The tides are the result of the rotation of the Earth and the whirlpools

DaveC426913 said:
If the satellite stopped moving laterally, it would plummet to the Earth at 9.8m/s^2, just like the continents and oceans would if they could.
Click to expand...

True. 9.8m/s^2 would be the terminal velocity, it would start off slower.

Does not change the detail it is weightless in orbit, and indeed remains so until it contacts ground/sea

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
Astronauts are NOT weightless in space because they are out of the Earth's gravity. They are in a micro gravity environment where they are attracted to the mass of the station (to which they are in contact with via the air inside the station)

The station provides the micro gravity

Since the station is not in contact with the Earth it is also weightless floating in space (disregarding the minute attraction it would have towards its occupants)
Click to expand...
What?

Astronauts are not "attracted to the mass of the station" in any significant way nor do they need to be in "the air inside the station" for microgravity to act on them. Astronauts working outside experience exactly the same forces.

The two most significant forces on the ISS are tidal (the farthest and closest parts want to be in different orbits) and drag (drag slows it down.) Those forces are the primary reasons why it's not perfect "zero gravity" (i.e. no observable acceleration) inside the station.
 
billvon said:
Astronauts are not "attracted to the mass of the station" in any significant way nor do they need to be in "the air inside the station" for microgravity to act on them. Astronauts working outside experience exactly the same forces.
Click to expand...

*********
  • Gravity between the spacecraft and an object within it may make the object slowly "fall" toward a more massive part of it. The acceleration is 0.007 μg for 1000 kg at 1 m distance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro-g_environment

*******

:)
 
DaveC426913 said:
While technically true, this effect is negligible - certainly much smaller than the other dynamics at play.
Click to expand...

From my post #126 The acceleration is 0.007 μg (microgravity) for 1000 kg at 1 m distance

That's my microgravity contribution. What do your dynamics add?

:)
 
DaveC426913 said:
Better. What you wrote in post 122 was ... eyebrow-raising.
Click to expand...

:) You should know what I mean :)

Bit distracted with friends at shopping centre with ice cream and coffee

When I get home still have a large tree in back garden from cyclone Marcus 27th last month while I was away in Bali

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
From my post #126 The acceleration is 0.007 μg (microgravity) for 1000 kg at 1 m distance
Click to expand...
That's only true if the mass is a point source to one side of the astronaut.

Since astronauts are inside the space station, and it surrounds them, there are contributions from all sides. In the center of a cylinder (which most of the ISS is) the net is zero. Outside of the ISS the truss and the solar panels are _nearly_ symmetric so again almost zero contributions. The radiators are on one side so they might contribute a bit.
 
billvon said:
That's only true if the mass is a point source to one side of the astronaut.

Since astronauts are inside the space station, and it surrounds them, there are contributions from all sides. In the center of a cylinder (which most of the ISS is) the net is zero. Outside of the ISS the truss and the solar panels are _nearly_ symmetric so again almost zero contributions. The radiators are on one side so they might contribute a bit.
Click to expand...

For a large orbital vehicle, like the space shuttle or the International Space Station (ISS), the centre of mass is the best place to locate sensitive experiments, because disturbances increase with distance from the centre

https://www.britannica.com/science/microgravity

:)
 
sideshowbob said:
Are you suggesting that a satellite's orbit is not perturbed by the moon?
Click to expand...
In cosmonautics it is already a proven fact that the area of the attraction of the moon is limited to 10 thousand kilometers from the surface of the moon,
artificial satellites of the moon with an orbit radius of more than 10 thousand km. break from the orbit.
 
Fermer05 said:
In cosmonautics it is already a proven fact that the area of the attraction of the moon is limited to 10 thousand kilometers from the surface of the moon,
artificial satellites of the moon with an orbit radius of more than 10 thousand km. break from the orbit.
Click to expand...
Show us the math.
 
Fermer05 said:
In cosmonautics it is already a proven fact that the area of the attraction of the moon is limited to 10 thousand kilometers from the surface of the moon,
artificial satellites of the moon with an orbit radius of more than 10 thousand km. break from the orbit.
Click to expand...
OK, Fermer has crossed the threshold from making contentious claims to demonstrating an outright ignorance of physics.

There is no way to discuss physics with someone who doesn't understand the first thing about it.
 
Fermer05 said:
In cosmonautics it is already a proven fact that the area of the attraction of the moon is limited to 10 thousand kilometers from the surface of the moon. artificial satellites of the moon with an orbit radius of more than 10 thousand km. break from the orbit.
Click to expand...
During the Apollo mission, the CM/third stage fired its engines in Earth orbit to start it on its way towards the Moon. As it climbed away from Earth (coasting along its trajectory) it kept slowing down until it was 40,000km from the Moon. At that point lunar gravity became stronger than Earth gravity, and it started accelerating towards the Moon.

Looks like reality once again has intruded on your imagination.
 
Fermer05 said:
... artificial satellites of the moon with an orbit radius of more than 10 thousand km. break from the orbit.
Click to expand...
That isn't what I'm asking. I'm asking whether you think artificial satellites of the earth are pulled "upward" by the moon, like the tides. The conventional understanding of gravity is that they are but you seem to think they're not and that that confirms your conjecture.
 
Fermer05 said:
In cosmonautics it is already a proven fact that the area of the attraction of the moon is limited to 10 thousand kilometers from the surface of the moon,
Click to expand...
??? Wonder what the barrier is at 10 thousand kilometres from the surface of the moon that stops gravity going any further??

Sounds like something which could be used as antigravity if science can make it stronger

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top