Spacecraft/EVA question


I don't believe that, do people really think this??

Not you, Nukehasslefan claims to believe it.

Read the thread I mentioned. It's very VERY long but it's an eye-opener.

There's a ton a great stuff in there where sciencey folks explain how anyone can prove we live on a spinning globe rather than a lemon-squeezer, but yeah there's also an absolute boatload of "Nukey rewrites all the rules of science and maths.... badly... in ways that can be easily debunked by a twelve year-old".
You're just weird. [edited for truth]
I don't believe that, do people really think this??

Here's the thread... Enjoy.

Put a flat earthier into space

Yes, there's really 17000+ posts on it. iirc Nukey arrives about a hundred pages in.
 
Last edited:
Not you, Nukehasslefan claims to believe it.

Read the thread I mentioned. It's very VERY long but it's an eye-opener.

There's a ton a great stuff in there where sciencey folks explain how anyone can prove we live on a spinning globe rather than a lemon-squeezer, but yeah there's also an absolute boatload of "Nukey rewrites all the rules of science and maths.... badly... in ways that can be easily debunked by a twelve year-old".



Here's the thread... Enjoy.

Put a flat earthier into space

Yes, there's really 17000+ posts on it. iirc Nukey arrives about a hundred pages in.
Mental
 
You're still imagining this from an earthbound perspective.
If you blow out (if you could), that limited amount of gas in your lungs would great a thrust which would move you backwards. Because you're expelling something in your system of momentum energy.
It wouldn't work if you thrust your hand out because you're not engaing anything beyond that system of momentum.

The box example is just weird.
The box example is far from weird. It shows you need exact same leverage to breach either end and your gain is zero after that breach from one end and the other.
Well first of all you will have had to be moving to get into that position, then use some force acting in the opposite direction to your motion (if we're talking spacecraft, then gas propulsion will be it) to slow you and then stop you- otherwise you would just keep going forever until you hit something.
If there's no force to act for or against then there's no movement.

Once you are in equilibrium, you have no forces acting upon you, and have stopped completely, you do not need to do anything to stay there- you will stay there forever unless something comes along and hits you.
You can never get equilibrium, there's always a force of action and reaction at all times.
The only time you could get equilibrium is in sci-fi or the fictional vacuum of space we get sold.

To carry on moving, you need to provide a force to overcome your net zero of acting forces, which would be more rocket propulsion
You can't move if you do not have anything to push off of.
 
Last edited:
If a spacecraft is travelling at a rapid speed between 2 objects in space, and a smaller vehicle exits the spacecraft without being connected, how does the small vehicle stay at the same speed as its ‘parent’ spacecraft?

I’m reading 2001: A Space Odyssey and a pod has exited Discovery while it travels between Jupiter and Saturn.

The pod would have to travel as fast as Discovery? But according to the book it only has enough acceleration to “hover on the moon”.
Is this a joke?
 
Did you know if you were on a ship travelling at 99% the speed of light then shone a laser out in front of you the light from the laser would move away from you at the speed of light!
 
The box example is far from weird. It shows you need exact same leverage to breach either end and your gain is zero after that breach from one end and the other.
If there's no force to act for or against then there's no movement.

You can never get equilibrium, there's always a force of action and reaction at all times.
The only time you could get equilibrium is in sci-fi or the fictional vacuum of space we get sold.

You can't move if you do not have anything to push off of.
When they are equal to each other and cancel each other out, then that is equilibrium :lol::lol:
 
They are never equal at the same time.
Action first and then an equal and opposite reaction.
Wrong. When my cup of tea is sitting on the bench, it is in equilibrium. The cup wants to move directly downwards, in the direction of gravity, at the speed of gravity (9.8ms), and the bench pushes back with an equal force (which will be 9.8ms x whatever my cup's mass is, in kg, to give a force in Newtons- he's there again, that Isaac lad!)
 
Wrong. When my cup of tea is sitting on the bench, it is in equilibrium. The cup wants to move directly downwards, in the direction of gravity, at the speed of gravity (9.8ms), and the bench pushes back with an equal force (which will be 9.8ms x whatever my cup's mass is, in kg, to give a force in Newtons- he's there again, that Isaac lad!)
Your cup of tea is still being acted upon by a force at all times and is never at equilibrium.
 
Please stop feeding this mag troll.

Either he doesn't believe anything his own brain can't conceive or "make sense of" or it's an attempt at winding people up as much as possible. He probably has a post on a mag forum saying look at how much I can wind up these mackems and you're making yourself an unwanted star of that post.

Stop feeding him, ignore.
 

Back
Top