Space In General

[Danoff]

Stupid question. But what happened if, say, the Oxygen from inside the spaceship is burst out in the middle of the no gravity space? Specifically what happen to the Oxygen, Spaceship, and the stuff inside it (my guess for latter is most likely follow the Oxygen)

Huh?

I think you're asking what happens when a pressurized spacecraft depressurizes. The answer is the air rushes out through the opening. The speed with which the air rushes out determines the effect it has on things that are not tied down inside the spacecraft and the duration. A pinhole leak would take a while to leak out and would probably not disturb anything inside. A sudden massive opening would have larger suction but for only a short time period.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Huh?

I think you're asking what happens when a pressurized spacecraft depressurizes. The answer is the air rushes out through the opening. The speed with which the air rushes out determines the effect it has on things that are not tied down inside the spacecraft and the duration. A pinhole leak would take a while to leak out and would probably not disturb anything inside. A sudden massive opening would have larger suction but for only a short time period.

Further to that, the oxygen/air would depressurise and disperse. The temperature inside the spaceship would rapidly fall towards -273.16C. Anything inside the spaceship at "normal room pressure" would explode as the pressure around it fell to effectively zero. The stuff escaping the spaceship (gas, fluid, bits of human) would potentially create further damage around the hole. A complete depressurisation of the ship would be nigh-on impossible to survive if the crew didn't quickly suit up or shut bulkheads to separate themselves from the depressurised areas.

 

[Thematic]

This air would be unburned propellant, changing the ship's course. It probably would not make the situation worse for the carbon sacks, though.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Further to that, the oxygen/air would depressurise and disperse. The temperature inside the spaceship would rapidly fall towards -273.16C. Anything inside the spaceship at "normal room pressure" would explode as the pressure around it fell to effectively zero. The stuff escaping the spaceship (gas, fluid, bits of human) would potentially create further damage around the hole. A complete depressurisation of the ship would be nigh-on impossible to survive if the crew didn't quickly suit up or shut bulkheads to separate themselves from the depressurised areas.

The temperature wouldn't rapidly fall to absolute zero as the only form of heat loss would be through radiation which is slow when compared to conduction or convection. And the people wouldn't explode as you need a much higher pressure drop than 1 bar. Although they would still die pretty quickly. As far as I'm aware anyway.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The temperature wouldn't rapidly fall to absolute zero as the only form of heat loss would be through radiation which is slow when compared to conduction or convection.

That's incorrect. The warmth in the spaceship is atmospheric ie the air in the capsule is heated to habitable temperature. In the question example that atmosphere is all lost therefore the heat around the inhabitants' bodies is also lost. There would be retained heat in the inner surfaces of the vessel but no atmosphere for this to conduct, radiate or convect through.

And the people wouldn't explode as you need a much higher pressure drop than 1 bar. Although they would still die pretty quickly. As far as I'm aware anyway.

The drop from C.100kPa to 1.45x10-18Pa is dramatic. They'd double in size with in seconds and the joints would begin to separate as the inside of the body boiled (ebullism). Combined with being blasted through the space vessel as it emptied... they'd disintegrate pretty quickly. They would, as you note, be dead by then.

 

[Spurgy 777]

That's incorrect. The warmth in the spaceship is atmospheric ie the air in the capsule is heated to habitable temperature. In the question example that atmosphere is all lost therefore the heat around the inhabitants' bodies is also lost. There would be retained heat in the inner surfaces of the vessel but no atmosphere for this to conduct, radiate or convect through.

Yes, the atmosphere would go, but if there's no atmosphere then surely there's no temperature (other than in the objects and people etc). And I assume you agree that the people wouldn't dramatically lose temperature as the only way they could do that after the atmosphere is gone is through radiation.

The drop from C.100kPa to 1.45x10-18Pa is dramatic. They'd double in size with in seconds and the joints would begin to separate as the inside of the body boiled (ebullism). Combined with being blasted through the space vessel as it emptied... they'd disintegrate pretty quickly. They would, as you note, be dead by then.

From what I've read/heard on being exposed to a vacuum the skin and other tissue is capable of dealing with a drop in pressure of 1 bar and keeping the body together. Yes some of your fluids would boil and lots of other somewhat deadly things would happen, but exploding is not one of them.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yes, the atmosphere would go, but if there's no atmosphere then surely there's no temperature (other than in the objects and people etc). And I assume you agree that the people wouldn't dramatically lose temperature as the only way they could do that after the atmosphere is gone is through radiation.

They'll be emitting steam which will take heat energy away... but as you point out it isn't the cold that will kill them.

From what I've read/heard on being exposed to a vacuum the skin and other tissue is capable of dealing with a drop in pressure of 1 bar and keeping the body together. Yes some of your fluids would boil and lots of other somewhat deadly things would happen, but exploding is not one of them.

I didn't say exploding was one of them

 

[Spurgy 777]

I didn't say exploding was one of them

Maybe I just got the wrong end of the stick with what you were saying then

 

[CodeRedR51]

SpaceX will reattempt the SES-9 launch Tuesday at 6:35pm EST. (4th time's the charm?)

 

[CodeRedR51]

SpaceX launch canceled for today. Upper level winds are too high.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Trying again at 6:35pm EST.

http://www.spacex.com/webcast

Edit: Launch successful......finally.

Edit 2: Video cut out on the landing attempt, waiting for confirmation.

Edit 3: Landing unsuccessful according to Mr Musk. Didn't have much fuel to get the job done and approach was too fast. Oh well, on to the next.

 

[photonrider]

'Before astronomers determined the distance for GN-z11, the most distant galaxy measured spectroscopically had a redshift of 8.68 (13.2 billion years in the past). Now, the team has confirmed GN-z11 to be at a redshift of 11.1, nearly 200 million years closer to the Big Bang. “This is an extraordinary accomplishment for Hubble. It managed to beat all the previous distance records held for years by much larger ground-based telescopes,” said investigator Pieter van Dokkum of Yale University. “This new record will likely stand until the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope.”'


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/hubble-team-breaks-cosmic-distance-record

 

[tarnheld]

the most distant galaxy measured spectroscopically had a redshift of 8.68 (13.2 billion years in the past). Now, the team has confirmed GN-z11 to be at a redshift of 11.1, nearly 200 million years closer to the Big Bang

What about the last scattering surface with a redshift of over 1000?

 

[wfooshee]

Limited understanding involved here on my part, but: The last scattering surface has not been observed. We know what it is and how far away it is because of what we can work out about cosmological background radiation, but nothing has actually "seen" it. We also know that it's not actually possible to "see" beyond it, as it marks the time when the Universe became transparent.

 

[eran0004]

Stupid question. But what happened if, say, the Oxygen from inside the spaceship is burst out in the middle of the no gravity space? Specifically what happen to the Oxygen, Spaceship, and the stuff inside it (my guess for latter is most likely follow the Oxygen)

You already got a few answers, but I thought it would be good to point out that there is gravity in space. The reason why you would be weightless in space is because you're not opposing the force of gravity, you just follow in the direction where it pulls you - essentially you would be in a constant free fall. Why you can still manage to stay in orbit is because you travel forward at such speed that you keep missing the ground. If you stop the forward motion (or slow it down), the gravity from Earth would quickly pull you back down.

What would happen to the oxygen: rather than a suction from the vacuum of space it's better to think of it as pressure from the gas itself. Space doesn't suck (!), what happens is that the gas is pushing on itself, and as there is a hole in the spacecraft and nothing* pushing on the gas from the outside, the gas would push itself out through the hole. Initially, the flow of gas escaping from the vessel would be great, but as less and less gas remains inside, the pressure is reduced and the flow drops. When only very little oxygen remains in the vessel, the flow of escaping gas would be minimal.

* Almost nothing. Not even space has a perfect vacuum, there are always some atoms hanging around here and there.

As for the other objects inside, it depends on how quickly the oxygen escapes and how easy it is for the objects to be dragged along by the airflow. You can think of it as a strong wind (depending on the size of the hole): a paper would very easily be swept away, but a computer would not. As there is no suction from space - only pressure from the materia inside the spacecraft - there wouldn't be a lot of force sucking or pushing heavy objects out into space.

When the atmospheric pressure drops, liquids would turn into gas. This can also happen with your blood if your spacesuit bursts; bubbles of gas could be forming in your blood veins, which is a very serious condition. It happens from time to time with divers when they go up to the surface too quickly after spending a long time deep in the water, where the pressure is much higher than at the surface.

I don't think anything special would happen to the spaceship, as the end result would just be that the external pressure is the same as the internal pressure, so it would not be crushed or exploded by the vacuum of space. The actual burst can weaken the structural integrity though, which could cause the internal pressure to rip more holes open while the pressure is still high inside. If you take a balloon and punch a hole in it with a needle, it explodes, because the punch of the needle forms rips that rapidly spreads over the surface and you get a chaotic and explosive decompression. But if you punch a hole on a piece of tape on the balloon, the tape prevents the rips from spreading, and you get a slow and controlled decompression.

 

[Dotini]

Yet another failed landing for Musk's rocket. This guy just doesn't take "No!" for answer.
http://www.cnet.com/news/spacex-roc...arge-landing-for-fourth-time/#ftag=YHF65cbda0

 

[CodeRedR51]

Yet another failed landing for Musk's rocket. This guy just doesn't take "No!" for answer.
http://www.cnet.com/news/spacex-roc...arge-landing-for-fourth-time/#ftag=YHF65cbda0

They knew the chances of a successful landing were pretty slim due to a large heavy payload leaving minimal fuel for landing, but they tried anyway. You won't succeed unless you try, no harm in that. It's not like they are losing the rocket with a failed landing, it would have been trash anyway just dumping it back in the ocean like normal.

 

[Tired Tyres]

It would help if it wasn't the most difficult way you could think of to land a rocket.

 

[Sprite]

Yet another failed landing for Musk's rocket. This guy just doesn't take "No!" for answer.
http://www.cnet.com/news/spacex-roc...arge-landing-for-fourth-time/#ftag=YHF65cbda0

I'm glad he doesn't. Nothing worth doing is easy.

I'd like for him to succeed soon though, the rocket will land and the barge will float, he just needs to bring them together and perfect it.

 

[Dennisch]

He needs to find a space on land to get that rocket back on the ground, even if it's just to cut out any variables that can potentially ruin the landing. But I too hope that he just keeps on trying until he's successful and thus reliable.

 

[wfooshee]

Except nobody wants that to be near where they live!

The time it came back to Canaveral was apparently a lighter boost, so it had fuel for the return. Most boosts don't leave enough fuel for that, and there's certainly not the capacity to go ahead and cross the Atlantic. Even if there were, if it flew that far it would have to be protected for re-entry. The only land within that non-oceanic-crossing distance is back to Florida, or the Bahamas, and the Bahamas makes for a radical course change from launch, even if they'd let it [try to] land there.

I'm really not sure what the problem is with parachuting into the water and going out to fetch it...... Well, other than being liquid-fueled and restartable making it a MUCH more complicated piece of machinery than the simple tube the shuttle's SRBs were. There is that......

So it needs to sprout wings and glide back to Canaveral. That's the ticket. Anybody wanna build a folding wing that will fly a nearly empty booster hundreds of miles, without taking up fuel space inside the booster or adding significant weight?

 

[CodeRedR51]

I'm really not sure what the problem is with parachuting into the water and going out to fetch it......

Salt water is very bad on the engines and they would require a full rebuild. Landing does not.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yet another failed landing for Musk's rocket. This guy just doesn't take "No!" for answer.
http://www.cnet.com/news/spacex-roc...arge-landing-for-fourth-time/#ftag=YHF65cbda0

He's on par with the space agencies' early years. It took them years to successfully get something into orbit. He's trying to do that and then land the things.

 

[eran0004]

It's also important to remember that a failed attempt isn't just a failure, it also provides an apportunity to learn about what went wrong and why.

Anybody wanna build a folding wing that will fly a nearly empty booster hundreds of miles, without taking up fuel space inside the booster or adding significant weight?

NASA had an idea about a paraglider system for the Gemini spacecraft back in the 1960's:

 

[Tired Tyres]

Except nobody wants that to be near where they live!

The time it came back to Canaveral was apparently a lighter boost, so it had fuel for the return. Most boosts don't leave enough fuel for that, and there's certainly not the capacity to go ahead and cross the Atlantic. Even if there were, if it flew that far it would have to be protected for re-entry. The only land within that non-oceanic-crossing distance is back to Florida, or the Bahamas, and the Bahamas makes for a radical course change from launch, even if they'd let it [try to] land there.

I'm really not sure what the problem is with parachuting into the water and going out to fetch it...... Well, other than being liquid-fueled and restartable making it a MUCH more complicated piece of machinery than the simple tube the shuttle's SRBs were. There is that......

So it needs to sprout wings and glide back to Canaveral. That's the ticket. Anybody wanna build a folding wing that will fly a nearly empty booster hundreds of miles, without taking up fuel space inside the booster or adding significant weight?

Why not build a jet engined booster - like a bigger version of Concorde, that was 60's technology so it should be doable, - sit the orbiter on its back climb to 80,000 feet at say Mach 4 or better and release the orbiter to accelerate to orbit. Meanwhile the booster flies back to earth and lands like a normal airplane?

 

[wfooshee]

Salt water is very bad on the engines and they would require a full rebuild. Landing does not.

Exactly the point of my very next sentence.

Why not build a jet engined booster - like a bigger version of Concorde, that was 60's technology so it should be doable, - sit the orbiter on its back climb to 80,000 feet at say Mach 4 or better and release the orbiter to accelerate to orbit. Meanwhile the booster flies back to earth and lands like a normal airplane?

That won't get the payload to orbit. Staging now happens at about 80 kilometers altitude and Mach 10. Your proposal reaches less than one third of that altitude and less than half the velocity, yet exceeds the flight parameters (speed and payload, but not altitude) of the SR-71. That shortfall in initial boost would have to be made up for by the rest of the craft in both power capability and fuel capacity, meaning your jet would have to carry more stuff than the rocket booster, which would necessairly cost significantly more.

 

[FoRiZon]

Thanks @eran0004 for the answer.


Now, if anyone can search for a livestream for Solar Eclipse today at 4 hours ahead (my timezone now is midnight) in case i still fall asleep or i cant see it due to my geographical and weather reason. Much appreciated

EDIT: Whatever. Turns out nobody cares anyway.

 

[ProjectWHaT]

 

[ECGadget]

Commander Scott Kelly is retiring, effective April 1st. Legend of NASA for certain, with two decades of service.

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/astronaut-scott-kelly-to-retire-from-nasa-in-april

 

[Swagger897]

April 1st you say...?