besides the whole blowing up thing, can a bird fly in space? i figure that it shouldn't have many problems, but i'm not too sure of how the wings of a bird actually work. do they rely on the wind for them to soar through the air? well, what would happen if you take away the air, and the gravity? sooo, my main question is : can a bird propel itself through outer-space with its wings?
Can a bird fly in space?
- Thread starter erikiksaz
- Start date
No, in outer space there is no air, therefore a bird cannot fly. A bird flies due to pressure variations which cause lift and thrust--you need air for pressure variations.
oh darn. hmm, so i'm guessing the bird just kinda floats around? but hey, we could move around in space (in suits) so why can't it?
I'm not certain how astronauts move about in space, but I am pretty sure it is through contact (at some point) with solid objects such as walls, bars, or possibly the cord/pipe (I'm assuming there is one) that provides them with their heat/oxygen. However, I do NOT know how astronauts move in space when they are doing repairs etc. and I am just guessing here.
The thrust comes from the combustion of reactants in the thruster. These expand and exit out the thruster, this exerts a force on the uh rocket pack, causing it to move.
Each action has an equal and opposate reaction. The rocket pushes hot gas out of one end, the other end goes foreward.
geoff2k: A rocket, as opposed to a jet engine, actually pushes against its own exhaust to move. Therefore it is pushing against an "air" of sorts, but a rocket engine must provide its own "air" so to speak. This is why a jet plane could not propel itself in space.
If you could get the bird to let go of some really violent droppings I'm sure it would propel it, at least a tiny bit.
A jet cannot fly into space because a jet engine uses the oxygen in air for combustion. Jets do not "push" against the air of their exhaust.
DRGrim, has it right."Each action has an equal and opposate reaction."
Astronauts have used jet packs for propulsion in space.
A bird could not fly in a vacuum(assuming you get past the problems of explosive decompression and breathing).
It would be interesting to see if a bird could fly in a weighless enviornment. I don't see any reason why the couldn't though they would probably have to relearn the skill due to balance considerations.
DRGrim, has it right."Each action has an equal and opposate reaction."
Astronauts have used jet packs for propulsion in space.
A bird could not fly in a vacuum(assuming you get past the problems of explosive decompression and breathing).
It would be interesting to see if a bird could fly in a weighless enviornment. I don't see any reason why the couldn't though they would probably have to relearn the skill due to balance considerations.
"Jets do not "push" against the air of their exhaust."
That's not necessarily true. Depending on the size of the engine there is one or two power turbines (perhaps even more) located in the later stages your standard jet engine. This is more of the exhaust pushing against the turbine, but if the exhaust pushes the turbine, the turbine must push the exhaust.
That's not necessarily true. Depending on the size of the engine there is one or two power turbines (perhaps even more) located in the later stages your standard jet engine. This is more of the exhaust pushing against the turbine, but if the exhaust pushes the turbine, the turbine must push the exhaust.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,393
- 8,552
- 126
the bird would go up if there were no gravity. it creates a high pressure below the wing and a low pressure above, so it gets pushed toward the low by the high. thats why they fly. since theres no counteracting force in the absence of gravity the bird would keep going up.
jet works the same way as a rocket, fuel is combusted, the resulting explosion goes outwards equally, the only way out is back so theres a force pushing the compressor blades forward. essentially the compressor blades are the front end of a rocket motor (which technically aren't engines). the jet just uses oxygen from the atmosphere.
jet works the same way as a rocket, fuel is combusted, the resulting explosion goes outwards equally, the only way out is back so theres a force pushing the compressor blades forward. essentially the compressor blades are the front end of a rocket motor (which technically aren't engines). the jet just uses oxygen from the atmosphere.
Look you blabbering knaves, the guiding principal behind mass ejection propulsion in space is CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM.
"the bird would go up if there were no gravity."
In a weightless environment, which way is up?
In a weightless environment, which way is up?
Simply put, an astronaut uses a propulsion pack that shoots chemical out to propel themselves. Much like what chemical rockets do.
If a bird ended up in outer space, it would not be flying, it would be floating.
BTW jets propel themselves exactly the same way as rockets, the only difference is they have there own supply of oxygen ( just look at a diagram of a pulse jet or a ram jet). All the addition of turbines (turbo-jets), fans (fan-jets) & propellors (turbo-props) do is make the jet more efficient fuel wise at the specified speed.
It all goes beack to one of Newtwon's 3 laws - the one to do with every action having an equal & opposite reaction.
So as someone mentioned, if a bird 'pooped' in space it could propel itself in the oposite direction, just as an astronaut throwing a hammer will propel him in the opposite direction. Its the same reason why the drills astronauts use spin in both directions, at either endn, otherwise (in a virtual vacum with virtually no gravity) the astronaut would end up spinning in the opposite direction the drill is spining in.
BTW jets propel themselves exactly the same way as rockets, the only difference is they have there own supply of oxygen ( just look at a diagram of a pulse jet or a ram jet). All the addition of turbines (turbo-jets), fans (fan-jets) & propellors (turbo-props) do is make the jet more efficient fuel wise at the specified speed.
It all goes beack to one of Newtwon's 3 laws - the one to do with every action having an equal & opposite reaction.
So as someone mentioned, if a bird 'pooped' in space it could propel itself in the oposite direction, just as an astronaut throwing a hammer will propel him in the opposite direction. Its the same reason why the drills astronauts use spin in both directions, at either endn, otherwise (in a virtual vacum with virtually no gravity) the astronaut would end up spinning in the opposite direction the drill is spining in.
OK, I was thinking the only kind of "jet engine" are the kinds found in aircraft, ships, and helicopters. Those are strictly gas turbines, the turbine being a very necessary part of the design. Where a turbine in the exhaust path powers the compressor. Without this your Boeing 777 would never get off the ground.
and the simple fact is that if it got into outer space it would explode, and all the stuff is true but a bird cant breathe in outter space so even if he could "fly" then he still would die. And a jet can go into outer space, it cant fly though. If the jet reaches a high enough velocity then it can beat earths gravity/atmosphere and go into space. Which is almost impossible, but if it got into space it would travel for a hell of a long time.
As was stated earlier, the whole idea of "Flying" is based upon the wing design, not the form of propulsion. Wings of airplanes and birds are designed so that AIR rushs over the wing faster than it rushes under the wing, creating a low pressure area above the wing and a high pressure area under the wing. This definition of "flying" can only occur within an atmosphere. Space, by definition, has no atmosphere, so a bird or airplane could not "fly".
amish
amish
thebestMAX
Diamond Member
- Sep 14, 2000
- 7,505
- 134
- 106
"OK, I was thinking the only kind of "jet engine" are the kinds found in aircraft, ships, and helicopters. Those are strictly gas turbines, the turbine being a very necessary part of the design. Where a turbine in the exhaust path powers the compressor. Without this your Boeing 777 would never get off the ground."
Actually a pulse-jet or ram-jet (neither of which have any turbines) powered aircraft could fly all day long without any problems.
The only trouble is starting the buggers, as air is compressed by the tuned inlets (as in they are tuned to the cruising speed of the aircraft + or - a certain specified range). Consequently such aircraft need asistence when taking off - such as being launched from another aircraft or taking off using RATO (rocket assisted takeoff) packs. Actually the V1 flying bomb (really they could be more accurately described as pilotless kamikazi aircraft) used catapult ramps for launching & starting their pulse-jets.
As one can imagine pulse/ram jets arn't the most practicle of buggers, hence their lack of popularity. However the MIG-25 Foxbat used ram-jet technology in its turbo-jet engines, consequently it used atrocious amounts of fuel taking off & climbing, but at its high operating speed was surprisingly fuel efficient. Even so the MIG-25 airframe was eventually updated with advanced turbo-fan engines & became the MIG-31. Which is a vastly superior aircraft, that can also fly much further on less fuel, even though its top speed is slightly less & its not as efficent at flying at mach 2.3+ speeds. But its not as if one would ever fly it the fast 'n high, as contemporary tactics have changed from what they were in the 70's.
Actually a pulse-jet or ram-jet (neither of which have any turbines) powered aircraft could fly all day long without any problems.
The only trouble is starting the buggers, as air is compressed by the tuned inlets (as in they are tuned to the cruising speed of the aircraft + or - a certain specified range). Consequently such aircraft need asistence when taking off - such as being launched from another aircraft or taking off using RATO (rocket assisted takeoff) packs. Actually the V1 flying bomb (really they could be more accurately described as pilotless kamikazi aircraft) used catapult ramps for launching & starting their pulse-jets.
As one can imagine pulse/ram jets arn't the most practicle of buggers, hence their lack of popularity. However the MIG-25 Foxbat used ram-jet technology in its turbo-jet engines, consequently it used atrocious amounts of fuel taking off & climbing, but at its high operating speed was surprisingly fuel efficient. Even so the MIG-25 airframe was eventually updated with advanced turbo-fan engines & became the MIG-31. Which is a vastly superior aircraft, that can also fly much further on less fuel, even though its top speed is slightly less & its not as efficent at flying at mach 2.3+ speeds. But its not as if one would ever fly it the fast 'n high, as contemporary tactics have changed from what they were in the 70's.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter