Can a slow-moving object enter the Earth's atmosphere without burning up even without a heat shield?
An object or a spacecraft.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...
(No Ratings Yet)Loading...
(No Ratings Yet)Loading...Similar Posts
Physics task?
I have a physics homework that I don't understand… could someone please tell me the solution, thanks F1= 70N F2=50N F1 +- F2 I should calculate this task and draw a (Sorry, I don't know how to do this + and – between each other)
How cold is it in an artificial vacuum?
Hello Let's say I create an artificial vacuum on Earth using a machine that can do that. Would it be as cold in the vacuum chamber as it is outside the universe, because there are no particles that can move. Thanks!
Acceleration with friction?
Hello, I have a physics problem where I have to calculate a maximum acceleration while taking static and sliding friction into account. Do I then have to use the standard formula (F=m*a) and add the friction coefficients for static and sliding friction, and then simply convert to a? So, a=F/m*μH*μGR LG Marie
Physics help?
Can anyone help me with these tasks? I have no formulas or anything else.
Direction of movement of a vehicle?
Hello, I need your help. In the task, the coordinates of the vehicle are described by the following equation: x = -(t)^2 y = 1/3 * t^3 I now need to determine the direction of the vehicle's motion at time t = 2 s. Is the direction then a vector with the first derivatives of…
if the speed relative to the earth’s atmosphere is small enough, it goes, for example, if you don’t get out of the orbit, but have risen with a balloon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvbN-cWe0A0
The height was also small compared to what reached shuttle, right? And the atmosphere is denser?
in height this makes hardly a difference – the air density is as good as zero.
I still do not understand exactly why when entering a orbit into the earth’s atmosphere, there is necessarily such a high level of friction with the particles in the atmosphere?
1.Does it like the speed that cannot be adjusted with thrust nozzles?
2.Does it like the power of enrichment, which accelerates the object at the transition from the stratosphere to the atmosphere in free fall to such high speeds that it burns?
3.Love it at the rotational speed of the earth of 11 m/s, at the speed of which the object must be adjusted in order to avoid excessive speeds when re-entry occurs.
4.Other is a re-entry, as another respondent wrote, impossible for technical reasons without a heat shield?
the speed was originally achieved with a very high energy expenditure. Almost the same effort would have to be driven again to decelerate to zero, and for that the ship would have to turn twice under high time pressure – nobody does. It is much more economical to let the air brake easily, and this is very hot…
I know the standard re-entry procedure, but I am interested in the overall problem.
Suppose the spacecraft has a speed of zero at the edge of the atmosphere and then accelerates at very low speed to enter the atmosphere, what happens then?
An object entering the earth’s atmosphere is heated by the friction with the air and can burn if its speed is high enough. The faster the object is, the greater the friction and the higher the generated heat.
However, a slowly entering object can enter the Earth’s atmosphere without annealing if its speed is not high enough to produce sufficient heat. An example of this is the space scrap that enters the atmosphere and usually burns without great heat development.
A further example may be the entry of a balloon, which has a slow speed and is usually made of materials having a low friction, whereby the heat generated is not sufficient to anneal the balloon.
However, it is important to note that even at slow speeds, the heat development can be sufficient to damage or destroy materials.
It is therefore advisable to use a heat shield to protect the object from heat development, especially if it is expensive or important objects.
Because of gravity, a driveless object cannot remain slow when it enters the Earth’s atmosphere coming from space. The earth rotation speed (depending on the latitude to about 460 m/s) is not the main size. The speed that a body would achieve in the unbraked free fall from the height of the ISS is about 2800 m/s. If it comes from a long distance, then it comes at flight speed, 11000 m/s. If the body is to survive the descent without prejudice to heat shield, the same amounts of energy must be converted into friction heat, but at low temperature and therefore slowly. The body needs a large air resistance from the beginning, which already brakes it at a high level and not only, like the parachutes of the Apollo and Soyuz capsules, only at the last few thousand meters. Instead of being like a meteor, he would have to look like a badminton ball or a lion tooth cream.
A missile with a drive/slide could thus reduce the falling speed with sufficient fuel to such an extent that it could enter and land from space without a heat shield. Is that correct?
Yeah, that’s correct. I recommend, however, to make clear what this means with regard to the number of rocket stages and the amount of fuel: each tonne of payload requires as much energy to the cold landing as it previously cost to create it upwards – but the fuel and machine mass added to it now increases the effort at starting. In order to soften the Apollo capsules (30 t) without the ferry (15 t) when returning from the moon, it would have taken about two thirds of a Saturn rocket. But they would have weighed about 2000 t and in order to make them first to the moon, it would have caused the thrust of about 15 Saturn rockets.
Similar applications are planned with the ice deposits on the moon.
As far as comets are concerned, I think this is more difficult. In order to be able to work efficiently with solar energy, the comet should be long enough close to the sun. These are comets but not. Their tracks are elongated ellipses or hyperboles, on which they are traveling for most time far outside in the dark and only for a short time, where it is bright. In the dark outer areas of the planetary system, nuclear energy is required. In order to create a comet by incinerating its own material on an earthly orbit, a considerable part of it would only be consumed for it. For comparison, take the ratio between fuel and payload at the third carrier rocket stage of any interplanetary probe. What remains of the ice for the intended applications would be quite little.
The ratio would be better if one would accelerate the material with an ion engine to higher beam speeds. Instead of as great thrust for a few minutes with combustion drive, one would have small thrust, but for a long time. And because of the greater beam speed, less mass should be ejected per generated pulse. Nuclear energy would again be required to power the ion engine. The path possible with ion engines would not be a Hohmann ellipse, but would be quite different because of the long-lasting but small thrust. Of course, it would be interesting how long the maneuver with the comet would last.
Would it not be possible to fly a water-rich ice comet with a (possibly unmanned) space probe, to land on converting the water via solar modules into hydrogen, to decelerate it as a drive to the comet for several years and then to maneuver it specifically into a high earth trajectory and use the ice to produce sufficient “cheap” fuel for space vehicles?
I mean, from a purely economic point of view, this could be much cheaper in the long term. In addition, the research and the dismantling of scarce resources in other celestial bodies could be implemented much more quickly, right??
The problem is he doesn’t stay slow unless he’s driven by a rocket. Another engine does not go into the outer air layers.
The speed of rotation of the earth is therefore not an essential factor to be considered, or rather a negligible factor, but rather the yield?
Look at the speed of such a capsule.
So clearly hurt ego, because logic and intelligence would not want to write your last comment.
The world is not digital. There’s something between everything and know nothing. Of the fact that you’re talking about people who know more than you do yourself, you don’t have any. Until I know as much about the subject as you, I have to forget a lot.
Either you want to suggest with this answer that you know more than you want to reveal, or it’s just the comment of a wounded ego.
You really didn’t hear the shot.
I assumed that you would know more about it if you were told to write an answer to my question, but since you, as you say, have hardly any idea, this is even a bit more unfriendly that you could get the impression you could contribute something constructive to the question. I call this a reflection of false knowledge.
Wow. What a claim. And maybe I don’t know myself, don’t you think?
I’ll even give you a way of solving. And a thank you’re not in there? Instead, pampty statements about the quality of the solutions? Just incredible!
If one compares astronomy/physics questions from about 6 years ago (or later) with those of today, it is noticeable that the little detail has to be tickled out correctly, rather than that knowledge is freely given away. This disappoints my previous attitude towards humanity.
Of course, however, he does not need fuel to get as fast as the density of the air and the friction would result in heating.
And that’s inefficient, though it’s different.
So it is theoretically possible and dependent on fuel!?
Yeah, that’s not really unusual either. SpaceX slowed down its booster on the return flight (but never left the atmosphere) and NASA slowed down every landing module on Mars.
But this is rarely used to bypass the heating. You want as little fuel/weight as possible and as much equipment as possible. Therefore, fuel is only used for this if it is really necessary.
Well, in addition, a halfway good binding through a station would only be reached from about 35,000 km altitude and the ideal point for this would be at about 90,000 km altitude.
The subject is halfway familiar to me, the real problem is the rope and the tear length of its material.
This idea with the plastic tower is cut off, but here other lift ideas are scientifically negotiated:
https://www.trum.de/video/der-weltraum-an-der-leine/1779141
What’s that supposed to do? The 20 km are a fly shoot in view of the speeds required.
Yes, I have also read the spectrum article (one other respondent). However, I do not understand why a power cable can be installed in the lift to power the climbing vehicle. And if there is a plausible physical reason for this, why not dress the rope material with stable solar cells, as it already exists in vehicle body construction and release the solar tom to the electric motor via induction!?
That wouldn’t work either. Such a line would be too unstable and too heavy. The dream of space lift is old. Countless variations have already been thought through, yet without success.
In the tower you could possibly form a thin water line with thousands of small pumps, from which hydrogen is produced in the spaceship.
No. Much too heavy, much too much attack area for the atmosphere. Too much material.
And it does not solve the problem that the spaceship still needs fuel to dock on this tower.
Someone should tell the company that 25 km is not a space.
Pardon, I could find the answer to my last question on the Internet. Thank you for your answers.
“A Canadian company wants to build an elevator that promotes astronauts up to 20 kilometers. The tower of plastic rings is to be built on a five thousand meters high mountain. It’s an insane plan: A Canadian company wants to build a lift that directs astronauts to space.25.08.2015″
Do you theoretically have the possibility to build a very stable tower from the conquering fluke to space?
Yes, for example, if at some point such a radial spacecraft tower stretched by centrifugal force should be built (traum of engineers and SF fans for fifty years). He’d be able to go up and down without a heat shield…
https://www.trum.de/video/der-weltraum-an-der-leine/1779141
Without acceleration (circular path), the part would not burn but would strike like a stone down…
I thought parachutes would stop it!?
I guess Smiley would have had to do this…
…the point is that virtually all spacecraft and other bodies have a very high rail speed with course on Earth and the energy for braking can simply not be applied…
Yes – so I wrote it (short)…
Since your question (“compassion”) remained very vague, the answers can only be…
I wonder why many intelligent and knowledgeable people are often so difficult to answer a simple question.
Even for countless requests and subsequent answers, I can only assume that the answer to my question is:
Re-entry into the atmosphere without heat shield and without annealing in the atmosphere is only possible if the spacecraft has sufficient traction to reduce the falling speed.
As an optional additional note, it may still be: this is dispensed with by using a heat shield, since the additional load for the fuel required for this is not in any reasonable relationship with the fuel quantity required to transport it into the space of the world.
Is my guess correct?
If he manages to enter the atmosphere slowly, of course. It’s not like the Earth’s atmosphere is poisonous or something. It is the friction of the air molecules that generates the heat.
So, before entering the atmosphere, the object only has to adapt quite exactly to the speed of rotation of the earth!?
It is the result which accelerates a body entering the atmosphere.
That one? The Earth’s magnetic field? If this could be used without calculation, etc., do you not think that would have been invented by anyone?… ;o)
No matter, I don’t need to take the difficult path to study and then to go commercial or university research. The time needed to do this, I used to find a better way for it.
Well, guess what you need for strength to do, how much the earth really has and what e.g. with a glass mass?
I wonder if the Earth’s magnetic field cannot be used to brake a spacecraft in a controlled manner – which technical apparatus would be necessary to use this force?
On an earthly orbit (so close to the atmosphere and far below geostationary satellites), the speed is forcibly higher than the “drotation speed” you call, and therefore there is friction and heat and heat shields…
…the slower the faster the case and harder the impact…
The speed of rotation of the earth is therefore not an essential factor to be considered, or rather a negligible factor, but rather the yield?
This is not possible due to gravity.
Why?
Because the technology is not ready yet.
Yes, it is. It makes little sense.
Where do the thrust nozzles get the necessary energy? Where does the energy get these additional things (nozzles, fuel, control unit …) from the outset to bring the complete journey with high-speed band?
But not with today’s technical possibilities.
Other respondents confirmed this possibility.
Too often Star Trek seen?
What if the object can adjust its speed via thrust nozzles?
The Earth turns at 11 kilometers per second.. An object or a spacecraft must then be on the move at least exactly as fast as the earth in order to be able to penetrate the atmosphere at all. Without a shield, it would be a very daring undertaking.
Thank you for your answer!
You might also be able to answer this question:
Can the Earth’s magnetic field be artificially reconstructed on a smaller scale with an apparatus?
Yes of course – each magnet has a magnetic field… = the question is just how you can find the right conditions of “earth”, object, speed, magnetic forces and deceleration, to be able to draw conclusions for real space…
Our earth turns around itself at about 1600 km/h. You confuse it at different speeds.