Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

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 hoi.polloi on August 6th, 2016, 4:55 pm

MagicFlame007 wrote:Do you think then one would be travelling "gravitationally" downhill if you planned your trip so that the moon for example was inetween earth and the moon on the way there and the opposite for your return journey?


Do you mind please re-reading your posts before posting? This doesn't make sense.

Is your mass on earth reduced in sunlight as opposed to nighttime?


Where is your justification for this question? When was this suggestion ever mentioned?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4810
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby hoi.polloi on August 6th, 2016, 5:01 pm

MagicFlame007 » August 5th, 2016, 7:50 am wrote:As I understand it NASA states that rockets work in space because of Newton's third law of motion. It is the action of ejecting particles of fuel from the nozzle of the thrusters that makes the craft want to move in the opposite direction. The fuel is always moving with the craft and is thus always "at rest" in relation to the craft. Whenever a particle is ejected, it imparts an opposing force to the craft. This at least is my understanding of the forces at work.
It must be understood that the ignition of the fuel and the resulting rapid expansion of gasses has nothing to do with how it creates "thrust", other than rapidly accelerating the individual particles in the nozzle.


I think that idea is flawed. If a particle must eject into a vacuum in some way, can we see and test the precise mechanisms modelled by NASA's diagrams? We keep failing to explain (as mentioned earlier in this thread, multiple times, actually) how the transition from "pressurized chamber" to "pure vacuum" occurs. I don't think NASA/ESA does an adequate job with this explanation either.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4810
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby hoi.polloi on August 6th, 2016, 5:10 pm

Also, just to continue the comments on official gravity, I would like to request that further discussions on this start using citation. It's getting a bit foggy and cluttered in this thread.

For example, it can be easily discovered where the official stance is on gravity. Even if you are 1,000 km from Earth, which you aren't — and which nobody is, since we apparently cannot leave Earth by the means demonstrated with fake videos and slightly more expensive illusions — the official story says you'd still be feeling a great deal of Earth's gravity.

Of course, it is slightly confusing to think about if you are lazy in your thinking, but to act as if they haven't attempted mathematical/physical simulation/modeling is to act the fool. Please, let's not dumb down the topic unnecessarily. Sorry if I haven't put that in a British enough way.

Now, I agree with your questions. But if you haven't sought your answers from official sources, you're not really directly challenging their information in an effective way. They've been fighting our intelligence for some time. I apologize if this seems hypocritical, but if we post lengthy metaphors I would really want them to come to some sort of sharp critique of official data. Maybe we can start to compare official information that contradicts?

Otherwise, if you're ready for real science against their mountain of bogus data, let's get out our middle-class telescopes, our scratch pads, and thinking caps and start doing that.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4810
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby MagicFlame007 on August 10th, 2016, 11:44 am

hoi.polloi » August 6th, 2016, 5:55 pm wrote:
MagicFlame007 wrote:Do you think then one would be travelling "gravitationally" downhill if you planned your trip so that the moon for example was inetween earth and the moon on the way there and the opposite for your return journey?


Do you mind please re-reading your posts before posting? This doesn't make sense.


To my mind it does make sense. If it's so that the sun's gravity vastly "outweighs" that of earth, even out here at 150 000 km form the sun, surely any trip in a direction away from the sun would require a great deal more thrust than one where you travel essentially towards the sun, not so?

hoi.polloi » August 6th, 2016, 5:55 pm wrote:
MagicFlame007 wrote:Is your mass on earth reduced in sunlight as opposed to nighttime?


Where is your justification for this question? When was this suggestion ever mentioned?


Don't see why I cannot raise a "new" question that had not been raised before. I'm merely trying to get my head around the idea of the gravitational forces existing around nearby heavenly bodies. It clearly greatly affects any possibility of space travel. I do understand that the effect of the sun's gravity on earth is countered by centrifugal force as we hurtle around it at enormous velocity. Although the centrifugal force almost perfectly counters the effect of the sun's enormous gravitational pull, the side of the earth closest to the sun must logically experience more gravity (from the sun) and less centrifugal force (albeit a minuscule difference). I will leave it at that, as the question clearly has little bearing on rocket based travel in the vacuum of space.
MagicFlame007
Member
 
Posts: 14
Joined: August 4th, 2016, 8:20 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby MagicFlame007 on August 10th, 2016, 12:55 pm

hoi.polloi » August 6th, 2016, 6:01 pm wrote:
MagicFlame007 » August 5th, 2016, 7:50 am wrote:As I understand it NASA states that rockets work in space because of Newton's third law of motion. It is the action of ejecting particles of fuel from the nozzle of the thrusters that makes the craft want to move in the opposite direction. The fuel is always moving with the craft and is thus always "at rest" in relation to the craft. Whenever a particle is ejected, it imparts an opposing force to the craft. This at least is my understanding of the forces at work.
It must be understood that the ignition of the fuel and the resulting rapid expansion of gasses has nothing to do with how it creates "thrust", other than rapidly accelerating the individual particles in the nozzle.


I think that idea is flawed. If a particle must eject into a vacuum in some way, can we see and test the precise mechanisms modelled by NASA's diagrams? We keep failing to explain (as mentioned earlier in this thread, multiple times, actually) how the transition from "pressurized chamber" to "pure vacuum" occurs. I don't think NASA/ESA does an adequate job with this explanation either.


In my opinion it would be unwise to "blanket reject" every claim made by NASA on principle. Claiming that a rocket makes no thrust whatsoever in a vacuum is one such example, as that is simply unscientific and is way too easy for NASA to refute. Making a claim like that only makes one look uneducated which is exactly what NASA and their de-bunkers enjoy.

What happens to the fuel particle being ejected after it leaves the "throat" of the rocket engine has no bearing at all initially (apart from resisting acceleration due to it's inertia), whether it is ejected into a vacuum or not. As a matter of fact it is actually easier to accelerate the particle into a vacuum at 0 atmosphere as opposed to 1 atmosphere at sea level and somewhat less at altitude.

I just happen to believe that a rocket in an atmosphere must make a lot more horsepower as there is a secondary thrust developed when that large volume of gas erupts from the thrusters, pushing air molecules out of the way, particularly when the velocity of the craft is still quite low (similar to how a sports car's acceleration might be rather brutal at first, but then tapers off as it nears top speed).

Just for clarity it seriously pains me to sound like I'm defending NASA, but believe me I have no doubt that they are lying through their teeth when they claim that man will ever walk on the moon, mush less that he did so in 1969!
MagicFlame007
Member
 
Posts: 14
Joined: August 4th, 2016, 8:20 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby SacredCowSlayer on August 10th, 2016, 10:04 pm

MagicFlame007 » August 10th, 2016, 5:44 am wrote:
hoi.polloi » August 6th, 2016, 5:55 pm wrote:
MagicFlame007 wrote:Do you think then one would be travelling "gravitationally" downhill if you planned your trip so that the moon for example was inetween earth and the moon on the way there and the opposite for your return journey?


Do you mind please re-reading your posts before posting? This doesn't make sense.


To my mind it does make sense. If it's so that the sun's gravity vastly "outweighs" that of earth, even out here at 150 000 km form the sun, surely any trip in a direction away from the sun would require a great deal more thrust than one where you travel essentially towards the sun, not so?


Without speaking for HP, I think he was perhaps referring to what I can only assume you are TRYING to say here. And that is, it would be "gravitationally" downhill (so to speak) going to the moon when IT is between the earth and the sun. Is that what you meant? If so then it makes sense to me, at least conceptually.

Also, I don't think anyone around here has issued a blanket rejection of any and all things coming from NASA. Just because it is a propaganda outfit doesn't necessarily make it incapable of stating a truth that can be independently confirmed. Of course, if it's a claim that originates with NASA and cannot be independently confirmed or otherwise repeated, then there is a problem.
SacredCowSlayer
Member
 
Posts: 240
Joined: September 5th, 2015, 10:44 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby MagicFlame007 on August 10th, 2016, 10:13 pm

Evening hoi.polloi.
Heeding your call to cite an official source and then dissemble, let me attempt to do so. https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/rockth.html
Apologies, I don't know how to make that a link. Hope its automatic.
On that rather well known official site NASA attempts to show the process and equation dealing with rocket thrust.
The equation: F = m dot * Ve + (pe - p0) * Ae has a term: p0 that accounts for the ambient atmospheric pressure. Solving the equation with arbitrary figures (since the actual figures are unavailable to me) "proves" that more thrust is created in a vacuum (when p0 is zero). NASA has long sought to show that this was indeed the case. This is the sort of thing that clearly demostrates how NASA misleads by cloaking their deception in half truths.
My point is that though the equation appears to be correct, there is a second equation required. This second form of thrust is well known by NASA and is in fact discussed here: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/UEET/ ... gines.html
Although the latter site deals with jet engines, it is rather obvious that rockets do also develop thrust like a jet engine while being "pushed forward" (NASA uses that expression several times there) when in an atmosphere, in addition to the thrust described by the general equation quoted above.
Even a child who has ever put his hand out of a moving car knows the amount of force that the rushing air can produce. Likewise the huge volume of rushing air gas from the exaust of a rocket engine must produce enormous additional thrust.
By the way, I love this little gem from that site:
"The ramjet is the most simple jet engine and has no moving parts. The speed of the jet "rams" or forces air into the engine. It is essentially a turbojet in which rotating machinery has been omitted. Its application is restricted by the fact that its compression ratio depends wholly on forward speed. The ramjet develops no static thrust and very little thrust in general below the speed of sound. As a consequence, a ramjet vehicle requires some form of assisted takeoff, such as another aircraft. It has been used primarily in guided-missile systems. Space vehicles use this type of jet." :wacko:
In the words of Ace Ventura: re-e-e-ally?
MagicFlame007
Member
 
Posts: 14
Joined: August 4th, 2016, 8:20 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby allancw on August 12th, 2016, 11:58 pm

Simon and I had a back and forth a couple years ago that I'll briefly repeat -- I haven't gone back on this thread to see if something similar has been posted, so forgive the possible redundancy.

I asked Simon to imagine the two of us floating in space, me with a loaded 9mm pistol. Would it be ok if I pointed it at him and pulled the trigger. Simon said, sure, it wouldn't shoot in the vacuum (this may be a bit oversimplified).

If you go to Youtube you'll find a vid wherein a pistol shoots just fine underwater. Mmmmm. See, the bullet plus casing contains all needed to go off, so being underwater is not a problem.

Yes, a vacuum is a bit different, but those who feel that rocketry won't work in a vacuum... are you sure enough to say 'OK' to my pulling the trigger? (I think Simon changed his mind.)

The point here isn't the bullet coming out of the barrel -- which I am sure it would -- but rather the recoil. The recoil is the point. Imagine a hundred shots per second.... via the continuous recoil you have a rocket, no?

Again, sorry if this is redundant.
allancw
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: July 18th, 2011, 1:54 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby brianv on August 13th, 2016, 11:56 am

allancw » August 12th, 2016, 11:58 pm wrote:Simon and I had a back and forth a couple years ago that I'll briefly repeat -- I haven't gone back on this thread to see if something similar has been posted, so forgive the possible redundancy.

I asked Simon to imagine the two of us floating in space, me with a loaded 9mm pistol. Would it be ok if I pointed it at him and pulled the trigger. Simon said, sure, it wouldn't shoot in the vacuum (this may be a bit oversimplified). etc...


How did the two of you get into space in the first place - on one of your kangaroo rockets? Slightly circular but never mind.

In the old days when somebody came along and offered to build a bridge across the river or ravine that would allow the farmers to get their livestock and goods to market more efficiently, when finished, the builders of the bridge would be required to stand under the bridge while a fully laden cart was wheeled over the top - from whence comes the origins of the word "understand".

You are asking the the farmers to stand under the bridge when you should be asking the the bridge builders - or the Rocket Builders in your case. Let the NASA clowns stand in front of a big gun in "space" if they can get there!

Would you be first to "understand" the bridge having been shown a film showing the bridge in operation - and made by the bridge builders themselves? Never mind shooting Simon <_< would you get on one of those rockets and allow yourself to be shot into Space - if such a thing exists?
Last edited by brianv on August 13th, 2016, 12:32 pm, edited 5 times in total.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby Flabbergasted on August 13th, 2016, 12:04 pm

allancw » August 12th, 2016, 7:58 pm wrote:Imagine a hundred shots per second.... via the continuous recoil you have a rocket, no?

A hundred times nothing is .... nothing. Reminds me of the dialogue in Monty Python´s Holy Grail where it is said that rocks will float if only they are small enough.

Ok, I admit that, unlike thrust, recoil is different from zero, but the whole point is futile once you leave controlled lab conditions and handy vacuum chambers and place your rocket in the [allegedly] near-infinite, near-absolute vacuum of space --- and that´s assuming you have a way of getting it up there in the first place, as brianv points out.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 639
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby allancw on August 13th, 2016, 5:18 pm

I loved the given etymology of 'understand' so much I almost didn't verify it... but alas, before quoting to someone else and so forth, I did... unfortunately:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... understand

But kudos for creativity, nonetheless. (Or perhaps provide your source; I'd love to be able to repeat that one.)

Although it's only been a day since the posting and possibly more input is in the offing, it looks like I made a point, since - respectfully - the above replies, having nothing to do with the principles of rocketry, reads red herringish.

Lest you guys think I have any love for or belief in NASA and it's frauds, here are a few of my videos on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP0TQ99bMrw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tAAsyBYczs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmcwW-8CC6E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXRXHyNFRh8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV9tG2jnUzI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4PBgq8PfPQ

In spite of their naive acceptance of NASA data, I'm a fan of Electric Universe. Maybe someone can respond to my confusion re the following (posted elsewhere on CF):

'I attended the 2015 EU conference and was even asked to speak there -- my novel Cosmic Banditos (a cult semi-hit) plus my weird sense of humor was behind the invite. In the end I declined -- I realized that they will have nothing to do with 'conspiracy theories'. They even invited Michael Shermer to speak! (I know!) Had I actually spoken I would have pissed everyone off, which I didn't want to do.

I got to know Dave Talbott and found him genuine though super naive. I could not even talk to him about NASA frauds, but, again, this is/was due to his own brand of cognitive dissonance. I was tossed out of the online forum for bringing up Apollo.

They are afraid to be lumped together with 'conspiracy' types; yes that is dumb in the extreme but I suggest we all give them a break and not toss the baby, etc. The EU has been behind many epiphanies for me, especially re the f-ing big bang and all the expanding space and GR nonsense.

A detail: Wal Thornhill predicted there would be arcing between the (whatsis) probe that supposedly collided with the comet (I'm blanking the name/details, sorry!) I too see NASA as a complete fraud but why would they 'find' and report the exact arcing that Thornhill did predict, and which, if anything, ends up an embarrassment to NASA? Given NASA's total ignoring of EU, I don't see why they would do this. NASA/JPL's treatment of Anthony Peratt after his petroglyph (etc) studies tell us that no way would NASA do anything to help EU. I don't know what to make of the comet/Thornhill prediction issue. Whaddya think?

If you need details on any of the above, I'd be glad to provide them, but I suspect you all know to what I am referring. (I'm at the end of a long day so excuse my sloppiness here...)'

No one at that thread answered, btw...
allancw
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: July 18th, 2011, 1:54 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby brianv on August 13th, 2016, 6:24 pm

Weasel all you like.

The meaning is clear - it's called proving a negative. It is not incumbent on the farmers to prove the worthiness of the bridge that you are selling them! NASA's fairy tales rely on very dubious video footage to "sell their bridge", that, and an army of liars and Space "fanboys".

Your problem is that of belief itself. Have you been on a rocket in space?
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby allancw on August 13th, 2016, 7:45 pm

Ahhh, right. Brianv. Sounded familiar. The guy who likewise made little sense while spouting hostile shill-talk on the Miles Mathis thread. If you wanna aggravate me, best not use language like 'from whence comes the origins of the word "understand".

Aside from your scattered sentence structure and metaphor-mixing and dishonesty re etymology, since 'from' and 'whence' are synonyms, using them together is redundant, not to mention repetitive :D
allancw
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: July 18th, 2011, 1:54 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby brianv on August 13th, 2016, 8:18 pm

allancw » August 13th, 2016, 7:45 pm wrote:Ahhh, right. Brianv. Sounded familiar. The guy who likewise made little sense while spouting hostile shill-talk on the Miles Mathis thread. If you wanna aggravate me, best not use language like 'from whence comes the origins of the word "understand".

Aside from your scattered sentence structure and metaphor-mixing and dishonesty re etymology, since 'from' and 'whence' are synonyms, using them together is redundant, not to mention repetitive :D


Ok I'm a literary twat - does that make rockets work in space?

edit : It would appear that "from whence" does appear in Shakespeare, the King James Creation Yarn, Robinson Crusoe but it's use is in decline. You didn't read past the first post when you googled it.

This thread is about whether combustion rockets work in space, despite the ambiguous title, not about the preoccupation some members have with my choice of words and punctuation. It rather points to a combined effort. And regarding the "understand" business, if that's not where the meaning came from - it should be, because it works fine.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby aa5 on August 15th, 2016, 8:45 am

There is the thought that simply dropping the weight out the back can make the ship go forwards. But that is not true, I can be travelling at 50km/hr in a car, and lift up a suitcase, maneuver it so it is hanging over the back bumper of the car, then drop the suitcase so it falls on the ground behind the car, that causes no forwards push on the car.

As I pick up the suitcase, and put some force on it, to move it so it is hanging in my hands over the back bumper - this causes no forward acceleration in the car, because the suitcase is still attached to me, and I am still in the car. To offset me going backwards from moving the suitcase forwards as I extend it out over the back bumper.. I must be securing myself by pushing in the opposite direction on another part of the car. So the directional forces on the car will balance out, as long as I am still in the car and still holding onto the suitcase.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 179
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests