Notices
Results 1 to 31 of 31
Like Tree6Likes
  • 1 Post By billvon
  • 3 Post By SpeedFreek
  • 2 Post By SpeedFreek

Thread: One Astrounaut Says Why He Wouldn't Want Gravity On His Spacecraft...

  1. #1 One Astrounaut Says Why He Wouldn't Want Gravity On His Spacecraft... 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    256
    This really stunned me. Michael Barrett, a former astronaut, said that from a purely hedonistic standpoint, he wouldn't want gravity. Because:

    1. Floating around is fun. Also lifting large stuff around is fun.

    2. If the spacecraft had centripetal force for gravity, it would be a pain to work on outside the spacecraft. And they would have to sooner or later, as moving parts will always require maintenance (unless your God himself who makes self-sustaining Earth worlds).

    He also told some artificial gravity tricks he says astronauts use everyday: By spinning a bag in an arc slowly with your arms, you can remove the contents. If you want just one thing, close the bag after.

    He also talked about G force. Which made me think of a question that perhaps you scientists or otherwise could answer.

    Spacecraft undergoing high rates of acceleration (10 G's or higher) could only do so for so long before the human body couldn't handle it. When space rockets are sent from earth, the Astronauts are buckled down so they aren't standing up. Since if they were and they fell, they would hit the ground hard enough to injure or kill them (due to the G force).

    So in space, is the effect the same? If you were flying your spacecraft at 10 G's or higher of acceleration to get out of dodge fast, would you need to buckled up? For fear that you would be drawn like a magnet to the back of your craft where the engines are providing the massive thrust?

    It's a question that I would like to know, since I like realism when it comes to creating spacecraft. I would think a spacecraft like this would have some seats, just in case they need massive acceleration.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    82
    Einstein once said that if you were in an elevator in space with no windows being accelerated at 1g, you would not be able to tell the difference than being stood in the elevator here on earth.

    So yes you would feel the acceleration of the spacecraft.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    319
    So in space, is the effect the same? If you were flying your spacecraft at 10 G's or higher of acceleration to get out of dodge fast, would you need to buckled up? For fear that you would be drawn like a magnet to the back of your craft where the engines are providing the massive thrust?
    yes.it is only when going at a constant speed that you can be safe to unbuckle.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    So in space, is the effect the same? If you were flying your spacecraft at 10 G's or higher of acceleration to get out of dodge fast, would you need to buckled up? For fear that you would be drawn like a magnet to the back of your craft where the engines are providing the massive thrust?
    yes.it is only when going at a constant speed that you can be safe to unbuckle.
    Thanks. That's what I was thinking. So fictional rockets should have seat belts after all, given how fast they go. And I am dumping the whole artificial gravity thing. If you go fast enough, you won't worry about the effects of zero G. Just handwave some FTL teleportation and the rest is rocket G force.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    Thanks. That's what I was thinking. So fictional rockets should have seat belts after all, given how fast they go.
    Well, you don't need seat belts for the acceleration, only for unexpected changes in acceleration. If, for example, you were accelerating at a constant 1G, you would feel no different than you do here on Earth - where seat belts are generally not required in, say, kitchens.

    However since spacecraft would likely be changing directions on occasion it would probably make sense to have them available.
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    Thanks. That's what I was thinking. So fictional rockets should have seat belts after all, given how fast they go.
    Well, you don't need seat belts for the acceleration, only for unexpected changes in acceleration. If, for example, you were accelerating at a constant 1G, you would feel no different than you do here on Earth - where seat belts are generally not required in, say, kitchens.

    However since spacecraft would likely be changing directions on occasion it would probably make sense to have them available.
    If you were traveling in a straight line toward earth from the moon and accelerating constantly, I think you would need seat belts. At certain levels of G (10 G and above), you need seat belts no matter what. At least that is my current understanding.

    I don't think ANY thrust related acceleration in space is constant. Since the more acceleration the more G's you get in space period. The only way to avoid that is by just thrusting and coasting.

    Earth has no issues because it doesn't change it's acceleration apparently, it goes the same speed constantly. Man made craft can coast using this, but it's not good for maneuvering to get out of dodge. Say your wife is pregnant and you wanna see her give birth in time but your in space. You don't wanna coast, you wanna accelerate max speed allowable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    256
    [QUOTE=billvon;502830]
    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    Thanks. That's what I was thinking. So fictional rockets should have seat belts after all, given how fast they go.
    Well, you don't need seat belts for the acceleration, only for unexpected changes in the acceleration


    That seems a bit odd. Acceleration is a change in velocity, it is not static to begin with.

    What you mean to say is that you don't need seat belts ONCE your going a constant speed.

    I have been in a car that accelerated quickly. I didn't have my seat belt on since I wasn't expecting the driver to speed up all of a sudden. Needless to say, my whole body was sucked backward into the seat.

    We do need seat belts for acceleration. After you have attained your stable speed and aren't accelerating any longer, then seat belts aren't necessary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,698
    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    If you were traveling in a straight line toward earth from the moon and accelerating constantly, I think you would need seat belts. At certain levels of G (10 G and above), you need seat belts no matter what. At least that is my current understanding.
    Then your "understanding" is flawed.

    I don't think ANY thrust related acceleration in space is constant.
    As shown here, for example.

    Since the more acceleration the more G's you get in space period.
    Er, yes. Assuming an varying acceleration (in this case steadily increasing) does mean not constant.

    The only way to avoid that is by just thrusting and coasting.
    If you're coasting you're not accelerating. By definition.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    256
    Everything you just said has been said.

    You see to come on forums purely to debate and prove yourself right. Well if you want that, spacebattles.com will be right up your alley. Those guys make guys like you look like snow white. If it's an argument you want, a war is what you will get there. Ciao!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,698
    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    Everything you just said has been said.
    But, since you have presistently failed to take note or, or understand, what was said I thought another repetition might get it through to you.

    You see to come on forums purely to debate and prove yourself right.
    Nope.

    Well if you want that, spacebattles.com will be right up your alley. Those guys make guys like you look like snow white. If it's an argument you want, a war is what you will get there. Ciao!
    Yeah right.
    Fanboy amateurs for the most part.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    256
    It's persistence. Not presistence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,698
    Oh wow!
    Of course, a typo totally blows my science out of the water, doesn't it?
    Does this mean that you're finally acknowledging you haven't got a clue on the science under discussion and would rather resort to petty sniping?

    BTW it's "astronaut" not "astrounaut".
    (People in glass houses, and all that... especially those who live in a glass house the size of yours with regard to this fault.)
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    256
    Your words speak for themselves do they not? You belong on spacebattles.com with all the other trolls. That's besides the fact that your on my ignore list as of now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,698
    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    Your words speak for themselves do they not?
    You mean the words that point out where you're wrong?
    Those words?

    You belong on spacebattles.com with all the other trolls.
    On the contrary: any trolling has been done by you.

    That's besides the fact that your on my ignore list as of now.
    Good.
    That won't stop me pointing me out the bullshit you post.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Guys, stop the bickering!

    Now then lorbo...

    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    Spacecraft undergoing high rates of acceleration (10 G's or higher) could only do so for so long before the human body couldn't handle it. When space rockets are sent from earth, the Astronauts are buckled down so they aren't standing up. Since if they were and they fell, they would hit the ground hard enough to injure or kill them (due to the G force).
    When rockets are sent from Earth the astronauts are sitting down, so they can't fall over. They are buckled in due to the change in acceleration at takeoff and the buffeting and vibration they get whilst passing through the turbulent atmosphere, which could throw them out of their seats.

    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    So in space, is the effect the same? If you were flying your spacecraft at 10 G's or higher of acceleration to get out of dodge fast, would you need to buckled up? For fear that you would be drawn like a magnet to the back of your craft where the engines are providing the massive thrust?
    You usually sit with your back to the engine, so you are pushed into your seat by the acceleration. As billvon said, you don't need seat belts for the acceleration, only for changes of acceleration. Believe it or not, the actual scientific term for a change in acceleration is "jerk".

    If there is a chance of a jerk in your acceleration that could throw you out of your seat, it might make sense to be wearing a seatbelt.

    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    If you were traveling in a straight line toward earth from the moon and accelerating constantly, I think you would need seat belts.
    If you are accelerating constantly, then there is no need for a seat belt, as you will be pressed back into your seat by a constant force. Constant acceleration means you always feel the same amount of g. Now what could make you fall out of the seat?


    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    At certain levels of G (10 G and above), you need seat belts no matter what. At least that is my current understanding.
    At 10 g you will be pressed hard into your seat, so it is even less likely that you would fall out of it! Of course, if something were to go wrong with the engines or something were to smack into the craft or if you hit something unexpected then you might need that seatbelt as a precaution, so it would make sense to wear one, but you only need seat belts to deal with jerk, not constant acceleration.

    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    I don't think ANY thrust related acceleration in space is constant. Since the more acceleration the more G's you get in space period. The only way to avoid that is by just thrusting and coasting.
    Most rockets give a certain thrust and no more. Some are lit up and continue to give the same thrust until they are empty (solid fuel rockets) and some can be turned on and off as required, but in general a rocket gives a certain thrust and the change in velocity is down to how long you thrust for. Whilst it is true that more thrust = more g's, the highest thrust is usually used to reach the escape velocity of Earth. After that, all thrust tends to be the same, defined by the thrust of the rocket used.

    If you constantly accelerate at 1g for instance, you get faster and faster but only ever experience 1g. You would feel like you were on Earth, the whole time. If you had engines and fuel capable of accelerating at 1g for a year, you would reach 77% of the speed of light! (source)

    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    Earth has no issues because it doesn't change it's acceleration apparently, it goes the same speed constantly. Man made craft can coast using this, but it's not good for maneuvering to get out of dodge.
    Man made craft use a constant acceleration of 1g to achieve the same effect as sitting on Earth. Whilst on Earth you feel 1g as the Earth moves at a constant speed, but when you accelerate at 1g in space in order to feel the same thing, your speed will be continually increasing. For your speed to remain constant you need to coast and when you do so you are weightless. But neither constant acceleration or coasting is good for dodge manoeuvres, for that you need some jerk!
    Last edited by SpeedFreek; December 15th, 2013 at 07:41 PM.
    KALSTER, John Galt and David M W like this.
    "Ok, brain let's get things straight. You don't like me, and I don't like you, so let's do this so I can go back to killing you with beer." - Homer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    If you were traveling in a straight line toward earth from the moon and accelerating constantly, I think you would need seat belts.
    Not if it was constant.

    At certain levels of G (10 G and above), you need seat belts no matter what. At least that is my current understanding.
    Why do you think that? You would certainly need a very good/supportive chair (or a couch, or even better - a bathtub.) But you wouldn't need to be "kept in" the seat. Acceleration would do that for you.

    I don't think ANY thrust related acceleration in space is constant. Since the more acceleration the more G's you get in space period.
    Constant acceleration = constant G.

    Earth has no issues because it doesn't change it's acceleration apparently, it goes the same speed constantly.
    Well, not quite. It is constantly spinning and orbiting around the Sun - but we don't feel all those direction changes because gravity far outweighs the inertial forces from those things. (However, if there was no gravity, the earth's spin would indeed fling you into space.)
    Say your wife is pregnant and you wanna see her give birth in time but your in space. You don't wanna coast, you wanna accelerate max speed allowable.
    Right. And that's when you don't need a seat belt.
    What you mean to say is that you don't need seat belts ONCE your going a constant speed.
    No.
    I have been in a car that accelerated quickly. I didn't have my seat belt on since I wasn't expecting the driver to speed up all of a sudden. Needless to say, my whole body was sucked backward into the seat.
    Right. Now imagine he was accelerating at 1G straight UP (not forward.) How would it feel different from standing still on the road?

    We do need seat belts for acceleration. After you have attained your stable speed and aren't accelerating any longer, then seat belts aren't necessary.
    I think you are confusing "constant acceleration" and "constant speed."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    I know YouTube links aren't considered terribly authoritative, but this one is pretty decent: Three Incorrect Laws of Motion - YouTube
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    82
    Lorbo,
    Just adding to what speed freak explained to you.

    De-acceleration can also be a "jerk" and if it is sudden can have a dramitic effect on the human body also. If you were to be accelerating at 10g's then suddenly were to come to a dead stop you would ned to be strapped well into your seat! How your internal organs would fair in this situation i'm not sure.

    As you have had explained to you, seat belts are only required to keep you in place if there is a sufficiently sudden jerk to fling you ou of your seat. A constant smooth acceleration will keep you pinned.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by David M W View Post
    How your internal organs would fair in this situation i'm not sure.
    It would depend how fast you were already going when you made the complete stop, and how quickly you came to a stop, and also on your mass, size and position to some extent. I think the survivability threshold is somewhere in the region of 50 g's over the space of no more than a second or so ( your typical head-on car crash ). I think I once read about someone surviving 80 g's in a plane crash, but don't know how accurate the science was. Even at 50 g's I would expect to see massive internal injuries ( I worked in an ER in the past, so have pretty good idea what happens. It's not pretty ).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    82
    That's interesting, 50g's is higher than I expected!
    What amount of g's can a human body withstand if it is smooth acceleration?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    82
    So in escence its better to acelerate constantly at relatively low g's over a long period of time if you want to increase your speed to prevent damage to your body?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Guys, stop the bickering!

    Now then lorbo...

    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    Spacecraft undergoing high rates of acceleration (10 G's or higher) could only do so for so long before the human body couldn't handle it. When space rockets are sent from earth, the Astronauts are buckled down so they aren't standing up. Since if they were and they fell, they would hit the ground hard enough to injure or kill them (due to the G force).
    When rockets are sent from Earth the astronauts are sitting down, so they can't fall over. They are buckled in due to the change in acceleration at takeoff and the buffeting and vibration they get whilst passing through the turbulent atmosphere, which could throw them out of their seats.

    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    So in space, is the effect the same? If you were flying your spacecraft at 10 G's or higher of acceleration to get out of dodge fast, would you need to buckled up? For fear that you would be drawn like a magnet to the back of your craft where the engines are providing the massive thrust?
    You usually sit with your back to the engine, so you are pushed into your seat by the acceleration. As billvon said, you don't need seat belts for the acceleration, only for changes of acceleration. Believe it or not, the actual scientific term for a change in acceleration is "jerk".

    If there is a chance of a jerk in your acceleration that could throw you out of your seat, it might make sense to be wearing a seatbelt.

    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    If you were traveling in a straight line toward earth from the moon and accelerating constantly, I think you would need seat belts.
    If you are accelerating constantly, then there is no need for a seat belt, as you will be pressed back into your seat by a constant force. Constant acceleration means you always feel the same amount of g. Now what could make you fall out of the seat?


    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    At certain levels of G (10 G and above), you need seat belts no matter what. At least that is my current understanding.
    At 10 g you will be pressed hard into your seat, so it is even less likely that you would fall out of it! Of course, if something were to go wrong with the engines or something were to smack into the craft or if you hit something unexpected then you might need that seatbelt as a precaution, so it would make sense to wear one, but you only need seat belts to deal with jerk, not constant acceleration.

    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    I don't think ANY thrust related acceleration in space is constant. Since the more acceleration the more G's you get in space period. The only way to avoid that is by just thrusting and coasting.
    Most rockets give a certain thrust and no more. Some are lit up and continue to give the same thrust until they are empty (solid fuel rockets) and some can be turned on and off as required, but in general a rocket gives a certain thrust and the change in velocity is down to how long you thrust for. Whilst it is true that more thrust = more g's, the highest thrust is usually used to reach the escape velocity of Earth. After that, all thrust tends to be the same, defined by the thrust of the rocket used.

    If you constantly accelerate at 1g for instance, you get faster and faster but only ever experience 1g. You would feel like you were on Earth, the whole time. If you had engines and fuel capable of accelerating at 1g for a year, you would reach 77% of the speed of light! (source)

    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    Earth has no issues because it doesn't change it's acceleration apparently, it goes the same speed constantly. Man made craft can coast using this, but it's not good for maneuvering to get out of dodge.
    Man made craft use a constant acceleration of 1g to achieve the same effect as sitting on Earth. Whilst on Earth you feel 1g as the Earth moves at a constant speed, but when you accelerate at 1g in space in order to feel the same thing, your speed will be continually increasing. For your speed to remain constant you need to coast and when you do so you are weightless. But neither constant acceleration or coasting is good for dodge manoeuvres, for that you need some jerk!
    So what your saying is, constant acceleration is merely a rate a of acceleration. Meaning if you're going 5 mph, that is constant acceleration, albeit slow.

    But if you all of a sudden kick up the acceleration to 50 mph, you will feel a jerk pulling you backward? Correct?
    I'm talking about straight acceleration in space, slowing down doesn't come into my equation here. I'm not considering that, just the pull back force on you when you speed up by increasing your rate of accleration.
    Last edited by lorbo; December 16th, 2013 at 05:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by David M W View Post
    So in escence its better to acelerate constantly at relatively low g's over a long period of time if you want to increase your speed to prevent damage to your body?
    It's beneficial to accelerate faster when you're escaping Earth because it's more efficient on fuel but once you've got far enough away yes.

    Imagine you have a rocket weighing 10,020kg.

    Gravity on Earth exerts 100,000 newtons of force on it so it would require just over 100,000 newtons just to take off.

    If you had 110,000 newtons of thrust it would accelerate at 0.1g
    In 100 seconds it would travel 4.9km

    If you had 200,000 newtons of thrust it would accelerate at 1g.
    In 100 seconds it would travel 49km

    For less than double the fuel cost it would travel 10x further (not taking in to account wind resistance).

    The faster you go the more efficient it is (up until you hit a speed where wind resistance exerts too much opposing force)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    So what your saying is, constant acceleration is merely a rate a of acceleration. Meaning if you're going 5 mph, that is constant acceleration, albeit slow.
    Constant acceleration is having the same rate of acceleration, yes, but if you are moving at a constant 5 mph than that is not constant acceleration.. In space, if you are moving at a constant speed, then you are not accelerating, you are coasting. Once an object is in motion, it stays in motion until a force acts upon it. If you throw a ball in space, it just carries on going at the speed you accelerated it to by throwing it - it maintains the same speed but is not accelerating any more. Acceleration changes your speed. Constant acceleration means you continually increase in speed.

    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    But if you all of a sudden kick up the acceleration to 50 mph, you will feel a jerk pulling you backward? Correct?
    I'm talking about straight acceleration in space, slowing down doesn't come into my equation here. I'm not considering that, just the pull back force on you when you speed up by increasing your rate of accleration.
    As has already been said, you seem to be confusing acceleration with speed. You cannot define acceleration in mph, you can only define speed in mph. Acceleration is often defined using g (that's a little g, rather than a capital G, which denotes the gravitational constant), or for more mundane applications acceleration is defined in meters per second per second () .

    If you constantly accelerate at a rate of 1g, you will soon reach 50 mph and continue to increase in speed to 100 mph and onwards. A constant rate of acceleration means a continual increase in speed. You will feel a constant pull back force acting upon you. You would feel like you do on Earth.

    If you then kick up the acceleration to 2g, you will feel an increase in the constant pull back force acting upon you, and you will increase your speed at a quicker rate. It would feel like being on a planet with a higher gravity than Earth.
    Last edited by SpeedFreek; December 16th, 2013 at 05:52 PM.
    "Ok, brain let's get things straight. You don't like me, and I don't like you, so let's do this so I can go back to killing you with beer." - Homer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    So what your saying is, constant acceleration is merely a rate a of acceleration. Meaning if you're going 5 mph, that is constant acceleration, albeit slow.
    No. In space, if you are moving at a constant speed, then you are not accelerating, you are coasting. Once an object is in motion, it stays in motion until a force acts upon it. If you throw a ball in space, it just carries on going at the speed you accelerated it to by throwing it. Acceleration changes your speed. Constant acceleration means you continually increase in speed.

    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    But if you all of a sudden kick up the acceleration to 50 mph, you will feel a jerk pulling you backward? Correct?
    I'm talking about straight acceleration in space, slowing down doesn't come into my equation here. I'm not considering that, just the pull back force on you when you speed up by increasing your rate of accleration.
    As has already been said, you seem to be confusing acceleration with speed. You cannot define acceleration in mph, you can only define speed in mph. Acceleration is often defined using g (that's a little g, rather than a capital G, which denotes the gravitational constant), or for more mundane applications acceleration is defined in meters per second per second () . On earth, the acceleration of a freely falling object is 9.8 meters per second per second, which means every second your speed will increase by 9.8 meters per second.

    If you constantly accelerate at a rate of 1g, you will soon reach 50 mph and continue to increase in speed to 100 mph and onwards. A constant rate of acceleration means a continual increase in speed. You will feel a constant pull back force acting upon you.

    If you then kick up the acceleration to 2g, you will feel an increase in the pull back force acting upon you, and you will increase your speed at a quicker rate.
    You misunderstood my words. I fully understand that 5 mph and not changing from 5 mph is coasting. I meant if you were increasing your speed at 5 mph. Meaning each hour you would gain another 5 miles.

    All I wanted to know was if you would feel the pull back force when you kick up the acceleration on your spacecraft. And I found out you would.

    Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    256
    However that also means that it would be preferable to flip your spacecraft around to slow down if you're already going at a high rate of speed, assuming you wanna pull a lot of G's (for faster acceleration in the opposite direction which equals faster slow down).

    Otherwise you would be pulled away from your seat, which wouldn't be comfortable even with straps keeping you restrained.

    So flipping your ship, using newtonian movements is quite logical for space travel. I used to think that backwards thrust was viable, and it still is, but flipping seems more comfortable for the crew.

    Who wants to be pulled forward away from their seat? Nobody I know. Pull towards your seat seems more safe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,698
    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    I meant if you were increasing your speed at 5 mph.
    This is meaningless.
    You need a time period: for example 5 mph/ h, or 5 mph/ sec..

    Meaning each hour you would gain another 5 miles.
    This is the definition of the SPEED of 5 MILES PER HOUR. I.e. coasting.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    You can add vectors together and express acceleration as a vector.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    So what your saying is, constant acceleration is merely a rate a of acceleration. Meaning if you're going 5 mph, that is constant acceleration, albeit slow.
    Np. If you are going 5mph the first second, and 10mph in the second second, and 15mph in the third second, that is a .25G constant acceleration. If you are going 20mph the first second, and 40mph in the second second, and 60mph in the third second, that is a 1G constant acceleration. It would feel like you were standing still on the surface of the Earth, which also provides the equivalent of a 1G acceleration.

    But if you all of a sudden kick up the acceleration to 50 mph, you will feel a jerk pulling you backward? Correct?
    If you instantaneously kicked the SPEED up to 50mph you would feel a jerk (in fact it would kill you.) However, acceleration is not speed.

    I'm talking about straight acceleration in space, slowing down doesn't come into my equation here.
    Acceleration and deceleration (slowing down) are the same. Which is which depends on what reference you use.
    Last edited by billvon; December 17th, 2013 at 12:03 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by lorbo View Post
    You misunderstood my words. I fully understand that 5 mph and not changing from 5 mph is coasting. I meant if you were increasing your speed at 5 mph. Meaning each hour you would gain another 5 miles.
    Then I must still misunderstand your words. Sorry, but this is the reason for the confusion in this thread, and the reason people are pulling you up about it.

    In space, if each hour you gain another 5 miles, as you said, then you are moving at a constant 5 miles per hour. You are not accelerating. Your speed is not changing. You are coasting. You would feel no forces acting upon you at all.

    Either you are still confusing acceleration with speed, or you fully understand it all but keep using the wrong words or missing out vital words when describing it all, which leads us to believe that you don't fully understand it all.

    Did you mean to say that if you are accelerating, that means each hour you gain another 5 miles per hour? You can express acceleration in miles per hour per hour, but not just in miles per hour. So the phrase "increasing your speed at 5 miles per hour" makes no sense, unless you tell us how long it takes to increase your speed by 5 miles per hour. That is why you need to use miles per hour per hour, or miles per hour per second, or miles per second per hour.

    Just so we are clear here, 5 miles is a distance, 5 miles per hour is a speed and 5 miles per hour per hour is an acceleration.

    I apologise if you think I am just nit-picking here, but if you want a clear answer then we need a clear understanding of the question.
    Last edited by SpeedFreek; December 16th, 2013 at 07:34 PM.
    Lynx_Fox and David M W like this.
    "Ok, brain let's get things straight. You don't like me, and I don't like you, so let's do this so I can go back to killing you with beer." - Homer
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. On the atomic level wouldn't g be much greater?
    By bill alsept in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2013, 02:58 AM
  2. Why wouldn't Da Vinci's flying machine work?
    By bradbradallen in forum Mechanical, Structural and Chemical Engineering
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: March 4th, 2010, 07:01 AM
  3. Why spacecraft are blunt :?:
    By sramanujam in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: October 6th, 2006, 09:17 PM
  4. WOULDN'T THIS BE AN AWESOME PRESIDENTIAL SPEECH?
    By Mathwiz8390 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: October 11th, 2005, 08:27 PM
  5. If there is a god, wouldn't everybody know it?
    By Medicine*Woman in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: August 12th, 2005, 06:30 PM
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
  •