Subject:
|
Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space, lugnet.loc.au
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Jun 2001 21:24:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
15 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Dave Schuler writes:
> Hi Jesse:
>
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
>
> > The Apollo space craft were essentially rockets that allowed for humans to
> > live inside of them in a small compartment and your fuel was primarily used
> > for sending you into outer space and not necessarily down from space. The
> > fuel that was left from the trip into outer space provided the protection
> > from entering into the atmosphere too fast by using retro rockets but even
> > with the use of retro rockets, you were accelerating so fast towards the
> > earth that you has to land in the ocean or else you would disentigrate
> > either from the heat or the impact on the earth and either way, you would
> > die from your trip to the moon.
>
> A distinction must be made between controlled and uncontrolled re-entry.
> In the case of the Apollo (and various other pre-shuttle craft) entry was
> controlled, to an extent, as you indicate. Of course friction was still
> intense, but the Apollo craft didn't drop like a stone to the
> Earth--parachutes were used to slow the descent, and even the angle of entry
> was calculated to maximize the survivability of re-entry.
>
> > There are two other points that
> > you fail to consider and the first point is some of these space craft are
> > horribly bulky and therefore not very streamlined in their structure. These
> > space craft would be considered very easy targets by their enemies. The
> > second point that you failed to consider is if the concept of gravity did
> > not exist in space, then what not only holds the planets into their orbits
> > but also holds the stars and galaxies in their orbits and makes comets and
> > asteroids hurtle through space?
>
> Gravity exists, to be sure, though at small (and to the unaided observer,
> undetectable) levels, and indeed it does govern the motion of stellar
> bodies. However, the wings that we are discussing, in the manner of
> aircraft, provide lift against gravity through the motion of air (or some
> similar fluid medium). Wings are therefore not needed--and more importantly
> are of no use--in an airless environment such as space. As I believe you
> mentioned, space is not a true vacuum, but neither does it have any sort of
> atmosphere to support or require wings. If wings were required for motion
> through space, then how could asteroids and planets move about?
> Regarding the streamlined structure of spacecraft, this would mainly be
> necessary for purposes of atmospheric insertion, in which case the vessel
> might fly much like an aircraft, or for aesthetics. It might also be
> posited that some science fiction phenomenon like "hyperspace" requires a
> streamlined craft, but that's obviously just speculation. Regardless, in an
> environment with no "up" or "down," such as space, then vessels can engage
> in combat front to back, side to side, upside-down, or any other
> combination. A streamlined craft would only present a small target for a
> head-on attack; seen from overhead, even the B-2 Stealth Bomber is a big vessel!
>
> > The only way that I know of in my mind that
> > gravity can not exist is within a scientific laboratory.
>
> ? I think you mean that gravity can't be simulated in the lab, but
> certainly it exists, or all the microscopes would float away!
>
> Dave!
Dave, you are correct in observing a small mistake concerning the rockets.
There were parachutes that helped the rockets land in the ocean but even so,
in a unique way, the parachute acted not only with but against the retro
rockets because air is required to help an object to land safely on the
ground or, in this instance, the ocean. The parachute helped the retro
rockets not burn as much fuel and withstand as much gravitational friction
as they would if there was not a parachute on the rocket. The comment about
the total lack of gravity in a laboratory is that a special type of room has
to be built in order to not contain any gravity and, at least from the
perspective of this era, any facility that contains such a quality would
probably be used for some type of space research lab or a test area by a
space organization. The answer to your question, which was a response to a
question, is that if these objects are able to move through space, then they
must be moved by some sort of either controlled or internal gravity inside
their mass.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
|
| (...) There are no retro rockets used in an Apollo re-entry to Earth. Only the heat of friction and the parachutes slow the ship down from orbital speeds to the slow speed required for a safe splashdown. (...) If there was such a laboratory it would (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.loc.au)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
|
| Hi Jesse: (...) A distinction must be made between controlled and uncontrolled re-entry. In the case of the Apollo (and various other pre-shuttle craft) entry was controlled, to an extent, as you indicate. Of course friction was still intense, but (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.loc.au)
|
195 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
