|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
microgravity - I stand corrected
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:38:28 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message roups.com... Why reading the following two pages: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/re.../microgex.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlessness I realized that I misunderstood the notion of microgravity in space and the fact that it is created in LEO as opposed to naturally existing. This is why you can experience microgravity in an aircraft flying parabolas. Wasn't it Newton who had the thought experiment about firing a canon on top of a mountain that extended above the atmosphere? For small powder loads, you got the expected parabolic shape of the shell falling to the earth. But as you kept increasing the powder load, eventually you get to the point where the shell falls all the way around the earth. That's an orbit. Also note that it's never a true parabola (as it would be in a uniform gravitational field, which doesn't actually exist anywhere in the universe), but for small distances it approximates one. It's always a partial ellipse. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
microgravity - I stand corrected
Why reading the following two pages:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/re.../microgex.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlessness I realized that I misunderstood the notion of microgravity in space and the fact that it is created in LEO as opposed to naturally existing. In the first link on microgravity it became clear after reading this paragragh: Many people mistakenly think that there is no gravity above the Earth's atmosphere, i.e., in "space," and this is why there appears to be no gravity aboard orbiting spacecraft. Typical orbital altitudes for human spaceflight vary between 120 - 360 miles (192 to 576 km) above the surface of the Earth. The gravitational field is still quite strong in these regions, since this is only about 1.8% the distance to the Moon. The Earth's gravitational field at about 250 miles (400 km) above the surface maintains 88.8% of its strength at the surface. Therefore, orbiting spacecraft, like the Space Shuttle or Space Station, are kept in orbit around the Earth by gravity. The part about being motionless at 250 mi. above the earth's surface and still having 88.8% gravity did it. Also, in the second link, this part: As a thought experiment, imagine a spacecraft that had the ability to rise up to orbital altitude by going straight up like a helicopter and hovered over one spot on the Earth. The astronauts inside would not experience weightlessness. Their ride inside this hovering spacecraft would be similar to riding an elevator up an incredibly tall building and stopping at the top floor. While hovering above Earth's atmosphere, their weight would be very close to what they weigh on the surface of the Earth, even as a space shuttle goes zinging by them. So astronauts in a hovering spacecraft are being pulled by strong gravity just as space shuttle astronauts are pulled by strong gravity. The difference between them is that the orbiting shuttle is freely being pulled toward the center of the Earth. The lack of relative acceleration between the orbiting shuttle and its astronauts inside (who are also being freely pulled toward the center of the Earth) result in them being weightless. But the hovering spacecraft (as with an elevator at the top of an incredibly tall building) is not freely falling. The pull of gravity it is experiencing is being opposed by the hovering force. This force gets transfered to the astronauts within (along with everything else within the spacecraft) resulting in weight. This example illustrates the fact that there is plenty of gravity out in space. If you were to take any object that is orbiting the Earth and stop it dead in its track and then release it, the Earth's gravity would pull it straight down back toward the Earth's surface. Yep, very clear there. Eric |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
microgravity - I stand corrected
"Eric Chomko" wrote in message oups.com... Why reading the following two pages: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/re.../microgex.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlessness I realized that I misunderstood the notion of microgravity in space and the fact that it is created in LEO as opposed to naturally existing. This is why you can experience microgravity in an aircraft flying parabolas. Wasn't it Newton who had the thought experiment about firing a canon on top of a mountain that extended above the atmosphere? For small powder loads, you got the expected parabolic shape of the shell falling to the earth. But as you kept increasing the powder load, eventually you get to the point where the shell falls all the way around the earth. That's an orbit. This is also why microgravity is sometimes called free fall. We mere mortals can experience free fall for a few seconds by riding drop tower like rides at theme parks. There's one a few miles from my home at King's Island in Mason Ohio. It's lots of fun, really it is! ;-) Jeff -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
microgravity - I stand corrected
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:38:28 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jeff Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: This is why you can experience microgravity in an aircraft flying parabolas. Wasn't it Newton who had the thought experiment about firing a canon on top of a mountain that extended above the atmosphere? For small powder loads, you got the expected parabolic shape of the shell falling to the earth. But as you kept increasing the powder load, eventually you get to the point where the shell falls all the way around the earth. That's an orbit. Also note that it's never a true parabola (as it would be in a uniform gravitational field, which doesn't actually exist anywhere in the universe), but for small distances it approximates one. It's always a partial ellipse. Quite true. I forgot about that little detail since for small distances it is rather convenient to approximate the path as parabolic (high school physics). Still, the thought experiment is an easy way to introduce the theory of orbits to people without resorting to math which may scare them off. Here's a link to a picture for those that would like to see it: http://www.waowen.screaming.net/revi...ion/ncanon.htm And an interactive web page with animation for the video game generation: http://www.waowen.screaming.net/revi...n/ncananim.htm This thought experiment can also be used to visualize why something like a cannon can't be used to place something in orbit, at least not without a rocket engine to circularize the orbit so the projectile doesn't come back and hit the earth after one "orbit". Jeff -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) Jeff -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
microgravity - I stand corrected
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
microgravity - I stand corrected
That's why it is possible for an observer in a sealed room under a 1-g field to differentiate between mass-induced weight, thrusting weight, and centrifugal (end-of-tether) weight. You just can't do it my measuring at a single point -- but you can, if you can measure at two separate points in the room. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
microgravity - I stand corrected
: "Jim Oberg"
: That's why it is possible for an observer in a sealed room under a 1-g : field to differentiate between mass-induced weight, thrusting weight, : and centrifugal (end-of-tether) weight. You just can't do it my : measuring at a single point -- but you can, if you can measure at two : separate points in the room. Yes. Yet note that for any given sensitivity of measurement and separation of measuring points, there is a distance-X-to-mass-center which can't be told from a distance-Y-to-spin-center case. And (per other threads) this can't-be-told-from quickly falls below physiological sensitivity (well... fairly quickly). Specifically, your heart and circulatory system really can't tell the difference between pushing blood up an acceleration potential and pushing it up a gravitational potential. Because, in terms of energy, fluid pressure, and physiological effects, there *is* no difference. Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
microgravity - I stand corrected
Jeff Findley wrote: Wasn't it Newton who had the thought experiment about firing a canon on top of a mountain that extended above the atmosphere? For small powder loads, you got the expected parabolic shape of the shell falling to the earth. But as you kept increasing the powder load, eventually you get to the point where the shell falls all the way around the earth. That's an orbit. This is what thwarted Herr Scultze's attempt to destroy France-Ville with his giant cannon at Stahlstadt* in Verne's "The Begum's Fortune". * Love that name...this was Verne taking a crack at the Krupps, and their Essen factories. The "City Of Steel" is about as pleasant a place as one would expect it to be, as was Essen. Pat |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
microgravity - I stand corrected
Rand Simberg wrote:
Also note that it's never a true parabola (as it would be in a uniform gravitational field, which doesn't actually exist anywhere in the universe), but for small distances it approximates one. It's always a partial ellipse. Real gravitational fields are never actually point source equivalents, so it's never actually a partial ellipse. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
microgravity - I stand corrected
Jim Oberg wrote:
That's why it is possible for an observer in a sealed room under a 1-g field to differentiate between mass-induced weight, thrusting weight, and centrifugal (end-of-tether) weight. You just can't do it my measuring at a single point -- but you can, if you can measure at two separate points in the room. The equivalence principle is only really true as the limit for a point. However, there's various mass layouts that give a pretty constant field strength over a wide volume to quite high accuracy. IRC the center of a hemispheric shell is one, and the center of a large disk is another. Bob forward pointed out that you can in principle make a zero-gravity room on the Earth if you could mount a disk of neutronium above it. (The minor implementation details for doing that are left to the reader ;-) ) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
microgravity - I stand corrected | Rand Simberg | Policy | 120 | October 26th 08 01:14 AM |
Keith Cowing on microgravity research | Jeff Findley | Policy | 18 | June 30th 06 07:11 PM |
Opensource Microgravity Laboratory community is looking for volunteers | Ivan Cagnani | Technology | 0 | September 28th 05 01:59 AM |
Opensource Microgravity Laboratory - volunteering students neededfor an international scientific project | Ivan Cagnani | Science | 0 | September 26th 05 09:57 PM |
Fire in microgravity | JotaCe | Technology | 12 | June 7th 05 12:31 AM |