Turbo Boosting on the Moon
Moderators: neps, Matthew, Michael Pajaro
- Michael Pajaro
- Advisor
- Posts: 3082
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 1:01 am
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
Google searching puts a Trans Am weight distribution anywhere from 52%- almost 60% in the front, depending on the year/model. To understand the physics involved, we can assume a front-heavy car for some discussions.
I accept the idea that the front wheels fall off the ramp first, which causes some forward-tumbling motion. But if you were to drop a front-heavy car from a crane, I'm still not sure the front would hit the ground first.
And even if KITT is airborne (or vacuum-borne, as the case may be!) for a longer period of time after leaving a ramp on the moon, the gravity is also less so he has a slower forward rotation. I think those effects would cancel eachother out.
I accept the idea that the front wheels fall off the ramp first, which causes some forward-tumbling motion. But if you were to drop a front-heavy car from a crane, I'm still not sure the front would hit the ground first.
And even if KITT is airborne (or vacuum-borne, as the case may be!) for a longer period of time after leaving a ramp on the moon, the gravity is also less so he has a slower forward rotation. I think those effects would cancel eachother out.
- Darknight
- FLAG Recruit
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 1:01 am
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Location: Huntington/Wayne area, WV
- Contact:
If you believe "the greater the mass, the greater the force," then even without an atmosphere, the heavier end of the car would descend faster.
I don't see how it couldn't.
By the way, about inertia...
It is the combined force of gravity from every point of mass in the universe on every other point of mass, creating a sort of network, and the more mass an object has, the stronger its gravitational ties are to the rest of the universe (you know the space-time fabric). Gravitational attraction is otherwise known as weight. Inertia is greatly effected by the immediate gravitational field, because it's like an object has created a distortion in the space-time fabric - a sort of "rut" in which objects like to stay until driven out by an external force. Therefore, the closer you are to the bottom of the rut, the harder it is to get out. Heavier objects make bigger ruts, like planets, as opposed to cars. However, if the mass of the primary object remains constant, and the mass of the secondary object increases, then the combined attraction between the two objects increases, and inertia increases proportionately. That is why not only the weight but the inertia as well of a car on Earth would be more than one on the Moon.
There is no innate characteristic about matter that gives it inertia other than its velocity and gravitational ties to other objects. Without gravity, in other words, mass is irrelevant in calculating inertia. On Earth, we are accustomed to a very directional gravity, so we count outer space as "0 gravity," but it is not that at all. Remember, every piece of mass in the universe exerts a force on every other piece of mass.
So, in conclusion, the inertia of a car moving at the same velocity on the moon would be less than that of one on the Earth.
DK
I don't see how it couldn't.
By the way, about inertia...
It is the combined force of gravity from every point of mass in the universe on every other point of mass, creating a sort of network, and the more mass an object has, the stronger its gravitational ties are to the rest of the universe (you know the space-time fabric). Gravitational attraction is otherwise known as weight. Inertia is greatly effected by the immediate gravitational field, because it's like an object has created a distortion in the space-time fabric - a sort of "rut" in which objects like to stay until driven out by an external force. Therefore, the closer you are to the bottom of the rut, the harder it is to get out. Heavier objects make bigger ruts, like planets, as opposed to cars. However, if the mass of the primary object remains constant, and the mass of the secondary object increases, then the combined attraction between the two objects increases, and inertia increases proportionately. That is why not only the weight but the inertia as well of a car on Earth would be more than one on the Moon.
There is no innate characteristic about matter that gives it inertia other than its velocity and gravitational ties to other objects. Without gravity, in other words, mass is irrelevant in calculating inertia. On Earth, we are accustomed to a very directional gravity, so we count outer space as "0 gravity," but it is not that at all. Remember, every piece of mass in the universe exerts a force on every other piece of mass.
So, in conclusion, the inertia of a car moving at the same velocity on the moon would be less than that of one on the Earth.
DK
- Michael Pajaro
- Advisor
- Posts: 3082
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 1:01 am
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
"If you believe "the greater the mass, the greater the force," then even without an atmosphere, the heavier end of the car would descend faster.
I don't see how it couldn't.
"
Here's the counter-argument: although greater mass = greater force, greater force also means greater inertia. It takes more force to move a more massive object. So the greater force on the front end of the car is balanced out by the fact that it requires a greater force to move it.
I don't see how it couldn't.
"
Here's the counter-argument: although greater mass = greater force, greater force also means greater inertia. It takes more force to move a more massive object. So the greater force on the front end of the car is balanced out by the fact that it requires a greater force to move it.
- Darknight
- FLAG Recruit
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 1:01 am
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Location: Huntington/Wayne area, WV
- Contact:
More mass leads to more inertia due to its increased weight, yes. It's like rolling two balls down a hill. The lighter ball will take off faster, but the heavier ball will pass it once it gets moving. The height of the fall would determine the difference in descent between the nose and tail of the car, just like the length of the hill would determine which ball rolled down the hill first.
One easy example. It's easy to throw a rock down a hill, but hard to push a boulder down. Yet, once you get the boulder moving, it will accelerate a lot faster.
DK
One easy example. It's easy to throw a rock down a hill, but hard to push a boulder down. Yet, once you get the boulder moving, it will accelerate a lot faster.
DK
- Michael Pajaro
- Advisor
- Posts: 3082
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 1:01 am
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
Suppose we cut KITT in half with a laser. (Poor KITT!) We have let's say a front end weighing 2000 lbs (on earth) and a back end weighing 1500 lbs (on the moon they'd weigh about 333 and 250 lbs). If we dropped them from the same height, they'd hit the moon's surface at the same time. If we then re-attached those two pieces with a steel bar, there is no reason why the front end would suddenly fall faster.
- knightshade
- FLAG Assistant
- Posts: 511
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 1:01 am
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
v2 = v2 + 2ad
Where v2 is velocity squared, a is aceleration and d is distance
or
vf = vi + at
where vf is final velocity, vi is initial velocity, a is aceleration, and t is time.
Mass has no effect on velocity in a vaccuum. If you've got wind resistance, that's another thing. Then it will have an effect, but on the moon, velocity is independant of mass.
Where v2 is velocity squared, a is aceleration and d is distance
or
vf = vi + at
where vf is final velocity, vi is initial velocity, a is aceleration, and t is time.
Mass has no effect on velocity in a vaccuum. If you've got wind resistance, that's another thing. Then it will have an effect, but on the moon, velocity is independant of mass.
- Darknight
- FLAG Recruit
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 1:01 am
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Location: Huntington/Wayne area, WV
- Contact:
I have a confession, Mike. You are right. I don't know what I've been thinking. I knew that all along. I don't know why I said what I did. Mark this moment.
I stand by the rest of my case except that one part, though. I'll chalk it up to stress...I really did know it, but it just didn't register for some reason. Oh well.
DK
P.S. I still think KITT would backflip if he turboboosted on the moon.

DK
P.S. I still think KITT would backflip if he turboboosted on the moon.
- knightshade
- FLAG Assistant
- Posts: 511
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 1:01 am
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
- sarfraz
- FLAG Assistant
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 1:01 am
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Location: London, UK
...so we are back to nose stays up on a moon jump
...was I right
I just had a thought just before dosing off last night. If the car is front end heavy (even slightly considering 52-60%) then there would be a rotation depending on where the turbo-boost module (rocket?) is. Say it was slightly behind the centre of gravity of the car, this would create a rotation causing the rear end to rotate over the front-end. However, if the rocket is placed just behind the engine, the moment arm (cause of inertia (force x distance)) would be cancelled out by the moment arm to the rear of the car. This is because the distance to the rear is greater than to the engine. It abit like balancing two different weights on a aligned see-saw. If you place the smaller weight on a longer length end than the bigger weight, it should all balance out. Now, this would still create the nose-up jump, but as there is no moment of inertia
the nose would stay up. The jump would be some sort of arch, with KITT landing on his rear axle...in moon conditions.
Sarfraz

...was I right

I just had a thought just before dosing off last night. If the car is front end heavy (even slightly considering 52-60%) then there would be a rotation depending on where the turbo-boost module (rocket?) is. Say it was slightly behind the centre of gravity of the car, this would create a rotation causing the rear end to rotate over the front-end. However, if the rocket is placed just behind the engine, the moment arm (cause of inertia (force x distance)) would be cancelled out by the moment arm to the rear of the car. This is because the distance to the rear is greater than to the engine. It abit like balancing two different weights on a aligned see-saw. If you place the smaller weight on a longer length end than the bigger weight, it should all balance out. Now, this would still create the nose-up jump, but as there is no moment of inertia

Sarfraz
"I would not sell yourself short Michael, you are much more than a horse"