09:27 PM |
Pluto's Atmosphere Is Expanding, Researchers Say | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 9th 03 07:22 PM |