Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

[patrix]

Not knocking the idea by any means but how did you come to the conclusion that the earth doesn't revolve around the sun or really what I should say is that the heliocentric model isn't "correct" I guess.

Like is there a topic on here I could get pointed to in order to read up that?

again, by no means is this me taking a shot at you or anything, I just wanna be convinced too. Completely open to the idea.

I've been fortunate since I'm helping Simon building a digital planetarium based on his model, but read the archived SSSS thread here on the forum, listen to the latest Clues Chronicles podcast and make only one wish to Santa this year - That Simon finishes his book. His goal is to release it during next year.

[Nathan Draco]

Thanks!

[dblitz]

Dear dblitz, you may read about the Joule-Thomson effect in the very first post of this thread

Thanks Simon, I forgot how this one started. Time to read again from the beginning.

[sharpstuff]

Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?
__________________________________

I have read this thread from the beginning but the title of this (thread) has always bothered me.

Does Rocketry Work in 'The Vacuum' The 'the vacuum' worries me.

We have three notions:

1. Rocketry
2. Work
3. Vacuum

Before we even start, we must define, with verifiable evidence, what these elements are in a 'draw-me-a-picture' scenario.

1. What exactly (as far as possible) is rocketry?
2. What exactly is 'work' (without the nonsensical 'mathematics')?
3. What is a 'vacuum'?

1. To a simple soul, such as myself, a 'rocket' goes 'whoosh!' up into the sky (technical note: atmosphere) having burnt all its fuel in one burst, it travels as far as that 'burst' allows (within what we call 'atmosphere'), then falls on some-one's garden (somewhere) and that is the end of it. (At least on U.K. 'bonfire-night' on November 5th).
To be frivolous, I see no evidence of a robotic 'pedal-to-the-metal' of the alleged acceleration of 'modern' rockets.

2. Work is something one does (or it does, whatever that 'it' is) to move forward into one's existence to be able to contemplate another move which we call 'forwards'. Thus the 'universe' (or whatever medium we live in) is pulled from what we call 'past' into what we call the 'future'.

3. A 'vacuum' cannot exist. If it did, nothing would be here to contemplate. The definition of 'vacuum' is 'a space devoid of matter'.

Clearly, any space (something into which one can place something else of comparable size) must contain something.

We have been side-tracked into regarding that which is outside our sensual apparatuses as human animals, that 'space' is what we might read in what are called 'Science-fiction' stories and novels as a'substance into which we can place objects of our making'.

It must be clear that the 'universe', whatever it may be, is a medium from which all activity is apparent and is an analogue not a digital 'construction'. It is continuous and infinite. It is almost positively iiterative. It contains no discrete objects (atomic particles, germs and so forth). Life is a manifestation of an environment which we can only try to conceive for our own purposes of survival.

If we cannot get beyond our biological atmosphere (except in thought), then anything regarding the beyond of our atmosphere is pure conjecture.

The notion of what is 'up there' is purely (and interestingly, of course) pure conjecture, and any thesaurus of words pertaining thereto.

The human mind will always conjecture what it does not understand, it is part of the survival mechanism for humankind; it is called extrapolation.

Please feel free to correct me on any points.

[hoi.polloi]

I appreciate your deeper thoughts on this matter. Actually, if you read this full thread you will see that Flabbergasted, brianv and many others have also brought this up. Of course "space" is contentious now that we've effectively eliminated the bogus circular "proofs" that come from fake data.

We admins/moderators really hope this thread is not about being totally side-tracked, but in fact does bring up some of those intellectual issues with "outer space", while also maintaining the specific "problem" that NASA explicitly claims is not a problem, and lies about on a regular basis.

So, in sum, I think that we all hope you will appreciate our work, even though we also see the very deep irony of using NASA's phony science against itself. For many people, the edifice cannot be violently turn asunder, but must be carefully picked apart piece by piece.

For those "ahead of the game" or "onto the lies", this thread may seem superfluous or unnecessary. Yet, I think we can also easily demonstrate that for the average person this thread's central topic is an important stepping stone to free critical thinking.

For other approaches to the lies, however, we do suggest starting/contributing to other threads. Thank you for your thoughtful message!

[simonshack]

*

I have changed this thread's original title :

"Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum of Space?"

to :

"Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?"

I hope this is ok with this thread's OP, Boethius. If not, I will happily revert this thread's title to the original one.

The reason why we, the forum moderators, occasionally take the liberty to change / refine a given thread's title are many : sometimes the thread titles may not convey the best possible indication of what the subject is about - and sometimes they may contain words / concepts which may be misinterpreted, questionable, controversial - or simply unclear.

In this particular case, the word 'vacuum' was questioned by one of our forum members (and I've seen it questioned on other forums as well). The thing is: can we be certain that 'outer space' is a perfect vacuum? Well, we simply cannot know if it is - and indeed, not even the most acclaimed scientists of our times have ever reached an agreement on this issue: the debate about the very existence of an 'aether' (or ether) has been raging for centuries. However, if we are to believe the most popularly acclaimed scientist of all, Albert Einstein, the aether does NOT exist. Einstein fans must therefore have no objection as to 'outer space' being considered as a vacuum.

AETHER :
"According to ancient and medieval science, aether (Greek: αἰθήρ aithēr), also spelled æther or ether, also called quintessence, is the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere. The concept of aether was used in several theories to explain several natural phenomena, such as the traveling of light and gravity. In the late 19th century, physicists postulated that aether permeated all throughout space, providing a medium through which light could travel in a vacuum, but evidence for the presence of such a medium was not found in the Michelson–Morley experiment, and this result has been interpreted as meaning that no such luminiferous aether exists."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(c ... l_element)

On the other hand, what I think that we DO know (with reasonable certainty) is that Earth's atmosphere gets thinner and thinner with altitude. The core impetus of this thread is therefore to question, debate and verify - in rational and scientific fashion - whether a man-made rocket can possibly continue to escape from Earth's gravity (once it reaches the outer edge of our atmosphere, where aerodynamic thrust subsides) - solely by virtue of the 'recoil effect' produced by the fuel mass being ejected from its nozzle (as claimed by NASA).

[Altair]

Out of my interest and recent skepticism about space travel, I've recently followed "live" in YT two launches: the OA-8 resupply vehicle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM5POTQoSXY) and today the JPSS-1 NOAA observation satellite (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wUrNNnkR5Y).

Bad luck, as both launches were scrubbed and rescheduled for later.

As for the OA-8, it was really exciting: when in coundown, the launch was aborted due to an aircraft entering the safety perimeter. But I checked Flightradar 24 (https://www.flightradar24.com/38.29,-75.65/9) around Wallops launch site, and there was not one, but *many* aircraft, both commercial and private, flying in the proximity of the launch sites. I'm also a kind of aviation fan, and in those events, a NOTAM is issued to prevent pilots of flying into restricted airspace, as should be the case. None of the neighboring airports had issued one, which should be quite logical when launching a rocket.

In all, the transmission was quite funny. Aviation radio communications are much more professional than the ones I heard during the launch, plagued with 'roger' and 'copy that', expressions that are *forbidden* in av radio for being too imprecise. Instead, it's mandatory a readback of the received message to make sure it has been correctly received and understood.

The launch was rescheduled for next day, and that time it was correct, but kind of funny that when the rocket disappeared from sight it was replaced with an 80's style computer animation. Also the comments on YT about the transmission quality were fun: "Cannot they afford a $200 HD camera after spending millions on this f....g rocket?" Indeed, most of the official live streamings are done in 480 line resolution. Well, NASA is supposedly at the leading edge of everything, so that is difficult to understand.

[dblitz]

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8MOoUuLnug

Interesting video using a vacuum chamber, a can of soda and a high speed camera to illustrate how a 'space rocket' is supposed to function.

The chamber is a near vacuum when the can explodes, so almost no air to push against, and the camera records the can moving in the opposite direction to the expelled gas and liquid before touching the wall of the chamber, so its not pushing against that.

[hoi.polloi]

A funny idea for an experiment! But flawed and naive in terms of proving NASA's rocketry beyond Earth's atmosphere.

As we have already gone over countless times in this thread, liquid is not gas and a tiny vacuum chamber is not the exponential void above Earth's atmosphere.

Furthermore, a lightweight tin can ejecting its entire liquid contents at once is not the same as what NASA's fuel injected gas explosions are said to be doing.

Finally, it is also wrong to say that the single frame reviewed by the experimenter shows any behavior of invisible gas.

I won't move this to the Derailing Room because it demonstrates how hard it is for the average person to wrap their minds around the concepts already over-explained.

[Flabbergasted]

Furthermore, a lightweight tin can ejecting its entire liquid contents at once is not the same as what NASA's fuel injected gas explosions are said to be doing.

Exactly.

What we see in the first frame of the experiment is simply the recoil effect of an "explosion" of liquid through one extremity of the can. Akin to a gunshot, not like a steadily propelled 'gas rocket'.

Cute experiment, by the way.

[Flabbergasted]

In this excerpt from the 1989 "documentary" For All Mankind (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097372/?ref_=nv_sr_2), we get a good view of how the Saturn V rocket was propelled into infinity and beyond, viewed in profile (at 0:38) from a very special vantage point.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pm2x0nvh9emij ... o.avi?dl=0

[pov603]

and the "g-force" experienced by those "super-strong" astro-nots wasn't a problem for them, letting them use high-tech ring-folders without resistance...

[kickstones]

A funny idea for an experiment! But flawed and naive in terms of proving NASA's rocketry beyond Earth's atmosphere.

As we have already gone over countless times in this thread, liquid is not gas and a tiny vacuum chamber is not the exponential void above Earth's atmosphere.

Furthermore, a lightweight tin can ejecting its entire liquid contents at once is not the same as what NASA's fuel injected gas explosions are said to be doing.

I won't move this to the Derailing Room because it demonstrates how hard it is for the average person to wrap their minds around the concepts already over-explained.

Hoi, I would class myself as a fairly average person and at the risk of appearing foolish, can you explain what would happen if you released water in the vacuum of space?

Because in a tiny vacuum chamber it turns to ice.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG7nsZkVZc0

If the same reaction in the above experiment occurred by a rocket releasing water on entering the emptiness of space would that not give a solid base for outpouring molecules, released by let's say a kind of steam explosion, to meet resistance resulting in thrust thereby maintaining momentum?

[kickstones]

I just found the report linked below which may give an insight to what might happen to water released in space...

The release of the water caused the development of a "cloud" which expanded turbulently with an Initial average expansion rate velocity of 1,05 km/sec. however, expansion rate velocities as high as 3.60 km/sec were observed. Extensive cooling was also encountered with the water release. The estimated temperature of the cloud was -110 C.

An Analysis of the Second Project High Water Data
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi ... 078055.pdf

[patrix]

If the same reaction in the above experiment occurred by a rocket releasing water on entering the emptiness of space would that not give a solid base for outpouring molecules, released by let's say a kind of steam explosion, to meet resistance resulting in thrust thereby maintaining momentum?

Hi kickstones,
I don't think so since space (to the best of our knowledge) is an unrestricted vacuum. This in turn means that no pressure buildup can occur since all gas molecules released in that frictionless vacuum will merrily float away at the same speed without being able to interact with each other. So the example is not transferable to a rocket in vacuum.