# Tag Info

0

Assuming the fluids completely fill the closed container and the temperature is not near zero, nothing noticeable would happen. Each molecule in the fluids experience three basic types of forces. One is simply the force due to the net electrostatic potential between each molecule. For example Van der Waals. Another is simple collisions. The third is ...

-1

It's something I have considered myself, we have yet to bring and empty bottle back from space and see, however in theory, if the bottle/jar (container) is strong enough it will be filled with negative pressure and create what's called, a vacuum. The bottle will likely contain little to no molecules and you will essentially have a little piece of void space ...

0

The slow mixing you are referring to, is called diffusion. On the microscopic level, the molecules move in random direction, this is called Brownian motion. Without gravity, this microscopic motion is still present (unless you go to the absolute zero temperature). With gravity (suppose you have the heavier layer on the bottom), this is an unmixing force, ...

0

It takes a tremendous amount of thrust to propel something from launch to orbit. A nuclear powered propulsion device doesn't lend itself well to this task, not to mention the risk of an accident, which for fission systems in particular, poses a large health and safety risk. Once the craft has made it beyond the Earth's atmosphere however, both fission and ...

1

I know very little about the subject but i do have this to offer. Nuclear reactors make heat energy not kinetic energy. The conversion from one to the other would introduce many problems, weight being the main one. People don't like the idea of sending something up that's radioactive and may come back down and "mess up" the ground with its radiation. ...

1

There have been designs for such things. Try searching "nuclear salt water rocket" (or just go to the wikipedia page...). Paper with a design (PDF link): http://path-2.narod.ru/design/base_e/nswr.pdf. The author does not suggest it as a ascent or descent stage (presumably because the radioactive exhaust would make you unpopular with anyone who wanted to ...

0

I would say there are two main problems to consider. One is that heat is not the same as thrust, and the mechanisms we have to convert reactor heat to thrust would add such weight to the rocket that would never get off the ground. Another problem is that the rate of energy generation required (power) would probably melt any reactor that we now have. I ...

0

orbiting, graviting, means only mass maters. It could be gaz, diamon, a bag of cockroach, or even a black hole, it would not change gravitational behaviors that orbits are. ( NB: yes, black hole too. Nothing different occurs in gravity as well when a star turn into blackhole. And it was attracting distant matter before exactly as well.)

1

If we assume all of the rest of the planets are neutral in charge, then only the mass of the sun matters for the Solar system. The gravity between the star and planets and other objects forms the main force that maintains the rotation of smaller objects around the sun and be stable for a long time. No matter what you fill in the sun, the mass of the sun ...

0

Yes it would move towards the nearest magnetic surface, although the walls of the ISS say, are so packed with gear, it might be difficult to find the right surface, that is not insulated or made from a substance that is not strongly affected by magnetic fields. The reason I gave a (very short) answer this question is to include Magnets in Space, which ...

0

This problem can be answered if we treat Light as a Particle. Due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, $\Delta x\Delta p\geq \dfrac{\hbar}{2}$, saying that we cannot exactly know the particle's Position and Momentum at the same time. In the case of a laser, a photon cannot have 0 momentum in any arbitrary direction so the photons cannot just go in one ...

1

During my A-levels I had a small difference of opinion on this with my lecturer - he stated that any shove away from a stable orbit would cause the object to escape altogether.. I countered that the object would experience an 'orbital wobble' and just settle back down again to a circular orbit in the future (like Saturns rings I thought)..

3

Download the *.pdf (orbit.pdf) embedded in this link for a full derivation (dragless) for a very similar problem as asked in the question. In it, an object is thrown from the International Space Station (ISS) towards the Earth at $1 \text{ m/s}$. The conclusion is that the object enters a new, eccentric orbit, barely $1 \text{ km}$ below the orbit of the ...

Top 50 recent answers are included