search your brains

[lampblack]

And there's this classic:<br /><br />In the original Star Wars movie ("Episode 4"), Han Solo brags to Obi Wan and Luke on how fast the Millenium Falcon can go. He tells them that it's the only ship to ever make the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.<br /><br />It was a sort of egregious use of a unit of distance to describe a unit of time. Like saying you can get to Alpha Centauri in three light years.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[lampblack]

And when ships blew up in the Star Wars movies, we heard the explosion -- despite the vacuum of space. Same goes, I guess, for Star Trek -- and most every other space program that ever existed.<br /><br />Everyone knows that in space nobody can hear you scream. But we sure did hear the star fighters zooming by -- and we heard an assortment of fighters (and the Death Star) when they went boom.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">Actually, now that I think about it, I think maybe 2001 A Space Oddesy might have not had the "ship flying by" sound effect. I'm not 100% sure though. </font><br /><br />Now that you mention it, I do seem to recall a *lot* of fairly realistic silences in 2001. But it's been awhile, and I'm not sure, either. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

the latest star trek TNG movie where the two ships in space pull apart but only one is using thrusters. <br />it would simply pull the other along seeing as there is no friction in space. that was funny. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">the latest star trek TNG movie where the two ships in space pull apart but only one is using thrusters.<br />it would simply pull the other along seeing as there is no friction in space. that was funny.</font><br /><br />One thing (among several) that really annoyed me about that movie: the scene where a hole gets blasted into the hull in the bridge area, and a crew member gets sucked into the vacuum of space.<br /><br />Transporter technology being what it is, seems somebody would have thought to lock onto her comm badge and beam her back aboard. She'd have survived at least a few seconds -- long enough to make it to sick bay if they'd been alert.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[darth_elmo]

I don't know where you got the idea that there is no friction in space. Friction is a little-understood but real property of matter. When two surfaces are in contact, there will be friction.

 

[steampower]

what about inertia?, if ship A has 150tons of thrust moveing it in some direction, then ship B (the one they hit) needs half that force on it (assuming they are the same mass) to move at the same speed, just because they are jammed together doesn`t mean that they are welded together, the "join" between the two ships may not be capable of taking 75tons of strain, so ship A would pull free of ship B because B would only get as much force as it took to break lose, and the instant it did break loose then ship A gets all the force to accelerate with and ship B just drifts at whatever speed it got to when the two broke apart.<br /><br />steampower.

 

[JonClarke]

"the latest star trek TNG movie where the two ships in space pull apart but only one is using thrusters. it would simply pull the other along seeing as there is no friction in space."<br /><br />That's what happens every time a spacecraft - Soyuz, Progress or Shuttle - undocks from the ISS. Once the physical connection is removed by undoing the docking latches, any velocity change by one space craft away from the other will result in the two separating. You don't need both to fire thrusters.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

yes, thanks for clearing me on that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

actually with a frictionless atmosphere they very much are welded. equilibrium (or in this case its center of gravity) shares both vessels, regardless of mass of one on the other. the earth, or whatever source of gravity pulling on it, has no special preference for weight and is being equally pulled on at all points. if the shuttle were clamped by a single latch and thrust to rip it off, it could only achieve it by twisting (physically compromising), however if it were simply a linear thrust, it would pull the space station with it, no matter how much thrust is applied.<br /><br />if i have a skyscraper attached by a piece of string and i'm standing on some platform in space, i can pull that skyscraper in the vacuum of space to me, however i will equally be pulling myself to it. mass is equally distributed in a vacuum. <br /><br />so i'm not sure why one ship requires half the force, as they are joined. half the force maybe in the opposite direction, and the place that physical intergrity is compromised will give way. but it has to be opposite.<br /><br />same thing with planets. center of gravity resides between the two somewhere, depending on mass of each respectively.<br /><br />that's just how i remember physics in a frictionless environment. and those two ships were so far into each other it was just funny to see it break apart so easily. it just wouldn't happen. its just different from the physics at work in friction. the reason it would pull apart on the earth is because now it has inertia and one objects mass does require a certain energy directly dependent upon that mass to change its direction. two objects joined, but with different masses will be treated differently by the gravity on the earth.<br /><br />a bicycle tangled in a car, a car tangled in a truck, etc. in space it doesn't matter. it would require two thrusters in opposite directions, equally, to untangle a bicycle from a car (they share center of gravity and weight doesn't matter).<br /><br></br> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

with enough velocity to take the space station out of its orbit, i can pull it with a tether attached to my spacesuit and thrusters. but sure as anything if the spaceshuttle docked at the SS engaged thrusters the entire thing would move, even if they are only tethered together and not only would it not stop but shutting down the thrusters and the tether would remain just as taught. <br /><br />the only reason the thrusters from an astronaut my not alter the SS course or spin dramatically is that there isn't enough force to overcome the overall inertia of the system due to spin. but given a constant thrust of any magnitude constant, and it will change the entire system.<br /><br />actually, i said the physics are a little different, which isn't true. the physics are exactly the same except a variable is removed- friction in the form of gravity (even regarding atmosphere, but that is complicating it a little).<br /><br />as far as the TNG movie, i think their reasoning behind the ship breaking apart, if i remember the scene right, was that the thrusters were pretty much inside the other ship, so there was a force (the hull of the other ship) to draw the opposite reaction necessary. wasn't that it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>