Space swimming pool molecular gravity strength question?

Food for thought.

Let's say we have an olympic sized swimming pool volume of water in space and it's in a air filled room just like pools on earth. Only difference is no gravity in space so you will have a shape of some sort in space different than on earth but a large volume of water none the less.

Now let's enter the pool and get totally submerged just like on earth. We have a swim suit on but no air other than how long we can hold our breath so no space suit or scuba tanks. So now that we are in/under water could we just move our hands around and create an air pocket in the pool of water to breath in? our is this even possible to do? Sort of like an air bubble in jello.

Just wondering what you think.

I think there must be a real way to answer the question with physics and math but don't know how to prove it.

Thanks

Space swimming pool molecular gravity strength question?hidden myspace

Well ... you need to get the air from somewhere. So no.

Water in space will tend to form a sphere, the largest volume to smallest surface area, due to surface tension. This also implies that any bubbles that would exist inside the sphere of water would tend to move towards the surface of the water and "burst".

Heres a cool video on roughly this topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyTwLAW-Z...

Space swimming pool molecular gravity strength question?myspace generators myspace.com

You would have to make a "hole" to the outside of the water.I think the water would be too unstable and the hole would collapse before you got a breath of air. (to the other answerers...he said it was in an air filled room...but good point...it would have to be heated)
well ,, no air in space - so if you break up the water you still pooched -- and creating a pocket in the water will not do anything either cause you can not make air out of nothing,. but that's assuming you and the water didn't freeze into a huge ice cube in a few minuets anyhoo :)
Well, if the water and air are in an enclosure that has mass, then the water and air will be drawn to the enclosure. But, because the water has a greater mass than the air, it will have a greater attraction to the walls. Therefore, theoretically, the water would "part" around an air bubble in the center of the room. But, no, if you would move your hands around in the water, the water would become displaced, but there would be no air to fill the void, because there wouldn't be a void, just a pressure differential. I hope that answers your question.
Item 1.) In space a huge volume of water would fairly rapidly become a solid mass of ice because the temperature in space is 3 Degrees Kelvin...something like Minus 376 Degrees Fahrenheit if my math is correct. you failed to mention how far away from the nearest planet your huge pool of water was located, and at what speed you were flying, so I am unable to determine what kind of gravitational situation you might have. No mention was made of the spin characteristics of your space ship on which the pool of water was located...so I have the same problem again...

Water in space turns into ice crystals. Even gases turn to liquids and freeze into ice in space...So I don't think you will ever reach the ideal situation where you might take a "swim." And, worst of all, there is no AIR PRESSURE in space. So, any attempt to venture out there would result in your own body exploding due to the internal 14 PSI Pressure attempting to equalize with the Zero PSI pressure outside.

sorry..

Regards,

Zah
If the containment of the water is large enough, it will form into a spherical blob. You could dive into it and swim back to the surface, where your momentum would be greater than the surface tension and you would continue on out, bringing lots of droplets out with you. You would not be able to breathe or hold your breath underwater any better than if it was on earth.

If the container for the water was less than twice the volume of the water, it would eventually stick to the walls of the container if agitated enough. This has been demonstrated with water in a bottle. It formed around the sides with a big bubble in the middle. The bubble was difficult to dislodge even with significant agitation. But if you could keep the blob of water at the center, not allowing contact with the walls, it would stay in a blob.

BIG SPACE TEST HELP?please please please?

I have this huge space test tomorrow and I need you older guy's help! Ok, I put down the questions, you see if you know the answer, if you do put the number and your answer. Thanks a lot for helping me out! :)

1. What are comets?

2. Who discovered 3 laws of planetary motion?

3. What are astroids?

4. How does the moon effect the Earth?

5. Why is space travel important? (2 ways)

6. How has space travel changed?

7.Who was the first man in space?

8. Why is the space shuttle important?

9. How do astronauts train for traveling in space?

Ok guys, I hope you know some of these answers. And please just dont put down any old answer. i need to know and memorize these by tomorrow for the big test! I hope you know there are more but I have the answers! Get them space books out and get them fingers movin'! Go go go go go! Please help me or burn! LOL J/K ~*Alyssa*~

BIG SPACE TEST HELP?please please please?fake myspace

1. Stuff to clean the sink

2. Newton who is same guy that discovered fig Newtons

3. a narley video game in the early 80's not to be confused with Hemorrhoids.

4Be care full when you moon somebody as you can get arrested.

5a, gave old german scientists somthing better to do than launch missiles at England,b,Tang

6 Dont use catapults anymore..today we can beam people up

7 Monkey

8 Good to use up taxpayers money

9 Drive a long way in a car wearing big daipers

AND READ A BOOK ONCE IN A WHILE . Live will not give you answeres just because you ask.

BIG SPACE TEST HELP?please please please?myspace pics myspace.com

1. Comets are made of ice %26amp; rock, and when they get close to the sun, they emit particles that form a tail because of solar wind.

2. Johannes Kepler

3. Asteroids are the rocky material left over from the creation of the solar system. The asteroid belt is found between Mars %26amp; Jupiter, however, asteroids may be found anywhere.

4. Primarily, the moon exerts a tidal force on the Earth, raising %26amp; lowering oceans by as much as 30 feet in 6 hours.

5. Space travel is important because it teaches us so much. While we can conserve energy and fuel on Earth, a space station MUST be very effecient to survive. Space Travel will ultimately teach us how to stretch our materials here on Earth.

6. The first people in space were on relatively small rockets, boosting just one man for a very short time. Today, we've learned how to launch multiple people at once, along with very large payloads, with missions lasting, for some people, months.

7. Yuri Gagarin, a Russian Cosmonaut.

8. The space shuttle is America's most powerful manned launch vehicle, boosting up to 60 tons and 7 astronauts at once. It was designed to carry men %26amp; supplys into low earth orbit, for the construction of a space station.

9. In many ways; a LOT of study, a LOT of simulation - the "Vomit Comet" is a plane that flys parabolic arcs, allowing occupants to experience microgravity for 30-40 seconds. For training on materials, NASA has a huge pool that astronauts train in to get the 'feel' of floating. (even though gravity still acts on them.)
1.Big chunks of ice that orbits a sun and melt when to close and make a tail at that point.

2.Galileo and Isaac,he corrected them.

3.Chunks of rock in space left over from the creation of planets

4.By creating tides

5.To learn more about space and to set up bases to do scientific discovers

6.New rocket fuel, better rockets, new tech basically!

7.Buzz Aldrin

8.To fix the Space station, Hubble space telescope, fixing things collecting outer space material and in shuttle labs

9.G-force machine, training under water for fitness, and the weightlessness effect box (don't know it real name but it simulates the space weightlessness effect)

Hope that helps!
Sweety if we answer your questions you will never learn anything,then you will be like some of the people on here asking silly questions, that don't amuse anybody but themselves.

Space the final frontier?

Am i the only one concerned about space flights. What happens to our atmosphere everytime a space rocket or shuttle goes into space.

We are being told time and time again about global warming can anyone tell me just how much is caused by rockets leaving our earth, and shuttles coming back

Space the final frontier?guy myspace

The answer is that spacecraft contribute so small a fraction to global warming it isn't signifigant. Here's some figures to show you why:

Last year (2006) there were a total of 68 rockets launchend into space world wide. The Shuttle flights (three) are the largest vehicles used currently. They use about 3.6 million pounds of fuel each. However, MOST of that is not emitted as Co2. Rocket fuels generally are among the cleanest fuels used.

But--for the sake of arguement, lets assume all of that was CO2 and that all the rockets were as large as the shuttle. That woudl add up to less than 250, 000 tons of CO2. But--the US burns enough fossil fuel each year to releas about 7 BILLION tons of CO2 into the atmosphere--28,000 times as much.

As forre-entries, while they generate heat, they don't release any CO2 into the atmosphere. and the problem isn't heat released--its that the CO2 is trapping that heat. But the heat released on reentry is far less than what the sun delivers to every square mile of the Earth's surface every year--in other words, not enough to matter--and far, far, less than evey a few hundred cars generate.

And--despite what many people seem to think, for that tiny amount of heat/CO2--we get enormous benefits. Weather satellites, Communications satellites, GPS technology, satellite TV and radio. Ohtther benefits less well known--much of our land-use and agricultural planning (and hence economic production) depends on satellites. And that's not even counting the technologiclal gains space travel provides (past examples include modern computer systems technology, fuel cells, solar energy, medical diagnostic technology, and composite materials like those used inthe new Boing 787.

Take that last. Aircraft generate hundreds of times the CO2 of the space launches. Those new materiels in the 787 cut that fuel use by 20%. That means that that one gain from space travel will soon cut the worldwide CO2 emissions by many times the amount generated by rockets going into space.

And--bear this in mind. We CAN'T bring CO2 emissions to zero--nor do we need to. We do need to cut them drastically--by at least 60%--perhaps more--in the next 50 years. But things like the space program--that have a high payoff ad that give us new technology that "pays for" the CO2 released--are exactly the places we need to invest more heavily in. The processes that continue to emit CO2 need to be just that sort of thing. Wher we need to look for reductions are the "waste" areas--inefficient cars and other devices, switching to alternatives when its feasible, etc. Keep what CO2 emissions we do allw for things where its really needed.

Space the final frontier?plain myspace myspace.com

It makes small holes about 3 times a year. But what are the other 6 billion people doing for the whole of the year, every year? Save the planet, don't have kids.
Shuttles glide back, using no fuel.

More stuff is expelled into the atmosphere by volcanoes each year than all the shuttles and cars combined, I wouldn't worry about it if I were you.
Overall, not much. I would say about as much as any other international flight. It just the fuel is used in the first minutes instead of over 14 hours.

The landing is done by gliding, so no fuel is used. Thats why the shuttle has those big wings. Wings are not needed in space, they are needed for the gliding landing.
you want to worry about something.....worry about the aliens sucking our atmosphere away. yeah thats the big worry.
It's such a small thing, cars, coal burning power stations, and proper aeroplane's. Them are the dangers!
In the big picture a rocket taking off is a grain of sand on a beach and makes very little differents, the return flight is zero other commercial and none necessary military flight are another matter, you must realise that less than 10% of the planets population are doing anything about global warming, because they are what are classed as developing countries.
I have thought about this and I am of the same mind as you.

If an aeroplane is so bad for the environment then a rocket has to be a whole lot worse. Consider the power it takes to get one up and you cant begin to calculate the difference!

I think its bound to have a marked effect and I would be interested to know how many of them actually go up each year.
Take a look at what a current commercial airliner puts out and multiply that by over 20,000 flights per day. It's a scarry number. Aviation and the environment are on a collision course. The number of airline flights worldwide is growing and expected to skyrocket over the coming decades. Aircraft emissions pollute the air and threaten by 2050 to become one of the largest contributors to global warming, British scientists have concluded. Much remains unknown about climate change and the role aviation plays, though climate scientists express particular concern about jet emissions in the upper atmosphere, where the warming effect from some pollutants is amplified. Now, aviation is believed to be less a factor in the Earth's warming than power plants or vehicular traffic. But its emissions are considerable. On a New York-to-Denver flight, a commercial jet would generate 840 to 1,660 pounds of carbon dioxide per passenger. That's about what an SUV generates in a month. With the projected explosion in worldwide travel, air pollution from aviation is a growing concern among scientists, and it's drawing increased scrutiny from governments, particularly in Europe.
Shuttle flights are government funded activities performed by scientists. One of the goals is to install and maintain satellites that prove global warming. Therefore, any damage caused is acceptable. Same concept as Al Gore flying a private jet to Live Earth.
what a waste of money, i read some where in a religious book that when earthly polutions contaminate the heavens and the stench reaches the nostrills of god, that will be when he comes down to sort the mess, space is full of junk from earth, we cant keep anything clean.
I would like a rocket a day sent to the Sun to dispose of all the enriched uranium waste, since that is the only place we could despose of the worst global pollutant, in 2050 it will not be Co2. thats the problem but radio activity polluting our water supply
The answer from Crabby Blindguy (above) puts it nicely into perspective. The impact in terms of greenhouse gas emissions from space flight really is just a very tiny proportion of the total amount.

I know some people share a concern that the rockets and shuttles are knocking holes in the atmosphere. But this isn't something that people need worry about. A rocket flying into space pushes air out of the way as it travels just as we do when driving a car or walking down the street. As soon as the rocket moves on air rushes back in to fill the void and in this respect it's not causing any damage.
Space rockets use a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen as fuel so the only waste their engines produce is water

How much space does world of warcraft take up?

i play world of warcraft on my desktop and im thinking about getting a laptop. i want to put world of warcraft on it but im not sure how much space it took up. i looked at the box and when i went into a laptop store i was told u needed much more space than the box says, can someone please tell me how much space it takes.

How much space does world of warcraft take up?deleted myspace

Around 4 gigs of space

How much space does world of warcraft take up?myspace names myspace.com

it takes upward of 4-5 gig, then this will constantl increase as new patches come out, but it will only increase slowly
my WoW folder takes up 9.75 gigs and thats with burning crusade and a good number of mods
it depends on the stuff you put in it like patches and mods. it generally ranges from 3.5 - 5 gigs
Around 4-5 gigs
I just recently bought WoW with the Burning Crusade expansion and my World of Warcraft folder takes up 8.68gb of space.
i am using desktop and it only takes up what the box says whoever told u that there fluked up

Space Program...What happened to it anyway??

I was thinking about this the other day. When I was younger, the space program was going great, sending people in space on a consistent basis. And here we are some 45 plus years later, and we can't even get a shuttle to stay up? How could we walk on the moon in 1969, and yet all these years later, the program has regressed! It just seems odd that we have not advanced further in the space program?? What are your thoughts people in their 40's plus??

Space Program...What happened to it anyway??layouts for music myspace

Budget has a lot to do with it.. naturally you can't do this major things without the money... but I don't think that's the full answer.

Firstly, the space program was really a part of the cold war. Because the USSR got satellites and men into space before the US, there was a great drive of national feeling to beat them at getting a man on the moon. You'll notice after that was achieved, things started to go down hill rapidly.

Secondly, I think there's a much greater mood of selfishness in today's society, which has displaced the desire to do great things together (ie. as a society). There has been many decades of relative peace and prosperity (in the western world) and, in my opinion, this has made people "dumb, fat and lazy". Society now is content to focus on self-enjoyment things - largely driven by the corporate push to buy more "stuff".

Finally, I think that there's a level of risk aversion which goes along with being prosperious. After the second world war, with all it's death and huge risky endevours, the risks involved in sending men into space were just accepted as normal. Nowadays we baulk at risky endevours and don't seem to be prepared to take chances, either with our lives or with our wealth.

Space Program...What happened to it anyway??view myspace myspace.com

We are now in national debt, Wherner vonBrauhn is dead (sorry for sp), and Bush feels like it would make 'The people of these great states to hate me. And we cant have that!'

Although, I am nowhere near 40.... =)
The space program has stagnated because of a stingy Congress, and an apathetic American public.
2 words

Budget -----cuts
We have become risk adverse. Everything we do, whether at work or play, and everything our society does is designed to minimize the risk of litigation. Our judicial system is eating the national organism like a ramphant cancer, and everything and everyone is either hiding or fleeing. Put another way, our dreams and our can do attitude are but a distant memory. If there is ever a return to the space program it will come from another place; from somewhere beyond the reach of our predatory legal system.
I am 40plus. I agree that when we were young we imagined lunar bases and manned Mars missions by the year 2000. It has been a huge disappointment.

There was controversy over budget spending even during the Apollo missions. But America understood the goals of reaching the Moon before 1970 and it was accomplished.

Following that, NASA couldn't come up with any clear mission objectives and the American public lost interest. The budget cuts soon followed due to recession in the 1970's. As I understand it, the Reagan administration favored unmanned probes to the more expensive manned missions and it set the tone for the next 20 years.

The shuttle design was flawed from the start. It was not the best design in the 1980's. It was the cheapest. I can remember reading science magazines in the late 70's which stated that the new shuttles would be taking off at a rate of one per month. Setbacks and failures moved that to 3 or 4 per year.

Wars and the defense budget have sucked the American taxpayer dry. The few dollars that are left can be budgeted towards other programs including the space program.

Considering the money that NASA has had to work with, probes have given us much valuable information about our Solar System.

It is thanks to the aging space shuttles that we can refocus on manned missions. The shuttles will soon be replaced with more technologically advanced and more efficient models. A new space race to landing a man on Mars has renewed interest from the public. This all hopefully will reflect in more dollars to the program.

Thankfully, Bush Jr has taken a leadership role in a goal of constructing permanent moonbases. Unfortunately, he is also a warmonger.

It would probably help if more people were informed of the multitude of benefits we have received as a result of the space program. Also, it might help if NASA presented more goals to the American public to stir more interest and support. It is congress and the White House which determine funding amounts. This can only increase if the public demands it.

Until then, it is good to stay in touch with what the unmanned probes are accomplishing. Much of the information they gather is truly amazing.
Yup, I miss the glory days too. I would suggest that two reasons contribute to the decline. One is the decline in enthusiasm of the taxpayers for what was, after all, an expensive endeavor after the success of the Moon landing.

The other reason would be the Space Shuttle itself. You'll recall that the whole point was to come up with a re-usable "space truck" that was to make it very cheap to get materials and people into orbit. It turned out to be much more expensive to maintain and operate than they had ever dreamed. And when the Challenger blew up on take-off it became clear that it never would live up to the hope of economic space travel. I suspect that the International Space Station is largely there to simply give the space shuttle something to do. I suppose, at that point in time, they didn't want to just give up on it.
If you measure progress by how far we have sent a human being from earth, then we have gone backwards. But sending men to the moon and having them return safely was as much a political exercise as a scientific one. It was to show up the Soviets and build up pride in the American public. Not that it didn't advance science, but that was probably a fringe benefit to politicians. Once we got there, public interest waned, and funding dried up.

Since then, the Soviet space stations have done much to explore the biological effects of long stays in 0g on the human body. The shuttle, while it may not be the perfect launch vehicle, has looked at how we do perform a wide range of tasks in space, such as repair and performing scientific experiments in 0g. All of this is paving the way for the space stations of the future, which is IMHO is a more worthwhile endeavor than racing to the moon.

But perhaps the most exciting advance (for me at least) is that privately-funded craft have reached space, and it probably won't be long before ordinary folk (well okay, rich ordinary folk ) will be able to escape the atmosphere and look down at Earth. So I'd say we have come a long way.
When vehicles leave the Earth's magnetic field they are subject to radiation micrometeorites and extremes of temperature. The first astronauts to venture away from the van allen belt failed to report the flashes in their eyes until they returned to Earth. When particles travelling at high speed encounter the Earth's magnetic field, light is produced, it is one of the reasons why life has flourished here.
well back in the days of the apollo missions man was exploring the moon, Then after we went there so many times there was no reason to go back because for one thing its very costly and the american people and congress did not want to spend any more money on it, Then enter all the different whitehouse administrations and peoples in congress and the bickering about going back to space it had put everything on hold and in disarray, i was around in the apollo era and I too thought we would be on Mars by now, But finally america has came to their senses and realized that hey, it may be in our best interest to locate a place that we can retreat to once earth has been used up, So now president Bush has gave the greenlight to nasa to go to mars and eventually beyond, if one thinks about it , it only makes sense to do so, Its about time the american government along with the ESA has opened their eyes
yes one could call it a shame... but..

why do we have a space-program ?

to get to know science output from it.

This can be achieved by sending unmanned probes what is done multiple times a year.

sooo why do we need a shuttle ? why do we need people anywhere else than onboard the ISS ?

the science outcome is more and more worse, cause we already know lots of things. So along with that where you get money from in times the average citizen in the US wanted to see Sadam Hussein bleed in iraq.

and why ?

General opinion today .. better to have fuel for the car than people on the moon.

But the situation may change if Helium3 is needed for nuclear fusion, which can be found on the moon in larger ammounts. wait another 20 years and see us flying again.

Space shuttle thrusting in space?

Since there is no atmosphere in space, how does a space shuttle direct itself after it has left the moon ssurface?? THe thrusters wont have anytihng to push against, how do they work?

Space shuttle thrusting in space?myspace ip

One of the basic principles of physics (Newton's Third Law) is that for every action (force) there is an opposite and equal reaction (force). The principle of a rocket motor may be understood by considering the example of a closed container filled with a compressed gas. Within this container the gas exerts equal pressure on every point of its walls. If a hole is punched in the bottom of the container, however, the gas at the bottom escapes and the pressure against the top of the container is no longer equalized. The internal gas pressure then pushes the container upwards in reaction to the jet of air escaping downwards. The amount of thrust developed by a rocket motor depends mainly on two factors, the velocity with which the burning gases leave the combustion chamber, and the mass of the burning gases.

This website for answer confirmation and more info --%26gt; http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_7...

God is spelled B-I-G B-A-N-G

PBrax@netscape.com

Space shuttle thrusting in space?myspace co myspace.com

Actually there is atmosphere just very little.
the shuttle doesnt go to the moon. it orbits the earth . has something to do with the earth's gravitational pull or something.
There is a differential in pressure within the motors themselves. Just like a balloon you blow up there is high pressure inside the balloon pushing outwards in every direction on the surfaces of the balloon. The opening of the balloon (a rocket motor nozzle) has no pressure, therefore the forward pressure is not canceled and moves the balloon (rocket) in that direction.
yes
The expanding gases exiting the thruster push on the inside of the thruster with the same force as they exit with, the gases take the path of least resistance, that being the nozzle. Thrusters don't push against an "atmosphere," they simply expel their waste gases from the combustion process.
Study Physics and the Name Newton shines like a star because he found "Laws" of physics and Newtons Third Law would tell you that "Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction" which would let you know why the thrusters work in space. Refer to another more comprehensive answer alread posted by someone for a better answer than this one which forces the reader to think for himself.

Ha HA

Regards and all the best
The space shuttle never goes to the moon.

Nothing like the space shuttle has ever been to the moon.

Would be kinda neet to compare the two vihicles.

Kinda neet to imagin what a moon ready space shuttle would look like it would have to be allot different if it was gona go to the moon AND come back.

Well supposedly the next time we goto the moon is 2018.

Lockheed Martin has a proposal for a moon vehicle its like a limazine compared to 1969.

http://space.com/news/050914_nasa_cev_up...

I doubt it will look like what is ilistrated but still neet idea.
An interesting aspect about rockets designed for use in space: they tend to be more efficient than they could ever be in the atmosphere. An important function of a rocket nozzle is to expand the exhaust gases and obtain additional thrust from this expansion. A measure of this ability is its expansion ratio, the ratio of the areas at the exit plane (the end of the nozzle bell) and at the throat (point of minimum area). In space, the optimum expansion ratio is "as much as you can get", so the expansion ratio actually used is a tradeoff involving the desire for the maximum vs. the weight and size penalty. In the atmosphere the optimum expansion ratio is smaller; once the exit-plane pressure falls below atmospheric pressure, the exhaust is overexpanded and there is a negative thrust penalty due to the resulting suction.

Help with removing the background white space in my drawing so I can attach it to my web page as a I

I want the image I draw to look as though it hovers without the framed white space. I used Windows Paint program to edit it into a GIF format. When I uploaded it using TinyPic - Share to obtain a HTML code (to use on MySpace.com) it still had the framed white space I don't want. I'm missing a step or two on how to remove the white space. I have tried cropping but, it's not a photo. I tried using CoffeeCup HTML Editor and still got background white space.

How do I remove the "white space"?

What Editor program will do the job of removing the white space and leave me with just the image.

Please give the Web address or product!

I just want my drawing to appear on my web page looking like a banner or icon with-out any background framed white space attached with it.

I will also need to be able to take the finished image and up load it into TinyPic.com to create an HTML code to place it in my MySpace web page. Recently I went and bought Adobe "Photoshops Elements 6" have not fond it yet .

Help with removing the background white space in my drawing so I can attach it to my web page as a Icon.?deleted myspace

u need to save the gif for web and have white as a transparent bg....can be done w/ PNG as well.

I use Photoshop, not elements, so i don't know if there is a SAVE FOR WEB feature, but if so...it would be Control+ALT+SHIFT+S (hold control, alt and shift down, then press S) OR go to file%26gt;save for web

then save as GIF and put it at 256 colors...then there is a drop down...drop to transparency....and click on the WHITE swatch...your white bg will now be transparent.