Subject:
|
Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space, lugnet.loc.au
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Jun 2001 20:34:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
15 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
>
>
>
> >
> > In lugnet.space, Shiri Dori writes:
> > > In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
>
> Jesse Long wrote:
>
> > I have heard that space craft with wings would become torn apart by the
> > impact of flying in space. How do you know that these conditions will exist
> > in space?
>
> Sorry but although I read almost all messages I still can't find
> anything can considered as "space craft with wings would become torn
> apart by the impact of flying in space". All we said is particles and
> debris (I mean sizes from a dust particle to a big rock) that impacted
> to any spaceship traveling that fast cause very considerable amount of
> wear and damage. It is not prediction but it is simple fact. Why:
>
> The terms like kinematics, dynamics, velocity, kinetic energy, momentum,
> acceleration, mass, velocity, force, etc. are already well defined since
> Newton. Everything you use or utilize around are designed by using the
> same principles, from your washing machine to your car. You may say that
> Einstein proved Newtonian physics is wrong, you will be wrong, because
> Newtonian Physics is still valid for most of the phenomenon in our life.
>
> Any moving body has an kinetic energy of 0.5mv^2 where m is the mass of
> the body and v is the velocity of it. As you can see, when velocity goes
> higher, kinetic energy of the moving object goes even higher. And
> remember that velocity is a relative thing, and must be considered as
> the difference between the velocities of these two impacting bodies, in
> our case.
>
> The impact will cause an energy transfer between the two bodies (i.e.
> the particle and the spacecraft) and the space craft must absorb (i.e.
> transform) the energy resulted from the impact. I believe you already
> know the conservation of energy rule, i.e. you can't create nor destroy
> energy, you can just transform it from one form to another. The most
> natural way (because the nature prefers it) of consuming this energy is
> producing heat and deformation on impacting bodies. Remember the
> conditions of cars after a traffic accident.
>
> There are much more examples in which the impact velocities are higher
> and one of the impacting bodies having considerably less mass compared
> to the other (which is similar to our case, high speed spacecraft vs.
> space debris). I can say that when a fighter aircraft crashes to a bird
> when flying, it is not impossible to break the cockpit glass.
>
> As another example I can give you the fact that antitank projectiles
> used by battle tanks to attack other tanks are just bare metal arrows
> (manufactured from very hard alloys containing tungsten) fired at very
> high velocities, and they do not contain any explosives.
>
> Why I gave you these examples? Because I'm an aeronautical engineer and
> trained as a tank team commander during my military service. I've seen
> with my own eyes that such a projectile broke apart the turret of an
> M-48 MBT. And I've seen such damages caused by birds on aircraft.
>
> If you still need further evidence, just try to imagine what a 10-20
> gram mass of metal can make to your body when thrown at very high
> velocities. You know small fire arms and bullets, I assume.
>
> As another fact (not theory, we can already go out to space, we already
> sent space craft till almost end of the solar system -Voyager and
> Pioneer series), we have radio telescopes, satellites and such) there is
> no continuous medium in space. And the density of molecules and bigger
> debris in space is far from being considered as a fluid (as in air,
> water, etc. -any liquid). And believe it or not (belief is nothing to do
> with scientific methods) you can't have drag (friction) and lift, and
> all the classic macroscopic fluid dynamics / thermodynamics methods will
> not work for this case. Since there is not enough material around, you
> can't consider the "space mass" as fluid, and all the "continuum"
> modeling is invalid.
>
> In this case you must consider individual behaviors of the molecules
> (microscopic approach), rather than their behavior as a whole as a fluid
> (macroscopic approach), since there is nothing like you could mention as
> a fluid in that case, and continuum model is pretty not working, which
> is the most basic thing in fluid mechanics.
> So when people are saying "there is no friction in space" they are
> completely true, since there is *really* no friction at all as we know
> it, but there are impacts of individual particles.
>
> What is the relation of all this things with the wings of a spacecraft:
>
> * There is no lift in space, since there is no fluid filling space (is
> that why we call it space?) so there is no need for wings in space. The
> purpose of wings is to create lift, nothing at all.
>
> * You said something like that there is friction (drag?) in space and
> you should have wings. Wings do not decrease drag. They increase drag.
> Any additional surface/volume exposed the medium increases drag,
> including wings. Having a streamlined shape does not mean having wings.
> The most streamlined thing you can imagine is the shape of a rain drop,
> i.e. teardrop shape, which obviously has no wings. Any any more exposed
> surface also increases the rate of wear from the impacting space debris,
> too, so with appendages like wings, you must protect more surface area
> from that wear.
>
> * Wings can be used for secondary purposes like filling with fuel,
> attaching extra cargo and weapons and such. But these are no primary
> purposes, but practical ways to increase the usefulness of an appendage
> that we *must* have to create lift. So if there is no need for lift,
> then there is no need for wing, and you can put anything you consider to
> put in/on/under the wings to other more covered/protected areas. I'm not
> saying spacecraft without wings looks better, though.
>
> > People thought many centuries earlier that the earth is flat yet
> > is is almost perfectly spherical in structure and the theory of relativity
> > by Albert Einstein was almost considered a law until very recently when that
> > theory was proven false by science.
>
> You need some more reading about what the science is, so you won't say
> anything about this unrelated example of "people *believed* that the
> earth was flat" in the future.
>
> > We have organizations that say that
> > they are committed to sending people to space yet we give these people
> > billions of dollars so they can fly this glorified airplane named the Space
> > Shuttle. If we were really committed about sending people into outer space,
> > we would have already colonized the moon and Mars. I do not deny your
> > intelligence but I do not find ease in your statements in response to my
> > letters but I have also not applied for these courses in science yet at my
> > college so maybe I am right or maybe I am wrong in my statements to you,
> > Shiri and other people? The truth is even if wings were not needed in my
> > space craft, the space craft would still be torn apart by particles in space
> > and my space craft, as opposed to your space craft, not only use these wings
> > as weapons platforms but as sources of power and to, as some people may have
> > indicated in earlier letters, enter the atmosphere of planets. Your space
> > craft do not possess this power of entering the atmosphere because there may
> > be situations where hiding from the enemy may require a space craft to hide
> > in the atmosphere of a planet. If your space craft do possess the power to
> > hide in the atmosphere, please let me know how they enter the atmosphere. I
> > am simply wanting to know more about space travel and how Lego space craft
> > should be constructed by people.
>
> At a time, you said that you are 21 years old, and now you are saying
> that you are going to college. And at the same time you are trying to
> compare two imaginary things (i.e. Lego space craft models) with the
> most childish way I've seen. How you are this less knowledgeable about
> common physics and going to college at the same time? And how can be a
> man at age 21 be that cluelessly dare to oppose common scientific
> knowledge without any base, even admitting it to himself? "My space
> craft can enter into atmosphere, and yours can't!" Why? They are all
> imaginary. How can you sure that his/her spacecraft doesn't have the
> newly invented "inverse fabblesnorker anti-gravity power repulsor
> coupling cells"? Man, do you ever need to sue Mr. Lucas about his
> no-wings space craft like Millennium Falcon, Rebel Medium Transport,
> Y-wing Fighter, Slave 1 and such are making atmospheric flight during
> the films?
>
> As a side note, this "entering the asteroid cave" scene of Millennium
> Falcon was during the second film (Empire Strikes Back, Episode V), not
> the first film. It is fact, not open to any discussion, so don't push
> it.
>
> > Jesse Long
> > P.S. I do not want to be rude, Dori-san, but I want respect, not anger,
> > from the rest of the people on the Lugnet bulletin boards.
>
> Shiri was not angry, I was not, too. We are just reminding ourselves
> with the high school level chemistry knowledge, by discussing a case,
> not even the wings of your spacecraft, but the amount of mass in space.
>
> Selçuk
The first two messages I must say to you, Selcuk, is that how did you ever
imagine that I said that Newtonian physics was wrong in life? I never said
such a statement to you, Selcuk! The statement that I said was that the
theory of relativity was proven wrong by science and when I mentioned the
Newtonic laws, I was mentioning these laws in a different letter under a
different set of circumstances and so it has become obvious to me that you
are confused with those two statements and made me believe that I said a
statement which I never said to you, Selcuk.
The second message is, why do you not believe my age, Selcuk? I am not an
imagination and I am twenty one years old, with the proper identification to
prove my identity as well, and there have been MANY twenty one year old
people that have dared to argue science and those people are the greatest
minds in science.
The comment about drag was that there IS friction and gravity in space, just
less friction and gravity in space, Selcuk, and that the wings served many
purposes on my space craft, including the ability to enter the atmosphere,
hold my escape pods/prisoner cells, hold some weapons, provide an alternate
power source, and to have a place for some adjustable thrusters on my space
craft.
There are two more comments that I must make to you before I finish this
letter, Selcuk. The first comment is how old are you, Selcuk? The second
comment is your comment appeared to my eyes as rude when you questioned my
age and intelligence and many of the parts in your comment appear rude to
me, either by sheer intent or by the inability to speak clearly about ideas
(noting your ethnic origin, I am willing to overlook the latter reason) to
me, Selcuk. I never questioned YOUR intelligence or YOUR age so why do you
feel that you have the right to accomplish either of these acts against my life?
Jesse Long
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
|
| (...) Sorry but although I read almost all messages I still can't find anything can considered as "space craft with wings would become torn apart by the impact of flying in space". All we said is particles and debris (I mean sizes from a dust (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jun-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.loc.au)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
