You know like the kind that go on a window or bathroom mirror or on the wall or in the shower. They need the atmosphere pushing down on them to work, right?

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        It’s a good line of thinking for trying to be scientific (how do we replicate conditions better, and where might we be introducing errors that would make the experiment “bad”), so you didn’t deserve a down vote.

        That being said, it won’t change the outcome too much. In a vacuum, it’s just pushing a bit of rubber against something, there’s no possibility for suction. It’ll just fall off.
        If it starts outside a vacuum, the force of air pushing on the outside will keep the rubber from pushing away from the surface at first, but as the air pressure drops, the little bit of air under the cup will give it the tiniest oomph of extra push as it falls off in a way visually indistinguishable from the vacuum scenario.

      • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Should deflate and fall off while the air is pumped out.

        Suction cups aren’t held by the vacuum they created but by the outside air pressing them down.

  • NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Yes. They won’t work because they operate on a difference in air pressure providing a force. No air? No force. Same reason an airplane wing won’t provide lift in the upper atmosphere.

    But, compare to a rocket engine that does NOT need an atmosphere to push against.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Phrases I did not expect to think this early in the morning: "what’s the rocket engine of suction cups?”

      • Shurimal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Velcro, or maybe Van Der Waals force, or maybe whatever the hell makes gauge blocks stick to each other.

          • papalonian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            This only works on “virgin” metal iirc - if it’s been exposed to Earth’s atmosphere, it won’t work. If you shave off some from the surface I believe it works again.

            • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Like I said- “rub it”. The oxidized layer on metal is very, very, thin. It doesn’t take much at all to get rid of it.

              • papalonian@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                I didn’t realize that the layer was thin enough to rub away with minimal friction. I’d learned about this years ago so I could be misremembering things, but the source I read made it out as if it wasn’t a major concern with space exploration because it took substantial effort to cold weld things that had been exposed to air.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I like the gauge block notion. A (quick) search says that it’s a combination of surface tension from the oils they’re coated in, suction (gone for us), and the super flat surfaces slightly exchanging electrons and bonding in close proximity.

          I’m a fan of the surface tension angle as the “rocket of suction cups”, since it’s got that “non-binding force” element, where welding or glue feels different, and Velcro feels like a tangle.
          It’s “pull-y” where suction is “push-y”.

          Now the question is would surface tension grab something in a vacuum the way it does outside of one. I know you’d have water sublimate off, so it’s questionable to me.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Just a technicality, but the Kashmir effect would still provide some adhesive force. It would be greatly reduced vs a suction cup in an atmosphere, but it wouldn’t be 0 force.

      Though in microgravity, it might be enough to stick something to a surface, as long as it’s not getting bumped or jostled. And don’t expect it to stay in place if you need to do a maneuvering burn.

      • NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yes the Casimir Effect.

        Any good answer to a high school science question begs for a graduate level rebuttal.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Ah thanks for the spelling, swipe typing had Kashmir already so I thought that was right. Corrected above.

          And yeah, even in high school I was lucky to have a physics teacher that liked delving deeper into the topics than what’s normally done at that level because my mind seems to naturally seek out those edge cases where rules as given break down. Still hoping we find one of those cases for the laws of thermodynamics lol.

    • Hol@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Right. So just strap a Saturn V to my space suction cup and I’m golden?

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    If by “in space” you mean in zero-G inside a spacecraft, yes. If you mean in a vacuum, no.