Notices
Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: How does The Shuttle follows the curvature of the Earth?

  1. #1 How does The Shuttle follows the curvature of the Earth? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    48


    The longer arrow would be the direction an airplane or Shuttle is traveling, and the shorter arrow is the force called gravity that is acting upon it. So then, an airplane will use its elevators and flaps to change the flow of air to counter the gravitational force by keeping the nose up and the trajectory steady. On earth we have air and flight dynamics are acknowledged, in Space there is no air, so, "what does The Shuttle use to achieve simple and basic flight in respect to their dynamics?

    How does The Shuttle orbit?

    How does The Shuttle follow the curvature of the Earth?


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 The Shuttle free-fall at 17,000 MPH --- HA HA HA!!! 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    48
    "Why doesn't it hit the ground?

    Sky divers top record speed on a free-fall was recorded at 700 MPH, at 17,000 MPH you would hit the ground FASTER!!!

    At some point after The Shuttle first hits the Atmosphere during free-fall, the ground is next.


    Tell me why The Shuttle free-falling at 17,000 MPH never hits the ground?

    Tell me how it follows the curvature of the earth, lol, like an airplane does, lol, without air under its wings!

    Tell me what it is!!!


     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    I have merged the two very similar topics into one thread. I also edited the title, because the obvious sarcasm deleted there is not, what appears to be backed by real interest.

    Okay, I think, I will regret it and I will have to dump this thread eventually given the history of your previous statements. But I want to be positive and try to give a real answer.

    Please, try to maintain a moderate language.

    Dishmaster
    (Moderator)


    I have only a few answers for you. You are surely able to look up the details yourself.

    1. Space shuttle too fast?
    The shuttle has a much larger area, so breaking is much more efficient than for only a small sky diver. Furthermore, the duration of interaction with the atmosphere is along a longer path for the shuttle, so more breaking. The shuttle also has a better capability of steering through the atmosphere. Finally, it has flaps and a parachute for breaking.

    2. Why does it maintain its orbit?
    - Keplerian law (like planets around the sun)
    - centrifugal force

    Look it up, and you find the answer.
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    It's only rocket science, nothing wiki can't give you a good understanding of.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    1. Space shuttle too fast?
    The shuttle has a much larger area, so breaking is much more efficient than for only a small sky diver. Furthermore, the duration of interaction with the atmosphere is along a longer path for the shuttle, so more breaking. The shuttle also has a better capability of steering through the atmosphere. Finally, it has flaps and a parachute for breaking.
    Why does The Shuttle orbit faster then the MOON?

    Shuttle orbit speed = 17,000 MPH

    Moon orbit speed = 2,287 MPH

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    2. Why does it maintain its orbit?
    - Keplerian law (like planets around the sun)
    - centrifugal force

    Look it up, and you find the answer.
    Excuse me sir, but how does the Moon fall towards earth and never hit the ground?

    What prevents the Moon from falling to the ground like when I drop something on the floor?


    Tell me what it is!
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    This is all governed by the equilibrium of the gravitational force produced by the earth and the centrifugal force produced by the velocity of any body flying around the earth. In that sense, the moon does not fall towards the the earth, but around it. A stable orbit is defined by the distance from the earth, where the gravitational force and the centrifugal force cancel out. The distance is dependent on the velocity of the body orbiting. The velocity of the Space Shuttle is chosen to be that large, in order to accomplish a stable orbit at the wanted altitude above the earth.



    The above image shows you the result of the 3rd Keplerian Law for the solar system. If you translate the period P into an orbit velocity you get the following graph. It demonstrates the perfect alignment of the planets to the equation

    ,

    where is the orbital speed, is the universal gravitational constant, is the mass of the central body (here: sun), and is the distance of the orbiting object (here: planet) around the central body.



    If you do the same math for the moon and the shuttle around the earth, you will get the following results. Note that the Keplerian Laws are relative to the centre of the central body. So, to the altitude, you need to add the radius of the earth = 6378 km.



    for the moon




    for the shuttle



    What prevents the Moon from falling to the ground like when I drop something on the floor?
    The direction, the distance and the velocity. You can now calculate, what velocity something needs to orbit the earth at an altitude of 1 metre. See for yourself, and decide, whether this possible just by throwing.
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,223
    Quote Originally Posted by VinDino11
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    1. Space shuttle too fast?
    The shuttle has a much larger area, so breaking is much more efficient than for only a small sky diver. Furthermore, the duration of interaction with the atmosphere is along a longer path for the shuttle, so more breaking. The shuttle also has a better capability of steering through the atmosphere. Finally, it has flaps and a parachute for breaking.
    Why does The Shuttle orbit faster then the MOON?

    Shuttle orbit speed = 17,000 MPH

    Moon orbit speed = 2,287 MPH

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    2. Why does it maintain its orbit?
    - Keplerian law (like planets around the sun)
    - centrifugal force

    Look it up, and you find the answer.
    Excuse me sir, but how does the Moon fall towards earth and never hit the ground?

    What prevents the Moon from falling to the ground like when I drop something on the floor?


    Tell me what it is!
    Here's the "Newton's Cannon" explaination.

    Se the following image:



    You have a very tall mountain, (300 km, much much taller than any real mountain) on which you have a mounted a level cannon. If you fire a cannon ball out of the cannon, it will travel forward and begin to fall, and it will follow a curved path to the ground. The higher the muzzle velocity, the less curved the path. So how far the ball travels before it hits the ground depends on the muzzle speed of the cannon. (as shown by the white lines indicating cannon balls shot at different velocities.) Since the Earth is round, the ground curves out from under the ball as it travels. At a particular speed, the curve of the ball's path and the Earth's surface become concentric (they share the same center) and the Earth's surface curves out from under the ball just as much as it curve towards the Earth. The ball travels completely around the Earth returning to where it started and still traveling the same speed. If you had removed the cannon in the meantime(otherwise the ball will smack into the back of the cannon), it will just continue on repeating the loop endlessly. In essence, the ball [is] falling to Earth, it just keeps missing the Earth. This is an orbit

    The Moon does the same thing, but can travel at a slower speed because the Moon is some 57 times further from the center of the Earth than the Shuttle is, and at that distance, the Earth's gravity is much much weaker and curves the path less for any given speed.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Here's the "Newton's Cannon" explaination.

    Se the following image:

    http://home.earthlink.net/~parvey/si...es/nwtcan2.gif

    You have a very tall mountain, (300 km, much much taller than any real mountain) on which you have a mounted a level cannon. If you fire a cannon ball out of the cannon, it will travel forward and begin to fall, and it will follow a curved path to the ground. The higher the muzzle velocity, the less curved the path. So how far the ball travels before it hits the ground depends on the muzzle speed of the cannon. (as shown by the white lines indicating cannon balls shot at different velocities.) Since the Earth is round, the ground curves out from under the ball as it travels. At a particular speed, the curve of the ball's path and the Earth's surface become concentric (they share the same center) and the Earth's surface curves out from under the ball just as much as it curve towards the Earth. The ball travels completely around the Earth returning to where it started and still traveling the same speed. If you had removed the cannon in the meantime(otherwise the ball will smack into the back of the cannon), it will just continue on repeating the loop endlessly. In essence, the ball [is] falling to Earth, it just keeps missing the Earth. This is an orbit

    The Moon does the same thing, but can travel at a slower speed because the Moon is some 57 times further from the center of the Earth than the Shuttle is, and at that distance, the Earth's gravity is much much weaker and curves the path less for any given speed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    This is all governed by the equilibrium of the gravitational force produced by the earth and the centrifugal force produced by the velocity of any body flying around the earth. In that sense, the moon does not fall towards the the earth, but around it. A stable orbit is defined by the distance from the earth, where the gravitational force and the centrifugal force cancel out. The distance is dependent on the velocity of the body orbiting. The velocity of the Space Shuttle is chosen to be that large, in order to accomplish a stable orbit at the wanted altitude above the earth.

    http://www.pic-upload.de/04.05.09/hqykqk.png

    The above image shows you the result of the 3rd Keplerian Law for the solar system. If you translate the period P into an orbit velocity you get the following graph. It demonstrates the perfect alignment of the planets to the equation

    ,

    where is the orbital speed, is the universal gravitational constant, is the mass of the central body (here: sun), and is the distance of the orbiting object (here: planet) around the central body.

    http://www.pic-upload.de/04.05.09/bgrc4o.png

    If you do the same math for the moon and the shuttle around the earth, you will get the following results. Note that the Keplerian Laws are relative to the centre of the central body. So, to the altitude, you need to add the radius of the earth = 6378 km.



    for the moon




    for the shuttle



    What prevents the Moon from falling to the ground like when I drop something on the floor?
    The direction, the distance and the velocity. You can now calculate, what velocity something needs to orbit the earth at an altitude of 1 metre. See for yourself, and decide, whether this possible just by throwing.
    What? What's this?



    The longer arrow would be the initial Lateral motion The Shuttle is traveling (MOMENTUM), and the shorter arrow is the force called gravity that is acting upon it. So then, if the force of gravity was canceled-out using some other form of Pinocchio science formula, The Shuttle would drift completely away from earth and into outer space, ha,ha,ha, but alas even Pinocchio agrees that is impossible. Gravity (an external force) pulls on The Shuttle allowing the nose to drop downwards, or curve towards the center, this action decreases the initial trajectory of The Shuttle, therewith decreasing the velocity of that trajectory. (Lateral motion)

    A bullet -- A ball -- will hold Momentum (horizontal trajectory -- Lateral motion) traveling at a certain velocity for so long, and as it begins to curve it has lost velocity due to the force called gravity. You can't have continuous lateral motion when you have an external force like gravity acting upon The Shuttle and attracting it to its center (DOWN).


    So then, what prevents The Shuttle from falling towards earth and never hit the ground like when I drop something on the floor?

    Why does The Shuttle orbit faster then the MOON?

    -- Shuttle orbit speed = 17,000 MPH

    -- Moon orbit speed = 2,287 MPH

    What prevents the Moon from falling to the ground?


    TELL ME WHAT IT IS
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Haven't you read our posts?

    Quote Originally Posted by VinDino11
    The longer arrow would be the initial Lateral motion The Shuttle is traveling (MOMENTUM), and the shorter arrow is the force called gravity that is acting upon it. So then, if the force of gravity was canceled-out using some other form of Pinocchio science formula, The Shuttle would drift completely away from earth and into outer space, ha,ha,ha, but alas even Pinocchio agrees that is impossible. Gravity (an external force) pulls on The Shuttle allowing the nose to drop downwards, or curve towards the center, this action decreases the initial trajectory of The Shuttle, therewith decreasing the velocity of that trajectory. (Lateral motion)
    No, it does not, because the trajectory is not a straight line but a curve. Only the initial angle is changed. The value of the speed stays constant. However, the component of the modified velocity vector pointing into the direction of the initial velocity vector is smaller, yes. In that respect, the speed of the initial trajectory decreases. But due to the influence of the gravity, the movement is forced to change direction and turns into a new trajectory. In your picture, this means that gravity reduces the velocity in one direction, but in turn produces a new velocity into another direction, so that both components add up to form a new trajectory having the same value but a different direction.

    I suggest, you read again carefully Janus' explanation. This is exactly, what replies to your puzzlement.
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    No, it does not, because the trajectory is not a straight line but a curve.
    It is a straight line, have another look.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Only the initial angle is changed. The value of the speed stays constant.
    If it changed direction, then it lost VELOCITY <<<------ GRAVITY

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    However, the component of the modified velocity vector pointing into the direction of the initial velocity vector is smaller, yes. In that respect, the speed of the initial trajectory decreases. But due to the influence of the gravity, the movement is forced to change direction and turns into a new trajectory.
    Yes, towards GRAVITY <<<------ DOWNWARDS

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    In your picture, this means that gravity reduces the velocity in one direction, but in turn produces a new velocity into another direction,
    What? What's this? Gravity changes?

    Drop something on the floor see what direction gravity pulls, then pick it up and do it again, and again, and again. Until you are able to TELL ME WHAT IT IS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    I suggest, you read again carefully Janus' explanation. This is exactly, what replies to your puzzlement.
    I suggest you all stop throwing your science out the window when it becomes convenient to so in explaining the ABSURDITY called orbit.
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by VinDino11
    I suggest you all stop throwing your science out the window when it becomes convenient to so in explaining the ABSURDITY called orbit.
    Did you know that if you throw science out the window with enough velocity it will go into low earth orbit?
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Feifer
    Quote Originally Posted by VinDino11
    I suggest you all stop throwing your science out the window when it becomes convenient to so in explaining the ABSURDITY called orbit.
    Did you know that if you throw science out the window with enough velocity it will go into low earth orbit?
    How does The Shuttle achieve that incredible speed of 17,000 MPH when the speed of free fall is equal for ALL objects?

    "discovered over 300 years ago by Galileo and others, that objects in free fall motion descend at the same rate, independent of their mass,"
    http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node17.html

    Why do you make your own LAWS up? Is it because it facilitates to explain rubbish science?


    TELL ME WHAT IT IS
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    48

    If I step off an airplane at 15,000 feet skydiving the acceleration speed of free-falling is at the same rate then if I stepped off 2 foot ladder.
     

  15. #14  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by VinDino11

    If I step off an airplane at 15,000 feet skydiving the acceleration speed of free-falling is at the same rate then if I stepped off 2 foot ladder.
    Nonsense. Have you personally measured this?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by VinDino11

    If I step off an airplane at 15,000 feet skydiving the acceleration speed of free-falling is at the same rate then if I stepped off 2 foot ladder.
    Nonsense. Have you personally measured this?
    You are a TROLL.

    Anyone who knows how to operate a search engine and type the words "Free Fall or Terminal Speed" would have a hundred science sites ready to explain what has been constant since GOD established the Earth.
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    It has long since become clear that VinDino11 is playing. No one really believes that the Moon does not orbit the Earth. If you accuse him of trolling, he'll respond "I know you are but what am I?" Now he states that the Earth was created by god, knowing that this is an inflammatory issue here. It's a game and I suggest we stop playing with him.

    The side benefit is that some of us are getting a thorough but remedial course on basic subjects we're too afraid to ask about.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by VinDino11
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by VinDino11

    If I step off an airplane at 15,000 feet skydiving the acceleration speed of free-falling is at the same rate then if I stepped off 2 foot ladder.
    Nonsense. Have you personally measured this?
    You are a TROLL.

    Anyone who knows how to operate a search engine and type the words "Free Fall or Terminal Speed" would have a hundred science sites ready to explain what has been constant since GOD established the Earth.
    Hey, no insulting, okay?

    If you look up these links properly, you would see that this terminal speed is the result of a combination of real free fall purely due to gravitational acceleration, and friction with the air.

    Furthermore, if you jump off an airplane, your initial speed is close to zero. You would accelerate to the final velocity, where the breaking by air resistance and acceleration by gravity form an equilibrium. With the shuttle, it is different. Its initial speed is not zero. With the launch, it gets its speed to reach a stable orbit around earth - done by thrusters. As soon it returns to earth, it hits the atmosphere with that speed and continuously slows down to its own terminal velocity. You are comparing two different things, where the initial conditions are not identical.
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    It has long since become clear that VinDino11 is playing. No one really believes that the Earth does not orbit the Earth. If you accuse him of trolling, he'll respond "I know you are but what am I?" Now he states that the Earth was created by god, knowing that this is an inflammatory issue here. It's a game and I suggest we stop playing with him.

    The side benefit is that some of us are getting a thorough but remedial course on basic subjects we're too afraid to ask about about.
    I know that he's difficult. I said so in the first post. But as long as the argumentation stays remotely scientific, I will not dump this thread. This might change, however, as has happened already a few times.

    Dishmaster
    (Moderator)
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    since GOD established the Earth
    pretty much says it all.

    You have a religious (censored) in here who, like a scientologist, is only interested in using some parts of science only so far as it supports his view of his 'god'. He uses bits of science not to prove his own religion (which is impossible) but as weapons against his enemy - which is science. And that is why he tries to turn it on its ear, utterly fails to, but like the religious doctrine subscriber he is, is still self-assured that he has achieved his goal with every post. Delusional.

    How can scientists expect to teach someone who can never allow himself to admit that science is right? Vin is trying to 'pull science down'; trying to make it appear invalid. He is here NOT to learn science, but to do to science what science has done to religion - invalidate it.

    Only he's in the wrong place to do it. He will never be able to make his childish errors fool actual scientists - his bullcrap will only work on uneducated laymen that don't really know what science is.
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    It was obvious after his first few posts that he was trolling. I can't believe so many people actually tried to argue with him. Just lock the thread and ban the troll.
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    I know that he's difficult. I said so in the first post. But as long as the argumentation stays remotely scientific, I will not dump this thread. This might change, however, as has happened already a few times.

    Dishmaster
    (Moderator)
    My arguments and opening threads are solid, rock solid.

    My threads get dumped because the Truth is difficult for most to accept. (childlike behavior) And because they have access to exercise force they bully by trashing my threads and throwing themselves in the trash can as well. How ridiculous!

    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    It was obvious after his first few posts that he was trolling. I can't believe so many people actually tried to argue with him. Just lock the thread and ban the troll.
    Everybody can not all be EINSTEINS, and since everybody here agree with themselves and against me, "guess who you're ALL not?" Ha,Ha,Ha, I am greater then he.

    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    How can scientists expect to teach someone who can never allow himself to admit that science is right? Vin is trying to 'pull science down'; trying to make it appear invalid. He is here NOT to learn science, but to do to science what science has done to religion - invalidate it.
    GOD is the Greatest Scientist, he used and continues to use the physics of science for our earth.

    How can you expect science to evolve if scientists won't bow down to the Master? But they bow down to vain Gods (Planets = Greek Pagan Gods)
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Drop the god argument, or this thread will be trashed immediately. God is not a scientific argument. The only argument valid here is empirical proof. If you can provide an empirical proof that some deity created all this, well fine. But do not introduce assumptions that have no empirical backing. Such an approach is unscientific.

    Comment on the scientific arguments.

    Dishmaster
    (moderator)
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Drop the god argument, or this thread will be trashed immediately. God is not a scientific argument. The only argument valid here is empirical proof. If you can provide an empirical proof that some deity created all this, well fine. But do not introduce assumptions that have no empirical backing. Such an approach is unscientific.

    Comment on the scientific arguments.

    Dishmaster
    (moderator)
    OKAY Dishmaster and while I have your attention let me direct it towards irrefutable proof concerning The Shuttle. And like any scientist you surely are always inclined to seeking, and therewith, you will be shown what was hidden from You. Please comment afterwards, I will be looking forward to your input.


    Look at the bottom of the Shuttle, from the nose to the wings its design was to glide, like a surfboard over water.

    The Shuttle doesn't fly, it uses the rocket boosters to blast-off like a rocket from earth's atmosphere and then glides back to earth and lands unassisted by its engines.



    As the Shuttle rests upon the uppermost level of earth's Atmosphere the heaviest part of the craft sinks deeper into the Atmosphere and when the OMS engines (two smaller thrusters right/left at the rear) propel the Shuttle gliding over the Atmosphere the rear of the craft will sinker deeper like a boat does in the water this is why the body flap at the bottom of the Shuttle under the main engines was place there so there would be less drag caused by the main engine nozzles when gliding over the Atmosphere and no damage to their structure since nozzles have movable parts within (thrust vectoring).



    The Shuttle is the only craft to have a body flap, no other craft has one, it would impede aerodynamics. But in Space there is no air, and therewith would not be needed if The Shuttle just free falls around nothing (the void of space). But brainy NASA engineers don't do things if there is no use or gain to their objective. The Flap was made to Glide over The Atmosphere, as was the rest of its design, from nose to tail, like a fish, only out of water.


    F-18
    http://123.55.252.122:8080/www.afwin...?MT=1225576702

    MiG
    http://www.saunalahti.fi/fta/mig29_09.jpg

    Russian stealth
    http://www.ausairpower.net/JSF-Proto...t-Flight-4.jpg

    The Bomber of science greatest achievement.
    http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/...h-bomber-1.jpg
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    I work for Lokheed Aerospace and I assure you it flies ,we built a large prtion of it.
    My advice to fellow forum members is use the IGNOR button for Vindino.
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by VinDino11
    Look at the bottom of the Shuttle, from the nose to the wings its design was to glide, like a surfboard over water.

    The Shuttle doesn't fly, it uses the rocket boosters to blast-off like a rocket from earth's atmosphere and then glides back to earth and lands unassisted by its engines.
    Why doesn't the shuttle fly? It flies during its re-entry and descent to the surface of the earth. This is the same like any sailplane or glider. Would you say that those do not fly?

    Quote Originally Posted by VinDino11
    As the Shuttle rests upon the uppermost level of earth's Atmosphere ...
    This assumption is wrong. It does not rest on the atmosphere. Therefore, all your conclusions drawn from this assumption are incorrect. Just like any satellite or the moon, the shuttle acts like a ballistic body, as soon as it has reached its final orbit. In those altitudes of some 400 km, there is practically no atmosphere left.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere

    It is its final speed it gains from the launch into space that keeps it on its orbit, just as explained in the previous posts. Its capability of gliding like an airplane without propulsion is only used during its descent through the atmosphere. Hence, all the flaps and wings it possesses are only designed for that purpose. They are not working in space. Manoeuvring in space is entirely done via thrusters.
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    This assumption is wrong. It does not rest on the atmosphere. Therefore, all your conclusions drawn from this assumption are incorrect. Just like any satellite or the moon, the shuttle acts like a ballistic body, as soon as it has reached its final orbit. In those altitudes of some 400 km, there is practically no atmosphere left.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere

    It is its final speed it gains from the launch into space that keeps it on its orbit, just as explained in the previous posts. Its capability of gliding like an airplane without propulsion is only used during its descent through the atmosphere. Hence, all the flaps and wings it possesses are only designed for that purpose. They are not working in space. Manoeuvring in space is entirely done via thrusters.
    How does The Shuttle use thrust propulsion in Space?


    Vacuum (space) is void of air.


    Newton’s Third Law: states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

    For The Shuttle engine thrust to have an equal reaction and opposite to the Spacecraft, there has to be an opposite to equal that reaction, there has to be an opposite to create an equal reaction, there has to be an opposite to react off of. Space according to NASA is a vacuum devoid of any matter to offer any resistance to equal the opposite action.


    No resistance offered = no reaction to equal the opposite action.


    There can be NO physics when The Shuttle's thrust hit nothing (Space = The void/vacuum) <<<<-- VACUUM is devoid of MATTER <<<<-- DEVOID of PHYSICS -- zero matter to offer resistance and cause the craft to head in the opposite direction.


    You can't have PHYSICS without something PHYSICAL


    The clip at the 40 sec mark, 42, 47 and 58 shows the trust of the weapon piercing the pressure of the Atmosphere for the recoil. In Space would produce ZERO effect. (The void/vacuum)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__JkO...eature=related


    Newton's Third Law. The skaters' forces on each other are equal in magnitude, and in opposite directions.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion


    The Shuttle thrust = First skater.

    The Atmosphere (air) = Second skater.


    In Space there is nothing because its a vacuum, this means entirely devoid of matter. No second skater to push off of to go the opposite direction. No resistance offered = no reaction to equal the opposite action. Meaning, the direction that the "thrust" is headed Saturn will "be heading" the opposite direction,

    provided that there is an opposite to react off of,

    provided that there is an opposite to equal the reaction,

    provided that there is an opposite to create an equal reaction, like PRESSURE!!!!!!
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    1. Propulsion works because:
    a) spacecraft carry their liquid oxygen with them,
    b) propulsion is possible without combustion (like a balloon losing air),
    c) there are chemicals like hydrazine that don't need external oxygen.

    2. The idea that propulsion needs something to push on is nonsense. We have already established that it certainly also works in space.

    I am closing this thread for good. There is nothing left to gain from this discussion anymore.

    Sure, you will say that this is censorship. That may be your opinion. I bet, you would be alone on this.

    Dishmaster
    (moderator)
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •