If there is no air in space, how do they use rockets to position the space shuttle?

EVERYTHING THAT HAS MASS HAS GRAVITY. Everything!!

reply to post by Silver Shadow


Actually, I think most of "us guys" understand the Third Law and how rockets work. The OP is a troll. He got sleepy and went to bed.

reply to post by Silver Shadow


MOST of us DO know about it. Read the posts. We just couldn't convince Manasses (or however you spell the name).

As an aerospace engineer, I will simplify why ROCKETS produces thrust in space for those who don't know. The rocket engine exhaust gas propellant at a very high velocity and in return accelerates the rocket in the opposite direction with an equal force. Same effect on a gun's recoil...bullet has a small mass but exits the gun at a very high velocity, in return the gun gets pushed back. Using intuition, do you think firing a rifle in a vacuum will have no recoil?

reply to post by Silver Shadow


SS, you came in a little late to this farce....I used the balloon analogy, you must be a diver too....didn't think of that, using the tanks....I tried something even more basic.

Anyway....since this thread will continue, and all that we post will remain as a record, for at least a while....I refer anyone who cares, to previous posts. No point in repeating myself.

Originally posted by Silver Shadow
I am absolutely stunned that none of you guys understand jet or rocket propulsion, it is junior grade physics.

Say what? None of us? I think I understand it quite well thank you. I'm just trying to help someone get a grasp on some basics in thinking about it to show it's not an absurdity at all.

F=Q*dV

F=Net force Vector (pounds or Newtons)

Q=Mass-Flow (in slugs/s or kg/s)=Total amount of mass acted upon per unit time

dV=Net Change in velocity vector of said Mass-Flow (feet/s or meters/s)

Applies to rockets, airplane lift, jet planes, propeller planes, jet boats, propeller boats, swimmers, fish, etc.

This'll really mess with the OP's head....Someone far more patient than myself try to explain to him about generating force (thrust) by applying torque to the axis of rotation of a gyroscope.



I will never try to deny the existence of god. But if he does exist, he does so beyond this universe of maths and physics.

Let me add something that nobody has siad. The space shuttle does not really no into space per say. It travels around the earth in the thermosphere. And there is still some atmosphere there. Here is the link to this.www.windows.ucar.edu...=/earth/Atmosphere/thermosphere.html

But even if we went into deep space, Rockets would work fine. And i also agree that this post is not worthy due to the fact that it takes 2 minutes to google the question and get the correct answer.

As they say, Its not rocket science Or is it?

Not so fast, egghead. The ATS community has clearly formed a consensus that Newton's 3rd law is baloney and a conspiracy foisted upon god's children by the Illuminatti!

Originally posted by Silver Shadow
I am absolutely stunned that none of you guys understand jet or rocket propulsion, it is junior grade physics.

(snip)

This is all pretty basic stuff. Surprised you guys have never heard it all before.

I am going to assume your post was not an attempt to be condescending and arrogant, and that you just haven't read through the posts in this thread to see your answer already mentioned numerous times.

The OP's question as been answered multiple times already. His/Her examples and comparisons are like those between apples and oranges. We are here at page six and the same answer is given yet again. We are at page six because the OP has rejected the answer and wishes to continue repeating his own question instead.

You just added the same answer to an already overdrawn thread.

- Lee

Originally posted by Manasseh
Here's my theory.

No one knows diddly squat about what they think they know everything about.

Therefore, one should trust God, as he/she/it is the ultimate creator.

Coming from someone who works for his maker, I am glad to see
relative silence from those who "know it all" on this subject.

Oh, by the way, your government is lying through their teeth.

I agree with you but I also disagree in part. Why believe in something that no one knows anything about? We can create a vacuum and test theories in it to proof. No one has yet provided any tangible proof of god or that he ever did or does exist. So there is the paradox of the faith. How does one trust someone who he has never met, or someone that no one has ever met? That is blind trust, and leads to folly if it mal-placed, although there is yet another question that will forever be unanswered until one dies, and maybe not even then.

reply to post by russ1969


Yes russ. The thermosphere extends fairly far above the surface, but it is still extremely tenuous. ALMOST a vacuum....a few atoms per cubic meter. I could look it up. This DOES have a cumulative effect on LEO objects, over a great period of time. Remember when 'SkyLab' de-orbited? Or Mir?

(can't believe I allowed myself to be dragged back in....but your post was intelligent, russ)

AND, spot on.

Remember, the way to think about how something orbits is to imagine it always falling....but, because of its velocity, it carries itself around the planet, and the planet, being round, has a surface that drops away, so free-fall continues. This will continue, assuming no external forces, such as other gravitational influences (such as a giant alien Mothership :lol or, some friction from the few molecules of atmosphere, as tenuous as they may be. It is cumulative, in LEO.

Anyone have a satellite TV system? Know how it works?

Satellites very higher up, in 'geosynchronous' orbit. They are about 25, 000 miles, if memory serves....ringed around the equator of Earth. SO, their orbital velocity, at that distance, means that they remain relatively stationary, as viewed from down here.

If you don't believe that these things exist, then you simply refuse to believe in science, and facts.

If you don't believe in science, and facts, then stop using your computer. BECAUSE that is truly the irony, here....a person, or persons, who post online, using modern technology, and on the Internet....who then argue AGAINST modern technology, and therefore, science, and fact.

Astonishing, isn't it?

okay, now i've actually studied up on how we postion objects in space, satelites/ shuttle/ deep space probes. The problem is you are not very specific on your question.
If your talking about as soon as the shuttle leaves the atmosphere, then it would continue in a Low Earth Orbit until reaching its objective logitude This would require little thrust in the early stages of LEO as the object would coast on its orbit at the necesarry speed until it reaches said target.
Once it comes within range, it with fire a series of precisely timed thrusts from the shuttles reaction thrusters. On most spacecraft, a catylitic bedding is lined just inside the thruster [i'll just say cone for now], theres more to it so here goes, the catalytic-beds have an active heater that will heat up to the flash point of the fuel of choice [typically hydrazine used in a blowdown setup [letting air out of a ballon]] when the fuel hits the beds, it will ignite and the resulting expansion of gas being shoved out of the thruster will create the thrust.

The physics of this are easy to simulate, you could try this using an office chair rolling on a hard surface. Simply sit in the chair and throw something away from you that has some decent weight. There you go.
On the shuttle however, only a thrust with the equivelent force of a mouse fart is needed when docking with the space station.
I could go on and on but i'm tired and i got to work tomorrow.
Don't worry about how they dock the shuttle. Think about how they keep the space station in its proper orbit and how the scientists back at NASA pull the numbers to make something go off the ground from Cape Canaveral headed west to a dot some several thousand miles off of earth. Also the space station has to constantly correct it's orbit because of it's close proximity to the earth, the atmospheric drag, if left unchecked will slow the thing down enough to fall back down to earth.
that's something you should ponder, google it sometime, it's all public domain information.
Also, if you still don't get it, just tell me what you didn't get, i know i can find the answers




-edit- damnit weedwhacker, just a few minutes too late, at least i'm not the only space nerd here.

[edit on 2008/8/14 by joe_dirt976]

I see some people are trying to explain this, but it's far too long, drawn out and wandering into tangents.

Simply put, to break the gravitational pull of earth and also push yourself through air it takes a great deal of thrust, so they use massive rockets. In space you have neither holding you back or slowing you down, so they use tiny bursts of gasses to position and move spacecraft.

Yes, the science fiction movies where ships use giant thrusters to move through space have lied to you.

I think we should use this thread as a method of preventing nowhere logic. Maybe we should exploit the idea so that people understand better. I understand that the vacuum of space is vast and that all objects in space have gravity. Releasing energy for the purpose of propulsion is simple and only gets more simple when you get inside the open vacuum of space. Air only creates resistance.
The question is simply unreasonable. I think it's more a matter of philosophy and doesn't even justify a scientific explanation. But it would be necessary for understanding I guess. What you would want to do is give the subject some direction for reasoning. I think he just made himself a subject for ridicule, and I think that should be accepted in this thread because it's part of understanding as well. So when your moderating, why strike anyone ridiculing this individual. Just let em, cause he may need it or others may need it for some understanding. Just make sure they do it in an organized or logical fashion.
I'm sure lots of scientists had trouble until they found that being subject to ridicule gave them a little motivation. Or you could just google it. Village idiot.

This question has probably already been answered given the number of replies, but I will also answer it again anyway.
The fact is rockets "push" particles out, and the particles in turn push the rocket back (hence there is no need for an atmosphere to push against in order for a rocket to work). Just like the pressure of a garden hose pushing back at you. The hose is pushing the water out, and the water is pushing the hose back.

Hope this makes it easier to understand.

[edit on 14/8/08 by NuclearPaul]

Originally posted by freakngeckos
Village idiot.

Would that be Global Village idiot?

Sorry, one liner, but this thread can't really get much worse.

reply to post by NuclearPaul


NuclearPaul, good analogy.....but instead, consider the fire brigades hose....sometimes takes TWO individuals to hold the darn thing.....!!!

Just in case.....water coming out of a firehose is NOT pushing against the air....well, it encounters a bit of resistance, but of course the water has MUCH more mass....and, mass means 'weight'....when in a gravitational field. 'Weight', as we know it, is simply the force of acceleration, due to gravity.

The 'mass' of an atom, or a collection of atoms (an 'object') will not vary.

Water, squirted with great force, out of a tube, has a mass....it's the incredible quantity, that is the mass. A hose with a trickle of water....well, much less mass, obviously.

The water pushes back AGAINST the hose....the air offers minimal resistance....the water is HEAVY, the hose, much less heavy (has less mass) in comparison.

Hope this is sinking in (pun intended)

Hey, quick question....Does anybody recall ever seeing a photo of the original moon landings ?? If I recall, there was actually "thrusters" burning from the capsule as it left the moon's surface !! I'll have to see if I can find a site with that original pic, because it was definitely a big "GOOF" on nasa's part......LOL. I'll get back to you in a bit when I find the pic unless someone posts it first.
You definitely won't get fire or "thrust" on the surface of the moon becuase it doesn't have any atmosphere of oxygen like here on earth........doh !!

reply to post by Manasseh


Troll.......