Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby patrix on November 10th, 2017, 7:31 am

Nathan Draco » November 10th, 2017, 4:56 am wrote:
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.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 135
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby Nathan Draco on November 10th, 2017, 9:50 pm

Thanks!
Nathan Draco
Member
 
Posts: 37
Joined: August 27th, 2017, 4:13 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby dblitz on November 11th, 2017, 10:57 am

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.
dblitz
Member
 
Posts: 234
Joined: April 27th, 2013, 3:32 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby sharpstuff on November 12th, 2017, 2:00 pm

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.
sharpstuff
Member
 
Posts: 91
Joined: February 4th, 2015, 2:31 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the "vacuum"(or "void") of space?

Postby hoi.polloi on November 12th, 2017, 11:47 pm

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!
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4848
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Postby simonshack on November 13th, 2017, 10:00 pm

*

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_(classical_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).
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Postby Altair on November 14th, 2017, 12:33 pm

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.
Altair
Member
 
Posts: 25
Joined: February 2nd, 2017, 3:05 pm

Previous

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests